This is a discussion on Australian Army Discussions and Updates within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Aussie Digger
Bloody ANAO, can't even get that right. I just counted the tanks in their diagram...
...
Bloody ANAO, can't even get that right. I just counted the tanks in their diagram...
The ANAO just reused the army basis of provisioning document from the LAND 907 business case. The brief for LAND 907 from Cabinet was the absolute bare minimum for an armd regt. So the SHQs were only to get one tank – but on paper. Of course once on issue to 1 Armd Regt they are never going to man three full squadrons and would happily not form 12 Troop to have two tanks in each SHQ if they could get close to a full regiment. Just like the new infantry battalion only has eight infantry platoons manned instead of the proper nine. Realistically the SHQ should have three tanks with the third for the FOO to ride in. The old medium direct support battery in the order of battle has M113s for the FOO/JOST to ride in which isn’t really going to cut it when the tanks need to do their thing. But the number of tanks we have is more than enough to sustain a proper 15 tank armoured squadron in operations. If we need to deploy a regiment then well we need two more regiments so plenty more tanks. If aliens invade Darwin anytime soon then there will be a lot less than 40 crewed tanks rolling out of Robertson to fight them off.
The ANAO just reused the army basis of provisioning document from the LAND 907 business case. The brief for LAND 907 from Cabinet was the absolute bare minimum for an armd regt. So the SHQs were only to get one tank – but on paper. Of course once on issue to 1 Armd Regt they are never going to man three full squadrons and would happily not form 12 Troop to have two tanks in each SHQ if they could get close to a full regiment. Just like the new infantry battalion only has eight infantry platoons manned instead of the proper nine. Realistically the SHQ should have three tanks with the third for the FOO to ride in. The old medium direct support battery in the order of battle has M113s for the FOO/JOST to ride in which isn’t really going to cut it when the tanks need to do their thing. But the number of tanks we have is more than enough to sustain a proper 15 tank armoured squadron in operations. If we need to deploy a regiment then well we need two more regiments so plenty more tanks. If aliens invade Darwin anytime soon then there will be a lot less than 40 crewed tanks rolling out of Robertson to fight them off.
Puts into perspective their rather happy announcement that they "underspent" on this project and actually handed back money...
Could have bought the proper number of tanks with that extra money!!!
with the british army cutting their AS-90 numbers would this not be a good time for the RAA to put their hand up and say: "Uhh we need a SP 155mm gun" or is the AS-90 not a qualifier for LAND 17?
and on the note of "Old" Brit weapons what about all the Challenger 2s? something always unnerved me about only getting 59 M1s
Spare Challengers will be glad-wrapped and placed in storage or transferred to BATUS. Heavy tank crews not assigned to the active armoured brigade are assigned to crewing Mastif/Ridgeback/Warthog, thus freeing up the infantry to focus on dismounted operations. As90 will follow a similar path, however they have not been worked as hard as the Ch2 so some may become available. If the Danes pull their Leopards out of A-Stan then Ch2 will be deployed as a replacement.
Last edited by riksavage; April 7th, 2011 at 09:51 PM.
AS-90 only a 39-cal gun. The UK also might want to hang onto some C2 for spares. I believe BAE has closed their C2 facilities and there doesn't appear to be a MBT replacement anytime soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riksavage
If the Danes pull their Leopards out of A-Stan then Ch2 will be deployed as a replacement.
USMC has deployed M1s to the Helmand area. They'll probably fill the void.
Puts into perspective their rather happy announcement that they "underspent" on this project and actually handed back money...
Could have bought the proper number of tanks with that extra money!!!
Not even one. The savings all came from the efficencies of the US in providing tanks. Since the original business case was pared back so far there wasn't even an ammunition stock or SATCOM access LAND 907 actually went quite a bit over budget. However it was still the most brillant acquistion the ADF has completed in recent years. One could only wish that a range of other projects (ARH, Seasprite, MRH, M113AS4, SP155, etc) were all conducted under similar concepts: buy off the shelf from the established international market leader. Important to note that LAND 400 was approved by govt. to also include the capacity to acquire additional tanks if needed.
AS-90 only a 39-cal gun. The UK also might want to hang onto some C2 for spares. I believe BAE has closed their C2 facilities and there doesn't appear to be a MBT replacement anytime soon.
There is nothing wrong with an L39 gun. AS90 however is as unsuitable for the ADF as the K9 and PzH2000. None are integrated with AFATDS. The only gun system to meet the majority of the Army's spec off the shelf is the M109A6 Paladin that is integrated with AFATDS. Plenty of them available second hand and in much better condition than the AS90s.
The UK has very little to offer the ADF in terms of surplus army equipment that we couldn't get from the USA. The CR2 (Challenger) was rejected for LAND 907 because it used unique ammunition. Acquiring them would be a disaster to sustain. Not that it would cost much to set up 120mm ammo production in Australia but single or even dual source supply is not a good idea.
There is nothing wrong with an L39 gun. AS90 however is as unsuitable for the ADF as the K9 and PzH2000. None are integrated with AFATDS. The only gun system to meet the majority of the Army's spec off the shelf is the M109A6 Paladin that is integrated with AFATDS. Plenty of them available second hand and in much better condition than the AS90s.
The UK has very little to offer the ADF in terms of surplus army equipment that we couldn't get from the USA. The CR2 (Challenger) was rejected for LAND 907 because it used unique ammunition. Acquiring them would be a disaster to sustain. Not that it would cost much to set up 120mm ammo production in Australia but single or even dual source supply is not a good idea.
Instead of buying more tanks Aus would be better off buying armoured engineering, bridging and recovery units based on the M1A1 to round off the package.
Instead of buying more tanks Aus would be better off buying armoured engineering, bridging and recovery units based on the M1A1 to round off the package.
Of course and there are projects afoot to realise this. However as we have been discussing there is a shortfall of a few tanks to meet the order of battle. Apart from another 5-10 gun tanks being needed for 1 Armd Regt several would be needed to properly equip 1 Cbt Engr Regt as a mechanised unit. From memory the order of battle has two gun tanks with dozers and the obstacle reduction gun capability and eight mine clearers (Abrams Assault Breacher Vehicle) for each cbt engr sqn (mech). So to fully equip the current order of battle you are looking at another 20 or so gun tanks and another 30-40 in variants (mine clearer and birdge layer). Then of course there is a combat attrition supply. Which for an armd regt used to be about 10-20 tanks for a year of war (the usual allotment).
Of course and there are projects afoot to realise this. However as we have been discussing there is a shortfall of a few tanks to meet the order of battle. Apart from another 5-10 gun tanks being needed for 1 Armd Regt several would be needed to properly equip 1 Cbt Engr Regt as a mechanised unit. From memory the order of battle has two gun tanks with dozers and the obstacle reduction gun capability and eight mine clearers (Abrams Assault Breacher Vehicle) for each cbt engr sqn (mech). So to fully equip the current order of battle you are looking at another 20 or so gun tanks and another 30-40 in variants (mine clearer and birdge layer). Then of course there is a combat attrition supply. Which for an armd regt used to be about 10-20 tanks for a year of war (the usual allotment).
That is very interesting. Do you think that this will ever happen? Also what would that be worth?
Of course and there are projects afoot to realise this. However as we have been discussing there is a shortfall of a few tanks to meet the order of battle. Apart from another 5-10 gun tanks being needed for 1 Armd Regt several would be needed to properly equip 1 Cbt Engr Regt as a mechanised unit. From memory the order of battle has two gun tanks with dozers and the obstacle reduction gun capability and eight mine clearers (Abrams Assault Breacher Vehicle) for each cbt engr sqn (mech). So to fully equip the current order of battle you are looking at another 20 or so gun tanks and another 30-40 in variants (mine clearer and birdge layer). Then of course there is a combat attrition supply. Which for an armd regt used to be about 10-20 tanks for a year of war (the usual allotment).
Ironically one area where the Leo II would have been a supperior option to the Abrams is the availability of specialist versions. That said there is nothing stopping the development of the necessary vehicles based on the Abrams but time and money.
Ironically one area where the Leo II would have been a supperior option to the Abrams is the availability of specialist versions. That said there is nothing stopping the development of the necessary vehicles based on the Abrams but time and money.
The Abrams is available in all the specialist engineering vehicles we need and the Leopard 2 isn’t. The Australian combat engineer squadron (mechanised) has eight armoured mine clearers (AMC), two armoured vehicles, specialist engineer (AVSE) and two armoured vehicle-launched bridges (AVLB) which are not extant in addition to a number of M113 type vehicles and bulldozers. For the AVLB there is the M104 Wolverine based on the M1 hull which uses the very good German Leguan bridges. A Leguan bridgelayer has been developed for the Leopard 2 but never ordered for production. The AVSE is just a normal M1 gun tank fitted with a dozer blade and the M908 HE-OR-T [High Explosive Obstacle Reduction Tank] ammunition. For the AMC the Leopard II only has plough/roller/flail pushers but the Abrams has the excellent M1ABV “Shredder” with trainable Giant Viper launchers as well as mine ploughs and rollers. It’s all there off the shelf to equip 1 CER (Mech) to full standard. Plus all of these vehicles would be extremely useful in theatre in Uruzgan right now.
Cbt Engr Sqn (Mech):
5 officers
100 OR
1 M113 ACV
10 M113 APC
3 M113 TLC/ALV
8 AMC
2 AVSE
2 AVLB
2 CET (Hvy) (D9 bulldozer)
2 Heavy Dumpster Truck
1 CPC 20 (water purifier)
3 TMML(AT) (mechanised anti tank mine planter)
4 EMCD Giant Viper (explosive mine clearer)
The Abrams is available in all the specialist engineering vehicles we need and the Leopard 2 isn’t. The Australian combat engineer squadron (mechanised) has eight armoured mine clearers (AMC), two armoured vehicles, specialist engineer (AVSE) and two armoured vehicle-launched bridges (AVLB) which are not extant in addition to a number of M113 type vehicles and bulldozers. For the AVLB there is the M104 Wolverine based on the M1 hull which uses the very good German Leguan bridges. A Leguan bridgelayer has been developed for the Leopard 2 but never ordered for production. The AVSE is just a normal M1 gun tank fitted with a dozer blade and the M908 HE-OR-T [High Explosive Obstacle Reduction Tank] ammunition. For the AMC the Leopard II only has plough/roller/flail pushers but the Abrams has the excellent M1ABV “Shredder” with trainable Giant Viper launchers as well as mine ploughs and rollers. It’s all there off the shelf to equip 1 CER (Mech) to full standard. Plus all of these vehicles would be extremely useful in theatre in Uruzgan right now.
Cbt Engr Sqn (Mech):
5 officers
100 OR
1 M113 ACV
10 M113 APC
3 M113 TLC/ALV
8 AMC
2 AVSE
2 AVLB
2 CET (Hvy) (D9 bulldozer)
2 Heavy Dumpster Truck
1 CPC 20 (water purifier)
3 TMML(AT) (mechanised anti tank mine planter)
4 EMCD Giant Viper (explosive mine clearer)
Yes totally agree armoured engineers would be very useful in Afghanistan, perhaps more so than pure tanks.
The Centurion AVRE has always been a favourite of mine and I can't help but wonder of a modern day equivalent using a short barrelled, short chamber (high angle) 155mm (capable of using a variety of standard 155mm rounds and charges) would be good value today. Such a vehicle, fitted out something along the lines TUSK, provide a higher level of support and be of greater use to deployed infantry than tanks, in particular in MOUT.
Once you have an AVRE all you really need is an AVLB an armoured load carrier and an APC as it can cover both the AVSE and AMC tasks.
What would be interesting is a “Namer” type configuration heavy APC with M1 running gear and mechanicals as a basis of a FOV of heavy engineering vehicles.
The Centurion AVRE has always been a favourite of mine and I can't help but wonder of a modern day equivalent using a short barrelled, short chamber (high angle) 155mm (capable of using a variety of standard 155mm rounds and charges) would be good value today. Such a vehicle, fitted out something along the lines TUSK, provide a higher level of support and be of greater use to deployed infantry than tanks, in particular in MOUT.
Such a 155mm howitzer has little in common with a demolition gun except perhaps external appearance. The capability of the 165mm demolition gun is now provided by the 120mm HE-OR-T shell that can be fired by any standard gun tank with a suitable trained crew. The demo gun was never in a high angle mount having the same +20 degrees elevation of standard gun tanks.
A tank with main gun elevation of +20 degrees (like the M1 Abrams) means it can engage the top of a three story building (rarely over 12m above ground) at a minimum range of 33m. As long as you aren’t fighting in amongst sky scrapers this is a pretty good capability.
Further the role of the demo gun is not destruction of enemy firing positions or bunkers but rather obstacles to mobility. If you want a specialised infantry support tank then it’s not a capability the engineers provide. They have their hands full making clear routes for our forces to manoeuvre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav
Once you have an AVRE all you really need is an AVLB an armoured load carrier and an APC as it can cover both the AVSE and AMC tasks.
While any suitably equipped tank can push a mine plough or roller this does not make an AMC. The M1ABV is a specialised AMC and provides several additional capabilities. This include standoff mine clearing via under armour Giant Viper (GV) launchers (which are usually towed and therefore vulnerable to suppression fires) and remote control for clearing in areas that may have overkill UBIEDs. Also by removing the main gun from the tank the M1ABV has a lot of room for carrying additional engineering equipment which is like:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav
What would be interesting is a “Namer” type configuration heavy APC with M1 running gear and mechanicals as a basis of a FOV of heavy engineering vehicles.
If you have the M1ABV then you have a heavy armoured vehicle able to carry lots of engineering gear like the APC. The only other vehicle in its class is the Israeli Puma when fitted with the overpressure explosive mine clearer launcher. But this system can only be fired in the direction the vehicle is pointing. While GV in the Shredder (M1ABV) can be fired by training the turret which is very useful in complex terrain so you can shoot down off axis roads and the like.
Is there any possibility that we could get some of this equipment at good deal prices with fully refurbed (zerod) units like our origonal M1's.
Its pretty unlikely we are going to enter a tank war in the region, but it is far more likely we would have to do some operations against mines, IED, etc.
I wouldn't imagine we would plan for a significant combat attrition supply, so another 50 tanks is still a pretty hefty order, given we only have 59 M1A1's at the moment.
The Australian Army does have a very large attrition stock of M1s - it's called the US Army. Realistically any conflict serious enough to see attrition to the M1 fleet would see those warehoused M1s being shipped over pretty quick.
The only way I can see more M1s and M88s being bought is if the FSR dictates that the tank regiment is split up and a squadron given to each now Armoured Cavalry Regiment. To achieve that, there would probably need to be another dozen or so gun tanks bought to ensure a squadron can remain serviceable in each location. We'd also need to buy at least two more M88s as well, to ensure there are at least two in each location. Personally I think the ACR concept will never get up though.
Personally I can't see any heavy engineer vehicles based on tanks being bought for 1 CER (or, if Plan Beersheeba ever actually happens the mech sqn of each CE Regt). There's just no money. The best they can hope for is a medium weight vehicle in the same class as the Land 400 vehicles. Buying mine plows for the M1s would be a good start though.
