Our Army needs self-propelled artillery

Resurrecting the project to re-equip our Army with self-propelled artillery makes eminent sense. That the project enjoys bipartisan support underlines its necessity.


Letter to The Australian
Thursday, 16 May 2019
(Not published)

Greg Sheridan, Heard the one about our home-grown howitzers?, May 16, advances the absurd proposition that, because we have too few tanks and no self-propelled (SP) artillery, we shouldn't have any.

And that having such capabilities smack of dependence on the Americans, when they actually ensure the well-rounded force structure opposite.

SP guns with much increased rates of fire, mobility and protection replace and enhance existing towed artillery, not constitute a new capability.

Greg also seems unaware that Dutch SP guns ably supported their and our troops in Uruzgan.

And that the US, British, Canadian and other NATO countries all used tanks and SP guns in Afghanistan.

The main reason we didn't use tanks in Uruzgan was the terrain, not any supposed unsuitability for modern warfare generally.

Finally, any worthwhile maritime strategy, especially in our archipelagic region, necessarily involves an ability to manouvre and support well-equipped land forces from the sea.

Not just row riflemen ashore as at Gallipoli.

Attempted critiques of ADF modernisation need up-to-date knowledge of what is needed and why.







Back to Letters: 2019-20