Australian M1A1 Abrams technology

[Wooki]

And who is the reliabe source for this information. Please specify the thickness levels and what the armor consists of that makes you come to that conclusion.

He's a military journo, ex Australian Army guy. Quite well respected and was rubbing shoulders with NGC here in the USA just recently as I understand.

I would suspect he is quite well versed in ERA (if that is relevant to this conversation).

cheers

w

[Simon9]

And who is the reliabe source for this information. Please specify the thickness levels and what the armor consists of that makes you come to that conclusion.

As Wooki said, he's a defence analyst and military journalist named Abraham Gubler. Editor of Australian Defence Business Review.

Go ask him yourself on http://www.thefifthcolumn.ru/forums/ if you want, I don't know the specifics in terms of mm of RHAe.

The Leopard C2s are equipped with a heavy applique armour kit called MEXAS which increases both armour vs KE and HEAT, but moreso to HEAT because it is primarily a spaced armour/ERA system. If you look at photos of the C2s in Afghanistan you can clearly see the MEXAS.

The standard M1A1, by contrast, has no spaced armour and is actually quite vulnerable to RPGs from the side or rear.

The only concrete values I can find are from the Tank Protection Levels project website (http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm) which is probably about the best we are going to get speculating on classified armour levels. It suggests the C2 has turret armour vs HEAT of 800mm RHAe, approximately twice as high as any other variant of the Leopard 1, and exactly the same as the value listed for the standard (ie un-upgraded) M1A1. Obviously M1A1HA and M1A2 are more heavily armoured in the frontal arc, but little information is available about their side armour RHAe. Iraq experiences suggest it's nowhere near as good.

If anyone has better figures or anything else to add I'd love to hear it. But all in all, it seems probable to me that Mr Gubler is right.

[gf0012-aust]

And who is the reliabe source for this information. Please specify the thickness levels and what the armor consists of that makes you come to that conclusion.

As much as I'm loathe to appear to be batting for someone. Abe is certainly well and appropriately connected - and at some very senior levels in both ADF and miltech companies.

He's rarely out of whack on armour issues.

[eckherl]

@Wooki and @ gfoo12-aust

Thanks for the information, yes the M1 series is not well armored on the sides, rear and top and hopefully we will go with the upgrade package that has been proposed, only time will tell.

[eckherl]

As Wooki said, he's a defence analyst and military journalist named Abraham Gubler. Editor of Australian Defence Business Review.

Go ask him yourself on http://www.thefifthcolumn.ru/forums/ if you want, I don't know the specifics in terms of mm of RHAe.

The Leopard C2s are equipped with a heavy applique armour kit called MEXAS which increases both armour vs KE and HEAT, but moreso to HEAT because it is primarily a spaced armour/ERA system. If you look at photos of the C2s in Afghanistan you can clearly see the MEXAS.

The standard M1A1, by contrast, has no spaced armour and is actually quite vulnerable to RPGs from the side or rear.

The only concrete values I can find are from the Tank Protection Levels project website (http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm) which is probably about the best we are going to get speculating on classified armour levels. It suggests the C2 has turret armour vs HEAT of 800mm RHAe, approximately twice as high as any other variant of the Leopard 1, and exactly the same as the value listed for the standard (ie un-upgraded) M1A1. Obviously M1A1HA and M1A2 are more heavily armoured in the frontal arc, but little information is available about their side armour RHAe. Iraq experiences suggest it's nowhere near as good.

If anyone has better figures or anything else to add I'd love to hear it. But all in all, it seems probable to me that Mr Gubler is right.

I did a little research on the upgrades to the C2, you are correct that it is quite impressive in regards to the armor upgrade package, and yes the M1A1 could use a little upgrading to the sides, and rear also.:)

[alexsa]

So I have heard. Good on em. I was ALWAYS a big fan of the Leo and those up-graded Canadian Leo's look as gucci as hell...

...

I understand our Leo'sa re pretty tired but I alwasy thought it would have been great to upgrade em and give them to A Res ...... Yep, I know I am dreaming.

[FutureTank]

As much as I'm loathe to appear to be batting for someone. Abe is certainly well and appropriately connected - and at some very senior levels in both ADF and miltech companies.

He's rarely out of whack on armour issues.

Abe is a young reporter (not editor) who happens to get a lot of access to Defence because the defence reporting in Australia is very limited. Having said that, this takes nothing away from his understanding or knowledge of the issue.

His background is not in Armour, nor is he privy to RHA measurements on the M1.

I used to think that M1 was not the right choice for Australia until I stopped thinking in terms of strategic use, and considered the whole picture, and hance history of tank development (apologies for below, but its just my way).

A little history then.
The problem with divergent arguments about M1 is in three letters, MBT :)

Before and during WW2, MBT stood for Medium Battle Tank.

After WW2 the US and UK ABANDONED design of medium tanks, and (US) redesignated its HBT (heavy battle tank) the M26 Pershing as the Main Battle Tank. In UK the A41 Centurion CRUISER tank was likewise redesignated. Cruiser was meant to be a cavalry tank, but at 51t it was the heaviest of cavalry although designed with same philosophy as the Soviet pre-WW2 BT series of fast tanks. In the UK the Centurion before NATO was to become the 'Universal' tank :)

In effect the post-WW2 Western Allied tank design philosophy went something like this:

Germans had heavy tanks which were superior to the Allied medium tanks. Medium tanks are good, but personnel are lost in copious amounts. Now it’s peacetime, so the Army can't loose too many tankers, so let’s build tanks like the Germans had, but more of them. The German WW2 Panther (one more encountered, and a more reliable design) became the starting point for all Western tank designs.

Now the Panther was built to counter the Soviet T-34. However at almost 45ton, it was substantially heavier then the T-34 (original 1941 model at about 31t), or even the later model with the 85mm gun. In fact the Panther replaced Pz-IV in production because although production of the medium Pz-IV didn't halt, the resources were siphoned to the Panther (and Tiger) production.
The Panther, although built to counter a MEDIUM Soviet tank, was in fact only 1.5t lighter then the IS-3 Soviet HEAVY tank.
This was a tactically demanded design trade-off because German command understood they were running out of troops and had to increase crew survival in fire-brigade operations (after 1942). They also needed a tank which would stand its ground when used (after 1942), rather then manoeuvre as was the doctrine before the T-34 was encountered. However this took a lot of designing, and even in the emergency conditions of the war the Panther did not appear until summer 1943 because it was not an evolutionary design, but a new one.

What the Allies encountered in France in 1944 was therefore a bi-product of fighting in the East of 1941. However Allied doctrine didn't change substantially in four years as it had for combatants in the East. Shermans were there to largely provide infantry support, and tank destroyers were there to deal with heavy German tanks only a few of which were encountered by the Allies in North Africa. The concept of assault guns and turretless tank destroyers was almost foreign to them because they had not been through the 'classroom' of the Eastern Front.

Skip to 2006.
There are STILL light, medium and heavy tanks in the World. They are so designated not by the armies, but by the various cargo handling commercial and public load standards regulators as cargo classes. In the West all tanks are deceptively known as the Main Battle Tank because this is the only type of tank produced. The upgraded version of AMX-13 used by Singapore is an embarrassment to the concept since it is patently a light tank. (As a side note, I use a rough scale to determine ‘heaviness’ of a tank. Because a tank is a turreted AFV with AT capability, it is fairly difficult to design one under 15t. The medium tank is about 150% heavier as a general rule, and so comes out to 37.5t. I apply 175% to the heavy tank, which would make it 65.6t.) Main Battle Tanks are the only type of tank produced because the doctrine requires them to make a 'good show' with limited numbers and no replacement crews (the third war in Europe's 20th century would not have lasted long enough to train conscripts WW2 style) against substantially larger Warsaw Pact tank fleet.
The Soviet military is however of a different view on tank design. The T-34 was a success. Heavy tanks offer temporary tactical advantage, but encumber operational manoeuvre, which is what Soviets consider to have been the winning doctrine in their war with Germany. From the early 50s the heavy tank designs are abandoned, and only medium tank designs are used throughout.
Of course medium tanks gain in weight also due to larger amounts of armour they require do defeat the larger weapons, but T-55 and T-62 use same design philosophy as the T-34. However, even the T-72 is still 3.5t lighter then the Panther! It is a medium tank in design, and prescribed use as one.

Australia has no need for a tank to be used in operational manoeuvre. It will always be on an operational, and therefore tactical defensive even if the form of that tactical defensive may be offensive in nature as the proverbial saying goes. The Australia Army will always play the ‘German’ role, and not the Ghurkha one. While Australian Army is an infantry one, it is mobile infantry in its doctrine, and the historical examples of Australian actions while contributing to the ethos of the Corps, do nothing to explain its future employment. The Australian Army will never again participate in massed amphibious landings, in sieges (as the besieged), and would try to avoid foot infantry deployment without armoured support even in the worst of the terrains our region has to offer. For this role the M1 is almost an ideal tank because although I think the Leopard 2 is a marginally better design, it would add unnecessary logistic strain when operating with Americans.

My problem is the ability of the Australian army to sustain M1 as a technology platform. Although all conceivable ‘bugs’ have probably been eliminated by now, and the diesel engines should prove to be easier on maintenance, it is still a very complicated piece of engineering machinery. Having said this, the only medium tanks available are of the Soviet design philosophy, and are becoming as sophisticated as their Western counterparts. Not only that, but their design philosophy is blatantly inappropriate for Australian doctrine.

[gf0012-aust]

Abe is a young reporter (not editor) who happens to get a lot of access to Defence because the defence reporting in Australia is very limited. Having said that, this takes nothing away from his understanding or knowledge of the issue.

His background is not in Armour, nor is he privy to RHA measurements on the M1.

well. I'm not an editor and I don't have an armour background either (except for Leo upgrades, Bushranger assessments, and a ballistic assessment for Specwarrie vehicles). Be that as it may, I've seen some of the Leo2 data when involved with the Leo1 upgrade cycle when we were in discussions with KMW and the Canadians. I've also seen the Leo2 and notional M1 RHA data from when we were testing german compound armour as well as add on armour packs. We had to run comparatives because of ballistic tests being run as per reqs with the australian agent.

we knew about the RHA equivalency on the M1's via both the Canadians and the Germans as it was "decision" time.

Agra certainly has better and more relevant contacts with the black hats than I do - and I was lucky enough to be partially involved.

I have no idea what the germans have added since 2001, but they were pretty damn confident about Leo vs M1 survivability when they flew in their ballistic plates and tested them out at Salisbury and Woomera.

I should add, that there is no way in hades that anyone privy to actual real world data is even going to remotely consider discussing those numbers in an open forum. Any numbers discussed by those privy to it will be necessarily vague.

geez, even some of the M60 data is still classified.

[eckherl]

well. I'm not an editor and I don't have an armour background either (except for Leo upgrades, Bushranger assessments, and a ballistic assessment for Specwarrie vehicles). Be that as it may, I've seen some of the Leo2 data when involved with the Leo1 upgrade cycle when we were in discussions with KMW and the Canadians. I've also seen the Leo2 and notional M1 RHA data from when we were testing german compound armour as well as add on armour packs. We had to run comparatives because of ballistic tests being run as per reqs with the australian agent.

we knew about the RHA equivalency on the M1's via both the Canadians and the Germans as it was "decision" time.

Agra certainly has better and more relevant contacts with the black hats than I do - and I was lucky enough to be partially involved.

I have no idea what the germans have added since 2001, but they were pretty damn confident about Leo vs M1 survivability when they flew in their ballistic plates and tested them out at Salisbury and Woomera.

I should add, that there is no way in hades that anyone privy to actual real world data is even going to remotely consider discussing those numbers in an open forum. Any numbers discussed by those privy to it will be necessarily vague.

geez, even some of the M60 data is still classified.

Was this equivalency based on M1A1 heavies and M1A2s.

[gf0012-aust]

Was this equivalency based on M1A1 heavies and M1A2s.

M1A1's IIRC. It was circa 2000-2001.

I can't recall everything, but I do remember the Leo2's being superior in some areas. (FCS and penetration IIRC)

The germans were happy to show us penetrated plate, but we weren't allowed to do a metallurgical on them. That was apparently regarded as a witches brew and not available for purview.

sorry for being vague.

[rickshaw]

A little history then.
The problem with divergent arguments about M1 is in three letters, MBT :)

Before and during WW2, MBT stood for Medium Battle Tank.


Actually, it didn't. the Acronym MBT didn't appear until the second-half of the 1950s. During WWII, Medium Tanks were just that, Medium Tanks which was abbreviated as Med.Tk.


After WW2 the US and UK ABANDONED design of medium tanks, and (US) redesignated its HBT (heavy battle tank) the M26 Pershing as the Main Battle Tank.


Again, I believe you are wrong. The M26 was redesignated from a Heavy Tank to a Medium Tank after WWII..


In UK the A41 Centurion CRUISER tank was likewise redesignated.


The A41 Centurion was, I think you'll find, redesignated a Medium Tank, post-war. It was not designated a Main Battle Tank until the appearance of the Mark 5/2 in IIRC 1959, equipped with the L7 105mm gun.


(Cruiser was meant to be a cavalry tank, but at 51t it was the heaviest of cavalry although designed with same philosophy as the Soviet pre-WW2 BT series of fast tanks. In the UK the Centurion before NATO was to become the 'Universal' tank :)

In effect the post-WW2 Western Allied tank design philosophy went something like this:

Germans had heavy tanks which were superior to the Allied medium tanks. Medium tanks are good, but personnel are lost in copious amounts. Now it’s peacetime, so the Army can't loose too many tankers, so let’s build tanks like the Germans had, but more of them. The German WW2 Panther (one more encountered, and a more reliable design) became the starting point for all Western tank designs.

Now the Panther was built to counter the Soviet T-34. However at almost 45ton, it was substantially heavier then the T-34 (original 1941 model at about 31t), or even the later model with the 85mm gun. In fact the Panther replaced Pz-IV in production because although production of the medium Pz-IV didn't halt, the resources were siphoned to the Panther (and Tiger) production.


You're right that Pz.IV production was never halted, however you're wrong, I believe that resources were diverted to Panther and Tiger production.


The Panther, although built to counter a MEDIUM Soviet tank, was in fact only 1.5t lighter then the IS-3 Soviet HEAVY tank.
This was a tactically demanded design trade-off because German command understood they were running out of troops and had to increase crew survival in fire-brigade operations (after 1942). They also needed a tank which would stand its ground when used (after 1942), rather then manoeuvre as was the doctrine before the T-34 was encountered. However this took a lot of designing, and even in the emergency conditions of the war the Panther did not appear until summer 1943 because it was not an evolutionary design, but a new one.

What the Allies encountered in France in 1944 was therefore a bi-product of fighting in the East of 1941. However Allied doctrine didn't change substantially in four years as it had for combatants in the East. Shermans were there to largely provide infantry support, and tank destroyers were there to deal with heavy German tanks only a few of which were encountered by the Allies in North Africa. The concept of assault guns and turretless tank destroyers was almost foreign to them because they had not been through the 'classroom' of the Eastern Front.


Bit simplistic but essentially correct. However, this is essentially AMERICA's design philosphy, not the UK's. Within the American doctrine, there was a division between specialised Tank-Destroyers and Tanks. Tanks were intended to be universal in their application, they were intended to be able to destroy both tanks and support infantry (through the use of HE), whereas Tank-Destroyers were intended to be specialist units who's primary function was to seek out and destroy the enemy's armour, hence an emphasis upon AP ammunition in their guns and HE was provided much as an afterthought.

In the UK, the division was, as you've already hinted at, between Infantry and Cruiser tanks. Infantry or "I" tanks were intended to follow infantry closely and support them in their advance over the battlefield to achieve a breakthrough of the enemy's defensive line. Cruiser tanks were, as you've suggested, akin to the Cavalry and were intended to exploit that breakthrough and harry and pursue the retreating enemy. However, in both, because of a belief in the use of Artillery as the primary means of support (and hence the provision of neutralising and destructive firepower) upon the battlefield as a result of experiences in WWI, British tanks were initially not provided with HE ammunition. The 2 Pdr gun was capable of firing HE and had a HE round (two were in fact developed, one in Australia which was base fused and one in the UK which was nose fused) but it was not widely issued until early 1944, when the use of the 2 Pdr was then limited to the SW Pacific (in Australian Mathildas and AT guns) and NW Europe (in Armoured Car Regiments). It had been superceded by 6 Pdr and 75mm guns, both which fired HE. In the UK's philosphy (doctrine is in many ways, too rigid a word), Tank-Destroyers were an aberration and while they were used, the units largely came under the control of the Royal Artillery, which saw them more as mobile, protected AT guns, rather than armoured units.


Skip to 2006.
There are STILL light, medium and heavy tanks in the World. They are so designated not by the armies, but by the various cargo handling commercial and public load standards regulators as cargo classes.


Rubbish. Balderdash. Armies still use the designation Light, Medium, Heavy and Main to describe their tanks. It has absolutly nothing to do with their weight, it has in fact everything to do with both their armour and their intended function within a military's doctrine.


In the West all tanks are deceptively known as the Main Battle Tank because this is the only type of tank produced.


Again, rubbish. Light tanks were still produced until recently, with the Scorpion, Stingray and the Sheridan coming immediately to mind. Much of their role has however been overtaken by converted APCs, mounting light-tank like turrets.


The upgraded version of AMX-13 used by Singapore is an embarrassment to the concept since it is patently a light tank. (As a side note, I use a rough scale to determine ‘heaviness’ of a tank. Because a tank is a turreted AFV with AT capability, it is fairly difficult to design one under 15t. The medium tank is about 150% heavier as a general rule, and so comes out to 37.5t. I apply 175% to the heavy tank, which would make it 65.6t.)


An artificial division, I'd suggest based more upon your obviously mistaken and preconcieved ideas on this matter. As I've said, the designation owes more to the amount of armour carried but ultimately, it depends upon where the vehicle sits in relation to doctrine and how it is employed by the military that owns it. Essentially, its all relative anyway and such designations tend to be far more fluid and non-rigid than your definition would have it.


Main Battle Tanks are the only type of tank produced because the doctrine requires them to make a 'good show' with limited numbers and no replacement crews (the third war in Europe's 20th century would not have lasted long enough to train conscripts WW2 style) against substantially larger Warsaw Pact tank fleet.


Oh, look, if the balloon had really gone up in Europe, how many tanks a side had would have been immaterial 'cause they'd all be running around on a giant glass ashtray until their fuel ran out, anyway.


The Soviet military is however of a different view on tank design. The T-34 was a success. Heavy tanks offer temporary tactical advantage, but encumber operational manoeuvre, which is what Soviets consider to have been the winning doctrine in their war with Germany. From the early 50s the heavy tank designs are abandoned, and only medium tank designs are used throughout.


This would explain why they continued to pursue heavy tank design until well into the 1960s, now would it? Furthermore, they put one or two more vehicles which they, themselves designed as "heavy tanks" into operational service in the early-mid-1950s (T-10). It would also explain why they kept the IS-2 and IS-3 in service into the 1960s as well. The role of the Heavy Tank has always been both inside and outside Russian doctrine as that of a "breakthrough tank" - one which could support the infantry in close assault of the heaviest enemy defences and help achieve a breakthrough. It is why the Soviet's chose the large, heavy calibre guns that they did, despite the limitations that using both split ammunition and such a large calibre, imposed on their vehicles. While Soviet doctrine emphasised manoauvre operations, it also realised that on the relatively narrow frontages available in Northern Europe that before manouavre could be achieved, a breakthrough was necessary, hence the need for Heavy Tanks.

However, when NATO adopted the equivalent of a heavy tank gun, the L7 105mm on a medium tank chassis the "Main Battle Tank" became a popular way of describing it. At a stroke the Heavy Tank was basically rendered obsolete and started to fade from sight.


Of course medium tanks gain in weight also due to larger amounts of armour they require do defeat the larger weapons, but T-55 and T-62 use same design philosophy as the T-34. However, even the T-72 is still 3.5t lighter then the Panther! It is a medium tank in design, and prescribed use as one.


According to whom?


Australia has no need for a tank to be used in operational manoeuvre. It will always be on an operational, and therefore tactical defensive even if the form of that tactical defensive may be offensive in nature as the proverbial saying goes. The Australia Army will always play the ‘German’ role, and not the Ghurkha one. While Australian Army is an infantry one, it is mobile infantry in its doctrine, and the historical examples of Australian actions while contributing to the ethos of the Corps, do nothing to explain its future employment. The Australian Army will never again participate in massed amphibious landings, in sieges (as the besieged), and would try to avoid foot infantry deployment without armoured support even in the worst of the terrains our region has to offer. For this role the M1 is almost an ideal tank because although I think the Leopard 2 is a marginally better design, it would add unnecessary logistic strain when operating with Americans.


Why then bother having tanks at all, if this is the case?


My problem is the ability of the Australian army to sustain M1 as a technology platform. Although all conceivable ‘bugs’ have probably been eliminated by now, and the diesel engines should prove to be easier on maintenance, it is still a very complicated piece of engineering machinery. Having said this, the only medium tanks available are of the Soviet design philosophy, and are becoming as sophisticated as their Western counterparts. Not only that, but their design philosophy is blatantly inappropriate for Australian doctrine.

It is different. It is not necessarily inappropriate. What is required is a vehicle in the medium class - it does not have to fit the classic definition of a "tank", IMO but it should be armoured, at least to the point where it can withstand say an RPG or large Rcl/ATGW round (and that doesn't necessarily mean passive armour, either). It should be (relatively) easily transported by road/rail/ship/aircraft. It should have a large calibre gun (either MV 105mm or LV 165mm) and an ATGW system. Essentially we need an infantry support tank, rather like the AVRE. Optomised for knocking down buildings and blowing the crap out of strong points, with a secondary AT capability. The emphasis should be upon strategic, rather than tactical mobility. It is more important to get to the fight, preferrably first, than have it sitting in Australia where it looks good on the parade ground but is patently useless to the diggers who need it in, well, whereever they are sent.

[Waylander]

My opinion is that the time of the medium tank has gone because with the introduction of heavy tanks which are nearly as maneuverable or even more maneuverable than older medium tanks with less armor and firepower there was no longer a real need for medium designs.

Heavy tanks do not really suffer but from the worst terrain. Most of the terrain which is not usable by heavy tanks is often enough also restricted to lighter AFVs. For very special terrain use special vehicles.
And with deep forging ability and modern bridgelayers a good equipped army also has less problems with weak bridges.

I agree that the strategic mobility is a problem with heavy tanks.
For this you should have a powerfull airdeployable IFV which is able to transport the infantry into and out of the battlezone and give good firesupport by using a 30-40mm gun and ATGMs. (CV90, Puma, or a Piranha version if you want a wheeled one)

But if you should ever need to take part in a more offensive operation like for example to be a frontline ally during operations like the gulf wars there is no way you can substitute a heavy tank with a lighter AFV. You need this fist to break through enemy lines.

Strategic mobility by air is sometimes overrated.
Remember that most of the equipment used during big campaigns is still shipped and not airlifted.
Just small numbers are airlifted and when the Canadians manage to airlift their Leos to A-stan it should be no problem for you to airlift some Abrams to whereever you want.

[lobbie111]

Sorrry if this question sounds dum but are they going to complement the abrams with an armoured fighting vehicle like the bradley or the Rheinmetall Puma..?

[rickshaw]

Not at this point in time. LAND 106 - M113AS - an improved M113 with an extra wheel station and a new weapon station (amongst other improvements) and ASLAV will fulfil the APC role.

[gf0012-aust]

M113AS - an improved M113 with an extra wheel station and a new weapon station (amongst other improvements)

Its not that improved - they're still having trouble stopping, and still have probs overheating.

I saw the first stretched limo M113 approx 3 years ago - and they still are stuffing up the basics....

[rickshaw]

Its not that improved - they're still having trouble stopping, and still have probs overheating.

I saw the first stretched limo M113 approx 3 years ago - and they still are stuffing up the basics....

Tell me about it. I worked for the company that designed the CNC machine for remilling the hull wheel stations. Tenix sold the Army a pig in a poke on that one. You seen how they rebuild those things? I'm looking forward to their hulls developing some bad cracking around the welds in about 10-15 years time.

It wasn't a bad concept, 10 years ago when it was first proposed. However, in today's environment, we'd be better off either buying new M113a3s (or even just new M113a3 hulls) or investing the monies in second-hand M2's or Warriors or new CV90s IMHO.

[Wooki]

His background is not in Armour, nor is he privy to RHA measurements on the M1.


Did anyone say he was? Put it this way, if he brought up the subject of ERA, I would stop and listen.

cheers

w

[FutureTank]

Originally Posted by FutureTank
A little history then.
The problem with divergent arguments about M1 is in three letters, MBT

Before and during WW2, MBT stood for Medium Battle Tank.
Actually, it didn't. the Acronym MBT didn't appear until the second-half of the 1950s. During WWII, Medium Tanks were just that, Medium Tanks which was abbreviated as Med.Tk.
Yes, correct What I meant was that before and during WW2 tanks were differentiated, and if anyone said MBT, they would be referring to a medium rather then the ‘main’ tank.Quote:
After WW2 the US and UK ABANDONED design of medium tanks, and (US) redesignated its HBT (heavy battle tank) the M26 Pershing as the Main Battle Tank.
Again, I believe you are wrong. The M26 was redesignated from a Heavy Tank to a Medium Tank after WWII..
Yes, this is what I said. AFTER WW2 the US redesignated the already existing M26 into a medium tank, however this was for a very brief period. Soon after the light tanks were also redesignated as airborne, and light tanks disappeared as a class of vehicle along with the medium tanks. As part of the redesignation the freshly mediumed M26 became ‘main’.
Quote:
In UK the A41 Centurion CRUISER tank was likewise redesignated.
The A41 Centurion was, I think you'll find, redesignated a Medium Tank, post-war. It was not designated a Main Battle Tank until the appearance of the Mark 5/2 in IIRC 1959, equipped with the L7 105mm gun.
Yes, the UK went along with the US on this because Churchill had already foreseen the need for an anti-Soviet alliance with Americans. The 50s were a weird time for dank development.
Quote:
(Cruiser was meant to be a cavalry tank, but at 51t it was the heaviest of cavalry although designed with same philosophy as the Soviet pre-WW2 BT series of fast tanks. In the UK the Centurion before NATO was to become the 'Universal' tank

In effect the post-WW2 Western Allied tank design philosophy went something like this:
Germans had heavy tanks which were superior to the Allied medium tanks. Medium tanks are good, but personnel are lost in copious amounts. Now it’s peacetime, so the Army can't loose too many tankers, so let’s build tanks like the Germans had, but more of them. The German WW2 Panther (one more encountered, and a more reliable design) became the starting point for all Western tank designs.
Now the Panther was built to counter the Soviet T-34. However at almost 45ton, it was substantially heavier then the T-34 (original 1941 model at about 31t), or even the later model with the 85mm gun. In fact the Panther replaced Pz-IV in production because although production of the medium Pz-IV didn't halt, the resources were siphoned to the Panther (and Tiger) production.
You're right that Pz.IV production was never halted, however you're wrong, I believe that resources were diverted to Panther and Tiger production.
They were, and in many ways. Experienced engineers, design team members working on different parts of the alternative subsystems, the ironing out of all the problems in testing, the creation of new production lines, the retraining of all the experienced production personnel (not to mention finding them in wartime), the actual steel (and it was a different steel manufacturing process to Pz-IV), the new engine, the training of new, and retraining of old crews. All this is hard enough in peacetime, but is a real headache in wartime even for the uber-organised Germans. It is one of the reasons neither the Soviets nor the Allies changed their primary tank designs despite Stalin being offered an alternative to T-34. Americans went so far as to even keep the same hull from a pre-war design!
Quote:
The Panther, although built to counter a MEDIUM Soviet tank, was in fact only 1.5t lighter then the IS-3 Soviet HEAVY tank.
This was a tactically demanded design trade-off because German command understood they were running out of troops and had to increase crew survival in fire-brigade operations (after 1942). They also needed a tank which would stand its ground when used (after 1942), rather then manoeuvre as was the doctrine before the T-34 was encountered. However this took a lot of designing, and even in the emergency conditions of the war the Panther did not appear until summer 1943 because it was not an evolutionary design, but a new one.

What the Allies encountered in France in 1944 was therefore a bi-product of fighting in the East of 1941. However Allied doctrine didn't change substantially in four years as it had for combatants in the East. Shermans were there to largely provide infantry support, and tank destroyers were there to deal with heavy German tanks only a few of which were encountered by the Allies in North Africa. The concept of assault guns and turretless tank destroyers was almost foreign to them because they had not been through the 'classroom' of the Eastern Front.
Bit simplistic but essentially correct. However, this is essentially AMERICA's design philosphy, not the UK's. Within the American doctrine, there was a division between specialised Tank-Destroyers and Tanks. Tanks were intended to be universal in their application, they were intended to be able to destroy both tanks and support infantry (through the use of HE), whereas Tank-Destroyers were intended to be specialist units who's primary function was to seek out and destroy the enemy's armour, hence an emphasis upon AP ammunition in their guns and HE was provided much as an afterthought.
In the UK, the division was, as you've already hinted at, between Infantry and Cruiser tanks. Infantry or "I" tanks were intended to follow infantry closely and support them in their advance over the battlefield to achieve a breakthrough of the enemy's defensive line. Cruiser tanks were, as you've suggested, akin to the Cavalry and were intended to exploit that breakthrough and harry and pursue the retreating enemy. However, in both, because of a belief in the use of Artillery as the primary means of support (and hence the provision of neutralising and destructive firepower) upon the battlefield as a result of experiences in WWI, British tanks were initially not provided with HE ammunition. The 2 Pdr gun was capable of firing HE and had a HE round (two were in fact developed, one in Australia which was base fused and one in the UK which was nose fused) but it was not widely issued until early 1944, when the use of the 2 Pdr was then limited to the SW Pacific (in Australian Mathildas and AT guns) and NW Europe (in Armoured Car Regiments). It had been superseded by 6 Pdr and 75mm guns, both which fired HE. In the UK's philosophy (doctrine is in many ways, too rigid a word), Tank-Destroyers were an aberration and while they were used, the units largely came under the control of the Royal Artillery, which saw them more as mobile, protected AT guns, rather than armoured units.
Rickshaw, please accept my apologies for the simplistic description but although I like to write things up, I also understand the forum is not for short essays.
Yes, the British philosophy/doctrine was different, but they were stuck with the Sherman from 1941. Doctrine is faster to type, and better defines the application of thinking about use of troops. The interesting thing is that US and UK both shared the belief in the infantry, hence the infantry support tanks that dominated the armoured fleet. What the UK doctrine never tried to address is how they would react to an enemy that failed to stand still for the infantry to engage.Quote:
Skip to 2006.
There are STILL light, medium and heavy tanks in the World. They are so designated not by the armies, but by the various cargo handling commercial and public load standards regulators as cargo classes.
Rubbish. Balderdash. Armies still use the designation Light, Medium, Heavy and Main to describe their tanks. It has absolutely nothing to do with their weight, it has in fact everything to do with both their armour and their intended function within a military's doctrine.
Main Battle Tank is how all armies refer to their tanks. For transportation they are load classed. The light tanks are sometimes known as reconnaissance vehicles. The load classes used in most armies do not refer to weight of tanks. Originally the reference was to the weight of the tank…which is of course the armour plating. I think the British had some thing like 5 armour classes that referred to the plating, but they were not termed as light or medium but had coding I think.Quote:
In the West all tanks are deceptively known as the Main Battle Tank because this is the only type of tank produced.
Again, rubbish. Light tanks were still produced until recently, with the Scorpion, Stingray and the Sheridan coming immediately to mind. Much of their role has however been overtaken by converted APCs, mounting light-tank like turrets.
Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) or, CVR (T) family. The full design name is Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Fire Support (Scorpion).
Stingray lacks a designation by the US Army. The M8 is known as a ‘gun system’ though.
M551 Sheridan was known as armored reconnaissance/airborne assault vehicle at various times, but only as a light tank by the manufacturer I think in the XM phase.
Even the Soviets dislike having light tanks, the PT-76 is an Amphibious tank.Quote:
The upgraded version of AMX-13 used by Singapore is an embarrassment to the concept since it is patently a light tank. (As a side note, I use a rough scale to determine ‘heaviness’ of a tank. Because a tank is a turreted AFV with AT capability, it is fairly difficult to design one under 15t. The medium tank is about 150% heavier as a general rule, and so comes out to 37.5t. I apply 175% to the heavy tank, which would make it 65.6t.)
An artificial division, I'd suggest based more upon your obviously mistaken and preconceived ideas on this matter. As I've said, the designation owes more to the amount of armour carried but ultimately, it depends upon where the vehicle sits in relation to doctrine and how it is employed by the military that owns it. Essentially, it’s all relative anyway and such designations tend to be far more fluid and non-rigid than your definition would have it.
It may be that I am "mistaken and preconceived in ideas", but they are not mine. Pre-WW2 the European armies viewed tank designs in very much the same way cavalry selected horses a century earlier. Nowhere is it easier to see then the Soviet Army which started WW2 with everything from multi-turreted monsters to light tankettes in its AFV fleet. In every doctrine in Europe there was a need for multiple types of AFVs to fill their niche in their complex still-in-development employment in battle. By the end of the war it was clear that one type of tank could do most of the work with the exception of reconnaissance. This design issue was never really solved.
No, designations are not fluid, the direction of design philosophy is. The designs try to satisfy the tactical demands and these are rigid. The multitude of different tanks in use during the pre-WW2 period supports this rigidity (this AFV does job X, and that AFV does Y), and for the UK even the separation of responsibility for different types of AFVs among the Corps. The selection of a single type after WW2 supports the fluidity in use of a single tank design. The words just reflect the change.
I think the semantics are on your behalf in regards to “amount of armour carried” since this is the major material of manufacture in the tank. However the designation of light, medium, heavy, cruiser, cavalry, etc., all relate to the speed rather then armour of the tanks. This, and not armour, was seen as the important factor since it was considered impossible to operate very large cannon in a moving tank (after stopping) with any accuracy before WW2. The designations in English were applied by former cavalry officers who had to give away their mounts. Trivial, but true.
Quote:
Main Battle Tanks are the only type of tank produced because the doctrine requires them to make a 'good show' with limited numbers and no replacement crews (the third war in Europe's 20th century would not have lasted long enough to train conscripts WW2 style) against substantially larger Warsaw Pact tank fleet.
Oh, look, if the balloon had really gone up in Europe, how many tanks a side had would have been immaterial 'cause they'd all be running around on a giant glass ashtray until their fuel ran out, anyway.
Are you suggesting NATO would have used nuclear weapons on their own troops? Of course not. Are you suggesting that the Soviets would have used nuclear weapons on the NATO forces? Of course not, because you know that the Soviet strategy was an overthrow of the capitalist regimes in Europe, and this meant the proletariat was not to be incinerated. For this purpose they had created an army of special forces with the express purpose of disabling NATO WMD stocks before they could be used. Would NATO use nuclear weapons on its own territory if it was being overrun? Would the UK and USA use nuclear weapons on Germany, or even Poland or Hungary? I doubt it, but I’m glad we will never find out.Quote:
The Soviet military is however of a different view on tank design. The T-34 was a success. Heavy tanks offer temporary tactical advantage, but encumber operational manoeuvre, which is what Soviets consider to have been the winning doctrine in their war with Germany. From the early 50s the heavy tank designs are abandoned, and only medium tank designs are used throughout.
This would explain why they continued to pursue heavy tank design until well into the 1960s, now would it? Furthermore, they put one or two more vehicles which they, themselves designed as "heavy tanks" into operational service in the early-mid-1950s (T-10). It would also explain why they kept the IS-2 and IS-3 in service into the 1960s as well. The role of the Heavy Tank has always been both inside and outside Russian doctrine as that of a "breakthrough tank" - one which could support the infantry in close assault of the heaviest enemy defences and help achieve a breakthrough. It is why the Soviet's chose the large, heavy calibre guns that they did, despite the limitations that using both split ammunition and such a large calibre, imposed on their vehicles. While Soviet doctrine emphasised manoeuvre operations, it also realised that on the relatively narrow frontages available in Northern Europe that before manouevre could be achieved, a breakthrough was necessary, hence the need for Heavy Tanks.
However, when NATO adopted the equivalent of a heavy tank gun, the L7 105mm on a medium tank chassis the "Main Battle Tank" became a popular way of describing it. At a stroke the Heavy Tank was basically rendered obsolete and started to fade from sight.
Not quite. You are correct in describing the Soviet post-WW2 doctrine, but in 1955 all heavy tank regiments were removed from tank divisions and reformed into eight heavy tank divisions. These existed until 1958 (the year T-55s received NBC system when Soviets realised the true effects of radiation). In early 1960s the recently mothballed heavy tanks were reassigned to the fortified regions, mostly along the Chinese border with four battalions of four companies each. Because there were insufficient heavy tanks, T-34-85s were also used. T-10 was the last of the ‘heavies’. However a very small number of independent heavy tank battalions were retained at Front level for dealing with ‘hard’ targets until the early 80s.

[FutureTank]

Quote:
Of course medium tanks gain in weight also due to larger amounts of armour they require do defeat the larger weapons, but T-55 and T-62 use same design philosophy as the T-34. However, even the T-72 is still 3.5t lighter then the Panther! It is a medium tank in design, and prescribed use as one.
.

According to whom?
To what part of the above do you refer?

[FutureTank]

Quote:
Australia has no need for a tank to be used in operational manoeuvre. It will always be on an operational and therefore tactical defensive even if the form of that tactical defensive may be offensive in nature as the proverbial saying goes. The Australia Army will always play the ‘German’ role, and not the Ghurkha one. While Australian Army is an infantry one, it is mobile infantry in its doctrine, and the historical examples of Australian actions while contributing to the ethos of the Corps, do nothing to explain its future employment. The Australian Army will never again participate in massed amphibious landings, in sieges (as the besieged), and would try to avoid foot infantry deployment without armoured support even in the worst of the terrains our region has to offer. For this role the M1 is almost an ideal tank because although I think the Leopard 2 is a marginally better design, it would add unnecessary logistic strain when operating with Americans.

Why then bother having tanks at all, if this is the case?
I think this answer has been covered in many forums online, and I will not add anything new to what has already been said by others. A tank adds flexibility to the commander’s tactical battle plan, and is also bloody great for morale of the grunts.

[FutureTank]

Quote:
My problem is the ability of the Australian army to sustain M1 as a technology platform. Although all conceivable ‘bugs’ have probably been eliminated by now, and the diesel engines should prove to be easier on maintenance, it is still a very complicated piece of engineering machinery. Having said this, the only medium tanks available are of the Soviet design philosophy, and are becoming as sophisticated as their Western counterparts. Not only that, but their design philosophy is blatantly inappropriate for Australian doctrine.


It is different. It is not necessarily inappropriate. What is required is a vehicle in the medium class - it does not have to fit the classic definition of a "tank", IMO but it should be armoured, at least to the point where it can withstand say an RPG or large Rcl/ATGW round (and that doesn't necessarily mean passive armour, either). It should be (relatively) easily transported by road/rail/ship/aircraft. It should have a large calibre gun (either MV 105mm or LV 165mm) and an ATGW system. Essentially we need an infantry support tank, rather like the AVRE. Optimised for knocking down buildings and blowing the crap out of strong points, with a secondary AT capability. The emphasis should be upon strategic, rather than tactical mobility. It is more important to get to the fight, preferably first, than have it sitting in Australia where it looks good on the parade ground but is patently useless to the diggers who need it in, well, wherever they are sent.

I think that before saying all of the above you need to consider what Australian Defence strategy is. Australian Defence strategy is to use its defence personnel to defend Australia and resolve international conflicts by force if need be.

The key term here is personnel. It is limited. The whole of Australian Army combat element, if brought to full readiness and had all personnel required in every unit, from regular and reserve personnel would form one combat infantry division with three brigades of which one would be mechanised and two motorised.

To my mind an infantry division needs big gun support as you are suggesting also. However the job of ADF is to foresee all possible worst case threat scenarios, and while the buildings are more numerous, the enemy main battle tanks are that worst case. The appropriate weapon against a main battle tank is another main battle tank. A division should have at least a regiment of tanks, and I mean a regiment and not the Commonwealth one-battalion type, but at least two battalions worth of 50, or three battalions of 40. This was the intention with Leopard 1s (or close to it).

It may be that eventually, and maybe even soon, missiles will be developed to enable attack of tank’s horizontal surfaces from the top, but this would only lead to development of countermeasures for them. There is no countermeasure against a DF tank round other then armour. However the tank also needs to support the infantry, and hence has to carry HE as well as AT ammunition. I can assure you that a 120mm round can do anything a 165mm round can to satisfy infantry needs. For more then that infantry has its brothers in arms, the sappers.

Having said this, I think you need to realise that Australia is unlikely to send a full division overseas. If this happens, it will not leave before the second division is trained up from national conscription pool. Given this, Australia would be really strapped for tanks if something suddenly turned very nasty. In all other contingencies no more then one brigade group would go overseas, and as was pointed out in another post, a battalion group is far more likely. It is therefore unlikely that more then a squadron will go on deployment at any one time. This will allow for a three squadron rotation, with one being utilised in training (so really a two-squadron regiment).

There is a problem with heavy tanks, and that is fuel. It’s hard to keep them going outside of Australia, and will prove more expensive as oil production dwindles towards their end of service life.

On the other hand, if you are the commander deploying far from Australia, and you are likely to be outnumbered, what you want is an AFV that can survive the odds. It is nice to have more of the lighter versions you propose, but with proliferation of AT weapons, it is nicer to have whatever survives them longest.

Soviet designs are lighter. However they are lighter because they are, pardon the cliché, “built for speed” due to a doctrine imposition which has remained constant since 1939. They are built to suit unique Soviet operational concepts and strategic environment. By and large they are not built for blasting away at buildings. Soviets considered that for infantry purposes a 73mm warhead or a 30mm HV round are sufficient. Israelis think a 60mm weapon is enough. All I know is that cruising through a city block filled with hostiles at 10km/h is not what tankers like to do in their spare time. I would want to be in something very well protected if called upon to do so.
.

[FutureTank]

Sorrry if this question sounds dum but are they going to complement the abrams with an armoured fighting vehicle like the bradley or the Rheinmetall Puma..?

LAND 400 wil replace M113 and ASLAV from 2015(?)

[FutureTank]

The whole of Australian Army combat element, if brought to full readiness and had all personnel required in every unit, from regular and reserve personnel would form one combat infantry division with three brigades of which one would be mechanised and two motorised.


I just want to clarify that in terms of organisation the Australian division would resemble the USMC division more then the 'traditional' European divisions. The USMC divisions make do with a single tank battalion.

[rickshaw]

FutureTank, please get your attributions correct. You have attributed to me several posts which I did not write. Please correct them.

[FutureTank]

Its not that improved - they're still having trouble stopping, and still have probs overheating.

I saw the first stretched limo M113 approx 3 years ago - and they still are stuffing up the basics....

I never understood the rationale for the project :confused:
They should have used the money for advanced research into LAND 400

[Wooki]

I never understood the rationale for the project :confused:
They should have used the money for advanced research into LAND 400

hey FT, can you stop with the blue and purple thing ? Or at the top denote who is purple and who is blue?

It makes me feel like filmore in the "cars" ghostlight skit

cheers

w

[rickshaw]

According to whom?
To what part of the above do you refer?

That the T72 is a "medium tank by design". Who claims that? You?

[rickshaw]

LAND 400 wil replace M113 and ASLAV from 2015(?)

2020, actually.

I never understood the rationale for the project
They should have used the money for advanced research into LAND 400


LAND 400 wasn't around. M113AS3 were seen as a cheap way of obtaining an upgraded M113. Unfortunate, project creep set in with the end user stating they wanted more bells and whistles at every turn. Tenix rubbed their hands and said, "yeah, that'd be a good idea!" And so costs blew out and now Tenix and the Army find themselves with a vehicle that is neither Arthur or Martha. The numbers to be produced have halved and we end up with an upgraded M113 which will be barely adequate to the role envisaged for them.

[FutureTank]

FutureTank, please get your attributions correct. You have attributed to me several posts which I did not write. Please correct them.

post #111 is your's

[peterAustralia]

greetings from melbourne

this being my first post here, no doubt i will stuff something up. Having read that we are getting M1A1s I have mixed feelings about it. First I think it is good that we are getting new tanks. History has shown that they are worth having.

I do have reservations about the M1A1 for Australia. I have no doubt that the M1A1 is a very very good tank. However it is heavy and has a short range. I wonder if they will ever be used. Our Leopard tanks which we have had for 30 years have nver been overseas. They are not in iraq, did not go to Solomons, East Timor, Somalia or Afghanistan. Will the heavy M1A1s do better?

Currently we have 100 Leopard 1 tanks. These have been very good, however they are getting old. Perhaps an alternative might have been an upgrade for the Leopards, with night vision capability and ceramic armour upgrade to deal with hollow charge wepaons. Keep the Leopards going for a few years more, then get a light tank up and running, such as M1 AGS, or the S.. ( name escapes me). These being air transportable in C130, with add on armour, increasing to 24.5 tonne in case of M1 AGS.

I do wonder if 63 tonne M1A1s will actually ever be used. For defence of Australia their range seems short. Australia is huge, sorties of hundreds of miles would seem the norm (thus the 1000km range of Bushmaster). In overseas deployment I wonder if the 63 tonne weight would reduce their chance of actually being used. Being harder to transport (yes we are getting C-17s) and harder to move on poor roads and bridges. There is a real chance on next overseas deployment we will leave M1A1s at home and rely on LAV25 as our armoured support!!

We have no tanks in Aghanistan, the Canadians have brought Leopards there, if we had C130 transportable light tanks would we use them there?

the M1A1 has much better armour compared to 24.5 tonne with add on armour - M1 AGS. However the AGS armour can apparently repel RPGs and 14.5mm HMG fire on the sides, and is even thicker at the front. Assuming that we are not invading syria, perhaps protection from missiles is the more pertinant point. How much better is M1A1 against Kornet, Milan, TOW and similar compared to AGS, and if M1A1s never go oversease then maybe the comparison should be between AGS and M113. By the way there is no chance we would buy Bradleys, too heavy.

regards
peterAustralia

[rickshaw]

post #111 is your's

In #120 & #121 you claim to be quoting me, when you are not.

[lobbie111]

I think we would of been better off going for something like the French Lerec just looking at the specifications on the lerec make it lok a better option than the Abrams, I mean don't get me wrong the Abrams is an extremly good tank but it hasn't proved itself in the Iraq war in that the tank was up against little opposition, the Iraqies diddn't have a modern battle tank to stand up to the Abrams they only had outdated T-72's.

The Lerec on the other hand has been proven against some opposition in the North Africa region with great successes and there is a tropicalised variant just budding to get into Australian conditions, it has the same armarments as the Abrams and the Lerec is more network capable fitting in with the Hardened Networed army Doctrine with a squadron level BMS device which the Abrams and any other tank doesn't have.

Ith also carries a wider range of protection such as infra red and electromagnetic decoy flares. The Abrams is heavier, slower, and has less range.

The only downside is the price, the lerec is double that of he abrams costing around ten million

[alexsa]

I think we would of been better off going for something like the French Lerec just looking at the specifications on the lerec make it lok a better option than the Abrams, I mean don't get me wrong the Abrams is an extremly good tank but it hasn't proved itself in the Iraq war in that the tank was up against little opposition, the Iraqies diddn't have a modern battle tank to stand up to the Abrams they only had outdated T-72's.

The Lerec on the other hand has been proven against some opposition in the North Africa region with great successes and there is a tropicalised variant just budding to get into Australian conditions, it has the same armarments as the Abrams and the Lerec is more network capable fitting in with the Hardened Networed army Doctrine with a squadron level BMS device which the Abrams and any other tank doesn't have.

Ith also carries a wider range of protection such as infra red and electromagnetic decoy flares. The Abrams is heavier, slower, and has less range.

The only downside is the price, the lerec is double that of he abrams costing around ten million

Personally I like the Challenger II. One of the most capable tanks in the world but is currently fitted with a 120 mm rifled tube which does not use ammuntion that the 'standard' 120mm smooth tube can use.

I understand it was a serious contender in the competition to fill the same shoes as the M1A1 but the tube was an issues (I could be wrong on this). Apparently the UK are going to refit a 120mm smooth bore but this would have left thos units purchased by Australia as orphans operating wiht 120mm rifled units.

[lobbie111]

I believe we need to distance ourselves from american technology and start producing our own technology or get into bed with Europe for theirs

[Wooki]

greetings from melbourne

this being my first post here, no doubt i will stuff something up. Having read that we are getting M1A1s I have mixed feelings about it. First I think it is good that we are getting new tanks...

...regards
peterAustralia

and

I think we would of been better off going for something like the French Lerec just looking at the specifications on the lerec make it lok a better option than the Abrams, I mean don't get me wrong the Abrams is an extremly good tank but it hasn't proved itself in the Iraq war in that the tank was up against little opposition, the Iraqies diddn't have a modern battle tank to stand up to the Abrams they only had outdated T-72's.

The Lerec on the other hand has been proven against some opposition in the North Africa region with great successes and there is a tropicalised variant just budding to get into Australian conditions, it has the same armarments as the Abrams and the Lerec is more network capable fitting in with the Hardened Networed army Doctrine with a squadron level BMS device which the Abrams and any other tank doesn't have.

Ith also carries a wider range of protection such as infra red and electromagnetic decoy flares. The Abrams is heavier, slower, and has less range.

The only downside is the price, the lerec is double that of he abrams costing around ten million

Pete, Lobbie, I think you will find that Australia is already the proud owner of several (a whole train load) M1A1 AIM tanks and they are being integrated into The Australian Army as we speak.

Aussie Digger can point you to the appropriate thread with nice photos of them coming off the boat.

cheers

w

[lobbie111]

Yes I realise that but I was just expressing that I think it would be better if we had of gotten different tanks

[FutureTank]

That the T72 is a "medium tank by design". Who claims that? You?

Yes, this is my claim.

The Soviet and Russian sources call tanks since T-64B ‘missile-gun’ tanks, or alternatively use the Western 'main battle tank', but the design is more then the name implies more.

Here is what one Russian publication says about tanks classification:
Боевые свойства танков, а также и других машин бронетанкового вооружения в значительной степени определяются их боевой массой. Исходя из этого в Советском Союзе до конца 50-х годов использовалась так называемая весовая классификация объектов бронетанкового вооружения. В соответствии с этой классификацией танки делились на четыре типа: малые-до 5 т, легкие-от 5 до 20 т, средние-от 20 до 40 т и тяжелые - больше 40 т.
(ОБЩАЯ ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКА БРОНЕТАНКОВОГО ВООРУЖЕНИЯ)

The combat characteristics of tanks, and also other machines of armored armament to the significant degree are determined by their combat mass. The so-called weight classification of the objects of armored armament was used on the basis of this in the Soviet Union prior to the end of the 50's. In the correspondence with this classification the tanks divided into four types: small- to 5 t, light- from 5 to 20 t, medium - from 20 to 40 t and heavy - more than 40 t.
(from Common characteristics of armoured armament; junior officer course)

The T-64, and T-72 were designed to fulfil a doctrinal role, and that role has not changed since T-34. What has changed is that the need for the heavy tank that used to accompany the T-34 is no longer there, having been merged into the medium tank design. The role of the light tank has been similarly incorporated, this time into the BMP design, although by Soviet 1950s classification of the BMP is a heavy armoured car in the BMP-R role.

The need for a heavy tank was largely for breaking through the enemy defences, and that required (given fortified enemy defences) large mobile guns. To mount a large gun on a tracked chassis for this role required it to survive intense defensive fire, and hence large amounts of armour. However since WW2 much of Germany’s urban architectural construction is on par with WW2 methods of constructing field and permanent fortified regions (prior to WW2 it was largely on the 1870s standards, buildings having 50-70 years in structural utility in early 20th century). Virtually every village in Germany could become a fortified point of defence to be reduced. There would not be enough heavy tanks for this.

Soviet designers may have been able to produce heavier tanks, but Soviet industry could never produce enough of them, particularly during post-WW2 reconstruction. With Stalin’s death, in 1954 the reality of this was realised, and the Ministry of Defence was asked to reconsider the methods for further operations in Europe if it comes to that.

One important point.
Until sometime in 1956 no-one in the World realised the true effects of nuclear weapons, i.e. radiation. Heavy tanks were considered adequate to protect the crew against the blast effect of nuclear weapons, and there were serious considerations to convert Soviet tank fleet to heavy and even super-heavy models to advance through nuclear corridors, however T-54’s much heavier hull compared to the T-34 was judged adequate after initial Soviet testing of nuclear weapons.

When the effects of radiation were realised, so were the inadequacy of the heavy armour as protection against radiation. Installation of anti-radiation and later chemical filtration systems made the T-54s almost as viable on the battlefield as the IS-10/T-10 (which only mounted a 122mm gun; note early debate between the use of 105mm and 120mm guns in NATO that came later).

However due to armour development, and the ability to mount a large gun on a chassis essentially of same size as T-55 (through use of autoloader) allowed the qualities of heavy tank incorporated into the specifications of a medium tank, increasing its overall characteristics. This means that all tank units could standardise and conduct tactical and operational manoeuvre without regard to specifics of their technical design. This is not something anyone has thought about in Western Europe since 1943, so the idea is quite foreign to tank design where all tanks are made heavy for reasons other then the pre-1956 threat of nuclear weapons.

This is why I suggest that the Soviet designs retain medium tank features as the core of its thinking. However I would not call the T-72/90 either a medium or a main battle tank, but rather a multi-purpose tank since thanks to its ATGW it also has an anti-helicopter capability, so an MPT for me ;)

[FutureTank]

The role of the light tank has been similarly incorporated, this time into the BMP design, although by Soviet 1950s classification of the BMP is a heavy armoured car in the BMP-R role.

I just realised that despite opposition from Cavalry branch in US Army, and Recnnaissance Troops Directorate in USSR, both branches ended up with a heavy version of what they really wanted :onfloorl:

[alexsa]

I believe we need to distance ourselves from american technology and start producing our own technology or get into bed with Europe for theirs

Why?

Actually it is not the technolody so much but having systems and logisitics that can be supported by a range of allies.

Even the UK is going this way whcih is the reason I understand they are looking at retubing the challengers. the M1A1 is a massive capability boost for Australia and is entering service so it is all a moot point.

One thing I am curious about is the ABDR introduced forthcoming changes being examined in the 2007 top 2017 capbility review including phase 2 of the MBT purchase. Does anybody in the business know if it possible this may considerr additional M1's?

[Wooki]

...
One thing I am curious about is the ABDR introduced forthcoming changes being examined in the 2007 top 2017 capbility review including phase 2 of the MBT purchase. Does anybody in the business know if it possible this may considerr additional M1's?

I would say it is a very good possibility, barring Australian politics. GDLS are certainly ready and willing to comply with such a request.

cheers

w

[alexsa]

Thanks Wooki, it would be good news it it comes off. Now all we need is the Pz2000 and things will be looking up.

[Wooki]

Thanks Wooki, it would be good news it it comes off. Now all we need is the Pz2000 and things will be looking up.

I'm staying right out of that one. ;) I'm a little bemused as to how the Australian DMO operate, as it is.

I think it would be nice if someone could come up with a DMO flow chart of who to avoid and how to push things through... You could make a lot of money selling it to the french and spanish, germans, etc.

cheers

w

[alexsa]

I'm staying right out of that one. ;) I'm a little bemused as to how the Australian DMO operate, as it is.

I think it would be nice if someone could come up with a DMO flow chart of who to avoid and how to push things through... You could make a lot of money selling it to the french and spanish, germans, etc.

cheers

w

I don't know haw theya re supposed to operate but having been involved in providing 'advice' on one occasion (as an outside agency) it was one of the few times I have to admit to being absolutely 'gob smacked' about the lack of real world experaicne of some of those involved (I alos have to recognise that this could have been a one off scenario).

Mind you this was before Defmin Nelson .... he seems to be causing some ripples, will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

[rickshaw]

Personally I like the Challenger II. One of the most capable tanks in the world but is currently fitted with a 120 mm rifled tube which does not use ammuntion that the 'standard' 120mm smooth tube can use.

I understand it was a serious contender in the competition to fill the same shoes as the M1A1 but the tube was an issues (I could be wrong on this). Apparently the UK are going to refit a 120mm smooth bore but this would have left thos units purchased by Australia as orphans operating wiht 120mm rifled units.

Why? We could have merely updated them at the same time or later, after the British had proved the process.

The Challenger suffers from the same strategic mobility problems though, that the M1a1 AIM does. While its an excellent vehicle and in some ways superior (with its diesel engine, instead of the fuel-hungry gas-turbine), it is still far too heavy for our needs.

The same goes for the LeClerc. However the LeClerc does have one advantage - its armour level can be tailored to the situation. Which means when in normal use, we could have light armour levels on it and if/when we encounter a foe who utilises MBTs, we could simply put the heavy armour panels on in their place.

[FutureTank]

2020, actually.
LAND 400 wasn't around. M113AS3 were seen as a cheap way of obtaining an upgraded M113. Unfortunate, project creep set in with the end user stating they wanted more bells and whistles at every turn. Tenix rubbed their hands and said, "yeah, that'd be a good idea!" And so costs blew out and now Tenix and the Army find themselves with a vehicle that is neither Arthur or Martha. The numbers to be produced have halved and we end up with an upgraded M113 which will be barely adequate to the role envisaged for them.

My information is that the desired start of production should be around 2015.

I should correct you somewhat ;)
While the M113AS is no 'knight in shinig armour', it is a 'Martha'...somone for long held to be the best thing since sliced bread only to turn out to be a fraud :confused:

[FutureTank]

Having read that we are getting M1A1s I have mixed feelings about it.

Welcome Peter.

Others no doubt will offer justification on why we are getting the M1 and why it has to be a heavy tank. I have recently given my resons for change of mind, and will leave it at that.

On a more philosophycal basis, the tanks are just one of many defence systems Australia has and needs to have as a society in an inperfect World.

One other such system created about the same time the Leopard 1 was purchased is the Federal Police anti-terrorist unit. It seems to me the unit has not fired a shot in anger since its formation, and I think I speak for most Australians when I say that that is just the way I like it. I'm sure the people who serve in the unit would love a chance to prove they have the training to do what is required if there was an event requiring their deployment, but thank God they are insurance for, and not the routine in Australia's daily life.

So far no-one has suggested the unit be disbanded for lack of use.

Cheers

[rickshaw]

Actually, it didn't. the Acronym MBT didn't appear until the second-half of the 1950s. During WWII, Medium Tanks were just that, Medium Tanks which was abbreviated as Med.Tk.
Yes, correct What I meant was that before and during WW2 tanks were differentiated, and if anyone said MBT, they would be referring to a medium rather then the ‘main’ tank.


You're contradicting yourself. Indeed, this appears to be babbling, perhaps you shouldn't be posting so late at night? I'm sorry. You cannot admit that the acronym didn't exist and wasn't used and then claim they used it in the next breath. :rolleyes:


Again, I believe you are wrong. The M26 was redesignated from a Heavy Tank to a Medium Tank after WWII..
Yes, this is what I said. AFTER WW2 the US redesignated the already existing M26 into a medium tank, however this was for a very brief period. Soon after the light tanks were also redesignated as airborne, and light tanks disappeared as a class of vehicle along with the medium tanks. As part of the redesignation the freshly mediumed M26 became ‘main’.


No, it did not. The first US MBT was the M48. Until then, they were still simply designated "medium". Light tanks were not redesignated "airborne" until the advent of the Sheridan, some 15 years later. While the designation may have changed, what the vehicle was, didn't.


The A41 Centurion was, I think you'll find, redesignated a Medium Tank, post-war. It was not designated a Main Battle Tank until the appearance of the Mark 5/2 in IIRC 1959, equipped with the L7 105mm gun.
Yes, the UK went along with the US on this because Churchill had already foreseen the need for an anti-Soviet alliance with Americans. The 50s were a weird time for dank development.


Well, actually, as far as I can determine, it was the British who were the first to term the designation "Main Battle Tank" after the Russians used the term, to describe the Centurion. So if anybody was leading and if anybody was following, I think you have the order reversed.


You're right that Pz.IV production was never halted, however you're wrong, I believe that resources were diverted to Panther and Tiger production.


I must apologise. I appear to have missed the word "not", before the word "siphoned" when I typed that yesterday. Would you care to readdress that point? I am well aware that Guderian fought tooth and nail to prevent the diversion of material away from the Panzer IV production, which was attempted several times.


They were, and in many ways. Experienced engineers, design team members working on different parts of the alternative subsystems, the ironing out of all the problems in testing, the creation of new production lines, the retraining of all the experienced production personnel (not to mention finding them in wartime), the actual steel (and it was a different steel manufacturing process to Pz-IV), the new engine, the training of new, and retraining of old crews. All this is hard enough in peacetime, but is a real headache in wartime even for the uber-organised Germans. It is one of the reasons neither the Soviets nor the Allies changed their primary tank designs despite Stalin being offered an alternative to T-34. Americans went so far as to even keep the same hull from a pre-war design!


Errr, the Sherman was a completely new design, retaining only the suspension from the pre-war M2 Medium. The hull was completely new, as was the turret. It is one of the reasons why the M3 Medium was introduced as a stop-gap - because while its hull was only modified from the M2, it was easier to produce a casemented mounting for the 75mm gun than a turret mounting, in the time available. Indeed, the M4 underwent such transformation during its production run that it could be claimed that the M4a3e8 which came out at the end of WWII was a completely different vehicle compared to the M4 which started it. So to claim that the Americans stuck with the same vehicle is a bit silly, really. The designation was the same and it was an evolutionary process but it was so advanced that it might as well have been revolutionary. Further, you appear to be ignoring the fact that the Soviets were in the throws of introducing the T44 at war's end, which was a completely revolutionary vehicle compared to the T34.


Bit simplistic but essentially correct. However, this is essentially AMERICA's design philosphy, not the UK's. Within the American doctrine, there was a division between specialised Tank-Destroyers and Tanks. Tanks were intended to be universal in their application, they were intended to be able to destroy both tanks and support infantry (through the use of HE), whereas Tank-Destroyers were intended to be specialist units who's primary function was to seek out and destroy the enemy's armour, hence an emphasis upon AP ammunition in their guns and HE was provided much as an afterthought.
In the UK, the division was, as you've already hinted at, between Infantry and Cruiser tanks. Infantry or "I" tanks were intended to follow infantry closely and support them in their advance over the battlefield to achieve a breakthrough of the enemy's defensive line. Cruiser tanks were, as you've suggested, akin to the Cavalry and were intended to exploit that breakthrough and harry and pursue the retreating enemy. However, in both, because of a belief in the use of Artillery as the primary means of support (and hence the provision of neutralising and destructive firepower) upon the battlefield as a result of experiences in WWI, British tanks were initially not provided with HE ammunition. The 2 Pdr gun was capable of firing HE and had a HE round (two were in fact developed, one in Australia which was base fused and one in the UK which was nose fused) but it was not widely issued until early 1944, when the use of the 2 Pdr was then limited to the SW Pacific (in Australian Mathildas and AT guns) and NW Europe (in Armoured Car Regiments). It had been superseded by 6 Pdr and 75mm guns, both which fired HE. In the UK's philosophy (doctrine is in many ways, too rigid a word), Tank-Destroyers were an aberration and while they were used, the units largely came under the control of the Royal Artillery, which saw them more as mobile, protected AT guns, rather than armoured units.
Rickshaw, please accept my apologies for the simplistic description but although I like to write things up, I also understand the forum is not for short essays.


Short essays are sometimes necessary to make things clear. Two paragraphs is not excessive and it made it very clear that your points were too simplistic and contrasted the differences between US and UK design/doctrinal philosphies.


Yes, the British philosophy/doctrine was different, but they were stuck with the Sherman from 1941. Doctrine is faster to type, and better defines the application of thinking about use of troops. The interesting thing is that US and UK both shared the belief in the infantry, hence the infantry support tanks that dominated the armoured fleet. What the UK doctrine never tried to address is how they would react to an enemy that failed to stand still for the infantry to engage.

Of course it did. It assumed that the infantry would advance until they engaged the enemy. That advance would be mechanised, indeed the UK's army was the only one which entered the war entirely mechanised.


Rubbish. Balderdash. Armies still use the designation Light, Medium, Heavy and Main to describe their tanks. It has absolutely nothing to do with their weight, it has in fact everything to do with both their armour and their intended function within a military's doctrine.
Main Battle Tank is how all armies refer to their tanks.


That may be the case for the US but even they refer to other force's tanks according to the classications Light, Medium, Heavy and Main.

[color="purple"]
For transportation they are load classed. The light tanks are sometimes known as reconnaissance vehicles. The load classes used in most armies do not refer to weight of tanks. Originally the reference was to the weight of the tank…which is of course the armour plating. I think the British had some thing like 5 armour classes that referred to the plating, but they were not termed as light or medium but had coding I think.

Care to provide a reference for that?


In the West all tanks are deceptively known as the Main Battle Tank because this is the only type of tank produced.


As I said, that maybe how the US refers to its own vehicles but it is not even how they refer to others' vehicles, FutureTank.


Again, rubbish. Light tanks were still produced until recently, with the Scorpion, Stingray and the Sheridan coming immediately to mind. Much of their role has however been overtaken by converted APCs, mounting light-tank like turrets.
Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) or, CVR (T) family. The full design name is Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Fire Support (Scorpion).


"A rose by another name would smell as sweet". The Scorpion is a light tank, FutureTank. The MoD might have fallen victim to foot in mouth disease but the rest of the knows when its being offered a silk purse or a sow's ear.


Stingray lacks a designation by the US Army. The M8 is known as a ‘gun system’ though.
M551 Sheridan was known as armored reconnaissance/airborne assault vehicle at various times, but only as a light tank by the manufacturer I think in the XM phase.
Even the Soviets dislike having light tanks, the PT-76 is an Amphibious tank.

Invariably its referred to as a "light tank" by all and sundry. Describing it as an "ampbibious tank" merely describes its abilities.


An artificial division, I'd suggest based more upon your obviously mistaken and preconceived ideas on this matter. As I've said, the designation owes more to the amount of armour carried but ultimately, it depends upon where the vehicle sits in relation to doctrine and how it is employed by the military that owns it. Essentially, it’s all relative anyway and such designations tend to be far more fluid and non-rigid than your definition would have it.
It may be that I am "mistaken and preconceived in ideas", but they are not mine.


They may not be but as I've never read them before today, I must assume they are your's unless you provide a reference to them.


Pre-WW2 the European armies viewed tank designs in very much the same way cavalry selected horses a century earlier. Nowhere is it easier to see then the Soviet Army which started WW2 with everything from multi-turreted monsters to light tankettes in its AFV fleet. In every doctrine in Europe there was a need for multiple types of AFVs to fill their niche in their complex still-in-development employment in battle. By the end of the war it was clear that one type of tank could do most of the work with the exception of reconnaissance. This design issue was never really solved.


Wasn't it? We have, as you've noted, a steady movement away from specialisation towards generalisation. I'd suggest that the prime motivator of this has been economics, rather than necessarily because there is no longer a need for specialisation in AFV design. When the money is short, even militaries must trim their sails to fit the cloth they have. The result has been that the MBT has become the maid of all work and like Jack, the master of none as well.

Doctrine has followed to suit this circumstance, rather than being driven by strategy.


No, designations are not fluid, the direction of design philosophy is. The designs try to satisfy the tactical demands and these are rigid. The multitude of different tanks in use during the pre-WW2 period supports this rigidity (this AFV does job X, and that AFV does Y), and for the UK even the separation of responsibility for different types of AFVs among the Corps. The selection of a single type after WW2 supports the fluidity in use of a single tank design. The words just reflect the change.
I think the semantics are on your behalf in regards to “amount of armour carried” since this is the major material of manufacture in the tank. However the designation of light, medium, heavy, cruiser, cavalry, etc., all relate to the speed rather then armour of the tanks.


According to whom? Again you have produced what I can only describe as being a bizarre definition which has no relation to any theoretical or technical work that I have ever read. Whereas mine has a founding in the works of Fuller, Liddel-Hart, Guderian, etc., et al.

[color="purple"]
This, and not armour, was seen as the important factor since it was considered impossible to operate very large cannon in a moving tank (after stopping) with any accuracy before WW2. The designations in English were applied by former cavalry officers who had to give away their mounts. Trivial, but true.

Really? According to whom? Guderian was a ex-Transport and Signals. Liddel-Hart was ex-Infantry. Fuller was ex-Infantry. Von Manstein, ex-Infantry. Zhukov, ex-Cavalry. Triandafillov & Pavlov ex-Cavalry. Patton was ex-Cavalry, Bradley, ex-Infantry. I'd suggest that you're over-emphasising the effect of the cavalry mentality on armoured vehicle classifications.


Oh, look, if the balloon had really gone up in Europe, how many tanks a side had would have been immaterial 'cause they'd all be running around on a giant glass ashtray until their fuel ran out, anyway.
Are you suggesting NATO would have used nuclear weapons on their own troops?


No. Not intentionally, perhaps however they would have been "collaterial damage" without a doubt and I don't doubt that the WarPac was seriously about using them on NATO troops. However, personally I don't think too many people would be overly able to identify which direction the warheads came from, the end result would be the same - a glass ashtray parking lot.


Of course not. Are you suggesting that the Soviets would have used nuclear weapons on the NATO forces? Of course not, because you know that the Soviet strategy was an overthrow of the capitalist regimes in Europe, and this meant the proletariat was not to be incinerated.


Ah, now you're talking about whether or not a war was likely. I agree that it was extremely unlikely, except by mistake or miscalculation that war would break out on either side. Neither side was as deadly serious about war as they made out to be, both had far too much to lose if it was to occur. However as the events of 1983 proved, war was a possibility and if it was to occur, it was extremely likely that the plans which did exist as we now know from the Cold War History Project, that it would go nuclear and it would go early, rather than later.


For this purpose they had created an army of special forces with the express purpose of disabling NATO WMD stocks before they could be used. Would NATO use nuclear weapons on its own territory if it was being overrun? Would the UK and USA use nuclear weapons on Germany, or even Poland or Hungary? I doubt it, but I’m glad we will never find out.

No we won't. However, as I said, the Cold War History Project has revealed a great deal about WarPac plans. From what we know from other sources, its highly likely that NATO had similar plans. The result would have been like Taylor's hypothesis about WWI - a railway timetable to annilation which once started, could not be interrupted IMO.


This would explain why they continued to pursue heavy tank design until well into the 1960s, now would it? Furthermore, they put one or two more vehicles which they, themselves designed as "heavy tanks" into operational service in the early-mid-1950s (T-10). It would also explain why they kept the IS-2 and IS-3 in service into the 1960s as well. The role of the Heavy Tank has always been both inside and outside Russian doctrine as that of a "breakthrough tank" - one which could support the infantry in close assault of the heaviest enemy defences and help achieve a breakthrough. It is why the Soviet's chose the large, heavy calibre guns that they did, despite the limitations that using both split ammunition and such a large calibre, imposed on their vehicles. While Soviet doctrine emphasised manoeuvre operations, it also realised that on the relatively narrow frontages available in Northern Europe that before manouevre could be achieved, a breakthrough was necessary, hence the need for Heavy Tanks.

However, when NATO adopted the equivalent of a heavy tank gun, the L7 105mm on a medium tank chassis the "Main Battle Tank" became a popular way of describing it. At a stroke the Heavy Tank was basically rendered obsolete and started to fade from sight.
[COLOR="Purple"]Not quite. You are correct in describing the Soviet post-WW2 doctrine, but in 1955 all heavy tank regiments were removed from tank divisions and reformed into eight heavy tank divisions. These existed until 1958 (the year T-55s received NBC system when Soviets realised the true effects of radiation). In early 1960s the recently mothballed heavy tanks were reassigned to the fortified regions, mostly along the Chinese border with four battalions of four companies each. Because there were insufficient heavy tanks, T-34-85s were also used. T-10 was the last of the ‘heavies’. However a very small number of independent heavy tank battalions were retained at Front level for dealing with ‘hard’ targets until the early 80s.

True but then the role of the heavy tank had been overtaken by the MBT. The need for such a vehicle was no longer there as each heavy tank cost approximately twice the cost of an MBT, the Soviets went for quantity over quality. Further, the addition of the ATGW to the inventory meant that no heavy tank was likely to be able to survive for long.

[rickshaw]

My information is that the desired start of production should be around 2015.


That maybe the desired date but going by present performance I suspect they will be extremely lucky to make it, unless they go for a complete COTS solution.


I should correct you somewhat ;)
While the M113AS is no 'knight in shinig armour', it is a 'Martha'...somone for long held to be the best thing since sliced bread only to turn out to be a fraud :confused:

Oh, the M113AS is everything they always expected it to be. It isn't though, necessarily what they've started claiming it will be, while they are engaged in an exercise of COYA. :lol:

[alexsa]

Why? We could have merely updated them at the same time or later, after the British had proved the process..

Yes ...... but at additional cost.

The Challenger suffers from the same strategic mobility problems though, that the M1a1 AIM does. While its an excellent vehicle and in some ways superior (with its diesel engine, instead of the fuel-hungry gas-turbine), it is still far too heavy for our needs.

The same goes for the LeClerc. However the LeClerc does have one advantage - its armour level can be tailored to the situation. Which means when in normal use, we could have light armour levels on it and if/when we encounter a foe who utilises MBTs, we could simply put the heavy armour panels on in their place.

Big call ... what are our needs? The army appear to be looking for an armour vehicle that can operate with our allies, not a bad thing. They also appear to be of the opinion that we will need heavy armour.

On what do you base your view that this is not something we need?

[rickshaw]

Yes ...... but at additional cost.


As the old saying goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Of course, we could design the contract to include the cost of the upgrade.


Big call ... what are our needs? The army appear to be looking for an armour vehicle that can operate with our allies, not a bad thing. They also appear to be of the opinion that we will need heavy armour.

On what do you base your view that this is not something we need?

On the basis of my strategic assessement of what the role of the ADF should be. I do not believe we should be fighting America's wars for America. I believe we should be defending Australia's interests, for Australian reasons. Sometimes the two will coincide but we should recognise that won't always. To put it bluntly, I am of the Continental Defence school, rather than the Forward Defence school of strategic thought. Therefore, the primary function of the ADF is defence of our continent and its territories. Its secondary function is to defend our interests outside that primary area of strategic interest. The M1a1 AIM does not fit into that view IMHO.

[drjn]

and is also bloody great for morale of the grunts.

As an ex grunt I agree 100% with this statement. Nothing better when you are assaulting an objective than having a bloody great tank with you not only suppressing but also drawing the enemy's fire.

[FutureTank]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
Actually, it didn't. the Acronym MBT didn't appear until the second-half of the 1950s. During WWII, Medium Tanks were just that, Medium Tanks which was abbreviated as Med.Tk.
Yes, correct What I meant was that before and during WW2 tanks were differentiated, and if anyone said MBT, they would be referring to a medium rather then the ‘main’ tank.

You're contradicting yourself. Indeed, this appears to be babbling, perhaps you shouldn't be posting so late at night? I'm sorry. You cannot admit that the acronym didn't exist and wasn't used and then claim they used it in the next breath. .

MBT was not used as an acronym before WW2 that I know of (could be wrong). However IF you said to someone 'MBT' in reference to armour, they would think 'medium', although they would not know what B stood for. All Commonwealth manuals I have seen actually say 'medium tank'.
If someone said MBT in the mid 50s, the reference would be to a 'main battle tank'.

[lobbie111]

Sorry if this question has already been asked but what exactly distinguishes the Australian Abrams from their American counterparts..?

[Aussie Digger]

2020, actually.



LAND 400 wasn't around. M113AS3 were seen as a cheap way of obtaining an upgraded M113. Unfortunate, project creep set in with the end user stating they wanted more bells and whistles at every turn. Tenix rubbed their hands and said, "yeah, that'd be a good idea!" And so costs blew out and now Tenix and the Army find themselves with a vehicle that is neither Arthur or Martha. The numbers to be produced have halved and we end up with an upgraded M113 which will be barely adequate to the role envisaged for them.

Land 106 was always designed to provide Army with 350 upgraded M113AS3/4's. They are still getting 350 vehicles. Where's the "halving" coming from?

Guys WRT to the M1A1 v Leclerc issue, the Australian M1A1 AIM tanks weight 63 tonnes in combat configuration. The French Leclerc weighs 56 tons, WITHOUT the recent "urban survivability" kit which consists of amongst other things much more armour. It would not be significantly different to the M1A1 AIM in my opinion. It HAS proved demonstrably un-reliable in-service however, something which the M1A1 has NOT...

In relation to range, no heavy armoured tracked vehicle has a great range. Leclerc has a n "openly" posted range of 500k's. M1A1 has a range of 430k's. With the heavior armour package, the range of the Leclerc will reduce. Range issues are however solved through logistical means and I agree that a slightly inferior range is a disadvantage, but M1A1's HAVE proved themselves on operations. I'm not aware of Leclerc's having to engage in tank on tank battles or withstand a heavy ATGW threat. Perhaps you could provide a link to the Leclerc's operational performance. I can provide a link supporting the M1A1's operational performance if you wish to learn more...

[FutureTank]

Again, I believe you are wrong. The M26 was redesignated from a Heavy Tank to a Medium Tank after WWII..

Yes, this is what I said. AFTER WW2 the US redesignated the already existing M26 into a medium tank, however this was for a very brief period. Soon after the light tanks were also redesignated as airborne, and light tanks disappeared as a class of vehicle along with the medium tanks. As part of the redesignation the freshly mediumed M26 became ‘main’.

No, it did not. The first US MBT was the M48. Until then, they were still simply designated "medium". Light tanks were not redesignated "airborne" until the advent of the Sheridan, some 15 years later. While the designation may have changed, what the vehicle was, didn't..

Could be you are right. I don't have a date and a model for the first tank to be refered to as 'MBT'. However having had the argument over the M551 before I was assured by those who crewed it that it was not designated as a 'light tank' anywhere in US Army publications.

[lobbie111]

Could be you are right. I don't have a date and a model for the first tank to be refered to as 'MBT'. However having had the argument over the M551 before I was assured by those who crewed it that it was not designated as a 'light tank' anywhere in US Army publications.

Incorrect the M551 Sheridan was designed as an MBT but the acronym meaning Medium Battle Tank

[FutureTank]

In relation to range...

Its not possible to design a tank with 1000km unrefuled range for under 75-80 ton :)

I doubt Australian tanks would ever be called upon to conduct sustained operations unrefuled for even 250km during combat deployments.

Usually the combat range is half the stated range due to all kinds of 's**t' that happens in combat (or expected combat for which M1 was designed, i.e. Cold War Europe) which may prevent the crew from being refueled.

Typically tank engagements are short, and confined to a relatively small area, so the actual range required is probably about 100-150km. This is what Soviet designs count on....3 days of operations unrefueled. So it seems if anything M1 is over-ranged for an MBT :confused:

[FutureTank]

The A41 Centurion was, I think you'll find, redesignated a Medium Tank, post-war. It was not designated a Main Battle Tank until the appearance of the Mark 5/2 in IIRC 1959, equipped with the L7 105mm gun.
Yes, the UK went along with the US on this because Churchill had already foreseen the need for an anti-Soviet alliance with Americans. The 50s were a weird time for dank development.

Well, actually, as far as I can determine, it was the British who were the first to term the designation "Main Battle Tank" after the Russians used the term, to describe the Centurion. So if anybody was leading and if anybody was following, I think you have the order reversed..

Ok, news to me :)
I never actually sat down to get to the source so full marks for research to you

[lobbie111]

when the future generations of tank come about I believe they will only weigh 35-45t and it will be possible to go 1000km on one tank but thi will be a long time away

[FutureTank]

You're right that Pz.IV production was never halted, however you're wrong, I believe that resources were diverted to Panther and Tiger production.

I must apologise. I appear to have missed the word "not", before the word "siphoned" when I typed that yesterday. Would you care to readdress that point? I am well aware that Guderian fought tooth and nail to prevent the diversion of material away from the Panzer IV production, which was attempted several times.

Nope, I stand by what I said. Not only that, but I was proven wrong for thinking otherwise by someone with very hard facts years ago.

The Germans were caught between a rock and a hard place with tanks. They needed a new tank to counter T-34, but could not switch production away from Pz-IV. What also hindered was that the T-34 was assessed to be too crude to copy, aside from the need to preserve German engineering self-respect. After that it was all poletics of the design engineers, their companies, Hitler, and senior panzertroopen officers.

[gf0012-aust]

Could be you are right. I don't have a date and a model for the first tank to be refered to as 'MBT'. However having had the argument over the M551 before I was assured by those who crewed it that it was not designated as a 'light tank' anywhere in US Army publications.


Interesting, when I was in hawai'i a couple of years back I went to the army museum - the Sheridan was listed as originally being :

M551 Sheridan Light Armored Reconnaissance Tank (http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=30)

it was also listed as:

Air Assault Light Tank

at the Israeli Armoured Corps Tank Museum and the Anniston Army Depot.

[FutureTank]

They were, and in many ways. Experienced engineers, design team members working on different parts of the alternative subsystems, the ironing out of all the problems in testing, the creation of new production lines, the retraining of all the experienced production personnel (not to mention finding them in wartime), the actual steel (and it was a different steel manufacturing process to Pz-IV), the new engine, the training of new, and retraining of old crews. All this is hard enough in peacetime, but is a real headache in wartime even for the uber-organised Germans. It is one of the reasons neither the Soviets nor the Allies changed their primary tank designs despite Stalin being offered an alternative to T-34. Americans went so far as to even keep the same hull from a pre-war design!

Errr, the Sherman was a completely new design, retaining only the suspension from the pre-war M2 Medium. The hull was completely new, as was the turret. It is one of the reasons why the M3 Medium was introduced as a stop-gap - because while its hull was only modified from the M2, it was easier to produce a casemented mounting for the 75mm gun than a turret mounting, in the time available. Indeed, the M4 underwent such transformation during its production run that it could be claimed that the M4a3e8 which came out at the end of WWII was a completely different vehicle compared to the M4 which started it. So to claim that the Americans stuck with the same vehicle is a bit silly, really. The designation was the same and it was an evolutionary process but it was so advanced that it might as well have been revolutionary. Further, you appear to be ignoring the fact that the Soviets were in the throws of introducing the T44 at war's end, which was a completely revolutionary vehicle compared to the T34..

No, the M4 hull was a modified M3 hull withthe side gun-port eliminated, and turret ring redesigneed to take a larger turret. If you look a the pre-production M4 hull you can see where the M3 hull gun gunner's station retained its hatch, but this was removed from production vehicles.

Actually the T-43 was suggested for introduction into production when Panthers and Tigers appeared, but was rejected. The T-44 went into very limited production, but by then it didn't matter. They were not "in the throws" of introducing the T-44. The real crisis was in 1943 with T-34-85 introduction because there was a problem with the gun production and mounting it in the turret.

[FutureTank]

Yes, the British philosophy/doctrine was different, but they were stuck with the Sherman from 1941. Doctrine is faster to type, and better defines the application of thinking about use of troops. The interesting thing is that US and UK both shared the belief in the infantry, hence the infantry support tanks that dominated the armoured fleet. What the UK doctrine never tried to address is how they would react to an enemy that failed to stand still for the infantry to engage.

Of course it did. It assumed that the infantry would advance until they engaged the enemy. That advance would be mechanised, indeed the UK's army was the only one which entered the war entirely mechanised..

I think you meant "entirely motorised"

[FutureTank]

Armies still use the designation Light, Medium, Heavy and Main to describe their tanks. It has absolutely nothing to do with their weight, it has in fact everything to do with both their armour and their intended function within a military's doctrine.
[color="Purple"]Main Battle Tank is how all armies refer to their tanks.

That may be the case for the US but even they refer to other force's tanks according to the classications Light, Medium, Heavy and Main..

The US DoD policy is to use designation in use by foreign armies.

[FutureTank]

For transportation they are load classed. The light tanks are sometimes known as reconnaissance vehicles. The load classes used in most armies do not refer to weight of tanks. Originally the reference was to the weight of the tank…which is of course the armour plating. I think the British had some thing like 5 armour classes that referred to the plating, but they were not termed as light or medium but had coding I think.

Care to provide a reference for that?.

Which part?

[FutureTank]

In the West all tanks are deceptively known as the Main Battle Tank because this is the only type of tank produced.




As I said, that maybe how the US refers to its own vehicles but it is not even how they refer to others' vehicles, FutureTank..

Yes, during the Cold War the US refered to Soviet tanks as 'medium'. However the NATO standard for MBT is 'main'.

There is a reason for that also :) (think about it)

[FutureTank]

Light tanks were still produced until recently, with the Scorpion, Stingray and the Sheridan coming immediately to mind. Much of their role has however been overtaken by converted APCs, mounting light-tank like turrets.
Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) or, CVR (T) family. The full design name is Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Fire Support (Scorpion).

"A rose by another name would smell as sweet". The Scorpion is a light tank, FutureTank. The MoD might have fallen victim to foot in mouth disease but the rest of the knows when its being offered a silk purse or a sow's ear..

I have had a number of these discussions, and it is strangely appropriate in discussion of an M1 purchase.

Defence departments in most countries do not employ idiots who can't tell a light tank from a reconnaissance 'vehicle'. All vehicle designation in armies, and other services for that matter, is a matter of policy.

Hopwever the argument you make is that vehicles should be designated according to their function, so let's take that one step further.

The Australian Army had a modified M113 'vehicle' with a Scorpion turret mounted on it. Is that a light tank?
The BMP is better armed then most WW2 light tanks. Should the BMP as used by the recon troops be classed a light tank? Keep in mind the original light tanks were made for recon troops and the crew were expected to dismount for scouting when required.
The BFV is as heavy as a light tank, and is also used by scouts.

Now look at it from the DoD point of view.
The generals in democracies need to ask for money to equip their troops from politicians and bureaucrats who, though they may have their best intentions at heart, by and large just don't have the experience and knowledge of employing troops in battle. All they can go on is the intelligence provided to them on which to base the budget decisions.

Some functions in battle are undeniably better served by light tanks. Imagine if the Australian Army asked for a recon squadron which incorporates light tanks for each brigade just like the Stingrays Thailand bought. The decision maker would ask for the threat these tanks would counter, and its hard to explain that while there is no threat, IF a brigade was deployed, it is better served in battle by light tanks incorporated into the recon teams.

Others, in fact in this very thread, suggest that what Australia needs are more deployable tanks. So maybe the Army would suggest that it should have at least a squadron of these same Stingrays as the quickly deployable tank force. The question would then be, are two Stingrays better then one Abrams, and there is no simple answer.

These are the reasons that British Army has no light tanks, and neither does the US Army, or any European Army I think. Even the AMX-13 is designated reconnaissance vehicle by most armies as I already said. The French used to designate them Char to make their tank fleet look much larger then it was.

So what is a light tank? Are the ASLAV-25 light tanks? They do the same work as their predecessors during WW2.

Now imagine if the purchase of the M1 was announced to the public as for a heavy tank. The opposition would have a field day asking in the Parliament why Australia needs a heavy tank. Fortunatelly they know better :)

[rickshaw]

Could be you are right. I don't have a date and a model for the first tank to be refered to as 'MBT'. However having had the argument over the M551 before I was assured by those who crewed it that it was not designated as a 'light tank' anywhere in US Army publications.

gf0012-aust's post suggests otherwise, FutureTank.

[FutureTank]

An artificial division, I'd suggest based more upon your obviously mistaken and preconceived ideas on this matter. As I've said, the designation owes more to the amount of armour carried but ultimately, it depends upon where the vehicle sits in relation to doctrine and how it is employed by the military that owns it. Essentially, it’s all relative anyway and such designations tend to be far more fluid and non-rigid than your definition would have it.
It may be that I am "mistaken and preconceived in ideas", but they are not mine.

They may not be but as I've never read them before today, I must assume they are your's unless you provide a reference to them..

References? Where would I begin?

Designations changed with force structures and doctrines. There is no single reference. Its the ability to encompas the knowledge and evaluate it in terms of historical trends.

[rickshaw]

Its not possible to design a tank with 1000km unrefuled range for under 75-80 ton :)

I doubt Australian tanks would ever be called upon to conduct sustained operations unrefuled for even 250km during combat deployments.

Usually the combat range is half the stated range due to all kinds of 's**t' that happens in combat (or expected combat for which M1 was designed, i.e. Cold War Europe) which may prevent the crew from being refueled.

Typically tank engagements are short, and confined to a relatively small area, so the actual range required is probably about 100-150km. This is what Soviet designs count on....3 days of operations unrefueled. So it seems if anything M1 is over-ranged for an MBT :confused:

Except, as the British in their Challenger I's noted during Gulf War I - they often passed the US tank units who were forced to halt for refuelling, whereas their diesel powered vehicles just kept on going. On average, I understand, the British armoured units required half the logistic tail for POL that the equivalent US unit required. While tanks might not travel far, because of the use of tracks, they proportionally require more power to do it, so hence have a higher fuel consumption. When you couple that with a gas-turbine, which is in itself notoriously fuel hungry, because it runs at near full revs, all the time, then idle times on the march consume more fuel than for an equivalent diesel powered vehicle.

[FutureTank]

Even the Soviets dislike having light tanks, the PT-76 is an Amphibious tank.

Invariably its referred to as a "light tank" by all and sundry. Describing it as an "ampbibious tank" merely describes its abilities.
.

No. Soviet requirement in AFV design is that they must have AT capability even if limited. When PT-76 was brought into service, the Soviet Army bent over backwards to make the point that it was NOT a light tank, because the light tanks of WW2 were armed with 57mm guns at most. They even put the weapon size into the tank's designation which is unique in Soviet tank designs. PT-76 is, as far as Soviet tank directorate is concerned, is in a class of its own, but a tank never the less.

I was told once that PT-76 was at first considered a failure because someone in Politburo was unwilling to recognise that it was beyond even Soviet engineers to design an amphibious medium tank :)

[FutureTank]

In every doctrine in Europe there was a need for multiple types of AFVs to fill their niche in their complex still-in-development employment in battle. By the end of the war it was clear that one type of tank could do most of the work with the exception of reconnaissance. This design issue was never really solved.

Wasn't it? We have, as you've noted, a steady movement away from specialisation towards generalisation. I'd suggest that the prime motivator of this has been economics, rather than necessarily because there is no longer a need for specialisation in AFV design. When the money is short, even militaries must trim their sails to fit the cloth they have. The result has been that the MBT has become the maid of all work and like Jack, the master of none as well.

Doctrine has followed to suit this circumstance, rather than being driven by strategy..

Ah, we have reached the 'chicken or the egg' part :)

This is easy for you to say now, but it was far from clear in the early days of AFV design.

However I would disagree. The tank is still the master of long range direct fire while conducting manoeuvre. The versatility with which it has been used only adds to this primary function. Missile platforms lack the flexibility and survivability despite challenging the firepower of the tank.

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, during the Cold War the US refered to Soviet tanks as 'medium'. However the NATO standard for MBT is 'main'.

There is a reason for that also :) (think about it)

Funnily enough. the Leo1 is referred to as a Medium Battle Tank in DiggerHistory. (as are its derivatives,
Medium Battle Tank Dozer (MBTD)
Medium Battle Tank Mine Clearer (MBTMC)
Medium Battle Tank Mine Plough (MBTMP) )

The Sherman and Bulldog are also officially referred to at various stages as Medium Battle Tanks.

Tenix also refer to the Leo1 upgrades and refits as Medium Battle Tanks.

Some of the cold war doco I have on the T55 and T72's also refers to them as being Medium Battle Tanks. Whereas later on the T72 is referred to as a Main Battle Tank.

The definition seems somewhat violate depending on the time period invoked

[alexsa]

As the old saying goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Of course, we could design the contract to include the cost of the upgrade.



On the basis of my strategic assessement of what the role of the ADF should be. I do not believe we should be fighting America's wars for America. I believe we should be defending Australia's interests, for Australian reasons. Sometimes the two will coincide but we should recognise that won't always. To put it bluntly, I am of the Continental Defence school, rather than the Forward Defence school of strategic thought. Therefore, the primary function of the ADF is defence of our continent and its territories. Its secondary function is to defend our interests outside that primary area of strategic interest. The M1a1 AIM does not fit into that view IMHO.

Sorry you canot have it both ways. We are a continent and much of the the Australian mainland, being open desert, lends it self to rapid movement of mechanised military. Armour fits into this.

The M1A1 AIMS is not a stand alone system but is intended to be part of an ingreated system inlcuing the NLOS call for fires system being sourced in land 17 along with land 400 for the combat inforamtion system.

One of the biggest falacies of the political mind set I have seen is the idea we can purchase cpability when we need it. This is nonsense as skills develoment makes up a large part of this. You cannot do this without the gear.

In my mond we haveht poteantion for cross training with our allies, we are feilding state of the art gear and developing skills for what, in the grand scheme of thins, is minimal cost.

[FutureTank]

Funnily enough. the Leo1 is referred to as a Medium Battle Tank in DiggerHistory. (as are its derivatives,
Medium Battle Tank Dozer (MBTD)
Medium Battle Tank Mine Clearer (MBTMC)
Medium Battle Tank Mine Plough (MBTMP) )

The Sherman and Bulldog are also officially referred to at various stages as Medium Battle Tanks.

Tenix also refer to the Leo1 upgrades and refits as Medium Battle Tanks.

Some of the cold war doco I have on the T55 and T72's also refers to them as being Medium Battle Tanks. Whereas later on the T72 is referred to as a Main Battle Tank.

The definition seems somewhat violate depending on the time period invoked

I have never seen M551 refered to as MBT.

What DiggerHistory and Tenix say is their own business. In English the NATO standard is Main Battle Tank.

I have US Fm for Soviet forces, and all tanks there are medium even in 1984 when Soviets had already adopted 'main', including the T-80.

[FutureTank]

Interesting, when I was in hawai'i a couple of years back I went to the army museum - the Sheridan was listed as originally being :

M551 Sheridan Light Armored Reconnaissance Tank (http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=30)

it was also listed as:

Air Assault Light Tank

at the Israeli Armoured Corps Tank Museum and the Anniston Army Depot.

Sorry, but not good enough :)
These are just online sites that put captions on the basis of 'near enough, good enough'. There was a discussion on a Vietnam forum on this if you have a search.

[gf0012-aust]

I have never seen M551 refered to as MBT.

and your point is? Your comments were about light tanks and that the Sheridan was never one. It clearly is. It has 4 designations over time referring to Light Tank status.

What DiggerHistory and Tenix say is their own business. In English the NATO standard is Main Battle Tank.

err, no its not. Aberdeen and Knox - US Army official museums refer to them as Mediums under NATO definitions of the time.

BTW, the Tenix document is based on a tender submitted by ADF. Are you suggesting that ADF don't know their own tank definitions when setting an RFT?

I can assure you that when we assessed tender submissions we made damn sure that the respondent matched the RFT exactly. If not they went to Tray 3 automatically. Its the Governments business.

FM Manuals: I can show you an FM that says a Garrand is a sniper rifle - if you believe that then I can sell you the Sydney Harbour Bridge for mates rates.

I have US Fm for Soviet forces, and all tanks there are medium even in 1984 when Soviets had already adopted 'main', including the T-80.

so what? Fort Bliss - one of the US Army Official museums for all things armour refers to them as Medium at a point in time - and then Main..

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry, but not good enough :)
These are just online sites that put captions on the basis of 'near enough, good enough'. There was a discussion on a Vietnam forum on this if you have a search.


Oh balderdash. The museum in Hawai'i is an Official US Army Museum - its not an online site at all.

You can't go out and cherry pick fan club or subject sites that support your argument - and then dismiss something that is an official museum just because it doesn't fit your argument.

who do I believe? a US army museum or a vietnam war internet site - gee, hard choice!

[FutureTank]

Oh balderdash. The museum in Hawai'i is an Official US Army Museum - its not an online site at all.

You can't go out and cherry pick fan club or subject sites that support your argument - and then dismiss something that is an official museum just because it doesn't fit your argument.

who do I believe? a US army museum or a vietnam war internet site - gee, hard choice!

I followed your link...

Well, I don't know, but those who served in M551 never knew it as either an MBT or a light tank. The Patton Museum at Ft Knox describes it as XM551_Armored Airborne Reconnaissance Vehicle (AARV Sheridan) and M551 Full Tracked, Armored, Airborne Assault Vehicle, but also describes both the Sherman and the Patton as Medium tanks.

Quite frankly I didn't know Leopard 1 was originally purchased as a medium tank. Interesting that.

[FutureTank]

This, and not armour, was seen as the important factor since it was considered impossible to operate very large cannon in a moving tank (after stopping) with any accuracy before WW2. The designations in English were applied by former cavalry officers who had to give away their mounts. Trivial, but true.

Really? According to whom? Guderian was a ex-Transport and Signals. Liddel-Hart was ex-Infantry. Fuller was ex-Infantry. Von Manstein, ex-Infantry. Zhukov, ex-Cavalry. Triandafillov & Pavlov ex-Cavalry. Patton was ex-Cavalry, Bradley, ex-Infantry. I'd suggest that you're over-emphasising the effect of the cavalry mentality on armoured vehicle classifications.
.

"The designations in English were applied by former cavalry officers"

So why bring Liddel-Heart and Fuller into it, never mind non-English speakers?

[rickshaw]

No, the M4 hull was a modified M3 hull withthe side gun-port eliminated, and turret ring redesigneed to take a larger turret. If you look a the pre-production M4 hull you can see where the M3 hull gun gunner's station retained its hatch, but this was removed from production vehicles.


I don't doubt that will come as a surprise to Mr. Hunnicutt who's book on the Sherman I have on my bookshelf beside me. I suspect you are mistaking the side hull door, which was a common feature on US tanks at that point. It was not placed beside the "hull gunner" (whom I presume you mean is the co-driver) but rather beside the turret. It was quickly eliminated from the design. It does not mean that the M4 hull was a modified M3 one. The prototype hull was a completely new design, made specifically to mount the new turret.


Actually the T-43 was suggested for introduction into production when Panthers and Tigers appeared, but was rejected. The T-44 went into very limited production, but by then it didn't matter. They were not "in the throws" of introducing the T-44. The real crisis was in 1943 with T-34-85 introduction because there was a problem with the gun production and mounting it in the turret.

They were "in the throws" - in that the vehicle had entered production and was just reaching units when the war ended. The vehicle wasn't, in the end a success, being quickly superceded by the T-54, which had a superior turret shape and had ironed out most of the automotive problems of the T-44 style hull. However, they did try the design out and start the move away from the T-34.

[FutureTank]

For this purpose they had created an army of special forces with the express purpose of disabling NATO WMD stocks before they could be used. Would NATO use nuclear weapons on its own territory if it was being overrun? Would the UK and USA use nuclear weapons on Germany, or even Poland or Hungary? I doubt it, but I’m glad we will never find out.

No we won't. However, as I said, the Cold War History Project has revealed a great deal about WarPac plans. From what we know from other sources, its highly likely that NATO had similar plans. The result would have been like Taylor's hypothesis about WWI - a railway timetable to annilation which once started, could not be interrupted IMO.

I find this hard to accept. Use of nuclear weapons makes neither military, economic or political sense despite the Project research.

[rickshaw]

Sorry you canot have it both ways. We are a continent and much of the the Australian mainland, being open desert, lends it self to rapid movement of mechanised military. Armour fits into this.


True. However, how likely is it that we will have an opponent who will have both the armour of their own to warrant the need for an MBT and the means to move it here. Further, while most of the continent is ideal for armour, that doesn't necessarily mean it must be MBTs. "Armour" comes in several different forms, ranging from light to heavy.


The M1A1 AIMS is not a stand alone system but is intended to be part of an ingreated system inlcuing the NLOS call for fires system being sourced in land 17 along with land 400 for the combat inforamtion system.

One of the biggest falacies of the political mind set I have seen is the idea we can purchase cpability when we need it. This is nonsense as skills develoment makes up a large part of this. You cannot do this without the gear.


True. However, the question remains, what is the role of the ADF? Is it to defend the nation or engage in expeditionary warfare at the behest of our "great and powerful friends" as Menzies called them? If it is the former, then we need not only the means to undertake it but it must be part of an integrated strategy and doctrine. Having MBTs sounds nice but what value are they when we don't have the means to move them to where we wish to use them?


In my mond we haveht poteantion for cross training with our allies, we are feilding state of the art gear and developing skills for what, in the grand scheme of thins, is minimal cost.

This can be achieved whether we have MBTs or not.

[rickshaw]

I find this hard to accept. Use of nuclear weapons makes neither military, economic or political sense despite the Project research.

Find it hard to accept as much as you like. The documentation which the Cold War History Project has published indicates otherwise.

[FutureTank]

True but then the role of the heavy tank had been overtaken by the MBT. The need for such a vehicle was no longer there as each heavy tank cost approximately twice the cost of an MBT, the Soviets went for quantity over quality. Further, the addition of the ATGW to the inventory meant that no heavy tank was likely to be able to survive for long..

Yes, there is no need for a heavy tank now.
However I'm not sure the cost estimation you suggest is true. A very significant part of the cost of M1 is in its electronics rather then the armour.

Soviets did not go for quantity over quality. They used a tank designed for their doctrine and available manpower, that is non-professionals. For their requirements the design was of appropriate quality.

I have my doubts in superiority of the ATGW over even a medium tank, particularly where the platforms are integrated into tasks of an infantry unit as opposed to a dedicated tank destroyer unit. It has an intial ambush value, but low survivability on the modern battlefield (add against well trained troops).

[FutureTank]

Except, as the British in their Challenger I's noted during Gulf War I - they often passed the US tank units who were forced to halt for refuelling, whereas their diesel powered vehicles just kept on going. On average, I understand, the British armoured units required half the logistic tail for POL that the equivalent US unit required. While tanks might not travel far, because of the use of tracks, they proportionally require more power to do it, so hence have a higher fuel consumption. When you couple that with a gas-turbine, which is in itself notoriously fuel hungry, because it runs at near full revs, all the time, then idle times on the march consume more fuel than for an equivalent diesel powered vehicle.

How were they 'passing' if they were operating in own sector? Possibly they were passing through a US unit?

US units are however more lavishly equipped with support transport, so saying that the British use less logistic tail may not be quite reflecting the truth.

[Aussie Digger]

True. However, how likely is it that we will have an opponent who will have both the armour of their own to warrant the need for an MBT and the means to move it here. Further, while most of the continent is ideal for armour, that doesn't necessarily mean it must be MBTs. "Armour" comes in several different forms, ranging from light to heavy.



True. However, the question remains, what is the role of the ADF? Is it to defend the nation or engage in expeditionary warfare at the behest of our "great and powerful friends" as Menzies called them? If it is the former, then we need not only the means to undertake it but it must be part of an integrated strategy and doctrine. Having MBTs sounds nice but what value are they when we don't have the means to move them to where we wish to use them?



This can be achieved whether we have MBTs or not.

We CAN move our MBT's where we wish. How exactly did they get from the USA to Australia?

How did they get from a Wharf in Melbourne to Puckapunyal? I'm pretty sure our C-17 didn't move them all...

As to the futile DoA v "Expeditionary" styled ADF, what's the difference in equipment levels exactly?

In our "DOA" optimised Army, we operated MBT's, APC's, wheeled armoured recon vehicles, 155mm and 105mm howitzers, helo gunships, transport helo's, short ranged GBAD capabilities and a predominantly light infantry force as the major capabilities of our land forces.

WHAT is the difference now? We operate the same TYPE of capabilities only the new ones are far more capable as individual platforms, which is natural seeing as though they are a generation (at least) more advanced. What exactly makes it "expeditionary" now? How politicians DESCRIBE the force?

Sorry, but this argument is for academics, who make no real difference either way to defence capability present or planned.

[rickshaw]

"The designations in English were applied by former cavalry officers"

So why bring Liddel-Heart and Fuller into it, never mind non-English speakers?

'cause Liddel-Heart and Fuller are English and they were two of the main armour theorists for that nation? Let me add, Martel whom was an ex-Engineer. Wavel, an ex-Infantry officer and author of the all-important "purple primer". Birch, was a gunner by trade, as well.

Tne non-English examples were to prove that the English weren't isolated, BTW.

[rickshaw]

We CAN move our MBT's where we wish. How exactly did they get from the USA to Australia?


Via ship, of course. Where can we unload them, once they arrived? How can we move them from the ports, once they are unloaded? I've been over this several times already - our transport infrastructure is not designed to carry the loads that these vehicles and their transporters constitute. Most of the roads aren't designed for it. Most of the bridges aren't designed for it. Most of the railways aren't designed for it. The ports (with the exception of three) aren't designed for it.


How did they get from a Wharf in Melbourne to Puckapunyal? I'm pretty sure our C-17 didn't move them all...


Nope but the road to Pucka is was strengthened a longtime ago to allow it. How do they intend to move them to Darwin? You might have missed the note but the Minister announced that Darwin would need special cranes and wharves installed to allow these vehicles to be unloaded there. The Ghan railway isn't designed to carry them - the axle loadings on the flatbed railtrucks are too high. The same for the road bridges in the NT - as it is, civvie road-trains have to be uncoupled to cross many of the roadbridges in the NT. How are you going to get a tank across? Swim it, when the rivers are in flood? :rolleyes:


As to the futile DoA v "Expeditionary" styled ADF, what's the difference in equipment levels exactly?


Depends upon the strategy to be employed. Doctrine and equipment should be determined by strategy, not the otherway 'round.

[FutureTank]

'cause Liddel-Heart and Fuller are English and they were two of the main armour theorists for that nation.

They are?!!! We are not on the same page I fear :confused:
I always considered them very infantry-oriented in thinking, particularly Liddel-Heart.

[rickshaw]

I have my doubts in superiority of the ATGW over even a medium tank, particularly where the platforms are integrated into tasks of an infantry unit as opposed to a dedicated tank destroyer unit. It has an intial ambush value, but low survivability on the modern battlefield (add against well trained troops).

The Russians have long employed ATGW vehicles, as I understand it, as flank guards and overwatch vehicles. Where the visibility is suitable, they can pick off targets at ranges exceeding that of MBT guns. Their armour allows them usually to survive the initial response.

[Waylander]

Just a small question.

Do most of your streets are really that weak that they cannot handle a truck with an Abrams on it?

This should be not more than 100 tons.

[rickshaw]

They are?!!! We are not on the same page I fear

So it would appear.

[rickshaw]

Just a small question.

Do most of your streets are really that weak that they cannot handle a truck with an Abrams on it?

This should be not more than 100 tons.

The roads aren't necessarily the problem (although extended use at such weights could present a problem as the road surface detoriates). It is primarily the bridges.

[Waylander]

No bridgelayers and deep forging kits available?

[Aussie Digger]

Via ship, of course. Where can we unload them, once they arrived? How can we move them from the ports, once they are unloaded? I've been over this several times already - our transport infrastructure is not designed to carry the loads that these vehicles and their transporters constitute. Most of the roads aren't designed for it. Most of the bridges aren't designed for it. Most of the railways aren't designed for it. The ports (with the exception of three) aren't designed for it.



Nope but the road to Pucka is was strengthened a longtime ago to allow it. How do they intend to move them to Darwin? You might have missed the note but the Minister announced that Darwin would need special cranes and wharves installed to allow these vehicles to be unloaded there. The Ghan railway isn't designed to carry them - the axle loadings on the flatbed railtrucks are too high. The same for the road bridges in the NT - as it is, civvie road-trains have to be uncoupled to cross many of the roadbridges in the NT. How are you going to get a tank across? Swim it, when the rivers are in flood? :rolleyes:

Depends upon the strategy to be employed. Doctrine and equipment should be determined by strategy, not the otherway 'round.

Army AND the Chief Engineer of the Northern Territory Transport Department (RTA equivalent) stated publicly that the roads in NT are more than sufficient to allow low-loaders carrying M1A1's to travel on them.

The rolling stock issue is being sorted with an RFT to be released sometime in 2007 to address the issue.

As to your "ports" issue. Army's new watercraft were specifically designed to be capable of carrying M1A1's, as are the rear ramps of Manoora and Kanimbla. The LHD's will be similarly capable of conveying them to wherever they're needed.

And as Army pointed out. The only other tanks it considered for ADF (due to their capability levels) Leo2A6 and Challenger II were of a similar weight to the M1A1 in combat configuration. Should Army continue to accept "lesser" capability? Hell no!

Tell you what mate. If the M1A1's arriving in March CANNOT make it to Darwin, without being airlifted, I'll make a public apology and announce you were quite correct in your concerns, okay?

Are you willing to do the same???

[FutureTank]

err, no its not. Aberdeen and Knox - US Army official museums refer to them as Mediums under NATO definitions of the time.

so what? Fort Bliss - one of the US Army Official museums for all things armour refers to them as Medium at a point in time - and then Main..

I see your Ft Bliss, and raise FtBragg's official 82nd Airborne division museum.
http://www.bragg.army.mil/18abn/MuseumPictures.htm
Half way down the page.
M551A1 Sheridan Armored Reconnaissance Airborne Assault Vehicle
Someone in US Army must be confused :)

[FutureTank]

I don't doubt that will come as a surprise to Mr. Hunnicutt who's book on the Sherman I have on my bookshelf beside me. I suspect you are mistaking the side hull door, which was a common feature on US tanks at that point. It was not placed beside the "hull gunner" (whom I presume you mean is the co-driver) but rather beside the turret. It was quickly eliminated from the design. It does not mean that the M4 hull was a modified M3 one. The prototype hull was a completely new design, made specifically to mount the new turret..

No, the M3 had a gunner for the hull mounted weapon. The co-driver was on the M4 (actually mostly the bow gunner). Haven't seen the book you refer to. My information comes from description of how the Sherman design and production was started up. My information says that the hull, chassis, suspension and engine were M3. The early M4A1s had M3 type three-piece differential and final drive housing.

They were "in the throws" - in that the vehicle had entered production and was just reaching units when the war ended. The vehicle wasn't, in the end a success, being quickly superceded by the T-54, which had a superior turret shape and had ironed out most of the automotive problems of the T-44 style hull. However, they did try the design out and start the move away from the T-34.
What do you mean by "in the throws"? By this stage the German panzers were so outnumbered that the T-34 production was actually reduced in the last few months of the war. It could be that the production was reduced to accomodate the T-44, but the three brigades that trained on them eventually went to Berlin mounted on T-34-85s.

[FutureTank]

when the future generations of tank come about I believe they will only weigh 35-45t and it will be possible to go 1000km on one tank but thi will be a long time away

Why the future? This is possible now :)

Tank's range is related to its weight since larger fuel tank requires more armour due to increased volume.

Just so you are aware, AFV range is not the only determinant of mobility. Range is measured in engine hours because an AFV may spend three hours sitting with the engine on idle, and the next 10 minutes could be rolling at top speed. Its not like a sedan which measures range travelled on a full tank. In combat AFVs will refuel when possible and will not wait until they have 10% of fuel left. One never knows when the next opportunity will come.

A tank is just a type of AFV designed using a balance or inbalance of four factors: crew survival, mobility, firepower and adaptability.

For example the M1 with a dozer blade attached can become a very handy field engineering tool.

However if the designing engineering team are asked to provide a design unbalanced to suit a particular role, that is also ok.

If you want a 40t tank that can go for 1000km before requiring a refuel, you are not going to have a turret, and the armour is going to be mighty thin and probably aluminium. It would also probably use whees rather then track to further reduce on the weight.

The French ERC 90 Sagaie has a range of 730km a weight of only 8.3t, so there is plenty of scope to play with design specs. The question is, does anyone want a medium tank with that sort of range?

However, IF ADF really did want the M1s to tear around the country under their own power, they could just attach external disposable fuel tanks like the Soviet designers have done since WW2. This probably will not give 1000km, but I would guess at least doublt the current capacity to 850km. Of course it will be major 'pit stop' after that little exercise :)

Actually, what is the track life on the M1?

[rickshaw]

Army AND the Chief Engineer of the Northern Territory Transport Department (RTA equivalent) stated publicly that the roads in NT are more than sufficient to allow low-loaders carrying M1A1's to travel on them.


The roads may be, the bridges aren't. If they have to uncouple road trains which have a lower peak axle loading than a tank transporter to cross the Adelaide River, then what do they think they'll need to do with the tank?


The rolling stock issue is being sorted with an RFT to be released sometime in 2007 to address the issue.


Rolling stock is not the issue. The Ghan line was built again, with much lower peak axle loadings in mind. The roadbed is not designed to carry the weights we're talking about. It was publicly stated by the Ghan's chief engineer in the Advertiser newspaper last year (or was it the year before?).


As to your "ports" issue. Army's new watercraft were specifically designed to be capable of carrying M1A1's, as are the rear ramps of Manoora and Kanimbla. The LHD's will be similarly capable of conveying them to wherever they're needed.


Moving them across the beach is slower than loading them in a port. It also appears rather, shall we say, short-sighted to need to load them across the beach?


And as Army pointed out. The only other tanks it considered for ADF (due to their capability levels) Leo2A6 and Challenger II were of a similar weight to the M1A1 in combat configuration. Should Army continue to accept "lesser" capability? Hell no!


Again, it comes down to what you believe the ADF should be doing. "lesser" capability is relative. "Lesser" would still be superior to the AFVs in our region.


Tell you what mate. If the M1A1's arriving in March CANNOT make it to Darwin, without being airlifted, I'll make a public apology and announce you were quite correct in your concerns, okay?

Are you willing to do the same???

I am not disputing the ability to move them to Darwin. I am disputing the ability to move them outside of Darwin. If they encounter difficulties moving them beyond Darwin, you willing to bet a bottle of red on it?