Australian M1A1 Abrams technology

[scraw]

No bridgelayers and deep forging kits available?

The two are discussing moving them via low loader or rail for exercises etc. A scenario where it doesn't really matter too much if they have to avoid some routes (truckies seem to manage every day).

Once you're talking the tanks running around themselves you're in a whole different ballpark.

 

[Waylander]

As long as it comes to the bridgelayers they can also be used for training deployment.
Just carry a bridgelayer with you and use it instead of the normal bridges. The question is are the rivers to big to use normal bridgelaying equipment.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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

and yet when one of the museum caretakers takes you for a walk - he specifically says light tank as per the 2 designations I've previously mentioned.

One of the australian assessments of the sheridan when we were dicking around with post centurion replacement also refers to a sheridan M551 Sheridan Light Armored Reconnaissance Tank, and I've seen numerous references to it being an Air Assault Light Tank.

Its never been an MBT - its certainly been a light tank through various stages of its life.

medium battle tanks aren't LAPED out the backside of a transport - light tanks are...

 

[eckherl]

and yet when one of the museum caretakers takes you for a walk - he specifically says light tank as per the 2 designations I've previously mentioned.

One of the australian assessments of the sheridan when we were dicking around with post centurion replacement also refers to a sheridan M551 Sheridan Light Armored Reconnaissance Tank, and I've seen numerous references to it being an Air Assault Light Tank.

Its never been an MBT - its certainly been a light tank through various stages of its life.

medium battle tanks aren't LAPED out the backside of a transport - light tanks are...

You are correct in regards to the M551.

 

[blueorchid]

From Aussie Digger:-

"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."

Rickshaw,
AD was not quiet correct on his quote from the Chief Engineer, what he was reported to say was that N T's bridges were rated to 50 tonne axle weight.
The army's tank transporters easly fit under that condition.

Just a side to this in the Melbourne Sun Herald about two months ago in its motor section it had a report on a Queenslander trucker who had won the Aussie best rig, this rig towed a low loader capable of 160 tonne load all over Nth Qld for the minning ind. and was developing a loader capable of 450 tonnes over the same roads and bridges.
So moving the M1's all over Aussie by truck on our roads and bridges is not an issue.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Someone in US Army must be confused

In light of the fact that you want to quote FM's for validation -refer to FM 10-515: (In a game of technical accuracy poker - the FM manual beats the internet and a museum every time.... )


M551 Light Tank


Classification. Main characteristics of the M551 light tank include—

• A rear engine.
• An oval-shaped track and road wheel pattern.
• A combined hull, turret, and gun pattern.

Side-View Identification. M551 light tank characteristics visible from both sides include—

• A rear engine and rear exhaust, whose plume may be directed upward or rearward.
• A low profile: low hull and a small, low, flat turret.
• A wedge-like shape, with the wedge pointing to the vehicle's front and visible between 800 and 1,200 meters.
• A high side decking.
• Warm, slack tracks and (at short ranges) five evenly spaced road wheels.
• A short gun tube that can be seen when the gun has recently fired.

Front-View Identification. M551 light tank characteristics visible from the front include—

• A wide, low turret, whose sides extend almost over the tracks, providing a unique front view.
• Warm tracks separated by a cool hull, visible as two red spots.

Effects of Motion. The M551 light tank's direction of movement may indicate the location of its engine. Other characteristics that observers could see when the M551 light tank moves include—

• A transport system that becomes warmer and more visible during movement.
• A slower bounce than a lighter vehicle.

Distinguishing Features. The M551 light tank has a wide, low turret (front view) and a wedge shape (side view). Otherwise, its signatures are difficult to distinguish from those of a T-62 tank.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

other FM's referring to Light Vehicle/Tank/Armor(sic) status inlcude:

FM 3-23.24 APPENDIX I Primary Recognition Cues
FM 7-20 Appendix D MECHANIZED-ARMOR/LIGHT AND SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES
FM 7-10 Appendix B

 

[rickshaw]

As long as it comes to the bridgelayers they can also be used for training deployment.
Just carry a bridgelayer with you and use it instead of the normal bridges. The question is are the rivers to big to use normal bridgelaying equipment.

Many of the rivers in the Northern Territory when in full spate during the wet are more than 500 metres wide and 15 metres deep. No AVLB can bridge that.

Further we did not purchase any AVLBs with the M1a1 AIMs as part of LAND 907.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Many of the rivers in the Northern Territory when in full spate during the wet are more than 500 metres wide and 15 metres deep.

my family owns a cattle station that has the Daly River as one of its borders.

we have a tinnie stuck up a gum tree some 12m up above the current water level. the frightening thing was that water level was reached within 36 hrs.

I've suffered personal ignominy by sinking a troopy. I paid the hubris price of thinking that because I knew the area I knew the location where I was crossing. result = 1 dead cruiser and a very very bruised ego - followed up by an equally withering attack by my grandfather about my lack of common sense.

driving back from darwin to howard springs in the late 70's I experienced "white water". Thats when you can't see the difference between the water on the road and the rain coming down. we stopped the troopy, left the engine on and all the spotlights on as a warning to other vehicles. when the rain stopped we saw another cruiser not 3 car lengths in front - and we hadn't seen it pulling over.

wet seasons can be an absolute "bar steward" - you don't appreciate the power of them until you've gone through a couple first hand.

 

[Aussie Digger]

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?

If they encounter difficulties moving the vehicles outside of normal training activities I will, though I don't drink same myself...

Army has announced that it expects no future problems in transporting it's Abrams as observed here: (http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6029)

AND that the 41x Abrams will be delivered by sea and off loaded in Darwin in March 2007. No doubt there will be quite a media circus in this occasion. We'll see then how much capability ADF has to move Abrams on and off ships from Darwin.

 

[PETER671BT]

18 of 59 tanks have been delivered and now we have less tanks but larger capablities in stronger armour and biocular image control unit,talin for far target location system,advance GPS reciever, a blue force tracker vechicle movement tracking system transponder,drivers vision enhanced,computer multi targeting systems.The abrams M1A1 AIM is an top buy for ADF,BUT I agree we would be better off with more of them.

 

[rickshaw]

If they encounter difficulties moving the vehicles outside of normal training activities I will, though I don't drink same myself...

Whatever your favourite tipple is, then.

Army has announced that it expects no future problems in transporting it's Abrams as observed here: (http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6029)

As Christine Keeler once observed during the Profumo scandal, "they would say that, wouldn't they?"

Back in the late 1950s IIRC, the Army moved a Centurion from Pucka to Canberra to demonstrate their ability to do so. I understand what they didn't tell the Opposition who had asked questions about it was that the journey took nearly a month. At every bridge, the Centurion had to be offloaded and driven through the watercourse and then reloaded. One hopes matters have improved but all the indications are otherwise IMO.

AND that the 41x Abrams will be delivered by sea and off loaded in Darwin in March 2007. No doubt there will be quite a media circus in this occasion. We'll see then how much capability ADF has to move Abrams on and off ships from Darwin.

They are, I understand putting a new crane and wharf in place there, especially for the Abrahms. I seem to remember a media release somewhere about it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

They are, I understand putting a new crane and wharf in place there, especially for the Abrahms. I seem to remember a media release somewhere about it.

To be fair - the crane and wharf upgrade was always going in irrespective of an Oz Abrams purchase. The Territorian govt had earmarked an entire facilities improvement programme in light of attracting and keeping US interest up. The shared training area helped cement that upgrade. So the crane and wharf bump was originally tagged approx 3-4 years ago.

The crane and wharf bump was also a reccomendation after timor '99. I remember being there in 99 and darwin harbour was like a UN shipping party. It was pretty apparent that apart from Oz logistics problems, the italians and portuguese were also struggling to offload concurrently.

The culmination of wharf choke during Timor and the addition of a bigger US presence with stored training always meant that upgrades were necessary with or without Oz abrams.

Re bridging, I was always under the impression that all main bridges in Oz were NATO compliant? The reason I raise it was that I was involved with some planning for wind turbine farms in Oz, one of the criteria was that the access roads had to meet their shipping standards - and the Int'l wind turbine shipping std is based on the NATO min height requirement of 5.5m.
So, any MBT's going along main access routes (be it rail or road) must be able to fit through 5.5m tunnels or points. IIRC, Queensland and the NT have the most compliant main roads/routes in the country.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Whatever your favourite tipple is, then.

As Christine Keeler once observed during the Profumo scandal, "they would say that, wouldn't they?"

They are, I understand putting a new crane and wharf in place there, especially for the Abrahms. I seem to remember a media release somewhere about it.

I think the crane may be there already. I seem to recall an exercise within the last couple of years where they deployed a large proportion of 1 Brigade to Shoalwater Bay by sea for an exercise. One of the main points of the exercise was to specifically demonstrate ADF's ability to move 1 Brigade by sea, from Darwin. I specifically recall the Leopard AS1's, parked on the wharf alongside the vessel being LIFTED" onto it...

I just found this: (http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=4094) discussion by Army and Navy about the deployability of the Abrams again too, after having not read it for quite some time.

This paragraph is somewhat pertinent to the discussion I find,

COMMODORE ALAN DUTOIT:
Yes good morning. I'll make the point as Army has made that tanks are not a new capability but it is just improving on the capability. It's the same for Navy. We are capable of carrying our current generation of Leopard tanks now and we'll be able to carry the new Abrams tank in the future, both with our current capability and indeed as we look to our future for these capabilities. And I make the point here that on a regular basis we carry heavy loads, you know the tank is over 60 tonnes. On both the Tobruk and the LPA as we carry the landing craft, the old CM8s, they come in at 65 tonnes with a 70 tonne crane on those ships. So we're used to moving heavy gear around, and it also applies to heavy plant and machinery. If there's a natural disaster within the nation or indeed in the region, we would have to be able to move out of shore as well. So it's within our means.

 

[rickshaw]

Re bridging, I was always under the impression that all main bridges in Oz were NATO compliant? The reason I raise it was that I was involved with some planning for wind turbine farms in Oz, one of the criteria was that the access roads had to meet their shipping standards - and the Int'l wind turbine shipping std is based on the NATO min height requirement of 5.5m.
So, any MBT's going along main access routes (be it rail or road) must be able to fit through 5.5m tunnels or points. IIRC, Queensland and the NT have the most compliant main roads/routes in the country.

Sounds like a height / width gauge. There are numerous tunnels and bridges which are not this height, that I know of in Victoria, South Australia, NT and WA.

 

[Waylander]

What about your railroad system? Isn't it sufficient to carry the tanks around the most important areas? Or is it not widespread enough?

@PETER671BT
What is the computer multi targeting system you are talking of?
Do you mean hunter/killer-capabilities?

 

[rickshaw]

What about your railroad system? Isn't it sufficient to carry the tanks around the most important areas? Or is it not widespread enough?

The rail system is relatively limited in scope. It has been degraded over the last 20 years as its been rundown. There is also a "break of gauge" problem between the states - although is less of a problem noadays - it is possible to send one train, on one gauge around the coast now from Brisbane to Perth whereas it used to require two/three changes of gauge, it still exists away from the mainlines which have now been mainly convered to standard gauge. The main north-south line, between Darwin and Adelaide was apparently built without consideration of the transport of items as heavy as an MBT (despite defence applications being one of the main justifications for it finally being completed in 2004). Apparently the roadbed and railway sleepers are not strong enough to carry the peak axle loading.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Someone in US Army must be confused

in addition, an email sent to me last night:

"Officially "Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle, M551"
Falls in the modern weight classification of a Light Tank (1974-75
Jane's Weapons Systems)"'

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sounds like a height / width gauge. There are numerous tunnels and bridges which are not this height, that I know of in Victoria, South Australia, NT and WA.

Not sure on my part. (the assessment was conducted 4 years ago)

I do recall that Qld was regarded as the most NATO compliant and that Victoria and Tas were the worst. NT was highest regarded for ease of movement percentiles. (included barging issues)

With the Vics there was a potential work around in the fact that some main bridges could still be usedif the flatcars were modified

 

[Smythstar]

Hi all.
One thing that suprisingly stood out 'To me' about this robust discussion so far is the vital importance of Australia getting a credible IFV like the CV9035, Puma or similar, something that could stand in for heavy armour during local tropical and Afghan style fly in deployments.

I agree we need heavy armour although my personal choice would have been Leo2A5/A6s (same chassis/driveline etc as the PzH2000) and twice the number.
However during the the above discussion and the many pearls of wizdom being tossed around I realised just how big the hole is in our capability.
Where we have a hole in our capability we risk lives and already we are seeing the Bushmaster (great B ech vehicle and battle cab) being pushed towards roles it wasn't really designed for.

It is timely with the battalions being refocused that the 2 Mech battalions fitted out as well as the rest of the Army.
We probably need to put the 50 year old aluminum bucket out of its misory
and look at getting something credible soon not in 2015 or 2020, this will save us lives and money in the long run with AFVs being easily deployed in the region and doing nearly as good a job as a tank but also complimenting the heavy armoured element if the sh-t hits the fan in a major way anywhere close or anywhere we 'HAVE' to attend for political reasons.

 

[Waylander]

The Leos don't have the same chassis and drivetrain like the PzH2000.

But I would also have been lucky if you bought the Leo IIA6, Puma, PzH2000 package.