Australian M1A1 Abrams technology

[gf0012-aust]

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.

Bad sentence on my part - and you obviously didn't notice the sentence immediately afterwards in your enthusiasm to jump in:

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

btw splintex is flechette.... if not, then one of the histories written by a digg who served with 1 RAR at Coral is wrong. I refer:

"At this stage the mortar position was engaged with [SIZE=+0]splintex[/SIZE] by 102 Field Battery. The accuracy of their fire was revealed after the contact. Some enemy had attempted to drag away a complete mortar (which they couldn't dismantle), and their bodies and the mortar were found about five metres from the mortar pit. Several [SIZE=+0]splintex[/SIZE] darts had penetrated the barrel and also about 20% of the ammunition on the mortar line."



and whats with the reference to "again you must understand that what the round's actual designation is,"??

is this meant to be directed at FutureTanks comment about what the proper naming convention is between AP and APers?

I look forward to knowing what I've buggered up in understanding.

 

[Todjaeger]

Two things

It's correct, the Army Tank Plant in Stratford, CT which made the GT engine closed in the early 90s. Since the plant shut down but hasn't been used for anything else since then, I would imagine it could be re-opened if needed, but as GF mentioned, there is quite a surplus of GT engines available.

As for the US Beehive round, IIRC it was the name given to a fletchette round developed by the US during Vietnam. It was for howitzers (105mm towed) to give them a limited direct-fire capability when Charlie came calling. I believe it was called a beehive due to the sound the fletchettes made when fired.

-Cheers

 

[eckherl]

It's correct, the Army Tank Plant in Stratford, CT which made the GT engine closed in the early 90s. Since the plant shut down but hasn't been used for anything else since then, I would imagine it could be re-opened if needed, but as GF mentioned, there is quite a surplus of GT engines available.

As for the US Beehive round, IIRC it was the name given to a fletchette round developed by the US during Vietnam. It was for howitzers (105mm towed) to give them a limited direct-fire capability when Charlie came calling. I believe it was called a beehive due to the sound the fletchettes made when fired.

-Cheers

We also used APERS (Beehive) 105mm tank rounds in South Korea all the way up to 1985. All you had to do was adjust the range in 100meter increments on the round and fire, you could adjust fire by the yellow puff of smoke that it would give off when it detonated.

 

[FutureTank]

Yes. I said that.



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

Well, if the Beehive was a 105mm round, and there were no 105mm equipped M48s in Vietnam, then what was used on the M48s, canister? I wrote from memory, and thought that the APers round used by the M551 was the Beehive, but apparently it was a 152mm canister round.

Thanks Rickshaw

 

[gf0012-aust]

and thought that the APers round used by the M551 was the Beehive, but apparently it was a 152mm canister round.

Thanks Rickshaw

maybe the confusion lies in the fact that splintex/flechettes are encased in a canister - as opposed to the fact that canistershot (ball) is an ord package in its own right.

ie one is a container and the other is the shot.

 

[rickshaw]

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]

I may be incorrect. I may be mistaken but the evidence I have accumulated, appears to support my side of the argument. The Army and its mouthpieces have often gone "on the record" with the most remarkable tosh, when it has suited the Army's purposes. Why should we assume any different. Perhaps the the Chief Transport Inspector of NT might care to explain why roadtrains often have to decouple to cross NT bridges? I note he stated BTW, that the Abrahms will be "able to access their normal training areas in NT" He does not state that all roads will be able to carry these vehicles, which is what you and Army Newspaper are attempting to imply.

 

[rickshaw]

Well, if the Beehive was a 105mm round, and there were no 105mm equipped M48s in Vietnam, then what was used on the M48s, canister? I wrote from memory, and thought that the APers round used by the M551 was the Beehive, but apparently it was a 152mm canister round.

Thanks Rickshaw

In Vietnam:

The M48 fired Cannister, not Beehive.

The Centurion armed with the 20 Pdr fired Cannister, not Beehive.

The 76mm on the FSV fired Cannister not Beehive.

The 105mm Howitzer fired both Cannister and Beehive (the latter superceding the former)

All fired fixed rounds, which were issued as a unitary item.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I may be incorrect. I may be mistaken but the evidence I have accumulated, appears to support my side of the argument. The Army and its mouthpieces have often gone "on the record" with the most remarkable tosh, when it has suited the Army's purposes. Why should we assume any different. Perhaps the the Chief Transport Inspector of NT might care to explain why roadtrains often have to decouple to cross NT bridges? I note he stated BTW, that the Abrahms will be "able to access their normal training areas in NT" He does not state that all roads will be able to carry these vehicles, which is what you and Army Newspaper are attempting to imply.

When did I say the M1 and it's low loaders will be able to travel on "all" roads in NT?

I have no doubt there are MANY places the combo won't be able to go. There are many places in Queensland that "B Doubles" cannot travel, so why would I doubt you on this?

What I doubt is your assertion that Army will find it "difficult" (whatever that may mean exactly) to access it's normal training areas in and OUT of the NT with these vehicles...

As to gathering evidence, I know a bit about that and from what I've seen, I'm un-convinced as to your ability to establish a prima facie case so far, let alone beyond reasonable doubt...

 

[rickshaw]

When did I say the M1 and it's low loaders will be able to travel on "all" roads in NT?

I have no doubt there are MANY places the combo won't be able to go. There are many places in Queensland that "B Doubles" cannot travel, so why would I doubt you on this?

What I doubt is your assertion that Army will find it "difficult" (whatever that may mean exactly) to access it's normal training areas in and OUT of the NT with these vehicles...

Oh, so a attacking enemy will conveniently confine their invasion to the Army's "normal training areas"?

As to gathering evidence, I know a bit about that and from what I've seen, I'm un-convinced as to your ability to establish a prima facie case so far, let alone beyond reasonable doubt...

Each to their own. Who said I was a lawyer? At least though, I can look at a photo and work out whats happening in it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Oh, so a attacking enemy will conveniently confine their invasion to the Army's "normal training areas"?

Each to their own. Who said I was a lawyer? At least though, I can look at a photo and work out whats happening in it.

Ooh, what a cutting retort. Actually I'm more offended that you think I could be a lawyer. I AM working on a law degree, but I haven't sold my soul, quite yet...

As to your flippant remark about "training areas". Of course not, nor will Army confine itself to operating in those areas in wartime (in fact it's unlikely they'd operate in any of them at all).

Would you have Army operate ENTIRELY in peace time as they would in war? Have you physically seen what a number of armoured vehicles, does to an area of bush, when they travel through it? Let alone hundreds, as are operated in 1 Brigade???

Suffice to say I do NOT think the damage is worth it... Your impassable terrain works both ways, as I hope you would know. If ARMY which is familiar with the conditions, as 1 Brigade operating in NT for years now, plainly i, can't manage to maneuvre in the conditions. How well is an invader going to fare???

 

[FutureTank]

maybe the confusion lies in the fact that splintex/flechettes are encased in a canister - as opposed to the fact that canistershot (ball) is an ord package in its own right.

ie one is a container and the other is the shot.

It was all so much simpler at Waterloo

 

[FutureTank]

In Vietnam:

The M48 fired Cannister, not Beehive.

The Centurion armed with the 20 Pdr fired Cannister, not Beehive.

The 76mm on the FSV fired Cannister not Beehive.

The 105mm Howitzer fired both Cannister and Beehive (the latter superceding the former)

All fired fixed rounds, which were issued as a unitary item.

So what was the 152mm M551 round?

 

[FutureTank]

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

I know of a group in UK who do it from a 12lb French Napoleonic cannon. Te only reason they get to do it is because at least one memeber is a master gunner in the Royal Navy. Those things are STILL dangerous.

 

[FutureTank]

I may be incorrect. I may be mistaken but the evidence I have accumulated, appears to support my side of the argument. The Army and its mouthpieces have often gone "on the record" with the most remarkable tosh, when it has suited the Army's purposes. Why should we assume any different. Perhaps the the Chief Transport Inspector of NT might care to explain why roadtrains often have to decouple to cross NT bridges? I note he stated BTW, that the Abrahms will be "able to access their normal training areas in NT" He does not state that all roads will be able to carry these vehicles, which is what you and Army Newspaper are attempting to imply.

Rick,
Everyone can see that you state your argument because you have deep convictions about Australia's Army and its ability to do the job.

Do you trust them in their own conviction to do so?

TANKS GET BOGGED DOWN IN ALL MANNER OF PLACES!
The Internet has numerous images of tanks of all manner coming to grief in the middle of deserts, during exercised in European training areas in all seasons, during their testing, training and executing missions all over the globe, operated by conscripts and professionals alike.

I have no doubt the M1 would not have been purchased if it was incapable of being deployed in the environments the Army expects to operate them in, or deploy them to those environments.

As far as shipping goes, there are vehicles much larger and heavier then M1 getting around Australia, the great minig nation that we are. I'm sure our infrastructure, which needed upgrading regardless, will cope with the tanks well enough.

Unfortunatelly the time to complain about the purchase has past, and even writing to the minister will not stop the procurement from being completed. I for one would be far more interested in discussing the impact of the M1 on design of the LAND 400 platform, and their performance in high fuel cost environment say 20 years from now

 

[rickshaw]

Rick,

Rick is not my name, "rickshaw" was my callsign.

Everyone can see that you state your argument because you have deep convictions about Australia's Army and its ability to do the job.

Do you trust them in their own conviction to do so?

Not really.

TANKS GET BOGGED DOWN IN ALL MANNER OF PLACES!
The Internet has numerous images of tanks of all manner coming to grief in the middle of deserts, during exercised in European training areas in all seasons, during their testing, training and executing missions all over the globe, operated by conscripts and professionals alike.

I have no doubt the M1 would not have been purchased if it was incapable of being deployed in the environments the Army expects to operate them in, or deploy them to those environments.

I have no qualms about the tactical mobility of the M1a1. My qualms are about the stategic mobility of this piece of equipment.

As far as shipping goes, there are vehicles much larger and heavier then M1 getting around Australia, the great minig nation that we are. I'm sure our infrastructure, which needed upgrading regardless, will cope with the tanks well enough.

Mining equipment is usually dissembled to allow it to fit within road/rail limits.

Unfortunatelly the time to complain about the purchase has past, and even writing to the minister will not stop the procurement from being completed. I for one would be far more interested in discussing the impact of the M1 on design of the LAND 400 platform, and their performance in high fuel cost environment say 20 years from now

Oh, I realise that. I complained when it was announced and did write to the Minister. My comments were ignored. Not surprising, really as they ran counter to the perceived wisdom of the establishment. However, I can still make my case here, if I desire, now can't I?

 

[FutureTank]

Rick is not my name, "rickshaw" was my callsign.
However, I can still make my case here, if I desire, now can't I?

Go right ahead 'rickshaw', who are my to stop you

 

[Aussie Digger]

I have no qualms about the tactical mobility of the M1a1. My qualms are about the stategic mobility of this piece of equipment.

Oh, I realise that. I complained when it was announced and did write to the Minister. My comments were ignored. Not surprising, really as they ran counter to the perceived wisdom of the establishment. However, I can still make my case here, if I desire, now can't I?

In my view, the strategic argument is more or less sorted. Deployment options outside Australia, seem to be less of a problem than within.

Maybe it's time 7 Brigade and 3 Brigade swapped locations, to ease your mobility concerns? Or 1 Armd moved to the new Army precinct in SA being created?

I' suppose it's a possibility of happening IF Army encounters the significant problems moving the beasts, you assert they will...

 

[rickshaw]

In my view, the strategic argument is more or less sorted. Deployment options outside Australia, seem to be less of a problem than within.

Not quite true. I wouldn't want to try and operate Abrahms in the Islands.

Maybe it's time 7 Brigade and 3 Brigade swapped locations, to ease your mobility concerns? Or 1 Armd moved to the new Army precinct in SA being created?

Same problems still basically remain. It would be hard to move them pretty much, no matter where they are in Oz.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Not quite true. I wouldn't want to try and operate Abrahms in the Islands.

Same problems still basically remain. It would be hard to move them pretty much, no matter where they are in Oz.

Alright I'll pay that, but the threat level is hardly there either.


Re: "internal" movements, except the "wet" season isn't a problem between Townsville and High Range last time I checked, nor between Townsville and Shoalwater Bay, or even Brisbane and Shoalwater Bay for that matter...

The roads in those places routinely carry "B Doubles" and other massive and heavy "low loaders". The railway lines carry massive Coal trains, that are going to FAR exceed the weight of any armoured vehicle rail move, we could mont and the port access is excellent as is the availability of airlift with C-17's moving to Amberley...

I don't see many problems moving them around Queensland, nor even from Queensland to Pucka if necessary...

 

[old faithful]

have you guys ever been to a remote mine site in either FNQ or the NT? There is some enormous equipment in some very out of the way locations. Im talking about trucks with buckets that you could drive a couple of M1a1s into.Places like Nhullanbuy,Weipa ranger urainium mine come to mind. If we need to get them somewhere,we can. in my buisness we send "tools" to oil rigs, im not talking about spanners.The rigs them selves incoperate big,heavy stuff on`em, and the big heavy stuff comes from factorys....on land,and in Oz. I think that you guys are making a bigger issue out of transporting these vehicles than it really is. Its a bit like the Indian Su30,s "beating" the US f15,s. The NT want the fed gov to build better roads and bridges.same for everyone else. We move massive weights between Dampier in WA to darwin in The NT. The only real problem is the Vic river bridge,and thats only if its underwater.the states just want more $$$from the fed govt for there own coffers.(i dont know how to dissasemble a bucket on one of those huge trucks,my job is to help assemble huge equip for oil rigs, then load trucks,that drive them to sea ports or WA)