Australian M1A1 Abrams technology

[gf0012-aust]

Could be you are right. I don't have a date and a model for the first tank to be refered to as 'MBT'. However having had the argument over the M551 before I was assured by those who crewed it that it was not designated as a 'light tank' anywhere in US Army publications.

Interesting, when I was in hawai'i a couple of years back I went to the army museum - the Sheridan was listed as originally being :

M551 Sheridan Light Armored Reconnaissance Tank

it was also listed as:

Air Assault Light Tank

at the Israeli Armoured Corps Tank Museum and the Anniston Army Depot.

 

[FutureTank]

They were, and in many ways. Experienced engineers, design team members working on different parts of the alternative subsystems, the ironing out of all the problems in testing, the creation of new production lines, the retraining of all the experienced production personnel (not to mention finding them in wartime), the actual steel (and it was a different steel manufacturing process to Pz-IV), the new engine, the training of new, and retraining of old crews. All this is hard enough in peacetime, but is a real headache in wartime even for the uber-organised Germans. It is one of the reasons neither the Soviets nor the Allies changed their primary tank designs despite Stalin being offered an alternative to T-34. Americans went so far as to even keep the same hull from a pre-war design!

Errr, the Sherman was a completely new design, retaining only the suspension from the pre-war M2 Medium. The hull was completely new, as was the turret. It is one of the reasons why the M3 Medium was introduced as a stop-gap - because while its hull was only modified from the M2, it was easier to produce a casemented mounting for the 75mm gun than a turret mounting, in the time available. Indeed, the M4 underwent such transformation during its production run that it could be claimed that the M4a3e8 which came out at the end of WWII was a completely different vehicle compared to the M4 which started it. So to claim that the Americans stuck with the same vehicle is a bit silly, really. The designation was the same and it was an evolutionary process but it was so advanced that it might as well have been revolutionary. Further, you appear to be ignoring the fact that the Soviets were in the throws of introducing the T44 at war's end, which was a completely revolutionary vehicle compared to the T34..

No, the M4 hull was a modified M3 hull withthe side gun-port eliminated, and turret ring redesigneed to take a larger turret. If you look a the pre-production M4 hull you can see where the M3 hull gun gunner's station retained its hatch, but this was removed from production vehicles.

Actually the T-43 was suggested for introduction into production when Panthers and Tigers appeared, but was rejected. The T-44 went into very limited production, but by then it didn't matter. They were not "in the throws" of introducing the T-44. The real crisis was in 1943 with T-34-85 introduction because there was a problem with the gun production and mounting it in the turret.

 

[FutureTank]

Yes, the British philosophy/doctrine was different, but they were stuck with the Sherman from 1941. Doctrine is faster to type, and better defines the application of thinking about use of troops. The interesting thing is that US and UK both shared the belief in the infantry, hence the infantry support tanks that dominated the armoured fleet. What the UK doctrine never tried to address is how they would react to an enemy that failed to stand still for the infantry to engage.

Of course it did. It assumed that the infantry would advance until they engaged the enemy. That advance would be mechanised, indeed the UK's army was the only one which entered the war entirely mechanised..

I think you meant "entirely motorised"

 

[FutureTank]

Armies still use the designation Light, Medium, Heavy and Main to describe their tanks. It has absolutely nothing to do with their weight, it has in fact everything to do with both their armour and their intended function within a military's doctrine.
Main Battle Tank is how all armies refer to their tanks.

That may be the case for the US but even they refer to other force's tanks according to the classications Light, Medium, Heavy and Main..

The US DoD policy is to use designation in use by foreign armies.

 

[FutureTank]

For transportation they are load classed. The light tanks are sometimes known as reconnaissance vehicles. The load classes used in most armies do not refer to weight of tanks. Originally the reference was to the weight of the tank…which is of course the armour plating. I think the British had some thing like 5 armour classes that referred to the plating, but they were not termed as light or medium but had coding I think.

Care to provide a reference for that?.

Which part?

 

[FutureTank]

In the West all tanks are deceptively known as the Main Battle Tank because this is the only type of tank produced.




As I said, that maybe how the US refers to its own vehicles but it is not even how they refer to others' vehicles, FutureTank..

Yes, during the Cold War the US refered to Soviet tanks as 'medium'. However the NATO standard for MBT is 'main'.

There is a reason for that also (think about it)

 

[FutureTank]

Light tanks were still produced until recently, with the Scorpion, Stingray and the Sheridan coming immediately to mind. Much of their role has however been overtaken by converted APCs, mounting light-tank like turrets.
Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) or, CVR (T) family. The full design name is Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Fire Support (Scorpion).

"A rose by another name would smell as sweet". The Scorpion is a light tank, FutureTank. The MoD might have fallen victim to foot in mouth disease but the rest of the knows when its being offered a silk purse or a sow's ear..

I have had a number of these discussions, and it is strangely appropriate in discussion of an M1 purchase.

Defence departments in most countries do not employ idiots who can't tell a light tank from a reconnaissance 'vehicle'. All vehicle designation in armies, and other services for that matter, is a matter of policy.

Hopwever the argument you make is that vehicles should be designated according to their function, so let's take that one step further.

The Australian Army had a modified M113 'vehicle' with a Scorpion turret mounted on it. Is that a light tank?
The BMP is better armed then most WW2 light tanks. Should the BMP as used by the recon troops be classed a light tank? Keep in mind the original light tanks were made for recon troops and the crew were expected to dismount for scouting when required.
The BFV is as heavy as a light tank, and is also used by scouts.

Now look at it from the DoD point of view.
The generals in democracies need to ask for money to equip their troops from politicians and bureaucrats who, though they may have their best intentions at heart, by and large just don't have the experience and knowledge of employing troops in battle. All they can go on is the intelligence provided to them on which to base the budget decisions.

Some functions in battle are undeniably better served by light tanks. Imagine if the Australian Army asked for a recon squadron which incorporates light tanks for each brigade just like the Stingrays Thailand bought. The decision maker would ask for the threat these tanks would counter, and its hard to explain that while there is no threat, IF a brigade was deployed, it is better served in battle by light tanks incorporated into the recon teams.

Others, in fact in this very thread, suggest that what Australia needs are more deployable tanks. So maybe the Army would suggest that it should have at least a squadron of these same Stingrays as the quickly deployable tank force. The question would then be, are two Stingrays better then one Abrams, and there is no simple answer.

These are the reasons that British Army has no light tanks, and neither does the US Army, or any European Army I think. Even the AMX-13 is designated reconnaissance vehicle by most armies as I already said. The French used to designate them Char to make their tank fleet look much larger then it was.

So what is a light tank? Are the ASLAV-25 light tanks? They do the same work as their predecessors during WW2.

Now imagine if the purchase of the M1 was announced to the public as for a heavy tank. The opposition would have a field day asking in the Parliament why Australia needs a heavy tank. Fortunatelly they know better

 

[rickshaw]

Could be you are right. I don't have a date and a model for the first tank to be refered to as 'MBT'. However having had the argument over the M551 before I was assured by those who crewed it that it was not designated as a 'light tank' anywhere in US Army publications.

gf0012-aust's post suggests otherwise, FutureTank.

 

[FutureTank]

An artificial division, I'd suggest based more upon your obviously mistaken and preconceived ideas on this matter. As I've said, the designation owes more to the amount of armour carried but ultimately, it depends upon where the vehicle sits in relation to doctrine and how it is employed by the military that owns it. Essentially, it’s all relative anyway and such designations tend to be far more fluid and non-rigid than your definition would have it.
It may be that I am "mistaken and preconceived in ideas", but they are not mine.

They may not be but as I've never read them before today, I must assume they are your's unless you provide a reference to them..

References? Where would I begin?

Designations changed with force structures and doctrines. There is no single reference. Its the ability to encompas the knowledge and evaluate it in terms of historical trends.

 

[rickshaw]

Its not possible to design a tank with 1000km unrefuled range for under 75-80 ton

I doubt Australian tanks would ever be called upon to conduct sustained operations unrefuled for even 250km during combat deployments.

Usually the combat range is half the stated range due to all kinds of 's**t' that happens in combat (or expected combat for which M1 was designed, i.e. Cold War Europe) which may prevent the crew from being refueled.

Typically tank engagements are short, and confined to a relatively small area, so the actual range required is probably about 100-150km. This is what Soviet designs count on....3 days of operations unrefueled. So it seems if anything M1 is over-ranged for an MBT

Except, as the British in their Challenger I's noted during Gulf War I - they often passed the US tank units who were forced to halt for refuelling, whereas their diesel powered vehicles just kept on going. On average, I understand, the British armoured units required half the logistic tail for POL that the equivalent US unit required. While tanks might not travel far, because of the use of tracks, they proportionally require more power to do it, so hence have a higher fuel consumption. When you couple that with a gas-turbine, which is in itself notoriously fuel hungry, because it runs at near full revs, all the time, then idle times on the march consume more fuel than for an equivalent diesel powered vehicle.

 

[FutureTank]

Even the Soviets dislike having light tanks, the PT-76 is an Amphibious tank.

Invariably its referred to as a "light tank" by all and sundry. Describing it as an "ampbibious tank" merely describes its abilities.
.

No. Soviet requirement in AFV design is that they must have AT capability even if limited. When PT-76 was brought into service, the Soviet Army bent over backwards to make the point that it was NOT a light tank, because the light tanks of WW2 were armed with 57mm guns at most. They even put the weapon size into the tank's designation which is unique in Soviet tank designs. PT-76 is, as far as Soviet tank directorate is concerned, is in a class of its own, but a tank never the less.

I was told once that PT-76 was at first considered a failure because someone in Politburo was unwilling to recognise that it was beyond even Soviet engineers to design an amphibious medium tank

 

[FutureTank]

In every doctrine in Europe there was a need for multiple types of AFVs to fill their niche in their complex still-in-development employment in battle. By the end of the war it was clear that one type of tank could do most of the work with the exception of reconnaissance. This design issue was never really solved.

Wasn't it? We have, as you've noted, a steady movement away from specialisation towards generalisation. I'd suggest that the prime motivator of this has been economics, rather than necessarily because there is no longer a need for specialisation in AFV design. When the money is short, even militaries must trim their sails to fit the cloth they have. The result has been that the MBT has become the maid of all work and like Jack, the master of none as well.

Doctrine has followed to suit this circumstance, rather than being driven by strategy..

Ah, we have reached the 'chicken or the egg' part

This is easy for you to say now, but it was far from clear in the early days of AFV design.

However I would disagree. The tank is still the master of long range direct fire while conducting manoeuvre. The versatility with which it has been used only adds to this primary function. Missile platforms lack the flexibility and survivability despite challenging the firepower of the tank.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, during the Cold War the US refered to Soviet tanks as 'medium'. However the NATO standard for MBT is 'main'.

There is a reason for that also (think about it)

Funnily enough. the Leo1 is referred to as a Medium Battle Tank in DiggerHistory. (as are its derivatives,
[SIZE=+0]Medium [SIZE=+0]Battle[/SIZE] [SIZE=+0]Tank[/SIZE] Dozer (MBTD)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Medium [SIZE=+0]Battle[/SIZE] [SIZE=+0]Tank[/SIZE] Mine Clearer (MBTMC)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Medium [SIZE=+0]Battle[/SIZE] [SIZE=+0]Tank[/SIZE] Mine Plough (MBTMP)[/SIZE] )

The Sherman and Bulldog are also officially referred to at various stages as Medium Battle Tanks.

Tenix also refer to the Leo1 upgrades and refits as Medium Battle Tanks.

Some of the cold war doco I have on the T55 and T72's also refers to them as being Medium Battle Tanks. Whereas later on the T72 is referred to as a Main Battle Tank.

The definition seems somewhat violate depending on the time period invoked

 

[alexsa]

As the old saying goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Of course, we could design the contract to include the cost of the upgrade.



On the basis of my strategic assessement of what the role of the ADF should be. I do not believe we should be fighting America's wars for America. I believe we should be defending Australia's interests, for Australian reasons. Sometimes the two will coincide but we should recognise that won't always. To put it bluntly, I am of the Continental Defence school, rather than the Forward Defence school of strategic thought. Therefore, the primary function of the ADF is defence of our continent and its territories. Its secondary function is to defend our interests outside that primary area of strategic interest. The M1a1 AIM does not fit into that view IMHO.

Sorry you canot have it both ways. We are a continent and much of the the Australian mainland, being open desert, lends it self to rapid movement of mechanised military. Armour fits into this.

The M1A1 AIMS is not a stand alone system but is intended to be part of an ingreated system inlcuing the NLOS call for fires system being sourced in land 17 along with land 400 for the combat inforamtion system.

One of the biggest falacies of the political mind set I have seen is the idea we can purchase cpability when we need it. This is nonsense as skills develoment makes up a large part of this. You cannot do this without the gear.

In my mond we haveht poteantion for cross training with our allies, we are feilding state of the art gear and developing skills for what, in the grand scheme of thins, is minimal cost.

 

[FutureTank]

Funnily enough. the Leo1 is referred to as a Medium Battle Tank in DiggerHistory. (as are its derivatives,
[SIZE=+0]Medium [SIZE=+0]Battle[/SIZE] [SIZE=+0]Tank[/SIZE] Dozer (MBTD)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Medium [SIZE=+0]Battle[/SIZE] [SIZE=+0]Tank[/SIZE] Mine Clearer (MBTMC)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Medium [SIZE=+0]Battle[/SIZE] [SIZE=+0]Tank[/SIZE] Mine Plough (MBTMP)[/SIZE] )

The Sherman and Bulldog are also officially referred to at various stages as Medium Battle Tanks.

Tenix also refer to the Leo1 upgrades and refits as Medium Battle Tanks.

Some of the cold war doco I have on the T55 and T72's also refers to them as being Medium Battle Tanks. Whereas later on the T72 is referred to as a Main Battle Tank.

The definition seems somewhat violate depending on the time period invoked

I have never seen M551 refered to as MBT.

What DiggerHistory and Tenix say is their own business. In English the NATO standard is Main Battle Tank.

I have US Fm for Soviet forces, and all tanks there are medium even in 1984 when Soviets had already adopted 'main', including the T-80.

 

[FutureTank]

Interesting, when I was in hawai'i a couple of years back I went to the army museum - the Sheridan was listed as originally being :

M551 Sheridan Light Armored Reconnaissance Tank

it was also listed as:

Air Assault Light Tank

at the Israeli Armoured Corps Tank Museum and the Anniston Army Depot.

Sorry, but not good enough
These are just online sites that put captions on the basis of 'near enough, good enough'. There was a discussion on a Vietnam forum on this if you have a search.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have never seen M551 refered to as MBT.

and your point is? Your comments were about light tanks and that the Sheridan was never one. It clearly is. It has 4 designations over time referring to Light Tank status.

What DiggerHistory and Tenix say is their own business. In English the NATO standard is Main Battle Tank.

err, no its not. Aberdeen and Knox - US Army official museums refer to them as Mediums under NATO definitions of the time.

BTW, the Tenix document is based on a tender submitted by ADF. Are you suggesting that ADF don't know their own tank definitions when setting an RFT?

I can assure you that when we assessed tender submissions we made damn sure that the respondent matched the RFT exactly. If not they went to Tray 3 automatically. Its the Governments business.

FM Manuals: I can show you an FM that says a Garrand is a sniper rifle - if you believe that then I can sell you the Sydney Harbour Bridge for mates rates.

I have US Fm for Soviet forces, and all tanks there are medium even in 1984 when Soviets had already adopted 'main', including the T-80.

so what? Fort Bliss - one of the US Army Official museums for all things armour refers to them as Medium at a point in time - and then Main..

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry, but not good enough
These are just online sites that put captions on the basis of 'near enough, good enough'. There was a discussion on a Vietnam forum on this if you have a search.

Oh balderdash. The museum in Hawai'i is an Official US Army Museum - its not an online site at all.

You can't go out and cherry pick fan club or subject sites that support your argument - and then dismiss something that is an official museum just because it doesn't fit your argument.

who do I believe? a US army museum or a vietnam war internet site - gee, hard choice!

 

[FutureTank]

Oh balderdash. The museum in Hawai'i is an Official US Army Museum - its not an online site at all.

You can't go out and cherry pick fan club or subject sites that support your argument - and then dismiss something that is an official museum just because it doesn't fit your argument.

who do I believe? a US army museum or a vietnam war internet site - gee, hard choice!

I followed your link...

Well, I don't know, but those who served in M551 never knew it as either an MBT or a light tank. The Patton Museum at Ft Knox describes it as XM551_Armored Airborne Reconnaissance Vehicle (AARV Sheridan) and M551 Full Tracked, Armored, Airborne Assault Vehicle, but also describes both the Sherman and the Patton as Medium tanks.

Quite frankly I didn't know Leopard 1 was originally purchased as a medium tank. Interesting that.

 

[FutureTank]

This, and not armour, was seen as the important factor since it was considered impossible to operate very large cannon in a moving tank (after stopping) with any accuracy before WW2. The designations in English were applied by former cavalry officers who had to give away their mounts. Trivial, but true.

Really? According to whom? Guderian was a ex-Transport and Signals. Liddel-Hart was ex-Infantry. Fuller was ex-Infantry. Von Manstein, ex-Infantry. Zhukov, ex-Cavalry. Triandafillov & Pavlov ex-Cavalry. Patton was ex-Cavalry, Bradley, ex-Infantry. I'd suggest that you're over-emphasising the effect of the cavalry mentality on armoured vehicle classifications.
.

"The designations in English were applied by former cavalry officers"

So why bring Liddel-Heart and Fuller into it, never mind non-English speakers?