Australian M1A1 Abrams technology

[eckherl]

The comparison between the Leopard 2A6 and M1A1 AIM is not exactly accurate or fair. Firstly the Australian Army clearly identified in the Land 907 Operational Concept Document that they were looking for a “Tier II” tank capability. A “Tier I” capability was defined as a tank with a hunter-killer sighting system like the M1A2 SEP and Leopard 2A6. The actual shortlist taken to Government for the ‘second pass’ decision was the M1A1 AIM up against the RUAG Panzer 87 WE (Swiss Leopard 2 upgrade). The M1A1 AIM won out despite having higher operating costs (a loss of 20% in track km and main gun firings on the fixed operating budget compared to the Panzer 87 WE) because of superior protection and Network Centric Warfighting (NCW) capability.

Secondly its wrong in an Australia or outside of Western Europe context to give much credence to the Leopard 2’s deep fording capability (something that the Leopard 1 has as well so Australian Army is very familiar with it). The lack of rock bottom river beds and high level surveying data of river beds outside of the old NATO versus Warsaw pact Central Front scenario make using this capability outside of West Germany extremely difficult. Bridge weight limits as a problem for MLC60/70 MBT mobility are overstated. Most highway bridges in Australia are designed for Gross Vehicle Weights (GVW) as high as 120 tonnes so can take an MBT and a Heavy Tank Transporter (HTT). Other bridges tend to be only MLC20/30 GVW and easily avoidable with Engineer bridging capability (if extant).

The M1A1 AIM actually has far superior traditional protection to any version of the Leopard 2 (including upgrades). Thanks to its full compartmentalising of ammunition away from the crew. Also the benefits of the TUSK upgrade can be provided to the M1A1 AIM improving side, rear and bottom protection. Top armour could be added just like with the Leopard 2A6 for bomblet protection. Since bomblet protection will be added to the Army’s new self-propelled 155mm artillery hopefully it will go on the M1A1. The M1A1 AIM also has an under armour commander’s machinegun, something the Leopard 2 doesn’t (the Swiss Panzer 87 WE does) which provides considerable additional protection to the guy who has to provide top cover against insurgents.

While the M1A1’s gas turbine cops a lot of flak and burns more fuel to be significantly costlier it does have some advantages. It is much quieter making the tank stealthier (noise is a significant factor in detecting tanks), starts up quicker and easier and requires less maintenance. That being said the new MTU Europaks are formidable engines. But for 1970 technology the AGT-1500 ain’t that bad.

When one considers that the cost difference in operating a full regiment of M1A1 AIMS (and all supporting training) compared to Panzer 87 WEs is only AUD 6 million a year (0.03% of our annual defence budget) with its superior protection and NCW it’s a much better option.

PS Australia does not warstock that much stuff anymore. Most of it get’s scrapped. The L5 105mm pack howitzers were scrapped. Also any vehicle placed as a target on a range has to be environmentally cleared which means removing all fluids any harmful materials, tested so it won’t start fires if hit, etc, etc. Except for places like JCTC its really not worth the trouble. Better just to shoot at purpose designed targets.

There was some talk that the Leopard AS1s would be supplied to Afghanistan but Defence has formally denied this. They will probably end up as scrap.

Armoured engineering vehicles: Armoured Mine Clearers (AMC), Armoured Vehicle Specialist Engineers (AVSE) and Armoured Vehicle Launched Bridges (AVLB) will emerge in the next DCP 08-18 in Land 907 Phase 2 and Land 144 Phase 2 and will be M1 hull based and acquired from the USG by FMS.

Well said

I also do not place much stock in tanks being able to ford rivers outside of Europe, also I know that the U.S will give Australia additional upgrades in power packs or urbanized protection kits if needed.

Australia does have one of the best protected MBTs that is out there and it will serve them well.

[AGRA]

In the protection analysis of the M1A1 AIM versus the PZ87 WE the PZ87 WE was rated ahead for it’s all electric turret drive (M1A1 AIM still uses fire risk hydraulic drives) but the hull ammunition storage was considered 'un-protected' in terms of the lack of compartmentalisation. Any penetration into this magazine would destroy a Leopard 2 as horrifically as a T-72 due to the fast burning nature of the fully combustible cartridge of the 120mm Rheinmetall gun.

The Australian Army has already put funds into the FMS account to cover for TUSK enhancements that may have happened during the original 59 M1A1s AIM mod. Certainly Army is very interested in TUSK and it will be in our next DCP as part of Land 907/2.

[eckherl]

In the protection analysis of the M1A1 AIM versus the PZ87 WE the PZ87 WE was rated ahead for it’s all electric turret drive (M1A1 AIM still uses fire risk hydraulic drives) but the hull ammunition storage was considered 'un-protected' in terms of the lack of compartmentalisation. Any penetration into this magazine would destroy a Leopard 2 as horrifically as a T-72 due to the fast burning nature of the fully combustible cartridge of the 120mm Rheinmetall gun.

The Australian Army has already put funds into the FMS account to cover for TUSK enhancements that may have happened during the original 59 M1A1s AIM mod. Certainly Army is very interested in TUSK and it will be in our next DCP as part of Land 907/2.

Yes - the hydraulic system can pose a major fire hazard if the vehicle is penetrated, especially near the gunners position. It was also real fun to bleed the hydraulic lines to remove air pockets during borescope and pullovers.
A combustible 120mm casing will burn between 3600 to 3800 degrees during a flash fire and can be very deadly for a tank crew, thus any tankers worst nightmare.

Quick question - are the Aussie tankers using Nomex tanker suites.

[AGRA]

Quick question - are the Aussie tankers using Nomex tanker suites.

Nope. Our AFV Crewman - Tanksuit is made of heavy weight cotton. Crap combat clothing is a particular curse of the Australian Army at the moment. The design of the suit isn't that bad in that it can be bloused out when out of the vehicle or combat to improve cool air circulation. But material science is something not well understood by the combat clothing section of the DMO, that and proper commercial practices and concern for the well-being of troops.

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/ASOD/images/DO%205A%20ARMOR%20FIGHTING%20VEH%2001.jpg

[Waylander]

By AGRA:
The comparison between the Leopard 2A6 and M1A1 AIM is not exactly accurate or fair. Firstly the Australian Army clearly identified in the Land 907 Operational Concept Document that they were looking for a “Tier II” tank capability. A “Tier I” capability was defined as a tank with a hunter-killer sighting system like the M1A2 SEP and Leopard 2A6. The actual shortlist taken to Government for the ‘second pass’ decision was the M1A1 AIM up against the RUAG Panzer 87 WE (Swiss Leopard 2 upgrade). The M1A1 AIM won out despite having higher operating costs (a loss of 20% in track km and main gun firings on the fixed operating budget compared to the Panzer 87 WE) because of superior protection and Network Centric Warfighting (NCW) capability.


Not to be nitpicking but hunter/killer capability is achieved by Leopard II from A1 onwards with the exception that from A5 on a modern TI accompanies the daylight channel of the TCs periscope.
Battlefield Management Systems in several version are already integrated into the Leopard II and are available for every customer.
And why would one compare a zeroed M1A1 AIM to a Panzer 87. Price wise the comparison would be much better with a new build or zeroed Leopard 2A6EX.

Secondly its wrong in an Australia or outside of Western Europe context to give much credence to the Leopard 2’s deep fording capability (something that the Leopard 1 has as well so Australian Army is very familiar with it). The lack of rock bottom river beds and high level surveying data of river beds outside of the old NATO versus Warsaw pact Central Front scenario make using this capability outside of West Germany extremely difficult. Bridge weight limits as a problem for MLC60/70 MBT mobility are overstated. Most highway bridges in Australia are designed for Gross Vehicle Weights (GVW) as high as 120 tonnes so can take an MBT and a Heavy Tank Transporter (HTT). Other bridges tend to be only MLC20/30 GVW and easily avoidable with Engineer bridging capability (if extant).


There is also no real difference in deep forging capabilities between Abrams and Leo II versions. Abrams is also able of deep forging but only the USMC regularly uses the eqipment for it (Devil knows why).
I agree that bridge crossing problems are highly overrated.

The M1A1 AIM actually has far superior traditional protection to any version of the Leopard 2 (including upgrades). Thanks to its full compartmentalising of ammunition away from the crew. Also the benefits of the TUSK upgrade can be provided to the M1A1 AIM improving side, rear and bottom protection. Top armour could be added just like with the Leopard 2A6 for bomblet protection. Since bomblet protection will be added to the Army’s new self-propelled 155mm artillery hopefully it will go on the M1A1. The M1A1 AIM also has an under armour commander’s machinegun, something the Leopard 2 doesn’t (the Swiss Panzer 87 WE does) which provides considerable additional protection to the guy who has to provide top cover against insurgents.


I also totally agree that the unprotected reserve ammo in the hull is a major disadvantage for the Leopard II and is going to bite you in the ass when your frontal hull is penetrated.
But overall armor protection of Leopard IIA6EX with turret and hull armor upgrade should be better than the one of a M1A1 AIM (Without additional DU armor).
RWS with either 12,7mm HMG, 7,62mm GPMG or 40mm AGL is available for the Leopard II as well as other MOUT upgrades (PSO) as well as special mine/IED protection like in the Leopard 2A6M or Strv123.

While the M1A1’s gas turbine cops a lot of flak and burns more fuel to be significantly costlier it does have some advantages. It is much quieter making the tank stealthier (noise is a significant factor in detecting tanks), starts up quicker and easier and requires less maintenance. That being said the new MTU Europaks are formidable engines. But for 1970 technology the AGT-1500 ain’t that bad.


Quieter is relative. It sounds higher but it is not that much quieter.
And why does it starts up quicker? Even the older MTU currently used starts right when you want it. New Europwerpack should also have no problems.
Or do you mean acceleration?
Less maintenace is right the other way around. Less maintenance compared to the turbine powered Abrams has always been an advantage of the Leo II.

Due to Australia using non-DU KEs with a L/44 the Leopard II offers better firepower with its L/55.

In the end I still think that the M1A1 AIM was the best choice for Australia especially when considering the most possible scenarios in which they are used (Together with the US).
And while I think a Leopard II A6EX offers a better overall package it is not cheaper like often mentioned by scepticals.

[eckherl]

The U.S did get the hunter killer system concept from Germany, we have always had the mount for it on the M1A1 series, and I believe Germany started placing this sytem on their Leo 2 series at a early start. The Aussie tanks also are equiped with the mounting opening for this also and should be able to add this without to many modifications to the FCS.

Armor protection wise that is classified for the armor protection levels that Australia went with.

For the present moment the L/55 does offer better non DU KE performance over the L/44 firing non DU KE penetrators.

The M1 series turbin engine is a good reliable propulsion system, I have not had too many bad experiences with it. I think people wrongly scrutinize it because of operating it in a desert environment, but please keep in mind that these MBTs are always on the go in Iraq and any tank would require more maintenance time.

The reason for the U.S Marines having a fording system is pretty much for beach landings with high surfs, the Leo 2 fording system is alot better and is designed for true continued deep water fording.

All in all the Aussies looked at two of the many best tanks that are currently out there and I am happy that they went with ours.

[Waylander]

I thought the deep forging kit of the USMC works very similar to our system (With the big snorkle on the TCs hatch)?

The thing about the hunter/killer capability was really more nitpicking than anything else by me. :o
But in the end I don't get why one doesn't implement it into such a seriously modernized M1A1 AIM. Maybe the TI would raise the price too much?
It is not as if it would not give you some nice advantages, especially the second modern TI is very nice.

I agree that the criticism of the turbine requiring much more maintenance are often overrated like many other things of US origin because people seem to feel better than...
But the maintenance advantages of the standard MTU Diesel have been shown during several trials in Sweden, Greece and Spain.
The most important thing is that it is no problem for an organization like the US Army/USMC because if their wast logistical resources.
But for smaller armies this could result in a problem.

[eckherl]

I thought the deep forging kit of the USMC works very similar to our system (With the big snorkle on the TCs hatch)?

The thing about the hunter/killer capability was really more nitpicking than anything else by me. :o
But in the end I don't get why one doesn't implement it into such a seriously modernized M1A1 AIM. Maybe the TI would raise the price too much?
It is not as if it would not give you some nice advantages, especially the second modern TI is very nice.

I agree that the criticism of the turbine requiring much more maintenance are often overrated like many other things of US origin because people seem to feel better than...
But the maintenance advantages of the standard MTU Diesel have been shown during several trials in Sweden, Greece and Spain.
The most important thing is that it is no problem for an organization like the US Army/USMC because if their wast logistical resources.
But for smaller armies this could result in a problem.

The only snorkels available are for the engine air intake and the exhaust outlet. We will be changing real soon the engine pact on the M1 series, biggest issue is fuel consumption that takes 5 gallons just to start the bloody thing up. I agree that the MTU is a good reliable engine pact but the M1 engine does give you alot less noise and exhaust signature. Also you can make your morning coffee off of the exhaust outlet.:D

[Waylander]

Ah, thanks for the clarification on the USMC forging kits. :)

In the end the 1000°C max temperature of the Leo II exhaust is enough to warm everything you want. But I don't like the oil in the coffee... :D

[eckherl]

Ah, thanks for the clarification on the USMC forging kits. :)

In the end the 1000°C max temperature of the Leo II exhaust is enough to warm everything you want. But I don't like the oil in the coffee... :D

:onfloorl:

[speed651]

Why Australia does not choose challenger 2 or Leopard 2A6

[gf0012-aust]

Why Australia does not choose challenger 2 or Leopard 2A6

speed651.

see my prev comments to you about posting etiquette.

any further breaches of the Forum Guidelines will result in your suspension for a number of days.

Do not post anything else until you have read and understood the rules about posting behaviour and etiquette.

One liners, and posts devoid of personal imput are viewed with suspcision as they tend to infer that the user is bumping their post count or flaming.

2nd Warning issued

In addition

Make the effort to read posts before commenting. There is a substantial body of effort in this post which will clearly explain things to you about the Abrams for the ADF.

The comment you made indicated that you made no effort to read the post in its entirety first - that is something akin to being disrespectful to other posters on here who have made substantial contribution. It also brings into question your own competency as it indicates that you are being lazy

http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

[Manfred2]

I just saw on another thread that Australia aquired a grand total of 59 M-1s.

Is that true?! Enough for a single battaltion? Hardly seems worth the effort, creating a logistic system for such a tiny force. How many mechanized units are in that Army?

[Aussie Digger]

I just saw on another thread that Australia aquired a grand total of 59 M-1s.

Is that true?! Enough for a single battaltion? Hardly seems worth the effort, creating a logistic system for such a tiny force. How many mechanized units are in that Army?

Australia operates a single Regiment of main battle tanks. Have ever since the end of WW2.

59x MBT's provides enough tanks to equip 3x combat teams (Squadrons if you will) plus the Regimental Headquarters and the training school and logistical training centre.

How many more do we need?

[Tasman]

Australia operates a single Regiment of main battle tanks. Have ever since the end of WW2.

59x MBT's provides enough tanks to equip 3x combat teams (Squadrons if you will) plus the Regimental Headquarters and the training school and logistical training centre.

How many more do we need?

Exactly. Australia has a comparatively small permanent army by world standards (currently expanding to 30,000) and even during the height of the Vietnam war, when conscription was used to bolster numbers, the army was not much larger than 40,000. In these circumstances one armoured regiment is sufficient.

IMO, no other country in the region has the capacity to transport, land and sustain an armoured brigade or division in Australia in the unlikely event that it wanted to launch an invasion. The most likely operational scenario for the armoured regiment would be a squadron sized deployment to support infantry involved in coalition operations.

Cheers

[Manfred2]

I had no idea that your Army was so tiny.

I know that you have some water, and a lot of sand, between you and the bad guys, but also no aircraft carrier or strategic bombers... unless you count the old F-111.

So, there is no situation you can imagine having to deploy more than 60 heavy tanks in the near future? (Don't get all huffy, just curious) I hope you didn't scrap or sell the old tanks.

[Aussie Digger]

I had no idea that your Army was so tiny.

I know that you have some water, and a lot of sand, between you and the bad guys, but also no aircraft carrier or strategic bombers... unless you count the old F-111.

So, there is no situation you can imagine having to deploy more than 60 heavy tanks in the near future? (Don't get all huffy, just curious) I hope you didn't scrap or sell the old tanks.

Not at present no. Any future deployments of Australian soldiers to a high intensity combat environment requiring the deployment of tanks etc is likely to be battle group sized (ie: a mechanised infantry battalion, a tank squadron, a Cav Squadron, Artillery battery etc) and this formation would be embedded within a larger allied formation (probably USMC).

Larger deployments (multiple battlegroups or brigade sized) are likely (for us) to be light infantry based or light motorised based formations.

We don't see much likelyhood of having to engage in large scale high intensity armoured warfare, therefore our armoured warfare capabilities are limited, though we do have some.

Hence 1 Regt equipped with tanks.

[AGRA]

I had no idea that your Army was so tiny.

The Australian Army has ~60 M1 tanks in service, the US Army had 8,800 M1 tanks produced for it, but only ~1,800 are in active service in the same way as the Australian tanks – the rest are in reserve service, in storage (most) or sold to other nations (like Australia's 59), combat loses (only a few) or broken down to components. So Australia has 3% of the US Army's tank strength. Our Army's order of battle is the equivalent of 3 US Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) which is about 10% of the US Army's BCTs. Of our 'BCTs' 1/3 are 'heavy' while the US Army has 2/3s heavy BCTs. Our Army is also about 25,000 strong (growing to 30,000) which is 5-6% of the US Army. Australia has a population of 20 million which is 6% of the US's 300 million.

So what's tiny about these figures? Per capita we can field more army formations than the US? Taking into account our increased proportion of light formations we have the same number of tanks in service as the US per capita. I humbly suggest that you reconsider the label 'tiny' for the Australian Army.

[Manfred2]

On the same sheet, I saw that Kuwait, with less than 2 million people, has 218 M-1s. No mention was made regarding the status of the tanks themselves, hence the "tiny" comment.

We have a lot more than 1800 M-1s... btw.

I miss the good old days, when a Regiment was called a Regiment, instead of a brigade. We have the same kind of thing going on over here too, makes a one-star general feel better about commanding less than 3,000 men, I suppose.

The point is, you have a vast territory, and an even more vast area of interest. Would it not make sense to stockpile a larger amount of material, even if there are no trained men to crew them at the moment?

[Todjaeger]

The point is, you have a vast territory, and an even more vast area of interest. Would it not make sense to stockpile a larger amount of material, even if there are no trained men to crew them at the moment?

The land area of Australia is vast, roughly the same size as the lower 48 states, less Orgeon (about 100,000 sq miles smaller), but with few people. IIRC the population density of Australia is the lowest of any nation on earth. Most of whom live in urban areas, either on the eastern coast in a band form Melbourne, VIC to Brisbane, QLD. There are also concentrations around the urban centers of Adelaide, SA and Perth, WA.

With all that uninhabited space, Australia is definitely able to trade space for defence, in the unlikely event that a hostile force is able to effect an invasion. Any landed force, unless landed near a city, might have several hundred miles of offroad terrain to negotiate before getting to a significant population centre. And then, Australia itself could assist in defence, being a potentially harsh area to operate in unless one is familiar with and prepared for the conditions one will find in the Outback. i.e. Anyone fancy a swim?

Given the locations of population centres as well as the forces of the ADF, only having a regiment of tanks does seem reasonable, since it is unlikely that they would see combat in Australian proper. They are much more likely to be used as part of an expeditionary force.

-Cheers

[Ozzy Blizzard]

On the same sheet, I saw that Kuwait, with less than 2 million people, has 218 M-1s. No mention was made regarding the status of the tanks themselves, hence the "tiny" comment.

We have a lot more than 1800 M-1s... btw.

I miss the good old days, when a Regiment was called a Regiment, instead of a brigade. We have the same kind of thing going on over here too, makes a one-star general feel better about commanding less than 3,000 men, I suppose.

The point is, you have a vast territory, and an even more vast area of interest. Would it not make sense to stockpile a larger amount of material, even if there are no trained men to crew them at the moment?

The point is we haven't been reliant on the army as a major defenceive arm ever and it is less nesisariy for that role now. We may have a huge land mass which we could use to our advantage if need be, but our real defencive barrier is the Sea-Air gap to the north of the country. Basicly its our moat. Now for any aggressor they have to project nessisary forces through our moat (At least parity in numbers but 2~3 to 1 superiority would be what you want, we have basically 3 full time brigades 3~4 reserve brigades) land them on ground that is pretty damn hostile, trust me my auntie lives in Darwin, its not a place you would want to launch an amphibious operation. They then will have maritime lines of communication running back through the sea air gap. Now i'll get to the point. The reason we only need a "battalion" or regiment of M1's when Kewait has 218 is because our defencive doctrine is built arround the air force and the navy, not the army. We have 4 squadrons of harpoon equiped fighters (about the same fire power as a Nimitz CVN air wing, and we just bought JASSM which is apt to be one of the best anti shipping weapons around given its passive seeker and LO), these coupled with early warning from JORN our Jindabee over the horizon radar network (google it if you don't know what it is), Wedgetail AEW&C & Unmanned ISR platforms such as Global Hawk give us a fearsome marritime strike capability. And to add to that we have 6 Collins class submarines which are widely reguarded as some of the best SSK's in the world, and for the most part have USN level systems. The doctorine of submarines coupled with a significant air threat and capable ISR platforms is a very effective one and you only have to look at the soviets to see the level of effort is needed to counter it. Now this combination means that ANY nation trying to project forces into the air-sea gap is going to have a very very bad time and there is only one power on this earth who has the strategic force projection power to do so, and its our closest ally. So the reason we dont need 200 tanks is because no threat nation is ever going to land anywere near enough forces to challenge 51.

By the way he did state that only 1800 M1's were operational in the same way as our ones with 8000 odd in reserve/storage.

[Aussie Digger]

The point is, you have a vast territory, and an even more vast area of interest. Would it not make sense to stockpile a larger amount of material, even if there are no trained men to crew them at the moment?

It would if there were a reasonable level of threat to our nation.

Which nation could land an invasion force capable of travelling the thousands of kilometres of our Country to our major population base, or alternatively transiting the thousands of kilometres of sea lanes to land an invasion fleet which could then reach our major population centres, seeing as though you seem to think that so important?

For what possible reason would a foreign nation do such a thing? Sheer malevolence?

The idea that we need to maintain forces capable of responding to a massive nation wide invasion is lunacy. If no Country possesses such a capability, why bother defending against it?

In reality, the USA is the only Country that possesses anything like this sort of capability and the US land forces are rather pre-occupied at present as I understand...

Hence maintaining deployable forces is the priority for our Army and our defence planners see very few scenario's where we would need to deploy more than a Squadron's worth of tanks.

3x Squadron's worth of tanks allows us to deploy a Squadron's worth virtually indefinitely...

Hopefully this makes sense now...

[Manfred2]

No, that is not what I was wondering about. You have a moat, and one hell of a big sand-box between you and teh nearest bad guys.

However, it was mentioned how streached the US is with just 2 areas of operation. Now, with the ability to make one deployment to an area of concern, what happens when more than one problem pops up?

Say, for instance; Timor heats up again, and then Thailand asks for help with the Muslim situation in the south of the country? What if a general war between Malaysia and Indonesia flares up?

While the US is busy elsewhere, we cannot lend boots on the ground in any great numbers. A few Dozen tanks can be a formidable force in a small war, but wars have a way of getting bigger.

However... there is a 90% chance that they will be enough, and I'm no Cassandra.
The other extreem is Egypt, with 800 such tanks. Who are they afraid of, Lybia? They get thier military tradition from the Italians, pity them. Sudan? Nope. In the years to come, we might get an intersting look at how the Merkava stacks up against a real tank. :)

[eckherl]

No, that is not what I was wondering about. You have a moat, and one hell of a big sand-box between you and teh nearest bad guys.

However, it was mentioned how streached the US is with just 2 areas of operation. Now, with the ability to make one deployment to an area of concern, what happens when more than one problem pops up?

Say, for instance; Timor heats up again, and then Thailand asks for help with the Muslim situation in the south of the country? What if a general war between Malaysia and Indonesia flares up?

While the US is busy elsewhere, we cannot lend boots on the ground in any great numbers. A few Dozen tanks can be a formidable force in a small war, but wars have a way of getting bigger.

However... there is a 90% chance that they will be enough, and I'm no Cassandra.
The other extreem is Egypt, with 800 such tanks. Who are they afraid of, Lybia? They get thier military tradition from the Italians, pity them. Sudan? Nope. In the years to come, we might get an intersting look at how the Merkava stacks up against a real tank. :)

The U.S may not be able to place alot of boots on the ground but they would be able to put on one heck of a naval and air show that would place anyone insane enough to attack Australia to the bottom of the ocean floor. If the U.S assists in these two area`s, what ever makes it to shore will be dealt with ease by the Aussies. Lets not count out Australia`s naval forces either.

[Aussie Digger]

No, that is not what I was wondering about. You have a moat, and one hell of a big sand-box between you and teh nearest bad guys.

However, it was mentioned how streached the US is with just 2 areas of operation. Now, with the ability to make one deployment to an area of concern, what happens when more than one problem pops up?

Say, for instance; Timor heats up again, and then Thailand asks for help with the Muslim situation in the south of the country? What if a general war between Malaysia and Indonesia flares up?

While the US is busy elsewhere, we cannot lend boots on the ground in any great numbers. A few Dozen tanks can be a formidable force in a small war, but wars have a way of getting bigger.

However... there is a 90% chance that they will be enough, and I'm no Cassandra.
The other extreem is Egypt, with 800 such tanks. Who are they afraid of, Lybia? They get thier military tradition from the Italians, pity them. Sudan? Nope. In the years to come, we might get an intersting look at how the Merkava stacks up against a real tank. :)

But that reasoning is what our Governments base their force structuring choices upon.

Defending Australia is the primary responsibility of the ADF. Given the large sand box as you call it, highly mobile forces are more suited to operations in this type of terrain. Hence the Army's focus upon light and motorised (wheeled) forces that can self deploy quickly over large distances without imposing upon higher level transport assets.

Army is directed by Government strategic advice to be capable of deploying a Brigade sized taskgroup to one area of operations, whilst simultaneously deploying a battalion sized taskgroup to a separate area of operations.

Obviously we could not deploy a mechanised brigade with it's inhered tank regiment for extended periods of time, so the brigade sized deployment would be primarily motorised or light infantry. Perhaps with a core "mechanised battlegroup" to give it some "punch".

Australia has not since WW2 deployed brigades as a whole to any of it's operational deployments. What we do is form a taskforce that is matched to a particular mission, with capabilities to match particular threats.

The types of operation you have suggested above, could probably be met without any tank capability at all. Certainly Australia has intervened in Timor numerous times since 1999 and has never deployed a tank capability there at all.

The Phillipines could be a deployment option "down the track" indeed such deployments have been mooted many times. With the more organised nature of the rebels there, any deployment of Australian conventional soldiers may indeed see MBT's deployed, however a troop sized detachment would probably be about all that was deployed.

I doubt very much they'd use the tanks in normal patrolling operations, but for certain operations, possibly, hence they could probably get away with only a few tanks being deployed.

AS you've said, wars have a way of getting bigger and I can see your point. Whilst we are not actively involved in a war I think our Tank Regiment is about all we need for training value and a limited deployment capability.

I don't see too many obstacles to obtaining more such tanks should we need them though. The US has quite a few in storage I understand...

[Manfred2]

Good answer Digger, that covered just about everything, thanks!

I had questions about a possible Aircraft Carrier, but that is for a different forum...

[Aussie Digger]

The U.S may not be able to place alot of boots on the ground but they would be able to put on one heck of a naval and air show that would place anyone insane enough to attack Australia to the bottom of the ocean floor. If the U.S assists in these two area`s, what ever makes it to shore will be dealt with ease by the Aussies. Lets not count out Australia`s naval forces either.

Precisely.

1x US Carrier coming to assist us would equal the size of our existing air combat force and would immediately double the amount of air combat squadrons capable of defending our Country.

2x Arleigh Burke Destroyers would equal at least 20% (if not more) of our entire surface fleet combat power.

The US's ability to come to our aid cannot be doubted and I very much doubt they would refuse to do so, if we were threatened.

The talk by APA etc that the USA might be "side lined" is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to justify their irrational ideas.

Manfred,

no problems mate.

Whilst our M1 purchase may look small and somewhat insignificant, it is sufficient for us for the forseeable future.

Cheers

AD

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Precisely.

1x US Carrier coming to assist us would equal the size of our existing air combat force and would immediately double the amount of air combat squadrons capable of defending our Country.

2x Arleigh Burke Destroyers would equal at least 20% (if not more) of our entire surface fleet combat power.

The US's ability to come to our aid cannot be doubted and I very much doubt they would refuse to do so, if we were threatened.

The talk by APA etc that the USA might be "side lined" is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to justify their irrational ideas.



LOL, so any talk of australia actually defending herself is part of some APA propaganda??? AD your as bad as AGRA. Sounds more like the anti APA ilk using the alliance to justify their point of view. But it continually amazes me were APA seems to pop up. Any critisism of the F35 means your carlo kopp (:lol3), any talk of australia defending herself is just a pathetic attempt by APA to justify their cause, hell when Malaysia states it wants to buy the super hornett it has something to do with god damn APA! And you claim APA are using irrelevent points to justify their point of view?!?

So we should base the doctorine of the defence of our nation upon the capabilities and will of a foregin power???? Did the Americans directly intervene in Isreals time of need????? But they automatically will for us right, and therefore we can base our choice of capabilities arround that assumption? The british did in 1942 didnt they, i cant remember???? We seemed to rely upon britain for the defence of australia and that worked out really well didnt it? But it seems the ADF doesn't agree with you as we have maintained sufficient capability to deter any major naval power, apart from the US, since 1945 and will continue to do so. So i hope the people who make the desisions dont take your advice and make the same mistake we made in untill 1942, relying upon a foregin power for the defence in our nation. That relationship was alot closer than this one, and we paid for it with the blood of 1 & a half generations. A put load of good that did us when we needed it huh. The highest per capita casualties of any nation in someone else's war, of cource the worlds largest naval power would interviene if anyone threatened Australia, we even have the same head of state? No? Well this time its different and this time they will for sure!

The US alliance is by far our most important i am in no way disputing that or claiming that we should diminish it in some way. But when someone states that we should base our defenceive doctorine and choice of capabilities arround the ability for our nation to defend itself, and you claim that statement is just a ploy by carlo kopp and Goon so they can get their proposal for future RAAF force structure aproved it deserves a response. WE should have the ability to defend OURSELVES and not make the same mistake of relying on SOMEONE ELSE to do it. We made a massive mistake in doing so before.

[Aussie Digger]

LOL, so any talk of australia actually defending herself is part of some APA propaganda??? AD your as bad as AGRA. Sounds more like the anti APA ilk using the alliance to justify their point of view. But it continually amazes me were APA seems to pop up. Any critisism of the F35 means your carlo kopp (:lol3), any talk of australia defending herself is just a pathetic attempt by APA to justify their cause, hell when Malaysia states it wants to buy the super hornett it has something to do with god damn APA! And you claim APA are using irrelevent points to justify their point of view?!?

So we should base the doctorine of the defence of our nation upon the capabilities and will of a foregin power???? Did the Americans directly intervene in Isreals time of need????? But they automatically will for us right, and therefore we can base our choice of capabilities arround that assumption? The british did in 1942 didnt they, i cant remember???? We seemed to rely upon britain for the defence of australia and that worked out really well didnt it? But it seems the ADF doesn't agree with you as we have maintained sufficient capability to deter any major naval power, apart from the US, since 1945 and will continue to do so. So i hope the people who make the desisions dont take your advice and make the same mistake we made in untill 1942, relying upon a foregin power for the defence in our nation. That relationship was alot closer than this one, and we paid for it with the blood of 1 & a half generations. A put load of good that did us when we needed it huh. The highest per capita casualties of any nation in someone else's war, of cource the worlds largest naval power would interviene if anyone threatened Australia, we even have the same head of state? No? Well this time its different and this time they will for sure!

The US alliance is by far our most important i am in no way disputing that or claiming that we should diminish it in some way. But when someone states that we should base our defenceive doctorine and choice of capabilities arround the ability for our nation to defend itself, and you claim that statement is just a ploy by carlo kopp and Goon so they can get their proposal for future RAAF force structure aproved it deserves a response. WE should have the ability to defend OURSELVES and not make the same mistake of relying on SOMEONE ELSE to do it. We made a massive mistake in doing so before.

Calm down and wipe all that froth away from your mouth...

When did I state we couldn't defend ourselves?

I notice you didn't use any of my "quotes" just then either. Funny because I don't actually remember saying any of those things.

We went from discussing our relatively small M1A1 Abrams acquisition to discussing some of the reasons BEHIND such a small acquisition. One of them is that we don't face a significant threat.

Now APA seems to think so as they regurgitate so often along these lines. If Australia WERE to face an invasion from some Superpower capable of crossing the formidable geographic challenges to reach us then our force structure would INDEED be inadequate. That there IS no such threat is the reason we can get by with operating 59x Abrams tanks and 55x operational Hornet fighters and 17x F-111's.

If some Superpower suddenly emerged that could conceivably mount a realistic invasion of our Country then we most certainly WOULD need America's help.

If you think ADF seriously believe it's current force structure is adequate to defend Australia against such a scenario then I think you need to step away from a while and re-read ADF's strategic white paper.

In fact as you're so upset about it, I'll even provide the relevent section for you. It can be found under subsection 3.38 on page 23 of the White Paper 2000 it reads,

"A full-scale invasion of Australia, aimed at the seizure of our country and the erasure or subjagation of our national polity, is the least likely military contingency Australia might face. No Country has either the intent or the ability to undertake such a massive task. The region's major powers could conceivably develop the capabilities to undertake an invasion of the continent, but none has anything like that level of capability at present, and it would take many years of major effort to develop. They would also need to establish major bases near Australia. Such developments are not credible unless there were to be major changes in the region's security environment".

Hence the ADF bases it's force structure around more credible scenario's.

So, now that we've got that out of the way, can you point out exactly where I suggested ADF couldn't handle "credible" scenario's for DoA operations?

I did suggest and continue to do so that APA use "in" credible scenario's to justify their desire to be awarded a nice juicy contract by the Government and Defence Department that they so regularly declaim as corrupt, incompetent or both.

In relation to comments I have made about the Super Hornet (and Malaysia, India AND Japan) is that IF the aircraft ISN'T as capable as the RAAF and USN believe and it is lacking in performance as APA so often states, why do these Countries continue to look so seriously at acquiring the aircraft? Of these Countries India and now Malaysia actually operate the aircraft that supposedly dominates the Super Hornet by such a large margin and yet they are STILL interested in it.

I never suggested APA has anything to do with this of the sort, but rather that APA might just be stretching the truth somewhat to suit their own agenda...

Now, let's get back to talking about M1A1's shall we?

PM me if you want to continue this discussion.

[eckherl]

LOL, so any talk of australia actually defending herself is part of some APA propaganda??? AD your as bad as AGRA. Sounds more like the anti APA ilk using the alliance to justify their point of view. But it continually amazes me were APA seems to pop up. Any critisism of the F35 means your carlo kopp (:lol3), any talk of australia defending herself is just a pathetic attempt by APA to justify their cause, hell when Malaysia states it wants to buy the super hornett it has something to do with god damn APA! And you claim APA are using irrelevent points to justify their point of view?!?

So we should base the doctorine of the defence of our nation upon the capabilities and will of a foregin power???? Did the Americans directly intervene in Isreals time of need????? But they automatically will for us right, and therefore we can base our choice of capabilities arround that assumption? The british did in 1942 didnt they, i cant remember???? We seemed to rely upon britain for the defence of australia and that worked out really well didnt it? But it seems the ADF doesn't agree with you as we have maintained sufficient capability to deter any major naval power, apart from the US, since 1945 and will continue to do so. So i hope the people who make the desisions dont take your advice and make the same mistake we made in untill 1942, relying upon a foregin power for the defence in our nation. That relationship was alot closer than this one, and we paid for it with the blood of 1 & a half generations. A put load of good that did us when we needed it huh. The highest per capita casualties of any nation in someone else's war, of cource the worlds largest naval power would interviene if anyone threatened Australia, we even have the same head of state? No? Well this time its different and this time they will for sure!

The US alliance is by far our most important i am in no way disputing that or claiming that we should diminish it in some way. But when someone states that we should base our defenceive doctorine and choice of capabilities arround the ability for our nation to defend itself, and you claim that statement is just a ploy by carlo kopp and Goon so they can get their proposal for future RAAF force structure aproved it deserves a response. WE should have the ability to defend OURSELVES and not make the same mistake of relying on SOMEONE ELSE to do it. We made a massive mistake in doing so before.

I hope I did not make you upset with the comment that I made in-regards to the U.S helping Australia out in time of need, it was a comment of friendship between both of our countries it was not taking anything away from Australia`s capabilities in defending herself.

[AGRA]

I hope I did not make you upset with the comment that I made in-regards to the U.S helping Australia out in time of need, it was a comment of friendship between both of our countries it was not taking anything away from Australia`s capabilities in defending herself.

That’s OK we know we have total force overmatch to our neighbours anyway., We also know that we actually have a treaty with the USA (called ANZUS) that stipulates when one country is attacked we will fight together in response. That's why Aussie and NZ forces were in Afghanistan right after September 11, 2001. As for Israel they don't have such a luxury but the US is very close, which is why in their times of need the US has had their forces on standby ready to go. Such as in 1973 when Syria and Egypt attacked, if either had broken through then the US would have started bombing to keep the Arab tanks from Tel Aviv.

But what does all this have to do with tanks? Well Australia has only maintained one regiment of full time tank troops since the 1950s. It’s a normal part of our force balance. Our regional force structure is not the same as central Europe during the Cold War or the Middle East today. So we don't need more tanks. The lesson is don't so quickly apply perceived balances to other environments. There is no tank formula that easily explains how many tanks each country should have.

[eaf-f16]

The other extreem is Egypt, with 800 such tanks. Who are they afraid of, Lybia? They get thier military tradition from the Italians, pity them. Sudan? Nope. In the years to come, we might get an intersting look at how the Merkava stacks up against a real tank. :)

Would Egypt rank as second largest user of Abrams tanks? I think the Merkava Mk.4 is better than M1A1 Egypt is using but we do use depleted uranuim rounds :cool: so that might even the odds up a bit.

[Waylander]

Jup, Egypt is the biggest foreign user of the Abrams.

Egypt seems to take security very yerious. It is not that easy to get pictures of their M1s.

Back to topic.
Are some mine plugs also ordered by Australia? The US seem to like them in Iraq for getting obstacles or small IEDs out of the way.

[eckherl]

Would Egypt rank as second largest user of Abrams tanks? I think the Merkava Mk.4 is better than M1A1 Egypt is using but we do use depleted uranuim rounds :cool: so that might even the odds up a bit.

Sorry - Egypt does not use DU maingun rounds for their M1A1s. That was part of a agreement between Israel and the U.S during the purchasing process with Egypt.

[eaf-f16]

Sorry - Egypt does not use DU maingun rounds for their M1A1s. That was part of a agreement between Israel and the U.S during the purchasing process with Egypt.

We do have DU rounds. One of the perks of Major Non-NATO Ally Status. Apparently Israel has them too.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/depleted-uranium/introduction.htm

http://arabstreet.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_archive.html

http://www.cadu.org.uk/intro.htm

[eckherl]

We do have DU rounds. One of the perks of Major Non-NATO Ally Status. Apparently Israel has them too.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/depleted-uranium/introduction.htm

http://arabstreet.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_archive.html

http://www.cadu.org.uk/intro.htm

Hmm, thats interesting - I know they use the KE-W and KE-A1 year 2001, but they are Tungsten core. Which DU round did the U.S apparentely give them. I know Israel uses DU. There was a deal being worked out in 1999 for a big bulk order of DU but I do not think that it went thru due to strong opposition from Israel thus the reason for the U.S designing the KE-A1 specifically for Egypt and a few others.

[eaf-f16]

Jup, Egypt is the biggest foreign user of the Abrams.

Egypt seems to take security very yerious. It is not that easy to get pictures of their M1s.

Don't mean to take you off topic again but there are a couple of pics of Egypt's M1A1's on DT if you haven't seen them already.

[eckherl]

@eaf-f16

To keep this on topic - Australia also may be using one of the rounds mentioned by my earlier post. Please provide me with a model number of the DU penetrator that my country provided Egypt.

[Abrams 2.0]

I know that the M1A2 Abrams tank is the most powerful tank currently in deployment. With it's 120mm cannon it can dominate most anything. But what are the details of the Abrams? what kind of armor does it have, what's it's horsepower, and does it get good mpg? and after all that, is the army working on a predecessor for the Abrams? What is it called, and what is it's projected capabilities?

Mod edit:

Threads merged due to similarity of topics. Most everything you can find out about the Abrams, can be found in this topic.

Do a bit of research next time brother. It ain't hard...

Regards

AD

[scudracer]

Has anyone here played the Microprose game M1 Tank Platoon?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Has anyone here played the Microprose game M1 Tank Platoon?

Mate we were discussing this stuff here:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95