Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
DU for armour, don’t think so. DU is for tank rounds as they offer better penetration. Not sure if the US still uses DU due to health/environmental concerns.
M-1A1HA and M-1A2 had a DU layer in their composite armour system. Earlier models and the M-1A1SA (the model Australia currently has) doesnt have the DU.

I'm not 100% sure but I believe the DU is in the form of a mesh or "wool" between layers of other armour rather than a homogenous layer.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Some talk in the war zone about taking the current M1s Australia will be trading back the US. and sending those to the Ukraine as they dont have the DU Armour. Slightly off topic but I think it makes more sense to back fill Leo’s with M1s to country that donate the the Ukraine to minimise the logistics tail.
Any disposal of Australian M-1s would be subject to full US approval, it would basically be the US sending them to Ukraine, even if they were shipped straight from Australia.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
It could likely they would need extra bridging equipment for these heavier tanks as there are reports that many bridges in Ukraine can't handle the extra weight many of the Soviet era tanks weigh in at 55 tons
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Skipping over most of the previous couple of days discussion, mainly because of the apparent deliberate ignoring of fact. Nonetheless...

2 things need to be considered. If you want to fly a Mirage III or drive a Charles F Adams into combat in 2035, sweet, carry on. If you have a fetish to drive an M48A5 tank, an Oberon submarine or a Wasp helicopter, cool. If you want to jump off this forum, 'cause the whole internet thing is way to modern for you, it means you are happy to die. Me? Not so much. Nor do I want my fellow Service peeps needlessly dying....

Secondly, the AS4 is an....adequate upgrade. For the 1980s. The best description of the M113AS4 program is it's an excellent 70s upgrade for a 60s platform, designed in the 80s, paid for in the 90s and not delivered until the 00s. Let us be brutally honest, the AS4 represents a fundamental abrogation of AHQ when it came to analysing the future of war and what would be needed. For all the (legitimate) other issues like White's DoA fetish, a large chunk of the fault for this....crap...can be laid in Blamey Square.

Why, with that clear lesson, would anyone suggest that the M113 is suitable for carrying people into combat in 2010s, let alone the 2040s, bewilders me.

But if you think that your bureucracy can't handle upgrade programs well, you feel that you're not getting your money's value, then probably buying new, more modern stuff is the better option for you.. The old vehicles can be converted for second line duties.
Like this SAM thingy or mortar carriers or this or that.
You are arguing two (maybe more?) different things - but at least your decision here is correct. The M113 is obsolete - for the direct fire zone carrying people. Other have mentioned remote usage for obstacle clearance, there are also automated logistic delivery. We are already looking at that, with demo vehicles being played with in 2020. Plus some of what you mention. We may be able to superglue a NASAMs on it. But, if it needs to operate against any one fighting back, or in the direct fire zone, it cannot carry people.

Personally I would keep them around just in case of national mobilization. What fvcked Russia in the ass was not getting mobilized in time.
How do we pay for it? For every dollar spent on M113AS4, that's one less dollar spent on IFV. It also fails to grasp what mobilisation would actually need to do. I'd be intrigued to watch you justify to 3 Brigade that they are going in to relieve 1 Brigade - and don't worry, despite 1 Brigade having suffered lots of losses of it's M1s and IFVs, you'll have M113's! You want an actual mobilisation capability?

Alright, few things;
1. I don't care if you're the richest country in the world, you still have to think about your resources, everything you get for your army is going to come at the expense of other things. Maybe you'll have to spend less on education or you're going to be able to efford fewer F35s.
Yup. Which is why after FSP 20 that did months (like, 18+) or review, experimentation and prioritisation, LAND 400 remained.

2. Unless you're getting something like the Israeli namer, a 50 ton MBT chassis to carry around your troops, it won't make a huge difference in terms of survivability. Even then if you want real protection you need some APS. It's the technology that's going to save you more often than just heavy steel.
This shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of armour and it's changes since the 1960s. No armour is perfectly impenetrable, but modern armour is orders of magnitude better than armour from the 90s. Let alone earlier. In addition, a lot of that passive armour is needed to make an APS work properly. Even if you strap an APS on an M113AS4, it is highly likely that the incoming frag can still penetrate the hull.

3. There are good logistical reasons to stick with the lighter APCs.Even if you're the USA, it makes a difference if you can stick 3 APCs into a C17 vs just 1 APC. not to mention the fuel a heavier APC drinks
Nope. The biggest logistics bill for the new IFVs over M113AS4s is the ammo carriage. But the greater mass, larger spares - already catered for thanks to the new 40M and HX77 vehicles. As for strategic mobility - airlift is irrelevant and with LHD an IFV and a M113AS4 is indistinguishable.

All good choices, except I would wait on Abrams. I would keep and upgrade the current M1s but hold off on new orders.
What? Again, this shows a significant lack of knowledge. The difference between an M1A1 and a M1A2 is almost as great as the difference between an F/A-18C and -18E. The A2 will have better armour, sensors, intercommunication capability. It'll be more fuel efficient, easier to upgrade. And we'll be getting more! In no way would you want to keep the current A1s.

MBTs are priority targets, when enemy drone or helicopter, or even an infantry ATGM team sees one, that's the first target to take out. If we're moving in a column of M1 Abrams' and M113 vehicles I'd rather be in the M113. At least after the explosions start I might have a little time to dismount lol.

Even guided artillery shells are getting more and more common. I suspect you'll call me a retard but think about it for a sec.
Sigh....no they are not. Of the thousands of wargames/tactical exercises I've done, regular MBTs never made any form of priority targeting. You know what the priority targets are? Things that are different. Bridges, engineer vehicles, SAMs, radars, tanks with lots of antenna, BMP/BTR with lots of antenna. But, fundamentally, anything different. If none of those exist, sure, punch a 120mm round or ATGM into an MBT over a BMP, or if you have an MBT at 50m v a breeching vehicle at 3000m, sure kill the threat. But a line MBT on a dedicated targeting list? Nah....

Any disposal of Australian M-1s would be subject to full US approval, it would basically be the US sending them to Ukraine, even if they were shipped straight from Australia.
And bingo....something that all our 'great strategic thinkers' on Twitter and most blogs need to remember. We cannot just sell our military kit. It's not a US rule (although they have additional ones), its all related to our international legal obligations. I mean, we needed US permission to sell our Kiowa's in the 2010s!!!
 

LegionnairE

New Member
How do we pay for it? For every dollar spent on M113AS4, that's one less dollar spent on IFV. It also fails to grasp what mobilisation would actually need to do. I'd be intrigued to watch you justify to 3 Brigade that they are going in to relieve 1 Brigade - and don't worry, despite 1 Brigade having suffered lots of losses of it's M1s and IFVs, you'll have M113's! You want an actual mobilisation capability?
What I meant by that was, just empty all the fluids and store them in the desert somewhere, when you mobilize like 1 million people, you have at least something you just fill up and go. But after seeing all the hatred towards this vehicle I changed my mind. If the sentiment is this bad, they should be scrapped if for nothing than just not to damage the morale.

It's better to have nothing. You could just comandeer some civilian vehicles instead.
This shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of armour and it's changes since the 1960s. No armour is perfectly impenetrable, but modern armour is orders of magnitude better than armour from the 90s. Let alone earlier. In addition, a lot of that passive armour is needed to make an APS work properly. Even if you strap an APS on an M113AS4, it is highly likely that the incoming frag can still penetrate the hull.
This is true, I've seen the M113S4, that certainly won't be enough. I've had something upgraded to at least ACV-15 standard in mind. Probably that won't be enough either, you'll need some add-on armor

What? Again, this shows a significant lack of knowledge. The difference between an M1A1 and a M1A2 is almost as great as the difference between an F/A-18C and -18E. The A2 will have better armour, sensors, intercommunication capability. It'll be more fuel efficient, easier to upgrade. And we'll be getting more! In no way would you want to keep the current A1s.
I'm perfectly aware, and it won't matter. In the next 10-15 years M1A2 and F18E (Which I'm a big fan of) will both be obsolescent because a new generation of stuff is on the horizon. When you're buying a new tank, you have to keep the next 40 years in mind. It needs to be a chassis that you can keep up-to-date with the occasional modernization.
Sigh....no they are not. Of the thousands of wargames/tactical exercises I've done, regular MBTs never made any form of priority targeting. You know what the priority targets are? Things that are different. Bridges, engineer vehicles, SAMs, radars, tanks with lots of antenna, BMP/BTR with lots of antenna. But, fundamentally, anything different. If none of those exist, sure, punch a 120mm round or ATGM into an MBT over a BMP, or if you have an MBT at 50m v a breeching vehicle at 3000m, sure kill the threat. But a line MBT on a dedicated targeting list? Nah...
This is the impression I got from watching UCAV footage of 2020 Karabakh war and Early in the Ukraine conflict. Of course in Ukraine there were much more expensive stuff around that were getting prioritized.

One thing I noticed though was Azerbaijani UCAV operators mostly aiming for the engines of tanks... that could save the crew. Whereas an IFV getting hit centre of mass and blowing up... well... my condolences.
 
Last edited:

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Any disposal of Australian M-1s would be subject to full US approval, it would basically be the US sending them to Ukraine, even if they were shipped straight from Australia.
I don’t think the comments in the war zone blog comments were suggesting otherwise. M1 Abrams Tanks In U.S. Inventory Have Armor Too Secret To Send To Ukraine.

It is an interesting proposition. We are in the midst of procuring a replacement batch of Abrams. Our current fleet is well maintained and is an export version without the DU armour ….. and could be available to cough up in short order if the US requested them.
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
One of the arguments against the M-1 being supplied to Ukraine is its need for kerosene instead of diesel.

I believe some, including Australia's M-1s have been modified/tuned to burn diesel. This may also apply to the USMC M-1s but don't quote me as this is just an assumption on my part.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
One of the arguments against the M-1 being supplied to Ukraine is its need for kerosene instead of diesel.

I believe some, including Australia's M-1s have been modified/tuned to burn diesel. This may also apply to the USMC M-1s but don't quote me as this is just an assumption on my part.
US Army M1s were modified/tuned to run JP-8 starting in 88/89. They were designed, tested, and accepted into service using DF-2. They had better fuel economy using DF-2. The multi fuel engines will likely burn whatever the Ukrainians choose to feed them
 

LegionnairE

New Member
US Army M1s were modified/tuned to run JP-8 starting in 88/89. They were designed, tested, and accepted into service using DF-2. They had better fuel economy using DF-2. The multi fuel engines will likely burn whatever the Ukrainians choose to feed them
A2's APU run strictly on diesel though right?

Well it seems the APU runs on everything too, here's the one from SEPv3:
1674776045736.png
 
Last edited:

Tbone

Member

@Tbone You have been on here long enough to know not to copy and paste an article without some original comment from you. Do it again and there will be trouble.

Ngatimozart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Are you really just gonna drop a link to a year old article and not saying anything?
Come on man> You've been around long enough to know better.

Sorry if I stole your thunder Mods.
 

Tbone

Member
Why doesn’t the army just build these lynx 120. Could be built in Australia and would be lighter and more transportable then an Abrams.
If we build the lynx IFV they would be able to lower costs in parts and maintenance training.
The lynx 120 with the best upgrade in armour would surely be enough for our defence force and we could even produce hundreds of them.
Think the adf could go for these instead of upgraded Abrams?
 

LegionnairE

New Member
Why doesn’t the army just build these lynx 120. Could be built in Australia and would be lighter and more transportable then an Abrams.
If we build the lynx IFV they would be able to lower costs in parts and maintenance training.
The lynx 120 with the best upgrade in armour would surely be enough for our defence force and we could even produce hundreds of them.
Think the adf could go for these instead of upgraded Abrams?
Well, it's not much more lighter than Abrams weighing over 50 tons. But It would make a lot of sense if Australia adopted the whole lynx family of vehicles.

Otherwise why not go the whole way, why not get the KF51? It's probably the best option.

As for Abrams, I think the only advantage is that the Australian army is already familiar with it if I'm honest. Fine tank but expiration date is approaching.
 
Last edited:

Tbone

Member
The abram tank weight is 70tns so it is a beast of a machine.
Understand 50tns is still a heavy vehicle but would mean they would sit in with the IFV and the army could manage deployment the same.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
As for Abrams, I think the only advantage is that the Australian army is already familiar with it if I'm honest. Fine tank but expiration date is approaching.
I will be frank in stating that I find the statement that the M1 Abrams is a "fine tank but expiration date is approaching..." is a rather questionable opinion, at best.

From September and October of last year, it is expected that the US will begin to move from conceptional ideas about future armour towards determining initial parameters for future US armour. Realistically, that means the entry into service for the M1 Abrams replacement is years, if not decades away. Also, the retirement of the M1 Abrams from US service (and therefore the end of development and support) is years or decades even further out.

Consider the history of both the M1 Abrams and the preceding US MBT, the M60. The M60 design entered US service in 1959, and was not retired from US service until 1997. The US in a joint effort with West Germany began working on a replacement for the M60 shortly after the design entered service, which then led to concepts and designs for MBT-70, and then ultimately the start of development for what became the M1 Abrams in the early 1970's, with initial entry into service taking place in 1980. It was nearly 20 years after the M1 Abrams entered US service before the US finally retired the M60 from US inventory. Given the large number of units in US service which would likely require replacement, and the reality that it would likely take a number of years before US armour production could feasibly manage such production, I consider it unlikely that an Abrams replacement is imminent, or that existing Abrams in service or those upcoming to enter service will be rendered 'expired'. Similarly, whilst new anti-armour weapons and tactics are going to continue to be developed, AFAIK there is nothing which would likewise cause heavy armoured vehicles like the M1 Abrams to be made 'obsolete'.
 

LegionnairE

New Member
The abram tank weight is 70tns so it is a beast of a machine.
Understand 50tns is still a heavy vehicle but would mean they would sit in with the IFV and the army could manage deployment the same.
Well you are correct of course, you can't be much lighter than 50 tons and still manage the recoil of the 120mm gun well. There are physical limitations here. I just don't know how this weight advantage can be exploited. A400M couldn't hope to lift this thing, you still need a C17... and I'm too ignorant of the Australian LSTs and land infrastructure. Apologies.

So if you know these things, please explain to me.
I will be frank in stating that I find the statement that the M1 Abrams is a "fine tank but expiration date is approaching..." is a rather questionable opinion, at best.

From September and October of last year, it is expected that the US will begin to move from conceptional ideas about future armour towards determining initial parameters for future US armour. Realistically, that means the entry into service for the M1 Abrams replacement is years, if not decades away. Also, the retirement of the M1 Abrams from US service (and therefore the end of development and support) is years or decades even further out.

Consider the history of both the M1 Abrams and the preceding US MBT, the M60. The M60 design entered US service in 1959, and was not retired from US service until 1997. The US in a joint effort with West Germany began working on a replacement for the M60 shortly after the design entered service, which then led to concepts and designs for MBT-70, and then ultimately the start of development for what became the M1 Abrams in the early 1970's, with initial entry into service taking place in 1980. It was nearly 20 years after the M1 Abrams entered US service before the US finally retired the M60 from US inventory. Given the large number of units in US service which would likely require replacement, and the reality that it would likely take a number of years before US armour production could feasibly manage such production, I consider it unlikely that an Abrams replacement is imminent, or that existing Abrams in service or those upcoming to enter service will be rendered 'expired'. Similarly, whilst new anti-armour weapons and tactics are going to continue to be developed, AFAIK there is nothing which would likewise cause heavy armoured vehicles like the M1 Abrams to be made 'obsolete'.
Well, few things.

1) There are still countries that drive the M60 Patton, my country included. You can still reasonably upgrade the M60, You could get the 120mm gun, same as the Abrams. You could get a modern FCS etc. The difference this time is, everyone who got close to Rheinmetall 130mm gun's ammunition say it can't be loaded by a human loader.

2) The 3-men turret that's been standard in western tanks since the M48 Patton, is going away leaving it's place to unmanned turrets. This started with T-14 Armata. Having all the crew in the hull means you can get much thicker armor while shedding weight.

3) How much longer do you think it will take China to make their own new generation tank? And Unlike the T-14 Armata make it in big numbers?
They could unveil such a tank tomorrow for all I know. What then?

How do you suppose M1 could be possibly upgraded to stay competitive with these facts at hand? The unmanned turrets, bigger guns, and thicker hulls.
 
Last edited:

Takao

The Bunker Group
One of the arguments against the M-1 being supplied to Ukraine is its need for kerosene instead of diesel.

I believe some, including Australia's M-1s have been modified/tuned to burn diesel. This may also apply to the USMC M-1s but don't quote me as this is just an assumption on my part.
Honestly, the uproar about kero v diesel (especially on twitter) could be used as an example in a uni course on media spread. One misquoted document has sent all the 'experts' into a tizzy. The US Army chooses to run everything on JP-8. We chose diesel. So our M1s run on diesel. Have ever since we got them. In fact, I think most operators do - the Iraqi's certainly do (having watched one get refilled).

The whole M1A2 fuel question has been hilarious. From an operator point of view, a turbine has many advantages over a traditional diesel. And with the APU and other tweaks, an M1A2 burns very little fuel. It's almost the same as a Leo 2A6 (less than 5% difference from memory). In fact, a Platoon of M1s chews the same amount of fuel as a Platoon of M4s.... Does the M1 suck down fuel? Hell yes. Does a Leo 2 / Chally 2 / Merkerva IV suck down fuel? Hell yes. It's 60-70 t of armour moving at up to 60 - 80 kmph.....

Why doesn’t the army just build these lynx 120. Could be built in Australia and would be lighter and more transportable then an Abrams.
If we build the lynx IFV they would be able to lower costs in parts and maintenance training.
The lynx 120 with the best upgrade in armour would surely be enough for our defence force and we could even produce hundreds of them.
Think the adf could go for these instead of upgraded Abrams?
Because frankly, the Lynx isn't a tank. It cannot take the hits that an M1/Leo 2/Chally 2 can take. We have cases where those tanks have taken multiple ATGM hits and kept fighting or at least been recoverable and put back in service. An IFV cannot do that. Honestly, the only thing that has killed a Challenger 2 has been....a Challenger 2. Yes, they have deployed less than M1s or Leos. Yes, a 500 lb JDAM on the roof will kill a Chally 2 in a heartbeat. Just look at an M1 getting hit by a Kornet. Yeah, the tank is probably a major repair now. But all the crew survived. What do you think happens to a Lynx if a Kornet hits it?

Plus, in the transport that matters (that is, rail or ship), it's effectively the same size. So not more transportable. A tank has a unique role on the battlefield, one that is very challenging to fill. Lynx 120 is a 'nice to have', if you have the rest of the combined arms team sorted first.

How do you suppose M1 could be possibly upgraded to stay competitive with these facts at hand? The unmanned turrets, bigger guns, and thicker hulls.
At least another 20 years. The 120 mm is reaching it's limits, even with the L55 barrel. Hence the investigation into 130 mm and 140 mm. We know that Leo 2 and Le Clerc turrets can take either already. The armour between an M1 and an M1A2 is significantly different; I'm comfortable in the rate that material science is keeping up that while a hypothetical M1A3 or M1A4 may need applique armour, it'll be tough enough. Especially knowing a lot of the survivability built into modern Western MBTs is more about design than pure armour strength - the T-xx series' ammunition storage is an Achilles heel that just cannot be mitigated.

I'm yet to see uncrewed turrets actually be operationally useful and save significant weight. This may change in the future, but the weapon system still needs armour. What is the point of a super armoured hull with an unarmoured, uncrewed turret if the latter can be mission killed with some 7.62 mm? I am aware of some Western platforms that, when showing the uncrewed turret, were rather red faced when it was pointed out some 5.56 mm would kill the entire thing, resulting in an M-kill. If you can't face light or medium machine gun fire, are you really a tank?
 

LegionnairE

New Member
At least another 20 years. The 120 mm is reaching it's limits, even with the L55 barrel. Hence the investigation into 130 mm and 140 mm. We know that Leo 2 and Le Clerc turrets can take either already. The armour between an M1 and an M1A2 is significantly different; I'm comfortable in the rate that material science is keeping up that while a hypothetical M1A3 or M1A4 may need applique armour, it'll be tough enough. Especially knowing a lot of the survivability built into modern Western MBTs is more about design than pure armour strength - the T-xx series' ammunition storage is an Achilles heel that just cannot be mitigated.

I'm yet to see uncrewed turrets actually be operationally useful and save significant weight. This may change in the future, but the weapon system still needs armour. What is the point of a super armoured hull with an unarmoured, uncrewed turret if the latter can be mission killed with some 7.62 mm? I am aware of some Western platforms that, when showing the uncrewed turret, were rather red faced when it was pointed out some 5.56 mm would kill the entire thing, resulting in an M-kill. If you can't face light or medium machine gun fire, are you really a tank?
First of all, SEP v3 is already 70 tons, how much more armor do you think we can put on this thing? We're getting past the Königstiger and moving towards Maus territorry lol.

And obviously you can't kill the unmanned turret with a 7.62. There are some misconceptions here. Unmanned turrets still have ballistic protection. I don't remember the exact specs but the amount of damage that would knock out the unmanned turret was about the same as the manned one.

You can damage the optics or the gun of an M1 Abrams pretty easily too. Maybe a bit harder than the alternative but still. I'm pretty sure Australia with their relatively small population would prefer crew safety over anything else.

I give M1 10-15 years the most depending on how china acts. I believe they started development of a new generation tank around the same time as Rheinmetall with their KF51. The Germans were just faster.
 
Top