Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "'Gutting the army' to afford long-range missiles will not 'deter' threats to Australia" video.

Just a couple of fact checks here. Our M113 fleet were upgraded from A1 to AS4 as a APC they are still a capable platform, but most certainly are not at the level of capability of a IFV. To describe the current .50 cal MG as a WWI era weapon is to describe the tank or the rifle as WWI era weapon, it is just idiotic.
1
@Tater- Factually incorrect the .50 cal MG didn’t enter service till the 1930s well after WWI and is currently used by a list of armies longer than your arm. When comparing the AS4 to the current IFVs, I in fact clearly stated it wasn’t at the same level so repeating back to me what I already knew and said achieved what? You also forgot to mention the new drive train, new turret, and enhanced optics in the AS4 upgrade. So you refuted nothing, in fact I haven’t got a clue why you bothered to reply.
1
@innocentbystander8038 Telling me something I already knew about a point that is irrelevant is ridiculous. The tank was designed in WWI and by your logic is outdated, it's a nonsensical argument. I had already conceded our M113AS4 fleet is not as capable as a modern IFV, again why tell me something I already clearly stated. I did not argue that don't need replacing as they most certainly do. The 113 was designed and is a APC it is not a IFV. So once again, as an APC it is still a capable platform. It is not a IFV and I never suggested it could function as one, but if used as a APC it is still capable. Also a point to note, if you base your entire defence strategy around one particular enemy, you will lose the next war.
1
@innocentbystander8038 And clearly the .50 cal MG that entered service in 1933 and the current 50cal used by Australia with design upgrade QCB and significant improvements in ammunition capabilities is not the same as the post WWI originals you dimwit.
1
@Tater- OK fair enough advanced optics was probably the wrong word description. How about enhanced optics? I have and have you ever used a 50 cal out of the old T50 turrets? Never crewed an AS4 only a A1. I would argue a fire control system on a HMG is an unnecessary expense. We put weapon stations on top of the PMV but that was more to protect the crew than enhance the weapons capability. Nobody is arguing a AS4 is as good as a current IFV, and we are getting some IFV 129 as I remember, but not nearly enough. As a APC it is still a capable vehicle. It is not a IFV and I never suggested it was. You are mixing up using what a vehicle was designed for and its use tactically on the battlefield. Unfortunately discussing such issues with someone who thinks they are the font of all knowledge learns me nothing.
1