Why no helo transport? Are we condemning our diggers to an easy victimology?

[Bushranger 71]

Hello LT-DT; re your post #111.

We are off the thread theme although complaints from Afghanistan were re lack of integral utility helos and mortars which led to calls for deployment of Abrams tanks. Also; some poor grammar on my part best clarified.

I was thinking max range of 120mm mortar at about 10k (see: Modern Mobile Mortars) and cannot locate some Vietnam imagery to verify introduction of the Saladin 76mm turret (it may have been later). But I do recall argument in favour being the ability to fire canister rounds, like the Centurions. Cannon is great, as fitted to ASLAV, but why not also to mortar carrier M113s?

The Centurion 'tankies' were the most disciplined of the fighting arms in Vietnam and great to work with, but the APC equipped cavalry units were more flexible. 70 tonne Abram tanks have significant deployability constraints (transportation, wharves, cranes, roads, bridges, etcetera) and field support penalties including large tank recovery and transporter vehicles. Australia needs to be able to quickly deploy light armour into rudimentary airfields around the region by C-130 and maybe C-17, hence the appeal of a versatile M113 FSV.

Methinks enough said re armour and I am too old to get 'fired up' concerning issues which I see as just interesting forum debate.