Australian M1A1 Abrams technology

[eckherl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well said

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

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

 

[AGRA]

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

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

 

[eckherl]

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

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

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

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

 

[AGRA]

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

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

 

[Waylander]

By AGRA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[eckherl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Waylander]

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

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

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

 

[eckherl]

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

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

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

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

 

[Waylander]

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

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

 

[eckherl]

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

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

nfloorl:

 

[speed651]

Why Australia does not choose challenger 2 or Leopard 2A6

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why Australia does not choose challenger 2 or Leopard 2A6

speed651.

see my prev comments to you about posting etiquette.

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

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

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

2nd Warning issued

In addition

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

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

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

 

[Manfred2]

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

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

 

[Aussie Digger]

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

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

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

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

How many more do we need?

 

[Tasman]

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

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

How many more do we need?

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

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

Cheers

 

[Manfred2]

I had no idea that your Army was so tiny.

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

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

 

[Aussie Digger]

I had no idea that your Army was so tiny.

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

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

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

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

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

Hence 1 Regt equipped with tanks.

 

[AGRA]

I had no idea that your Army was so tiny.

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

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

 

[Manfred2]

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

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

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

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

 

[Todjaeger]

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

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

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

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

-Cheers