Quote:
Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman
there has always been friction comparing British/Commonwealth kit with American.
America has to equip a massive army economicly. as a result they have an assault rifle that essentialy works but can be mass produced relatively easily and cheaply (sure the M16 is a bit complicated but well within the capabilities of America's industrial base). When you look at some of the other American kit, it's bloody awesome. A good example is the 50 cal MG, this thing is decades old but nobdy has yet built a weapon that can replace it.
Another example is America aircraft. Both Australia and New Zealand are quite happy to use American warplanes because they are the best in the market for the required role. I often wish the British governemnt would swallow it's collective pride and replace the Tornados and Typhoons with F/A 18 Hornets like the Canadians did.
Australia has a much smaller military and can afford to be picky, hence they went with the AUG for infantry and American for air force.
|
Overall I agree with what you've said but for some points, it's a little more complex. For example, the Typhoon is probably better suited to European needs than the Hornet is simply because of initial design criteria for both aircraft. Australia has typically selected it's aircraft from all over Europe and North America.
We've had/have British, French, German, Italian, Swiss, Canadian, US, Australian and New Zealand aircraft in the inventory.
There have been just as many British designs as US over the years. We've selected what we thought was best for the defence of mainland Australia and that has not always been a US design. For example, the winners of the last Australian Army helicopter trials have all been European designs.
When it comes to Australia's choice for infantry rifle, it's a bit of a mess. Originally, the contenders included the M16A2, the locally designed caseless ammunition C30R and its 5.56mm C60R cased ammunition variant (which incidentally went on to become the Bushmaster M17 rifle) alongside the AUG (I think there were a few others examined but I can't remember what they were).
The C30R lost out due to a catastrophic failure when ammunition detonated and the rifle was irretrievably damaged (along with the maker's reputation as many in Australia said that we had no ability to commercially produce police/military weapons - conveniently forgetting that the Owen Gun was the product of an individual and the Austen SMG was the product of a private company and not the government arms factory). It was, by what little info is left about it, a good rifle with good tactical advantages (a 60-rd magazine) and a significant technology leap especially considering it was made entirely by self-funded private enterprise.
The M16A2 was selected as the winner due in no small part to allow some greater commonality with our allies - specifically the USA but also Singapore at the time. The selection criteria also required the licence to build the rifle locally. Colt, having lost the manufacture of the M16A2 to FN-USA, refused to allow Australia to build the rifle locally and required that we purchase all of them from Colt.
The Australian government said no way and dropped the M16A2 and selected the AUG instead. The AUG has one serious issue which has seen an M16 variant used in its place, units tasked for amphibious roles (e.g. the Commando Regiments) typically use the M4 carbine. Apparently this is to do with the lower rate of rust buildup from salt water exposure but I've also heard concerns that the AUG body would fill up with water and not drain out properly (and would require complete disassembly to ensure all the internals were free of any salt water residue).
To (hopefully) put that into some sort of relevance for the thread, the Australian experience shows that it's not always such a simple choice in peacetime. In wartime or the recovery period just after wartime, the choice can be severely restricted and maybe a hell of a lot harder.