The distinction between these is blurred between armies, however mechanised infantry are generally equipped with Armoured Personnel Carriers (APC), whose design prioritises passenger-carrying capacity and mobility and armoured infantry are provided Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV) with a greater emphasis on firepower and protection. Infantry elements equipped with armoured vehicles include mechanised and armoured infantry types. An M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, from the 1st Armoured Regiment, during live-fire training at Cultana Training Area, South Australia. These fight in close co-operation with infantry elements who, in addition to killing or capturing the enemy, also seize and hold ground. These forces include combat elements such as armoured or tank units equipped with Main Battle Tanks (MBT), whose primary role is to destroy the enemy. To enable a productive dialogue, it is necessary to understand the capabilities in question: Armour in a military context is an umbrella term encompassing both armoured fighting vehicles and those forces which fight with or operate them. While I do not agree with Ewen’s stance on this topic, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. Equally, I will not address those comments which are answered in my previous examination of the tank capability. However, I do not presume to speak for either the Australian Army or the USMC on their requirements for armoured vehicles, so specific matters of policy, strategy and employment are left to others in uniform. This response provides necessary context on the capability and addresses these questions. The United States Marine Corps (USMC) has divested their tank capability, so why should Australia keep its own?Īs the author has based his critique on arguments I have made previously, and in the interest of robust debate, I feel obliged to respond.Given tanks have not been deployed since Vietnam is the tank a ’nice to have’ capability or a ‘necessity’?.Why does the firepower that a tank provides have to be delivered by a tank?.From the article I derived the following key questions/implications: In doing so, he critiqued a publication I co-authored four years ago on this subject. In the June edition of this magazine, Ewen Levick asked – why do we need tanks? He also commented on the tank’s utility at the tactical, operational and strategic levels of war. This suggests the tank capability, and more generally armour, remains poorly understood.
These range from ill-informed polemics to more balanced critiques of the utility of the tank.Ĭommon themes throughout are factual errors concerning the tank itself, and superficial speculation on its future employment and survivability.
#Battle tank force field series
In recent weeks there has been a series of articles and posts regarding the Australian Army’s M1 Abrams tank capability.
0 kommentar(er)
