Posted on 02/16/2005 1:54:02 PM PST by naturalman1975
NOTHING was more lame than the attempt by some culture brokers to get the Eureka Stockade celebration up as a rival to Anzac Day. Australians love their Diggers, of the slouch-hat variety, much more than they'll ever love their gold diggers.
Anzac Day remains an immense national asset. It is a huge strategic plus in our national posture. The fact we honour our soldiers so much, that they are so legendarily competent, is one of the things that makes any potential enemy unhappy to face us.
The war on terror has catapulted the army back into the centre of national life. Under the now discredited defence of Australia doctrine, which held that our forces should be designed only to repel a mythical invader coming across the Arafura Sea, the army was the poor relation.
Aeroplanes, and to a lesser extent submarines, were our front-line forces. The army was just there to mop up the odd invader who stumbled through our planes and ships. But failed states, civil wars, natural disaster and above all the war on terror have the army front and centre.
In East Timor it was the army that did the work. Same in the Solomon Islands, and in much of the response to the tsunami, although the other services did great work too.
And, of course, in both Afghanistan and Iraq it was the army, especially the SAS, that was at the sharp end.
The proponents of the anachronistic Defence of Australia doctrine hate the fact the army has bought 59 Abrams tanks, as part of its efforts to produce a "hardened and networked army". They see it as a mad folly on the part of the army, which wants to be able to deploy more often with the Americans in situations such as Iraq. The critics believe the army is more likely to be called on to carry out operations such as East Timor, where they did not use a tank.
In fact the army has it right and the critics are wrong. The Abrams tank is a superb piece of machinery that the army needs for many different tasks.
What the critics hate is the idea that the army has the capacity to deploy at long distance if the government of the day asks it to. The critics want to remove the democratic prerogative from the government by so curtailing the force structure that the army can do only very few things.
Without a tank, the army would decline into a kind of gendarmerie. The critics, who are essentially about legacy protection for the policies dating from when Kim Beazley was defence minister in the mid-1980s, are out of date.
The essential characteristic of the modern battlefield is that technology has collapsed all of the traditional boundaries. Much of the debate in Australia is weirdly anachronistic, as though the French general staff from the 1930s were still arguing the importance of the Maginot Line 20 years after World War II.
If the tank is so obsolete now, how is it that most Southeast Asian militaries still have tanks? The primary use of the tank today is not for large manoeuvres over vast tracks of desert but in urban situations. Australia has already been embarrassed by its lack of a usable tank.
Our elderly Leopard tanks are death traps, but the Abrams, which we get next year, is a superb and extremely tough vehicle.
It is the merest good fortune that the militias our soldiers dealt with in East Timor, or even Harold Keke's forces in the Solomon Islands, did not possess armour-piercing weapons.
As the Chief of Army Peter Leahy has pointed out, with today's porous borders and black market in weapons, we must assume that every future enemy will have armour-piercing weapons. In Burma there are warlords with tanks.
In Somalia our peacekeepers found they were confronted by Mohammed Aideed's irregulars in converted Toyotas, with armour bolted to them and cannons on top, which were superior to our lightly armoured vehicles.
Almost all of Southeast Asia's population lives in urban environments within 200km of the coast. There are countless scenarios in which a tank could be critical.
A tank, especially a top-of-the-line one such as the Abrams, gives you three things: force protection, superior networking and, above all, choice and discrimination in response.
As the late lamented Vince Gair used to say, if you must be a dog, make sure you're an alsatian. If you're going to operate a tank, make sure it's heavy, tough and formidable.
Some British tanks in Iraq took 14 or 15 hits and were still operating and their crews protected. Modern tanks don't operate in isolation but in concert with infantry, air support and other units.
The tank has the power to be a critical networking link between what the soldier sees and what a plane might need to do in response. With its sensors and communications capacities it is priceless.
The tank also helps an army respond humanely and proportionately. If our soldiers are getting shot up in a future conflict in an urban setting, they might immediately call down air strikes that might end up destroying a city block. The tank gives you the option to absorb a strike, work out where it came from and target a response precisely. The Defence white paper of 2000 called on the army to have the capacity to deploy a brigade and a battalion, offshore, simultaneously.
Because of the new threat environment, this means a new level of hardening of the army is required if this capability is to be meaningful.
As Leahy wrote recently in the Army Journal: "The idea that the Australian Army has ever envisaged fleets of tanks engaged in sweeping conventional manoeuvres, as in World War II, is an invention. The army views the tank as primarily a close support weapons system to protect the combined arms teams. We must ensure that Australian forces are adequately protected to survive in a dangerous security environment."
Of course the tank also gives the Australian Government the option to deploy the army further afield if it wants to. That's what the critics don't like. It's called democracy.
My bet is the army's role will grow.
So why not armor some pickups yourself, if they're so darn superior?
That the tank is obsolete is a perennial argument among American military "experts." Funny - when it comes to the shooting they're awfully nice to have along. On a similar note, I believe we've rescued the A-10 from retirement for the third time now.
So why not armor some pickups yourself, if they're so darn superior?
---
It's not that the armor is superior, but the weapons systems that their armored vehicles had.
Somalis had mounted 120 recoiless rifles, etc which would punch a hole through just about anything. What their LAV's have (like some of ours) is the 25mm auto gun. It works nicely but when their one shot gets through, your day is done.
So9
Actually, put some reactive armour on the Lopard I and you have a system capable of defeating most of the RPG systems out there. Why bother with the M1A unless you're going to be taking on another nation with tanks?
Because all current generation medium to long range anti-tank missiles like Roland or TOW now have dual warheads and popup capability enabeling them to defeat reactive armor.
So9
How's the Leopard 2a5 /a6?
Yes, and the Timor rebels as well as Afghani/Iraqi insurgents/terrorist don't have these weapons. Thus, it is a waste of dollars to buy a modern MBT given that the nature of warfare has dramtically changed since the late '80s.
All the weapons rebels currently deploying can and will be defeated by modern reactive armor. The TOW and Roland and Hellfire are well beyond the scope of anything the Australian Army will face.
Yes, and the Timor rebels as well as Afghani/Iraqi insurgents/terrorist don't have these weapons. Thus, it is a waste of dollars to buy a modern MBT given that the nature of warfare has dramtically changed since the late '80s.
All the weapons rebels currently deploying can and will be defeated by modern reactive armor. The TOW and Roland and Hellfire are well beyond the scope of anything the Australian Army will face.
The Australian military doesn't just train and plan to meet threats to Australia. It trains and plans to help meet threats to our allies. If a large scale war developed where Australia was fighting alongside US troops, there would be considerable advantages to us using the same equipment as the United States, and being familiar with that equipment.
Yes, but the missiles are 'out there' and when they do get them, and eventually they will, it will be something that happens in a week.
You can't acquire, train on and deploy a new tank in a week.
A government has a responsibility to plan further ahead than 'right now'.
So9
Have you ever been to the solomon islands? Do you have any idea of how impoverished those island nations that Australia oversee are? I've been to Micronesia-there isn't a road that could handle a Abrams. Saying that these people would even want to get their hands on a RPG let alone a Milan or Roland is laughable. The wars of the 21st century are not going to be fought by tanks and B-1/2 bombers, but by special forces and light-infantry.
Can you rationalize some off-the-wall scenario where the Aussies could use an M1? Sure, but we're talking probability, not possibility when it comes to spending scarce defense dollars.
Since the 1970s, Australian troops have been involved in military operations in Vietnam, Cambodia, the Sinai, Somalia, Rwanda, Cyprus, Bougainville, East Timor, Syria, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, the Western Sahara, Mozambique, and the Solomons.
We've sent troops to a lot of different places, for a lot of different styles of operations. We don't just plan for what happens locally.
Remember that Australia's last two main tanks were the Centurion which served from 1951-77 (26 years), replaced by the Leopard (from 1977-today - 28 years) (I'm going on memories for the dates). It's likely we won't replace our current purchase for a similar length of time - so we're buying a tank that ideally we want to still be a credible weapon of war for our purposes in 2030 or 2035.
I hope we ramp up mass production of a Twenty Second Century version of the A-10. Nothing will EVER be able to replace the vital role this plays in CAS. No way. Pilots will never be obsolete. Computers are "smart" yet also very "stupid" also. I'll place my bets on our well-trained flyboys any day. I hope the smart alecks who think they know better come to their senses, ditch some of their idiot theories, upgrade this pup, and roll out a new, improved model.
Call it the A-12, A-17 or whatever, but let’s roll with a new model with expanded capabilities, yet retaining the strengths of the A-10... Only a total idiot would "discontinue" this. Good God, it makes one wonder about the 'motives', yes the motives... Yes, we need UAVs, yet I foresee we will need a viable, updated version of the A-10 for the next 50-100 years, no matter what the technology is generally speaking. For example, even if China achieves parity with us across the board, there will ALWAYS be low intensity threats to deal with. Imagine a squadron of these flying over Mogadishu when our guys needed real support? I bet liberals hate the A-10; it’s too good to be true.
P.S. The M1A2 is unsurpassed. Only a Commie, liberal or traitor would be against the M1A2 Abrams. In war, we need every "unfair" advantage over our enemies. The A-10 and Abrams are extremely unfair from an Opfor standpoint, that is why I think that anti-US elements would be against these key assets. Do any politicians come to mind?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm
You can start with the KK twins, Kerry and Kennedy.
Hmmmm....'maybe' ... Nothing like having public servants that hate U.S. the military! (sarc./ARGGH)
RE: Senators... on CSPAN, I saw the Honorable Senator Pat Roberts say something to the effect that "there are no lightbulbs in North Korea.."
I laughed out loud.
Context:
A) The insane claims to deity/religion the leadership has maintained (gen. #2), and;
B) A sly and witty play on the Honorable Senator's part on the fact that NK is almost completely blacked out if you look at the overheads.
I saw him effortlessly tie these issues together 'off the cuff' with ease and couldn't help but laugh.
Kerry, Kennedy. No comment.
"Some British tanks in Iraq took 14 or 15 hits and were
still operating and their crews protected"
Chobham Ar%&*
Good!
When there is as much Islamic Petro-money as there is floating around a Roland or Milan can show up in any insurection involving Muslims.
It's not the wealth native to the locale that is dangeous.
We could all be in Indonesia or Sri Lanka or Sudan as unexpectedly as we were in Afghanistan.
And we can never be sure just what Iran, or Pakistani Inteligence Services for that matter will hand out to their puppets.
So9
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.