I am confused about our tank numbers. We originally purchased 59. Have we acquired any since? Because we now apparently want to form a 4th group of 18 tanks, so we need another 11 or 12 tanks, which would give us 70 or 71 tanks. But 4 times 18 = 72. So what is the true picture? Have we managed to get our hands on more than the original 59, or we are not trying to form 4 groups of 18 tanks, or we have complete dickheads in charge of defence procurement who can even count?
It is a little confusing. We originally bought 59 tanks to equip the tank force we had at the time - a regiment of two squadrons. The number was actually quite generous for that - 30 or so for the regiment (two squadrons of 14 and two HQ tanks) about a dozen for the school of armour and a couple for the logistic school for training, which left a dozen or so 'spare' tanks which are for attrition and to allow maintenance etc to be carried out without impacting the operational fleet.
However, under Beersheeba we now want three 14 tanks squadrons. Maths will tell you the numbers we have now are theoretically enough - 42 tanks in the squadrons, a dozen for the school of armour and a couple for the logistic school adds up to less than 59. However, with no spare tanks it means that the squadrons will never be able to put 14 tanks in the field - a few will always be in maintenance, being upgraded etc. The only way to get around this would be to rotate tanks, moving them between the regiments as part of the force generation cycle to ensure the ready and readying regiments can put a full compliment in the field. Obviously, this is expensive and difficult.
Buying another dozen or so tanks allows for that attrition. Each squadron could be allocated 18 or so tanks, to ensure they always have enough serviceable tanks to put 14 in the field at once. This is what army is seeking to occur. However, government hasn't agreed to it yet. If the government does agree to this, and I reckon they will as it's pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things, it will probably happen as part of the White paper process.
In the interests of maintaining the highest commonality possible between any new tanks acquired and the legacy fleet, any idea if the M1A1 AIM version of Abrams Army has now is still available?
I can't remember where I read it but I did see something last year that indicated the amount of money being talked about for a mid life upgrade for the M-1 fleet would actually be sufficient to acquire 70 odd fully spec'ed M-1A2 (or A3 once available) through FMS. This would ensure the RAAC fleet was common with the US Army fleet and provide through life savings by hooking into their logistics and spiral development programs.
18 tanks per squadron is interesting as (and I could be completely out of date on this) I understand it while the US Army has three troops of four tanks and another two in SHQ for a total of 14 tanks in each squadron, the USMC has 18 tanks in each squadron. I had always assumed the extra four vehicles formed a fourth tank troop within the squadron but now reading the above I am wondering if it was to ensure that there were sufficient vehicles to ensure 14 were available when required.
18 tanks per squadron is interesting as (and I could be completely out of date on this) I understand it while the US Army has three troops of four tanks and another two in SHQ for a total of 14 tanks in each squadron, the USMC has 18 tanks in each squadron. I had always assumed the extra four vehicles formed a fourth tank troop within the squadron but now reading the above I am wondering if it was to ensure that there were sufficient vehicles to ensure 14 were available when required.
t68
Well-Known Member
At the moment to the best of my knowledge we have currently,
1x Headquaters squadron and 2x Sabare Squadron's with the Sabare Squadrons of 3x Troops of 4 MBT.
From my understanding they want an Army of 3's so a 3rd Sabare Squadron may stand up in theory. I don't think a single LHD has the ability weight wise to transport a Squadron deployment plus all the equipment of light infantry Battilion plus helicopter support, a troop yes but not a Squadron
Bluey 006
Active Member
Additional Abrams is something i have long supported. Glad to hear it finally might get some traction.
Wondering if there is room under plan Beersheeba to supplement the 14 tanks per ACR with a 105mm/120mm armed, up armored version of whatever tracked vehicle is chosen for Land 400.
Certainly some merit for a "light" tank in scenarios in our region.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
It appears that Army is following the lead of the US Army in upgrading the M1A1 with elements of the TUSK package; not sure what the USMC is doing with their M1A1s.
So perhaps an FMS buy of US Army standard M1A2/3 might be on the cards.
At a LEWG presentation on Land 400 in late 2013, it was presented that the LHD heavy vehicle deck can take 29 x 42 tonne IFVs (without encroaching on the well deck), or 13 x MBT plus 26 x CRV (at 35 tonnes a piece), including 4 x MBTs pre-loaded into the LCM-1Es (1 x per craft) occupying the well deck.
So you could get a full sqn of MBTs on the heavy vehicle deck and still have capacity for a dozen or so CRVs. The footprint of the CRV being not that much smaller than M1 Abrams (vehicles are shown in rows of 4 abreast in each case).
This type of load out still leaves the light vehicle deck able to take a couple dozen Land 121 G-Wagons and MAN 4x4s, some light engineering plant and a full hangar of MRH90s/CH-47s. Towed M777s and their tractors could swap out with some of the light vehicles. Troopload would remain unaffected.
This is very much a heavy-medium armour centric load but one which, based on the graphics presented by the Land 400 IPT, seems doable.
Can't see a light tank being implemented, they'll be outclassed by larger MBTs in nearly every aspect of combat performance.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
According to the USMC, each Tank "Company" has 14 tanks.
A USMC Tank "Battalion" has 58 tanks total.
Battalion (58 tanks) = 4x Company (14 tanks) = 3x Platoon (4 tanks)
Relevant information begins on page 65 of pdf reader:
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCRP 5-12D Organization of Marine Corps Forces.pdf
Bluey 006
Active Member
Even when a MBT can't get there due to weight, terrain, speed of deployment etc
Or
Perhaps in a scenario where deploying MBT is overkill and deemed to heavy handed
Or even in an unlikely DoA scenario
defending the flanks of our heavy Armour as they are outnumbered my a much larger armour force....
Your wheeled tank killer isn't likely to have better off-road performance than an M1A1 and will be weighing in the high 30's if not 40t class.
It will only be going places by ship. Same as the M1's...
Any armoured vehicle with a big gun on it will be called a 'tank' in reporting on its deployment. Hell, M113's have been called 'tanks' by journo looking for a page bump with his or her editor.
In a fanciful DOA scenario, where we are out-numbered and facing hordes of heavy armour on continental Australia, I think we are MUCH better off buying more M1A1's and upgrading the ones we have. No deployability, terrain, mobility or 'politically correct' issues there...
Light tanks / tank killers certainly have their place. But for an Army struggling to get funding to run 70 tanks, 250 'Cavalry / Recce' vehicles and a couple of hundred IFV's? I don't think there's a place in there for yet another capability type.
I'd much rather more of what we already have, more training / ammunition / track time, perhaps an armoured bridge layer / armoured engineering capability and / or spending the money on the highest capability armour we can get...
Interesting, thanks for that, I had been under the impression the USMC ran 18 tank companies, obviously I was wrong.
Perhaps if there is a perceived need to provide the Cavalry squadrons with a direct fire capability it may well be better achieved through acquiring additional M-1s and issuing them to the Cav squadrons to support the future tracked Cav vehicles rather than acquiring a light / medium tank, tank destroyer, or armoured gun system.
Assuming we go for a tracked Cav vehicle we could have the Cav squadrons resembling the US Armys Armoured Cavalry Troops with two platoons of four tanks (troops for RAAC) and two platoons of six cavalry fighting vehicles. There would be two of these squadrons plus the tank squadron and the APC squadron.
Land 400 RFT has just hit the streets. Available on the AusTender website.
The BOP appears to be 229 CRVs overall, incl 129 gun trucks. Enough for two sqns per ACR?
Will be very interesting to watch this one unfold. Numerous low-risk options out there from the various bid teams/OEMs.
just read an article on nine news, typical crap.
Says that Army want a vehicle capable of carrying up to 35 tonnes.,,,,,buy some dump trucks...
Says that Army want a vehicle capable of carrying up to 35 tonnes.,,,,,buy some dump trucks...
A 35 tonne GVM is what Army has planned for embarkation on the LHDs/Choules, but most of the CRV candidate vehicles top out at 28-32 tonnes.
t68
Well-Known Member
If they are thinking Bradley sized vehicles then the y will also have to take into account RACT Mack R686 and P2 won't be able to haul them around