Australian M1A1 Abrams technology

[Smythstar]

They dont have the same chassies?

Ok I read somewhere some years ago before the PzH2000 entered service it was going to be based on the Leo II, which would make sense, but if it isnt it isnt and I stand corrected.
Well that throws a spanner in my theory after all having your SPGs and MBTs all running on the same baseline vehicle could be very sensible from a maintance and cost point of view, especially for a small Army like Australias.

Waylander was there a package deal?
I remember there were a couple of rumers going around Pukapunyal 96/97ish that a cheap buy of surplus Dutch Leopard IIa4s was on the cards, (115 for very little cost) so it seems the Europeans dont mind wheeling and dealing.

Also if anyone can confirm ive read several articles to the effect that the Lycoming gas turbine power plant that powers the M1a1 ended production in 1992?
If so are we going to be stuffed for parts or surely we could get another type of newer gas turbine or replace them with Diesels if required?

 

[gf0012-aust]

If so are we going to be stuffed for parts or surely we could get another type of newer gas turbine or replace them with Diesels if required?

Diesel packs are already available.

 

[PETER671BT]

What about your railroad system? Isn't it sufficient to carry the tanks around the most important areas? Or is it not widespread enough?

@PETER671BT
What is the computer multi targeting system you are talking of?
Do you mean hunter/killer-capabilities?

The commander of the looks through he's scope and fine a target,the computer also locks on that targets,the commander can fine up to 6-8 targets or more per minute.The computer tracks the targets while commanders looks for new targets.THen the gunner just as to press a button.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The rail system is relatively limited in scope. It has been degraded over the last 20 years as its been rundown. There is also a "break of gauge" problem between the states - although is less of a problem noadays - it is possible to send one train, on one gauge around the coast now from Brisbane to Perth whereas it used to require two/three changes of gauge, it still exists away from the mainlines which have now been mainly convered to standard gauge. The main north-south line, between Darwin and Adelaide was apparently built without consideration of the transport of items as heavy as an MBT (despite defence applications being one of the main justifications for it finally being completed in 2004). Apparently the roadbed and railway sleepers are not strong enough to carry the peak axle loading.

The Leopards have been transported via the railway network from Darwin to SA, along with ASLAV and M113 on any number of occasions.

An article from Army Newspaper in 2004 talks about the issue, and shows a photo of Leopard AS1 AND an M113 (around about 61 tons combined) being loaded onto the same wagon.

Check it out:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1094/topstories/story10.htm

It was also discussed in March 2006:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1139/topstories/story14.htm

 

[PETER671BT]

The new tank that usa is developing has even more advanced with some kind of laser technology,but I STILL TRYING TO TRACK THE NAME OF TANK.I don't think it's been named yet.

 

[rickshaw]

Diesel packs are already available.

Yes, however unless the US Army goes to diesel, which they have already ruled out, we won't, as it would make our M1s completely dissimilar to everybody else's M1s. As the major reason why we adopted the M1 was the large installed base of US Army M1s, which was to provide a large spare parts reserve compared to the Leopard 2, adopting a diesel pack would completely negate that gem of sophistry.

 

[rickshaw]

The Leopards have been transported via the railway network from Darwin to SA, along with ASLAV and M113 on any number of occasions.

An article from Army Newspaper in 2004 talks about the issue, and shows a photo of Leopard AS1 AND an M113 (around about 61 tons combined) being loaded onto the same wagon.

Check it out:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1094/topstories/story10.htm

It was also discussed in March 2006:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1139/topstories/story14.htm

If you're referring to the photos in the first article, neither show a Leopard and an M113 on the same flat truck.

In the second, no mention is made of loading Leopards and M113s on the same flat truck.

Again I refer you to the published comments of the company operating the Ghan line (can't remember if the spokesman was from AustralAsia Rail Corporation, the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium or FreightLink) in the Advertiser.

The ABS tells us that the axle loading limit on the Ghan line is 23 tonnes - http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]!OpenDocument

According to testimony provided to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services on 14 Jun'06:

CHAIR—Does the axle load thing start at Tarcoola or does it start at Adelaide? What is your axle load rating through to Darwin?

Mr Fullerton—On the Alice Springs to Darwin section we can operate at 23 tonnes at 115 kilometres an hour. I think on the ARTC network it is only 21 tonnes. I think that is limited by the 47 kilogram rail that they have on the corridor. When the line was constructed it was built pretty much to the interstate standard. You can operate locomotives and wagons from Brisbane to Darwin, from Perth to Darwin and from Adelaide to Darwin, across the corridor.

 

[FutureTank]

and yet when one of the museum caretakers takes you for a walk - he specifically says light tank as per the 2 designations I've previously mentioned.

One of the australian assessments of the sheridan when we were dicking around with post centurion replacement also refers to a sheridan M551 Sheridan Light Armored Reconnaissance Tank, and I've seen numerous references to it being an Air Assault Light Tank.

Its never been an MBT - its certainly been a light tank through various stages of its life.

medium battle tanks aren't LAPED out the backside of a transport - light tanks are...

I think I am going to give this thread away as it proves nothing. Given the M551 never engaged other tanks (unless I am mistaken here also), it can only be refered to by the role it fulfilled in combat, which is a recon vehicle with a bloody big gun

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, however unless the US Army goes to diesel, which they have already ruled out, we won't, as it would make our M1s completely dissimilar to everybody else's M1s. As the major reason why we adopted the M1 was the large installed base of US Army M1s, which was to provide a large spare parts reserve compared to the Leopard 2, adopting a diesel pack would completely negate that gem of sophistry.

??? smythstar made the following comment:
If so are we going to be stuffed for parts or surely we could get another type of newer gas turbine or replace them with Diesels if required?


my answer albeit brief, was a confirmation that diesel packs were already an option - (and in fact were submitted as part of the initial offer. The diesel pack is referred to as "the euro pack" .)

I'm not sure what sophistry is involved here - the answer was not a promotion of intent, and politics was not entered into.

The fact of the matter is that the Europack was actually developed as a potential replacement to the AGT 1500. That was due to a number of reasons:

• That technology was perfected in the late 1960s and has not been upgraded to keep up with advances in the commercial sector.
• The last new AGT 1500 was delivered in 1992.
• The newer versions of the Abrams, the M1A2 AIM and M1A2 XXI, use overhauled engines.
• The AGT was the only successful application of a turbine engine in a military ground vehicle. In all other systems, the Army has converted to diesel engines.
• Savings expected from a new engine (Europack) would stem from improvements in various categories, such as fuel consumption, number of parts and mean time between repairs.
• A common diesel engine (ie, a 1,500 horsepower CV-12 Caterpillar Perkins diesel, paired with an HMPT transmission made by General Dynamics Land Systems) would result in efficiencies ranging from lower development costs, economies of scale on the production line, fewer spares to stock and manage, shared costs for tools and diagnostics, and common training skills. (This from their own program manager)
• It would also result in a standard depot repair line.

US Army believed that the "overall logistics footprint would be reduced for both systems," (Michitsch briefing).

The bottom line however was that with the abandonment of Crusader, the imperatives for replacing the AGT with a diesel as part of major overhaul lost its shine.

Ironically, theres probably some evidence that the failure to go to diesel was due to the euthenasing of Crusader. The US is now stuck with an orphan engine in their supply chain (and ipso facto, so is Oz).

Thank goodness there are 12,000 engines in the pool.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think I am going to give this thread away as it proves nothing.

au contraire. my involvement was because you indicated that the M551 was never a light tank by definition in any US official docs. All I've done is hilight that it was, and that it exists in some FM's as well as Janes (better and far more robust validators than a google search)

Given the M551 never engaged other tanks (unless I am mistaken here also), it can only be refered to by the role it fulfilled in combat, which is a recon vehicle with a bloody big gun

the few american tankers I know (2 in total) thought that it was a piece of scatalogical material on tracks.

Its most useful role has been to wear body panels and pretend to be either a t-80 or a ZSU-23 flak tank. If it had gone to war against the soviets they would have died laughing and probably caused a traffic jam at the fulda gap.

 

[FutureTank]

Next 50 years

Hi all.
One thing that suprisingly stood out 'To me' about this robust discussion so far is the vital importance of Australia getting a credible IFV like the CV9035, Puma or similar, something that could stand in for heavy armour during local tropical and Afghan style fly in deployments.

I agree we need heavy armour although my personal choice would have been Leo2A5/A6s (same chassis/driveline etc as the PzH2000) and twice the number.
However during the the above discussion and the many pearls of wizdom being tossed around I realised just how big the hole is in our capability.
Where we have a hole in our capability we risk lives and already we are seeing the Bushmaster (great B ech vehicle and battle cab) being pushed towards roles it wasn't really designed for.

We probably need to put the 50 year old aluminum bucket out of its misory
and look at getting something credible soon not in 2015 or 2020, this will save us lives and money in the long run with AFVs being easily deployed in the region and doing nearly as good a job as a tank but also complimenting the heavy armoured element if the sh-t hits the fan in a major way anywhere close or anywhere we 'HAVE' to attend for political reasons.

I wrote this with the US DoD in mind, but it applies to Australia also in many ways.
A look to the future...

The next 50 years will see armies go to alterantive fuels that may or may not provide the PTW ratios of fossil fuels and combustion engines, so the designs will need to be smarter in other ways to compensate for this.

Given the relationship between major oil producers and the Developed world, it is likely that the later will be the first to abandone fossil fuels, and this has already started with public transport.

In fact its the combustion revolution in reverse. Combustion engines were first adopted for luxury private transportation (and we have that already with hybrids), and then by the public transport. Military was next with gun tractors, and the heavier lorries, and then it was Ford's turn.

I think this process will repeat itself in same order. Luxury (or at least more expensive) private hybrid cars are already on sale, and many public transport authorities are converting to hybrid power-packs. The heavier military vehicles will be next, and I know there are significant efforts by various DoD commands and laboratories to find solutions.

Then I expect some sort of a minor advance in technology, like a super-cheap super efficient battery, to make combustion engines obsolete over a short period of time. This will in turn make domestic oil refineries uneconomic and even military fuels will go up in price so dramatically that DoD may have to turn to owning its own production to ensure supply.

The Air force will have a hard time keeping its aircraft flying, and will likely start converting to lighter aircraft models with much shorter ranges armed with glider missiles that stay up for a long time before engaging targets.

The Navy will begin to convert to a much smaller all nuclear fleet, and carriers will be converted to veritable floating batteries of VLSM tubes by the hundreds, retaining only a few aircraft to manage the payload targeting.

Comments?

Cheers

Admin: As much as we appreciate your enthusiasm, the majority of the above has little to do with the thread topic. Feel free to open it up in a new thread topic though.

 

[rickshaw]

I'm not sure what sophistry is involved here - the answer was not a promotion of intent, and politics was not entered into.

I was not referring to your comment as "sophistry" and I apologise if you misunderstood my comment in such a way. I was referring to the reasoning provided by the Army as to why the M1a1 was preferred over the Leopard 2.

 

[FutureTank]

In light of the fact that you want to quote FM's for validation -refer to FM 10-515: (In a game of technical accuracy poker - the FM manual beats the internet and a museum every time.... )


M551 Light Tank

Yeh you smart Alec...you forgot to show the manual title
AIRDROP OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT: RIGGING ARMORED RECONNAISSANCE/AIRBORNE ASSAULT VEHICLE (M551)

I'm giving this away AGAIN. It seems there was/is some confusion in US Army on tank classification. I have too much to do to spend time on this.

 

[FutureTank]

I wrote this with the US DoD in mind, but it applies to Australia also in many ways.
A look to the future...

The next 50 years will see armies go to alterantive fuels that may or may not provide the PTW ratios of fossil fuels and combustion engines, so the designs will need to be smarter in other ways to compensate for this.

Given the relationship between major oil producers and the Developed world, it is likely that the later will be the first to abandone fossil fuels, and this has already started with public transport.

In fact its the combustion revolution in reverse. Combustion engines were first adopted for luxury private transportation (and we have that already with hybrids), and then by the public transport. Military was next with gun tractors, and the heavier lorries, and then it was Ford's turn.

I think this process will repeat itself in same order. Luxury (or at least more expensive) private hybrid cars are already on sale, and many public transport authorities are converting to hybrid power-packs. The heavier military vehicles will be next, and I know there are significant efforts by various DoD commands and laboratories to find solutions.

Then I expect some sort of a minor advance in technology, like a super-cheap super efficient battery, to make combustion engines obsolete over a short period of time. This will in turn make domestic oil refineries uneconomic and even military fuels will go up in price so dramatically that DoD may have to turn to owning its own production to ensure supply.

The Air force will have a hard time keeping its aircraft flying, and will likely start converting to lighter aircraft models with much shorter ranges armed with glider missiles that stay up for a long time before engaging targets.

The Navy will begin to convert to a much smaller all nuclear fleet, and carriers will be converted to veritable floating batteries of VLSM tubes by the hundreds, retaining only a few aircraft to manage the payload targeting.

Comments?

Cheers

Admin: As much as we appreciate your enthusiasm, the majority of the above has little to do with the thread topic. Feel free to open it up in a new thread topic though.

Yes, I had second thoughts, but wasn't quite sure where to put it...and I don;t need rude suggestions either
However, fuel prices are going to affect ADF vehicle fleets also...in all Services.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I was not referring to your comment as "sophistry" and I apologise if you misunderstood my comment in such a way. I was referring to the reasoning provided by the Army as to why the M1a1 was preferred over the Leopard 2.

no probs, just another typical comms problem on the forum...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yeh you smart Alec...you forgot to show the manual title
AIRDROP OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT: RIGGING ARMORED RECONNAISSANCE/AIRBORNE ASSAULT VEHICLE (M551)

I'm giving this away AGAIN. It seems there was/is some confusion in US Army on tank classification. I have too much to do to spend time on this.

but pedantry is the oxygen of robust debate... there's so much more to discuss.... :nutkick

 

[FutureTank]

au contraire. my involvement was because you indicated that the M551 was never a light tank by definition in any US official docs. All I've done is hilight that it was, and that it exists in some FM's as well as Janes (better and far more robust validators than a google search)



the few american tankers I know (2 in total) thought that it was a piece of scatalogical material on tracks.

Its most useful role has been to wear body panels and pretend to be either a t-80 or a ZSU-23 flak tank. If it had gone to war against the soviets they would have died laughing and probably caused a traffic jam at the fulda gap.

Well, it seems the original question was on how to classify AFVs: by weight, weapon, manoeuvrability or actual function.
I had spoken to three US tankers in other forums with two being crew on M551 in Vietnam. They would agree with your assessment of it as a tank. Despite the effect of its AP round on enemy and vegitation, the M48 was still prefered.

In any case, the question was not resolved. The M1 is a main battle tank now. Is there an existing weight classification rating in ADF aside from the load classification?

 

[gf0012-aust]

They would agree with your assessment of it as a tank. Despite the effect of its AP round on enemy and vegitation, the M48 was still prefered.

wtf? AP on vegetation? the one big lesson that we gave the americans in vietnam was that you use cannister on the green bits...

In any case, the question was not resolved. The M1 is a main battle tank now. Is there an existing weight classification rating in ADF aside from the load classification?

don't know. I can ask a loggie I know - but what specifically is your question about weight classifications, is it haulage issues or platform classification issues?

 

[FutureTank]

The Russians have long employed ATGW vehicles, as I understand it, as flank guards and overwatch vehicles. Where the visibility is suitable, they can pick off targets at ranges exceeding that of MBT guns. Their armour allows them usually to survive the initial response.

his has not been the case for some time. No new dedicated ATGW platform has appeared in Soviet Union since the early 80s and even that was a minor mobility and generation upgrade.

However new towed AT guns are being introduced into the Russian Army which are also 125mm, though I'm not aware of plans to use ATGWs with them.

I think Australia has been one of the few developed countries that had not adopted dedicated armoured ATGW platforms within its unit structures during the Cold War.

 

[FutureTank]

but pedantry is the oxygen of robust debate... there's so much more to discuss.... :nutkick

I hope you have fun...all by your self

To me the question is a serious one.
The M551 design, even if its missile guidance worked, seems to be flawed on several levels, most of all in the light tank role as I understand it based on the time when light tanks were a functional part of how armoured forces operated.

What is important to me, is how classification affects decisions made in ADF and the Army in particular in making major equipment purchases. I can accept the utility of the M1 NOW, but the future for operating heavy tanks does not look good, and come 2025 there will be a questionmark over M1 remaining a viable part of the Army's fleet with advent of the LAND 400 based DF AT platform.