Talk:Weaponry of the Australian Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): Australian military history task force

Portal	Weaponry of the Australian Army is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian military.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I've heard that the newer units of the Army are getting M4's instead of the F-88's. Maybe someone who knows for certain could edit this in? Bongomanrae 04:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that only 4 RAR, the SASR and 1 Commando Regiment use the M4. The Army is still investing in the F-88 and it is being used by the units currently in Iraq. I don't believe that the Army intends to replace the weapon in the near future (though it is looked at ways to extend the F-88 rifles lives). --Nick Dowling 04:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. I heard this from an AF Officer but maybe I just misunderstood him. Bongomanrae 18:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mmm can't remember specifically what I've heard about this though I know it isn't for general usage and might only be a try out or similar. The army is still very set on the F88s (and why wouldn't they be!) and this can be seen in the upgrade of the training systems for them and the creation of a new one. -- eps 16:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have an idea about the statistic of being chosen for specialised areas of the Infantry (eg. Sniper, Machine Gunner, Mortar Plat. etc)?

No. I do know that being chosen for specialised areas comes down to ability and purely if there is an opening. -- eps 16:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In the article MG3, it mentions that the Auzzie use the MG3, but I cant find any thihg in this article relating to that. Eevo 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The MG3 is used on the Leopard AS1 as the coaxial MG and on air defence mountings. It will most likely phase out with the AS1.

As for the Tigers and their intended usage I was under the impression that they were to also supliment the Blackhawks not just replace the Kiowas. Given that a bunch of the blackhawks are being sold in the near future/have been (haven't been following). -- eps 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Tiger is an armed recon helicopter and not a transport, it is capable of supporting airmobile operations and thus could be used in support of utility and medium lift helicopter operations. It is true that Blackhawks do conduct recon on some low level or peace support missions but this is a secondary task and largely due to the small number of aircraft deployed. It is unlikely that the Tiger would deploy on these operations unless escalation was anticipated.

Also I'm suprised that no one has mentioned the term "hearts and bunnies" in reference to the DPCU? :P -- eps 1624, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The current in use pistol is not a glock 17, it is a browning 9mm,see reference in the article of Pte Kovko, the ADF has never used glocks.

Ah, Fast Jet pilots use them (some say purely for the wank factor), as do a few SF units of they feel like it. They also use a USP .40. The wider Army is general use the 9mm Browning, no doubt there.

Does anyone know the final physical fitness requirements needed to get into the SASR (ie. pushups, situps, runs etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.71.184 (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helmet

Has the new Enchanced Combat Helmet gone Army/ADF-wide? Some links for someone to write up: Rabintex and New helmet into service. I've just improved the grammar and presentation of Combat Uniform.- Htra0497 04:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AMTG.jpg

Image:AMTG.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)