Australia's M1A1 (AIM) Abrams arrive...

[Todjaeger]

Good to see the Abrams arriving. Would be even better to see an additional 2 sqd arriving. That would allow 1 operational, 1 training, 1 returning from operations and a reserve sqd.

BTW Aussie, it could just be me, but some of those comments are out of line. One can agree or disagree on what nations are doing re: defence, but no need to be offensive or insulting about it or a person's religion.

 

[icelord]

Wow, they've been in the country for what, a day, and are already a problem. They're too big and heavy to get from melbourne to the northern territory, and no one wants them going over bridges, and theres no trains available:lol3


$500m Abrams tanks in the wars

By Mark Dodd

September 23, 2006 12:00am
Article from: The Australian

Font size: + -

Send this article: Print Email

THE army's newest frontline weapon, the Abrams battle tank, arrived in Australia yesterday and immediately encountered problems, with no rail transport available to carry the tank to the Northern Territory.
Its deployment will be further hampered because, at 68 tonnes, the Abrams is too heavy to travel across road bridges in the Northern Territory.

As the first 18 of the tanks were delivered to Port Melbourne, the operators of the Adelaide-to-Darwin railway said they lacked the equipment to carry them. Adelaide-based Freightlink said the tanks were too big.

"Freightlink has participated in a rail study with the implication for new rolling stock to be acquired," the company said.

It did not say when or if it intended to acquire the required rolling stock and suggested it was waiting for contracts to be signed with the Defence Department before going ahead with the purchase. A total of 59 refurbished tanks were bought from the US for $500 million.

Transporting them north by road is likely to be problematic.

A senior Northern Territory shire engineer said road bridges in the Katherine Shire had a maximum capacity of 50 tonnes, 18 tonnes less than the weight of one Abrams tank. Road trains weighing up to 50 tonnes are able to use the bridges by disconnecting a trailer, he said.

The tanks, described by federal Defence Minister Brendan Nelson as the best in the world, have a fuel economy as low as 200m alitre.

While the US-made tank provides unmatched protection for its crew of four, experts claim its jet turbine engine is three times more expensive to run than the diesel engines in the army's ageing Leopard 1s. A Defence spokesman said the Abrams's 2200-litre fuel tanks ensured they had a similar range to the Leopards and that an additional eight refuelling trucks would be provided to the army's 1st Armoured Regiment in Darwin.

Critics also claim the Abrams's high heat emission will constrict its ability to work with infantry in urban areas.

But a Defence Department spokesman said the Australian Abrams had been designed to minimise their heat emission to a level comparable to diesel-powered tanks.

Army mechanics will be kept busy if the US army experience is any guide. It allocates 25 per cent of its maintenance budget for ground combat systems to fixing Abrams gas turbine engines.

But Dr Nelson says the Abrams still offers the best value. "These tanks are the most advanced and capable in the world. This capability will be increasingly important as widespread proliferation of cheap, high-tech and lethal anti-armour, anti-personnel weapons could pose an increasing threat in any future conflict," he said.

Federal Opposition defence spokesman Robert McClelland questioned the need for such a large tank.

"The wisdom of the Abrams acquisition has to be questioned in the light of the limited use they are going to have in our region," he said.

"And specifically, in the light of the logistical issues they are going to present to the ADF simply within Australia."

The Abrams contract forms part of the Defence Department's new "hardened and networked" initiative to beef up the army's hardware.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20460399-2,00.html

 

[RubiconNZ]

Here here

BTW Aussie, it could just be me, but some of those comments are out of line. One can agree or disagree on what nations are doing re: defence, but no need to be offensive or insulting about it or a person's religion.

Too right if you're going to make yobo comments like that change your user name, its insulting to Australia not to mention the people you're insulting including many "Aussies"

 

[Wooki]

Can someone tell me the origin of these particular M1A1s? Are they new, used and if so where did they come from?

They are "AIM" tanks. Used, built probably in the late 80's early 90's and rebuilt to an "as new" standard.

We are going through a constant upgrade of all of our stockpiled and 2nd line tanks to this standard. Should take several (12 plus) years to do.

cheers

w

 

[knightrider4]

Tanks

Because the Australian government will not use depleted uranium armour, these tanks were originally manufactured no later than 1985. This is when the United States began using DU.

 

[Todjaeger]

Because the Australian government will not use depleted uranium armour, these tanks were originally manufactured no later than 1985. This is when the United States began using DU.

The DU armour was introduced in 1988 with M1A1HA (Heavy Armour) deployment to (West) Germany. The composite armour was replaced in the armour boxes with steel-encased depleted uranium. Given that the armour can be reconfigured based on threat, I'm not so sure the tanks are pre-1985.

Also, are any of the features of the M1A2, especially the 1553 databus, to be found in the M1A1 AIM tanks?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Wow, they've been in the country for what, a day, and are already a problem. They're too big and heavy to get from melbourne to the northern territory, and no one wants them going over bridges, and theres no trains available:lol3


$500m Abrams tanks in the wars

By Mark Dodd

September 23, 2006 12:00am
Article from: The Australian

Font size: + -

Send this article: Print Email

THE army's newest frontline weapon, the Abrams battle tank, arrived in Australia yesterday and immediately encountered problems, with no rail transport available to carry the tank to the Northern Territory.
Its deployment will be further hampered because, at 68 tonnes, the Abrams is too heavy to travel across road bridges in the Northern Territory.

As the first 18 of the tanks were delivered to Port Melbourne, the operators of the Adelaide-to-Darwin railway said they lacked the equipment to carry them. Adelaide-based Freightlink said the tanks were too big.

"Freightlink has participated in a rail study with the implication for new rolling stock to be acquired," the company said.

It did not say when or if it intended to acquire the required rolling stock and suggested it was waiting for contracts to be signed with the Defence Department before going ahead with the purchase. A total of 59 refurbished tanks were bought from the US for $500 million.

Transporting them north by road is likely to be problematic.

A senior Northern Territory shire engineer said road bridges in the Katherine Shire had a maximum capacity of 50 tonnes, 18 tonnes less than the weight of one Abrams tank. Road trains weighing up to 50 tonnes are able to use the bridges by disconnecting a trailer, he said.

The tanks, described by federal Defence Minister Brendan Nelson as the best in the world, have a fuel economy as low as 200m alitre.

While the US-made tank provides unmatched protection for its crew of four, experts claim its jet turbine engine is three times more expensive to run than the diesel engines in the army's ageing Leopard 1s. A Defence spokesman said the Abrams's 2200-litre fuel tanks ensured they had a similar range to the Leopards and that an additional eight refuelling trucks would be provided to the army's 1st Armoured Regiment in Darwin.

Critics also claim the Abrams's high heat emission will constrict its ability to work with infantry in urban areas.

But a Defence Department spokesman said the Australian Abrams had been designed to minimise their heat emission to a level comparable to diesel-powered tanks.

Army mechanics will be kept busy if the US army experience is any guide. It allocates 25 per cent of its maintenance budget for ground combat systems to fixing Abrams gas turbine engines.

But Dr Nelson says the Abrams still offers the best value. "These tanks are the most advanced and capable in the world. This capability will be increasingly important as widespread proliferation of cheap, high-tech and lethal anti-armour, anti-personnel weapons could pose an increasing threat in any future conflict," he said.

Federal Opposition defence spokesman Robert McClelland questioned the need for such a large tank.

"The wisdom of the Abrams acquisition has to be questioned in the light of the limited use they are going to have in our region," he said.

"And specifically, in the light of the logistical issues they are going to present to the ADF simply within Australia."

The Abrams contract forms part of the Defence Department's new "hardened and networked" initiative to beef up the army's hardware.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20460399-2,00.html

Wow. The Labour Party showing it's almost complete ignorance of Defence matters yet again AND it's inability to do anything other than playing a bit of oppositional politics.

Should a smaller tank be chosen it wouldn't have the protection levels required by Defence, goose!!! I'd love to see someone from RAAC take McLelland to task over his lack of knowledge of the need for armour vehicles to actually have armour protection, but it won't happen.

Btw, whispers are around the traps that Aussie M1's will be in Iraq in 2008...

 

[scraw]

Wow. The Labour Party showing it's almost complete ignorance of Defence matters yet again AND it's inability to do anything other than playing a bit of oppositional politics.

Bit of a beat up really, so the contracts for the rail transporters hasn't been signed yet. What they fail to mention is this lot isn't meant to go north, AFAIK they're all getting trucked to Pucka for training.

 

[Waylander]

Don't you have normal flat waggons down there in Aussieland?

 

[icelord]

Don't you have normal flat waggons down there in Aussieland?

We do, but are currently upgrading as well,i'd assume 68tons would be pushing it with our current trailers. the Abrahms needs an escort because it is too big for the road, and running through in peak hour along the hume would be fun, not practical, plus most likely easier with train. If all else fails, we could just drive them to pucka...HA!

Wow. The Labour Party showing it's almost complete ignorance of Defence matters yet again AND it's inability to do anything other than playing a bit of oppositional politics.

Should a smaller tank be chosen it wouldn't have the protection levels required by Defence, goose!!! I'd love to see someone from RAAC take McLelland to task over his lack of knowledge of the need for armour vehicles to actually have armour protection, but it won't happen.

Lets not forget, he takes orders from a guy who bought us the manoora/kanimbla package, and a certain swedish designed sub

Btw, whispers are around the traps that Aussie M1's will be in Iraq in 2008...

If these whispers were right, then that would be a very long term plan by the Govt. and Army, and they havn't done that too much when it comes to Iraq, also, that would see a change in roles from our current training of locals forces, and the new role of operations support. The problem with whispers, the chinese ones get the most credibility and the silent ones don't get heard till its too late.

 

[scraw]

We do, but are currently upgrading as well,i'd assume 68tons would be pushing it with our current trailers. the Abrahms needs an escort because it is too big for the road, and running through in peak hour along the hume would be fun, not practical, plus most likely easier with train. If all else fails, we could just drive them to pucka...HA!

New trailers to carry the M1 have already been delivered, as I said this entire lot are getting trucked to Pucka for the School of Armour. Hence their argument is a strawman, train carriages aren't needed till the next lot are actually needing to go anywhere by train.

As to the Hume between the usual truck traffic, road trains for Ford etc a few tanks wouldn't make much difference, once you clear Sunbury you've usually got a reasonably clear run.

 

[Aussie Digger]

We do, but are currently upgrading as well,i'd assume 68tons would be pushing it with our current trailers. the Abrahms needs an escort because it is too big for the road, and running through in peak hour along the hume would be fun, not practical, plus most likely easier with train. If all else fails, we could just drive them to pucka...HA!



Lets not forget, he takes orders from a guy who bought us the manoora/kanimbla package, and a certain swedish designed sub



If these whispers were right, then that would be a very long term plan by the Govt. and Army, and they havn't done that too much when it comes to Iraq, also, that would see a change in roles from our current training of locals forces, and the new role of operations support. The problem with whispers, the chinese ones get the most credibility and the silent ones don't get heard till its too late.

The rumour has come about from RAAC because they are very unhappy with having to use ASLAV's in Iraq, in the role that SHOULD be conducted by a heavily armoured vehicle. For all the waffle of the Bar armour and spall liner upgrades, the ASLAV's are NOT a well armoured vehicle and offer a significant level of firepower by Australian Armoured vehicle standards, but only an AVERAGE level of firepower by world standards, and certainly by the standards of most armoured vehicles in Iraq. The Bushmasters offer a limited level of firepower (for an armoured vehicle) with only a single 5.56mm F-89A1 Minimi equipping most vehicles. To put this into perspective a standard Australian infantry section carries 2x...

The only reason that the ASLAV's and Bushmaster's have faired so well is that they have not been required to conduct a direct combat role. If they have to face an RPG and/or heavy machine gun threat, it's is RAAC's belief (and MINE) that they will be shown up for what they actually are. Average - reasonable quality light armoured vehicles. Nothing more.

The role in Iraq has ALREADY changed, I hope you've noticed, with the Operation name change to Operation "Over-Watch"? The force has now been boosted to over 500 soldiers and nearly 60 Bushmaster and ASLAV armoured vehicles. The Aussie force, along with it's training team commitments is now responsible for providing "support" for the local Iraqi security forces if they can't handle things, ie: if a battle with insurgents becomes bad enough, the Aussies will step in and help... Hence RAAC's dissatisfaction with the vehicles it has at it's current disposal to conduct this type of operation...

In relation to the nonsense about moving M1A1's around Australia, well these current 18 vehicles are ALL going to Puckapunyal. Why they bothered interviewing the Katherine Shire Council I don't know as it's rather the LONG way around for them to get to Pucka from Melbourne!!!

The remaining 41x vehicles which are to be delivered in December, will most likely be shipped straight to Darwin and thence to Robertson Barracks. Again why the Katherine Shire Council has any input into this, I have no idea. Perhaps the Newspaper didn't get the answers they wanted from the Darwin City Council?

 

[icelord]

The rumour has come about from RAAC because they are very unhappy with having to use ASLAV's in Iraq, in the role that SHOULD be conducted by a heavily armoured vehicle. For all the waffle of the Bar armour and spall liner upgrades, the ASLAV's are NOT a well armoured vehicle and offer a significant level of firepower by Australian Armoured vehicle standards, but only an AVERAGE level of firepower by world standards, and certainly by the standards of most armoured vehicles in Iraq. The Bushmasters offer a limited level of firepower (for an armoured vehicle) with only a single 5.56mm F-89A1 Minimi equipping most vehicles. To put this into perspective a standard Australian infantry section carries 2x...

The only reason that the ASLAV's and Bushmaster's have faired so well is that they have not been required to conduct a direct combat role. If they have to face an RPG and/or heavy machine gun threat, it's is RAAC's belief (and MINE) that they will be shown up for what they actually are. Average - reasonable quality light armoured vehicles. Nothing more.

It will be a worry if they need to provide armoured support, especially if the iraqis have something that outdoes our ASLAVs:dodgy
Are there US or UK forces also in the same AOR?

In relation to the nonsense about moving M1A1's around Australia, well these current 18 vehicles are ALL going to Puckapunyal. Why they bothered interviewing the Katherine Shire Council I don't know as it's rather the LONG way around for them to get to Pucka from Melbourne!!!

The remaining 41x vehicles which are to be delivered in December, will most likely be shipped straight to Darwin and thence to Robertson Barracks. Again why the Katherine Shire Council has any input into this, I have no idea. Perhaps the Newspaper didn't get the answers they wanted from the Darwin City Council?

This is what you call, grasping for straws, when a story loses its X factor, then they go as far as they can to make it more devestating then it is. Their next call was to Hobart City Council

 

[RubiconNZ]

Iraq

It will be a worry if they need to provide armoured support, especially if the iraqis have something that outdoes our ASLAVs:dodgy
Are there US or UK forces also in the same AOR?

Well the Iraqi Army will be equiped with TOW's, Heavy machine guns, Armour, and a developing Fighter wing, but if you mean the Insurgency then well a 155mm shell with a timer or a radio detenation fuse will do the trick nicely to give a ASLAV a bad day.

 

[abramsteve]

I read the article and was very disapointed that as usual the media and the other mob had opened their mouths in a rediculous show of cheap politics and dollar making. In the pics that AD posted the Abrams are on flat bed trailers, so clearly they can be transported! AHHHHHH the media is so frustrating!!

Glad they got here, as you might notice I have a strange love of the Abrams!

 

[RubiconNZ]

Abrams Now In Puckapunyal


(Source: Australian Department of Defense; issued Sept. 26, 2006)



On Friday, 22 September, Army took delivery of the first 18 Abrams M1A1 AIM Main Battle Tanks and five Hercules Armoured Recovery Vehicles (ARVs).

These first 18 Abrams were moved by road, on the Heavy Tank Transporters, to the School of Armour at Puckapunyal, where they will be stationed and used for training. These vehicles were moved via Westgate Bridge, Western Ringroad and the Hume Highway without incident.

In March 2007, the next shipment of 41 Abrams and two ARVs will arrive by sea in Darwin. Army’s fleet of 14 Heavy Tank Transporters will be on hand to move them by road when and where required.

Army has been assured by the Chief Transport Inspector of Northern Territory Roads that we will be able to access our normal training areas, as required.

Army is well practiced in deploying tanks by road from Darwin via Katherine to training areas in the south of Australia. Army is well practiced in deploying tanks by road from Darwin via Katherine to training areas in the south of Australia. The current Leopard tank and transporter exceeds 50 tonne and has moved through Katherine with the approval of the NT Chief Transport Inspector without issue.

An extensive rail study has been undertaken and a request for tender will soon by released to obtain the necessary rolling stock to support the movement of the Abrams family of vehicles in Australia. This rolling stock will be delivered in a timely manner and will not only support the Abrams but will also be able to lift a range other armoured vehicles, artillery and heavy engineering equipment.

The Australian Abrams weighs less than 62 metric tonnes in its combat configuration, which includes a full complement of fuel, rations, ammunition and crew. The transit weight without these is far less.

The Abrams is powered by a gas turbine engine and operates on diesel fuel. In its current configuration, fuel consumption and engine-wear has been reduced by around 40 per cent due to improved mechanical efficiency and the use of simulation. Indeed, by using simulation for basic training, the amount of actual driver on-road training can be reduced by 65 per cent.

Well obviously a rebuttle of the couple of dodgy articles that floated about, shoots down alot of the negative points doesn't it?

 

[Wooki]

Abrams Now In Puckapunyal


(Source: Australian Department of Defense; issued Sept. 26, 2006)



On Friday, 22 September, Army took delivery of the first 18 Abrams M1A1 AIM Main Battle Tanks and five Hercules Armoured Recovery Vehicles (ARVs).

These first 18 Abrams were moved by road, on the Heavy Tank Transporters, to the School of Armour at Puckapunyal, where they will be stationed and used for training. These vehicles were moved via Westgate Bridge, Western Ringroad and the Hume Highway without incident.

In March 2007, the next shipment of 41 Abrams and two ARVs will arrive by sea in Darwin. Army’s fleet of 14 Heavy Tank Transporters will be on hand to move them by road when and where required.

Army has been assured by the Chief Transport Inspector of Northern Territory Roads that we will be able to access our normal training areas, as required.

Army is well practiced in deploying tanks by road from Darwin via Katherine to training areas in the south of Australia. Army is well practiced in deploying tanks by road from Darwin via Katherine to training areas in the south of Australia. The current Leopard tank and transporter exceeds 50 tonne and has moved through Katherine with the approval of the NT Chief Transport Inspector without issue.

An extensive rail study has been undertaken and a request for tender will soon by released to obtain the necessary rolling stock to support the movement of the Abrams family of vehicles in Australia. This rolling stock will be delivered in a timely manner and will not only support the Abrams but will also be able to lift a range other armoured vehicles, artillery and heavy engineering equipment.

The Australian Abrams weighs less than 62 metric tonnes in its combat configuration, which includes a full complement of fuel, rations, ammunition and crew. The transit weight without these is far less.

The Abrams is powered by a gas turbine engine and operates on diesel fuel. In its current configuration, fuel consumption and engine-wear has been reduced by around 40 per cent due to improved mechanical efficiency and the use of simulation. Indeed, by using simulation for basic training, the amount of actual driver on-road training can be reduced by 65 per cent.

Well obviously a rebuttle of the couple of dodgy articles that floated about, shoots down alot of the negative points doesn't it?

Why is everyone getting arced up about the newspaper reports posted here? From what I read a council man said that the tank couldn't be transported by road through his shire because the bridges couldn't take the weight. And then I read that the railroad were in the process of purchasing the required rolling stock to handle the vehicles.

As it will be part of routine to transport the Abrams between Darwin and Adelaide, I thought it was relevant and I didn't see anything inflammatory from anything posted here.

I would take exception to claiming that the M1A1 AIM is the best tank in the world. It is stupid to say that when you have the Leclerc, Leo2 E, Challenger 2, Merkava 4 and even the snorting stallion itself, the Ariete driving around.

It would have been better to say "the best tank for Australia under the circumstances".

Like any MBT, the M1A1 has strengths and weaknesses and I am confident the Australian Army will create doctrine to play to its strengths.

cheers

W

 

[RubiconNZ]

Why is everyone getting arced up about the newspaper reports posted here? From what I read a council man said that the tank couldn't be transported by road through his shire because the bridges couldn't take the weight. And then I read that the railroad were in the process of purchasing the required rolling stock to handle the vehicles.

As it will be part of routine to transport the Abrams between Darwin and Adelaide, I thought it was relevant and I didn't see anything inflammatory from anything posted here.

I would take exception to claiming that the M1A1 AIM is the best tank in the world. It is stupid to say that when you have the Leclerc, Leo2 E, Challenger 2, Merkava 4 and even the snorting stallion itself, the Ariete driving around.

It would have been better to say "the best tank for Australia under the circumstances".

Like any MBT, the M1A1 has strengths and weaknesses and I am confident the Australian Army will create doctrine to play to its strengths.

cheers

W

I believe it is just a result of continuous misleading newpaper and media articles that have Labour spokespeople given misleading impressions, this has been a recurring problem, the experts/professionals to name a few will tell about the inherent falshoods in some of these articles, not to mention the rest of us, some press articles are blatantly false or are bent for polictical will to make the sitting government look bad and I guess those who are exposed often perhaps get tired of it.

As for worlds best, well everything Australia has is of course

Cheers

 

[Wooki]

I believe it is just a result of continuous misleading newpaper and media articles that have Labour spokespeople given misleading impressions, this has been a recurring problem, the experts AD, GF and Magoo to name a few will tell about the inherent falshoods in some of these articles, not to mention the rest of us, some press articles are blatantly false or are bent for polictical will to make the sitting government look bad and I guess those who are exposed often perhaps get tired of it.

As for worlds best, well everything Australia has is of course

Cheers

I think you might find it more historically accurate, across multiple governments, that the "media" have a natural anti-armed forces bent, rather then being aligned to one political party or the other. Especially since the generation that are running the newspapers and TV grew up in the Vietnam era where the pendulum was swung farthest away from the armed forces.

If one over reacts to an article based upon the premise that the reporter has written a biased account in the past, then it means that you, yourself have become the thing you dislike.

And of course if you are Australian you are gifted by god. : But I get irksome when Australian Defense issue a statement "world's best tank". I would like to believe that is total BS from a publicist named Nigel Blunden, but it also has one Dr Nelson's name written next to it. If you are a tanker and start believing said statement you are a dead man looking for a grave and Dr, Nelson should know better.

anyway, made my point

cheers

W

 

[scraw]

These vehicles were moved via Westgate Bridge, Western Ringroad and the Hume Highway without incident.

Given that they've obviously run across the Bolte too, that would've made a nice photo.

Wooki-

They're politicians, why qualify when you can give the press a nice soundbite