Australian M1A1 Abrams technology

[rickshaw]

No, the M4 hull was a modified M3 hull withthe side gun-port eliminated, and turret ring redesigneed to take a larger turret. If you look a the pre-production M4 hull you can see where the M3 hull gun gunner's station retained its hatch, but this was removed from production vehicles.

I don't doubt that will come as a surprise to Mr. Hunnicutt who's book on the Sherman I have on my bookshelf beside me. I suspect you are mistaking the side hull door, which was a common feature on US tanks at that point. It was not placed beside the "hull gunner" (whom I presume you mean is the co-driver) but rather beside the turret. It was quickly eliminated from the design. It does not mean that the M4 hull was a modified M3 one. The prototype hull was a completely new design, made specifically to mount the new turret.

Actually the T-43 was suggested for introduction into production when Panthers and Tigers appeared, but was rejected. The T-44 went into very limited production, but by then it didn't matter. They were not "in the throws" of introducing the T-44. The real crisis was in 1943 with T-34-85 introduction because there was a problem with the gun production and mounting it in the turret.

They were "in the throws" - in that the vehicle had entered production and was just reaching units when the war ended. The vehicle wasn't, in the end a success, being quickly superceded by the T-54, which had a superior turret shape and had ironed out most of the automotive problems of the T-44 style hull. However, they did try the design out and start the move away from the T-34.

 

[FutureTank]

For this purpose they had created an army of special forces with the express purpose of disabling NATO WMD stocks before they could be used. Would NATO use nuclear weapons on its own territory if it was being overrun? Would the UK and USA use nuclear weapons on Germany, or even Poland or Hungary? I doubt it, but I’m glad we will never find out.

No we won't. However, as I said, the Cold War History Project has revealed a great deal about WarPac plans. From what we know from other sources, its highly likely that NATO had similar plans. The result would have been like Taylor's hypothesis about WWI - a railway timetable to annilation which once started, could not be interrupted IMO.

I find this hard to accept. Use of nuclear weapons makes neither military, economic or political sense despite the Project research.

 

[rickshaw]

Sorry you canot have it both ways. We are a continent and much of the the Australian mainland, being open desert, lends it self to rapid movement of mechanised military. Armour fits into this.

True. However, how likely is it that we will have an opponent who will have both the armour of their own to warrant the need for an MBT and the means to move it here. Further, while most of the continent is ideal for armour, that doesn't necessarily mean it must be MBTs. "Armour" comes in several different forms, ranging from light to heavy.

The M1A1 AIMS is not a stand alone system but is intended to be part of an ingreated system inlcuing the NLOS call for fires system being sourced in land 17 along with land 400 for the combat inforamtion system.

One of the biggest falacies of the political mind set I have seen is the idea we can purchase cpability when we need it. This is nonsense as skills develoment makes up a large part of this. You cannot do this without the gear.

True. However, the question remains, what is the role of the ADF? Is it to defend the nation or engage in expeditionary warfare at the behest of our "great and powerful friends" as Menzies called them? If it is the former, then we need not only the means to undertake it but it must be part of an integrated strategy and doctrine. Having MBTs sounds nice but what value are they when we don't have the means to move them to where we wish to use them?

In my mond we haveht poteantion for cross training with our allies, we are feilding state of the art gear and developing skills for what, in the grand scheme of thins, is minimal cost.

This can be achieved whether we have MBTs or not.

 

[rickshaw]

I find this hard to accept. Use of nuclear weapons makes neither military, economic or political sense despite the Project research.

Find it hard to accept as much as you like. The documentation which the Cold War History Project has published indicates otherwise.

 

[FutureTank]

True but then the role of the heavy tank had been overtaken by the MBT. The need for such a vehicle was no longer there as each heavy tank cost approximately twice the cost of an MBT, the Soviets went for quantity over quality. Further, the addition of the ATGW to the inventory meant that no heavy tank was likely to be able to survive for long..

Yes, there is no need for a heavy tank now.
However I'm not sure the cost estimation you suggest is true. A very significant part of the cost of M1 is in its electronics rather then the armour.

Soviets did not go for quantity over quality. They used a tank designed for their doctrine and available manpower, that is non-professionals. For their requirements the design was of appropriate quality.

I have my doubts in superiority of the ATGW over even a medium tank, particularly where the platforms are integrated into tasks of an infantry unit as opposed to a dedicated tank destroyer unit. It has an intial ambush value, but low survivability on the modern battlefield (add against well trained troops).

 

[FutureTank]

Except, as the British in their Challenger I's noted during Gulf War I - they often passed the US tank units who were forced to halt for refuelling, whereas their diesel powered vehicles just kept on going. On average, I understand, the British armoured units required half the logistic tail for POL that the equivalent US unit required. While tanks might not travel far, because of the use of tracks, they proportionally require more power to do it, so hence have a higher fuel consumption. When you couple that with a gas-turbine, which is in itself notoriously fuel hungry, because it runs at near full revs, all the time, then idle times on the march consume more fuel than for an equivalent diesel powered vehicle.

How were they 'passing' if they were operating in own sector? Possibly they were passing through a US unit?

US units are however more lavishly equipped with support transport, so saying that the British use less logistic tail may not be quite reflecting the truth.

 

[Aussie Digger]

True. However, how likely is it that we will have an opponent who will have both the armour of their own to warrant the need for an MBT and the means to move it here. Further, while most of the continent is ideal for armour, that doesn't necessarily mean it must be MBTs. "Armour" comes in several different forms, ranging from light to heavy.



True. However, the question remains, what is the role of the ADF? Is it to defend the nation or engage in expeditionary warfare at the behest of our "great and powerful friends" as Menzies called them? If it is the former, then we need not only the means to undertake it but it must be part of an integrated strategy and doctrine. Having MBTs sounds nice but what value are they when we don't have the means to move them to where we wish to use them?



This can be achieved whether we have MBTs or not.

We CAN move our MBT's where we wish. How exactly did they get from the USA to Australia?

How did they get from a Wharf in Melbourne to Puckapunyal? I'm pretty sure our C-17 didn't move them all...

As to the futile DoA v "Expeditionary" styled ADF, what's the difference in equipment levels exactly?

In our "DOA" optimised Army, we operated MBT's, APC's, wheeled armoured recon vehicles, 155mm and 105mm howitzers, helo gunships, transport helo's, short ranged GBAD capabilities and a predominantly light infantry force as the major capabilities of our land forces.

WHAT is the difference now? We operate the same TYPE of capabilities only the new ones are far more capable as individual platforms, which is natural seeing as though they are a generation (at least) more advanced. What exactly makes it "expeditionary" now? How politicians DESCRIBE the force?

Sorry, but this argument is for academics, who make no real difference either way to defence capability present or planned.

 

[rickshaw]

"The designations in English were applied by former cavalry officers"

So why bring Liddel-Heart and Fuller into it, never mind non-English speakers?

'cause Liddel-Heart and Fuller are English and they were two of the main armour theorists for that nation? Let me add, Martel whom was an ex-Engineer. Wavel, an ex-Infantry officer and author of the all-important "purple primer". Birch, was a gunner by trade, as well.

Tne non-English examples were to prove that the English weren't isolated, BTW.

 

[rickshaw]

We CAN move our MBT's where we wish. How exactly did they get from the USA to Australia?

Via ship, of course. Where can we unload them, once they arrived? How can we move them from the ports, once they are unloaded? I've been over this several times already - our transport infrastructure is not designed to carry the loads that these vehicles and their transporters constitute. Most of the roads aren't designed for it. Most of the bridges aren't designed for it. Most of the railways aren't designed for it. The ports (with the exception of three) aren't designed for it.

How did they get from a Wharf in Melbourne to Puckapunyal? I'm pretty sure our C-17 didn't move them all...

Nope but the road to Pucka is was strengthened a longtime ago to allow it. How do they intend to move them to Darwin? You might have missed the note but the Minister announced that Darwin would need special cranes and wharves installed to allow these vehicles to be unloaded there. The Ghan railway isn't designed to carry them - the axle loadings on the flatbed railtrucks are too high. The same for the road bridges in the NT - as it is, civvie road-trains have to be uncoupled to cross many of the roadbridges in the NT. How are you going to get a tank across? Swim it, when the rivers are in flood?

As to the futile DoA v "Expeditionary" styled ADF, what's the difference in equipment levels exactly?

Depends upon the strategy to be employed. Doctrine and equipment should be determined by strategy, not the otherway 'round.

 

[FutureTank]

'cause Liddel-Heart and Fuller are English and they were two of the main armour theorists for that nation.

They are?!!! We are not on the same page I fear
I always considered them very infantry-oriented in thinking, particularly Liddel-Heart.

 

[rickshaw]

I have my doubts in superiority of the ATGW over even a medium tank, particularly where the platforms are integrated into tasks of an infantry unit as opposed to a dedicated tank destroyer unit. It has an intial ambush value, but low survivability on the modern battlefield (add against well trained troops).

The Russians have long employed ATGW vehicles, as I understand it, as flank guards and overwatch vehicles. Where the visibility is suitable, they can pick off targets at ranges exceeding that of MBT guns. Their armour allows them usually to survive the initial response.

 

[Waylander]

Just a small question.

Do most of your streets are really that weak that they cannot handle a truck with an Abrams on it?

This should be not more than 100 tons.

 

[rickshaw]

They are?!!! We are not on the same page I fear

So it would appear.

 

[rickshaw]

Just a small question.

Do most of your streets are really that weak that they cannot handle a truck with an Abrams on it?

This should be not more than 100 tons.

The roads aren't necessarily the problem (although extended use at such weights could present a problem as the road surface detoriates). It is primarily the bridges.

 

[Waylander]

No bridgelayers and deep forging kits available?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Via ship, of course. Where can we unload them, once they arrived? How can we move them from the ports, once they are unloaded? I've been over this several times already - our transport infrastructure is not designed to carry the loads that these vehicles and their transporters constitute. Most of the roads aren't designed for it. Most of the bridges aren't designed for it. Most of the railways aren't designed for it. The ports (with the exception of three) aren't designed for it.



Nope but the road to Pucka is was strengthened a longtime ago to allow it. How do they intend to move them to Darwin? You might have missed the note but the Minister announced that Darwin would need special cranes and wharves installed to allow these vehicles to be unloaded there. The Ghan railway isn't designed to carry them - the axle loadings on the flatbed railtrucks are too high. The same for the road bridges in the NT - as it is, civvie road-trains have to be uncoupled to cross many of the roadbridges in the NT. How are you going to get a tank across? Swim it, when the rivers are in flood?

Depends upon the strategy to be employed. Doctrine and equipment should be determined by strategy, not the otherway 'round.

Army AND the Chief Engineer of the Northern Territory Transport Department (RTA equivalent) stated publicly that the roads in NT are more than sufficient to allow low-loaders carrying M1A1's to travel on them.

The rolling stock issue is being sorted with an RFT to be released sometime in 2007 to address the issue.

As to your "ports" issue. Army's new watercraft were specifically designed to be capable of carrying M1A1's, as are the rear ramps of Manoora and Kanimbla. The LHD's will be similarly capable of conveying them to wherever they're needed.

And as Army pointed out. The only other tanks it considered for ADF (due to their capability levels) Leo2A6 and Challenger II were of a similar weight to the M1A1 in combat configuration. Should Army continue to accept "lesser" capability? Hell no!

Tell you what mate. If the M1A1's arriving in March CANNOT make it to Darwin, without being airlifted, I'll make a public apology and announce you were quite correct in your concerns, okay?

Are you willing to do the same???

 

[FutureTank]

err, no its not. Aberdeen and Knox - US Army official museums refer to them as Mediums under NATO definitions of the time.

so what? Fort Bliss - one of the US Army Official museums for all things armour refers to them as Medium at a point in time - and then Main..

I see your Ft Bliss, and raise FtBragg's official 82nd Airborne division museum.
http://www.bragg.army.mil/18abn/MuseumPictures.htm
Half way down the page.
M551A1 Sheridan Armored Reconnaissance Airborne Assault Vehicle
Someone in US Army must be confused

 

[FutureTank]

I don't doubt that will come as a surprise to Mr. Hunnicutt who's book on the Sherman I have on my bookshelf beside me. I suspect you are mistaking the side hull door, which was a common feature on US tanks at that point. It was not placed beside the "hull gunner" (whom I presume you mean is the co-driver) but rather beside the turret. It was quickly eliminated from the design. It does not mean that the M4 hull was a modified M3 one. The prototype hull was a completely new design, made specifically to mount the new turret..

No, the M3 had a gunner for the hull mounted weapon. The co-driver was on the M4 (actually mostly the bow gunner). Haven't seen the book you refer to. My information comes from description of how the Sherman design and production was started up. My information says that the hull, chassis, suspension and engine were M3. The early M4A1s had M3 type three-piece differential and final drive housing.

They were "in the throws" - in that the vehicle had entered production and was just reaching units when the war ended. The vehicle wasn't, in the end a success, being quickly superceded by the T-54, which had a superior turret shape and had ironed out most of the automotive problems of the T-44 style hull. However, they did try the design out and start the move away from the T-34.

What do you mean by "in the throws"? By this stage the German panzers were so outnumbered that the T-34 production was actually reduced in the last few months of the war. It could be that the production was reduced to accomodate the T-44, but the three brigades that trained on them eventually went to Berlin mounted on T-34-85s.

 

[FutureTank]

when the future generations of tank come about I believe they will only weigh 35-45t and it will be possible to go 1000km on one tank but thi will be a long time away

Why the future? This is possible now

Tank's range is related to its weight since larger fuel tank requires more armour due to increased volume.

Just so you are aware, AFV range is not the only determinant of mobility. Range is measured in engine hours because an AFV may spend three hours sitting with the engine on idle, and the next 10 minutes could be rolling at top speed. Its not like a sedan which measures range travelled on a full tank. In combat AFVs will refuel when possible and will not wait until they have 10% of fuel left. One never knows when the next opportunity will come.

A tank is just a type of AFV designed using a balance or inbalance of four factors: crew survival, mobility, firepower and adaptability.

For example the M1 with a dozer blade attached can become a very handy field engineering tool.

However if the designing engineering team are asked to provide a design unbalanced to suit a particular role, that is also ok.

If you want a 40t tank that can go for 1000km before requiring a refuel, you are not going to have a turret, and the armour is going to be mighty thin and probably aluminium. It would also probably use whees rather then track to further reduce on the weight.

The French ERC 90 Sagaie has a range of 730km a weight of only 8.3t, so there is plenty of scope to play with design specs. The question is, does anyone want a medium tank with that sort of range?

However, IF ADF really did want the M1s to tear around the country under their own power, they could just attach external disposable fuel tanks like the Soviet designers have done since WW2. This probably will not give 1000km, but I would guess at least doublt the current capacity to 850km. Of course it will be major 'pit stop' after that little exercise

Actually, what is the track life on the M1?

 

[rickshaw]

Army AND the Chief Engineer of the Northern Territory Transport Department (RTA equivalent) stated publicly that the roads in NT are more than sufficient to allow low-loaders carrying M1A1's to travel on them.

The roads may be, the bridges aren't. If they have to uncouple road trains which have a lower peak axle loading than a tank transporter to cross the Adelaide River, then what do they think they'll need to do with the tank?

The rolling stock issue is being sorted with an RFT to be released sometime in 2007 to address the issue.

Rolling stock is not the issue. The Ghan line was built again, with much lower peak axle loadings in mind. The roadbed is not designed to carry the weights we're talking about. It was publicly stated by the Ghan's chief engineer in the Advertiser newspaper last year (or was it the year before?).

As to your "ports" issue. Army's new watercraft were specifically designed to be capable of carrying M1A1's, as are the rear ramps of Manoora and Kanimbla. The LHD's will be similarly capable of conveying them to wherever they're needed.

Moving them across the beach is slower than loading them in a port. It also appears rather, shall we say, short-sighted to need to load them across the beach?

And as Army pointed out. The only other tanks it considered for ADF (due to their capability levels) Leo2A6 and Challenger II were of a similar weight to the M1A1 in combat configuration. Should Army continue to accept "lesser" capability? Hell no!

Again, it comes down to what you believe the ADF should be doing. "lesser" capability is relative. "Lesser" would still be superior to the AFVs in our region.

Tell you what mate. If the M1A1's arriving in March CANNOT make it to Darwin, without being airlifted, I'll make a public apology and announce you were quite correct in your concerns, okay?

Are you willing to do the same???

I am not disputing the ability to move them to Darwin. I am disputing the ability to move them outside of Darwin. If they encounter difficulties moving them beyond Darwin, you willing to bet a bottle of red on it?