The second regiment was to be raised by reserves in time of threat. Originally at the start of the medium tank replacement program the second regiment was to be provided by 1/15 RNSWL and 8/13 VMR which both had a tank role with the Centurion but in 1971 the reserve RAAC units focused solely on M113 operations. Throughout the late 70s and early to mid 80s there were lots of calls to equip one or both of these units with Leopards. Which would have meant the tanks stayed at Pucka and for 1/15 RNSWL a troop of tanks would be sent to Parramatta for home training. But because of the additional fuel, ammo and maintenance cost it never happened. Plus of course it probably would have taken a few months to convert a reserve M113 regiment to the tank role anyway if they were needed. By the late 80s and 90s the Army was being cut back and the reserves acquired a tank squadron but as a replacement for one of 1 Armd Regt's regular squadrons.
Without being too picky, a tank squadron has 14 tanks. The 2IC wants one too.1 Armoured Regiment's Orbat includes 3x combat teams equipped with 13x vehicles per team, with 2x additional vehicles attached to Regimental Headquarters.
Of course, I could point out the actual orbat of 1 Armd Regt, but that probably wouldn't win me any favours.
In the line of tank replacement programs it’s not the worse. From six (+) regiments to two (+) to two to one.Can someone tell me why we only bought 50 odd M1's. Seams like a small number compared the 100 odd leopards from a few decades ago.
The Centurion acquisition provided enough tanks for two regiments with a year’s worth of combat attrition. They replaced a single regiment of Churchills (1 Armd Regt), four regiments of Grants (1 RNSWL, 4/19 PWLH, 8/13 VMR, 12/16 HRL) and a regiment of Yerambas (22 SP Fd Regt).
The Leopard acquisition ditched the combat attrition numbers but kept the second regiment. Abrams just the bare minimum, though LAND 400 is scoped so it could acquire additional tanks. The on paper order of battle of 1 CER requires a few tanks in engineer roles.
Last edited:
Been a long time since I read it but I believe "AUSTRALIAN ARMOUR - A History of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps 1927 - 1972" R. Hopkins 1978, stated the planned post WWII RAAC was to have consisted of five regiments of Centurions forming a single regular brigade supported by 10 regiments of Comets forming two CMF / Militia brigades. What you describe appears to fit a single brigade with SPGs in support.In the line of tank replacement programs it’s not the worse. From six (+) regiments to two (+) to two to one.
The Centurion acquisition provided enough tanks for two regiments with a year’s worth of combat attrition. They replaced a single regiment of Churchills (1 Armd Regt), four regiments of Grants (1 RNSWL, 4/19 PWLH, 8/13 VMR, 12/16 HRL) and a regiment of Yerambas (22 SP Fd Regt).
The Leopard acquisition ditched the combat attrition numbers but kept the second regiment. Abrams just the bare minimum, though LAND 400 is scoped so it could acquire additional tanks. The on paper order of battle of 1 CER requires a few tanks in engineer roles.
This is a very interesting could have been and gets me wondering if it was actually doable, so long as the tanks were cheap enough. Starting from this base it would be interesting to extrapolate the current army structure.
It sounds like one of the many on paper studies for the Army that happened from time to time. Neither the Centurion of Comet were cheap at that time as the Centurion was only available new built and the Comet was still a front line and reserve tank in the British Army up until the late 1950s. The only surplus tanks at this time were Churchills and Cromwells. Also the biggest limit on Army establishment post war was not equipment (plenty of old WWII stuff around) but personnel (labour shortages) and training cost (fuel, maintenance, etc).Been a long time since I read it but I believe "AUSTRALIAN ARMOUR - A History of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps 1927 - 1972" R. Hopkins 1978, stated the planned post WWII RAAC was to have consisted of five regiments of Centurions forming a single regular brigade supported by 10 regiments of Comets forming two CMF / Militia brigades. What you describe appears to fit a single brigade with SPGs in support.
This is a very interesting could have been and gets me wondering if it was actually doable, so long as the tanks were cheap enough. Starting from this base it would be interesting to extrapolate the current army structure.
Even if the CMF had been built up to a flow blown armoured corps during the 1950s it would disappear very quickly if this system wasn’t maintained. As what happened anyway when the ‘Pentropic’ scheme was introduced and the CMF hammered in the late 50s, early 60s. And then of course there were the massive cuts of Defence of Australia in the late 80s, early 90s. Two generations of cut and slash not much could survive.
Post war the CMF raised an armoured brigade group made up of two ‘armoured brigades’ one in Victoria and one in NSW. Each had two armoured regiments with Grant tanks. In Victoria was a SP field artillery regiment with 25 pounders on Grants (Yerambas) and in NSW a mechanised infantry regiment (6 NSWMR). Also there were armoured car and amphibious assault regiments and squadrons to support the infantry. The ARA raised an armoured regiment that used the 50 odd Churchills supplied from the 300 ordered to replace the Matilda during WWII as a jungle fighting tank. The acquisition of the Centurion coincided with the slashing of the CMF via the end of national service and the ‘Pentropic’ reorganisation.
The next attempt to raise an armoured formation was in the 1980s when the Army proposed moving 1 Brigade from Holsworthy to Puckapunyal and combining it with 1 Armd Regt and 4 Brigade (Reserve) stiffened by a higher proportion of ARA staff with a newly raised HQ 3 Division (ARA) as a mechanised division (-). This formation would have two armoured regiments (Leopard I MBT), two armoured reconnaissance regiments (M113 MRV & LRV), two medium artillery regiments (M198 155mm) and four mechanised infantry battalions (M113 APC). The Government declined the Army’s advice and then sent 1 Brigade to Darwin to defend the north from impending invasion by the Viet Kong or whatever.
Moving 1 Bde to Darwin was pretty clueless, the fact 1 Armd was reorged into a composite reg/RRes/ARes unit at the same time was just stupid. How on earth was a territory with a smaller population that many a capitol city suburb meant to man a reserve sqn of MBTs? Had some discussions with a recruiting officer while visiting relies in Darwin Christmas 98 about transferring to C Sqn 1 Armd as an M-113 crewman, the idea they were pushing was I would go full time reserve do the Leopard courses and then slip across into A Sqn and the regs, just goes to show how desperate they were to get people after the move north.It sounds like one of the many on paper studies for the Army that happened from time to time. Neither the Centurion of Comet were cheap at that time as the Centurion was only available new built and the Comet was still a front line and reserve tank in the British Army up until the late 1950s. The only surplus tanks at this time were Churchills and Cromwells. Also the biggest limit on Army establishment post war was not equipment (plenty of old WWII stuff around) but personnel (labour shortages) and training cost (fuel, maintenance, etc).
Even if the CMF had been built up to a flow blown armoured corps during the 1950s it would disappear very quickly if this system wasn’t maintained. As what happened anyway when the ‘Pentropic’ scheme was introduced and the CMF hammered in the late 50s, early 60s. And then of course there were the massive cuts of Defence of Australia in the late 80s, early 90s. Two generations of cut and slash not much could survive.
Post war the CMF raised an armoured brigade group made up of two ‘armoured brigades’ one in Victoria and one in NSW. Each had two armoured regiments with Grant tanks. In Victoria was a SP field artillery regiment with 25 pounders on Grants (Yerambas) and in NSW a mechanised infantry regiment (6 NSWMR). Also there were armoured car and amphibious assault regiments and squadrons to support the infantry. The ARA raised an armoured regiment that used the 50 odd Churchills supplied from the 300 ordered to replace the Matilda during WWII as a jungle fighting tank. The acquisition of the Centurion coincided with the slashing of the CMF via the end of national service and the ‘Pentropic’ reorganisation.
The next attempt to raise an armoured formation was in the 1980s when the Army proposed moving 1 Brigade from Holsworthy to Puckapunyal and combining it with 1 Armd Regt and 4 Brigade (Reserve) stiffened by a higher proportion of ARA staff with a newly raised HQ 3 Division (ARA) as a mechanised division (-). This formation would have two armoured regiments (Leopard I MBT), two armoured reconnaissance regiments (M113 MRV & LRV), two medium artillery regiments (M198 155mm) and four mechanised infantry battalions (M113 APC). The Government declined the Army’s advice and then sent 1 Brigade to Darwin to defend the north from impending invasion by the Viet Kong or whatever.
As a pure hypothetical I wonder if the armouring of the CMF CAV would have been more affordable and sustainable if the chosen mount was an evolved Sentinal.
APIN (Army Presence In the North – the official name) was and is a disaster for the Army. Apart from the huge cost of building Robertson Barracks that would have provided many more facilities in the south east it has seen a significant retention loss and training loss. You can’t train a mechanised force during the middle of a monsoon season territory wide flooding that happens every summer. Army knew it was a disaster and tried very hard to avoid it but it was a politically motivated decision and they had to suffer it.Moving 1 Bde to Darwin was pretty clueless, the fact 1 Armd was reorged into a composite reg/RRes/ARes unit at the same time was just stupid. How on earth was a territory with a smaller population that many a capitol city suburb meant to man a reserve sqn of MBTs? Had some discussions with a recruiting officer while visiting relies in Darwin Christmas 98 about transferring to C Sqn 1 Armd as an M-113 crewman, the idea they were pushing was I would go full time reserve do the Leopard courses and then slip across into A Sqn and the regs, just goes to show how desperate they were to get people after the move north.
Well the decision not to order the AC3 Thunderbolt (Sentinel was only the name for the AC1) into production resulted in a significant problem during WWII for the Army’s armoured force. The no go on production of the AC3 was because the Government thought it would be easier to get Churchills or Shermans. However in reality none were available until 50 odd Churchills arrived in late 45. In the mean time the Matilda and Grant tank force was crippled by a lack of spares which had significant effects on the Matilda’s use in theatre.As a pure hypothetical I wonder if the armouring of the CMF CAV would have been more affordable and sustainable if the chosen mount was an evolved Sentinal.
So in ‘what if’ world if the 200 strong AC3 order had gone ahead the Army would have had a serviceable tank with Australian sourced spares for use in 44-45. A tank which BTW would have much better combat power than the Matilda via the 25 Pounder (88mm) gun in place of the 2 Pounder (40mm) gun.
What would have this meant after WWII? If the AC program was kept in the works then 200 AC3s and 400 AC4s (AC3 with 17 Pounder/76mm gun and later new air cooled engines) were to be ordered. Assuming all or most were built during the war then the Army would have an excellent tank park for post war use. Spares would be available in Australia from the subcontractors and the engines used anyway were common mass production car (Cadillac V8s) or light airplane (Gyspy Major) engines.
It is more than possible that a post war AC5 could have been ordered in 1950-52 if the industry capability was still in place rather than Centurion tanks. Which is likely considering the hull and turret armour castings were outsourced to private industry that still exsists today. During WWII the AC was trialled with torsion bar suspension. Such a hull armed with a 20 pounder and the quad air cooled Gypsy Major engine would be lighter, faster, easier to maintain and much longer ranged than the Centurion with just as much armour and firepower. Without the high cost of the Merlin engine, rolled steel plates, welding work and import costs it would probably be much cheaper.
So yeah I reckon 1 and 2 Armd Bdes would be in a much better position come 1956 for long term retention with a fleet of Australian built and sustained AC3/4/5s rather than clapped out Grants and to expensive too buy Centurions.
Definitely on the same page on this one Abe, the AC series of designs were in many ways superior to the corresponding vehicles actually fielded by the US and UK. I have always thought it the greatest shame we never deployed the AC3 or 4 in any number or in combat.APIN (Army Presence In the North – the official name) was and is a disaster for the Army. Apart from the huge cost of building Robertson Barracks that would have provided many more facilities in the south east it has seen a significant retention loss and training loss. You can’t train a mechanised force during the middle of a monsoon season territory wide flooding that happens every summer. Army knew it was a disaster and tried very hard to avoid it but it was a politically motivated decision and they had to suffer it.
Well the decision not to order the AC3 Thunderbolt (Sentinel was only the name for the AC1) into production resulted in a significant problem during WWII for the Army’s armoured force. The no go on production of the AC3 was because the Government thought it would be easier to get Churchills or Shermans. However in reality none were available until 50 odd Churchills arrived in late 45. In the mean time the Matilda and Grant tank force was crippled by a lack of spares which had significant effects on the Matilda’s use in theatre.
So in ‘what if’ world if the 200 strong AC3 order had gone ahead the Army would have had a serviceable tank with Australian sourced spares for use in 44-45. A tank which BTW would have much better combat power than the Matilda via the 25 Pounder (88mm) gun in place of the 2 Pounder (40mm) gun.
What would have this meant after WWII? If the AC program was kept in the works then 200 AC3s and 400 AC4s (AC3 with 17 Pounder/76mm gun and later new air cooled engines) were to be ordered. Assuming all or most were built during the war then the Army would have an excellent tank park for post war use. Spares would be available in Australia from the subcontractors and the engines used anyway were common mass production car (Cadillac V8s) or light airplane (Gyspy Major) engines.
It is more than possible that a post war AC5 could have been ordered in 1950-52 if the industry capability was still in place rather than Centurion tanks. Which is likely considering the hull and turret armour castings were outsourced to private industry that still exsists today. During WWII the AC was trialled with torsion bar suspension. Such a hull armed with a 20 pounder and the quad air cooled Gypsy Major engine would be lighter, faster, easier to maintain and much longer ranged than the Centurion with just as much armour and firepower. Without the high cost of the Merlin engine, rolled steel plates, welding work and import costs it would probably be much cheaper.
So yeah I reckon 1 and 2 Armd Bdes would be in a much better position come 1956 for long term retention with a fleet of Australian built and sustained AC3/4/5s rather than clapped out Grants and to expensive too buy Centurions.
Had Japan not entered the war when they did we would have seen Australian armoured divisions serving in North Africa and Italy. Following Japans reverses in New Guinea and the removal of the (yes I know Japan never intended to invade Australia) threat of invasion, we had three armoured divisions with nothing to do that could have been sent to fight in Africa and Europe. In reality if this had happened the Australian units would have been equipped with US vehicles but it nice to fantasize about RAAC Regiments equipped with Australian designed and built tanks sweeping all before them as our Cavalry, riding Australian bred horses, had done in WWI.
Much of our post war structure appears to have been based on the miss conception, by political types and many members of public, that all of Australia’s wars were fought and won by light infantry alone. (Although the fact that infantry is perceived to be cheaper to maintain probably also had some influence). Had the RAAC been able to shine as its forbear, the Light Horse, had in WWI I have no doubt the current ARA ORBAT would include an armoured brigade or two and that we would be designing, building and exporting a variety of armoured vehicles.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Bloody ANAO, can't even get that right. I just counted the tanks in their diagram...Without being too picky, a tank squadron has 14 tanks. The 2IC wants one too.
Of course, I could point out the actual orbat of 1 Armd Regt, but that probably wouldn't win me any favours.
with the british army cutting their AS-90 numbers would this not be a good time for the RAA to put their hand up and say: "Uhh we need a SP 155mm gun" or is the AS-90 not a qualifier for LAND 17?
and on the note of "Old" Brit weapons what about all the Challenger 2s? something always unnerved me about only getting 59 M1s
and on the note of "Old" Brit weapons what about all the Challenger 2s? something always unnerved me about only getting 59 M1s
The ANAO just reused the army basis of provisioning document from the LAND 907 business case. The brief for LAND 907 from Cabinet was the absolute bare minimum for an armd regt. So the SHQs were only to get one tank – but on paper. Of course once on issue to 1 Armd Regt they are never going to man three full squadrons and would happily not form 12 Troop to have two tanks in each SHQ if they could get close to a full regiment. Just like the new infantry battalion only has eight infantry platoons manned instead of the proper nine. Realistically the SHQ should have three tanks with the third for the FOO to ride in. The old medium direct support battery in the order of battle has M113s for the FOO/JOST to ride in which isn’t really going to cut it when the tanks need to do their thing. But the number of tanks we have is more than enough to sustain a proper 15 tank armoured squadron in operations. If we need to deploy a regiment then well we need two more regiments so plenty more tanks. If aliens invade Darwin anytime soon then there will be a lot less than 40 crewed tanks rolling out of Robertson to fight them off.Bloody ANAO, can't even get that right. I just counted the tanks in their diagram...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Puts into perspective their rather happy announcement that they "underspent" on this project and actually handed back money...The ANAO just reused the army basis of provisioning document from the LAND 907 business case. The brief for LAND 907 from Cabinet was the absolute bare minimum for an armd regt. So the SHQs were only to get one tank – but on paper. Of course once on issue to 1 Armd Regt they are never going to man three full squadrons and would happily not form 12 Troop to have two tanks in each SHQ if they could get close to a full regiment. Just like the new infantry battalion only has eight infantry platoons manned instead of the proper nine. Realistically the SHQ should have three tanks with the third for the FOO to ride in. The old medium direct support battery in the order of battle has M113s for the FOO/JOST to ride in which isn’t really going to cut it when the tanks need to do their thing. But the number of tanks we have is more than enough to sustain a proper 15 tank armoured squadron in operations. If we need to deploy a regiment then well we need two more regiments so plenty more tanks. If aliens invade Darwin anytime soon then there will be a lot less than 40 crewed tanks rolling out of Robertson to fight them off.
Could have bought the proper number of tanks with that extra money!!!
Spare Challengers will be glad-wrapped and placed in storage or transferred to BATUS. Heavy tank crews not assigned to the active armoured brigade are assigned to crewing Mastif/Ridgeback/Warthog, thus freeing up the infantry to focus on dismounted operations. As90 will follow a similar path, however they have not been worked as hard as the Ch2 so some may become available. If the Danes pull their Leopards out of A-Stan then Ch2 will be deployed as a replacement.with the british army cutting their AS-90 numbers would this not be a good time for the RAA to put their hand up and say: "Uhh we need a SP 155mm gun" or is the AS-90 not a qualifier for LAND 17?
and on the note of "Old" Brit weapons what about all the Challenger 2s? something always unnerved me about only getting 59 M1s
Last edited:
winnyfield
New Member
AS-90 only a 39-cal gun. The UK also might want to hang onto some C2 for spares. I believe BAE has closed their C2 facilities and there doesn't appear to be a MBT replacement anytime soon.
USMC has deployed M1s to the Helmand area. They'll probably fill the void.If the Danes pull their Leopards out of A-Stan then Ch2 will be deployed as a replacement.
Not even one. The savings all came from the efficencies of the US in providing tanks. Since the original business case was pared back so far there wasn't even an ammunition stock or SATCOM access LAND 907 actually went quite a bit over budget. However it was still the most brillant acquistion the ADF has completed in recent years. One could only wish that a range of other projects (ARH, Seasprite, MRH, M113AS4, SP155, etc) were all conducted under similar concepts: buy off the shelf from the established international market leader. Important to note that LAND 400 was approved by govt. to also include the capacity to acquire additional tanks if needed.Puts into perspective their rather happy announcement that they "underspent" on this project and actually handed back money...
Could have bought the proper number of tanks with that extra money!!!
There is nothing wrong with an L39 gun. AS90 however is as unsuitable for the ADF as the K9 and PzH2000. None are integrated with AFATDS. The only gun system to meet the majority of the Army's spec off the shelf is the M109A6 Paladin that is integrated with AFATDS. Plenty of them available second hand and in much better condition than the AS90s.AS-90 only a 39-cal gun. The UK also might want to hang onto some C2 for spares. I believe BAE has closed their C2 facilities and there doesn't appear to be a MBT replacement anytime soon.
The UK has very little to offer the ADF in terms of surplus army equipment that we couldn't get from the USA. The CR2 (Challenger) was rejected for LAND 907 because it used unique ammunition. Acquiring them would be a disaster to sustain. Not that it would cost much to set up 120mm ammo production in Australia but single or even dual source supply is not a good idea.
Instead of buying more tanks Aus would be better off buying armoured engineering, bridging and recovery units based on the M1A1 to round off the package.There is nothing wrong with an L39 gun. AS90 however is as unsuitable for the ADF as the K9 and PzH2000. None are integrated with AFATDS. The only gun system to meet the majority of the Army's spec off the shelf is the M109A6 Paladin that is integrated with AFATDS. Plenty of them available second hand and in much better condition than the AS90s.
The UK has very little to offer the ADF in terms of surplus army equipment that we couldn't get from the USA. The CR2 (Challenger) was rejected for LAND 907 because it used unique ammunition. Acquiring them would be a disaster to sustain. Not that it would cost much to set up 120mm ammo production in Australia but single or even dual source supply is not a good idea.
Of course and there are projects afoot to realise this. However as we have been discussing there is a shortfall of a few tanks to meet the order of battle. Apart from another 5-10 gun tanks being needed for 1 Armd Regt several would be needed to properly equip 1 Cbt Engr Regt as a mechanised unit. From memory the order of battle has two gun tanks with dozers and the obstacle reduction gun capability and eight mine clearers (Abrams Assault Breacher Vehicle) for each cbt engr sqn (mech). So to fully equip the current order of battle you are looking at another 20 or so gun tanks and another 30-40 in variants (mine clearer and birdge layer). Then of course there is a combat attrition supply. Which for an armd regt used to be about 10-20 tanks for a year of war (the usual allotment).Instead of buying more tanks Aus would be better off buying armoured engineering, bridging and recovery units based on the M1A1 to round off the package.
meatshield
Active Member
That is very interesting. Do you think that this will ever happen? Also what would that be worth?Of course and there are projects afoot to realise this. However as we have been discussing there is a shortfall of a few tanks to meet the order of battle. Apart from another 5-10 gun tanks being needed for 1 Armd Regt several would be needed to properly equip 1 Cbt Engr Regt as a mechanised unit. From memory the order of battle has two gun tanks with dozers and the obstacle reduction gun capability and eight mine clearers (Abrams Assault Breacher Vehicle) for each cbt engr sqn (mech). So to fully equip the current order of battle you are looking at another 20 or so gun tanks and another 30-40 in variants (mine clearer and birdge layer). Then of course there is a combat attrition supply. Which for an armd regt used to be about 10-20 tanks for a year of war (the usual allotment).
Ironically one area where the Leo II would have been a supperior option to the Abrams is the availability of specialist versions. That said there is nothing stopping the development of the necessary vehicles based on the Abrams but time and money.Of course and there are projects afoot to realise this. However as we have been discussing there is a shortfall of a few tanks to meet the order of battle. Apart from another 5-10 gun tanks being needed for 1 Armd Regt several would be needed to properly equip 1 Cbt Engr Regt as a mechanised unit. From memory the order of battle has two gun tanks with dozers and the obstacle reduction gun capability and eight mine clearers (Abrams Assault Breacher Vehicle) for each cbt engr sqn (mech). So to fully equip the current order of battle you are looking at another 20 or so gun tanks and another 30-40 in variants (mine clearer and birdge layer). Then of course there is a combat attrition supply. Which for an armd regt used to be about 10-20 tanks for a year of war (the usual allotment).