Australian Army Discussions and Updates

rickshaw

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
hi guys

I new to this mainly i just read the forum ,I dont have the knowledge of some of the people on here and just leaves me awestruck that you can get so much info out there.
But just a little perplexed about the problem regarding weight and bridge clasifacation on abrams ,not 100%sure but would assume it would be about 70 as when it is at combat weight ,people say it will have problems out of darwin or pucka ,but single traler semis are 42.5 tonne bdouble 62.5and triple road trains are 90tonne
pardon my ignorance but they dont seem to have a problem getting around 90% of oz and this is only the base weight without higher mass loading.

please correct me if im way off target with what you are trying to say


regards tom
There are several factors to consider. First that you are not just considering the weight of the load but also the weight of the transporter as well, when considering a bndge classification. Then you have to the problem of peak axle loading. As the handy reference of Wikipedia makes clear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axle_load said:
On railways, the axle load is the maximum weight of a train per pair of wheels allowable for a given section of track. The maximum axle load is related to the strength of the track, which is determined by weight of rails, density of sleepers and fixtures, train speeds, amount of ballast, and strength of bridges. Because track and especially the rails are expensive, it is desirable to optimise the track for a given axle load. If the track is overloaded by trains that are too heavy, it can be destroyed in a short time. It is convenient for the steelworks that rails are made in a limited number of sizes, so that a perfect match of rail weight and axle load is rarely achieved. New rail is often reserved for heavy main line use, which releases good but lighter rail that can be cascaded for lighter duties on branch lines. The lightest rail cascaded from the lightest branch lines may have no railway use other that for structural items such as fenceposts, telegraph posts and for reinforcing concrete.

[edit] Example 1

The new branch line from Blackwater, Queensland to Rolleston is being built in 2005 to haul the following:

* rail: 50 kg/m — (choice limited to 50 kg/m or 60 kg/m)
* sleepers: concrete
* sleepers per kilometre : unknown
* max speed: 80 km/h
* wagon axle load: 26 t
* locomotive axle load: 20 t
* swingnose crossings at turnouts: unknown
* traffic: 8 Mt/yr
* length of line: 110 km
* cost of line: US$185.5 million
* see IRJ May 2005

[edit] Roads

The term axle load is also applicable to trucks which is complicated by the fact that trucks may have more than two wheels per axle.
Roads are also complicated, just as railways by the methods and materials used in their construction. You may be able to pass your tank transporter fully loaded along a given road once but if you keep doing it and your also using this as a Line of Communication, with heavy traffic, the road surface may break up quite quickly.

Then there is the issue with bridges not only of their capacity but also their height, if they pass over a given road. Fitting a tank on the back of a transporter under a bridge might limit the use of a given route quite considerably.

In the NT in particular, many roads are not well made and are often unsealed entirely, limiting their use to the Dry.

All these factors can be overcome in time and with the expenditure of money.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
There are several factors to consider. First that you are not just considering the weight of the load but also the weight of the transporter as well, when considering a bndge classification. Then you have to the problem of peak axle loading. As the handy reference of Wikipedia makes clear:



Roads are also complicated, just as railways by the methods and materials used in their construction. You may be able to pass your tank transporter fully loaded along a given road once but if you keep doing it and your also using this as a Line of Communication, with heavy traffic, the road surface may break up quite quickly.

Then there is the issue with bridges not only of their capacity but also their height, if they pass over a given road. Fitting a tank on the back of a transporter under a bridge might limit the use of a given route quite considerably.

In the NT in particular, many roads are not well made and are often unsealed entirely, limiting their use to the Dry.

All these factors can be overcome in time and with the expenditure of money.
OR simply by listening to the Chief Engineer of NT Transport who has already publicly stated there is NO problem moving Abrams or other heavy plant between training centres on roads and bridges inside NT.

Height is HARDLY going to be a problem. Most semi's and B doubles will be higher than an Abrams/M88 on a low loader ANWAY.

Somehow the cattle trucks and other large prime movers get around the place...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
OR simply by listening to the Chief Engineer of NT Transport who has already publicly stated there is NO problem moving Abrams or other heavy plant between training centres on roads and bridges inside NT.

Height is HARDLY going to be a problem. Most semi's and B doubles will be higher than an Abrams/M88 on a low loader ANWAY.

Somehow the cattle trucks and other large prime movers get around the place...
I'm not sure why height is being raised anyway - australia by defacto standards complies with NATO transport height standards.

there are very few bridges that aren't within NATO transportation requirements, and those that aren't are in arterial alternative areas.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I'm not sure why height is being raised anyway - australia by defacto standards complies with NATO transport height standards.

there are very few bridges that aren't within NATO transportation requirements, and those that aren't are in arterial alternative areas.
Because he has a personal dislike of this capability for Army and the only aspect he can argue against it, is on this supposed inability to deploy it anywhere, even within our OWN Country...

Army meanwhile will simply crack on and take it's tanks anywhere it needs to, Shoalwater Bay, this month, I believe is the first big trip for the 1 Armd Regt Abrams...
 

rickshaw

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
OR simply by listening to the Chief Engineer of NT Transport who has already publicly stated there is NO problem moving Abrams or other heavy plant between training centres on roads and bridges inside NT.
Obviously the training areas are north of the Adelaide River where road trains have to be decoupled to cross the bridge there, AIUI, Digger. What happens though, when you want to deploy them to somewhere that isn't a training centre?

Height is HARDLY going to be a problem. Most semi's and B doubles will be higher than an Abrams/M88 on a low loader ANWAY.

Somehow the cattle trucks and other large prime movers get around the place...
In the NT perhaps, I agree height isn't a concern. However, in the southern States, it may well be, where road bridge height could well be a problem. What is the height of a low-loader with an M1 on top? 4-6 metres?
 

rickshaw

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Because he has a personal dislike of this capability for Army and the only aspect he can argue against it, is on this supposed inability to deploy it anywhere, even within our OWN Country...
As I've stated, I don't have a "personal dislike for this capability". I believe Armour does have a role. My question is whether we should be "armour heavy" or "armour light", not whether or not we should be "armour at all".

Army meanwhile will simply crack on and take it's tanks anywhere it needs to, Shoalwater Bay, this month, I believe is the first big trip for the 1 Armd Regt Abrams...
I look forward to seeing it. Of course I expect them to take them over the beach, after off loading them from Manoora or Kanimbla into an LCH tied up alongside, in rough seas while the "Enemy" is firing at them. Or will they offload them at a port and then carry them forward by either road or rail? Offloading them at each bridge not designed to carry that weight and paying for all the repairs to the road/railway their passage causes?
 

backstab

New Member
Guys,

This is my first post so I hope I don't upset anyone first off.

The M1's will work fine in Australia, the USMC had used them in Shoalwater Bay before with no problems. The infrastructure is more than able to cope with 60t .... All this hype about them being too heavy is just scare mongering by the opponants to the Tank purchace. As for light tanks...... no serious Army would consider replacing their heavies with light tanks. The US , I believe, was trying to switch to a lighter , more mobile force structure but their expereince with urban Combat has shown the value of Tanks.
If we structure our Army along a Light Infantry Based force then we will invite disaster in some future conflict. Light forces (Sorry to any members from 3 BDE) are just speed humps or an expensive security force.

just my 2 cents
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Rickshaw....i dont know where you get your info on bridges and road trains etc...but i live in Darwin,(cool here tonight,a chilly 18 deg C) and fish Kakadu,the east alligator river most weekends. I have never once seen a road train pull up and de-couple its load there (adelaide river bridge)....ever. The only time the roads would be a problem, would be during the wet season,when you could probably drive the tobruck up most rivers in flood!(joke)
i have pics of semi,s with M1,s on the back driving through Berrimah...single lane road. Also,massive mining equipment travels through the NT to get to Kunnanurra over the victoria river bridge. No problem,except in the wet.
The issue that roads and bridges are not good enough in the NT to accomodate federal Govt Vehicles, is to try to get extra funding for the NT gov roads and bridges. Keep in mind we are a territory and not a state,with a population of approx 210,00. You can fit the UK in the NT about 4 times. Lots of roads,not lots of $
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Exercise Talisman Sabre

Legoland' braces for invasion as part of troops' urban war games
  • Sean Parnell and Mark Dodd
  • June 12, 2007
A GLEAMING, high-walled building in the middle of a muddy marketplace will be the focal point for tens of thousands of US and Australian troops as they improve their preparedness for war.

To a growing number of protest groups, the newly constructed building - part of the Urban Operations Training Facility at Shoalwater Bay in central Queensland - is a mosque, demonstrating the West's deep-seated suspicion of Islam.

But to Lieutenant Colonel Peter White, overseeing construction of a fictional town at Raspberry Creek, due to be occupied for the first time in Exercise Talisman Sabre, which is getting under way, the building is simply a generic cultural centre.

Although the building could be used to depict a mosque in exercises - some of the US marines who have arrived at Shoalwater Bay see it that way - it could also be a church or museum.

In a place known to contractors as "Legoland", the cultural centre is the only building with glass windows instead of kickable perspex, and is built of brick instead of reconfigured shipping containers.

"The purpose is for troops in exercises to treat this building differently, with the appropriate respect and sensitivity," Lieutenant Colonel White told The Australian.

The Shoalwater Bay facility is revolutionising defence training.

While troops once trained on open plains, recent conflict and the threat of terrorism presented a need for urban warfare training, and the UOTF is part of Defence's $11 million response. "It's an incredible system, like a paintball game except 1000 times more complex," said Australian Defence Force spokeswoman Lieutenant Barbara Butler.

"It's got tunnels," she said. "It's built up from 370 (shipping) containers and made to look like something out of Mogadishu with real role players, villagers and merchants.

"The big challenge of urban warfare is civilians. It's dangerous because you are fighting close to (unarmed) people."

The war scenario to be played out in Exercise Talisman Sabre has not been revealed. But it will be undertaken on a massive scale, with US and Australian forces combining to lend 30 ships, 125 aircraft and 27,500 personnel for the exercise, which will intensify from tomorrow.

The UOTF will have a continuing role as part of a national and ultimately global defence training network. It has control centres with hi-tech instrumentation systems, motion censors and cameras across the town (in particular the government offices) and GPS tracking and laser weapons and vests for the soldiers who will train there.

Up to 80 "civilians" will occupy the town for exercises and pyrotechnics and a concussion cannon will be used to simulate explosions in an area where live firing is banned.

"The soldiers will be routinely training in a joint army, navy, air force environment and get to practise with various other assets that would be available to them," Lieutenant Colonel White said, emphasising the lower cost and risk.

"If they're going to Afghanistan and getting air support from the Americans, they can practise that all in Australia first."
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
As I've stated, I don't have a "personal dislike for this capability". I believe Armour does have a role. My question is whether we should be "armour heavy" or "armour light", not whether or not we should be "armour at all".
The capability I referred to earlier IS the M1. Not the Armoured Corps.

You have advocated a wheeled direct fire support vehicle as a better option for Army than an M1A1, with the SOLE benefit in favour of being, in the case of every such vehicle I am aware of, that they are physically lighter.

Everything else goes to the Abrams.

Talk about distorting a force structure.

Upgrade the rest of ADF to support a greater capability, or risk Australian infantry lives by employing a less capable vehicle?


BTW, on the subject, I didn't refer to "Corps and Services". Earlier. All different Corps within Army.

I mentioned, infantry, armoured corps, artillery corps, Ordnance Corps, Pay Corps, Transport Corps and the Corps of Sigs.

Not a mention of RAAF or RAN anywhere in there... :)

I look forward to seeing it. Of course I expect them to take them over the beach, after off loading them from Manoora or Kanimbla into an LCH tied up alongside, in rough seas while the "Enemy" is firing at them. Or will they offload them at a port and then carry them forward by either road or rail? Offloading them at each bridge not designed to carry that weight and paying for all the repairs to the road/railway their passage causes?
Do you honestly think Army are stupid?

Do you think USMC even does "over the beach" landings directly into enemy fire these days?

Army has demonstrated it can "beach" HMAS Tobruk and offload Leopards AS1's. It did it only last year in FNQ.

I wouldn't mind betting that it can do it with M1A1's too. As for the ability to move heavy armour within the region, well Malaysia and Singapore certainly believe they can, as evidenced by recent PT-91 and Leopard 2 purchases respectively...

We've done it before with 55 ton Centurions too...
 

rickshaw

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The capability I referred to earlier IS the M1. Not the Armoured Corps.
And the capability I refer to is that of armoured units - it doesn't matter what they are equipped with.

You have advocated a wheeled direct fire support vehicle as a better option for Army than an M1A1, with the SOLE benefit in favour of being, in the case of every such vehicle I am aware of, that they are physically lighter.
Actually, I don't think I've advocated either wheeled or tracked platforms. I have advocated lighter vehicles. I don't particularly care if they are wheeled or tracked - each has their advantages and disadvantages. What I do care about is easier deployability.

Upgrade the rest of ADF to support a greater capability, or risk Australian infantry lives by employing a less capable vehicle?
Or having a vehicle which can actually go where the infantry goes, rather than one which is prevented from doing so because of its weight?

BTW, on the subject, I didn't refer to "Corps and Services". Earlier. All different Corps within Army.
Well, actually I used the term "arms" and "services", not "Corps and Services". You do understand the difference between "arms" and "services" in the context of the Army?

I mentioned, infantry, armoured corps, artillery corps, Ordnance Corps, Pay Corps, Transport Corps and the Corps of Sigs.

Not a mention of RAAF or RAN anywhere in there... :)
I am sure you will hear complaints from their representatives directly.

Do you honestly think Army are stupid?
Are you sure you want to ask that question, seriously? Army has been well known, as have the other two Armed Services to make monumental cockups when it wants to, thereby demonstrating their own stupidity.

Do you think USMC even does "over the beach" landings directly into enemy fire these days?
If required to, they have the capability but I suspect they'd rather not. I wasn't referring to BTW, an "over the beach" opposed landing - I was referring to the mere fact they may well be required to offload whilst under enemy fire (and that doesn't necessarily equate to some bloke with a gat standing on the beach taking pot shots at them, it could be artillery or Air). However I still think the sea might be a bigger difficult they have to overcome whilst they are trying to lift those MBTs over the side into a landing craft.

Army has demonstrated it can "beach" HMAS Tobruk and offload Leopards AS1's. It did it only last year in FNQ.

I wouldn't mind betting that it can do it with M1A1's too. As for the ability to move heavy armour within the region, well Malaysia and Singapore certainly believe they can, as evidenced by recent PT-91 and Leopard 2 purchases respectively...
Neither Malaysia or Singapore as far as I am aware is attempting to move their PT-91s or Leopards into Oceania or the Indonesian archipelago. They will be employed on Singapore Island and the Isthmus of Kra. Both of which posesse excellent, modern road networks, I think you'll find.

We've done it before with 55 ton Centurions too...
We also had the help of our "great and powerful friends", a major port and no requirement to land the vehicles on shore, except under the most benign conditions.
 
Last edited:

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
What kind of vehicle do you have in mind?
Something along the lines of a CV90120, CV90AMOS, Puma with 120mm, Stryker MGS or ERC-90?

The description of "to go were the infantry goes" is a little bit vague and there are not many vehicles out there which even come close to it. Examples would be russian BMDs or german Wiesel. And they are not able to perform mechanized warfare in more than a really limited role.

I don' really understand the problems. Why always this or that? Give some of your infantry a good IFV (Wheeled or tracked) and give the rest some small weapons carriers (Like the mentioned BMD or Wiesel) which are suited well for light infantry.

With such an infantry force you have the ability to perform your missions in any possible environment without compromising your ability to fight an intense mechanized battle.
 

rickshaw

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
What kind of vehicle do you have in mind?
Something along the lines of a CV90120, CV90AMOS, Puma with 120mm, Stryker MGS or ERC-90?
As I said, all have their advantages and disadvantages. I'd rather lay down a critaria and see what industry can offer, than say vehicle A is better than vehicle B here and as usual have a bun fight over which one is better or worse.

I'd suggest that it should be as well armoured as say, a medium tank, with the ability to increase its armour levels, if necessary. I'd preferrably have it mount a large calibre gun/howitzer or gun/mortar, designed for both direct and indirect fire. Able to fire smart munitions. Its tactical mobility should be the equal of a modern MBT (ie speed, ground pressure, etc), while its strategic mobility should be considerably better.

The description of "to go were the infantry goes" is a little bit vague and there are not many vehicles out there which even come close to it. Examples would be russian BMDs or german Wiesel. And they are not able to perform mechanized warfare in more than a really limited role.
I am not looking for something to necessarily perform "mechanised warfare". I am looking for an infantry support vehicle. Something with a whopping big weapon, firing high capacity rounds, either directly or indirectly against its targets. Preferrably utilising smart rounds as well. Our region (with the exception of our own continent) is not suited to "mechanised warfare", per se. It is however condusive to the use of infantry units, supported by armour.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
You should really try to concentrate on an existing vehicle. It might be slightly modified for australian use but in the end it has to be an existing vehicle.
Everything else would mean to develop a complete new vehicle which would be IMHO much to expensive.

Looking at this...
I'd suggest that it should be as well armoured as say, a medium tank, with the ability to increase its armour levels, if necessary. I'd preferrably have it mount a large calibre gun/howitzer or gun/mortar, designed for both direct and indirect fire. Able to fire smart munitions. Its tactical mobility should be the equal of a modern MBT (ie speed, ground pressure, etc), while its strategic mobility should be considerably better.
... I would say that either a CV90105/120 or a CV90 with AMOS turret should be interesting for you.
The question is if you can transport them with a C-130. The big guns make them very bulky.
Could be also possible to put the AMOS turret onto other existing vehicles (ASCOD/Ulan, Puma,...).

I am not looking for something to necessarily perform "mechanised warfare". I am looking for an infantry support vehicle. Something with a whopping big weapon, firing high capacity rounds, either directly or indirectly against its targets. Preferrably utilising smart rounds as well. Our region (with the exception of our own continent) is not suited to "mechanised warfare", per se. It is however condusive to the use of infantry units, supported by armour.
And because of this I strongly support the idea of 2 types of infantry support vehicles. One half of your infantry should get a versatile IFV (wether wheeled or tracked is not really important) while the other half should remain light/motorised infantry (motorised is so important IMHO when I look at Australia) with some additional very light, basicly armored weapons carrier (Like the mentioned Wiesel or BMD).
Some AMOS based vehicles for direct and indirect fire support could also be procured.

This would enable the Australian Army to fight every possible conflict.
The mechanized component would strengthen Australias defense, as every possible threat would have to cope with a highly mobile and capable mech force, and is very usefull at many missions outside of Australias direct neighbourhood.

The light/motorized infantry is so the primary force for direct neighbourhood operations like East Timor and with their light weapons carrier they have a good fire support platform which can go were nearly no other vehicle with such heavy weapons can go and even remains highly airmobile.

Additional AMOS equipped vehicles as well as modern SPHs can be added if necessary for classic support fire and guided attack profiles.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
... I would say that either a CV90105/120 or a CV90 with AMOS turret should be interesting for you.
The question is if you can transport them with a C-130. The big guns make them very bulky.....
No chance. Even a basic CV90 is too heavy (& IIRC also too wide) for a C-130. Best you could do is something transportable in an A400M, but Australia doesn't have any & AFAIK has no intention of getting any.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Then his idea of better deployable vehicles with the intended capabilities he mentioned is screwed anyway.

You have to have soemthing like a CV90, ASCOD/Ulan, Puma, etc. if you want the capabilities mentioned here:
I'd suggest that it should be as well armoured as say, a medium tank, with the ability to increase its armour levels, if necessary. I'd preferrably have it mount a large calibre gun/howitzer or gun/mortar, designed for both direct and indirect fire. Able to fire smart munitions. Its tactical mobility should be the equal of a modern MBT (ie speed, ground pressure, etc), while its strategic mobility should be considerably better.
 

rickshaw

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
You should really try to concentrate on an existing vehicle. It might be slightly modified for australian use but in the end it has to be an existing vehicle.
Everything else would mean to develop a complete new vehicle which would be IMHO much to expensive.
It was not my intention to propose necessarily development of a new vehicle, merely that I would not specify which existing vehicle should be used. Simply put out to tender the requirement.

Looking at this...
... I would say that either a CV90105/120 or a CV90 with AMOS turret should be interesting for you.
The question is if you can transport them with a C-130. The big guns make them very bulky.
Could be also possible to put the AMOS turret onto other existing vehicles (ASCOD/Ulan, Puma,...).
CV90105/120, is as Swerve pointed out, too large. It is also falls at the starting post as its not capable of indirect fire AIUI.

AMOS is more interesting but two barrels is a bit of an overkill, on the one vehicle, don't you think? :unknown
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Gives you a nice indirect firepower with less vehicles.
But there are also 1 tube AMOS versions so this is not a problem.

The problem is that when relying solely on such a vehicle + light infantry your only AT-capability would be man portable ATGMs.
Could result in a mess if you would face enemy armor.
 

joshoman

New Member
If Australia was to be a major power in the region for both offensive and defensive powers, it would require more fully supported Brigades similiar to the fully supported ARA 1st Brigade, with motorsed and light infantry battalions, light and heavy armoured regiments, air elements such as the 1AAR's Tiger ARH and a full support of artillery elements, among the usual service support requirements that the CSSB's provide.

The current regoinal Brigades (Ares) that exist at the moment do not provide sufficient force and force projection prospects, being they only provide an extremely small and unequiped light infantry, armoured recon units (6X6 landrover, and light artillery capability (105mm) with extremely limited numbers and resources.

If joint ARA and Ares Brigades existed, fully supported with shared resources and capibilities for easy deployment and at a high readiness, Australia would be at the forefront of regional defences, capable of projecting several powerful brigades anywhere at almost anytime, instead of only 1 ready brigade.

cheers,
Josh
 
Top