Does armour have limited value on modern battlefields?
Share the post "Does armour have limited value on modern battlefields?"
Dear Editor,
Many eminent writers have expressed their individual and collective concerns about Army decisions concerning significant change to Armoured Corps.
As a former grunt but keen observer, I am not sure the concern about loss of tanks is a significant matter at all.
If Australia got into a shooting war on our homeland or anywhere in Asia, it seems to me that Armour is limited by what we can put into action to support other corps.
As we have no significant material airlift capability for lots of heavy armour, I question the value of having main battle tanks operating out of primarily southern Australia, if anything they should be based in our north but that will upset Armour traditionalist.
The war in Ukraine has also shown that small relatively inexpensive drones are taking a significant toll on heavier and light armour (on both sides). The war in Gaza and Lebanon has shown the value in heavy and light armour… but IDF can get their armour where it’s needed relatively easily.
Drone capability including armed drones and long and short range missile capability area areas where ADF must rapidly catch up to be effective in the modern battle space.
I acknowledge and understand the great tradition and great honours that Armoured units have achieved for Australia but does sentimental value and 75 years of tradition really count for much in today’s ever changing battlespace hallmarked by asymmetrical warfare and expanding technology including AI assisted weaponry?
Australia needs effective and diverse warfighting capability. Main battle tanks seem to me to have limited opportunity for effective use if we would struggle to even get them to the point of engagement with an enemy. Perhaps the days of Armour are limited for the types of conflict we face.
Yours sincerely
Mike Braithwaite
Pimpama QLD
.
.
FILE PHOTO: Soldiers from 8th/9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, watch on as an M1A1 Abrams main battle tank fires in support during Exercise Diamond Run 2017. Photo by Captain Anna-Lise Brink.
.
.
.
.
Mike,
Armoured vehicles were developed to provide fire support for infantry, so that they didn’t have to face machine-guns without any form of support.
If you take armoured support away, infantry are consigned to being cannon-fodder (again).
There are considerable developments occurring in terms of counter-drone capabilities.
Regards, Bruce
Mike,
You are correct.
As a gunner, once a gunner always a gunner, the Royal Regiment has been dramatically altered and rearmed as is the Armoured corps.
Look at missile availability and how any type of armour will be able to survive. The Gunners are flying what amount to drones so goodbye tank.
Like it or not we need to change and not relearn the lessons of yester year.
Traditions are necessary and need preservation, but you also need to evolve and stay relevant.
Gunners have; it is now the turn for troopers to do likewise.
Jack