Australian M1A1 Abrams technology

[Wooki]

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)

Now that wins the "post of the year" award from me Old Faithful...and its only January!

With regard to the actual tech: I think the only mods that you need to plan for in the future on the Kangaroo M1 is the powerpack, track mods, and eventually a situation awareness suite upgrade. But all of these are way in the future...

I think I have said it before, but the L55 120 would have been good to retrofit before buying... but no one seemed to really mind, or care at the time and now you have them, right?

Really, if you want to kill things in a tank you need to know where the other guy is before he figures out where you are. So the above reflects tech upgrades to extend that kill zone... If the Oz army continues with its networking initiatives then that kill zone (for it's m1's) will just grow bigger without too much effort expended upon the actual platform itself.

cheers

w

 

[FutureTank]

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.

Yep, bring them back to Randwick, the original home of Armour

 

[FutureTank]

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)

Actually this is a very old argument faced by Sir John Monash as aa civil engineer and a sometime artillery officer
He is credited for bringing reinforced concrete to Australia for bridge building. One argument was that Australia would need the rail bridges strenghened to move the massive artillery pieces around to ward off invasions, particularly in and around Victoria

 

[FutureTank]

M1a1 Technology

I just wanted to remind this thread that much of the M1 technology is to enable it to be a part of the Army, not operate on its own!
The doctrine, as I understand it, is to use lighter units to 'fix' the enemy and then destroy them using tanks. M1 crews would therefore NOT be dashing around the top end looking for insurgents

 

[old faithful]

I just wanted to remind this thread that much of the M1 technology is to enable it to be a part of the Army, not operate on its own!
The doctrine, as I understand it, is to use lighter units to 'fix' the enemy and then destroy them using tanks. M1 crews would therefore NOT be dashing around the top end looking for insurgents

I agree ...to a point.I dont think the Abrams were bought with the "defence" of Aust in mind,rather add a more punch to our co-elition forces. The numbers would suggest a deployable force which our logistics can sustain. Further, the equipment is readily availible from our task force partners on site.

 

[Tasman]

I agree ...to a point.I dont think the Abrams were bought with the "defence" of Aust in mind,rather add a more punch to our co-elition forces. The numbers would suggest a deployable force which our logistics can sustain. Further, the equipment is readily availible from our task force partners on site.

That is also my reading of the reason for buying the M1A1. While it obviously provides a useful home defence asset I believe that the ability for an Australian force to work in easily with a US led force in the Middle East or elsewhere is the biggest advantage in the choice of this tank.

 

[FutureTank]

Do M1 capabilities change in any way how Australian infantry operate with tanks, and if so, how does it impact on the vehicles used by the infantry and other Arms and Services?

 

[old faithful]

I dont think it will,we had our M1,s modified to suit us, including an infantry tank ph, so grunts can talk directly to to the crew comd. This is old tech and very handy. It cuts out a lot of unnessasary RTP to quickly get a point across as well as not tying up the radio net. Dont know if our old FJ113,s will keep up though!

 

[Simon9]

I agree, I think they are changing the tank to fit the infantry doctrine, not the doctrine to fit the tank. The problem with the Leopard was that it really needed an infantry screen to keep away RPGs and so on. The M1A1 could theoretically act more independently, but the addition of an infantry phone suggests its basic role, when cooperating with infantry, will still be as mobile infantry support.

 

[FutureTank]

Dont know if our old FJ113,s will keep up though!

Actually although I haven't served in the Army, from speaking with those who did, in Australian and other armies, it appears that speeds of over 35km/h are rarely used by IFVs off road. Are speeds over 67km/h (M113AS4 advertised top speed) ever used in battle conditions?

 

[FutureTank]

The M1A1 could theoretically act more independently, but the addition of an infantry phone suggests its basic role, when cooperating with infantry, will still be as mobile infantry support.

This is why I suggested retaining the Leopard 1 turret on a new 'lighter' chassis, and copped a lot of 'flack' for it

 

[old faithful]

Actually although I haven't served in the Army, from speaking with those who did, in Australian and other armies, it appears that speeds of over 35km/h are rarely used by IFVs off road. Are speeds over 67km/h (M113AS4 advertised top speed) ever used in battle conditions?

Not sure how fast they will actually need to be, was refering to the age of the hull,s...bit tounge in cheek really. As for retaining the Leo,s turret, i wouldnt be upset if the Leo 1,s were transfered to a reseve unit,and kept in service. The hours would be down,increasing their usefull life.Im sure ill come under fire for the suggestion,but say keep a reserve squadron operational, and rotate the vehicles through for another 10-15 years.:unknown

 

[Simon9]

Actually although I haven't served in the Army, from speaking with those who did, in Australian and other armies, it appears that speeds of over 35km/h are rarely used by IFVs off road. Are speeds over 67km/h (M113AS4 advertised top speed) ever used in battle conditions?

I don't even want to THINK about being in an M113 doing 67km/h offroad. There would be casualties, let's just put it that way. nfloorl: There is a reason the Army requires all infantry riding in M113s to wear helmets.

So yes, I'd say you're right, about 40km/h would be the top offroad speed under normal conditions, reserving 67km/h for absolute emergencies. If the M113 bumped into an MBT and was trying to get away, the driver would certainly have the foot to the floor, and worry about the chiropractic bills later.

As for the Leos, I'm with old faithful, I'd like to see the best of the hulls kept (turret attached) as a dedicated infantry support tank, possibly with an applique armour kit like the Canadian Leos. With the new range of 105 ammo they can take out anything short of a modern MBT, and I suspect they'd even knock out one of those fairly easily from close range at the side or rear. The other units could be kept for spares. They are old but they are FAR from obsolete. Give them to a Reserve squadron if need be. But if the Israelis are still using Centurions and T-55s as Achzarits I refuse to believe we can't keep the Leopards.

 

[rickshaw]

That is also my reading of the reason for buying the M1A1. While it obviously provides a useful home defence asset I believe that the ability for an Australian force to work in easily with a US led force in the Middle East or elsewhere is the biggest advantage in the choice of this tank.

Depends if you see that as an advantage. Personally, I believe its a disadvantage. I suspect the younger generation has forgotten the lessons learnt in Vietnam of the dangers of being too closely allied to the Americans.

 

[rickshaw]

Actually although I haven't served in the Army, from speaking with those who did, in Australian and other armies, it appears that speeds of over 35km/h are rarely used by IFVs off road. Are speeds over 67km/h (M113AS4 advertised top speed) ever used in battle conditions?

Rarely. Such speeds aren't sustainable usually. They may look spectacular but are more often used to get to and from engagements, rather than during them.

 

[FutureTank]

Rarely. Such speeds aren't sustainable usually. They may look spectacular but are more often used to get to and from engagements, rather than during them.

Someone told me he went over 40km/h at Shoalhaven in late 80s and got severely reprimanded by RSM later who was apparently watching from another vehicle about 500m away. No injuries, but it was a bumpy ride.

BTW, does anyone know if we ever had M113 AVLB variant? (Even a borrowed one in Vietnam)

 

[FutureTank]

As for the Leos, I'm with old faithful, I'd like to see the best of the hulls kept (turret attached) as a dedicated infantry support tank, possibly with an applique armour kit like the Canadian Leos. With the new range of 105 ammo they can take out anything short of a modern MBT, and I suspect they'd even knock out one of those fairly easily from close range at the side or rear. The other units could be kept for spares. They are old but they are FAR from obsolete. Give them to a Reserve squadron if need be. But if the Israelis are still using Centurions and T-55s as Achzarits I refuse to believe we can't keep the Leopards.

From 100 Leos I'm sure there would be a squadron worth keeping, however there is the support and mainenance costs to consider.

 

[rickshaw]

Someone told me he went over 40km/h at Shoalhaven in late 80s and got severely reprimanded by RSM later who was apparently watching from another vehicle about 500m away. No injuries, but it was a bumpy ride.

BTW, does anyone know if we ever had M113 AVLB variant? (Even a borrowed one in Vietnam)

No and no, as far as I am aware. The few the US Army had in Vietnam weren't considered much of a success.

 

[FutureTank]

No and no, as far as I am aware. The few the US Army had in Vietnam weren't considered much of a success.

Out of curiosity...what does infantry do now for obtacle negotiation when the AVLB Leopards are not around?

 

[rickshaw]

Out of curiosity...what does infantry do now for obtacle negotiation when the AVLB Leopards are not around?

There is mob, who run around the battlefield who have the moniker downunder of "Ginger-Beers". They also go by the initials RAE. One of their most famous units has a red rooster for its symbol. They like to build bridges, dig holes and blow things up for amusement and the infantry take advantage of their good nature.