Australian M1A1 Abrams technology

[Aussie Digger]

Here's a nice little Article from the Auistralian Army magazine on Australia's new M1A1 Abrams, which are due to arrive in 2 shipments in June (next month!!!) and December 06.

The Abrams Files:

An Australian owned Abrams tank is currently on exhibition at the US Armor Symposium at Fort Knox in Kentucky, showcasing the technological advances of the Australian variant.

The tank is an M1A1 AIM SA (Abrams integrated management situational awareness), one of the most advanced of the Abrams main battle tanks. It is one of only a small number of vehicles in the world of such a configuration, all of which are Australian.

The M1A1 AIM SA features enhancements such as second-generation FLIR, an inertial navigation system in addition to the global positioning system, an auxiliary power unit, infantry/tank telephone, far target locator, and the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) battlefield management system. Modified for Australian conditions, the tank has crew cooling fans and a refrigeration unit, and can fit a deep-water fording kit.

The armour package of the Australian Abrams is among the most advanced in the world.
The US Armor Symposium is attended by a large audience of senior US military officers, armoured-vehicle users and procurement personnel. The event is intended to communicate the importance of the newest technology in relation to security, education, training, and awareness for US military members.

The US Army will seek to adopt many features of the Australian variants for introduction to their own Abrams fleet.


Obtained from: http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1143/topstories/story20c.htm

Well despite misgivings about the reduced numbers we are getting (we are dropping from 3x tank Squadrons to 2x). The new tank looks like an absolute corker.

Whaddyareckon?

[Bfn42]

Very nice......indeed. What kind of armor package do you get with it?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Are depleated uranium SABOT rounds still in use? if so will we use them? Or just a heavy metal equivelent?

[Waylander]

Should I write my questions here again or is the discussion going on in this thread?

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226&page=19

[knightrider4]

The Australian Abrams will use the new KEW-A2 round against armour and the MP-T round against personel, bunkers etc. Armour protection is not DU but a composite package similar to chobham ie; ceramic and steel mix.

[The_Jet]

The new tanks sound great! I'd like to get another squadron instead of the 2 squads we are getting now!

[robsta83]

In a few years I could see another 40 odd tanks being purchased, once the new HNA scheme settles eg the 3RAR movement and re-organisation is finished. 59 are nice but it is only a basic capability and frankly way to low for the size of the Aus Army. Plus perhaps they are tesing the upgrade ie not have a Seasprite issue, old frames new systems...

[knightrider4]

Yeah I would like to see 3 RAR get their own organic armour when they become mechanised in 2010. I know the number of tanks (59) is small but we operate armour a lot differently to most armies. Our Abrams are for the support of infantry in a combined arms team (battlegroup) the need for tank on tank warfare would be rather limited I would think.

[Waylander]

Is the KEW-A2 round self developed or is it bought?

[robsta83]

Is the KEW-A2 round self developed or is it bought?

AFAIK General Dynamics developed it so well be bringing them in I guess.

[Aussie Digger]

Bought, it's a heavy tungstun penetrator. I'm pretty sure it's German developed, but it may just be called something else in German service. 3RAR is most unlikely to get it's own tank squadron. More likely an additional Tank Sqn will be raised within 1 Armoured Regt to support them.

I won't hold my breath though. Army is happily on it's way to becoming an army of "2's" and we already have "2" tank Squadrons on order...

[Whiskyjack]

Bought, it's a heavy tungstun penetrator. I'm pretty sure it's German developed, but it may just be called something else in German service. 3RAR is most unlikely to get it's own tank squadron. More likely an additional Tank Sqn will be raised within 1 Armoured Regt to support them.

I won't hold my breath though. Army is happily on it's way to becoming an army of "2's" and we already have "2" tank Squadrons on order...

Will they be standard 14 tank sqns or a bit more enhanced?

Also do the Australian Army still use 3 tank trps like the UK?

Sorry for the questions, just seems that 59 taks is a lot to support two sqns of 28 tanks.

[Padman]

I agree 59 tanks does seem alot, even if you figure half a dozen for crew training, plus any down for maintanence. How maintanence intensive is an Abrams? I have heard they are prone to break easily. I know that Australia uses reserves alot to complement regular personnel. Are they maybe thinking of having tanks put aside for reserve use in case of all out war?

[shamsi]

Here's a nice little Article from the Auistralian Army magazine on Australia's new M1A1 Abrams, which are due to arrive in 2 shipments in June (next month!!!) and December 06.

The Abrams Files:

An Australian owned Abrams tank is currently on exhibition at the US Armor Symposium at Fort Knox in Kentucky, showcasing the technological advances of the Australian variant.

The tank is an M1A1 AIM SA (Abrams integrated management situational awareness), one of the most advanced of the Abrams main battle tanks. It is one of only a small number of vehicles in the world of such a configuration, all of which are Australian.

The M1A1 AIM SA features enhancements such as second-generation FLIR, an inertial navigation system in addition to the global positioning system, an auxiliary power unit, infantry/tank telephone, far target locator, and the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) battlefield management system. Modified for Australian conditions, the tank has crew cooling fans and a refrigeration unit, and can fit a deep-water fording kit.

The armour package of the Australian Abrams is among the most advanced in the world.
The US Armor Symposium is attended by a large audience of senior US military officers, armoured-vehicle users and procurement personnel. The event is intended to communicate the importance of the newest technology in relation to security, education, training, and awareness for US military members.

The US Army will seek to adopt many features of the Australian variants for introduction to their own Abrams fleet.


Obtained from: http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1143/topstories/story20c.htm

Well despite misgivings about the reduced numbers we are getting (we are dropping from 3x tank Squadrons to 2x). The new tank looks like an absolute corker.

Whaddyareckon?
Why would Australia need the Abrams? Are they expecting an invasion anytime soon? Wouldnt the faster mobility vehicles with 120 MM smooth bore turrets be more suitable for the terrian down under?

[nethappy]

Why would Australia need the Abrams? Are they expecting an invasion anytime soon? Wouldnt the faster mobility vehicles with 120 MM smooth bore turrets be more suitable for the terrian down under?

Well the faster mobility vehicles with 120mm can't take a 120mm fire from another tank. Every Army need it tank there is a billion sitution where a few tank used tactical right can save your whole army. ]

It not a matter of invasion or not, it be amost useless if you get your tank just before a invasion. Do you know how long it take to be full train up with a new tank? Do you know how long to develop different tatic to suit the new tank? Everything take time, there is no point of doing in the last min.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Why would Australia need the Abrams? Are they expecting an invasion anytime soon? Wouldnt the faster mobility vehicles with 120 MM smooth bore turrets be more suitable for the terrian down under?

The ADF is gearing to a more expeditionary role. If you look at our deployments in the last five years alone, Timor, Solomon islands, iraq, afgahanistan ect. thats why much of our regular army is being reorginised into combined armes battlegroups. So the issue of suitability to Australian terrain (remember that Australian terrain is verry diverse, we've got snow, desert, jungle, woodland, grassland and urbanized areas) is less relevent. The M1's will be much more likely to see action overseas. Yes the ADF's primary mission is the defence of Australia but any way you look at it , the Abrams is one bad motha and can do that job verry well!

[cherry]

Can someone please explain to me where the magic number of 14 came from for our tank squadrons? Is this because we have always operated squadrons of 14? Is this just speculation on everyone's behalf? If we are now reducing our active tank squadrons from three down to two, wouldn't it be better to have larger squadrons of around 20-25?

I just can't understand why it takes 59 Abrams tanks to provide only a mere 28 operational tanks, this is absurd! Based on what everyone is saying, there will actually be more tanks used for training and in maintenance (virtually brand new tanks I might add) than actual operational tanks. Again, what a joke!!! Could someone please break down the actual numbers of operational tanks (everyone is saying 2 x 14 = 28 for two squadrons), and of the 31 reserve tanks, how many will be in maintenance and how many will be required to be used for training? None of this makes any sense:mad:

[Waylander]

I also think that 28 operational tanks are not very much. 14 tanks is for example just a company in the german army.
For me a bataillon should be the minimum dimension for a force which wants to be able to do some combined arms warfare in a larger way than just on a frontline of some km.
For example our main offensive brigades consist of 2 tank btls one mech infantry btl, one tank artillery btl and one tank pioneer company + attached units (Helicopters, logistic, etc).
I do not see that you are able to rotate enough heavy units to the frontline with just these two squadrons.
Or is your concept totally connected to the US as an ally?

[Aussie Digger]

Everyone chill, I've just been busy... :D

Okay, 1 Armoured Regt is to be issued 41 tanks for it's 2x Sabre Squadrons. Our tank Squadrons are equipped with 18 tanks per Sqn, with 4x troops of 4 tanks, 1x for the OC and 1x for the 2IC. The other 5x tanks are issued to CO, Regt 2IC, RSM, Exec officer and Ops officer etc.

The other 18 WILL be issued to the School of Armour and the RAEME School (for mechanics etc to learn how to fix them).

[Whiskyjack]

Can someone please explain to me where the magic number of 14 came from for our tank squadrons? Is this because we have always operated squadrons of 14? Is this just speculation on everyone's behalf? If we are now reducing our active tank squadrons from three down to two, wouldn't it be better to have larger squadrons of around 20-25?



UK, US and German armies use 14 tank sqns, the US use 4 tank platoons and the UK 3 tank troops. Not sure how the German army divides them up tho Waylander?

[Whiskyjack]

Everyone chill, I've just been busy... :D

Okay, 1 Armoured Regt is to be issued 41 tanks for it's 2x Sabre Squadrons. Our tank Squadrons are equipped with 18 tanks per Sqn, with 4x troops of 4 tanks, 1x for the OC and 1x for the 2IC. The other 5x tanks are issued to CO, Regt 2IC, RSM, Exec officer and Ops officer etc.

The other 18 WILL be issued to the School of Armour and the RAEME School (for mechanics etc to learn how to fix them).

Just as an observation, with 3RAR going Mech that will give the army 2 battalions of 3 inf companies each (assuming the mech battalions follow the same structure as the new infantry structure).

Two tank sqns allows for a reinforced mech battalion to deploy, e.g. mech battalion and 1 tank sqn. However for flexability if 1 Regt had 3 x 14 tank sqns it would allow for three battalion groups to deploy each with 1 tank sqn and 2 infantry coys (plus a cav sqn?). Using the 1 Regt HQ.

Just an opinion :)

[Waylander]

We changed from 3 tanks per platoon to 4 and from four platoons per company to three not long ago. Two tanks are for the boss and his XO.
This system steals one maneuver element but increases the ability of the platoon to support and cover itself while on the run.

[cherry]

Okay, 1 Armoured Regt is to be issued 41 tanks for it's 2x Sabre Squadrons. Our tank Squadrons are equipped with 18 tanks per Sqn, with 4x troops of 4 tanks, 1x for the OC and 1x for the 2IC. The other 5x tanks are issued to CO, Regt 2IC, RSM, Exec officer and Ops officer etc.

The other 18 WILL be issued to the School of Armour and the RAEME School (for mechanics etc to learn how to fix them).
Thanks again AD. That all makes a bit more sense. Hopefully over time, with the increased operational momentum our forces are facing, the ADF and more importantly the Government, will realise that more Abrams are needed. Any goss on when the DCP will be announced? Might be on the opening day of the Defence & Industry conference next month?:confused:

[blueorchid]

When the purchase of the 59 M1A1 AIM(D) tanks for Australia was originaly anounced the break up was to be 14 each for the two sabre sqn's and a 12 tank "training" sqn with an all up total of 45 tanks for the 1st Amour reg. with the remaining tanks for training etc.
But according to Aussie Digger the orginal two sqn's plus 1 "training" sqn have been re-organised. :rolleyes:

[Aussie Digger]

Just as an observation, with 3RAR going Mech that will give the army 2 battalions of 3 inf companies each (assuming the mech battalions follow the same structure as the new infantry structure).

Two tank sqns allows for a reinforced mech battalion to deploy, e.g. mech battalion and 1 tank sqn. However for flexability if 1 Regt had 3 x 14 tank sqns it would allow for three battalion groups to deploy each with 1 tank sqn and 2 infantry coys (plus a cav sqn?). Using the 1 Regt HQ.

Just an opinion :)

6RAR is the battalion that has been given the job of trialling the new structure and we may see it deploy to Afghanistan in July with this new structure in the infantry Coy group that is to deploy.

The environment in Afghanistan is certainly conducive to the employment of heavy weapons given the long range fire fights and fights against fortified positions that are typically encountered in that AO. I'd bet we''ll see the use of these MS teams and the MS section at Coy level in the Ghan as an operational trial at least, even if all the "new" weapon systems are not yet present.

With the Mech battalions however the level of support required is significant. Armoured vehicles need a lot of track etc to operate. Operating greater numbers of more small formations rather than small numbers of larger formations allows you a greater operational "footprint" but imposes additional strains on supporting assets for your armoured vehicles. Extensive modelling and trials would need to be done to see if it's worth it...

Realistically if they are going to raise another Mech battalion, they should be raising an additional tank Sqn. The 2x currently planned tank Sqns are designed to support each current maneuvre element (5/7RAR and 2nd Cav Regt).

By stripping 2 Cav Regt of it's Sqn, it loses a significant level of combat capability. For a robust mechanised brigade, each battalion and the Cav Regt should have a supporting tank sqn and a supporting artillery battery, plus each maneuvre element should have it's own organic in-direct and direct fire support assets.

By this I mean the inf battalions should have mechanised mortar systems, Ca Regt should have motorised mortar systems and both should have good anti-armour/anti-bunker/anti-personnel direct fire weapons (which they will get if the new battalion structure is delivered as promised).

Given the mobility of the mech brigade the supporting mortars and artillery should be self-propelled vehicles and be of sufficiently long range to cover a large area (for mortars this may mean a switch to 120mm calibre).

My opinion anyway...

[abramsteve]

Just a quick question. Can a C-17 lift an Abrams? Or are they only going to be deployed overseas via naval transport?

[davidcandy]

CARGO SYSTEMS

The design of the cargo compartment allows the C-17 to carry a wide range of vehicles, palleted cargo, paratroops, air-drop loads and aeromedical evacuees. The cargo compartment has a sufficiently large cross-section to transport large wheeled and tracked vehicles, tanks, helicopters (such as the AH-64 Apache), artillery, and weapons such as the Patriot Missile System. Three Bradley armoured vehicles comprise one deployment load on the C-17. The US Army M1A1 main battle tank can be carried with other vehicles.

The maximum payload is 170,900lb (77,519kg) with 18 pallet positions, including four on the ramp. Airdrop capabilities include: single load of up to 60,000lb (27,216kg), sequential loads of up to 110,000lb (49,895kg), Container Delivery System (CDS) airdrop up to 40 containers, 2,350lb (1,066kg) each; up to 102 paratroops. The aircraft is equipped for LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System) drops. For Medevac, the C-17 can transport up to 36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients and attendants.

From
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c17/

[Aussie Digger]

Just a quick question. Can a C-17 lift an Abrams? Or are they only going to be deployed overseas via naval transport?

A C-17 CAN lift an Abrams, but it can't transport it very far. It's a VERY inefficient way of transporting heavy armour and with a maximum fleet of 4 I can't see how any significant tactical advantage could be gained by using our C-17's to lift heavy armour. Perhaps for short hops into a landlocked Country or something but that would be it.

We would not deploy heavy armour to the middle east, africa or north asia via C-17.

That'll be the role of the planned "fast sealift" ship...

[Whiskyjack]

6RAR is the battalion that has been given the job of trialling the new structure and we may see it deploy to Afghanistan in July with this new structure in the infantry Coy group that is to deploy.

The environment in Afghanistan is certainly conducive to the employment of heavy weapons given the long range fire fights and fights against fortified positions that are typically encountered in that AO. I'd bet we''ll see the use of these MS teams and the MS section at Coy level in the Ghan as an operational trial at least, even if all the "new" weapon systems are not yet present.

With the Mech battalions however the level of support required is significant. Armoured vehicles need a lot of track etc to operate. Operating greater numbers of more small formations rather than small numbers of larger formations allows you a greater operational "footprint" but imposes additional strains on supporting assets for your armoured vehicles. Extensive modelling and trials would need to be done to see if it's worth it...

Realistically if they are going to raise another Mech battalion, they should be raising an additional tank Sqn. The 2x currently planned tank Sqns are designed to support each current maneuvre element (5/7RAR and 2nd Cav Regt).

By stripping 2 Cav Regt of it's Sqn, it loses a significant level of combat capability. For a robust mechanised brigade, each battalion and the Cav Regt should have a supporting tank sqn and a supporting artillery battery, plus each maneuvre element should have it's own organic in-direct and direct fire support assets.

By this I mean the inf battalions should have mechanised mortar systems, Ca Regt should have motorised mortar systems and both should have good anti-armour/anti-bunker/anti-personnel direct fire weapons (which they will get if the new battalion structure is delivered as promised).

Given the mobility of the mech brigade the supporting mortars and artillery should be self-propelled vehicles and be of sufficiently long range to cover a large area (for mortars this may mean a switch to 120mm calibre).

My opinion anyway...

I thought that the tank regt was supposed to provide one of the 9 HQs for deployment, if its two sqns are tasked to two battalions, would that not leave rather empty? Or have various infantry and cav formations but none of its own tank sqns?

if this is unclear let me know and I will attempt to clarify.

[Aussie Digger]

I thought that the tank regt was supposed to provide one of the 9 HQs for deployment, if its two sqns are tasked to two battalions, would that not leave rather empty? Or have various infantry and cav formations but none of its own tank sqns?

if this is unclear let me know and I will attempt to clarify.

For exercises 1 Brigade splits up into battlegroups ("Battlegroup Tiger" is the most common) the type and construct of which depends on the task at hand. Sometimes it's armour heavy, sometimes it's infantry heavy and sometimes it's Cavalry heavy. 1 Armed HQ would deploy as a taskforce command if an armour heavy deployment were to occur.

Similarly 5 Avn and 1 Avn Regt's ALSO provide HQ's for deployment, although in practice it's hard to imagine helo's OR armour providing the lead force for a deployment, but infantry or Cavalry not...

The Al Muthana tasgroup for instance is considered "Cavalry heavy" due to 2x Cav Sqns and 1x Inf Coy making up the the majority of the forces deployed. As such HQ 2 Cav Regt provides the command element for the whole taskgroup.

On larger scale deployments a particular Brigade HQ will command the various elements. Such is the case in Timor at present with HQ 3 Brigade running the show.

On "massive" deployments, ie: larger than Brigade level (as Interfet was originally) the DJFHQ from Gallipoli Barracks Enoggera will command and will be run by a Major General.

Hope this is what you were referring to?

[Whiskyjack]

For exercises 1 Brigade splits up into battlegroups ("Battlegroup Tiger" is the most common) the type and construct of which depends on the task at hand. Sometimes it's armour heavy, sometimes it's infantry heavy and sometimes it's Cavalry heavy. 1 Armed HQ would deploy as a taskforce command if an armour heavy deployment were to occur.

Similarly 5 Avn and 1 Avn Regt's ALSO provide HQ's for deployment, although in practice it's hard to imagine helo's OR armour providing the lead force for a deployment, but infantry or Cavalry not...

The Al Muthana tasgroup for instance is considered "Cavalry heavy" due to 2x Cav Sqns and 1x Inf Coy making up the the majority of the forces deployed. As such HQ 2 Cav Regt provides the command element for the whole taskgroup.

On larger scale deployments a particular Brigade HQ will command the various elements. Such is the case in Timor at present with HQ 3 Brigade running the show.

On "massive" deployments, ie: larger than Brigade level (as Interfet was originally) the DJFHQ from Gallipoli Barracks Enoggera will command and will be run by a Major General.

Hope this is what you were referring to?

It was indeed, thanks for that.

[oskarm]

Our tank Squadrons are equipped with 18 tanks per Sqn, with 4x troops of 4 tanks, 1x for the OC and 1x for the 2IC.

I understand that main role for tanks in Australian Army is supporting infantry and the Squadrons would be attached to mechanized battalions in combat. Are the Squadrons split to troops and attached to infantry coys or they are working all together as a full Squadron or it depends on situation?

As far as I know, only Canadians have similar organization of Tank Squadrons (+1 tank in Squadron HQ), and Brits, but their troops are only 3 tanks strong. And the question to Aussie Digger or other tankers is: isn't it difficult to command 4 troop squadron? Most armies uses only 3 troops Squadrons.

[Aussie Digger]

I understand that main role for tanks in Australian Army is supporting infantry and the Squadrons would be attached to mechanized battalions in combat. Are the Squadrons split to troops and attached to infantry coys or they are working all together as a full Squadron or it depends on situation?

As far as I know, only Canadians have similar organization of Tank Squadrons (+1 tank in Squadron HQ), and Brits, but their troops are only 3 tanks strong. And the question to Aussie Digger or other tankers is: isn't it difficult to command 4 troop squadron? Most armies uses only 3 troops Squadrons.

It depends very much on the threat level. Army's experience on operations, even in Vietnam is forming "battle groups" to tackle a particular threat. "Battle Group Tiger" is formed on major exercises in Australia and usually generates 1 or 2 infantry company's attached to a Squadron of MBT's.

The size of the formation depends on whether they want it to be "armour" heavy or "infantry" heavy.

IN relation to whether 4 troops are more difficult to command than 3, I have no idea. Our Armoured units APART from the tank unit have 3 troops per Squadron, however we only operate 1 Tank Regiment, whereas we have numerous "other" Armoured Regiments, so this may explain the increased number of troops per squadron.

With the increased command and control capabilities inherent within the Abrams (Blue Force Tracker etc), it shouldn't be too difficult. Now if they'd only spring for a 3rd Squadron and some armoured bridgelayers...

[MARKMILES77]

Aussie Digger, I am under the impression 1 Armoured Regiment has THREE Squadrons of tanks A, B and C Squadrons.
All of the information I have seen on the HNA refers to six Cavalry Squadrons and three tank Squadrons being available to form Battle Groups.

I have a copy of "Ironsides" in front of me which has a "Year in Review" section for each of the RAAC units in 2005.
For 1 Armoured Regiment here are a couple of exerts.

"During Talisman Sabre the Regiment formed Battlegroup Leopard. RHQ, A Squadron and Operations Support Squadron were joined by elements of 8/12 MdM REGT, 1 CER and 1 RAR while a B Squadron Troop Group worked with 2RAR as OPFOR.

B Squadron has conducted (live fire excercise) Beersheba at Mt Bundey and in Townsville this year. They provided the RMC cadets an excellent opportunity to experience combined arms operations in close country and urban terrain.

the most significant non-operational deployment was C Squadron's Excercise Gold Eagle exchange with B Company's 1st Tank Battalion, USMC."

Unless one of the Squadrons has been disbanded in the last few months there must be three.






There are 41 M1A1s going to 1 AR in Darwin. This seems like a strange number unless this will be the Regimental structure.

1 tank for REG CO
1 tank for REG 2IC
Each Squadron would have 13 tanks.
1 for Squadron CO and either three troops of four tanks or four troops of three tanks. It is not unknown for the Squadron 2IC in some Army's tank Squadrons to not be allocated a tank but to travel in Command vehicles.

[Aussie Digger]

Aussie Digger, I am under the impression 1 Armoured Regiment has THREE Squadrons of tanks A, B and C Squadrons.
All of the information I have seen on the HNA refers to six Cavalry Squadrons and three tank Squadrons being available to form Battle Groups.

I have a copy of "Ironsides" in front of me which has a "Year in Review" section for each of the RAAC units in 2005.
For 1 Armoured Regiment here are a couple of exerts.

"During Talisman Sabre the Regiment formed Battlegroup Leopard. RHQ, A Squadron and Operations Support Squadron were joined by elements of 8/12 MdM REGT, 1 CER and 1 RAR while a B Squadron Troop Group worked with 2RAR as OPFOR.

B Squadron has conducted (live fire excercise) Beersheba at Mt Bundey and in Townsville this year. They provided the RMC cadets an excellent opportunity to experience combined arms operations in close country and urban terrain.

the most significant non-operational deployment was C Squadron's Excercise Gold Eagle exchange with B Company's 1st Tank Battalion, USMC."

Unless one of the Squadrons has been disbanded in the last few months there must be three.

There are 41 M1A1s going to 1 AR in Darwin. This seems like a strange number unless this will be the Regimental structure.

1 tank for REG CO
1 tank for REG 2IC
Each Squadron would have 13 tanks.
1 for Squadron CO and either three troops of four tanks or four troops of three tanks. It is not unknown for the Squadron 2IC in some Army's tank Squadrons to not be allocated a tank but to travel in Command vehicles.

C Squadron WAS a Chocco Squadron equipped. It was being disbanned, but under HNA they must have decided to retain it as a regular squadron. I was not aware of that.

I guess it has been replaced by a full time C Squadron and the manning complement of tanks reduced, now that the Regiment only has 41 operational tanks.

The 13x tank per Squadron now makes sense... :)

I also just found this unde the HNA site:

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/HNA/docs/Impacts_by_Unit.pdf

Which lists ALL the changes unit by unit, that HNA will make. Of course it's slightly out of date already with Howard's increased announced recently, but it's probably still accurate at present...

[MARKMILES77]

Personally, I would have five tank Squadrons in 1AR.
A, B and C Squadrons would remain as they are.
D and E Squadrons would be permanently attached to 3 and 7 Brigades respectively, to provide a heavy direct fire support capability for these Brigades.
This would also provide an additional (away from Darwin) posting for tank crews!

[FutureTank]

We changed from 3 tanks per platoon to 4 and from four platoons per company to three not long ago. Two tanks are for the boss and his XO.
This system steals one maneuver element but increases the ability of the platoon to support and cover itself while on the run.

Yes, but Bundeswehr armoured trops are but a shaddow of their former Cold War self!

[Aussie Digger]

Personally, I would have five tank Squadrons in 1AR.
A, B and C Squadrons would remain as they are.
D and E Squadrons would be permanently attached to 3 and 7 Brigades respectively, to provide a heavy direct fire support capability for these Brigades.
This would also provide an additional (away from Darwin) posting for tank crews!

With the same amount of tanks as now, or with additional tanks and recovery vehicles, low-loaders and fuel trucks ordered?

I am in favour of the additional vehicles, but not spreading the capability we have now any thinner than it already is. Concentration of force is STILL a vital tactic on the battlefield and allows significant efficiencies in training...

[MARKMILES77]

With additional M1s, M88s etc.
Small extra buy of around 30 M1s should do it!

I still have doubts in my mind whether all tanks should be concentrated in a single Regiment when they will never deploy that way. I am unconvinced by arguments that it makes training better/easier. Surely it would be better to train the way you are likely to deploy!
This issue was raised, I think, in the Australian Army Journal this year. The author proposed (prior to knowing the Army was being expanded) that instead of seperate tank and mechanised infantry battalions , that 1 Brigade have composite units. His proposal was for two units, each of which had two tank companies and two mechanised infantry companies. He also proposed that each Cavalry regiment have a permanently attached, Bushmaster mounted, Infantry company. Potentially, you could have three Cavalry Regiments, each composed of two ASLAV and one Bushmaster Company.
Overseas Tank/Armoured units do have mixed Regiments. I think the British 1RTR has, as part of it's OOB, one Recon Squadron and a CBR Squadron.
The Canadians, I think, also have mixed units. For example the Strathconians have one wheeled Recon Squadron, two tank Squadrons and an M113 mounted Anti-tank Company. I think they are also planning to incorporate a anti-air element as well!!

[FutureTank]

Personally, I would have five tank Squadrons in 1AR.
A, B and C Squadrons would remain as they are.
D and E Squadrons would be permanently attached to 3 and 7 Brigades respectively, to provide a heavy direct fire support capability for these Brigades.
This would also provide an additional (away from Darwin) posting for tank crews!

more tanks mean more crews and more support staff on a limited recruitment intake.

[Aussie Digger]

With additional M1s, M88s etc.
Small extra buy of around 30 M1s should do it!

I still have doubts in my mind whether all tanks should be concentrated in a single Regiment when they will never deploy that way. I am unconvinced by arguments that it makes training better/easier. Surely it would be better to train the way you are likely to deploy!


The only problem with that is that "how" you deploy is dependant on many factors, not least of which is the likely threat you have to face.

I know I don't need to teach you to suck eggs, but as you say the need to train with units you are likely to deploy with, is a bit simplistic. How often has Australia deployed heavy armour since Vietnam?

1 Brigade forms Battlegroup "Tiger or Leopard" for virtually EVERY exercise it undertakes and assumes the very formations you advocate. As we already DO train that way largely, what benefit is there in duplicating training and support facilities for such a limited asset?

If training were conducted on that basis, heavy armour would seem to have VERY little role in our ORBAT...

The problem with combined arms formations as I see is it, is a reverse of the problem you raise. When LARGE battles have to be fought (as Army is predicated upon doing) the smaller units have to link together to form the larger units, again not having been trained to operate that way any longer. Army's philosophy of being ale to "come down" to peace-making provided they are trained for warfighting, seems applicable here...

[old faithful]

A little off topic AD, but did you see what happened the other day when the Ghan hit a road train? Imagine what might have been if say a sqn of brand new M1,s and a sqn of aslavs were onboard!:shudder

[oskarm]

It depends very much on the threat level. Army's experience on operations...

Thanks for answer. A discusion about 3 o 4 troop squadron between Canadian soldiers:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,54588.0/all.html

[FutureTank]

Why hasn't the Australian Army seen greater use of tanks in its history? After all, the 'tank' was invented in South Australia!
(Note: the real reason the Royal Navy called the vehicles 'tank' is because it was an acronym for - Totally Awesome New Kit ;))

It seems to me the reason is one of logistics, not tactics. Australia has always had limited Defence logistic capacity for a country that depends on naval resources to get anywhere. This maybe corrected in future, but there is also ambiguity about what ADF may be committed to in future in terms of tactical/operational force.

As AD already mentioned this is unlikely to be a force larger then those sent to other historical conflicts such as Korea or Vietnam, so unlikely to call for anything larger then a squadron of tanks.
I think Canadians did send tanks to Korea, but they were supporting a larger infantry force (a brigade? from memory).

However in the age of peace-keeping we should not forget that future may change to one of war-making not through Australia’s choosing.
The last time this happened Australians found themselves in the role of 'rats', trapped by Rommel's armoured forces. It would have been nice to have tanks of our own in North Africa.

Cheers

[FutureTank]

Thanks for answer. A discussion about 3 o 4 troop squadron between Canadian soldiers:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,54588.0/all.html

Thanks for the link....interesting discussion.

What it is particularly interesting for in view of the tradition that armour units in Commonwealth countries use cavalry terms to describe their formations, is that they rarely mention cavalry!

A tank is just a really sophisticated version of the cuirassier.
The AUSLAV is actually a very sophisticated version of the hussar/lancer.
IFV mounted infantry are just the 'new dragoons'.

When one thinks of the debates in these simpler terms it readily becomes apparent that there is no debate.
Cavalry regiments during the horse era were used to perform specific tactical manoeuvres to achieve specific results. The choices were limited.
Cuirassiers were rarely used as independent squadrons, in part because they were habitually short on men and horses.
Light cavalry didn't begin to perform in close order until armies started to run out of 'battle' cavalry during the Napoleonic wars. Their successes in countering 'battle' cavalry are noteworthy if only for their rarity.
Most of the cavalry tactical work was done by dragoons. The most versatile part of the cavalry arm, they were good for mounted and dismounted combat; were economical to equip, and did not require specially selected mounts.

Interestingly enough Australia never fielded ‘cuirassiers’ which, where they existed, had become just another type of mounted infantry. The same fate betook the flashy hussars and lancers.
Australian cavalry had always been Mounted Rifles, even the Lancer regiments.

So it comes down to ‘dragoon’ tactics really as I see it, because ‘cuirassier’ tactics are really in the Cold War Central Europe league well outside of Australian needs or wants.

From this perspective every ‘dragoon’ regiment had their ‘grenadiers’, and it seems to me that although Australian Army regiments may want to perpetuate their historical legacy, in terms of tactics the tanks will always remain in just such ‘grenadier’ role as AD points out above.

From this, the conclusion seems fairly obvious to me. To achieve tactical objectives, a given unit assumes a tactical formation appropriate to the mission just as they have always done. Where the tank ‘grenadiers’ deploy within the ‘dragoon’ troops and squadrons will always be dictated by the CO and not those making decisions on the equipment purchase, and given historical knowledge, there will never be enough of either ‘dragoons’ or ‘grenadiers’, or ‘lancers’ for that matter.

It seems to me then that the debate over size of this troop is immaterial, and the Army approach to training is the right one given Australian doctrine.

From this very simplified perspective it does however become very clear that what the Australian Army really needs is ‘horse’ artillery, and that is also in the 'works'.

However of far greater concern is the adequacy of 'mounts' for the Australian 'mounted rifles'. It seems to me this was realised 20 years ago through Whaler.....

Cheers

[Waylander]

Yes, but Bundeswehr armoured trops are but a shaddow of their former Cold War self!

This is right.
But this has nothing to do with a discussion about how platoons/squadrons/companies/etc can be designed.

The fighting capability of a german tank btl remains the same (Or higher because of upgrades) even if their number is tiny.

[MARKMILES77]

The problem with combined arms formations as I see is it, is a reverse of the problem you raise. When LARGE battles have to be fought (as Army is predicated upon doing) the smaller units have to link together to form the larger units, again not having been trained to operate that way any longer. Army's philosophy of being ale to "come down" to peace-making provided they are trained for warfighting, seems applicable here...


There is virtually no longer, any need to train forces at greater than Battalion level. War fighting beyond that level is an issue of command and control which can be practised using simulation. You don't actually have to move three Battalions around each other, on the ground, to let a Brigadier practise commanding a Brigade. You do have to let Platoons/Companies/Battalions practise assaults to learn what is involved.
If the Abrams is deployed, it will probably be deployed as a Squadron sized group in support of an Infantry Battalion. 5/7RAR is the only Infantry Battalion which actually REGULARLY trains with tanks.
If, for example, 1RAR was deployed with a tank Squadron in support, most Infantry Platoon LTs would have no actual experience of operating with tanks and only theoretical knowledge of tank/Infantry co-operation.
YET THAT IS THE EXACT WAY THE ABRAMS WILL PROBABLY BE USED!

Attaching a tank Squadron to each of 3 Brigade and 7 Brigade would force the tankers in those Squadrons and the Infantry to focus on using Australian tanks in the way they will likely be employed.
The existing three tank Squadrons in 1 AR could remain as they are with their emphasis on Mechanised warfare.

The USMC tank units focus on troop(platoon) level operations in support of Infantry Companies/Battalions.
That should be our focus as well, with Squadron level and above operations, of secondary importance.

[Aussie Digger]

There is virtually no longer, any need to train forces at greater than Battalion level. War fighting beyond that level is an issue of command and control which can be practised using simulation. You don't actually have to move three Battalions around each other, on the ground, to let a Brigadier practise commanding a Brigade. You do have to let Platoons/Companies/Battalions practise assaults to learn what is involved.
If the Abrams is deployed, it will probably be deployed as a Squadron sized group in support of an Infantry Battalion. 5/7RAR is the only Infantry Battalion which actually REGULARLY trains with tanks.
If, for example, 1RAR was deployed with a tank Squadron in support, most Infantry Platoon LTs would have no actual experience of operating with tanks and only theoretical knowledge of tank/Infantry co-operation.
YET THAT IS THE EXACT WAY THE ABRAMS WILL PROBABLY BE USED!

Attaching a tank Squadron to each of 3 Brigade and 7 Brigade would force the tankers in those Squadrons and the Infantry to focus on using Australian tanks in the way they will likely be employed.
The existing three tank Squadrons in 1 AR could remain as they are with their emphasis on Mechanised warfare.

The USMC tank units focus on troop(platoon) level operations in support of Infantry Companies/Battalions.
That should be our focus as well, with Squadron level and above operations, of secondary importance.

There is unlikely to ever be a "rapid" deployment of heavy armour, simply because it's in-efficient to move them by air (our C-17's will have MANY taskings to achieve and lifting C-17's seem like a waste).

The usual pre-deployment training and "workups" would be enough to get the "light infantry" / tank platoons working together well...

[FutureTank]

This is right.
But this has nothing to do with a discussion about how platoons/squadrons/companies/etc can be designed.

The fighting capability of a german tank btl remains the same (Or higher because of upgrades) even if their number is tiny.

Yes, true. Sorry for getting away from the thread.

Of course the strategic and operational environment has changed substantially for Germany.

They have not changed so substantially for Australia.

[rickshaw]

Has anybody else noticed that the numbers of M1a1s purchased are in fact too few to engage in squadron sized training? When one takes into account the numbers which will be in workshops, being moved to and from Darwin, being held at Armour Centre for crew training, etc. you end up with insufficient to train a full squadron.

[Waylander]

Go to the US for training.
Should not be a big problem (But might be not a cheap solution).

[Aussie Digger]

Has anybody else noticed that the numbers of M1a1s purchased are in fact too few to engage in squadron sized training? When one takes into account the numbers which will be in workshops, being moved to and from Darwin, being held at Armour Centre for crew training, etc. you end up with insufficient to train a full squadron.

Damn, someone should point that out to the RAAC!!! I'll bet they never even considered that.

This is one of THE most ridiculous comments I've think I've seen here. Do you think the RAAC and Defence Capability Investment Committee staff are stupid however? Do you think that they gave NO consideration to Squadron size numbers and the number of vehicles required to develop an operational capability, or do you think Government just plucked the number "59" (the number of tanks Army bought) out of thin air?

Prior to EACH and every exercise, "cars" will be worked upon and made ready for said exercise. Does this mean that EACH Squadron is permanently equipped with it's entire allotment of vehicles ALL the time? Of course not.

Large scale exercises ARE a different matter however. 1 Armd like EVERY other Regiment or Battalion in the Army has a training plan. Maintenance periods are scheduled around them and if a Squadron is to conduct "Squadron" level exercises, then they will be ready for it. I remember deploying to Shoalwater Bay at times, with only 3 out of 6 cars being available for the exercise. The training activities can still largely be completed however and the "readiness" of the M1A1 will be far greater than the M113's are...

1 Armd has it's allotment of tanks and School of Armour has it's. Why would the School have 1 Armd's vehicles? It's got 18 of it's own (less probably because ALTC will have a few, but pretty close)...

[Waylander]

Aaah, the lovely stealing from other companies for working tanks. :D

There is nothing better than using a tank from another unit and bring it back dirty. ;)

I totally agree with AD.
Bigger events can be practiced in the US and the normal training duty should be nor problem within the units.
I think many people woould be surprised with what a mix of vehicles most units go to training areas which do not belong to them.

[eckherl]

Aaah, the lovely stealing from other companies for working tanks. :D

There is nothing better than using a tank from another unit and bring it back dirty. ;)

I totally agree with AD.
Bigger events can be practiced in the US and the normal training duty should be nor problem within the units.
I think many people woould be surprised with what a mix of vehicles most units go to training areas which do not belong to them.

Fort Irwin California is the perfect place, up to a brigades worth of tanks for desert training, and you get to fight against real opfor vehicles to.

[eckherl]

Fort Irwin California is the perfect place, up to a brigades worth of tanks for desert training, and you get to fight against real opfor vehicles to.

Sorry - should of added these to my prior post, thought everyone might like to see these.

[rickshaw]

Damn, someone should point that out to the RAAC!!! I'll bet they never even considered that.

This is one of THE most ridiculous comments I've think I've seen here. Do you think the RAAC and Defence Capability Investment Committee staff are stupid however? Do you think that they gave NO consideration to Squadron size numbers and the number of vehicles required to develop an operational capability, or do you think Government just plucked the number "59" (the number of tanks Army bought) out of thin air?


Well, actually, knowing the people I do and the history of defence procurement in Australia that I do, the numbers purchased were a compromise between that required and the budget that they could screw out of Treasury. While it would be nice to have an entire regiment of tanks for 1 Armd. to play with, its obvious with the purchase of 59 that they didn't get that. Then there must be consideration of the problems of training versus unit use and of course, location of workshops, movement to and from said workshops by vehicles (not sure how they are going to manage that one BTW, when one considers that the main workshops are at Pucka and Bandi).

When they purchased the Leopards, one of the major arguments against the purchase of the M60, which was Treasury's preferred option, was that buying the required number for 1 Armd Regt. and School of Armour was not possible, unless the M60s were purchased in two lots (and would, as a consequence be very different because of the US Army's procurement plans). So, they bought a joblot of Leopards, all in one go (and gone done over by Krause Maffei in the process BTW). 59 M1a1s might barely allow them to keep one squadron operational, if they are lucky IMO.


Prior to EACH and every exercise, "cars" will be worked upon and made ready for said exercise. Does this mean that EACH Squadron is permanently equipped with it's entire allotment of vehicles ALL the time? Of course not.


Depends. They should be. Appears to me and I suppose I could be rather naive but having your tank crew running around in a big cardboard box shouting out, "clank, clank, clank, BOOM!" might be an adequate substitute for crew and vehicle training but it rather rankles with the diggers in my limited experience. Most other armies, well, first world ones at least, tend to provide their units with sufficient numbers for them to be, well, units, I suppose. :lol:


Large scale exercises ARE a different matter however. 1 Armd like EVERY other Regiment or Battalion in the Army has a training plan. Maintenance periods are scheduled around them and if a Squadron is to conduct "Squadron" level exercises, then they will be ready for it. I remember deploying to Shoalwater Bay at times, with only 3 out of 6 cars being available for the exercise. The training activities can still largely be completed however and the "readiness" of the M1A1 will be far greater than the M113's are...


I'd hope so, considering the disparities in age between the two vehicles!

I wonder, should we be tailoring our procurement plans to our training plans or our training plans to our procurement outcomes?


1 Armd has it's allotment of tanks and School of Armour has it's. Why would the School have 1 Armd's vehicles? It's got 18 of it's own (less probably because ALTC will have a few, but pretty close)...

So, how many vehicles do you reckon 1 Armd will have in reality?

[rickshaw]

Fort Irwin California is the perfect place, up to a brigades worth of tanks for desert training, and you get to fight against real opfor vehicles to.

Problem is they still think they're fighting the Cold War, all their vehicles are either fUSSR or WarPac and they act like they're Russian or WarPac. While the levels of realism are high there, if we're to spend the amount of money it'd cost to hire the training centre (and I can bet your bottom dollar, Uncle Sam won't let us use it for free, either), then we should be training against people who use a mix of equipment and don't think they're Russians.

[Big-E]

Problem is they still think they're fighting the Cold War, all their vehicles are either fUSSR or WarPac and they act like they're Russian or WarPac. While the levels of realism are high there, if we're to spend the amount of money it'd cost to hire the training centre (and I can bet your bottom dollar, Uncle Sam won't let us use it for free, either), then we should be training against people who use a mix of equipment and don't think they're Russians.

Considering most of the vehicles you will go up against will be Russian in origin what's the problem? Tactics have changed to face GWOT. It depends on what op setting they are conducting.

[rickshaw]

Considering most of the vehicles you will go up against will be Russian in origin what's the problem? Tactics have changed to face GWOT. It depends on what op setting they are conducting.

Big assumption and one I'd suggest which could be mistaken. Our nearest neighbour uses a mix of Western and East European equipment - not that I seriously consider them much of a threat and our most likely regional threat, uses primarily indigeniously designed and produced equipment. Much more importantly, neither uses Soviet or WarPac era tactics.

[Big-E]

Big assumption and one I'd suggest which could be mistaken. Our nearest neighbour uses a mix of Western and East European equipment - not that I seriously consider them much of a threat and our most likely regional threat, uses primarily indigeniously designed and produced equipment. Much more importantly, neither uses Soviet or WarPac era tactics.


So go train with Singapore... oh wait, you train Singapore. We are all you have left. Go train with an MEU, that should serve you well with your force size.

[rickshaw]

So go train with Singapore... oh wait, you train Singapore. We are all you have left. Go train with an MEU, that should serve you well with your force size.

Bit of a bugger innit? Oh, well I suppose we can go back to the Musorians. :wink:

[Waylander]

Where is the problem with fighting against different kinds of US OPFOR?
Big-E is right when saying that most of the possible enemies the west faces on the world uses mostly russian equipment and sovjet style tactics.

For every other occasion you can go to US NTC, our NTC, or other NATO facilities and play against western tank boys.
Not good for your ego to get punched into the ground by units which have a home game but you learn much. ;)

[Aussie Digger]

Well, actually, knowing the people I do and the history of defence procurement in Australia that I do, the numbers purchased were a compromise between that required and the budget that they could screw out of Treasury. While it would be nice to have an entire regiment of tanks for 1 Armd. to play with, its obvious with the purchase of 59 that they didn't get that. Then there must be consideration of the problems of training versus unit use and of course, location of workshops, movement to and from said workshops by vehicles (not sure how they are going to manage that one BTW, when one considers that the main workshops are at Pucka and Bandi).

When they purchased the Leopards, one of the major arguments against the purchase of the M60, which was Treasury's preferred option, was that buying the required number for 1 Armd Regt. and School of Armour was not possible, unless the M60s were purchased in two lots (and would, as a consequence be very different because of the US Army's procurement plans). So, they bought a joblot of Leopards, all in one go (and gone done over by Krause Maffei in the process BTW). 59 M1a1s might barely allow them to keep one squadron operational, if they are lucky IMO.



Depends. They should be. Appears to me and I suppose I could be rather naive but having your tank crew running around in a big cardboard box shouting out, "clank, clank, clank, BOOM!" might be an adequate substitute for crew and vehicle training but it rather rankles with the diggers in my limited experience. Most other armies, well, first world ones at least, tend to provide their units with sufficient numbers for them to be, well, units, I suppose. :lol:



I'd hope so, considering the disparities in age between the two vehicles!

I wonder, should we be tailoring our procurement plans to our training plans or our training plans to our procurement outcomes?



So, how many vehicles do you reckon 1 Armd will have in reality?

1 Armoured Regt will operate 3x Regular Sqn's of M1A1 vehicles, up from the 2x Regular Sqn's and 1x Chocco Sqn of Leopards they used to operate...

In reality? 41. About the same as the number of Leopards they currently operate... :)

I would imagine the vehicle maintenance schedule will be managed in a similar way to that of the Leopards. The situation for the Abrams is identical to that of the Leopards. Why NOW is it a big problem?

I'd personally prefer that the majority of 1 Brigade consolidate in Adelaide anyway. Darwin is a hole (IMHO) and in my experience most people posted there tend to leave Army pretty shortly thereafter...

[rickshaw]

Where is the problem with fighting against different kinds of US OPFOR?
Big-E is right when saying that most of the possible enemies the west faces on the world uses mostly russian equipment and sovjet style tactics.


As I pointed out, Oz's possible threats don't. Therefore, practicing against an OPFOR which exclusively utilises ex-Soviet weapons and tactics would be foolish.


For every other occasion you can go to US NTC, our NTC, or other NATO facilities and play against western tank boys.
Not good for your ego to get punched into the ground by units which have a home game but you learn much. ;)

Mmmm, thats what the US OPFOR boys believed. IIRC they changed their tune after encountering 6RAR at the NTC.

[Waylander]

Because of this just make it in three different ways.
- Train against sovjet style OPFOR.
- Train against normal NATO style OPFOR.
- Do your normal training within the units.

Should be enough.

As to the beating the US OPFOR took.

Who talks about yankees as capable OPFOR? ;) :D (Don't beat me for this little joke! :nutkick )

[rickshaw]

Why assume that there are only two ways to skin a cat?

As China is our biggest landbound threat in the region, they don't fight like either fUSSR or NATO, so training against either of those wouldn't prepare us very well for fighting against the PLA, now would it?

There is more to the world than just NATO, the US Army and the fUSSR, you do realise?

[Big-E]

Why assume that there are only two ways to skin a cat?

As China is our biggest landbound threat in the region, they don't fight like either fUSSR

You wan't to run that by me again? :confused:

[eckherl]

Why assume that there are only two ways to skin a cat?

As China is our biggest landbound threat in the region, they don't fight like either fUSSR or NATO, so training against either of those wouldn't prepare us very well for fighting against the PLA, now would it?

There is more to the world than just NATO, the US Army and the fUSSR, you do realise?

I am quite sure that the NTC boys are capable to adjusting to China type tactics, that is part of their job description to know different countries tactics on the battlefield, and even if you do have masses of armor coming at you, do you not still get the benefits of fighting as a cohesive unit, learning to work closely with your other military units. I think that you under estimate the value of using this facility, we are not a bunch of idiots who still view Russia as the primary threat.

[rickshaw]

You wan't to run that by me again? :confused:

Appears self-explanatory to me. Do you believe the PLA is merely a Soviet clone or something?

[rickshaw]

I am quite sure that the NTC boys are capable to adjusting to China type tactics, that is part of their job description to know different countries tactics on the battlefield, and even if you do have masses of armor coming at you, do you not still get the benefits of fighting as a cohesive unit, learning to work closely with your other military units. I think that you under estimate the value of using this facility, we are not a bunch of idiots who still view Russia as the primary threat.

Mmm, thats not the impression I've received from discussing the abilities of OPFOR with people who have gone through the NTC.

[Big-E]

Appears self-explanatory to me. Do you believe the PLA is merely a Soviet clone or something?

What else did you expect them to be?

[eckherl]

Mmm, thats not the impression I've received from discussing the abilities of OPFOR with people who have gone through the NTC.

Okay - what is the abilities of the OPFOR units at the NTC center, and BIG E is correct, China uses ex Soviet stlye tactics.

[Waylander]

I also don get the problem.
Do you want to ask the PLA for training?
They are heavily influenced by Sovjet tactics and for sure have also their own ideas and looked closely at the actions of others like for example both gulf wars.
But what is their main difference to sovjet tactics?

And you just have no other options.

There are just those three possibilities which should all be used.

1. Train within your units especially small unit operations (BTW, do you bought MILES together with the Abrams?)

2. Train with special OPFOR units. There are enough possible OPFOR units out there which are good for mixing sovjet style tactic with western and other tactics (Poland, Egypt, US, Germany, etc.).

3. Train against normal foreign units of your friends and allies. Good for bigger unit training and the main tasks (operate and maneuver with your own unit and keep it running even under pressure) are also trained very well there. And you should find a training partner in nearly every possible environment.

Do you have another idea?
There are

There is nothing more left

[old faithful]

AD,I dont consider Darwin a hole, in fact i love it! However,when i lived in Brisbane,i found that place a hole. No beaches,junkies breaking into cars and just a generaly boreing city. Not even barramundi there! i think young soldiers dislike darwin cause young soldiers tend to get beaten up for being tools in town, and Territory locals tend to be a bit Harder than their big city counterparts.(the lack of single girls may be a facter!) and yes its hot. But 1 brigade had better get used to it, cause the Bde is only going to get bigger!

[Aussie Digger]

AD,I dont consider Darwin a hole, in fact i love it! However,when i lived in Brisbane,i found that place a hole. No beaches,junkies breaking into cars and just a generaly boreing city. Not even barramundi there! i think young soldiers dislike darwin cause young soldiers tend to get beaten up for being tools in town, and Territory locals tend to be a bit Harder than their big city counterparts.(the lack of single girls may be a facter!) and yes its hot. But 1 brigade had better get used to it, cause the Bde is only going to get bigger!

Each to their own I guess. I am NOT a fan of hot weather, so that pretty much decides my opinion of Darwin...

As to beaches, there are plenty in Brisbane City. Did you never visit Wynnum or Sandgate? How many beaches can you SWIM at in Darwin???

Anyhoo, as to 1 Brigade getting bigger, I agree. But only in Adelaide where a large portion of the Brigade is to be moved to...

[rickshaw]

What else did you expect them to be?

They haven't been a Soviet clone for decades. Time you shook off your own Cold War beliefs, I suspect.

[rickshaw]

Okay - what is the abilities of the OPFOR units at the NTC center, and BIG E is correct, China uses ex Soviet stlye tactics.

Does it? According to whom? Most of the references I have indicate that they have developed their own tactical doctrine and used it, since the Civil War days.

[Big-E]

Does it? According to whom? Most of the references I have indicate that they have developed their own tactical doctrine and used it, since the Civil War days.

Since the Civil War days they were trained and equipped by the Soviet Union. They are a clone from military districts all the way down to the people's war concept. Sure they adapt it to their needs but to say using a USSR OPFOR won't help you against the PLA is BS.

[rickshaw]

Since the Civil War days they were trained and equipped by the Soviet Union. They are a clone from military districts all the way down to the people's war concept. Sure they adapt it to their needs but to say using a USSR OPFOR won't help you against the PLA is BS.

Sir, you're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I would suggest that we should leave it there and agree to differ. If you wish to believe the PLA is merely a clone of the fUSSR, then you are entitled to believe it. I however believe that the PLA is far more than just a clone of the fUSSR's army, having been moulded by substantially different experiences and drawing upon a different base for its doctrine and theories. While there are superficial similarities, there are also substantial differences in doctrine and equipment.

[Big-E]

I however believe that the PLA, has been moulded by substantially different experiences and drawing upon a different base for its doctrine and theories. While there are superficial similarities, there are also substantial differences in doctrine and equipment.


How can you deny Soviet Red Army doctrine dominating the PLA? You act like the rise of communist China was another world from the Soviets... it wasn't. Mao copied the Reds all the way down to the olive drab. They drew upon the same doctine and theories. The only difference in doctrine and equipment is a lack of it. The PLA has always been a poor version of the Red Army until recently, now they actually start to measure up. The fact you haven't provided any examples leads all of us to believe you speak with no authority on this subject.

[eckherl]

Does it? According to whom? Most of the references I have indicate that they have developed their own tactical doctrine and used it, since the Civil War days.

The only thing that would be different is the type of terrain that they would have to invade, granted - right now they are watching us very closely and would like to adapt their tactics to mirror the U.S.

This was only a suggestion to utilize the NTC, all the resources are there to have a good combined arms exercise either with Miles or live fire, I do not see what difference it would make as to what type of threat that you are facing, you would still get the benefits of working as a team. Either way I am quite confident that the Australian miltary will provide the best training for it`s soldiers now and into the future.

[rickshaw]

How can you deny Soviet Red Army doctrine dominating the PLA? You act like the rise of communist China was another world from the Soviets... it wasn't. Mao copied the Reds all the way down to the olive drab. They drew upon the same doctine and theories. The only difference in doctrine and equipment is a lack of it. The PLA has always been a poor version of the Red Army until recently, now they actually start to measure up. The fact you haven't provided any examples leads all of us to believe you speak with no authority on this subject.

Except of course you ignore that Mao's theories on revolution ran completely counter to Marxist-Leninism at the time, which held that only those societies which had reached the necessary industrialised stage in development were ripe for revolution. This is basic Chinese history, which any first year student should know, about the massive doctrinal differences and conflicts which occurred in the Chinese Communist Party before the Long March and which led, eventually to the great split between the Soviet Union and Communist China after the denounciation of Stalin by Kruschev. Mao's theories on warfare were centred around the use of mass, infantry armies, rather than maneauvre warfare in the classic sense as utilised by the Soviet Army, particularly after WWII. It is this basis which provides the basic differences between Soviet era and PLA doctrines. While the PLA has modified their doctrine in the light of the failures of the Sino-Vietnamese war of 1979 and the lessons provided by the Gulf Wars, it is still heavily influenced by its roots. Claiming they are merely a clone of the Soviets shows how shallow your analysis is IMHO.

[gf0012-aust]

Time to get back on topic folks.

Feel free however to post a sep thread on comparing soviet/sino doctrine differences.

[MARKMILES77]

When they purchased the Leopards, one of the major arguments against the purchase of the M60, which was Treasury's preferred option, was that buying the required number for 1 Armd Regt. and School of Armour was not possible, unless the M60s were purchased in two lots (and would, as a consequence be very different because of the US Army's procurement plans). So, they bought a joblot of Leopards, all in one go ).




The Leopard 1s were purchased in 2 batches by Australia!
An initial order was made and then, I think about 18 months later, it was decided to order a second, smaller batch.

[drjn]

In regards to the purchase of the M1A2 tanks, if I remember correctly was there not also going to be some 40 additional tanks placed in storage in Darwin for the US Army that could be used by the Australian army? I thought that was part of the original agreement.

[Big-E]

Claiming they are merely a clone of the Soviets shows how shallow your analysis is IMHO.

I said PLA is a poorer less sophisticated clone... which in fact they are.


Why didn't Australia go for some Leo 2s?

[rickshaw]

I said PLA is a poorer less sophisticated clone... which in fact they are.


Why didn't Australia go for some Leo 2s?


Politics and cost. The present Australian government has long held that we are best seen as the "White Ghurkas" of the Pacific - imperial sepoys to which ever empire we have decided to hitch our wagon to. Therefore, it is better to have the same equipment as our "great and powerful friends" than to necessarily seek the best equipment for the particular role. Often, we will hold "competitions" to determine which is the best but invariably the ultimate decision is a political one. In the 1960s, we ended up with the M60 GPMG, after the FN-MAG58 beat it hands down in competition. 30 years later, the FN-MAG58, replaced the M60 GPMG in Australian service. :rolleyes:

Today, we find ourselves with the M1a1 AIM. While a fine tank, in itself, it is not the appropriate one for our needs - nor is the Leopard 2. Both are excellent MBTs however both are heavyweights and our national and regional infrastructure cannot support the movement of these vehicles. Our roads have insufficient, strong enough bridges, which can carry the weight of both the MBT and its transporter. Many of our bridges are not high enough, to allow the MBT on the back of a transporter to pass under. Our main north-south railway, which was built, ostensibly because of defence needs (after nearly 80 years of shilly-shallying and a world war when it would have been particularly useful), cannot carry the MBT because of bridge and axle loading concerns. Most other railways have tunnel and bridge loading problems, transporting the vehicle. Only three ports have cranes heavy enough to allow the loading/unloading of these vehicles from ships and only two ports have wharves strong enough to allow ro-ro loading/unloading. Conditions within the region - Oceania and the SW Pacific, are even worse, with few roads or wharves able to take these vehicles. We will have insufficient air transport capabilities to move more than a troop of vehicles at one time and few runways will be strong enough to take the aircraft.

Finally, there are few MBTs in our region. Those that are here, are ostensibly owned by our major allies there. Therefore there are few targets that need a 120mm round and few threats that cannot be faced by a lighter vehicle.

The sole reason we are buying them is because there are no more medium tanks being produced, outside of Eastern European designs, which come with their own raft of problems associated with them. Further, tactically, because the M1a1 AIM utilise a gas turbine engine, their POL requirements will skew any operation in which they are used, particularly at a time when the Army has run down its logistics.

All-in-all, a poor choice IMHO. They will be parade-ground queens for the most part, I believe. They are intended to provide at best, training of Australia's armoured regiment (although the numbers will be insuficient for that, according to the information I have) so it can then be moved overseas en masse to be America's Ghurkas.

[Tasman]

Politics and cost. The present Australian government has long held that we are best seen as the "White Ghurkas" of the Pacific - imperial sepoys to which ever empire we have decided to hitch our wagon to. Therefore, it is better to have the same equipment as our "great and powerful friends" than to necessarily seek the best equipment for the particular role...

All-in-all, a poor choice IMHO. They will be parade-ground queens for the most part, I believe. They are intended to provide at best, training of Australia's armoured regiment (although the numbers will be insuficient for that, according to the information I have) so it can then be moved overseas en masse to be America's Ghurkas.

I don't necessarily agree with the policy but if that is indeed the Australian Government's plan it surely justifies the selection and purchase of the M1A1. If Oz is likely to deploy an armoured formation to fight alongside US forces it seems to me that it makes sense to have the same equipment.

I don't pretend to have the expertise or knowledge to add to the debate about the merits (for Australia) of a MBT like the M1A1 over a smaller armoured vehicle but I do remember (as others have mentioned) that Australian Centurian tanks performed well in Vietnam.

[miket]

Politics and cost. The present Australian government has long held that we are best seen as the "White Ghurkas" of the Pacific - imperial sepoys to which ever empire we have decided to hitch our wagon to. Therefore, it is better to have the same equipment as our "great and powerful friends" than to necessarily seek the best equipment for the particular role. Often, we will hold "competitions" to determine which is the best but invariably the ultimate decision is a political one. In the 1960s, we ended up with the M60 GPMG, after the FN-MAG58 beat it hands down in competition. 30 years later, the FN-MAG58, replaced the M60 GPMG in Australian service. :rolleyes:

Today, we find ourselves with the M1a1 AIM. While a fine tank, in itself, it is not the appropriate one for our needs - nor is the Leopard 2. Both are excellent MBTs however both are heavyweights and our national and regional infrastructure cannot support the movement of these vehicles. Our roads have insufficient, strong enough bridges, which can carry the weight of both the MBT and its transporter. Many of our bridges are not high enough, to allow the MBT on the back of a transporter to pass under. Our main north-south railway, which was built, ostensibly because of defence needs (after nearly 80 years of shilly-shallying and a world war when it would have been particularly useful), cannot carry the MBT because of bridge and axle loading concerns. Most other railways have tunnel and bridge loading problems, transporting the vehicle. Only three ports have cranes heavy enough to allow the loading/unloading of these vehicles from ships and only two ports have wharves strong enough to allow ro-ro loading/unloading. Conditions within the region - Oceania and the SW Pacific, are even worse, with few roads or wharves able to take these vehicles. We will have insufficient air transport capabilities to move more than a troop of vehicles at one time and few runways will be strong enough to take the aircraft.

Finally, there are few MBTs in our region. Those that are here, are ostensibly owned by our major allies there. Therefore there are few targets that need a 120mm round and few threats that cannot be faced by a lighter vehicle.

The sole reason we are buying them is because there are no more medium tanks being produced, outside of Eastern European designs, which come with their own raft of problems associated with them. Further, tactically, because the M1a1 AIM utilise a gas turbine engine, their POL requirements will skew any operation in which they are used, particularly at a time when the Army has run down its logistics.

All-in-all, a poor choice IMHO. They will be parade-ground queens for the most part, I believe. They are intended to provide at best, training of Australia's armoured regiment (although the numbers will be insuficient for that, according to the information I have) so it can then be moved overseas en masse to be America's Ghurkas.

If the heavy tanks are not suitable because of the problems quoted above and there are no suitable medium tanks?. Why could'nt Aussie-NZ defence forces asked the political masters for the Swedish CV 90 series IFV,105,120,or something similar. Maybe we might have something better for regional defence more easily transportable.

[rickshaw]

I don't necessarily agree with the policy but if that is indeed the Australian Government's plan it surely justifies the selection and purchase of the M1A1. If Oz is likely to deploy an armoured formation to fight alongside US forces it seems to me that it makes sense to have the same equipment.


Depends if you see our defence forces' role as being one of defending Australia and its interests or being sacrificed, as would be our interests, in favour of defending America and its interests. Don't make the mistake of assuming that Australia's interests are identical to America's. They aren't.


I don't pretend to have the expertise or knowledge to add to the debate about the merits (for Australia) of a MBT like the M1A1 over a smaller armoured vehicle but I do remember (as others have mentioned) that Australian Centurian tanks performed well in Vietnam.

Centurions are ~20 tons lighter than the M1a1. Many of the mobility concerns wouldn't occur with a vehicle that weight.

[Tasman]

Depends if you see our defence forces' role as being one of defending Australia and its interests or being sacrificed, as would be our interests, in favour of defending America and its interests. Don't make the mistake of assuming that Australia's interests are identical to America's. They aren't.

As I said I don't necessarily agree with government policy in this regard. There have been a number of deployments of the ADF with which I have strongly disagreed. However, I do want to see our forces supported with the best possible equipment whenever and wherever they are deployed whether I agree with that deployment or not.


Centurions are ~20 tons lighter than the M1a1. Many of the mobility concerns wouldn't occur with a vehicle that weight.

Fair point. Demonstrates what I said about my lack of expertise in this area!

[Big-E]

Depends if you see our defence forces' role as being one of defending Australia and its interests or being sacrificed, as would be our interests, in favour of defending America and its interests. Don't make the mistake of assuming that Australia's interests are identical to America's. They aren't.

Please, let us have every nation defend their own interests... that way we can scrap our military and save us half a trillion dollars a year protecting your butt from PROC ambitions. The day you spend enough to protect yourself the day you can whine legitametly. We save you so many defense dollars we are practically financing your Dole. Americans are the one's who pay for waving the flag of freedom more than any other... is it too much to ask for democratic nations to help out? Or you may just decide to go the way of the Kiwi. :unknown


Centurions are ~20 tons lighter than the M1a1. Many of the mobility concerns wouldn't occur with a vehicle that weight.

Wouldn't a Type-99 fit better into your force plan... if we go with your thoughts we will be calling you comrade anyways. You might as well prepare for the surrender by getting compatible equipment. :china

[gf0012-aust]

Settle Down Folks.

Lets keep the idealogical and political differences for PM's.

[Aussie Digger]

Centurions are ~20 tons lighter than the M1a1. Many of the mobility concerns wouldn't occur with a vehicle that weight.

Some are I agree. The Australian Centurions were up-armoured prior to deployment to Vietnam and weighed in at around 51 tons.

(http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_centurion.html)

With the improvements in track technology AND the wider track of the M1A1, I feel pretty confident that the M1 would have a similar ground pressure to that of the Vietnam era Centurion. With it's increased power to weight ratio, (23 horsepower per ton compared to 14 horsepower per ton) and greatly improved suspension, I think it pretty certain that the overall
off road mobility of the M1A1, is just a bit better than the Centurion... :)

As to the parade ground Queen comment, there's hardly a need to argue. well we'll definitely see won't we? It's not exactly the same situation as the F-22/F-35/F/A-18E/F argument is it?

Simply waiting 6-12 months will see the Abrams reach IOC and closing in on it's full operating capability.

My bet is there will be no observable difference to now. We did buy 90 odd Leopard gun tanks, but they sure as hell weren't all assigned to 1 Armoured Regt. A good many of them were kept in reserve...

[drjn]

Centurions were considered an MBT for their time. Just becuase it is 20 tons lighter than a M1A1 does not mean that it is a light or medium tank.

[rickshaw]

Tactical mobility is not a problem with the M1a1 AIM. It is strategic mobility. How it is moved to the battlefield, not how it moves around it. It is this strategic mobility concern which worries me and why I made my comment about it being a "parade ground queen". There is little value in having another Koala tank.

Its interesting that the Canadians have taken their Leopard 1s to Afghanistan and there they have performed extremely well, by all accounts. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rab8cxw1YfM

[Aussie Digger]

Tactical mobility is not a problem with the M1a1 AIM. It is strategic mobility. How it is moved to the battlefield, not how it moves around it. It is this strategic mobility concern which worries me and why I made my comment about it being a "parade ground queen". There is little value in having another Koala tank.

Its interesting that the Canadians have taken their Leopard 1s to Afghanistan and there they have performed extremely well, by all accounts. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rab8cxw1YfM

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

As to their actual deployment though, they had to airlift the Leo C1's there (due to it being land locked) and even a C-17 can only carry 1 Leo at a time, same as an M1A1. AS such if we wanted to deploy M1A1's to "The Ghan" or some other land locked Country, we'd have no choice either. We'd simply have to organise the lift from the USAF.

To any Country that is NOT land locked, the LPD's and the future "sea lift" ship, should provide sufficient strategic mobility. I hardly think we're likely to deploy ANYWHERE where we need M1A1's in the first week or so of the campaign...

[Simon9]

Tactical mobility is not a problem with the M1a1 AIM. It is strategic mobility. How it is moved to the battlefield, not how it moves around it. It is this strategic mobility concern which worries me and why I made my comment about it being a "parade ground queen". There is little value in having another Koala tank.

Its interesting that the Canadians have taken their Leopard 1s to Afghanistan and there they have performed extremely well, by all accounts. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rab8cxw1YfM


And according to AGRA at The Fifth Column forum, the upgraded Canadian Leos actually have better side armour than an M1A1.

[Waylander]

Really?
I mean a normal Leo I is able to withstand 30mm frontally and..uuhm...maybe hot water on the sides. ;)
You would need a lot more armor to bring it on par (If we are talking about the frontal sides).

[eckherl]

And according to AGRA at The Fifth Column forum, the upgraded Canadian Leos actually have better side armour than an M1A1.

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