Australian M1A1 Abrams technology

[scraw]

No bridgelayers and deep forging kits available?


The two are discussing moving them via low loader or rail for exercises etc. A scenario where it doesn't really matter too much if they have to avoid some routes (truckies seem to manage every day).

Once you're talking the tanks running around themselves you're in a whole different ballpark.

[Waylander]

As long as it comes to the bridgelayers they can also be used for training deployment.
Just carry a bridgelayer with you and use it instead of the normal bridges. The question is are the rivers to big to use normal bridgelaying equipment.

[gf0012-aust]

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 :)

and yet when one of the museum caretakers takes you for a walk - he specifically says light tank as per the 2 designations I've previously mentioned.

One of the australian assessments of the sheridan when we were dicking around with post centurion replacement also refers to a sheridan M551 Sheridan Light Armored Reconnaissance Tank (http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=30), and I've seen numerous references to it being an Air Assault Light Tank.

Its never been an MBT - its certainly been a light tank through various stages of its life.

medium battle tanks aren't LAPED out the backside of a transport - light tanks are...

[eckherl]

and yet when one of the museum caretakers takes you for a walk - he specifically says light tank as per the 2 designations I've previously mentioned.

One of the australian assessments of the sheridan when we were dicking around with post centurion replacement also refers to a sheridan M551 Sheridan Light Armored Reconnaissance Tank (http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=30), and I've seen numerous references to it being an Air Assault Light Tank.

Its never been an MBT - its certainly been a light tank through various stages of its life.

medium battle tanks aren't LAPED out the backside of a transport - light tanks are...


You are correct in regards to the M551.

[blueorchid]

From Aussie Digger:-

"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."

Rickshaw,
AD was not quiet correct on his quote from the Chief Engineer, what he was reported to say was that N T's bridges were rated to 50 tonne axle weight.
The army's tank transporters easly fit under that condition.

Just a side to this in the Melbourne Sun Herald about two months ago in its motor section it had a report on a Queenslander trucker who had won the Aussie best rig, this rig towed a low loader capable of 160 tonne load all over Nth Qld for the minning ind. and was developing a loader capable of 450 tonnes over the same roads and bridges.
So moving the M1's all over Aussie by truck on our roads and bridges is not an issue. :)

[gf0012-aust]

Someone in US Army must be confused :)


In light of the fact that you want to quote FM's for validation -refer to FM 10-515: (In a game of technical accuracy poker - the FM manual beats the internet and a museum every time.... ;))


M551 Light Tank


Classification. Main characteristics of the M551 light tank include—

A rear engine.
An oval-shaped track and road wheel pattern.
A combined hull, turret, and gun pattern.
Side-View Identification. M551 light tank characteristics visible from both sides include—

A rear engine and rear exhaust, whose plume may be directed upward or rearward.
A low profile: low hull and a small, low, flat turret.
A wedge-like shape, with the wedge pointing to the vehicle's front and visible between 800 and 1,200 meters.
A high side decking.
Warm, slack tracks and (at short ranges) five evenly spaced road wheels.
A short gun tube that can be seen when the gun has recently fired.
Front-View Identification. M551 light tank characteristics visible from the front include—

A wide, low turret, whose sides extend almost over the tracks, providing a unique front view.
Warm tracks separated by a cool hull, visible as two red spots.
Effects of Motion. The M551 light tank's direction of movement may indicate the location of its engine. Other characteristics that observers could see when the M551 light tank moves include—

A transport system that becomes warmer and more visible during movement.
A slower bounce than a lighter vehicle.
Distinguishing Features. The M551 light tank has a wide, low turret (front view) and a wedge shape (side view). Otherwise, its signatures are difficult to distinguish from those of a T-62 tank.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

other FM's referring to Light Vehicle/Tank/Armor(sic) status inlcude:

FM 3-23.24 APPENDIX I Primary Recognition Cues
FM 7-20 Appendix D MECHANIZED-ARMOR/LIGHT AND SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES
FM 7-10 Appendix B

[rickshaw]

As long as it comes to the bridgelayers they can also be used for training deployment.
Just carry a bridgelayer with you and use it instead of the normal bridges. The question is are the rivers to big to use normal bridgelaying equipment.

Many of the rivers in the Northern Territory when in full spate during the wet are more than 500 metres wide and 15 metres deep. No AVLB can bridge that.

Further we did not purchase any AVLBs with the M1a1 AIMs as part of LAND 907.

[gf0012-aust]

Many of the rivers in the Northern Territory when in full spate during the wet are more than 500 metres wide and 15 metres deep.

my family owns a cattle station that has the Daly River as one of its borders.

we have a tinnie stuck up a gum tree some 12m up above the current water level. the frightening thing was that water level was reached within 36 hrs.

I've suffered personal ignominy by sinking a troopy. I paid the hubris price of thinking that because I knew the area I knew the location where I was crossing. result = 1 dead cruiser and a very very bruised ego - followed up by an equally withering attack by my grandfather about my lack of common sense.

driving back from darwin to howard springs in the late 70's I experienced "white water". Thats when you can't see the difference between the water on the road and the rain coming down. we stopped the troopy, left the engine on and all the spotlights on as a warning to other vehicles. when the rain stopped we saw another cruiser not 3 car lengths in front - and we hadn't seen it pulling over.

wet seasons can be an absolute "bar steward" - you don't appreciate the power of them until you've gone through a couple first hand.

[Aussie Digger]

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?

If they encounter difficulties moving the vehicles outside of normal training activities I will, though I don't drink same myself...

Army has announced that it expects no future problems in transporting it's Abrams as observed here: (http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6029)

AND that the 41x Abrams will be delivered by sea and off loaded in Darwin in March 2007. No doubt there will be quite a media circus in this occasion. We'll see then how much capability ADF has to move Abrams on and off ships from Darwin.

[PETER671BT]

18 of 59 tanks have been delivered and now we have less tanks but larger capablities in stronger armour and biocular image control unit,talin for far target location system,advance GPS reciever, a blue force tracker vechicle movement tracking system transponder,drivers vision enhanced,computer multi targeting systems.The abrams M1A1 AIM is an top buy for ADF,BUT I agree we would be better off with more of them.

[rickshaw]

If they encounter difficulties moving the vehicles outside of normal training activities I will, though I don't drink same myself...


Whatever your favourite tipple is, then.


Army has announced that it expects no future problems in transporting it's Abrams as observed here: (http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6029)


As Christine Keeler once observed during the Profumo scandal, "they would say that, wouldn't they?"

Back in the late 1950s IIRC, the Army moved a Centurion from Pucka to Canberra to demonstrate their ability to do so. I understand what they didn't tell the Opposition who had asked questions about it was that the journey took nearly a month. At every bridge, the Centurion had to be offloaded and driven through the watercourse and then reloaded. One hopes matters have improved but all the indications are otherwise IMO.


AND that the 41x Abrams will be delivered by sea and off loaded in Darwin in March 2007. No doubt there will be quite a media circus in this occasion. We'll see then how much capability ADF has to move Abrams on and off ships from Darwin.

They are, I understand putting a new crane and wharf in place there, especially for the Abrahms. I seem to remember a media release somewhere about it.

[gf0012-aust]

They are, I understand putting a new crane and wharf in place there, especially for the Abrahms. I seem to remember a media release somewhere about it.

To be fair - the crane and wharf upgrade was always going in irrespective of an Oz Abrams purchase. The Territorian govt had earmarked an entire facilities improvement programme in light of attracting and keeping US interest up. The shared training area helped cement that upgrade. So the crane and wharf bump was originally tagged approx 3-4 years ago.

The crane and wharf bump was also a reccomendation after timor '99. I remember being there in 99 and darwin harbour was like a UN shipping party. It was pretty apparent that apart from Oz logistics problems, the italians and portuguese were also struggling to offload concurrently.

The culmination of wharf choke during Timor and the addition of a bigger US presence with stored training always meant that upgrades were necessary with or without Oz abrams.

Re bridging, I was always under the impression that all main bridges in Oz were NATO compliant? The reason I raise it was that I was involved with some planning for wind turbine farms in Oz, one of the criteria was that the access roads had to meet their shipping standards - and the Int'l wind turbine shipping std is based on the NATO min height requirement of 5.5m.
So, any MBT's going along main access routes (be it rail or road) must be able to fit through 5.5m tunnels or points. IIRC, Queensland and the NT have the most compliant main roads/routes in the country.

[Aussie Digger]

Whatever your favourite tipple is, then.

As Christine Keeler once observed during the Profumo scandal, "they would say that, wouldn't they?"

They are, I understand putting a new crane and wharf in place there, especially for the Abrahms. I seem to remember a media release somewhere about it.

I think the crane may be there already. I seem to recall an exercise within the last couple of years where they deployed a large proportion of 1 Brigade to Shoalwater Bay by sea for an exercise. One of the main points of the exercise was to specifically demonstrate ADF's ability to move 1 Brigade by sea, from Darwin. I specifically recall the Leopard AS1's, parked on the wharf alongside the vessel being LIFTED" onto it...

I just found this: (http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=4094) discussion by Army and Navy about the deployability of the Abrams again too, after having not read it for quite some time.

This paragraph is somewhat pertinent to the discussion I find,

COMMODORE ALAN DUTOIT:
Yes good morning. I'll make the point as Army has made that tanks are not a new capability but it is just improving on the capability. It's the same for Navy. We are capable of carrying our current generation of Leopard tanks now and we'll be able to carry the new Abrams tank in the future, both with our current capability and indeed as we look to our future for these capabilities. And I make the point here that on a regular basis we carry heavy loads, you know the tank is over 60 tonnes. On both the Tobruk and the LPA as we carry the landing craft, the old CM8s, they come in at 65 tonnes with a 70 tonne crane on those ships. So we're used to moving heavy gear around, and it also applies to heavy plant and machinery. If there's a natural disaster within the nation or indeed in the region, we would have to be able to move out of shore as well. So it's within our means.

[rickshaw]

Re bridging, I was always under the impression that all main bridges in Oz were NATO compliant? The reason I raise it was that I was involved with some planning for wind turbine farms in Oz, one of the criteria was that the access roads had to meet their shipping standards - and the Int'l wind turbine shipping std is based on the NATO min height requirement of 5.5m.
So, any MBT's going along main access routes (be it rail or road) must be able to fit through 5.5m tunnels or points. IIRC, Queensland and the NT have the most compliant main roads/routes in the country.

Sounds like a height / width gauge. There are numerous tunnels and bridges which are not this height, that I know of in Victoria, South Australia, NT and WA.

[Waylander]

What about your railroad system? Isn't it sufficient to carry the tanks around the most important areas? Or is it not widespread enough?

@PETER671BT
What is the computer multi targeting system you are talking of?
Do you mean hunter/killer-capabilities?

[rickshaw]

What about your railroad system? Isn't it sufficient to carry the tanks around the most important areas? Or is it not widespread enough?


The rail system is relatively limited in scope. It has been degraded over the last 20 years as its been rundown. There is also a "break of gauge" problem between the states - although is less of a problem noadays - it is possible to send one train, on one gauge around the coast now from Brisbane to Perth whereas it used to require two/three changes of gauge, it still exists away from the mainlines which have now been mainly convered to standard gauge. The main north-south line, between Darwin and Adelaide was apparently built without consideration of the transport of items as heavy as an MBT (despite defence applications being one of the main justifications for it finally being completed in 2004). Apparently the roadbed and railway sleepers are not strong enough to carry the peak axle loading.

[gf0012-aust]

Someone in US Army must be confused :)

in addition, an email sent to me last night:

"Officially "Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle, M551"
Falls in the modern weight classification of a Light Tank (1974-75
Jane's Weapons Systems)"'

[gf0012-aust]

Sounds like a height / width gauge. There are numerous tunnels and bridges which are not this height, that I know of in Victoria, South Australia, NT and WA.

Not sure on my part. (the assessment was conducted 4 years ago)

I do recall that Qld was regarded as the most NATO compliant and that Victoria and Tas were the worst. NT was highest regarded for ease of movement percentiles. (included barging issues)

With the Vics there was a potential work around in the fact that some main bridges could still be usedif the flatcars were modified

[Smythstar]

Hi all.
One thing that suprisingly stood out 'To me' about this robust discussion so far is the vital importance of Australia getting a credible IFV like the CV9035, Puma or similar, something that could stand in for heavy armour during local tropical and Afghan style fly in deployments.

I agree we need heavy armour although my personal choice would have been Leo2A5/A6s (same chassis/driveline etc as the PzH2000) and twice the number.
However during the the above discussion and the many pearls of wizdom being tossed around I realised just how big the hole is in our capability.
Where we have a hole in our capability we risk lives and already we are seeing the Bushmaster (great B ech vehicle and battle cab) being pushed towards roles it wasn't really designed for.

It is timely with the battalions being refocused that the 2 Mech battalions fitted out as well as the rest of the Army.
We probably need to put the 50 year old aluminum bucket out of its misory
and look at getting something credible soon not in 2015 or 2020, this will save us lives and money in the long run with AFVs being easily deployed in the region and doing nearly as good a job as a tank but also complimenting the heavy armoured element if the sh-t hits the fan in a major way anywhere close or anywhere we 'HAVE' to attend for political reasons.

[Waylander]

The Leos don't have the same chassis and drivetrain like the PzH2000.

But I would also have been lucky if you bought the Leo IIA6, Puma, PzH2000 package. :D

[Smythstar]

They dont have the same chassies?

Ok I read somewhere some years ago before the PzH2000 entered service it was going to be based on the Leo II, which would make sense, but if it isnt it isnt and I stand corrected.
Well that throws a spanner in my theory after all having your SPGs and MBTs all running on the same baseline vehicle could be very sensible from a maintance and cost point of view, especially for a small Army like Australias.

Waylander was there a package deal?
I remember there were a couple of rumers going around Pukapunyal 96/97ish that a cheap buy of surplus Dutch Leopard IIa4s was on the cards, (115 for very little cost) so it seems the Europeans dont mind wheeling and dealing.

Also if anyone can confirm ive read several articles to the effect that the Lycoming gas turbine power plant that powers the M1a1 ended production in 1992?
If so are we going to be stuffed for parts or surely we could get another type of newer gas turbine or replace them with Diesels if required?

[gf0012-aust]

If so are we going to be stuffed for parts or surely we could get another type of newer gas turbine or replace them with Diesels if required?

Diesel packs are already available.

[PETER671BT]

What about your railroad system? Isn't it sufficient to carry the tanks around the most important areas? Or is it not widespread enough?

@PETER671BT
What is the computer multi targeting system you are talking of?
Do you mean hunter/killer-capabilities?
The commander of the looks through he's scope and fine a target,the computer also locks on that targets,the commander can fine up to 6-8 targets or more per minute.The computer tracks the targets while commanders looks for new targets.THen the gunner just as to press a button.

[Aussie Digger]

The rail system is relatively limited in scope. It has been degraded over the last 20 years as its been rundown. There is also a "break of gauge" problem between the states - although is less of a problem noadays - it is possible to send one train, on one gauge around the coast now from Brisbane to Perth whereas it used to require two/three changes of gauge, it still exists away from the mainlines which have now been mainly convered to standard gauge. The main north-south line, between Darwin and Adelaide was apparently built without consideration of the transport of items as heavy as an MBT (despite defence applications being one of the main justifications for it finally being completed in 2004). Apparently the roadbed and railway sleepers are not strong enough to carry the peak axle loading.

The Leopards have been transported via the railway network from Darwin to SA, along with ASLAV and M113 on any number of occasions.

An article from Army Newspaper in 2004 talks about the issue, and shows a photo of Leopard AS1 AND an M113 (around about 61 tons combined) being loaded onto the same wagon.

Check it out:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1094/topstories/story10.htm

It was also discussed in March 2006:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1139/topstories/story14.htm

[PETER671BT]

The new tank that usa is developing has even more advanced with some kind of laser technology,but I STILL TRYING TO TRACK THE NAME OF TANK.I don't think it's been named yet.

[rickshaw]

Diesel packs are already available.

Yes, however unless the US Army goes to diesel, which they have already ruled out, we won't, as it would make our M1s completely dissimilar to everybody else's M1s. As the major reason why we adopted the M1 was the large installed base of US Army M1s, which was to provide a large spare parts reserve compared to the Leopard 2, adopting a diesel pack would completely negate that gem of sophistry.

[rickshaw]

The Leopards have been transported via the railway network from Darwin to SA, along with ASLAV and M113 on any number of occasions.

An article from Army Newspaper in 2004 talks about the issue, and shows a photo of Leopard AS1 AND an M113 (around about 61 tons combined) being loaded onto the same wagon.

Check it out:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1094/topstories/story10.htm

It was also discussed in March 2006:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1139/topstories/story14.htm



If you're referring to the photos in the first article, neither show a Leopard and an M113 on the same flat truck.

In the second, no mention is made of loading Leopards and M113s on the same flat truck.

Again I refer you to the published comments of the company operating the Ghan line (can't remember if the spokesman was from AustralAsia Rail Corporation, the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium or FreightLink) in the Advertiser.

The ABS tells us that the axle loading limit on the Ghan line is 23 tonnes - http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/90a12181d877a6a6ca2568b5007b861c/5f1625bd3fed3230ca256f7200833048!OpenDocument

According to testimony provided to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services on 14 Jun'06:


CHAIR—Does the axle load thing start at Tarcoola or does it start at Adelaide? What is your axle load rating through to Darwin?

Mr Fullerton—On the Alice Springs to Darwin section we can operate at 23 tonnes at 115 kilometres an hour. I think on the ARTC network it is only 21 tonnes. I think that is limited by the 47 kilogram rail that they have on the corridor. When the line was constructed it was built pretty much to the interstate standard. You can operate locomotives and wagons from Brisbane to Darwin, from Perth to Darwin and from Adelaide to Darwin, across the corridor.

[FutureTank]

and yet when one of the museum caretakers takes you for a walk - he specifically says light tank as per the 2 designations I've previously mentioned.

One of the australian assessments of the sheridan when we were dicking around with post centurion replacement also refers to a sheridan M551 Sheridan Light Armored Reconnaissance Tank (http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=30), and I've seen numerous references to it being an Air Assault Light Tank.

Its never been an MBT - its certainly been a light tank through various stages of its life.

medium battle tanks aren't LAPED out the backside of a transport - light tanks are...

I think I am going to give this thread away as it proves nothing. Given the M551 never engaged other tanks (unless I am mistaken here also), it can only be refered to by the role it fulfilled in combat, which is a recon vehicle with a bloody big gun :)

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, however unless the US Army goes to diesel, which they have already ruled out, we won't, as it would make our M1s completely dissimilar to everybody else's M1s. As the major reason why we adopted the M1 was the large installed base of US Army M1s, which was to provide a large spare parts reserve compared to the Leopard 2, adopting a diesel pack would completely negate that gem of sophistry.

??? smythstar made the following comment:
If so are we going to be stuffed for parts or surely we could get another type of newer gas turbine or replace them with Diesels if required?


my answer albeit brief, was a confirmation that diesel packs were already an option - (and in fact were submitted as part of the initial offer. The diesel pack is referred to as "the euro pack" .)

I'm not sure what sophistry is involved here - the answer was not a promotion of intent, and politics was not entered into.

The fact of the matter is that the Europack was actually developed as a potential replacement to the AGT 1500. That was due to a number of reasons:


That technology was perfected in the late 1960s and has not been upgraded to keep up with advances in the commercial sector.
The last new AGT 1500 was delivered in 1992.
The newer versions of the Abrams, the M1A2 AIM and M1A2 XXI, use overhauled engines.
The AGT was the only successful application of a turbine engine in a military ground vehicle. In all other systems, the Army has converted to diesel engines.
Savings expected from a new engine (Europack) would stem from improvements in various categories, such as fuel consumption, number of parts and mean time between repairs.
A common diesel engine (ie, a 1,500 horsepower CV-12 Caterpillar Perkins diesel, paired with an HMPT transmission made by General Dynamics Land Systems) would result in efficiencies ranging from lower development costs, economies of scale on the production line, fewer spares to stock and manage, shared costs for tools and diagnostics, and common training skills. (This from their own program manager)
It would also result in a standard depot repair line.
US Army believed that the "overall logistics footprint would be reduced for both systems," (Michitsch briefing).

The bottom line however was that with the abandonment of Crusader, the imperatives for replacing the AGT with a diesel as part of major overhaul lost its shine.

Ironically, theres probably some evidence that the failure to go to diesel was due to the euthenasing of Crusader. The US is now stuck with an orphan engine in their supply chain (and ipso facto, so is Oz).

Thank goodness there are 12,000 engines in the pool.

[gf0012-aust]

I think I am going to give this thread away as it proves nothing.

au contraire. my involvement was because you indicated that the M551 was never a light tank by definition in any US official docs. All I've done is hilight that it was, and that it exists in some FM's as well as Janes (better and far more robust validators than a google search) ;)

Given the M551 never engaged other tanks (unless I am mistaken here also), it can only be refered to by the role it fulfilled in combat, which is a recon vehicle with a bloody big gun :)

the few american tankers I know (2 in total) thought that it was a piece of scatalogical material on tracks.

Its most useful role has been to wear body panels and pretend to be either a t-80 or a ZSU-23 flak tank. If it had gone to war against the soviets they would have died laughing and probably caused a traffic jam at the fulda gap.

[FutureTank]

Hi all.
One thing that suprisingly stood out 'To me' about this robust discussion so far is the vital importance of Australia getting a credible IFV like the CV9035, Puma or similar, something that could stand in for heavy armour during local tropical and Afghan style fly in deployments.

I agree we need heavy armour although my personal choice would have been Leo2A5/A6s (same chassis/driveline etc as the PzH2000) and twice the number.
However during the the above discussion and the many pearls of wizdom being tossed around I realised just how big the hole is in our capability.
Where we have a hole in our capability we risk lives and already we are seeing the Bushmaster (great B ech vehicle and battle cab) being pushed towards roles it wasn't really designed for.

We probably need to put the 50 year old aluminum bucket out of its misory
and look at getting something credible soon not in 2015 or 2020, this will save us lives and money in the long run with AFVs being easily deployed in the region and doing nearly as good a job as a tank but also complimenting the heavy armoured element if the sh-t hits the fan in a major way anywhere close or anywhere we 'HAVE' to attend for political reasons.

I wrote this with the US DoD in mind, but it applies to Australia also in many ways.
A look to the future...

The next 50 years will see armies go to alterantive fuels that may or may not provide the PTW ratios of fossil fuels and combustion engines, so the designs will need to be smarter in other ways to compensate for this.

Given the relationship between major oil producers and the Developed world, it is likely that the later will be the first to abandone fossil fuels, and this has already started with public transport.

In fact its the combustion revolution in reverse. Combustion engines were first adopted for luxury private transportation (and we have that already with hybrids), and then by the public transport. Military was next with gun tractors, and the heavier lorries, and then it was Ford's turn.

I think this process will repeat itself in same order. Luxury (or at least more expensive) private hybrid cars are already on sale, and many public transport authorities are converting to hybrid power-packs. The heavier military vehicles will be next, and I know there are significant efforts by various DoD commands and laboratories to find solutions.

Then I expect some sort of a minor advance in technology, like a super-cheap super efficient battery, to make combustion engines obsolete over a short period of time. This will in turn make domestic oil refineries uneconomic and even military fuels will go up in price so dramatically that DoD may have to turn to owning its own production to ensure supply.

The Air force will have a hard time keeping its aircraft flying, and will likely start converting to lighter aircraft models with much shorter ranges armed with glider missiles that stay up for a long time before engaging targets.

The Navy will begin to convert to a much smaller all nuclear fleet, and carriers will be converted to veritable floating batteries of VLSM tubes by the hundreds, retaining only a few aircraft to manage the payload targeting.

Comments?

Cheers

Admin: As much as we appreciate your enthusiasm, the majority of the above has little to do with the thread topic. Feel free to open it up in a new thread topic though.

[rickshaw]

I'm not sure what sophistry is involved here - the answer was not a promotion of intent, and politics was not entered into.


I was not referring to your comment as "sophistry" and I apologise if you misunderstood my comment in such a way. I was referring to the reasoning provided by the Army as to why the M1a1 was preferred over the Leopard 2.

[FutureTank]

In light of the fact that you want to quote FM's for validation -refer to FM 10-515: (In a game of technical accuracy poker - the FM manual beats the internet and a museum every time.... ;))


M551 Light Tank

Yeh you smart Alec...you forgot to show the manual title :D
AIRDROP OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT: RIGGING ARMORED RECONNAISSANCE/AIRBORNE ASSAULT VEHICLE (M551)

I'm giving this away AGAIN. It seems there was/is some confusion in US Army on tank classification. I have too much to do to spend time on this. :)

[FutureTank]

I wrote this with the US DoD in mind, but it applies to Australia also in many ways.
A look to the future...

The next 50 years will see armies go to alterantive fuels that may or may not provide the PTW ratios of fossil fuels and combustion engines, so the designs will need to be smarter in other ways to compensate for this.

Given the relationship between major oil producers and the Developed world, it is likely that the later will be the first to abandone fossil fuels, and this has already started with public transport.

In fact its the combustion revolution in reverse. Combustion engines were first adopted for luxury private transportation (and we have that already with hybrids), and then by the public transport. Military was next with gun tractors, and the heavier lorries, and then it was Ford's turn.

I think this process will repeat itself in same order. Luxury (or at least more expensive) private hybrid cars are already on sale, and many public transport authorities are converting to hybrid power-packs. The heavier military vehicles will be next, and I know there are significant efforts by various DoD commands and laboratories to find solutions.

Then I expect some sort of a minor advance in technology, like a super-cheap super efficient battery, to make combustion engines obsolete over a short period of time. This will in turn make domestic oil refineries uneconomic and even military fuels will go up in price so dramatically that DoD may have to turn to owning its own production to ensure supply.

The Air force will have a hard time keeping its aircraft flying, and will likely start converting to lighter aircraft models with much shorter ranges armed with glider missiles that stay up for a long time before engaging targets.

The Navy will begin to convert to a much smaller all nuclear fleet, and carriers will be converted to veritable floating batteries of VLSM tubes by the hundreds, retaining only a few aircraft to manage the payload targeting.

Comments?

Cheers

Admin: As much as we appreciate your enthusiasm, the majority of the above has little to do with the thread topic. Feel free to open it up in a new thread topic though.

Yes, I had second thoughts, but wasn't quite sure where to put it...and I don;t need rude suggestions either :D
However, fuel prices are going to affect ADF vehicle fleets also...in all Services.

[gf0012-aust]

I was not referring to your comment as "sophistry" and I apologise if you misunderstood my comment in such a way. I was referring to the reasoning provided by the Army as to why the M1a1 was preferred over the Leopard 2.

no probs, just another typical comms problem on the forum... :D

[gf0012-aust]

Yeh you smart Alec...you forgot to show the manual title :D
AIRDROP OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT: RIGGING ARMORED RECONNAISSANCE/AIRBORNE ASSAULT VEHICLE (M551)

I'm giving this away AGAIN. It seems there was/is some confusion in US Army on tank classification. I have too much to do to spend time on this. :)

but pedantry is the oxygen of robust debate... there's so much more to discuss.... :nutkick

[FutureTank]

au contraire. my involvement was because you indicated that the M551 was never a light tank by definition in any US official docs. All I've done is hilight that it was, and that it exists in some FM's as well as Janes (better and far more robust validators than a google search) ;)



the few american tankers I know (2 in total) thought that it was a piece of scatalogical material on tracks.

Its most useful role has been to wear body panels and pretend to be either a t-80 or a ZSU-23 flak tank. If it had gone to war against the soviets they would have died laughing and probably caused a traffic jam at the fulda gap.

Well, it seems the original question was on how to classify AFVs: by weight, weapon, manoeuvrability or actual function.
I had spoken to three US tankers in other forums with two being crew on M551 in Vietnam. They would agree with your assessment of it as a tank. Despite the effect of its AP round on enemy and vegitation, the M48 was still prefered.

In any case, the question was not resolved. The M1 is a main battle tank now. Is there an existing weight classification rating in ADF aside from the load classification?

[gf0012-aust]

They would agree with your assessment of it as a tank. Despite the effect of its AP round on enemy and vegitation, the M48 was still prefered.

wtf? AP on vegetation? the one big lesson that we gave the americans in vietnam was that you use cannister on the green bits...

In any case, the question was not resolved. The M1 is a main battle tank now. Is there an existing weight classification rating in ADF aside from the load classification?

don't know. I can ask a loggie I know - but what specifically is your question about weight classifications, is it haulage issues or platform classification issues?

[FutureTank]

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.

his has not been the case for some time. No new dedicated ATGW platform has appeared in Soviet Union since the early 80s and even that was a minor mobility and generation upgrade.

However new towed AT guns are being introduced into the Russian Army which are also 125mm, though I'm not aware of plans to use ATGWs with them.

I think Australia has been one of the few developed countries that had not adopted dedicated armoured ATGW platforms within its unit structures during the Cold War.

[FutureTank]

but pedantry is the oxygen of robust debate... there's so much more to discuss.... :nutkick

I hope you have fun...all by your self :D

To me the question is a serious one.
The M551 design, even if its missile guidance worked, seems to be flawed on several levels, most of all in the light tank role as I understand it based on the time when light tanks were a functional part of how armoured forces operated.

What is important to me, is how classification affects decisions made in ADF and the Army in particular in making major equipment purchases. I can accept the utility of the M1 NOW, but the future for operating heavy tanks does not look good, and come 2025 there will be a questionmark over M1 remaining a viable part of the Army's fleet with advent of the LAND 400 based DF AT platform.

[rickshaw]

his has not been the case for some time. No new dedicated ATGW platform has appeared in Soviet Union since the early 80s and even that was a minor mobility and generation upgrade.


BMP-3 Kornet-E was adopted in the early 1990s, FutureTank. Thats both a new platform and a new missile.


However new towed AT guns are being introduced into the Russian Army which are also 125mm, though I'm not aware of plans to use ATGWs with them.


Their role is defensive, rather than offensive.


I think Australia has been one of the few developed countries that had not adopted dedicated armoured ATGW platforms within its unit structures during the Cold War.

Well, actually, we did with the Malkara. However we then abandoned the concept when we decided that we wanted to exclusive play Forward Defence in the jungles of SE Asia where no massed armoured threat existed, so hence did not need such vehicles.

[FutureTank]

wtf? AP on vegetation? the one big lesson that we gave the americans in vietnam was that you use cannister on the green bits...

Was it called cannister? I can't rememeber. Many people call it flechette, but I don;t think that was the actual round name.

don't know. I can ask a loggie I know - but what specifically is your question about weight classifications, is it haulage issues or platform classification issues?

The later.

[gf0012-aust]

To me the question is a serious one.

who says it isn't? equally the question can only be seriously attended to if the definitions are all as clear - confusion about standards leads to confusion about doctrine - and certainly leads to disconnects about capability ergo relevance.

The M551 design, even if its missile guidance worked, seems to be flawed on several levels, most of all in the light tank role as I understand it based on the time when light tanks were a functional part of how armoured forces operated.

Its the grandaddy of LAHAT based delivery. whats wrong with LAHAT? Its not for everyone, but its OK for some. Its all an issue of relevance. Current gen light/medium/main battle tanks are all LOS platforms or linear weaps delivery platforms. PGM from the barrel were positively archaic tech in the 70's. the same tech today can offer a bit more accuracy and a bit more flexibility. NLOS is probably a better and more flexible capability, but thats been shunted for the moment.

again - its doctrine, use and relevance.

What is important to me, is how classification affects decisions made in ADF and the Army in particular in making major equipment purchases. I can accept the utility of the M1 NOW, but the future for operating heavy tanks does not look good, and come 2025 there will be a questionmark over M1 remaining a viable part of the Army's fleet with advent of the LAND 400 based DF AT platform.

In 25 years time the ANZACS will be ready for the knackery as well - so whats the issue? Any platform at 25 years has probably transitioned through a generational change in doctrine. Tanks went through a partial doctrine change in 1991 - there's no reason as to why they can't go through another change in relevance

capability is about relevance married to doctrine and force structure. who's to say that in 2032 that tanks are NLOS/VLS with far more co-op control than is even remotely possible now?

for years people have been predicting the end of the tank, O'Dwyer was predicting the end of the machine gun as we know it, LeMay was predicting the end of rockets over manned bombers, the poms were predicting the end of manned aircraft over missiles etc etc... all have been grossly wrong and somewhat cavalier in their assessment of the end of a particular platform cycle.

I don't see tanks dying, I see them evolving into different denial weapons - and still potential intruders for the force de main.

assets don't necessarily die, they evolve within the system. looking at platforms in isolation as far as I'm concerned is loading the bases for a preferred outcome.

[gf0012-aust]

Was it called cannister? I can't rememeber. Many people call it flechette, but I don;t think that was the actual round name.

actually I thought that the americans and Oz called it cannister, the poms call it flechette.

I had a book written by a blackhat digg in VN, he certainly refers to it as cannister when describing clearing the jungle.

Cannister and Flechette are also different. the former being ball or pellets, the latter being darts (after the French where it comes from)

[FutureTank]

who says it isn't? equally the question can only be seriously attended to if the definitions are all as clear - confusion about standards leads to confusion about doctrine - and certainly leads to disconnects about capability ergo relevance.



Its the grandaddy of LAHAT based delivery. whats wrong with LAHAT? Its not for everyone, but its OK for some. Its all an issue of relevance. Current gen light/medium/main battle tanks are all LOS platforms or linear weaps delivery platforms. PGM from the barrel were positively archaic tech in the 70's. the same tech today can offer a bit more accuracy and a bit more flexibility. NLOS is probably a better and more flexible capability, but thats been shunted for the moment.

again - its doctrine, use and relevance.



In 25 years time the ANZACS will be ready for the knackery as well - so whats the issue? Any platform at 25 years has probably transitioned through a generational change in doctrine. Tanks went through a partial doctrine change in 1991 - there's no reason as to why they can't go through another change in relevance

capability is about relevance married to doctrine and force structure. who's to say that in 2032 that tanks are NLOS/VLS with far more co-op control than is even remotely possible now?

for years people have been predicting the end of the tank, O'Dwyer was predicting the end of the machine gun as we know it, LeMay was predicting the end of rockets over manned bombers, the poms were predicting the end of manned aircraft over missiles etc etc... all have been grossly wrong and somewhat cavalier in their assessment of the end of a particular platform cycle.

I don't see tanks dying, I see them evolving into different denial weapons - and still potential intruders for the force de main.

assets don't necessarily die, they evolve within the system. looking at platforms in isolation as far as I'm concerned is loading the bases for a preferred outcome.

I think most people serious about Australian defence capability think this, but we don't have til 2032 or even 2025 to wait. The delivery of LAND 400 is slated for 2015 (Phase 1), and given developmental timelines elsewhere in allied countries, it seems to me the time for serious discussion is now to build the understanding of concepts on which the design is to be based and doctrine it is to be used with. People are all excited about the M1, but M1 is but a support platform for the LAND 400 fleet whcih will be, aside from ASLAV the first modern IFV for the Army.

[Aussie Digger]

If you're referring to the photos in the first article, neither show a Leopard and an M113 on the same flat truck.

In the second, no mention is made of loading Leopards and M113s on the same flat truck.

Again I refer you to the published comments of the company operating the Ghan line (can't remember if the spokesman was from AustralAsia Rail Corporation, the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium or FreightLink) in the Advertiser.

The ABS tells us that the axle loading limit on the Ghan line is 23 tonnes - http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/90a12181d877a6a6ca2568b5007b861c/5f1625bd3fed3230ca256f7200833048!OpenDocument (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/90a12181d877a6a6ca2568b5007b861c/5f1625bd3fed3230ca256f7200833048%21OpenDocument)

According to testimony provided to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services on 14 Jun'06:

In that case, I suggest you look again at those photo's mate. The 2nd photo from the first link clearly shows a Leopard AS1 being loaded onto the same truck as an M113A1 (by crane).

The axle weight may indeed be 23 tonnes, but (please correct me if I'm wrong), are there not at least 4 axles per truck? (Meaning a 92 ton limit per truck, according to my math)?

I am no expert in rolling stock or weight limits on railways, but the very first photo shows multiple vehicle configurations including 2 and 3 vehicles per truck, with combinations of M113's and ASLAV's. 3x M113 or ASLAV vehicles on the same truck, would easily breach a 23ton limit, each weighing around 12-13tons, depending on configuration...

[FutureTank]

BMP-3 Kornet-E was adopted in the early 1990s, FutureTank. Thats both a new platform and a new missile.



Their role is defensive, rather than offensive.



Well, actually, we did with the Malkara. However we then abandoned the concept when we decided that we wanted to exclusive play Forward Defence in the jungles of SE Asia where no massed armoured threat existed, so hence did not need such vehicles.

BMP-3 mounting Kornet-E was first demonstrated in 1994. A platform with twin mounts has been exported, but has not been adopted for service with the Russian Army.

The towed AT guns are supplied to the airborne units in the first instance, so clearly for offensive use. Just because they are towed does not mean they are defensive weapons.

[rickshaw]

Was it called cannister? I can't rememeber. Many people call it flechette, but I don;t think that was the actual round name.
The later.

You used the abbreviation "AP" which normally stands for Armour-Piercing. Anti-Personnel rounds are usually abbreviated as "APers". APers rounds are usually cannister or what the US Army calls "beehive" or the British "Splintex" Cannister consists of an overgrown shotgun, like shell, containing a large number of ball-bearings which are ejected from the muzzle in a fan-shaped pattern. "Beehive" or "Splintex" is similar to the old-style Shrapnel shell (named after General Henry Shrapnel of the British army in about 1780) in that it has a time fuse which can be set to explode the shell a set distance from the muzzle, ejecting a large number of small darts or splinters in a fan shape from the nose of the shell.

Flechette rounds were something different again. Similar to cannister but instead of ball bearings, they consisted of a group of small darts which were held together by a frangible band. When fired, the band broke and the darts exited the muzzle in basically a slightly fanned pattern. In Vietnam, IIRC only the 40mm Grenade Launcher had a Flechette round.

[FutureTank]

You used the abbreviation "AP" which normally stands for Armour-Piercing. Anti-Personnel rounds are usually abbreviated as "APers". APers rounds are usually cannister or what the US Army calls "beehive" or the British "Splintex" Cannister consists of an overgrown shotgun, like shell, containing a large number of ball-bearings which are ejected from the muzzle in a fan-shaped pattern. "Beehive" or "Splintex" is similar to the old-style Shrapnel shell (named after General Henry Shrapnel of the British army in about 1780) in that it has a time fuse which can be set to explode the shell a set distance from the muzzle, ejecting a large number of small darts or splinters in a fan shape from the nose of the shell.

Flechette rounds were something different again. Similar to cannister instead of ball bearings, they consisted of a group of small darts which were held together by a frangible band. When fired, the band broke and the darts exited the muzzle in basically a slightly fanned pattern. In Vietnam, IIRC only the 40mm Grenade Launcher had a Flechette round.

Wasn't Beehive and Canister different rounds?
Clearly I refered to Anti-Personnel since M551 didn't have an AP round, or a target to use it on.

[old faithful]

Gf,absolutely correct regarding canister and flechette. I remember reading something about canister at Binh Bah, and have seen thousands of flechettes in trees around pucka.They are about 5-6cm long, about 1.5 -2 mm thick with fixed fins on one end and a rapier sharp point on the other.Canister rounds also are availible (on paper) in 40mm for M203 etc,although ive never seen them.Like a huge shot gun. Think Napoleon,s 12 pounders made good use of canister. Like a jam tin filled with musket balls,and still very relevent today against infantry in light cover. Dont know if its availible in 155,105 or 120mm rounds. Flettchetes are fired from a sabot type round, and there are thousands of the buggers in every sabot!

[rickshaw]

In that case, I suggest you look again at those photo's mate. The 2nd photo from the first link clearly shows a Leopard AS1 being loaded onto the same truck as an M113A1 (by crane).


Actually, it doesn't. The M113 to the left of the photo is on one truck and the Leopard, suspended in mid-air is being loaded onto another truck to the right of the photo. The coupling between the two trucks is clearly in the centre of the photo.


The axle weight may indeed be 23 tonnes, but (please correct me if I'm wrong), are there not at least 4 axles per truck? (Meaning a 92 ton limit per truck, according to my math)?


Axle loading consists of more than just simply dividing a load by the number of axles. This wikipedia article provides some insight into its determination and effects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axle_load



I am no expert in rolling stock or weight limits on railways, but the very first photo shows multiple vehicle configurations including 2 and 3 vehicles per truck, with combinations of M113's and ASLAV's. 3x M113 or ASLAV vehicles on the same truck, would easily breach a 23ton limit, each weighing around 12-13tons, depending on configuration...

See above. Three vehicles of a maxium of 13 tons comes to 39 tons in my reckoning - substantially less than the 61 of an M1a1. A Leopard 1 is approximate 41 tons, not substantially more than the three APCs you mention. The number of axles appear to make it possible to carry that weight, on those flat trucks. You, or someone else mentioned they were intending to purchase new trucks to carry the M1a1s. My question is how will the overcome the other limitations imposed by the rail weight, the sleepers and the road ballast?

[Aussie Digger]

Gf,absolutely correct regarding canister and flechette. I remember reading something about canister at Binh Bah, and have seen thousands of flechettes in trees around pucka.They are about 5-6cm long, about 1.5 -2 mm thick with fixed fins on one end and a rapier sharp point on the other.Canister rounds also are availible (on paper) in 40mm for M203 etc,although ive never seen them.Like a huge shot gun. Think Napoleon,s 12 pounders made good use of canister. Like a jam tin filled with musket balls,and still very relevent today against infantry in light cover. Dont know if its availible in 155,105 or 120mm rounds. Flettchetes are fired from a sabot type round, and there are thousands of the buggers in every sabot!

Canister is certainly available in 120mm tank ammunition today and Australia is acquiring it for it's M1A1 fleet, I believe.

IN any case here is a description of such a round:

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M1028,,00.html

Very nasty indeed...

[rickshaw]

Wasn't Beehive and Canister different rounds?


Yes. I said that.


Clearly I refered to Anti-Personnel since M551 didn't have an AP round, or a target to use it on.

It had a HEAT, HE, and IIRC cannister. It might have had a Beehive round developed for it but I don't recall so.

[rickshaw]

actually I thought that the americans and Oz called it cannister, the poms call it flechette.


No, again you must understand that what the round's actual designation is, as against what the serving members by know it as, might be very different things.

I've seen Splintex referred to as Cannister and Splintex by Australian AFV crews.

[old faithful]

No, again you must understand that what the round's actual designation is, as against what the serving members by know it as, might be very different things.

I've seen Splintex referred to as Cannister and Splintex by Australian AFV crews.

ahh splintex is flechette. Canister is ball bearings. Well thats how it was described in the 80,s and 90,s in the ADF.

[old faithful]

Canister is certainly available in 120mm tank ammunition today and Australia is acquiring it for it's M1A1 fleet, I believe.

IN any case here is a description of such a round:

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M1028,,00.html

Very nasty indeed...


good one AD,pic says a thounand words...or balls! Good to see we are getting it. I actually have a fair bit of faith in the guys from procurement, they generally get things right...eventually. Thats why im not to worried about the JSF project. Would like to see us get some more M1,s though,or at least upgrade and hand over the Leo,s to A res.

[Wooki]

Hey OF,

I have actually seen canister fired from a civil war canon. It is devistating to say the least. Consisted of tube containing .50 cal and I think .72 caliber balls, and you could load two canisters into one shot (yikes).

Nothing left of the targets and a good way to turn earth up to plant your veggies and stuff.

cheers

w

[Aussie Digger]

Axle loading consists of more than just simply dividing a load by the number of axles. This wikipedia article provides some insight into its determination and effects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axle_load


See above. Three vehicles of a maxium of 13 tons comes to 39 tons in my reckoning - substantially less than the 61 of an M1a1. A Leopard 1 is approximate 41 tons, not substantially more than the three APCs you mention. The number of axles appear to make it possible to carry that weight, on those flat trucks. You, or someone else mentioned they were intending to purchase new trucks to carry the M1a1s. My question is how will the overcome the other limitations imposed by the rail weight, the sleepers and the road ballast?

But still significantly heavier than the 23 tonnes you quoted.

The whole " Australian ability to transport M1A1's" argument is starting to become a bit of a "chicken and the egg" story, so I'll simply finish with 1 more quote from Army Newspaper:

In addition to providing rail transportation in the future for the armoured vehicles, the Chief Transport Inspector of NT has assured Army that the HTTs and their cargo will be able to access their normal training areas in NT. The weight restrictions on NT bridges are based on axle weight, not total weight, which places a fully loaded HTT well under the limits.

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1153/features/feature01.htm

You can choose to believe Army or not obviously and so can I. I can NOT imagine Army going on the public record and quoting advice given to them by public figure of another Government Agency and then "making it up" to suit their purposes...

Furthermore I have no doubt that any significant limitations in Army's ability to transport it's vehicles in Darwin will be widely reported. At that point, should it eventuate, I'll be happy to declare you the "winner"...

[old faithful]

Hey OF,

I have actually seen canister fired from a civil war canon. It is devistating to say the least. Consisted of tube containing .50 cal and I think .72 caliber balls, and you could load two canisters into one shot (yikes).

Nothing left of the targets and a good way to turn earth up to plant your veggies and stuff.

cheers

w

ha ha! never considered it for the garden...watch the militant hippys at civil war auctions! .72 cal balls sound a little scary! where have you been mate?

[Waylander]

The commander of the looks through he's scope and fine a target,the computer also locks on that targets,the commander can fine up to 6-8 targets or more per minute.The computer tracks the targets while commanders looks for new targets.THen the gunner just as to press a button.

I never heard of something like that.
I think what you mean is the normal hunter killer capability of a tank with an independent commanders periscope. This has been for example on the Leo II from the beginning and with M1A2 it has also been introduced to the Abrams (Does the M1A1 AIM also have a periscope?).
It works like this. The Commander identifies a target with his periscope and when the gunner is finishes with his target the commander let the gunners sight (With the slaved gun) automatically switch onto his target. While the gunner is engaging the new target the commander can search for a new one. This helps reducing the target aquisition time.

What you describe would not work because both optics are in use and it would need one computer controlled autotracking sight for every! target you want to track.

[gf0012-aust]

No, again you must understand that what the round's actual designation is, as against what the serving members by know it as, might be very different things.

I've seen Splintex referred to as Cannister and Splintex by Australian AFV crews.


Bad sentence on my part - and you obviously didn't notice the sentence immediately afterwards in your enthusiasm to jump in:

Cannister and Flechette are also different. the former being ball or pellets, the latter being darts (after the French where it comes from)

btw splintex is flechette.... if not, then one of the histories written by a digg who served with 1 RAR at Coral is wrong. I refer:

"At this stage the mortar position was engaged with splintex by 102 Field Battery. The accuracy of their fire was revealed after the contact. Some enemy had attempted to drag away a complete mortar (which they couldn't dismantle), and their bodies and the mortar were found about five metres from the mortar pit. Several splintex darts had penetrated the barrel and also about 20% of the ammunition on the mortar line."



and whats with the reference to "again you must understand that what the round's actual designation is,"??

is this meant to be directed at FutureTanks comment about what the proper naming convention is between AP and APers?

I look forward to knowing what I've buggered up in understanding.

[Todjaeger]

It's correct, the Army Tank Plant in Stratford, CT which made the GT engine closed in the early 90s. Since the plant shut down but hasn't been used for anything else since then, I would imagine it could be re-opened if needed, but as GF mentioned, there is quite a surplus of GT engines available.

As for the US Beehive round, IIRC it was the name given to a fletchette round developed by the US during Vietnam. It was for howitzers (105mm towed) to give them a limited direct-fire capability when Charlie came calling. I believe it was called a beehive due to the sound the fletchettes made when fired.

-Cheers

[eckherl]

It's correct, the Army Tank Plant in Stratford, CT which made the GT engine closed in the early 90s. Since the plant shut down but hasn't been used for anything else since then, I would imagine it could be re-opened if needed, but as GF mentioned, there is quite a surplus of GT engines available.

As for the US Beehive round, IIRC it was the name given to a fletchette round developed by the US during Vietnam. It was for howitzers (105mm towed) to give them a limited direct-fire capability when Charlie came calling. I believe it was called a beehive due to the sound the fletchettes made when fired.

-Cheers

We also used APERS (Beehive) 105mm tank rounds in South Korea all the way up to 1985. All you had to do was adjust the range in 100meter increments on the round and fire, you could adjust fire by the yellow puff of smoke that it would give off when it detonated.:D

[FutureTank]

Yes. I said that.



It had a HEAT, HE, and IIRC cannister. It might have had a Beehive round developed for it but I don't recall so.

Well, if the Beehive was a 105mm round, and there were no 105mm equipped M48s in Vietnam, then what was used on the M48s, canister? I wrote from memory, and thought that the APers round used by the M551 was the Beehive, but apparently it was a 152mm canister round.

Thanks Rickshaw :)

[gf0012-aust]

and thought that the APers round used by the M551 was the Beehive, but apparently it was a 152mm canister round.

Thanks Rickshaw :)

maybe the confusion lies in the fact that splintex/flechettes are encased in a canister - as opposed to the fact that canistershot (ball) is an ord package in its own right.

ie one is a container and the other is the shot.

[rickshaw]

But still significantly heavier than the 23 tonnes you quoted.

The whole " Australian ability to transport M1A1's" argument is starting to become a bit of a "chicken and the egg" story, so I'll simply finish with 1 more quote from Army Newspaper:

In addition to providing rail transportation in the future for the armoured vehicles, the Chief Transport Inspector of NT has assured Army that the HTTs and their cargo will be able to access their normal training areas in NT. The weight restrictions on NT bridges are based on axle weight, not total weight, which places a fully loaded HTT well under the limits.

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1153/features/feature01.htm

You can choose to believe Army or not obviously and so can I. I can NOT imagine Army going on the public record and quoting advice given to them by public figure of another Government Agency and then "making it up" to suit their purposes...

Furthermore I have no doubt that any significant limitations in Army's ability to transport it's vehicles in Darwin will be widely reported. At that point, should it eventuate, I'll be happy to declare you the "winner"...


I may be incorrect. I may be mistaken but the evidence I have accumulated, appears to support my side of the argument. The Army and its mouthpieces have often gone "on the record" with the most remarkable tosh, when it has suited the Army's purposes. Why should we assume any different. Perhaps the the Chief Transport Inspector of NT might care to explain why roadtrains often have to decouple to cross NT bridges? I note he stated BTW, that the Abrahms will be "able to access their normal training areas in NT" He does not state that all roads will be able to carry these vehicles, which is what you and Army Newspaper are attempting to imply.

[rickshaw]

Well, if the Beehive was a 105mm round, and there were no 105mm equipped M48s in Vietnam, then what was used on the M48s, canister? I wrote from memory, and thought that the APers round used by the M551 was the Beehive, but apparently it was a 152mm canister round.

Thanks Rickshaw :)

In Vietnam:

The M48 fired Cannister, not Beehive.

The Centurion armed with the 20 Pdr fired Cannister, not Beehive.

The 76mm on the FSV fired Cannister not Beehive.

The 105mm Howitzer fired both Cannister and Beehive (the latter superceding the former)

All fired fixed rounds, which were issued as a unitary item.

[Aussie Digger]

I may be incorrect. I may be mistaken but the evidence I have accumulated, appears to support my side of the argument. The Army and its mouthpieces have often gone "on the record" with the most remarkable tosh, when it has suited the Army's purposes. Why should we assume any different. Perhaps the the Chief Transport Inspector of NT might care to explain why roadtrains often have to decouple to cross NT bridges? I note he stated BTW, that the Abrahms will be "able to access their normal training areas in NT" He does not state that all roads will be able to carry these vehicles, which is what you and Army Newspaper are attempting to imply.

When did I say the M1 and it's low loaders will be able to travel on "all" roads in NT?

I have no doubt there are MANY places the combo won't be able to go. There are many places in Queensland that "B Doubles" cannot travel, so why would I doubt you on this?

What I doubt is your assertion that Army will find it "difficult" (whatever that may mean exactly) to access it's normal training areas in and OUT of the NT with these vehicles...

As to gathering evidence, I know a bit about that and from what I've seen, I'm un-convinced as to your ability to establish a prima facie case so far, let alone beyond reasonable doubt...

[rickshaw]

When did I say the M1 and it's low loaders will be able to travel on "all" roads in NT?

I have no doubt there are MANY places the combo won't be able to go. There are many places in Queensland that "B Doubles" cannot travel, so why would I doubt you on this?

What I doubt is your assertion that Army will find it "difficult" (whatever that may mean exactly) to access it's normal training areas in and OUT of the NT with these vehicles...


Oh, so a attacking enemy will conveniently confine their invasion to the Army's "normal training areas"?


As to gathering evidence, I know a bit about that and from what I've seen, I'm un-convinced as to your ability to establish a prima facie case so far, let alone beyond reasonable doubt...

Each to their own. Who said I was a lawyer? At least though, I can look at a photo and work out whats happening in it. ;)

[Aussie Digger]

Oh, so a attacking enemy will conveniently confine their invasion to the Army's "normal training areas"?

Each to their own. Who said I was a lawyer? At least though, I can look at a photo and work out whats happening in it. ;)

Ooh, what a cutting retort. Actually I'm more offended that you think I could be a lawyer. I AM working on a law degree, but I haven't sold my soul, quite yet...

As to your flippant remark about "training areas". Of course not, nor will Army confine itself to operating in those areas in wartime (in fact it's unlikely they'd operate in any of them at all).

Would you have Army operate ENTIRELY in peace time as they would in war? Have you physically seen what a number of armoured vehicles, does to an area of bush, when they travel through it? Let alone hundreds, as are operated in 1 Brigade???

Suffice to say I do NOT think the damage is worth it... Your impassable terrain works both ways, as I hope you would know. If ARMY which is familiar with the conditions, as 1 Brigade operating in NT for years now, plainly i, can't manage to maneuvre in the conditions. How well is an invader going to fare???

[FutureTank]

maybe the confusion lies in the fact that splintex/flechettes are encased in a canister - as opposed to the fact that canistershot (ball) is an ord package in its own right.

ie one is a container and the other is the shot.

It was all so much simpler at Waterloo :)

[FutureTank]

In Vietnam:

The M48 fired Cannister, not Beehive.

The Centurion armed with the 20 Pdr fired Cannister, not Beehive.

The 76mm on the FSV fired Cannister not Beehive.

The 105mm Howitzer fired both Cannister and Beehive (the latter superceding the former)

All fired fixed rounds, which were issued as a unitary item.

So what was the 152mm M551 round?

[FutureTank]

Hey OF,

I have actually seen canister fired from a civil war canon. It is devistating to say the least. Consisted of tube containing .50 cal and I think .72 caliber balls, and you could load two canisters into one shot (yikes).

Nothing left of the targets and a good way to turn earth up to plant your veggies and stuff.

cheers

w

I know of a group in UK who do it from a 12lb French Napoleonic cannon. Te only reason they get to do it is because at least one memeber is a master gunner in the Royal Navy. Those things are STILL dangerous.

[FutureTank]

I may be incorrect. I may be mistaken but the evidence I have accumulated, appears to support my side of the argument. The Army and its mouthpieces have often gone "on the record" with the most remarkable tosh, when it has suited the Army's purposes. Why should we assume any different. Perhaps the the Chief Transport Inspector of NT might care to explain why roadtrains often have to decouple to cross NT bridges? I note he stated BTW, that the Abrahms will be "able to access their normal training areas in NT" He does not state that all roads will be able to carry these vehicles, which is what you and Army Newspaper are attempting to imply.

Rick,
Everyone can see that you state your argument because you have deep convictions about Australia's Army and its ability to do the job.

Do you trust them in their own conviction to do so?

TANKS GET BOGGED DOWN IN ALL MANNER OF PLACES!
The Internet has numerous images of tanks of all manner coming to grief in the middle of deserts, during exercised in European training areas in all seasons, during their testing, training and executing missions all over the globe, operated by conscripts and professionals alike.

I have no doubt the M1 would not have been purchased if it was incapable of being deployed in the environments the Army expects to operate them in, or deploy them to those environments.

As far as shipping goes, there are vehicles much larger and heavier then M1 getting around Australia, the great minig nation that we are. I'm sure our infrastructure, which needed upgrading regardless, will cope with the tanks well enough.

Unfortunatelly the time to complain about the purchase has past, and even writing to the minister will not stop the procurement from being completed. I for one would be far more interested in discussing the impact of the M1 on design of the LAND 400 platform, and their performance in high fuel cost environment say 20 years from now :)

[rickshaw]

Rick,


Rick is not my name, "rickshaw" was my callsign.


Everyone can see that you state your argument because you have deep convictions about Australia's Army and its ability to do the job.

Do you trust them in their own conviction to do so?


Not really.


TANKS GET BOGGED DOWN IN ALL MANNER OF PLACES!
The Internet has numerous images of tanks of all manner coming to grief in the middle of deserts, during exercised in European training areas in all seasons, during their testing, training and executing missions all over the globe, operated by conscripts and professionals alike.

I have no doubt the M1 would not have been purchased if it was incapable of being deployed in the environments the Army expects to operate them in, or deploy them to those environments.


I have no qualms about the tactical mobility of the M1a1. My qualms are about the stategic mobility of this piece of equipment.


As far as shipping goes, there are vehicles much larger and heavier then M1 getting around Australia, the great minig nation that we are. I'm sure our infrastructure, which needed upgrading regardless, will cope with the tanks well enough.


Mining equipment is usually dissembled to allow it to fit within road/rail limits.


Unfortunatelly the time to complain about the purchase has past, and even writing to the minister will not stop the procurement from being completed. I for one would be far more interested in discussing the impact of the M1 on design of the LAND 400 platform, and their performance in high fuel cost environment say 20 years from now :)

Oh, I realise that. I complained when it was announced and did write to the Minister. My comments were ignored. Not surprising, really as they ran counter to the perceived wisdom of the establishment. However, I can still make my case here, if I desire, now can't I?

[FutureTank]

Rick is not my name, "rickshaw" was my callsign.
However, I can still make my case here, if I desire, now can't I?

Go right ahead 'rickshaw', who are my to stop you :rolleyes:

[Aussie Digger]

I have no qualms about the tactical mobility of the M1a1. My qualms are about the stategic mobility of this piece of equipment.

Oh, I realise that. I complained when it was announced and did write to the Minister. My comments were ignored. Not surprising, really as they ran counter to the perceived wisdom of the establishment. However, I can still make my case here, if I desire, now can't I?

In my view, the strategic argument is more or less sorted. Deployment options outside Australia, seem to be less of a problem than within.

Maybe it's time 7 Brigade and 3 Brigade swapped locations, to ease your mobility concerns? Or 1 Armd moved to the new Army precinct in SA being created?

I' suppose it's a possibility of happening IF Army encounters the significant problems moving the beasts, you assert they will...

[rickshaw]

In my view, the strategic argument is more or less sorted. Deployment options outside Australia, seem to be less of a problem than within.


Not quite true. I wouldn't want to try and operate Abrahms in the Islands.


Maybe it's time 7 Brigade and 3 Brigade swapped locations, to ease your mobility concerns? Or 1 Armd moved to the new Army precinct in SA being created?


Same problems still basically remain. It would be hard to move them pretty much, no matter where they are in Oz.

[Aussie Digger]

Not quite true. I wouldn't want to try and operate Abrahms in the Islands.

Same problems still basically remain. It would be hard to move them pretty much, no matter where they are in Oz.

Alright I'll pay that, but the threat level is hardly there either.


Re: "internal" movements, except the "wet" season isn't a problem between Townsville and High Range last time I checked, nor between Townsville and Shoalwater Bay, or even Brisbane and Shoalwater Bay for that matter...

The roads in those places routinely carry "B Doubles" and other massive and heavy "low loaders". The railway lines carry massive Coal trains, that are going to FAR exceed the weight of any armoured vehicle rail move, we could mont and the port access is excellent as is the availability of airlift with C-17's moving to Amberley...

I don't see many problems moving them around Queensland, nor even from Queensland to Pucka if necessary...

[old faithful]

have you guys ever been to a remote mine site in either FNQ or the NT? There is some enormous equipment in some very out of the way locations. Im talking about trucks with buckets that you could drive a couple of M1a1s into.Places like Nhullanbuy,Weipa ranger urainium mine come to mind. If we need to get them somewhere,we can. in my buisness we send "tools" to oil rigs, im not talking about spanners.The rigs them selves incoperate big,heavy stuff on`em, and the big heavy stuff comes from factorys....on land,and in Oz. I think that you guys are making a bigger issue out of transporting these vehicles than it really is. Its a bit like the Indian Su30,s "beating" the US f15,s. The NT want the fed gov to build better roads and bridges.same for everyone else. We move massive weights between Dampier in WA to darwin in The NT. The only real problem is the Vic river bridge,and thats only if its underwater.the states just want more $$$from the fed govt for there own coffers.(i dont know how to dissasemble a bucket on one of those huge trucks,my job is to help assemble huge equip for oil rigs, then load trucks,that drive them to sea ports or WA)

[Wooki]

have you guys ever been to a remote mine site in either FNQ or the NT? There is some enormous equipment in some very out of the way locations. Im talking about trucks with buckets that you could drive a couple of M1a1s into.Places like Nhullanbuy,Weipa ranger urainium mine come to mind. If we need to get them somewhere,we can. in my buisness we send "tools" to oil rigs, im not talking about spanners.The rigs them selves incoperate big,heavy stuff on`em, and the big heavy stuff comes from factorys....on land,and in Oz. I think that you guys are making a bigger issue out of transporting these vehicles than it really is. Its a bit like the Indian Su30,s "beating" the US f15,s. The NT want the fed gov to build better roads and bridges.same for everyone else. We move massive weights between Dampier in WA to darwin in The NT. The only real problem is the Vic river bridge,and thats only if its underwater.the states just want more $$$from the fed govt for there own coffers.(i dont know how to dissasemble a bucket on one of those huge trucks,my job is to help assemble huge equip for oil rigs, then load trucks,that drive them to sea ports or WA)

Now that wins the "post of the year" award from me Old Faithful...and its only January!

With regard to the actual tech: I think the only mods that you need to plan for in the future on the Kangaroo M1 is the powerpack, track mods, and eventually a situation awareness suite upgrade. But all of these are way in the future...

I think I have said it before, but the L55 120 would have been good to retrofit before buying... but no one seemed to really mind, or care at the time and now you have them, right?

Really, if you want to kill things in a tank you need to know where the other guy is before he figures out where you are. So the above reflects tech upgrades to extend that kill zone... If the Oz army continues with its networking initiatives then that kill zone (for it's m1's) will just grow bigger without too much effort expended upon the actual platform itself.

cheers

w

[FutureTank]

Not quite true. I wouldn't want to try and operate Abrahms in the Islands.

Same problems still basically remain. It would be hard to move them pretty much, no matter where they are in Oz.

Yep, bring them back to Randwick, the original home of Armour :)

[FutureTank]

have you guys ever been to a remote mine site in either FNQ or the NT? There is some enormous equipment in some very out of the way locations. Im talking about trucks with buckets that you could drive a couple of M1a1s into.Places like Nhullanbuy,Weipa ranger urainium mine come to mind. If we need to get them somewhere,we can. in my buisness we send "tools" to oil rigs, im not talking about spanners.The rigs them selves incoperate big,heavy stuff on`em, and the big heavy stuff comes from factorys....on land,and in Oz. I think that you guys are making a bigger issue out of transporting these vehicles than it really is. Its a bit like the Indian Su30,s "beating" the US f15,s. The NT want the fed gov to build better roads and bridges.same for everyone else. We move massive weights between Dampier in WA to darwin in The NT. The only real problem is the Vic river bridge,and thats only if its underwater.the states just want more $$$from the fed govt for there own coffers.(i dont know how to dissasemble a bucket on one of those huge trucks,my job is to help assemble huge equip for oil rigs, then load trucks,that drive them to sea ports or WA)

Actually this is a very old argument faced by Sir John Monash as aa civil engineer and a sometime artillery officer :)
He is credited for bringing reinforced concrete to Australia for bridge building. One argument was that Australia would need the rail bridges strenghened to move the massive artillery pieces around to ward off invasions, particularly in and around Victoria :)

[FutureTank]

I just wanted to remind this thread that much of the M1 technology is to enable it to be a part of the Army, not operate on its own!
The doctrine, as I understand it, is to use lighter units to 'fix' the enemy and then destroy them using tanks. M1 crews would therefore NOT be dashing around the top end looking for insurgents :)

[old faithful]

I just wanted to remind this thread that much of the M1 technology is to enable it to be a part of the Army, not operate on its own!
The doctrine, as I understand it, is to use lighter units to 'fix' the enemy and then destroy them using tanks. M1 crews would therefore NOT be dashing around the top end looking for insurgents :)

I agree ...to a point.I dont think the Abrams were bought with the "defence" of Aust in mind,rather add a more punch to our co-elition forces. The numbers would suggest a deployable force which our logistics can sustain. Further, the equipment is readily availible from our task force partners on site.

[Tasman]

I agree ...to a point.I dont think the Abrams were bought with the "defence" of Aust in mind,rather add a more punch to our co-elition forces. The numbers would suggest a deployable force which our logistics can sustain. Further, the equipment is readily availible from our task force partners on site.

That is also my reading of the reason for buying the M1A1. While it obviously provides a useful home defence asset I believe that the ability for an Australian force to work in easily with a US led force in the Middle East or elsewhere is the biggest advantage in the choice of this tank.

[FutureTank]

Do M1 capabilities change in any way how Australian infantry operate with tanks, and if so, how does it impact on the vehicles used by the infantry and other Arms and Services?

[old faithful]

I dont think it will,we had our M1,s modified to suit us, including an infantry tank ph, so grunts can talk directly to to the crew comd. This is old tech and very handy. It cuts out a lot of unnessasary RTP to quickly get a point across as well as not tying up the radio net. Dont know if our old FJ113,s will keep up though!

[Simon9]

I agree, I think they are changing the tank to fit the infantry doctrine, not the doctrine to fit the tank. The problem with the Leopard was that it really needed an infantry screen to keep away RPGs and so on. The M1A1 could theoretically act more independently, but the addition of an infantry phone suggests its basic role, when cooperating with infantry, will still be as mobile infantry support.

[FutureTank]

Dont know if our old FJ113,s will keep up though!

Actually although I haven't served in the Army, from speaking with those who did, in Australian and other armies, it appears that speeds of over 35km/h are rarely used by IFVs off road. Are speeds over 67km/h (M113AS4 advertised top speed) ever used in battle conditions?

[FutureTank]

The M1A1 could theoretically act more independently, but the addition of an infantry phone suggests its basic role, when cooperating with infantry, will still be as mobile infantry support.

This is why I suggested retaining the Leopard 1 turret on a new 'lighter' chassis, and copped a lot of 'flack' for it :confused:

[old faithful]

Actually although I haven't served in the Army, from speaking with those who did, in Australian and other armies, it appears that speeds of over 35km/h are rarely used by IFVs off road. Are speeds over 67km/h (M113AS4 advertised top speed) ever used in battle conditions?

Not sure how fast they will actually need to be, was refering to the age of the hull,s...bit tounge in cheek really. As for retaining the Leo,s turret, i wouldnt be upset if the Leo 1,s were transfered to a reseve unit,and kept in service. The hours would be down,increasing their usefull life.Im sure ill come under fire for the suggestion,but say keep a reserve squadron operational, and rotate the vehicles through for another 10-15 years.:unknown

[Simon9]

Actually although I haven't served in the Army, from speaking with those who did, in Australian and other armies, it appears that speeds of over 35km/h are rarely used by IFVs off road. Are speeds over 67km/h (M113AS4 advertised top speed) ever used in battle conditions?

I don't even want to THINK about being in an M113 doing 67km/h offroad. There would be casualties, let's just put it that way. :onfloorl: There is a reason the Army requires all infantry riding in M113s to wear helmets.

So yes, I'd say you're right, about 40km/h would be the top offroad speed under normal conditions, reserving 67km/h for absolute emergencies. If the M113 bumped into an MBT and was trying to get away, the driver would certainly have the foot to the floor, and worry about the chiropractic bills later.

As for the Leos, I'm with old faithful, I'd like to see the best of the hulls kept (turret attached) as a dedicated infantry support tank, possibly with an applique armour kit like the Canadian Leos. With the new range of 105 ammo they can take out anything short of a modern MBT, and I suspect they'd even knock out one of those fairly easily from close range at the side or rear. The other units could be kept for spares. They are old but they are FAR from obsolete. Give them to a Reserve squadron if need be. But if the Israelis are still using Centurions and T-55s as Achzarits I refuse to believe we can't keep the Leopards.

[rickshaw]

That is also my reading of the reason for buying the M1A1. While it obviously provides a useful home defence asset I believe that the ability for an Australian force to work in easily with a US led force in the Middle East or elsewhere is the biggest advantage in the choice of this tank.

Depends if you see that as an advantage. Personally, I believe its a disadvantage. I suspect the younger generation has forgotten the lessons learnt in Vietnam of the dangers of being too closely allied to the Americans.

[rickshaw]

Actually although I haven't served in the Army, from speaking with those who did, in Australian and other armies, it appears that speeds of over 35km/h are rarely used by IFVs off road. Are speeds over 67km/h (M113AS4 advertised top speed) ever used in battle conditions?

Rarely. Such speeds aren't sustainable usually. They may look spectacular but are more often used to get to and from engagements, rather than during them.

[FutureTank]

Rarely. Such speeds aren't sustainable usually. They may look spectacular but are more often used to get to and from engagements, rather than during them.

Someone told me he went over 40km/h at Shoalhaven in late 80s and got severely reprimanded by RSM later who was apparently watching from another vehicle about 500m away. No injuries, but it was a bumpy ride.

BTW, does anyone know if we ever had M113 AVLB variant? (Even a borrowed one in Vietnam)

[FutureTank]

As for the Leos, I'm with old faithful, I'd like to see the best of the hulls kept (turret attached) as a dedicated infantry support tank, possibly with an applique armour kit like the Canadian Leos. With the new range of 105 ammo they can take out anything short of a modern MBT, and I suspect they'd even knock out one of those fairly easily from close range at the side or rear. The other units could be kept for spares. They are old but they are FAR from obsolete. Give them to a Reserve squadron if need be. But if the Israelis are still using Centurions and T-55s as Achzarits I refuse to believe we can't keep the Leopards.

From 100 Leos I'm sure there would be a squadron worth keeping, however there is the support and mainenance costs to consider.

[rickshaw]

Someone told me he went over 40km/h at Shoalhaven in late 80s and got severely reprimanded by RSM later who was apparently watching from another vehicle about 500m away. No injuries, but it was a bumpy ride.

BTW, does anyone know if we ever had M113 AVLB variant? (Even a borrowed one in Vietnam)


No and no, as far as I am aware. The few the US Army had in Vietnam weren't considered much of a success.

[FutureTank]

No and no, as far as I am aware. The few the US Army had in Vietnam weren't considered much of a success.

Out of curiosity...what does infantry do now for obtacle negotiation when the AVLB Leopards are not around?

[rickshaw]

Out of curiosity...what does infantry do now for obtacle negotiation when the AVLB Leopards are not around?

There is mob, who run around the battlefield who have the moniker downunder of "Ginger-Beers". They also go by the initials RAE. One of their most famous units has a red rooster for its symbol. They like to build bridges, dig holes and blow things up for amusement and the infantry take advantage of their good nature. :rolleyes: