Singaporean Leopard 2A4s debut in Australia

[winnyfield]

Should be interesting to see a comparison between the Abrams and Leo2 in a tropical environment.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_295632.html


Leopard tanks in Australia
By Jermyn Chow

ROCKHAMPTON (Australia) - THE Singapore military's latest battle tank, the Leopard 2A4, provides a smoother ride than a car over Australia's rugged outback.

Weighing in at 55 tonnes, this German-made tank seems to iron out the gullies, potholes and humps with its torsion-bar suspension system as it tears across the scrubland at 60kmh.

Six of these tanks, shipped over from Singapore, are now being put through their paces in Rockhampton in Australia's Queensland state by the 64 men of the 48th Battalion of the Singapore Armour Regiment (SAR).

Men and machines are just getting to know each other. The troops, who learnt how to operate the four-men tanks only last month, will carry out a combination of armour group manoeuvres for the next three weeks.

Out there in the Shoalwater Bay training area, which is four times the size of Singapore, they are also having a go at firing the tank's range of armaments - a fully stabilised 120mm cannon, two 7.62mm machine guns and 16 smoke launchers.

These guns have more lethal firepower than those in the ageing SM1 tank, which will be phased out.

The 9.7m-long battle heavyweight, powered by a turbo-charged diesel engine, also out-manoeuvres similar tanks in tight spaces.

Second Lieutenant Vinoth Pannivsilvam, a tank commander, said of its nimbleness: 'We don't have to bash through thick vegetation or areas that have many trees and deadfall.'

The Leopards also trump the SM1 tanks with their ability to pick up hostile targets faster. This comes from the tank commander acting as the gunner's extra pair of eyes in scanning for enemy forces. Enemy targets are no longer taken down one by one, but en masse, and in near real-time, noted Private Dominic Tan, a full-time national serviceman and tank gunner.

When fitted with a battlefield management system, tank crews can exchange information with other SAF units to hunt down and destroy enemy forces highlighted on a digital map.

All this mobility and precision firepower come wrapped in a multi-layered armour that gives better protection from anti-tank weapons - all the better to close in on the enemy 'with greater impugnity', said Lieutenant-Colonel Ng Chia Yong, 32, the commanding officer of 48 SAR.

This means the army can hone its 'see first, see more and strike first' capability, a key feature of the Singapore Armed Forces' plan to transform itself into a third-generation fighting force.

LTC Ng said: 'We'll have the upper hand in a duel with our aggressors as we have the precise information, can manoeuvre swiftly and precisely and can deliver quicker and precise fire.'

He added, however, that any tank is only as good as its crew. 'Otherwise, it will just be a sitting duck.'

[OPSSG]

There is some online information on the Leopard 2 (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm). This website also provides information on the M1 (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm). So you can use that as a starting point to draw your own conclusions.

In tank design, there is often is a trade off between protection and speed. I'll just briefly touch on the levels of protection. Singapore's tanks are the Leopard 2-A4 model. It has not been up-armoured (as compared to the Leopard 2-A6 or Leopard 2E). Therefore, a generic Leopard 2-A4 cannot compare in terms of protection provided to the M1.

It has been suggested that Leopard 2-A6 is comparable to an M1. However, you should also note that each tank type has a different design philosophy and type of amour used. You should also read the report by ANAO report on the Acquisition of the Abrams MBT (http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2007-08_Audit_Report_1.pdf).

The Americans have solved the problem of the compromise between protection and speed by putting in a turbine engine to a very well protected tank. This design comes with higher fuel consumption and possibly the need for a more sophisticated logistic supply system.

For the US, the M1 must be able to defeat all armour threats worldwide. Hence, no expense is spared. For the ADF, the M1 is a better choice for them, as it offers interoperability with the US.

A factor to consider in a MBT's ability to operate jungle terrain (with soft under growth) is the ground pressure it asserts. Other factors to consider include:
(i) how dense are the trees (ie. How far apart do they grow? In relation to the width of the tank);
(ii) other terrain effects and logistic support;
(iii) how well armed is the enemy (ie. Do they have modern anti-tank weapons? Are you going to face another MBT?); and
(iv) bridge loading (the heaver the tank - the more likely that you will need to employ combat bridging - to overcome obstacles).

I'll just end by saying both MBTs can be employed in jungle terrain. However, it is necessary take into account the general bridge loading capacity in any area of operations, the area of operation's terrain effects and the logistics support available.

Edit: I've included an illustration (of the T72, Leo 2 & M1 compared to a man), and 2 pictures showing:

(i) a Bionix vehicle launched bridge; and
(ii) a Bronco support and resupply vehicle (with its own crane).

Besides the POL tankers, the 2 types of vehicles shown in the pixs below need to follow Singapore's advancing tanks, amoured infantry and SPHs.

[OPSSG]

The defence ministers of Singapore and Australia, Mr Teo Chee Hean and Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, visited SAF troops participating in Exercise Wallaby (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2008/oct/25oct08_nr.html) on 25 Oct 2008. There is also a series of RazerTV videos on the tanks and troops (http://www.razor.tv/site/servlet/segment/main/news/12560.html) at Exercise Wallaby, if you are interested.

Singapore's tanks operate alongside amoured infantry (carried in either Bionix II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionix_AFV#Production_models) or M113 Ultras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_Armored_Personnel_Carrier_variants#Singapore) ), supported by the Super Rapid 120MM Mortar (http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=142) mounted on a Bronco (http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=128), the 155mm/39 calibre Primus SPH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSPH_Primus), artillery hunting radar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARTHUR_(military)), Apache helicopters and UAVs.

Singapore's military has different concerns. It has a different concept of operations and faces a different threat matrix (we only need to be concerned with regional threads).

Our total defence budget is lower than ADF. At the same time, we need a larger number of tanks, as we need to provide each of our combined arms divisions (capable of forward defence) with its own organic amoured element.

The Leopard 2-A4 meets our needs. We are not adverse to buying second hand (we bought our AMX13 light second hand too). Since it was available for sale the Germans, as excess to their requirement, we were more happy to acquire them.

[Red]

The SAF will upgrade the 132-160(from the two recent batches of purchases)plus Leo 2s along the way like practically all the other equipment the SAF has. Afterall, Im expecting the Leos to be in service for the next 2-3 decades or perhaps more. Currently, the SAF doesnt really need to upgrade the Leos to the 2A6 standard. The threat environment does not justify it at all. But I do expect some additional add-on armour; especially for fibua.

[OPSSG]

:confused:Sorry, what is the 132-160? Can you also direct me to the source (if its from mil-nuts please PM me the page.)

Many thanks.

[tatra]

:confused:Sorry, what is the 132-160? Can you also direct me to the source (if its from mil-nuts please PM me the page.)

Many thanks.
The number of tanks: 132 to 160 units

[Red]

I am surprised you dont know this. They bought them in two batches remember. The 1st one is 66 tanks with 30 more spare tanks. That is 96 tanks.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2006/dec/11dec06_nr2.html


The 2nd one is 36 tanks with an unspecified number of spare tanks. That is at least 132 Leo 2A4s with some more spare tanks.

http://http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7619/36moreleopardforsafka4.jpg

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/719/dealnota1waystreetgh2.jpg

A safe bet would be around 140-160 Leo 2s in SAF`s stocks currently. Remember the Leo 2s are supposedly replacing the 350 AMX-13 tanks. I would expect perhaps a 3rd batch of Leo 2s as well.

[der_Master]

I think this is a very good choice for the SAF. Leopard 2 tanks are in my opinion the best tanks in the world (M1A2 Abrams need to much logistical support for most countries imo and overall are just not worth it). Also I think Canada is among the 12 countries operating the Leopard 2 tank and they have been doing a great job for us in Afghanistan (they have saved a few Canadian lives).

[Abraham Gubler]

The difference in logistical support between the Leopard 2 and the M1 are mariginal. Well under 50%. The difference in capability differs between the various models. But the M1 as an inherent design feature has all of its fast burning, sensitive 120mm ammunition compartmentalised where the Leopard 2 only has half of it compartmentalised. Its still an awesome tank and Singapore have a very good vehicle that they can get more of and upgrade to their own spec (which they love to do!).

[gf0012-aust]

I think this is a very good choice for the SAF. Leopard 2 tanks are in my opinion the best tanks in the world (M1A2 Abrams need to much logistical support for most countries imo and overall are just not worth it). Also I think Canada is among the 12 countries operating the Leopard 2 tank and they have been doing a great job for us in Afghanistan (they have saved a few Canadian lives).

there is no comparison - and hence why we avoid the "this is the best (insert favourite widget) in the world"

a few small things to consider



the Leo2 has never been in an armoured "hot" battle - ever
the Leo2 is a fine tank


cost is relative to a nations military requirement. it's irrelevant how much it costs. 2nd hand T-72's can be purchased in the UK for approx $90,000 AUD each. By extrapolation you could buy more T-72's bang for buck - and then it would get down to actual capability and training. (the thunder run is a good example of how M1A's fared in an armoured engagement)

[Red]

Its still an awesome tank and Singapore have a very good vehicle that they can get more of and upgrade to their own spec (which they love to do!).

I won`t be surprised if they call it Leo2SG or something similar when they are finally done.

Anyway, I just remembered. In a Strait Times(Razor TV)interview with the commanding officer of 48 SAR, LTC Ng Chia Yong, it is mentioned that SAF will be looking at upgrading the tank`s protection, maneuverability and internal systems(incorporation of SAF`s battlefield management system,),etc. The interview took place just after the recent Exercise Wallaby 08.

Looks like the Leo 2A4s will be upgraded sooner rather than later.

[Bewolf]

there is no comparison - and hence why we avoid the "this is the best (insert favourite widget) in the world"

a few small things to consider



the Leo2 has never been in an armoured "hot" battle - ever
the Leo2 is a fine tank


cost is relative to a nations military requirement. it's irrelevant how much it costs. 2nd hand T-72's can be purchased in the UK for approx $90,000 AUD each. By extrapolation you could buy more T-72's bang for buck - and then it would get down to actual capability and training. (the thunder run is a good example of how M1A's fared in an armoured engagement)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2

KFOR

The German contingent of the Kosovo Force operated a number of Leopard 2A4s and 2A5s in Kosovo. A German Leopard 2 also took part in a fire fight that was caught on video.

ISAF/OEF

Canada has borrowed 20 Leopard 2A6M CAN from the German Army for use in combat operations in Afghanistan. In an assault on November 2, 2007, a Leo 2A6M hit an IED and survived without casualties: “My crew stumbled upon an IED (improvised explosive device) and made history as the first (crew) to test the (Leopard 2A6) M-packet. It worked as it should.” wrote a Canadian officer in an email to German defence officials.Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hiller denied reports that a Leopard II tank that was struck by an IED was a write-off, insisting that the tank has been repaired and is once again in use. “The Taliban have been engaged with some of the new Leopard II tanks in several ambushes” and that as a result the Taliban “learned some very harsh lessons” and lost the battle in question “very quickly and very violently.”

Denmark has also deployed its Leopard 2s in support of operations in southern Afghanistan. In January 2008, Danish tanks halted a flanking maneuver by Taliban forces near the Helmand River by providing gunfire in support of Danish and British infantry from elevated positions. On 26 February 2008, a Danish Leopard 2 was hit by an explosive device, damaging one track. No one was injured and the tank returned to camp on its own for repairs.

The first fatality suffered by a crew operating a Leopard 2 happened on 25 July 2008. A Danish Leopard 2A5 hit an IED in Helmand province. The vehicle was able to continue 200 metres (656 ft) before it halted. Three members of the four-man crew were able to escape even though wounded, but the driver was stuck inside. Despite being treated on site by Danish army medics, he died. The vehicle was towed to FOB Attal and then later to FOB Armadillo for investigation and possible redeployment. During the same contact with Taliban forces, a second tank was caught in an explosion but none of the crew were wounded.

The Danish version of the Leopard 2A5 has a conventional drivers seat bolted on the floor of the tank, wherereas in the Canadian 2A6M (as part of the mine-protection package) the driver's seat has been removed by a "Dynamic Safety Seat" , which is a parachute-harness like arrangement that the driver wears around his hip. 6 large belts hold him in the right position. Like that the driver does not have any contact with the hull except on the pedals and is out of the shockwave area of exploding land mines or IEDs.

[OPSSG]

... M1A2 Abrams need to much logistical support for most countries imo and overall are just not worth it...

I agree with gf0012-aust that der_Master cannot make such sweeping and unsubstantiated comparisons (on the issue of logistics) and I also agree that "cost is relative to a nations military requirement."

der_Master, I would hesitate to make such sweeping comments about the M1A2 Abrams tank compared to the Leopard 2 tank. I'm sorry for not making it clearer in my earlier posts.

The majority of the Singapore army comprises of an active component and NSmen (former conscripts who have moved onto civilian careers and go back for reserve training/refresher courses every year). Unless there is an international / national crisis that threatens the existence of Singapore - the full might of the SAF will not be mobilized.

However, if the SAF's total armoured force is fully mobilized - it would mean the deployment of over 1,000 armoured vehicles (including tanks, APCs, SPHs and so on). As such, I have specific Singapore army logistics/deployment constraints in mind.

That is the logistics required to re-supply over a 1,000 armoured vehicles in forward areas in a high tempo move to neutralize the threat to the survival of Singapore. As such, these constraints faced by the SAF, are not applicable to Australia.

As military service is required by all male Singaporeans, we are very excited about Singapore's acquisition of the Leopard 2A4 tank - as it would enhance the fire power available and increase the likelihood of the survival of our NSmen.

SAF will be looking at upgrading the tank`s protection, maneuverability and internal systems(incorporation of SAF`s battlefield management system,),etc. The interview took place just after the recent Exercise Wallaby 08.

Looks like the Leo 2A4s will be upgraded sooner rather than later.

On a side note, Red, on the "132-160" question: I thought you were talking about a new type of turret (don't know what I was thinking:D).

Red, yup at the minimum the SAF will have to install a battlefield management system (http://www.stee.stengg.com/newsrm/Vol19No3/IndustryNews10.pdf) to enable the Leopard 2A4 to effectively integrate with other air and land elements.

From the SAF news announcements and the RazerTV interview - it is clear that the key area of focus for the SAF is greater and greater air-land integration.

The Danish version of the Leopard 2A5 has a conventional drivers seat bolted on the floor of the tank, wherereas in the Canadian 2A6M (as part of the mine-protection package) the driver's seat has been removed by a "Dynamic Safety Seat" , which is a parachute-harness like arrangement that the driver wears around his hip. 6 large belts hold him in the right position. Like that the driver does not have any contact with the hull except on the pedals and is out of the shockwave area of exploding land mines or IEDs.

I hope that the SAF will invest more in such lifesaving technology - despite the obvious cost implications.

[Chino]

Knowing STK, they'd be thinking $$$.

If they can come up with a good affordable upgrade package for the Leo 2, they might be able to interest other users to buy the upgrade.

Maybe some of the spare tanks are for demo purpose as targets to show how effective the new protection level is?

[Chino]

the Leo2 has never been in an armoured "hot" battle - ever



Too bad the Israelis don't buy German stuff (to my knowledge). Otherwise we would've seen them in a lot more action.

[Red]

Maybe some of the spare tanks are for demo purpose as targets to show how effective the new protection level is?

I also think they are for some demo stuffs; as in ST will probably use them as testbeds for new versions of Leos; Singapore version. I doubt they will be using perfectly good MBTs as targets though. More likely, they are simply combat attrition spares and reserves for an unlikely future war. I think Singapore should expect and is expecting losses in the event of any combat given the current threat scenario.


However, if the SAF's total armoured force is fully mobilized - it would mean the deployment of over 1,000 armoured vehicles (including tanks, APCs, SPHs and so on)

It should be about 1000 plus IFVs(Bionix 1/2s, Bionix 25s, Bionix 40/50, Terrex?) and another 1000 plus APCs(M113A2 ULTRA 40/50, M113A2 ULTRA OWS , Cadillac Gage V-200). The numbers could be different now. Could someone help with the actual figures if you have them?

[Red]

On a side note, Red, on the "132-160" question: I thought you were talking about a new type of turret (don't know what I was thinking:D).


I would not know anything about a new really large turret for any existing SAf platform now would I ?:D

[winnyfield]

.... There is also a series of RazerTV videos on the tanks and troops (http://www.razor.tv/site/servlet/segment/main/news/12560.html) at Exercise Wallaby, if you are interested .....

Re part 2: there is no air conditioning? Bit of an oversight considering the expected operating environment.

As a comparison, in addition to a climate control system, the Aussie MBTs have a bar fridge (for drinks and ... ice cream:)) and they're looking to fit a heat reducing camo system. Could be something the that could be looked at by the Singaporeans.

[Falstaff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2

KFOR

The German contingent of the Kosovo Force operated a number of Leopard 2A4s and 2A5s in Kosovo. A German Leopard 2 also took part in a fire fight that was caught on video.

ISAF/OEF

Canada has borrowed 20 Leopard 2A6M CAN from the German Army for use in combat operations in Afghanistan. In an assault on November 2, 2007, a Leo 2A6M hit an IED and survived without casualties: “My crew stumbled upon an IED (improvised explosive device) and made history as the first (crew) to test the (Leopard 2A6) M-packet. It worked as it should.” wrote a Canadian officer in an email to German defence officials.Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hiller denied reports that a Leopard II tank that was struck by an IED was a write-off, insisting that the tank has been repaired and is once again in use. “The Taliban have been engaged with some of the new Leopard II tanks in several ambushes” and that as a result the Taliban “learned some very harsh lessons” and lost the battle in question “very quickly and very violently.”

Denmark has also deployed its Leopard 2s in support of operations in southern Afghanistan. In January 2008, Danish tanks halted a flanking maneuver by Taliban forces near the Helmand River by providing gunfire in support of Danish and British infantry from elevated positions. On 26 February 2008, a Danish Leopard 2 was hit by an explosive device, damaging one track. No one was injured and the tank returned to camp on its own for repairs.

The first fatality suffered by a crew operating a Leopard 2 happened on 25 July 2008. A Danish Leopard 2A5 hit an IED in Helmand province. The vehicle was able to continue 200 metres (656 ft) before it halted. Three members of the four-man crew were able to escape even though wounded, but the driver was stuck inside. Despite being treated on site by Danish army medics, he died. The vehicle was towed to FOB Attal and then later to FOB Armadillo for investigation and possible redeployment. During the same contact with Taliban forces, a second tank was caught in an explosion but none of the crew were wounded.

The Danish version of the Leopard 2A5 has a conventional drivers seat bolted on the floor of the tank, wherereas in the Canadian 2A6M (as part of the mine-protection package) the driver's seat has been removed by a "Dynamic Safety Seat" , which is a parachute-harness like arrangement that the driver wears around his hip. 6 large belts hold him in the right position. Like that the driver does not have any contact with the hull except on the pedals and is out of the shockwave area of exploding land mines or IEDs.

gf was talking about "armoured battle"- mechanized troops vs. mechanized troops or MBT vs. MBT.

That the Leo 2 is a "fine tank" is about as much as you'll get for stuff Australia didn't buy, so don't bother ;)

[gf0012-aust]

gf was talking about "armoured battle"- mechanized troops vs. mechanized troops or MBT vs. MBT.

correct

That the Leo 2 is a "fine tank" is about as much as you'll get for stuff Australia didn't buy, so don't bother ;)

incorrect. People aware of my posting history on a few other sites will know that I much preferred the Leo2A4 - for a number of reasons. However, I'm also of the view that people in the armoured corp know far more about heavy armour than I do. :)

[Red]

Re part 2: there is no air conditioning? Bit of an oversight considering the expected operating environment.


I dont think it is. A large majority of SAF vehicles are not air conditioned for a good reason. You are going to get sick transiting from an air conditioned environment to a hot and humid jungle environment consistently. All the better to simply have fans and better air flow.

[OPSSG]

I have really enjoyed participating in the DT Forum and I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. :D

Re part 2: As a comparison, in addition to a climate control system, the Aussie MBTs have a bar fridge (for drinks and ... ice cream:)) and they're looking to fit a heat reducing camo system. Could be something the that could be looked at by the Singaporeans.

The "heat reducing camo system" will certainly reduce the infra-red signature of tanks- I'll also like to see Singapore buy or develop this technology.

The 2 key factors that affect effectiveness of any piece of military hardware that we buy are:

(i) technology; and
(ii) doctrine.

However, technology is a tool that is constantly changing. As such, Singapore and Australia must continually press to buy or invent better tools to provide a winning edge on the battlefield. Yet, with all the advantage that technology might provide, IMO ideas are the real key in winning any war.

Part of this battle of ideas is military doctrine, which state how a force conducts operations under ideal conditions. Hence, if there is a myopic focus on levels of protection, horse power and types of ammunition (only on certain aspects of technology) we may lose sight of the importance of the battle of ideas.

According to historian Michael Howard, no military has its doctrine entirely correct at the outbreak of hostilities. Victory goes to the force that adapts its doctrine to existing circumstances faster than its adversary. Hopefully Australia's and Singapore's investments in battlefield communications will enable us to adapt to existing circumstances faster than our potential adversaries.

IMHO, information can be a powerful agent in the prevention of war.
According to a July 2008 news report (http://www.asiaone.com/News/the%2BStraits%2BTimes/Story/A1Story20080701-73867.html), a senior Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) officer said that the MAF was put on alert in late 1998 as politicians on both sides of the Causeway argued over the status of the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) checkpoint at Malaysia's railway station in Tanjong Pagar. In another incident in 1991, there was a joint Malaysian-Indonesian military exercise (airborne assault) by paratroopers in southern Johor, codenamed Pukul Habis (Malay for 'Total Wipeout'). The choice of a drop zone just 18km from Singapore, and the scheduling of the airdrop on Aug 9th - Singapore's 26th National Day was most certainly provocative. The SAF's response was measured and confident. It triggered an Open Mobilisation on the eve of National Day, a fact that was reported extensively in the local media.

Australia's and Singapore's investments in a credible defence strategy - communicates important information. It tells those who would dare to advocate war in this region - that while we may speak softly, we also carry a big stick. After all, everything in politics and war is an effort to convince the adversary to do one’s will and a credible defence strategy is an indication of a nation's will.

On a side note (on drinks and ... ice cream). In the 1990s, as NSmen, we were deployed in the jungle on a command post exercise. During an exercise lull period, a couple of us decided to call one of our CSMs for fun (Let's call him "John" - not his real name). John who was not involved in the exercise, turned up after work, at nite and in the rain, in full army uniform (with even camo paint on his face) to deliver 20 large pizzas for us - out of friendship. :onfloorl:

[kotay]

I dont think it is. A large majority of SAF vehicles are not air conditioned for a good reason. You are going to get sick transiting from an air conditioned environment to a hot and humid jungle environment consistently. All the better to simply have fans and better air flow.

A large majority of SAF vehicles are air conditioned. Fans circulating the air inside an AFV also, technically, counts as air conditioning too ;)

Okay ... using the popular definition of "air conditioning" as cooled, dehumidified air ... IMHO, that the SAF currently does not "air condition" their AFVs has more to do with most SAF AFVs not containing much vehtronics and therefore not requiring anything more than simple fan cooling.

With regards to the getting sick part, I don't quite understand why that is so. Air conditioning does not automatically imply ridiculously cold temperatures like you get in offices and some public transports.

Given that AFV crew compartment temperatures can go as high as 40C in the tropics, all that is required is to bring it down to ~29C and life will be so much better for both crew and the vehtronics.

If the ambient air is about 32C and high humidity then surely setting the thermostat at ~29C and low(er) humidity is not going get anyone sick ... or is it? Just don't let the conscript crew have access to the thermostat.

I'd daresay you'll start to see more "a/c" in the SAF's AFVs now that their newer vehicles (BX2 and Leo 2) are being equipped with more vehtronics and are already NBC ready.

btw ... isn't the Bronco air conditioned?

[Red]

Just don't let the conscript crew have access to the thermostat.


This ^. :D And if they get thier way, they`ll probably stay in the vehicle all day long.

IMHO, people tend to get sick when they move too quickly from a hot climate to a cold one repeatedly in a short duration of time. That is my own personal observation. In addition, your body still needs to acclimatize and I feel it would affect combat readiness somewhat. Ever walk or run under the hot sun from an air-conditioned room after staying there for a duration of time?

Yes, Im talking about "air-cons" as you know it in the streets and Im alluding to the average temperatures you find in offices currently when I was referring to air conditioners; an average of 20-25 degrees celsius or in some cases <20 degrees celsius if you are unlucky enough to get a boss who hibernates. But alas, this is an international forum so pardon the local interpretation.

IMHO, 29 degrees is fine if it is a constant. Not too high and not too low. Troops need to be cooled and not frozen so much so that they need to defrost later prior to combat.

The Primus is rather recent and no 'air-con' as well. Did not notice the Bronco has one. Does it?

[Waylander]

I would also be more frightenes about the electronics than about the crew.

While a AC for the crew compartment is good to have (And yes I also think that it shouldn't be used to cool down the crew compartment to 20°C.) cooling the electronics in a very hot environment can be a lifesaver.
Nevertheless even the original Leopard 2A4 works surprisingly good in very hot environments as some of our southern NATO countries know.

IMHO the comparison between the Aussie M1A1 AIMv2 and a plain normal Leopard 2A4 is nothing to blubber about.
As if both tanks would fit into the same category a customer wants...

Somebody who considers buying an advanced Abrams is not going to look for Leopard IIA4s as an alternative but would go the way other countries like Sweden, Greece and Spain have gone.

[Aussie Digger]

First pics are up of the Sing Leo's at Shoalwater bay.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/fitzgibbon/gallery/20081110/20081025sn00000_002_lo.jpg

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/fitzgibbon/gallery/20081110/index.htm

[Chino]

First pics are up of the Sing Leo's at Shoalwater bay.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/fitzgibbon/gallery/20081110/20081025sn00000_002_lo.jpg

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/fitzgibbon/gallery/20081110/index.htm

Thanks for the great pics!

BTW, what is the most common colour scheme for Oz armour? Ours are always singularly olive green, with few exceptions.

[sunshin3]

..The Primus is rather recent and no 'air-con' as well. Did not notice the Bronco has one. Does it?

Not so sure if the Bronco is air conditioned as there is limited information available online. According to the brochure (http://www.stengg.com/upload/914WVBGLfb3dh4hGDkd.pdf) from ST Eng, it appears that certain carriers are.

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks for the great pics!

BTW, what is the most common colour scheme for Oz armour? Ours are always singularly olive green, with few exceptions.

The standard Australian "tri-colour" camouflage is the most common. On deployment, such as the MEA, a sand type colour is used and our M1's are still in their American "sand" colour, but are to be converted to the Aussie "tri-colour" soon(ish).

A sandy sort of colour, olive drab and a darker green as seen on this Bushmaster is the standard Aussie camouflage for Armour, as well as all other vehicles and equipment (including helos and radars!).

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/fitzgibbon/gallery/20081107a/20081107adf0000000_0008_lo.jpg

[Red]

First pics are up of the Sing Leo's at Shoalwater bay.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/f...000_002_lo.jpg

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/f...1110/index.htm

My heartfelt thanks for hosting us ally.:)

[winnyfield]

The standard Australian "tri-colour" camouflage is the most common. On deployment, such as the MEA, a sand type colour is used and our M1's are still in their American "sand" colour, but are to be converted to the Aussie "tri-colour" soon(ish).

A sandy sort of colour, olive drab and a darker green as seen on this Bushmaster is the standard Aussie camouflage for Armour, as well as all other vehicles and equipment (including helos and radars!).


Here's how the camo looks from the air (or from an elevated pistion) - http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2008/oct/20081028b/20081025raaf8202385_0009_lo.jpg

[Red]

Here's how the camo looks from the air (or from an elevated pistion) -


Outstanding.It(The camo) merges very well with the ground.

[Waylander]

Thanks for the pics.

And while it may be a little bit cost effective is there a real reason for SG vehicles using this camo?

Real patterns for your area of operations should give you better performance. (Besides the fact that this green looks...mmmh...not very good ;))

[Chino]

Thanks for the pics.

And while it may be a little bit cost effective is there a real reason for SG vehicles using this camo?

Real patterns for your area of operations should give you better performance. (Besides the fact that this green looks...mmmh...not very good ;))

Actually no one is suggesting that SG use this camo. I made a remark that all SAF vehicles are of the same uniform green, and ask what is the most common paint scheme for ADF vehicles?

Aussie DIgger described the ADF colours and Winnyfield posted a pic.

...

BTW, what's the most common paint scheme of AFV in your country?

I wonder how useful is camo paint on AFVs? And how come SAF doesn't do any? I've seen may pics of SAF AFVs covered with branches, foilage etc, but a camo scheme was never uniformly adopted. It can't hurt, can it?

[Waylander]

I know that Singapore uses this dark green.

Because of that I asked why it is in use and not a "real" camo pattern. ;)

As you say it makes no sense to me either. While ones needs to do more than just use some 3 color camo pattern it just doesn't hurt and works well together with other camo stuff.

[Chino]

I know that Singapore uses this dark green.

Because of that I asked why it is in use and not a "real" camo pattern. ;)

As you say it makes no sense to me either. While ones needs to do more than just use some 3 color camo pattern it just doesn't hurt and works well together with other camo stuff.

My only theories as to why ours are all un-camo could be because:

- after trying several schemes, they can't find one that they like

- most of Malaysia's AFV have a standard MAF camo scheme, so ours being green may help nervous conscripts avoid FF

[eckherl]

I know that Singapore uses this dark green.

Because of that I asked why it is in use and not a "real" camo pattern. ;)

As you say it makes no sense to me either. While ones needs to do more than just use some 3 color camo pattern it just doesn't hurt and works well together with other camo stuff.

Could it be that they will use some type of camo netting, plus you and I know very well that after a few days of rooster tails through dirty or muddy fields that dirt does a good job of covering up those fancy paint jobs that we like to use, they look good in garrison though.:D

[Chino]

All the pics I've seen including those I saw at the notoriously muddy S. Gedong armoured training grounds are still pretty green despite a heavy splatter of mud and dust. Maybe the daily thunderstorms washes some of it away?

Camo nets snag all kinds of things like branches and people getting on and off.

(Actually even our choppers, arty pieces etc are all painted the same singular green. So it must be for some kind of easy ID purposes?)

[Waylander]

I would also think that in the tropical environmant the real colour of the tanks would remain effective for longer than in NATO's usual environment (northern snow down to med climate).

And at least the turret remained "relatively" clean even aftern some weeks of operations.

And while we also use camo nets I still have the feeling, without being able to support it apart from subjective feeling, that a multi color camo pattern still works even when one uses stuff like camo nets and natural vegetation (And we put whole trees onto our tanks sometimes...:D).

ID could be a factor and seems to be a reasonable idea.
FF is a problem and much more so during a crisis when a conscript army has to fight for it's country.

We had our share of FF during maneuvers. I don't want to know how bad it becomes in a real war.

[eckherl]

I would also think that in the tropical environment the real colour of the tanks would remain effective for longer than in NATO's usual environment (northern snow down to med climate).

And at least the turret remained "relatively" clean even after some weeks of operations.

And while we also use camo nets I still have the feeling, without being able to support it apart from subjective feeling, that a multi color camo pattern still works even when one uses stuff like camo nets and natural vegetation (And we put whole trees onto our tanks sometimes...:D).

ID could be a factor and seems to be a reasonable idea.
FF is a problem and much more so during a crisis when a conscript army has to fight for it's country.

We had our share of FF during maneuvers. I don't want to know how bad it becomes in a real war.

During GW 2 they painted our tanks desert tan, when I made it back to 4 ID at Fort Carson during 1993 time frame the tanks were still painted in that same color scheme which stood out like a sore thumb during summer field exercises, I ended up customizing three camo nets to fit the turret, hull and one tube, problem solved. I guess it would all depend on what type of terrain that your tank platoon was operating in to guess what the dirt or dust factor would be for a camo paint scheme, I have always found that after a day or two of heavy movement that dust and dirt pretty much covers everything. Also with new technologies in battlefield surveillance it is becoming hard to hide tanks on the battlefield, camo nets that reduce heat signature are becoming very popular with some countries.

[Waylander]

Yes, stuff like Baracuda seems to be some nice piece of equipment.

In Germany we usually always have three camo nets for every tank (turret, hull and gun) as standard loadout.

Sure out tanks also got muddy, dirty and dusty very quick but if the weather was humid at least the upper part remained relatively clean for some time.

From photos of the US Army in Germany I got the feeling that they don't use camo nets and vegetation pinned onto the track very often while we tend to make driving bushes out of our vehicles.

Have I just got a wrong picture of the real situation or is it right that this kind of preparing a tank is less common with the US Army.

And to get back on topic how about the Guys over there in Singapore and Malaysia?

Are they using vegetation to cover their vehicles? With all this tropical landscape around it should work very in breaking up the silouette of vehicles.

[eckherl]

Yes, stuff like Baracuda seems to be some nice piece of equipment.

In Germany we usually always have three camo nets for every tank (turret, hull and gun) as standard loadout.

Sure out tanks also got muddy, dirty and dusty very quick but if the weather was humid at least the upper part remained relatively clean for some time.

From photos of the US Army in Germany I got the feeling that they don't use camo nets and vegetation pinned onto the track very often while we tend to make driving bushes out of our vehicles.

Have I just got a wrong picture of the real situation or is it right that this kind of preparing a tank is less common with the US Army.

And to get back on topic how about the Guys over there in Singapore and Malaysia?

Are they using vegetation to cover their vehicles? With all this tropical landscape around it should work very in breaking up the silouette of vehicles.

No, your picture is right, the majority of U.S tank units do not fret with camo nets, this type of practice is done by individual tanks, platoons or tank companies, most tankers hated erecting camo nets over their tanks to hide tank positions due to the time that it takes, also as you already know, camo nets like to get caught on just about everything while you are positioning it. I used foilage such as old rice paddy stalks in ROK during fall and winter months, and tree branches during spring and summer for camo purposes, please keep in mind Waylander that I am a hard core tanker and my goal was always to train to win and keep my tank platoon alive, they appreciated it during GW2, everyone came home. The U.S Army doesn`t frown on individual tank crews that go out of their way to camo up their vehicles, just as long that they do not go overboard.:)

But yes, it would be interesting on what Singapore and Malaysia does out in the field for camo purposes for tactical vehicles. Have you heard anything for a possible upgrade plans for that batch of Leos or at the current moment do they seem content with what they have.

[Red]

Have you heard anything for a possible upgrade plans for that batch of Leos or at the current moment do they seem content with what they have.

It seems that talks are currently underway between Singapore and Germany on upgrades. But the latter will take some time as Singapore has her own unique requirements.

Im not so sure which German company/companies is/are involved as well.

I suppose there will be other issues(rights, etc) as well since Singapore Tech Engineering is almost certain to do the upgrades here in Singapore.

[Chino]

Until some real SAF tankees show up (I was a rifleman), here's what I have seen in pics and training...

On the move, I have never so far seen any kind of nets applied as camo, while it is SOP for all SAF vehicles to erect camo nets when deployed/stationary.

Foliage seems to be the preferred camouflage mode in Singapore. The Bionix especially have these rings on the sides of the hull whereby you can run a rope through in criss cross pattern that you can afterwards stuff branches into.

[Waylander]

No, your picture is right, the majority of U.S tank units do not fret with camo nets, this type of practice is done by individual tanks, platoons or tank companies, most tankers hated erecting camo nets over their tanks to hide tank positions due to the time that it takes, also as you already know, camo nets like to get caught on just about everything while you are positioning it. I used foilage such as old rice paddy stalks in ROK during fall and winter months, and tree branches during spring and summer for camo purposes, please keep in mind Waylander that I am a hard core tanker and my goal was always to train to win and keep my tank platoon alive, they appreciated it during GW2, everyone came home. The U.S Army doesn`t frown on individual tank crews that go out of their way to camo up their vehicles, just as long that they do not go overboard.:)

But yes, it would be interesting on what Singapore and Malaysia does out in the field for camo purposes for tactical vehicles. Have you heard anything for a possible upgrade plans for that batch of Leos or at the current moment do they seem content with what they have.

That's the kind of platoon commander one wants to have. :)

As or upgrades.
So far I only know of Singapore putting it's own battlefield management system into the Leos.

Maybe Singapore waits for the urban combat kits being deployed with the Bundeswehr to see them during regular operations.
Some of the stuff could be interesting for Singapore.

[Red]

Maybe Singapore waits for the urban combat kits being deployed with the Bundeswehr to see them during regular operations.
Some of the stuff could be interesting for Singapore.



Are you talking about Leo PSO?
Yes, I believe Singapore armour accords new armour modules for the Leos a high priority. I have no idea what they are currently looking at though.

[Waylander]

Jup, it looks like the BW is planning to implement at least parts of the proposed PSO package.
Rheinmetall and KMW should be able to put everything onto a Leopard II a customer wants.

It is always a question of need, money and if one wants to be the first one to deploy some of the new stuff.

[OPSSG]

Are you talking about Leo PSO?

1. I think that Leopard 2A4 Evolution IBD (a pix is enclosed below) is a more likely potential upgrade path, though I don't have any new information on possible upgrades.

1.1 The Leopard 2A4 Evolution IBD was developed as add-on armour. The Leopard 2A4 Evolution weighs 60 tons (compared to 56.6 tons before the upgrade). IHMO, IBD Deisenroth (IBD) is a traditional leader in passive armour development and also a leader in the newly developing field of active defence with the AMAP-ADS system. Interview with CEO of IBD (http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/press-coverage.html)
MILTECH: ...could you provide some examples of particularly significant contracts, as a demonstration of what you can do?

Deisenroth: We have to make a distinction between conventional armour, i.e. passive armour development, and the new active defence system. As regards the former, we are quite proud that our developments are produced in very large series.

We are or have been involved in some of the biggest AFV programmes... for instance the STRYKER family... Also we are very proud of our involvement in... the CV-90 IFV family which we have equipped with advanced armour solutions.


MILTECH: What technology you feel is moving faster, and promises the best results in the near future?

Deisenroth: We are not involved in reactive armour, and thus I could not comment on that. As regards passive armour solutions, progress is slow now... The required development time for advanced materials, nano-technologies and other such concepts keeps growing. Everything nowadays takes much more time, much larger investment... Yet these efforts are fully justified, because the output is already extremely encouraging.

I’m confident that in the passive armour sector a technological breakthrough will be achieved within the next few years. This will bring us very much forward. As regards active defence, the prospects of potential outstanding performance against a wide range of threats are currently very promising.

What we experience in the development of active defence systems is that providing the performance of the system is basically the easiest and smallest portion of the total effort...

2. IBD have also introduced the AMAP-MPS (http://www.dewengineering.com/press/DEW%20IED%20and%20Mine%20Blast%20Seats.pdf) (MultiPurpose Seat concept), that will support the overall survivability concept when considering threats like mines and/or IED´s.

2.1 AMAP-MPS is essentially a suspended crew seat, similar in concept to Plasan Sasa's Suspended Mine Blast Resistant Seat (http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/Suspended_Blast_Resistant_Seat.htm). AMAP-MPS is now qualified for service and has been chosen, by Canada for urgent applications in vehicles.

3. ST Kinetics (STK) displayed the Bronco (http://www.one35th.com/attc/attc_intro2.htm) All Terrain Tracked Carrier with the AMAP-ADS active protection system (http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/amap-ads-active-defense-systems.html) at EUROSATORY 2008 (http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/news.html) (click on link for IBD news). You can also see a video of the Bronco on the STK website (http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=128), if you are interested.

3.1 The AMAP-ADS (http://www.deagel.com/Ground-Vehicle-Countermeasures/AMAP-ADS_a002202001.aspx) system protects against varied of weapon systems. Weighing about 400 kg (http://www.defense-update.com/events/2007/summary/dsei07_aps.htm), the system incorporates a modular design of multiple defensive elements, integrating the energetic material, laser sensors and activation systems in capsuled modules, installed around the vehicle providing 360° protection against RPGs and other shaped charge threats – more importantly, it provides protection from attacks fired from a very close distance - which means it is good for urban warfare.
...Company tests demonstrated that the active element of its Advanced Modular Armour Protection (AMAP) product range, originally known as AMAP-ADS (active defence system)... could also be effective against some forms of EFP attack, as well as conventional shaped-charge (SC) rocket and kinetic-energy (KE) penetrator attack.

IBD started generic research into hard-kill defensive aid systems in 2001 and first carried out... test of its ADS solution on a tracked vehicle in 2005. Since 2007, development and production has been transferred to subsidiary company, ADS GmbH, set up in 2006, in which Rheinmetall (http://www.rheinmetall-chempro.com/index.php?fid=1958&lang=3) has... a 25 % holding...

3.2 There are online rumors (not verified) that suggest that AMAP-ADS system is superior to other Active Protection Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_protection_system) like the Trophy (http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm) (selected to equip the Israeli Merkava Mk4) and Iron Fist (http://www.defense-update.com/products/i/iron-fist.htm) systems. I am also not sure about its capabilities compared to the Raytheon Quick Kill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_Kill_active_protection_system) (still under development), which uses radar (http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0507/news/220507_quickkill.htm). However, I do not expect to find any open source materials to enable us to compare the merits of these systems.

3.3 This AMAP-ADS system is a technology that could be applied for other Singapore amoured vehicles like the Leopard 2A4.

What do you think?

[Abraham Gubler]

All the various APS have their ups and downs. While AMAP-ADS looks good on paper there are a few major operational problems with it. Certainly Rafael's 3rd Generation Trophy Light and IMI's Iron Fist being offered to the ASLAV DAS demonstration would have a range of advantages over that of AMAP-ADS.

Singapore also has their Israeli connections for up-protecting the Leopard 2. Rafael have allready developed an add on armour kit for the 2A4 for another customer.

[OPSSG]

While AMAP-ADS looks good on paper there are a few major operational problems with it. Certainly Rafael's 3rd Generation Trophy Light and IMI's Iron Fist being offered to the ASLAV DAS demonstration would have a range of advantages over that of AMAP-ADS.

Singapore also has their Israeli connections for up-protecting the Leopard 2. Rafael have allready developed an add on armour kit for the 2A4 for another customer.

Dear Abraham,

Many, many thanks for your post. They are always insightful. With your industry knowledge -- you enable "military nuts" like me, to better understand the latest trends.

OPSSG

[Waylander]

May I ask what this add on armour kit consists of.
I never heard of the Israelis having developed such a thing.

I would really appreciate to get some more infos and maybe some pics. :)

And maybe you could reveal the customer... ;)

[eckherl]

May I ask what this add on armour kit consists of.
I never heard of the Israelis having developed such a thing.

I would really appreciate to get some more infos and maybe some pics. :)

And maybe you could reveal the customer... ;)

There is no need for Israel to get involved in upgrading LEO 2 armor, Germany is more than capable of offering a good package and at a bargain cost. Isreal has their hands full helping out former Eastern Block countries with their T series armor package upgrades at the current times. Is this not also in the purchase agreement with Germany that all major armor upgrades will go to them.

[Abraham Gubler]

There is no need for Israel to get involved in upgrading LEO 2 armor, Germany is more than capable of offering a good package and at a bargain cost. Isreal has their hands full helping out former Eastern Block countries with their T series armor package upgrades at the current times. Is this not also in the purchase agreement with Germany that all major armor upgrades will go to them.

They already have and actually most of the Israeli add on armour work isn’t for old Soviet gear but for the US Army (MRAP, M1A1, M2/M3, LTVP7) and British Army (FV 432, Warrior). Plus of course the various M113 up-armoured offers.

As to purchase agreements it depends on the deal. Mostly the Germans have end user control, in who you can on-sell the vehicles too. But the Germans are not the only suppliers of surplus Leopard 2s. For example if you buy second hand Leopard 2s from the Netherlands they have sovereign control over these vehicles.

As to the Rafael Leopard 2 upgrade its real and the customer is of course kept secret unless they want to reveal it. I don’t have a picture at hand but I think it might have been published somewhere? Anyway its in the Rafael ASPRO .ppt if you ever attend a trade conference.

[Waylander]

Thanks for revealing what is possible!

You infected me and I am going to search for more. :)

As far as I know some of the contracts for german Leopard A4s include that major upgrades (Which would include armor upgrades) are done by German companies.
But I am not sure about which contract includes this and which not.

Remember that by getting rid of our surplus Leos Germany doesn't only wants to reduce storage costs but also wants to get some new supply and upgrade contracts for KMW, Rheinmetall, etc.

[Abraham Gubler]

The Germans aren't the only suppliers of surplus Leopard 2s out there. The shortlist for Land 907, the new Australian tank, was between the M1A1 AIM and the Swiss Panzer 87 WE (Leopard 2) which while deriving from the same KWS upgrade project is a very different beast to the Leopard 2A5. The Pz 87 WE includes Swiss Ti alloy add on armour in a very different configuration to KMW's 2A5 armour.

Austria, Finland, Greece, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and Turkey all operate unpgraded Leopard 2A4s. Chile and Canada operate Leopard 2A4s with domestic upgrade standards to something different to the 2A5/A6.

[swerve]

Australia, Finland, Greece, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and Turkey all operate unpgraded Leopard 2A4s. Chile and Canada operate Leopard 2A4s with domestic upgrade standards to something different to the 2A5/A6.
Austria, surely. One of those mind & fingers not quite in harmony moments.

[Abraham Gubler]

Austria, surely. One of those mind & fingers not quite in harmony moments.

Gotta love the online typo nazis.

Admin: Only because he beat me to it. :)

[riksavage]

The pendulum continues to swing!

The Russians are now marketting a RPG-30 launcher, which has a double barrelled configuration. One barrel holds a decoy warhead, which is fired a split second before the main-charge to mitigate the threat posed by Active Protection Systems (APS), the second rocket hosts a tandem anti-tank shaped charge warhead designed to defeat the latest generation reactive armour and up to 600mm of rolled homogenous armour.

Interesting to hear whether western nations get the chance to test it against any new reactive armour / APS upgrade packages now on offer.

[OPSSG]

1. The SAF has the following types of vehicles:
(i) Leopard 2A4 tanks;
(ii) M728 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M728_Combat_Engineer_Vehicle) armoured combat engineer vehicle (No. 1 pix below)
(iii) Terrex AV-81 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrex) infantry troop carriers - mechanised infantry Bns (No. 2 pix below)
(iv) M113 Utras (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/army/ourforces/Armour/Equipment.html) with the Rafael Overhead Weapon System (OWS-25) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Overhead_Weapon_Station) (No. 3 pix below)

2. Are M113 Utras with the remote weapon stations - good for urban ops? Do we need higher elevation weapons like the BMPT?

3. As riksavage said in the post on the RPG-30: RPGs continue to evolve to defeat APS systems. To what extend can we mitigate with a proper balance of forces (not just via improvements to APS systems)?

What do you think?

[OPSSG]

1. The SAF is able to conduct a fast paced armoured thrust

Each of Singapore's combined arms divisions include Leopard 2A4 MBTs, AMX-13SM1 light tanks and amoured infantry (carried in either Bionix II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionix_AFV#Production_models) or M113 Ultras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_Armored_Personnel_Carrier_variants#Singapore) ).

These armoured elements are supported by the Super Rapid 120MM Mortar (http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=142) mounted on a Bronco (http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=128), the 155mm/39 calibre Primus SPH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSPH_Primus), artillery hunting radar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARTHUR_(military)), Apache helicopters and UAVs.

2. The SAF is also able to shape the battlefield with overwhelming artillery support

Beyond numbers, SAF's artillery has the ability to direct precision fire (from artillery and the air force) and also the ability to gather intelligence (via UAVs and other ground based intelligence sensors) to enable precision stand-off & close-in fire (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/resources/videos/animations/xfs.html) (see the cool animation :cool:) in an integrated strike operation.

From the cool animation :cool: --- Wouldn't you agree that the SAF has good precision fire technology?

3. Clearly, the SAF is concerned about urban operations having developed a "round corner firing SAR 21 (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publications/cyberpioneer/weapon/2006/oct06_weapon.html.print.html?Status=1)". The SAF is also learning from the US and has set up an Urban Training Facility (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publications/cyberpioneer/features/2008/oct08_cs.html) (with video play-back (http://www.dsta.gov.sg/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5973&Itemid=401) to enhance learning): 2007 Vol. 33 No. 4: (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publications/pointer/journals/2007/v33n4/The_Citizen-Soldier_and_the_City_Fight.html)
... troops find themselves in close proximity to the adversary for protracted engagements...

Adding fuel to fire, troops operating in an urban environment will find themselves inundated by tools. They can expect traditional military equipment and capabilities ranging from organic artillery support and small calibre mortars, to armoured and close air support. They will also have access to assets requisitioned from the "rubble" of the urban battlefield...

In addition, the remaining inhabitants of a city can be counted upon to add a slippery complexity to the operational environment as they renege on alliances, build new ones, betray, supplicate, deceive, trust and seek protection...

At this point our discussion... [W]hat [does] it takes to achieve dominance on the unpredictable urban environment?

What do you think?

[macman]

The SAF looks to be pretty well equipped & well structured...
UAV's, Apache's, transport choppers, solid APC's, light & heavy tanks, etc., plus what sounds like a good communication's network.

For fluid environments, good communications & fast chopper borne response teams seem to be essentials.

An armoured transport chopper like the Mi-17 or Mi-35 for dropping in elite troops to critical points, which are capable of fire support (Super Puma's & Cougar's arent armoured are they?) would probably be helpful, but the Apache's should provide good cover if just using the Puma's or Cougars.

Something like the amphibious version of the newer BMP's might be helpful in Singapore, I imagine, being a collection of islands... (Is there a lot of river's/wet area's to deal with in singapore?)
Maybe a cross between the one's sold to Greece & Indonesia? (do the French or someone else sell something similar)

Also, depends how nasty you want to get, but thermobaric shells or heavy flamethrowers mounted on APC's for clearing out troops/insurgent's in urban/dug in environments?

About the only thing else I can think of off-hand is armed UAV's like the Predator's...

[cm07]

Dear All,

1. Having read eckherl's and Waylander's discussions on the tank and APCs, I want to know your thoughts on the adequacy of the SAF's current equipment for urban war.

(SNIPPED)

You should know better than to ask such questions(the latter part that's snipped) on a public forum.

[eckherl]

They already have and actually most of the Israeli add on armour work isn’t for old Soviet gear but for the US Army (MRAP, M1A1, M2/M3, LTVP7) and British Army (FV 432, Warrior). Plus of course the various M113 up-armoured offers.

As to purchase agreements it depends on the deal. Mostly the Germans have end user control, in who you can on-sell the vehicles too. But the Germans are not the only suppliers of surplus Leopard 2s. For example if you buy second hand Leopard 2s from the Netherlands they have sovereign control over these vehicles.

As to the Rafael Leopard 2 upgrade its real and the customer is of course kept secret unless they want to reveal it. I don’t have a picture at hand but I think it might have been published somewhere? Anyway its in the Rafael ASPRO .ppt if you ever attend a trade conference.

Agreed, we have been working with Rafael for so long now that I keeping thinking of them as being one of our own. They are working on newer armor packages for vehicles with the likes of Degman and T-72 series from Uzbekistan, or least they were anyways. Interesting information in regards to Leo 2 upgrade package, I will track down a copy of the presentation. Is there any truth that you may know of behind a possible Indian BMP 2 armor upgrade that Rafael is assisting with.

Thanks,

Bob

[eckherl]

The pendulum continues to swing!

The Russians are now marketting a RPG-30 launcher, which has a double barrelled configuration. One barrel holds a decoy warhead, which is fired a split second before the main-charge to mitigate the threat posed by Active Protection Systems (APS), the second rocket hosts a tandem anti-tank shaped charge warhead designed to defeat the latest generation reactive armour and up to 600mm of rolled homogenous armour.

Interesting to hear whether western nations get the chance to test it against any new reactive armour / APS upgrade packages now on offer.

Doubtful, the Russians are still working the bugs out of it, and they may be a little reluctant to saturate the markets for a period of time. Also I am skeptical that the Russians will get this thing perfected, There are things that can be done to Trophy and Iron Fist to defeat it`s capability.

[eckherl]

1. The SAF has the following types of vehicles:
(i) Leopard 2A4 tanks;
(ii) M728 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M728_Combat_Engineer_Vehicle) armoured combat engineer vehicle (No. 1 pix below)
(iii) Terrex AV-81 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrex) infantry troop carriers - mechanised infantry Bns (No. 2 pix below)
(iv) M113 Utras (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/army/ourforces/Armour/Equipment.html) with the Rafael Overhead Weapon System (OWS-25) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Overhead_Weapon_Station) (No. 3 pix below)

2. Are M113 Utras with the remote weapon stations - good for urban ops? Do we need higher elevation weapons like the BMPT?

3. As riksavage said in the post on the RPG-30: RPGs continue to evolve to defeat APS systems. To what extend can we mitigate with a proper balance of forces (not just via improvements to APS systems)?

What do you think?

What is wrong with the elevation on a OWS - 25, that is why Rafael designed it that way, to help deal with those pesky ground pounders that are lurking behind upper building structures, it will do just fine.

[Abraham Gubler]

Doubtful, the Russians are still working the bugs out of it, and they may be a little reluctant to saturate the markets for a period of time. Also I am skeptical that the Russians will get this thing perfected, There are things that can be done to Trophy and Iron Fist to defeat it`s capability.

Trophy, Iron Fist, Quick Kill, etc could defeat the RPG-30 today, simply because they could determine which incoming is the decoy and which is the actual warhead. The threat detection system is also a tracker and a classifier. All systems are also designed to counter the barrage firing (to different degrees) of conventional RPGs. This is when multiple RPGs are linked together either through a single command circuit or close coordination between two firers to simultaneously fire multiple warheads at the same target. In many ways the RPG-30 is inferior to just using two (or more) RPG-7s. This thing smacks of a quick mockup for media purposes more than anything. Certainly telling the world in great detail how you intend to counter APS before the first systems are actually operational is not a good way of ensuring that your countermeasure will actually work...

[Abraham Gubler]

Agreed, we have been working with Rafael for so long now that I keeping thinking of them as being one of our own. They are working on newer armor packages for vehicles with the likes of Degman and T-72 series from Uzbekistan, or least they were anyways. Interesting information in regards to Leo 2 upgrade package, I will track down a copy of the presentation. Is there any truth that you may know of behind a possible Indian BMP 2 armor upgrade that Rafael is assisting with.

Well considering that Rafael own German companies then maybe they are one of your own. Rafael have already developed a BMP-2 hybrid armour upgrade. Its a pretty simple process to configure the armour to a vehicle. They did it in only four months for the FV 432 (from request to delivery). There are quite a few Israeli companies offering solutions to the Indians for upgrade of the Sarath. Including replacing the turret with an external RCWS to free up some room in the notoriously crowded BMP interior.

[eckherl]

Trophy, Iron Fist, Quick Kill, etc could defeat the RPG-30 today, simply because they could determine which incoming is the decoy and which is the actual warhead. The threat detection system is also a tracker and a classifier. All systems are also designed to counter the barrage firing (to different degrees) of conventional RPGs. This is when multiple RPGs are linked together either through a single command circuit or close coordination between two firers to simultaneously fire multiple warheads at the same target. In many ways the RPG-30 is inferior to just using two (or more) RPG-7s. This thing smacks of a quick mockup for media purposes more than anything. Certainly telling the world in great detail how you intend to counter APS before the first systems are actually operational is not a good way of ensuring that your countermeasure will actually work...

Yep, I had a chuckle when the RPG 30 was first introduced with this capability, what is your impression of Russian designed ARENA and Shtora.

[eckherl]

Well considering that Rafael own German companies then maybe they are one of your own. Rafael have already developed a BMP-2 hybrid armour upgrade. Its a pretty simple process to configure the armour to a vehicle. They did it in only four months for the FV 432 (from request to delivery). There are quite a few Israeli companies offering solutions to the Indians for upgrade of the Sarath. Including replacing the turret with an external RCWS to free up some room in the notoriously crowded BMP interior.

Do you think that Rafael has a good chance for this upgrade, also I am a firm believer that Israeli and Indian based defense companies will work and cooperate even closer in the future on new weapons designs and older vehicle upgrades, including MBT armor technologies, their reliance of Russia could be changing within the next decade or two, also regardless of what some folks may think or want to see, the T-95 will not see Indian service.

[OPSSG]

Since, the 1980s, the SAF has always had a combined arms doctrine - with a great deal of concern with the balanced development of all branches of the army - so my concern is always with specific weaknesses. One example of a stupid idea was to buy SUVs to replace our land rovers (the penny pinching idea was to rent out the SUVs in peace time).

In general - SAF's attempt to take a balanced development is its strength but its weakness is our attempt to penny pinch.

What is wrong with the elevation on a OWS - 25, that is why Rafael designed it that way, to help deal with those pesky ground pounders that are lurking behind upper building structures, it will do just fine.

Many thanks for your clarification.

BTW many thanks also to Abraham Gubler and macman for your above replies - they add much to the discussion.

For fluid environments, good communications & fast chopper borne response teams seem to be essentials.

Good point - that's something we need to take note of.

An armoured transport chopper like the Mi-17 or Mi-35 for dropping in elite troops to critical points, which are capable of fire support (Super Puma's & Cougar's arent armoured are they?) would probably be helpful, but the Apache's should provide good cover if just using the Puma's or Cougars.

About the only thing else I can think of off-hand is armed UAV's like the Predator's...

Given our safety culture - the purchase of the Mi-17 or Mi-35 would be out of the question. No Russian aircraft for us. We do buy Russian - but only when they are good enough (like the Igla SAMs mounted on M113s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_Armored_Personnel_Carrier_variants#Singapore) ).

We have heli-borne (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/army/ourforces/Guards.html) rapid deployment brigades (http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Singapore/Guards/tradition2.htm) and we have installed door guns on select Super Pumas & Cougars (when combined with Apaches are quite deadly) - so I think we are on the same page here.

Yup - armed UAVs are the way to go (in fact DARPA has demonstrated damage tolerant (http://www.darpa.mil/Docs/DamageTolerant.pdf) flight control technology intended for UAVs). However, the RSAF has not announced the purchase of any satellite comms class UAVs (like the Predator/Reaper or Global Hawk). Our declared UAV capabilities have "line-of-sight" transmission ranges. Therefore, there is room to grow our UAV fleet and capabilities.

Something like the amphibious version of the newer BMP's might be helpful...

I imagine, being a collection of islands... (Is there a lot of river's/wet area's to deal with in singapore?)...(do the French or someone else sell something similar)

Yup you guessed right about a French connection - a long time ago the SAF bought some French amphibious vehicles (AMX-10Ps and AMX-10 PAC90s), to support our rapid deployment (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/about_us/history/birth_of_saf/v08n07_history.html) brigades - in fact, they are going to be retired soon.

We have some capability to make a forced entry from the sea (but nothing like the US Marines) - this includes elite infantry trained rapid deployment units assisted by naval special forces. Therefore, improving our amphibious landing capabilities - is not a major concern for the SAF.

'....If there were no international law and order, and big fish eat small fish and small fish eat shrimps, we wouldn't exist. Our armed forces can withstand an attack and inflict damage for two weeks, three weeks.....'
Lee Kuan Yew (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/29/asia/lee-excerpts.php)

BTW, Singapore is city and we have a forward defence doctrine (ie. fight elsewhere), so rivers and wet areas in Singapore is not a concern. Further, we have good enough combat engineering capabilities to overcome any rivers or wet areas in our area of operations - so we are OK in this area.

[Letli]

I agree with gf0012-aust that der_Master cannot make such sweeping and unsubstantiated comparisons (on the issue of logistics) and I also agree that "cost is relative to a nations military requirement."

der_Master, I would hesitate to make such sweeping comments about the M1A2 Abrams tank compared to the Leopard 2 tank. I'm sorry for not making it clearer in my earlier posts.





der_Master wasn't just generalising about the M1 Abram's flaws. It is extremely real. The M1 Abram's gas turbine engine is effectively a jet engine, a key distinguishing feature, as well as its major feature and flaw. Its a light and compact engine with great power-weight ratio.

However, I personally feel its disadvantages far outweight it - its simply a case of over-innovating a simple & proven component. With proven diesel engines in the market, there was no need to re-invent the wheel.

The space & weight savings of the gas turbine engine is negated by the huge amount of fuel needed to run it. Its tank is 500+ gallons in capacity. & it takes approx. 8 gallons just to start it up. Given that it gives off a huge jet exhaust, its heat signature is a dead give away and I would worry about its survivability in the face of ongoing developments & deployments of portable heat-seeking fire & forget anti-tank missiles featuring top-attack capabilities.

What is even worse is the problems with the logistics. Unlike wat was mentioned about a "sophisticated logistics train" needed to support it, I would term it as simply too long a train. This was illustrated in the 2 Gulf wars. Each time the armoured divisions sliced thru the Iraqi lines, the logistics had great difficulty keeping up to provide the M1s with enough fuel. Given the ineptitude and thereafter collapse of the Iraqi line, it wasn't too much of a disaster. The M1s just had to wait for the gravy train to catch up. But the advances were halted due to inherent M1 limitations - wasting any blitzkrieg momentum and initiative.

In a far more contentious mixed conflict, with more substantial
(or evenly matched?) enemy strengths, against more competent adversaries with large tank, missile and air support, say that of a WWIII scenario such a long and more importantly SOFT supply trail can be a disaster.

Why would Warsaw Pact / Russian / Chinese aircraft/attack copter/tanks bother engaging the M1s when they can simple outflank & strike at the sitting duck fuel trucks and support vehicles. In scenarios where air superiority cannot be a given, it is a problem.

In contrast the Leopard's diesel engines are proven and have a power rating the same as the M1 - up to 1500bhp -are as reliable as anything u can find and much more economical on fuel. It is similar to many commercial truck and marine boat engines, fully modular and swappable for maintenance and repairs, like just about most parts of the Leopard. In war, where anything, such as fuel and parts can suddenly be in short supply, due to enemy interference, this is critical.

Perhaps the key is that the SAF & ADF have vastly different needs. The SAF doctrine requires rapid advance into enemy territory to wage war on the aggressor's backyard, cos Singapore is too small. The ADF needs to defend vast tracts of its own backyard.

The M1's huge size and weight may not be such an issue for the ADF but in the actual terrain that the SAF needs to fight (concrete/jungle/rivers) the M1 simply wldn't be as suitable as the Leopard. I would also point out the M1's fuel guzzling qualities as a huge drawback in having to cover so much Australian coastal "frontline". Its size and weight will make airlifting within the Australian border a major expense and slow process too. The current US Army doctrinal review after the Gulf Wars questions precisely the relevance of MBTs given the difficulty in airlifting substantial numbers of M1s to conflict zones like the gulf in a timely fashion. If only the Galaxy C5s can carry them, how many does the ADF own? Shipping is the main method and takes weeks and months (including mobilisation).

As to the issue of the cost of Leopards / M1 vs T-72 variants - there's no argument here. The T-72 was designed by the Soviets for its huge numbers of not very well trained and certainly very expendable tank crews. Its squat, low-profiled, true, but its so cramped as a result, crew comfort is non-existent. Crews often have to be selected on size considerations. Its auto-loader can be dangerous to crew life and limb, the loading mechanisms are known to catch upon limbs or clothing and cause amputation severity injuries. Its ammo storage is a major cause of spectacular internal explosions once the armour is penetrated, as illustrated during the Gulf Wars, much like the Sherman tanks of WWII.

The SAF has a very small army & as a result, much like the Israelis, every man is important and must be trained to the best standards available to operate the best equipment money can buy. The SAF can probably buy many many T-72s but won't have the manpower to crew them!

[OPSSG]

A brief recap of what I said earlier is in order. The M1 Abrams purchased by the ADF are top of the line stuff and the level of protection offered by the Leopard 2A4 (which the SAF bought, as surplus to German requirements) are not comparable in the levels of protection offered by the Abrams. I also understand that gf0012-aust likes the Leopard 2s but respects the ADF's decision to go which M1 Abrams.

Letli, if you don't mind, I'll like to ask you a few questions and seek some clarifications. Please take it in that spirit.

der_Master wasn't just generalising about the M1 Abram's flaws. It is extremely real. The M1 Abram's gas turbine engine is effectively a jet engine, a key distinguishing feature, as well as its major feature and flaw. Its a light and compact engine with great power-weight ratio.

However, I personally feel its disadvantages far outweight it - its simply a case of over-innovating a simple & proven component. With proven diesel engines in the market, there was no need to re-invent the wheel.

IMHO, MTU makes great diesel engines. In fact, I used to work for a diesel engine maker (actually, a competitor of MTU) and our subsidiary also sold turbine engines. So, I am aware for the differences between the engine types.

For different applications, each engine type (be it diesel or turbine) has its own advantages. I'm not sure if I would go so far as to say that "there was no need to re-invent the wheel".

The space & weight savings of the gas turbine engine is negated by the huge amount of fuel needed to run it. Its tank is 500+ gallons in capacity. & it takes approx. 8 gallons just to start it up. Given that it gives off a huge jet exhaust, its heat signature is a dead give away and I would worry about its survivability in the face of ongoing developments & deployments of portable heat-seeking fire & forget anti-tank missiles featuring top-attack capabilities.

What is even worse is the problems with the logistics. Unlike wat was mentioned about a "sophisticated logistics train" needed to support it, I would term it as simply too long a train. This was illustrated in the 2 Gulf wars. Each time the armoured divisions sliced thru the Iraqi lines, the logistics had great difficulty keeping up to provide the M1s with enough fuel. Given the ineptitude and thereafter collapse of the Iraqi line, it wasn't too much of a disaster. The M1s just had to wait for the gravy train to catch up. But the advances were halted due to inherent M1 limitations - wasting any blitzkrieg momentum and initiative.

Yes, the Abrams consumes more fuel than the Leopard 2A4 (under certain conditions).

All tanks (the Abrams or the Leopard) will need their logistics tail to support them as they advance. And if the logistics (POL) do not catch up, wouldn't it affect both types of tanks?

Did I understand you correctly? (Please note, I'm not trying to be contentious. I'm just seeking to understand your point of view)

In a far more contentious mixed conflict, with more substantial (or evenly matched?) enemy strengths, against more competent adversaries with large tank, missile and air support, say that of a WWIII scenario such a long and more importantly SOFT supply trail can be a disaster.

Why would Warsaw Pact / Russian / Chinese aircraft/attack copter/tanks bother engaging the M1s when they can simple outflank & strike at the sitting duck fuel trucks and support vehicles. In scenarios where air superiority cannot be a given, it is a problem.

In contrast the Leopard's diesel engines are proven and have a power rating the same as the M1 - up to 1500bhp -are as reliable as anything u can find and much more economical on fuel. It is similar to many commercial truck and marine boat engines, fully modular and swappable for maintenance and repairs, like just about most parts of the Leopard. In war, where anything, such as fuel and parts can suddenly be in short supply, due to enemy interference, this is critical.

Is this scenario applicable to the ADF and the US today?

In modern tanks (be it diesel or turbine), on the move, don't you just take out the power pack as one unit and do a swap in the field (if the engine gives you trouble)? What is your point? Please explain.

Base level repairs are another issue. Right?

Perhaps the key is that the SAF & ADF have vastly different needs. The SAF doctrine requires rapid advance into enemy territory to wage war on the aggressor's backyard, cos Singapore is too small. The ADF needs to defend vast tracts of its own backyard.

The M1's huge size and weight may not be such an issue for the ADF but in the actual terrain that the SAF needs to fight (concrete/jungle/rivers) the M1 simply wldn't be as suitable as the Leopard. I would also point out the M1's fuel guzzling qualities as a huge drawback in having to cover so much Australian coastal "frontline". Its size and weight will make airlifting within the Australian border a major expense and slow process too. The current US Army doctrinal review after the Gulf Wars questions precisely the relevance of MBTs given the difficulty in airlifting substantial numbers of M1s to conflict zones like the gulf in a timely fashion. If only the Galaxy C5s can carry them, how many does the ADF own? Shipping is the main method and takes weeks and months (including mobilisation).

While, I do not know about ADF's operational requirements, I served in the SAF and I am aware of our operational requirements.

I'm not sure what you mean and the relevance of your point. Please explain?

As to the issue of the cost of Leopards / M1 vs T-72 variants - there's no argument here. The T-72 was designed by the Soviets for its huge numbers of not very well trained and certainly very expendable tank crews. Its squat, low-profiled, true, but its so cramped as a result, crew comfort is non-existent. Crews often have to be selected on size considerations. Its auto-loader can be dangerous to crew life and limb, the loading mechanisms are known to catch upon limbs or clothing and cause amputation severity injuries. Its ammo storage is a major cause of spectacular internal explosions once the armour is penetrated, as illustrated during the Gulf Wars, much like the Sherman tanks of WWII.

Yes, Singapore operates the Leopard 2A4 and it should be sufficient against our expected principal armour threat (which is a derivative of the T-72).

The SAF has a very small army & as a result, much like the Israelis, every man is important and must be trained to the best standards available to operate the best equipment money can buy. The SAF can probably buy many many T-72s but won't have the manpower to crew them!

We only bought a limited amount of Leopard 2A4s and will continue to also operate the AMX-13SM1.

If you want to consider the AMX-13SM1 as a tank (given its dated design and limited protection), the SAF operates more tanks than the ADF. Some Singaporeans consider (like me) consider the AMX-13SM1 as a direct fire gun platform (rather than a tank).

What is your point?

Side Notes:
(i) I would rather ride in a BXII (given it's superior protection and maneuverability) any day compared to the AMX-13SM1.

(ii) I hope you are aware that Singapore has a mainly conscript army and our defence spending is less than 1/2 of Australia's.

(iii) Our main mode of transporting the Leopard 2A4s is by our Endurance class ships. In war, we have the option to drive them across the border (since we have 2 causeways) and have adequate combat engineering bridging means.

[Waylander]

The Leopard 2A4 is not any more deployable than a M1, irrelevant which version one choses.

One needs a C-17, C-5 or An-124 to get a Leopard 2A4 to were one wants it to be. The same applies to a M1A1AIM.
You also don't really get more Leopards into a ship than Abrams. The size differenze is marginal at best.

The only argument against higher weight is it's relevance when it comes to smaller bridges and their ability to carry the weight of a full grown MBT.

And if the SAF wants to upgrade their A4s to a modern standard (Let's say Strv 122) there won't me much difference in weight compared to a M1A1AIM.

[kato]

The relevant trucks and flatbed rail cars to transport the tanks are different too of course (to the point of such mode of transport perhaps not being applicable), though the latter mode of transport doesn't make much difference in SG, i'd imagine.

[Firn]

Excellent post so far here.

Yes, the Abrams consumes more fuel than the Leopard 2A4 and no one disputes that.

All tanks (the Abrams or the Leopard) will need their logistics tail to support them as they advanced. And if the logistics (POL) do not catch up, wouldn't it affect both types of tanks?

Did I understand you correctly? (Please note, I'm not trying to be contentious. I'm just seeking to understand your point of view

Isn't there a huge gap in consumption between the two? Given that fuel is the lifeline of an armored division and makes up the by far the largest part of the supply this is a huge handicap in expeditionary warfare. So the Abrams would be indeed generally much more suscitable to a disruption in supply.

[Abraham Gubler]

Isn't there a huge gap in consumption between the two? Given that fuel is the lifeline of an armored division and makes up the by far the largest part of the supply this is a huge handicap in expeditionary warfare. So the Abrams would be indeed generally much more suscitable to a disruption in supply.

No there isn't. The Swedish Army trial found that the M1A1 consumed around 20% more fuel than the Leopard 2A5 which itself consumed about 10% more than the Leclerc (from memory). The M1A1 AIM in Australian service has an auxiliary power unit which means in overwatch it does not need to run the main engine - unlike SAF Leopard 2A4s - so will actually consume less fuel overall.

As to your other points about ADF operational deployment you are totally wrong about Australia defending its coastline. You are also wrong about comparative weight and mobility. The M1A1 AIM weighs in at 62 tonnes only a few more than the Leopard 2A4 and both have similar ground pressure (weight divided by the area of the track on the ground) which is the most important feature for anything other than bridge crossing.

As to the M1's IR signature I've seen it through thermal cameras and while the exhaust plume is strong it is not bigger than the actual vehicle. The thing about any exhaust plume is it is rapidly 'consumed' by the air around it and with the engine off doesn't exist.

Don't be fooled that your intuition from a very limited information point of view enables you to know more about weapons and warfighting than the actual people designing and using these weapons.

[Aussie Digger]

The M1's huge size and weight may not be such an issue for the ADF but in the actual terrain that the SAF needs to fight (concrete/jungle/rivers) the M1 simply wldn't be as suitable as the Leopard. I would also point out the M1's fuel guzzling qualities as a huge drawback in having to cover so much Australian coastal "frontline". Its size and weight will make airlifting within the Australian border a major expense and slow process too. The current US Army doctrinal review after the Gulf Wars questions precisely the relevance of MBTs given the difficulty in airlifting substantial numbers of M1s to conflict zones like the gulf in a timely fashion. If only the Galaxy C5s can carry them, how many does the ADF own? Shipping is the main method and takes weeks and months (including mobilisation).

No-one has thought of trains or low loader trucks within Australia?

Huh. Could of fooled me...

For domestic deployments, Australia uses, rail, road, sea and air, just like anyone else.

If you are allowed to come back here and give us the "benefit" of your limited insight into these matters, perhaps you could look at this photo first and ponder exactly what RAAF and Army might be doing here?

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2008/nov/20081105/20081028raaf8494074_0094_lo.jpg

[gf0012-aust]

der_Master wasn't just generalising about the M1 Abram's flaws.

as opposed to you making woeful generalisations about how the ADF deploys its assets?


If only the Galaxy C5s can carry them, how many does the ADF own? Shipping is the main method and takes weeks and months (including mobilisation).

Newsflash sport, the C-17 carries tanks - just like the old and venerable C5 which is a maint and operational hog compared to the C-17. Thank goodness that ADF uses C17's (just like the USA), and the UK and with the Canadians in tow as well....

Thank goodness Aust also uses shipping as well......

Maybe you should take a refresher course on how all countries elect to fastlift their MBT's into theatre....

[kato]

Hmm, wonder if SG'll use their own Leos on their next training deployment soon, which will be ... a bit farther away.

* makes note to ask someone in the know *

[eckherl]

If I could also add that the U.S has equipment pre staged in different regions and will more than likely expand on this.

The U.S ability to supply Armor units with logistical support is by far one of the most sophisticated systems currently in use world wide, I have never run out out beans, bullets or diesel in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter, the vehicles used in supply trains are designed specifically to keep pace with forward attack elements when they are called upon, I should also add that heavy and medium airborne assetts in terms of helicopters also do a good job of dropping off fuel bladders and projectile bins if needed.

I also have to agree with Abraham Gubler that even though the AGT 1500 can be a little thirsty alot of the hype is over blown, the benefits that a turbine engine has to offer is still a good deciding factor to keep it.

[Waylander]

Hmm, wonder if SG'll use their own Leos on their next training deployment soon, which will be ... a bit farther away.

* makes note to ask someone in the know *

Mmmh, GÜZ?
Maybe they could get some A4s from depot. Give them some of the A4s fresh out of the disbanded units.
They can come a week earlier than planned and get a week of training in how to get 2 coys of Leopards running for a 2 week GÜZ party.
At least they don't have to install the AGDUS by themselves.
Can be a bitch when done for the first time...

[Firn]

No there isn't. The Swedish Army trial found that the M1A1 consumed around 20% more fuel than the Leopard 2A5 which itself consumed about 10% more than the Leclerc (from memory). The M1A1 AIM in Australian service has an auxiliary power unit which means in overwatch it does not need to run the main engine - unlike SAF Leopard 2A4s - so will actually consume less fuel overall


I just googled the Swedish Army trial and found different numbers. Mind that this was a M1A1 without APU and it is questionable how trustworthy the numbers are.

The greatest advantage over the Abrams is in the Leopard 's relative fuel economy. According to manufacturer's figures, the Abrams turbine's fuel consumption at best speed for maximum range is 0.58 miles per gallon (0.25 km per liter); the Leopard 's 1.08 miles per gallon (0.46 km per liter) is nearly twice as good. More practically stated, the Leopard travels 56 mi (90 km) farther on 57 percent less fuel. Fuel consumption while idling is the turbine's weakest point, consumption at idle being perhaps three times as much as the diesel. On the other hand, the German engine weighs more than twice as much as the AGT-1500 turbine and occupies more volume.

So the APU makes clearly far more sense for the Abrams and is key to narrow the huge consumption gap down. Meanwhile even without an APU the ever more efficient diesels are far better suited to cruise long distances and for therefor for mobile warfare on a grand scale. By consuming far less - the numbers say almost half - the burden for the logistic is immensly lessened. This is a huge asset in expeditionary warfare, where every gallon fuel must brought forward at great prize and effort.

The U.S ability to supply Armor units with logistical support is by far one of the most sophisticated systems currently in use world wide, I have never run out out beans, bullets or diesel in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter, the vehicles used in supply trains are designed specifically to keep pace with forward attack elements when they are called upon, I should also add that heavy and medium airborne assetts in terms of helicopters also do a good job of dropping off fuel bladders and projectile bins if needed.

I know of the ability of the USA to supply its troops, but as I said before a gas guzzler on the frontline means a lot more effort from the tail to supply them. BTW: Was it I or II?


As to your other points about ADF operational deployment you are totally wrong about Australia defending its coastline. You are also wrong about comparative weight and mobility. The M1A1 AIM weighs in at 62 tonnes only a few more than the Leopard 2A4 and both have similar ground pressure (weight divided by the area of the track on the ground) which is the most important feature for anything other than bridge crossing.

I never said that the Leo was more deployable as one before was my first post, because it would be nonsense. :)

Don't be fooled that your intuition from a very limited information point of view enables you to know more about weapons and warfighting than the actual people designing and using these weapons.

I freely confess that having been part of the light infantry in Italy (Alpini) I'm more than happy to stay out of a tanks way. So while I'm out of my lane when it comes to the specifics I can vouch how important it is to keep fuel consumption (water) from the logistics low.

[Abraham Gubler]

The MTU MB973 engine in the Leopard 2 will burn 275 kg of diesel fuel at 1,100 kW (1,500 hp) while the AGT-1500 in the M1 Abrams will burn 305 kg at the same power. The difference in fuel consumption comes in the way the gas turbine AGT-1500 provides power output compared to a piston driven engine that is not just determined by fuel consumption. At partial power loads the AGT-1500 can be burning just as much fuel as at full power whereas the MB973’s fuel consumption lowers with its power output. This means in typical combat movement the Leopard 2 will burn less fuel than the Abrams (up to half as much) because at all those times the tank in battle is not providing maximum torque to the tracks it is burning less fuel.

However when travelling from A to B on its own tracks in operational manoeuvre that Finn seems to be so upset about the difference in consumption between the two can be a lot less. At top speed the M1 will consume only 11% more fuel than the Leopard 2.

However it is reasonable to assume as much as twice fuel consumption for an M1 tank compared to a Leopard 2. But is this so bad? As long as you provide twice the fuel personnel in your units and have a ready supply it’s not going to matter anyway. Using pipelines it’s not real difference for long distance supply. No one is talking about any M1 tank users being the next Nazi Germany in 1944 without any access to fuel supplies so who cares?

Then of course there are all the advantages of the turbine engine. Stealth through lower acoustic signature. Much better torque response for rapid acceleration (avoiding getting blown up). More internal space consumed by fuel tanks which provides better protection for things inboard of the tanks. These are significant three combat advantages over diesel engines.

Gas turbines work and work well. With the advent of electric transmission in the XM1200 they are redundant but a reasonable idea for the time.

[kato]

Mmmh, GÜZ?

Nah, 'bout 100-150 km northwest. Don't think they store Leos around there...

[eckherl]

I just googled the Swedish Army trial and found different numbers. Mind that this was a M1A1 without APU and it is questionable how trustworthy the numbers are.



So the APU makes clearly far more sense for the Abrams and is key to narrow the huge consumption gap down. Meanwhile even without an APU the ever more efficient diesels are far better suited to cruise long distances and for therefor for mobile warfare on a grand scale. By consuming far less - the numbers say almost half - the burden for the logistic is immensly lessened. This is a huge asset in expeditionary warfare, where every gallon fuel must brought forward at great prize and effort.


I know of the ability of the USA to supply its troops, but as I said before a gas guzzler on the frontline means a lot more effort from the tail to supply them. BTW: Was it I or II?



I never said that the Leo was more deployable as one before was my first post, because it would be nonsense. :)



I freely confess that having been part of the light infantry in Italy (Alpini) I'm more than happy to stay out of a tanks way. So while I'm out of my lane when it comes to the specifics I can vouch how important it is to keep fuel consumption (water) from the logistics low.

Who cares about the tail section as you and some others like to state, if you have the ability to safe guard them then what is the issue, the numbers given to you by Abraham Gubler are in fact pretty close to the testing results, the Greek trial numbers also compared close to this, for a smaller less advanced/equipped military force structure those numbers can be a breaking point and have been for some M1 series sales, even with Australia`s recent purchase the U.S added fuel and transport vehicles to the package with a few other goodies. Also there is not that much effort to hot fuel a tank company, things move rather post haste. And yes I do have experience in regards to Iraq and few other spots on the world atlas.

[eckherl]

The MTU MB973 engine in the Leopard 2 will burn 275 kg of diesel fuel at 1,100 kW (1,500 hp) while the AGT-1500 in the M1 Abrams will burn 305 kg at the same power. The difference in fuel consumption comes in the way the gas turbine AGT-1500 provides power output compared to a piston driven engine that is not just determined by fuel consumption. At partial power loads the AGT-1500 can be burning just as much fuel as at full power whereas the MB973’s fuel consumption lowers with its power output. This means in typical combat movement the Leopard 2 will burn less fuel than the Abrams (up to half as much) because at all those times the tank in battle is not providing maximum torque to the tracks it is burning less fuel.

However when travelling from A to B on its own tracks in operational manoeuvre that Finn seems to be so upset about the difference in consumption between the two can be a lot less. At top speed the M1 will consume only 11% more fuel than the Leopard 2.

However it is reasonable to assume as much as twice fuel consumption for an M1 tank compared to a Leopard 2. But is this so bad? As long as you provide twice the fuel personnel in your units and have a ready supply it’s not going to matter anyway. Using pipelines it’s not real difference for long distance supply. No one is talking about any M1 tank users being the next Nazi Germany in 1944 without any access to fuel supplies so who cares?

Then of course there are all the advantages of the turbine engine. Stealth through lower acoustic signature. Much better torque response for rapid acceleration (avoiding getting blown up). More internal space consumed by fuel tanks which provides better protection for things inboard of the tanks. These are significant three combat advantages over diesel engines.

Gas turbines work and work well. With the advent of electric transmission in the XM1200 they are redundant but a reasonable idea for the time.

The U.S Army learned a important lesson during the ETO operations during WW2, how many times did the Allies have to stop so that their supply lines could catch up, not a good situation to be in, they designed their logistical support system to assist in preventing this issue from happening again.

Even though they are designed to be multi fuel do not put Mogas or JP 4 or 7 into them, emergency use only means emergency use only. I would also like to add that the fuel cells are designed with purpose to add to the protection value of M1 series tanks, they are designed with baffels and of honeycomb structure, I believe that the Merkava series also benefits from this fuel cell design also.

[the road runner]

If I could also add that the U.S has equipment pre staged in different regions and will more than likely expand on this.

The U.S ability to supply Armor units with logistical support is by far one of the most sophisticated systems currently in use world wide, I have never run out out beans, bullets or diesel in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter, the vehicles used in supply trains are designed specifically to keep pace with forward attack elements when they are called upon, I should also add that heavy and medium airborne assetts in terms of helicopters also do a good job of dropping off fuel bladders and projectile bins if needed.

I also have to agree with Abraham Gubler that even though the AGT 1500 can be a little thirsty alot of the hype is over blown, the benefits that a turbine engine has to offer is still a good deciding factor to keep it.

Lucky that Australia,with its M1A1 is also able to tap into the US logistics support,in my opinion this is a major bonus for Australia.I also read about the US marines in Iraq using C-130s to replenish there Armoured units with fuel bladders.Also heard about a few M1's pulling up to iraq petrol stations.Fill her up please:D

Considering Singapore a very close Allie of Australia,i am wondering if Australia C-17 would be used to help Singapore deploy its Leo2 in dealing in a certain task when Time is an issue?(Great pic Aussie Digger)

[StingrayOZ]

Australia can supply its M1A1. We only have 60 of them, with less than that deployable at anyone time. We have trucks, Chinooks, C-17, hercs and two of the biggest LHD's avalible outside of the US Marines. The supply issue would be a more valid argument if we had 200+ tanks. Any overseas deployments would almost certainly use existing US logistics (which we would have even with the lepoards).

I remember the cries when we first got them, oh they were going to destroy the harbour bridge with their weight and empty bass straight oil fields when used. Please, its just 60 tanks, with fuel consumption inline of a helicopter.

I don't think there would be a major issue with Australia airlifting Singapores tanks. There is a increasingly strong defence links between the two countries. But it would have to be a very specific situation. Australia would most likely use its renewed M1A1's, and any additional lift would quiet likely use the american heavy lifters.

Certainly regionally Australia seems to hold much of the heavy strategic lift (air and sea). It would certainly underpin any mass multinational regional deployment.

[winnyfield]

I also read about the US marines in Iraq using C-130s to replenish there Armoured units with fuel bladders.Also heard about a few M1's pulling up to iraq petrol stations.Fill her up please:D


One consideration is that the US Army/MC operates a lot of helicopters. In the early days of A'stan, C-17s would air refuel then offload the fuel on the ground. There's an effort to make all US military vehicles compatible with JP-8 (jet fuel).

Regarding the gas turbine, useful read: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64444 Most who have used it, like it.

PS: there a video out there (I saw it ages ago) of US Marines doing some deep water crossings with the Abrams. Anyone have it?

Found it.

YouTube - m1a1 tank

[StingrayOZ]

I think most of the vechicals are aren't they? Even the diesel powered bikes?

Certainly the logistics of moving different fuels around would be a massive head ache.

[Firn]

We should open a specific topic devoted to the supply issues especially concerning fuel.

Eckherl and Gubler rightly point out that the US army was able to support the Abrams in Iraq. But when you say that as long as the (huge) tail is safeguarded it doesn't quite matter if one tank needs more than another than you are in stark contrast to US department of defense. For the specifics go to More capable warfighting through reduced fuel burden (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/fuel.pdf). It is needless to add that the wars in Iraq and especially Afghanistan have made an even stronger case to reduced the fuel consumption of the teeth (http://karbuz.blogspot.com/2006/06/military-oil-consumption-in.html).

Said that it is obvious that the M1 is a great choice for the defense of Australia and makes sense because of the deep cooperation between the USA and Australia. Although more than 70% of the supply of an armored division consists of fuel, making other things as spars seem less important a shared vehicle po