Australian M1A1 Abrams technology

[rickshaw]

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.

BMP-3 Kornet-E was adopted in the early 1990s, FutureTank. Thats both a new platform and a new missile.

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.

Their role is defensive, rather than offensive.

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.

Well, actually, we did with the Malkara. However we then abandoned the concept when we decided that we wanted to exclusive play Forward Defence in the jungles of SE Asia where no massed armoured threat existed, so hence did not need such vehicles.

 

[FutureTank]

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

Was it called cannister? I can't rememeber. Many people call it flechette, but I don;t think that was the actual round name.

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?

The later.

 

[gf0012-aust]

To me the question is a serious one.

who says it isn't? equally the question can only be seriously attended to if the definitions are all as clear - confusion about standards leads to confusion about doctrine - and certainly leads to disconnects about capability ergo relevance.

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.

Its the grandaddy of LAHAT based delivery. whats wrong with LAHAT? Its not for everyone, but its OK for some. Its all an issue of relevance. Current gen light/medium/main battle tanks are all LOS platforms or linear weaps delivery platforms. PGM from the barrel were positively archaic tech in the 70's. the same tech today can offer a bit more accuracy and a bit more flexibility. NLOS is probably a better and more flexible capability, but thats been shunted for the moment.

again - its doctrine, use and relevance.

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.

In 25 years time the ANZACS will be ready for the knackery as well - so whats the issue? Any platform at 25 years has probably transitioned through a generational change in doctrine. Tanks went through a partial doctrine change in 1991 - there's no reason as to why they can't go through another change in relevance

capability is about relevance married to doctrine and force structure. who's to say that in 2032 that tanks are NLOS/VLS with far more co-op control than is even remotely possible now?

for years people have been predicting the end of the tank, O'Dwyer was predicting the end of the machine gun as we know it, LeMay was predicting the end of rockets over manned bombers, the poms were predicting the end of manned aircraft over missiles etc etc... all have been grossly wrong and somewhat cavalier in their assessment of the end of a particular platform cycle.

I don't see tanks dying, I see them evolving into different denial weapons - and still potential intruders for the force de main.

assets don't necessarily die, they evolve within the system. looking at platforms in isolation as far as I'm concerned is loading the bases for a preferred outcome.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Was it called cannister? I can't rememeber. Many people call it flechette, but I don;t think that was the actual round name.

actually I thought that the americans and Oz called it cannister, the poms call it flechette.

I had a book written by a blackhat digg in VN, he certainly refers to it as cannister when describing clearing the jungle.

Cannister and Flechette are also different. the former being ball or pellets, the latter being darts (after the French where it comes from)

 

[FutureTank]

who says it isn't? equally the question can only be seriously attended to if the definitions are all as clear - confusion about standards leads to confusion about doctrine - and certainly leads to disconnects about capability ergo relevance.



Its the grandaddy of LAHAT based delivery. whats wrong with LAHAT? Its not for everyone, but its OK for some. Its all an issue of relevance. Current gen light/medium/main battle tanks are all LOS platforms or linear weaps delivery platforms. PGM from the barrel were positively archaic tech in the 70's. the same tech today can offer a bit more accuracy and a bit more flexibility. NLOS is probably a better and more flexible capability, but thats been shunted for the moment.

again - its doctrine, use and relevance.



In 25 years time the ANZACS will be ready for the knackery as well - so whats the issue? Any platform at 25 years has probably transitioned through a generational change in doctrine. Tanks went through a partial doctrine change in 1991 - there's no reason as to why they can't go through another change in relevance

capability is about relevance married to doctrine and force structure. who's to say that in 2032 that tanks are NLOS/VLS with far more co-op control than is even remotely possible now?

for years people have been predicting the end of the tank, O'Dwyer was predicting the end of the machine gun as we know it, LeMay was predicting the end of rockets over manned bombers, the poms were predicting the end of manned aircraft over missiles etc etc... all have been grossly wrong and somewhat cavalier in their assessment of the end of a particular platform cycle.

I don't see tanks dying, I see them evolving into different denial weapons - and still potential intruders for the force de main.

assets don't necessarily die, they evolve within the system. looking at platforms in isolation as far as I'm concerned is loading the bases for a preferred outcome.

I think most people serious about Australian defence capability think this, but we don't have til 2032 or even 2025 to wait. The delivery of LAND 400 is slated for 2015 (Phase 1), and given developmental timelines elsewhere in allied countries, it seems to me the time for serious discussion is now to build the understanding of concepts on which the design is to be based and doctrine it is to be used with. People are all excited about the M1, but M1 is but a support platform for the LAND 400 fleet whcih will be, aside from ASLAV the first modern IFV for the Army.

 

[Aussie Digger]

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]/90a12181d877a6a6ca2568b5007b861c/5f1625bd3fed3230ca256f7200833048!OpenDocument

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

In that case, I suggest you look again at those photo's mate. The 2nd photo from the first link clearly shows a Leopard AS1 being loaded onto the same truck as an M113A1 (by crane).

The axle weight may indeed be 23 tonnes, but (please correct me if I'm wrong), are there not at least 4 axles per truck? (Meaning a 92 ton limit per truck, according to my math)?

I am no expert in rolling stock or weight limits on railways, but the very first photo shows multiple vehicle configurations including 2 and 3 vehicles per truck, with combinations of M113's and ASLAV's. 3x M113 or ASLAV vehicles on the same truck, would easily breach a 23ton limit, each weighing around 12-13tons, depending on configuration...

 

[FutureTank]

BMP-3 Kornet-E was adopted in the early 1990s, FutureTank. Thats both a new platform and a new missile.



Their role is defensive, rather than offensive.



Well, actually, we did with the Malkara. However we then abandoned the concept when we decided that we wanted to exclusive play Forward Defence in the jungles of SE Asia where no massed armoured threat existed, so hence did not need such vehicles.

BMP-3 mounting Kornet-E was first demonstrated in 1994. A platform with twin mounts has been exported, but has not been adopted for service with the Russian Army.

The towed AT guns are supplied to the airborne units in the first instance, so clearly for offensive use. Just because they are towed does not mean they are defensive weapons.

 

[rickshaw]

Was it called cannister? I can't rememeber. Many people call it flechette, but I don;t think that was the actual round name.
The later.

You used the abbreviation "AP" which normally stands for Armour-Piercing. Anti-Personnel rounds are usually abbreviated as "APers". APers rounds are usually cannister or what the US Army calls "beehive" or the British "Splintex" Cannister consists of an overgrown shotgun, like shell, containing a large number of ball-bearings which are ejected from the muzzle in a fan-shaped pattern. "Beehive" or "Splintex" is similar to the old-style Shrapnel shell (named after General Henry Shrapnel of the British army in about 1780) in that it has a time fuse which can be set to explode the shell a set distance from the muzzle, ejecting a large number of small darts or splinters in a fan shape from the nose of the shell.

Flechette rounds were something different again. Similar to cannister but instead of ball bearings, they consisted of a group of small darts which were held together by a frangible band. When fired, the band broke and the darts exited the muzzle in basically a slightly fanned pattern. In Vietnam, IIRC only the 40mm Grenade Launcher had a Flechette round.

 

[FutureTank]

You used the abbreviation "AP" which normally stands for Armour-Piercing. Anti-Personnel rounds are usually abbreviated as "APers". APers rounds are usually cannister or what the US Army calls "beehive" or the British "Splintex" Cannister consists of an overgrown shotgun, like shell, containing a large number of ball-bearings which are ejected from the muzzle in a fan-shaped pattern. "Beehive" or "Splintex" is similar to the old-style Shrapnel shell (named after General Henry Shrapnel of the British army in about 1780) in that it has a time fuse which can be set to explode the shell a set distance from the muzzle, ejecting a large number of small darts or splinters in a fan shape from the nose of the shell.

Flechette rounds were something different again. Similar to cannister instead of ball bearings, they consisted of a group of small darts which were held together by a frangible band. When fired, the band broke and the darts exited the muzzle in basically a slightly fanned pattern. In Vietnam, IIRC only the 40mm Grenade Launcher had a Flechette round.

Wasn't Beehive and Canister different rounds?
Clearly I refered to Anti-Personnel since M551 didn't have an AP round, or a target to use it on.

 

[old faithful]

Gf,absolutely correct regarding canister and flechette. I remember reading something about canister at Binh Bah, and have seen thousands of flechettes in trees around pucka.They are about 5-6cm long, about 1.5 -2 mm thick with fixed fins on one end and a rapier sharp point on the other.Canister rounds also are availible (on paper) in 40mm for M203 etc,although ive never seen them.Like a huge shot gun. Think Napoleon,s 12 pounders made good use of canister. Like a jam tin filled with musket balls,and still very relevent today against infantry in light cover. Dont know if its availible in 155,105 or 120mm rounds. Flettchetes are fired from a sabot type round, and there are thousands of the buggers in every sabot!

 

[rickshaw]

In that case, I suggest you look again at those photo's mate. The 2nd photo from the first link clearly shows a Leopard AS1 being loaded onto the same truck as an M113A1 (by crane).

Actually, it doesn't. The M113 to the left of the photo is on one truck and the Leopard, suspended in mid-air is being loaded onto another truck to the right of the photo. The coupling between the two trucks is clearly in the centre of the photo.

The axle weight may indeed be 23 tonnes, but (please correct me if I'm wrong), are there not at least 4 axles per truck? (Meaning a 92 ton limit per truck, according to my math)?

Axle loading consists of more than just simply dividing a load by the number of axles. This wikipedia article provides some insight into its determination and effects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axle_load

I am no expert in rolling stock or weight limits on railways, but the very first photo shows multiple vehicle configurations including 2 and 3 vehicles per truck, with combinations of M113's and ASLAV's. 3x M113 or ASLAV vehicles on the same truck, would easily breach a 23ton limit, each weighing around 12-13tons, depending on configuration...

See above. Three vehicles of a maxium of 13 tons comes to 39 tons in my reckoning - substantially less than the 61 of an M1a1. A Leopard 1 is approximate 41 tons, not substantially more than the three APCs you mention. The number of axles appear to make it possible to carry that weight, on those flat trucks. You, or someone else mentioned they were intending to purchase new trucks to carry the M1a1s. My question is how will the overcome the other limitations imposed by the rail weight, the sleepers and the road ballast?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Gf,absolutely correct regarding canister and flechette. I remember reading something about canister at Binh Bah, and have seen thousands of flechettes in trees around pucka.They are about 5-6cm long, about 1.5 -2 mm thick with fixed fins on one end and a rapier sharp point on the other.Canister rounds also are availible (on paper) in 40mm for M203 etc,although ive never seen them.Like a huge shot gun. Think Napoleon,s 12 pounders made good use of canister. Like a jam tin filled with musket balls,and still very relevent today against infantry in light cover. Dont know if its availible in 155,105 or 120mm rounds. Flettchetes are fired from a sabot type round, and there are thousands of the buggers in every sabot!

Canister is certainly available in 120mm tank ammunition today and Australia is acquiring it for it's M1A1 fleet, I believe.

IN any case here is a description of such a round:

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M1028,,00.html

Very nasty indeed...

 

[rickshaw]

Wasn't Beehive and Canister different rounds?

Yes. I said that.

Clearly I refered to Anti-Personnel since M551 didn't have an AP round, or a target to use it on.

It had a HEAT, HE, and IIRC cannister. It might have had a Beehive round developed for it but I don't recall so.

 

[rickshaw]

actually I thought that the americans and Oz called it cannister, the poms call it flechette.

No, again you must understand that what the round's actual designation is, as against what the serving members by know it as, might be very different things.

I've seen Splintex referred to as Cannister and Splintex by Australian AFV crews.

 

[old faithful]

No, again you must understand that what the round's actual designation is, as against what the serving members by know it as, might be very different things.

I've seen Splintex referred to as Cannister and Splintex by Australian AFV crews.

ahh splintex is flechette. Canister is ball bearings. Well thats how it was described in the 80,s and 90,s in the ADF.

 

[old faithful]

Canister is certainly available in 120mm tank ammunition today and Australia is acquiring it for it's M1A1 fleet, I believe.

IN any case here is a description of such a round:

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M1028,,00.html

Very nasty indeed...

good one AD,pic says a thounand words...or balls! Good to see we are getting it. I actually have a fair bit of faith in the guys from procurement, they generally get things right...eventually. Thats why im not to worried about the JSF project. Would like to see us get some more M1,s though,or at least upgrade and hand over the Leo,s to A res.

 

[Wooki]

canister

Hey OF,

I have actually seen canister fired from a civil war canon. It is devistating to say the least. Consisted of tube containing .50 cal and I think .72 caliber balls, and you could load two canisters into one shot (yikes).

Nothing left of the targets and a good way to turn earth up to plant your veggies and stuff.

cheers

w

 

[Aussie Digger]

Axle loading consists of more than just simply dividing a load by the number of axles. This wikipedia article provides some insight into its determination and effects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axle_load


See above. Three vehicles of a maxium of 13 tons comes to 39 tons in my reckoning - substantially less than the 61 of an M1a1. A Leopard 1 is approximate 41 tons, not substantially more than the three APCs you mention. The number of axles appear to make it possible to carry that weight, on those flat trucks. You, or someone else mentioned they were intending to purchase new trucks to carry the M1a1s. My question is how will the overcome the other limitations imposed by the rail weight, the sleepers and the road ballast?

But still significantly heavier than the 23 tonnes you quoted.

The whole " Australian ability to transport M1A1's" argument is starting to become a bit of a "chicken and the egg" story, so I'll simply finish with 1 more quote from Army Newspaper:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In addition to providing rail transportation in the future for the armoured vehicles, the Chief Transport Inspector of NT has assured Army that the HTTs and their cargo will be able to access their normal training areas in NT. The weight restrictions on NT bridges are based on axle weight, not total weight, which places a fully loaded HTT well under the limits.

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1153/features/feature01.htm

You can choose to believe Army or not obviously and so can I. I can NOT imagine Army going on the public record and quoting advice given to them by public figure of another Government Agency and then "making it up" to suit their purposes...

Furthermore I have no doubt that any significant limitations in Army's ability to transport it's vehicles in Darwin will be widely reported. At that point, should it eventuate, I'll be happy to declare you the "winner"...
[/FONT]

 

[old faithful]

Hey OF,

I have actually seen canister fired from a civil war canon. It is devistating to say the least. Consisted of tube containing .50 cal and I think .72 caliber balls, and you could load two canisters into one shot (yikes).

Nothing left of the targets and a good way to turn earth up to plant your veggies and stuff.

cheers

w

ha ha! never considered it for the garden...watch the militant hippys at civil war auctions! .72 cal balls sound a little scary! where have you been mate?

 

[Waylander]

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.

I never heard of something like that.
I think what you mean is the normal hunter killer capability of a tank with an independent commanders periscope. This has been for example on the Leo II from the beginning and with M1A2 it has also been introduced to the Abrams (Does the M1A1 AIM also have a periscope?).
It works like this. The Commander identifies a target with his periscope and when the gunner is finishes with his target the commander let the gunners sight (With the slaved gun) automatically switch onto his target. While the gunner is engaging the new target the commander can search for a new one. This helps reducing the target aquisition time.

What you describe would not work because both optics are in use and it would need one computer controlled autotracking sight for every! target you want to track.