Comments by "Andy Dee" (@AndyViant) on "Task & Purpose" channel.

15:49 It is important that we always acknowledge combatants from all sides of the political divide. Especially in this circumstance where they were in a designated UN Mission. Acknowledging their commitment and sacrifice helps to de-escalate any pressure from domestic warhawks in all nations. No nation, China, US, UK, Canada, Belgium, or even Australia sends peacekeepers to a nation without there also being an ulterior motive. How all those various motives way out for ethical, corporate or geopolitical gain may be debated later, but those on the ground risking their lives are never aware of the moves on the great game, or what piece they even are on the chessboard.
34
The other thing that makes the AMX-10 such a good weapon for the Ukrainians right now is how many of the older tanks the Russians are dishing up to the front. T54, T55, T62 etc. These are all pretty easy targets for the AMX-10. Using the older barrelled versions and their proprietary ammo is not really that much of an inconvenience either. While it may make logistics a little more complex, it does mean that there are large amounts of stored ammunition available RIGHT NOW which is critically important, given the ammunition shortages the whole of western Europe now faces. Even more important is that even with the proprietary rounds they still offer HE, HEAT and APFSDS that is NATO triple heavy rated to 2200m, so can perform all tasks a big gun may be used for - artillery support, direct fire, infantry support, anti material and anti tank. The only downside of these vehicles is that people might be tempted to use them in an incorrect way, just like Canadian LAV's or US Strykers, or even the Bradley.
5
Australia started with gliding bomb technology in the '80's. It's almost 40 years since their first successful tests.
4
A well designed and constructed hull is useful, regardless mission fit or transmission woes. Park them up and then find a use for them later.
3
@truckert9729 FA-50's are a great piece of kit for the price. I wish we'd buy some as second string attack/trainers.
3
Actually, conventional powered subs, and even better air independent subs are far quieter than nuclear subs when they are trying to be quiet. As America has found out wargaming against Australia on multiple occasions. The much "derided" Collins class are actually exceptional hunter killer subs, but they're still ending the end of their viable operational lives. Whilst we can extend them to the mid-late 2030's they have a limited lifespan and the lead time on building replacements is probably a decade or more. The decision needs to be made now. If it were not the Aukus agreement we'd be building French Nuclear Powered Shortfin Barracudas right now. Realistically it's lineball between them and the Astute class as to which is better for us, but geopolitics and all... If this was just about defending Australia, Nuclear subs would be a huge mistake as they are far less stealthy, and thus far less effective in a hunter killer role. You cannot turn off that water pumping to cool the reactor as the reactor will melt down. And since you can't do that you cannot hide the heat signature of the submarine either. Both are easy to eihtter hear or track to high end sensors. That's how the Collins class can find American (or Russian or Chinese) subs so easily. So If Australia was closer to China, like the way European nations are closer to their threats, Nuclear would make no sense at all. This was why an extended range conventional submarine was on our shopping list until the current tensions with China meant more time on target became a critical priority. It is precisely due to that distance to China, that 2500 miles, that Nuclear power becomes viable. It's too far to allow for good time on target without stopping for refuelling in a potentially hostile region. Australia would need to refuel their subs in Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Taiwan or Japan if they wanted to be able to patrol the South China Sea for an extended time. Japan is probably too far away for that to be feasible, and the others pose too great a security risk to be viable, with Singapore being the best of those options.
2
I struggle to see a problem with this belief
2
logic has no place in Hezbollah's claims, nor in the ideology that supports them. Reality says Israel should just walk in and retake the area whenever Hezbollah or any other group claims it and launches an attack. But tertiary educated simps make that problematic. They'd rather support the "T word" than a sovereign state's right to defend it's people from rocket attacks.
2
Every nation has a balance between what is affordable and what is desired. This is why figures of around 2% of GDP are pretty standard during peacetime, bar for major structural shifts or purchases. Every nation can better spend capacity on productive improvements like transport and port infrastructure etc. But military capacity, particularly capital ships has a lead in time of often decades. It's clear we, like most European nations, have underinvested for a while, although certainly not like Germany. We need to increase that level, and wear the one off costs of upgrades or structural changes outside that 2% of GDP. My question is about best efficiency. The previous government badly mismanaged the Submarine Contract and the Land 400 purchases, both due to lack of decision capability and blatant political manipulation. The issues on the Eurocopters are also an example of a defence purchasing process in shambles. A reduction in IFV's is potentially disturbing, but if some of that funding goes to upgrades to either the old M113's or the ASLAV's then it may be money well spent. Both can have an important role, either in lower threat environments or even in higher threat environments with the correct upgrades. They also have capabilities that the Redback IFV and Bushmasters PMV do not have, most notably amphibious capability. The upgrade path of the ASLAV to LAV III spec and the Bushmaster M242 to 30mm or greater needs to be seriously considered. The ASLAVs are far too good for just retirement. Either refitting or sale to allied powers to allow further purchases of newer generation gear would make sense. Getting rid of gear with an intended increase in permanent professional Arm,y and also an increase in Army reserve makes no sense.
2
7:40 "A platypus is a duck designed by a committee" But like everything else in Australia, our duck is weaponised with highly venomous spines. Wouldn't you have loved to be on THAT committee to ask the question of why one of the most painful toxins on earth was added to a duck?
2
You can also buy 277 Fury (same dimensions as the 6.8 Common Cartridge Military Round) as a recreational cartridge for about $1.30 a round. Using a 55,000 psi bras case, let alone a 62,000 psi military brass case instead of that fancy 80,000 psi 3 piece case your armor piercing capability is going to drop. A LOT. Would a standard brass case 277 Fury still be much MUCH better than 5.56 for armor penetration? Hell yeah! 5.56 NATO M855 was 1800 Joules energy, Retail 277 Fury in standard 55,000 psi brass cartridges is more like 2850 Joules, and M80 7.62 NATO is about 3450 Joules. So even in a retail cartridge the 277 Fury is over 50% more smack than an M855. Upgrading that pressure from a standard retail round by 10% to the same 60,000 ish PSI range that is used in the 7.62 NATO and 5.56 NATO would see the 277 Fury punching out in excess of 3100 Joules. But with better Ballistic Coefficients and better Sectional Density than the 7.62. Even a cheaper standard brass case 277 looks like a good option. That is still gonna be more than enough for current Chinese or Russian body armour, but I 'd have doubts on it penetrating BTR's and the like without that 80,000 PSI case and some fancy teflon and pentatrator designs.
2
@cyber_habanero Basically a gun with a shield thrown on top of french tracked munitions tractors.
1
@cyber_habanero Ahh, well it seems we're both right. The Marder I were built on the French Lorraine tractors, and the Marder II were built on the Panzer II. The Marder III was built on the Panzer 38t. The Marder III was the most common version.
1
Because Turkey is in NATO and REALLY GOOD at making drones.
1
@martinhunter6322 Talk to the political party who chose to destroy our manufacturing industry after a hard lesson learned during WW2. Sadly reality is that a solid manufacturing bases is essential to maintain supply of munitions during a conflict. We started to learn this again during the pandemic, but dumb decisions take a long time to undo once machinery and skills are lost.
1
$13 per round needs to come down a LOT for this to be viable as standard infantry ammunition. Remington 6.8 SPC a buck a round for hunting ammo, and more like $0.80 for FMJ. 277 Fury (the civilian standard brass version) is like $1.50 per shot. That's the equivalent fairly low volume hunting rounds, for the very small proportion of hunters and target shooters who actually use these calibers. The price gouging on 6.8 Common Cartidge is absolutely mindblowing, given the volumes it will be produced at. Even despite those production volumes I cannot see this coming down in price to less than about $4 per round, and at that it's just unaffordable in volume. It just comes down to the cost of that three piece case. The three piece stuff needs to be designated ammo at that price point, and a standard mil spec pressure of 62,000 psi used for the majority of ammo, or they need to be mixed load arrangements like tracers. Even at 1 in 3, so that a 3 round burst at least includes one of the "special" rounds, the cost of operation is still going to be 90% the "special" round. Those costs are just crazy.
1
Thanks Chris for sharing what was a very personal story and a difficult admission. We've all heard the quotes about war being pointless, because it all gets decided at the negotiating table anyway. But without the war, without the sacrifice we never get to the negotiating table. I'm also never gonna forget about the Zombie Dog either.😂
1
 @idrathergetaidsthangetwoke9145 oh look, another gravy seal.
1
"Low on" doesn't mean "out of". Every nation has an "operational reserve" and some level of "backup" beyond that level to support inventory replenishment time. A reduction of "operational reserve" merely means that you need to start producing more to maintain your stockpile. How urgently you need to produce depends on demand, and when your useage is basically just giving away your old stock then the priority is still low because you can stop giving your oldest stock away. There is no reason at all to panic. America is NOT going to run out of munitions anytime soon. No matter what you heard from Truth Social..
1
@alexwalker2582 use sea water. and keep pumping it in there.
1
Actually, skip 9-11. You're talking nearly twice as many US deaths in a single day if a Gerald Ford Carrier gets sunk than died on D-Day. And we know how many movies got made about how much of a massive sacrifice that was - the legacy is still driving movies almost 80 years later. (Although it was still less than half what Australia lost in a Single day at Fromelles in WW1). Asking questions of how public opinion could deal with that is absolutely a legitimate concern. One Gerald Ford downed is more losses than 20 years of Afghanistan, or 8 years of the Iraq wars too.
1
@MrZlocktar It might not get through the front of a T-72 but the T-62 and T54/55? Anyway, Russia ain't gonna throw nukes. Because France, Britain and the US all have that capability too, and have actually spent the money and effort maintaining and even upgrading their warheads and delivery systems. Their systems will work, guaranteed. Can the Russians say that? Right now the worst that will happen to Russia is they'll get forced back to their original boundaries and sue for a cease fire. If the Russians go HOT and play the nuclear card... no one is going to stop until the Putin problem, hell, possibly even the Russian problem is resolved permanently. No matter the consequences, because no one can put up with a rogue nuclear state. Don't get me wrong. That isn't what we want. We'd rather the Russians washed their own dirty laundry.
1
4:44 I see what you did there. LOL
1
People need to stop comparing the capabilities of the Stryker to tanks. It isn't a tank. It isn't meant to do what tanks do. If it's used efficiently in the right role it is a game changer. It's clearly decades better than an M113, faster, lower maintenance, cheaper to run, better armoured, more stealthy and far better as far as the logistics side of it. This is the reason why medium weight wheeled vehicles keep popping up again and again in doctrine. They have huge advantages over tracked vehicles when used appropriately. In the right role, it's even better than the Bradley. If it wasn't, the US Military would not have added the extra logistical complexity of having two different vehicles in at first glance similar roles. But can it go toe to toe against Bradley or its Russian equivalents? No. It isn't built for that. In that kind of role the Bradley far surpasses it. A good worker chooses the right tool for the job and uses it appropriately. Anyone who cannot grasp that is not the expert they think they are, but luckily there are people above that pay grade who can make those decisions.
1
3:19 Barely enough time to get a game of cricket in. Well trolled sir, well trolled. Everyone knows cricket takes 5 days.
1
Anywhere you can import bulk materials to won't only be a "humanitarian port". The UN is the single biggest aid to terr*rism in the world. If they don't have the ability to control the port, what comes in, who it's distributed to, and what goes out (to likely fund arms purchases) they're acting as nothing more than enablers to people who are the worst of the worst. This is why the Israelis treated their demands for Israel to hold open an Egyptian controlled (note not Israeli controlled) gate in southern Gaza with such disdain. The Egyptians held similar views, given their knowledge of what has been going through that gate and the consequences to their internal security that they've dealt with over the last decade. There are times that, no matter good intentions, you need to tell the good intentioned to get out of the way and let adults deal with things. The west seems far too often to act as enablers. We need to toughen up, especially with cross border shipping and across borders immigration, but also with those within our own societies who act as 5th columnists.
1
Dunno. You might need to look into the Maori wars too.
1
Sounds like they need to create an engineer version with it's own dozer blade to dig in those defilades. Actually, making some engineer versions to provide indirect fire and recovery makes a lot of sense if these are to be purely stand alone within the infantry. Will massively blow out project costs though.
1
Iron Fist is certainly a big step up from the Status Quo eg NO active protection. But what's that old saying about "If you're RELYING on armor, you're doing it wrong".
1
@miletello1 agreed. Something more like the 6.8 SPC or the 6.5 Grendel would be better. Both were specifically designed to be in that intermediate range between 7.62x51 and 5.56x45, outperform the 5.56 by significant margins, and in the 6.5 Grendel even outdo 7.62 in armour penetration at 1000m. Both rounds outperform the 5.56 by over 40% at closer ranges while still being compatible with the overall M4/M16/AR platforms, although obviously barrels and bolt faces need to be changed. Interestingly with all of this, the caliber ranges we're talking about happen to closely match a proposed .276 Enfield as proposed and Trialled by the British ion 1913, and then the post WWII .280 British that was an unsuccessful competitor to the 7.62x51 NATO.
1
@miletello1 Thanks for the positive feedback. These were my feelings at first but I made sure I cross checked the energy and penetration data. Who knew that those canny Swedes were in the right all along. 6.5x55 or 6.5 Swedish being smack in that zone (actually being a .264 or 6.7mm projectile). Great accuracy, high sectional density, good penetration all come standard from a long projectile middle caliber. And around 3000 J of energy, too, of course. Still going strong despite being introduced in 1894.
1
I never realised how much of whole concept of the JDAM-ER was Australian. We've been at the cutting edge of gliding bomb technology since the 1980's which is quite incredible really, given how much the US spends by comparison.
1