old tanks still in service

[Waylander]

I am sceptical about using an IFV chassis with a big gun as a tank replacement. Apart from common spare parts if you already use the IFV version and the ability to use some more bridges I don't see many advantages.
These advantages are paid for by having a vehicle which already is at the limit of it's upgrade potential and offers less protection. The price shouldn't be much of a difference and the same applies to operating costs.

And as soon as the enemy introduces T-72s and halfway modern ATGMs you have a problem. And it's not as if this stuff is not cheap and easy to get all around the world...

 

[Marc 1]

...Desert Shield...

I was posted to 5/7RAR (Mech) at the time, our notice to move as a first step in he process was slashed by 2/3rds - There were many meetings by Coy Comd's/CO's etc for a brief period before we were placed back on our previous NTM.

As Australia's only mech bn, we were the only logical regular infantry force to send - the intention being that we would go, and slip into the US logistic train for our spare parts support etc - after all the US still used M113's. Then the techies and loggies realised that the US were using M113A3's as their oldest variant - which basically only retained the hull and the road wheels in common with the A1's we were using. So that blew the idea of using US spare parts inventory out of the water, as all the expensive easily broken bits in the drivetrain - even down to the track was going to be unique to our vehicle. To give you an idea of how much of an issue this was - we had one final drive unit (the bit that does the steering) as a spare in the entire brigade (shared with 2 Cav and whatever the Ginger Beers used).

I suppose had push come to shove, they could have stripped running gear out of the spare M113's laid up at Bandiana etc, but even had they done that we would have been left so far behind when Desert Shield turned into Desert Storm it wouldn't have been funny. The Bradleys were driven pretty hard to keep up with the Abrams, the US M113A3's (with over 100hp more and far more torque + upgraded running gear compared to our A1's) were running flat out 24/7 to keep the supporting elements in touch with the M1/M2 combo. We would still have been crossing the LD as they entered Baghdad...

It doesn't surprise me that plans were being tossed around for 1Armd/5/7RAR as a battlegroup, but back in the 90's the only land forces that were truly up to date in their kit and training was the SAS. The rest of us were still using outdated, outmoded gear with plenty of enthusiasm.

 

[Volkodav]

It doesn't surprise me that plans were being tossed around for 1Armd/5/7RAR as a battlegroup, but back in the 90's the only land forces that were truly up to date in their kit and training was the SAS. The rest of us were still using outdated, outmoded gear with plenty of enthusiasm.

Well I remember hearing the Australian Army, during the early 90's, was the best 1970s army in the world.

The spares situation must have improved some what by the mid 90's when I hit the LH as we always had plenty of spares to try and keep our shagged M-113A1s going, although that was when 2 CAV were re-equiping with ASLAVs which also enabled us to add a 5th vehicle to each Troop.

I do remember a 5/7 corporal complaining to me at an AASAM in the early 90's that they were so badly undermanned they could barely able to field two full strength Coy and when the Somalia deployment was on they couldn't even manage that.

 

[Marc 1]

Well I remember hearing the Australian Army, during the early 90's, was the best 1970s army in the world.

The spares situation must have improved some what by the mid 90's when I hit the LH as we always had plenty of spares to try and keep our shagged M-113A1s going, although that was when 2 CAV were re-equiping with ASLAVs which also enabled us to add a 5th vehicle to each Troop.

I do remember a 5/7 corporal complaining to me at an AASAM in the early 90's that they were so badly undermanned they could barely able to field two full strength Coy and when the Somalia deployment was on they couldn't even manage that.

1990 when B Coy 6RAR deployed to RC Butterworth, we needed nearly a full platoon worth of reservists and truckies and other spare bodies from Brigade to make up our company for the deployment in the first place. When we got back what was left of B Coy was disbanded - half went to A Coy, half to D Coy. When Jim Molan took over command as CO he had two understrength rifle coys and a slimmed down Supt coy. Retention wasn't an issue in 6 Bde, it was in the ODF, so for about 18 months we got I think 2 diggers out of IET's for the entire battalion.

5/7's biggest problem was again retention - the high turnover meant that blokes that had barely had a good grasp on their basic infantry skills, were being tossed in as drivers, then crew commanders. Ideally a soldier should have spent at least 2-3 years as a 'veggie' then driver for 18 months, then crewie. Wasn't happening.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I mentioned this story on another site some time ago and got slapped down by an ex RAOC storeman who called BS based on it being logistically and administratively impossible to pull off with the ADF systems of the time and also be cause he didn't know about it so it couldn't have been true.

I’m pretty sure I know the tool you are referring to (“Rickshaw”). One of the biggest FOS wankers the internet has ever seen.

The thought of a 1 Bde battle group or even a full brigade using cascaded German equipment is quite entertaining and I would be interested to know if it was ever seriously considered.

I seriously doubt the Germans would have provided tanks for political and their own security reasons nor would they be needed. Regardless of Patriots (which were entirely defensive as opposed to offensive) or how many ex NVA trucks they supplied.

The US deployed far more tanks and combat equipment to Saudi Arabia that was needed for their own forces. They also completely reequipped several brigades with newer tanks (and Bradleys) in theatre leaving large numbers of IPM1 and M113A3s in reserve. It would have been a very simple matter for them to provide a full brigade set (or more) of AFVs to the Australian Army if a battle group or brigade had been deployed.

Being equipped by the Americans also makes a lot of deployment sense. The Australian land task force would just fly over with personal equipment and be mated up with American gear. Rather than wait for their own tanks and M113A1s to arrive they could be training on the newer stuff in theatre and also no doubt attached to whatever formation they would be part of.

With the number of former anti Vietnam War protesters in the Labor left at the time I imagine it would never have go through parliament even if proposed by NATO / Germany.

The Hawke Government sent a significant naval task force so obviously had some political will there. An army force would really come down to if they were asked for or if they (Cabinet) felt strongly enough that the Australian contribution was being overshadowed in the scale of the force. There were also talks about deploying F-111s and the like. I guess in 2020 the cabinet papers will be made public and we will be able to see what was proposed and what was knocked back.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Bradleys were driven pretty hard to keep up with the Abrams, the US M113A3's (with over 100hp more and far more torque + upgraded running gear compared to our A1's) were running flat out 24/7 to keep the supporting elements in touch with the M1/M2 combo. We would still have been crossing the LD as they entered Baghdad..

If an Australian brigade had been deployed to ODS I doubt they would have ended up in VII Corps. Most likely attached to the Marines or 18 Corps. The US Army provided 1 ‘Tiger’ Bde, 2 Armd Div (2 tank bn, 1 SP mdm arty bn, 1 mech inf bn) to 1 Marine Div as reinforcements and if we had deployed a mech bde it could have replaced this formation. An obvious fit would be to attach the Australian brigade to the British 1 Armd Div but without access to British AFVs this would create a logistical nightmare. Though of course the British had more than enough AFVs for Australian use but they probably would have expected to be paid for them, unlike the Americans…

 

[Goknub]

Looking at more recent events, John Howard and co did throw around the idea of a light mech brigade for OIF. It obviously went nowhere but I'm convinced that is the only reason we ended up with the M1A1s.

I'd imagine at some point someone would have had to brief Howard just what state the "Mechanised Brigade" was in. Nothing like a politician denied.

It's a pity we weren't able to deploy more or we'd probably have IFVs and SPGs now as well.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'd imagine at some point someone would have had to brief Howard just what state the "Mechanised Brigade" was in. Nothing like a politician denied.

There were many people involved in the policy work that resulted in the Army being in that state who would consider that result being a successful outcome.

 

[STURM]

Rather than maintaining Leo1, how about the thinking on up scaling IFV (Marder, CV-90) with 105 gun or even 120.

The Rooikat [105mm gun], Centauro [120mm gun] and CV-90 [120mm gun] - all marketed as Tank Destroyers - underwent trials in Malaysia and were offered as a cheaper and lighter alternative to MBTs. I recall reading somewhere that the Indian army has a requirement for 100 odd wheeled tank destroyersto be used in the north of the country, like in Ladakh, where the road infrastucture will not permit the use of MBTs.

But considering the difficulty they had in moving and sustaining the tracked tanks in action in Angola the heavy wheeled tank would have made a major difference for them if they had acquired it.

Has confirmation ever been provided as to the exact number of Cuban T-54s/55s that were knocked out by 90mm armed Ratels and by Olifants in Angola? I recall reading in Raids that one main advantage provided by the high profile of the Olifant was that it enabled crews to have a clear view over the elephant grass that was common in Angola. Are you aware of any Cuban BMP-1s knocked out or captured in Angola?

 

[kato]

Regardless of Patriots (which were entirely defensive as opposed to offensive) or how many ex NVA trucks they supplied.

We also had a CAS wing with Alpha Jets in Incirlik, albeit with the caveat that it would only enter action if Iraqi troops crossed into NATO territory.

It would have been a very simple matter for them to provide a full brigade set (or more) of AFVs to the Australian Army if a battle group or brigade had been deployed.

The POMCUS sets in Germany would have provided for at least a full division before getting into the pre-1980s stuff. Of course much of POMCUS was actually cycled back into the states through the sandbox.

The thought of a 1 Bde battle group or even a full brigade using cascaded German equipment is quite entertaining and I would be interested to know if it was ever seriously considered.

The only mechanized equipment cascaded by Germany in 1991 was some 300 BTR-60 and following in the next two years about 600 M48A2GA2 upgraded to equivalent level to a Leo 1 (went to Turkey). Enough for two armored divisions... technically.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Has confirmation ever been provided as to the exact number of Cuban T-54s/55s that were knocked out by 90mm armed Ratels and by Olifants in Angola?

In the 1987/88 Battle for Cutio Canavale the South African counted losses inflicted on the Angolans and Cubans were:

94 T-55 and T-62
96 BMP-1
64 BTR-60
32 BRDM-2

A lot if not most of these losses were inflicted by South African artillery. Previous to this battle the Olifants (Centurions) were not used in any scale and for a while there the main South African tank force in theatre were captured T-55s. In the early stages of the Battle for Cutio Canavale the Ratel 90s of 32 Bn were firing so many rounds they kept having to be pulled from use to have they recoil absorbing recuperators refilled with hydraulic oil.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I recall reading in Raids that one main advantage provided by the high profile of the Olifant was that it enabled crews to have a clear view over the elephant grass that was common in Angola. Are you aware of any Cuban BMP-1s knocked out or captured in Angola?

I’ve heard this claim before and have always thought it to be somewhat dubious. The Centurion is higher than the T-55 (by about half a metre) but all things are not equal. The commander’s cupola of the Centurion provides an adjustable seat arrangement so they can have their head out for observation and control. And this head is just above the roof of the turret. They can go higher but expose their body to fires and can’t quickly duck back down. On the T-55 the commander’s cupola does not have that kind of hatch arrangement and if the commander wants to ride head up for observation the hatch is locked in the upright position and they sit behind it. This provides their body armour protection (from the front) but their head is at about the same height as a Centurion commander’s. So compared to the height of the elephant grass all things could be equal between a Centurion and T-55 tank commander.

I think the difference was not so much the height of the tanks but the higher professionalism of the South African tank crews and the better responsiveness of the Centurion turret to training commands. The Cubans and Angolans were likely to be hunkering in their tanks hatches down so severely limiting their observation ability compared to the South Africans riding their they heads out. Also the T-55 would have been much slower to respond to training onto those Centurions they managed to see.

The point was made on page 1 of the thread about the comparative quality of the T-34 compared to the Sherman. Even before this the Germans provided the Soviets with a Panzer III or two (when they were allies) and the Russians called it a ‘toy tank’ compared to their T-34. Their propaganda was that features like the commander’s cupola, the turret basket, torsion bar suspension, advanced gearbox and the radios were luxuries not needed compared to their lack of these features. But battle shows that these luxuries are what enables the tank to be where it should be and fire first which are all more important than gross numbers and thick armour. Of course despite the propaganda the Soviets were keen to introduce these features into the T-34 and had done so in the T-34M design that was to replace it in production until the German invasion in 1941 meant they had to abandon these plans.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The POMCUS sets in Germany would have provided for at least a full division before getting into the pre-1980s stuff. Of course much of POMCUS was actually cycled back into the states through the sandbox.

The US deployed over 3,000 Abrams tanks to Saudi Arabia before February 1991 and ODS. These included 1,223 M1A1-HA and 733 M1A1 in US Army units (29 tank bn, 6 cav bn) and 103 M1A1 in USMC units (2 tank bn), 528 M1A1 and 580 IPM1/M1 (105mm gun, no NBC) in reserve.

 

[MickB]

Can anyone give me imformation as to the extent of upgrades to Pakistans M48 tanks.

Gun/engine/fire control, all of the above?

Are there any still is service/reserve/storage, or have they all been disposed of.