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


.

.


.


.

Posted by Brian Hartigan

CONTACT Editor-at-large

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *