Cam on the Australian Abram tank

[jango]

Have they got the camoflage pattern sorted out for the australian armies new Abram tank. I have only seen them in the yellow paint that they were in when they first arrived in australia. So what is going on.

[kamarian]

Word is they are supposed to be going to the Barracuda MCS similar to what the Leo had in the later part of its service life.

[Commander Shepard]

Have they got the camoflage pattern sorted out for the australian armies new Abram tank. I have only seen them in the yellow paint that they were in when they first arrived in australia. So what is going on.

The name is "A B R A M S".

[jango]

The name is "A B R A M S".I was talk about the "A B R A M " tank program. Not the "A B R A M S" as in all the tanks in the field bush bashing.

[digrar]

Even when you are talking about one of them it is still Abrams. Seeing as Abrams is the name of the person they were named after.

[Commander Shepard]

Even when you are talking about one of them it is still Abrams. Seeing as Abrams is the name of the person they were named after.

Right, the name of the tank is Abrams, named after General Creighton W. Abrams.

[bruiserau]

They are all still in the Sand Colour scheme. I heard they aren't allowed to be painted under the contract terms because the current paint has CBRND protection. (?)

[termite92]

I was up in Darwin recently( 2 weeks ago ) and they are still painted in the sand colour. Most of them are undergoing servicing at the moment.

[0497]

They are all still in the Sand Colour scheme. I heard they aren't allowed to be painted under the contract terms because the current paint has CBRND protection. (?)

Surely this can't be right? A basic M1 Abrams is green underneath (originally planned for European tank warfare).

[scraw]

They are all still in the Sand Colour scheme. I heard they aren't allowed to be painted under the contract terms because the current paint has CBRND protection. (?)

They most certainly are to be painted, just not till they're in for maintenance anyway.

The design and tender docs were floating around a while back with required colours, pattern and effect (thermal sig reduction etc) all listed.

[scraw]

I thought I had the pics saved somewhere...

http://picsorban.com/upload/m1a1front.gif

http://picsorban.com/upload/m1a1side.gif

http://picsorban.com/upload/m1a1top.gif

http://picsorban.com/upload/camoscheme.gif

[Alfacentori]

I thought I had the pics saved somewhere...



http://picsorban.com/upload/m1a1side.gif





Can't wait to see our Abrams in the flesh with this scheme, it looks almost identical to the old Leo 1 camo pattern, beautiful

Alfa

[jango]

Even when you are talking about one of them it is still Abrams. Seeing as Abrams is the name of the person they were named after.what me worry

[Ballistic]

The M1A1's will probably get their new camo scheme as they go through depot maintenance.

[Ios]

It would be nice if they also swapped out the gas turbine for a Euro MTU type diesel powerpack while they were in there.

[ArmyJonHall]

It would be nice if they also swapped out the gas turbine for a Euro MTU type diesel powerpack while they were in there.
Why on earth would we want to do that?

[guest]

Australia bought 59 M1A1s correct?

How many operational squadrons does that make (In Aussie terms)

Ex, Canada bought 100 Leopard2s, 80 of which will be gun tanks.
40 of those will be used mostly for domestic operations and training.
40 will be divided into 2 deployable squadrons.

We need those numbers as the minimum to train, refit and sustain constant overseas operation of 1 squadron at 6 month deployment cycles.

How do the Austalian numbers break down? That seems kind of small for more than 1 deployable squadron.

Will Leo1's be used as trainers?

[Ios]

So it gets 750km out of 1 tank of diesel instead of 450 with the turbine.

Diesels are easyer to fix less ****e to damage and fit the supply chain far better.
Also a tank with a turbines exhaust is very hot and glows like a gas torch in a thermal imager, diesels are far cooler.

Turbines use a similar amount of fuel when idling to flat out, a diesel can be idled down and use very little fuel when the tank isnt moveing and still supply power to all the systems without using an APU.

The 1500 turbines are no longer in production and havent been for years, MTU and Cat diesel powerpacks are in production and constantly being upgraded.

[DesktopArmor]

So it gets 750km out of 1 tank of diesel instead of 450 with the turbine.

Diesels are easyer to fix less ****e to damage and fit the supply chain far better.
Also a tank with a turbines exhaust is very hot and glows like a gas torch in a thermal imager, diesels are far cooler.

Turbines use a similar amount of fuel when idling to flat out, a diesel can be idled down and use very little fuel when the tank isnt moveing and still supply power to all the systems without using an APU.

The 1500 turbines are no longer in production and havent been for years, MTU and Cat diesel powerpacks are in production and constantly being upgraded.
True, but:
Mechanically simpler
Quieter
No distinctive exhaust plume in any condition (visible-it still matters) Have you ever seen the exhaust plume from an idling diesel? That smoke isn't exactly cold, either.
Inherent multi-fuel flexibility-"run on anything that can burn"-(M1-Abrams at War)-you can run it on diesel, gas, av-gas, helo-fuel, jp-8, jp-4, kerosene, LPG, LNG, propane, etc. No "cylindered" engine can do that with any efficiency, as cylinders must be tuned to a certain set of combustion characteristics. Not so with turbines.
Eco-friendly-could use ethanol, biofuels, hydrogen, synthetic fuel, god knows what else-french fry grease?
Pound for pound, higher power output, so smaller engine, more room for everything else.
The US didn't chose the turbine just because the T-80 had it, they chose it because it means a ~70 ton tank can still travel at ~40-50 mph, instead of 20 or 25 mph. If the MTU powerpack, or a derivative of the M-60 series pack, or a CAT powerpack worked as well, then why didn't they put it in the M1A2? Think about it.

[Britboy]

Hmmm quieter, smaller, more powerful and not smokey eh? Sounds like it would be useful for a Cavalry Fighting Vehicle or any sort of recce AFV where you want to keep a low profile but still be able to shift at a rapid rate of knots.

I imagine smaller engine size is negated by increased fuel tank though :-(

I like the idea of using anything that'd burn, just imagine how the Battle of the Bulge could have gone if German AFVs could handle more fuel - scary eh. Lends itself to armoured recce even more I'd imagine, in the case that they are cut off from supply but can siphon a car or two p-)

Probably wouldnt want every tank/AFV with such an engine tho, imagine the logistics of fueling them...

Disclaimer: I am not a cavalryman, so this is all speculation.

Although I think the Chally 2 and other MBTs can manage more than 25mph...

[DesktopArmor]

Although I think the Chally 2 and other MBTs can manage more than 25mph...[/quote]

True, but the M1 and Ch2 are the heaviest, and neither use the MTU pack. All the others are lighter.

Not to say that the turbine is the best, as I think they should make a compatible "cylinder"/hybrid pack for the sort of stuff they're using the M1 for in Iraq, but swap it for a turbine when going into action like in Desert Storm or in the cold-war-turned-hot-scenario. According to the books, and engine change on the M1 is one of the fastest of any of the modern western MBTs. Only a few bolts and hoses, so it shouldn't be too hard to swap two different but size-indentical packs if it's so easy to swap two packs that are the same.

[Britboy]

Interesting idea, never thought of changeable engines before...

I can see what you're attempting to achieve, the kind of 'Achtung Panzer!' shock action in all-out war, and a cheaper operation when ops tempo and nature is different.

However:

1) if we are going to contemplate different powerpacks for different speeds for different operations, why don't we just go the whole hog and get different vehicles?

i.e. Yes keep MBTs for use in armoured brigades, (and keep rapidly deployable vehicles for light brigades), but buy a pool of COIN-type vehicles for service in campaigns as we have now. Lots of MRAPs, protected patrol vehicles, maybe some ultra-heavy APCs made out of old tank hulls like the IDF use if needed. Crew it with men taken from all different regiments, so they can maintain a theatre pool of vehicles. Kind of like how I believe the RM Armoured Support branch currently operates Viking in Afghanistan.

After all, how many tanks do we really need out there? A mate of mine in the Royal Tank Regiment deployed to Iraq not so long ago, he didn't crew a Chally over there. I suppose you could get away with a small contingent of MBTs and SP arty in theatre for a 'worst case scenario' like having to take control of a wide area youve completely lost presence in.

Its also less wear-and-tear on the MBT fleet, which translates into higher readiness for conventional warfare and operations other than Iraq.

2) Can you really see them splurging out on both an engine and a turbine per tank? Most likely theyd either accept the engine, or get a turbine and say 'hell we'll pay for the extra gas'.

[DesktopArmor]

Interesting idea, never thought of changeable engines before...

I can see what you're attempting to achieve, the kind of 'Achtung Panzer!' shock action in all-out war, and a cheaper operation when ops tempo and nature is different.

However:

1) if we are going to contemplate different powerpacks for different speeds for different operations, why don't we just go the whole hog and get different vehicles?

i.e. Yes keep MBTs for use in armoured brigades, (and keep rapidly deployable vehicles for light brigades), but buy a pool of COIN-type vehicles for service in campaigns as we have now. Lots of MRAPs, protected patrol vehicles, maybe some ultra-heavy APCs made out of old tank hulls like the IDF use if needed. Crew it with men taken from all different regiments, so they can maintain a theatre pool of vehicles. Kind of like how I believe the RM Armoured Support branch currently operates Viking in Afghanistan.

After all, how many tanks do we really need out there? A mate of mine in the Royal Tank Regiment deployed to Iraq not so long ago, he didn't crew a Chally over there. I suppose you could get away with a small contingent of MBTs and SP arty in theatre for a 'worst case scenario' like having to take control of a wide area youve completely lost presence in.

Its also less wear-and-tear on the MBT fleet, which translates into higher readiness for conventional warfare and operations other than Iraq.

2) Can you really see them splurging out on both an engine and a turbine per tank? Most likely theyd either accept the engine, or get a turbine and say 'hell we'll pay for the extra gas'.

Well, the US has found plenty of uses for its M1A1s and A2s in Iraq, but mostly as they intimidate the hell out of anyone, and they're proof from everything but the largest IEDs. As a rolling firebase complete with armor protection, they're pretty useful. Not as many are over there as formation numbers would suggest, however. The great usage of the tank is a mobile, highly protected (and compared to CAS or arty, cheap) gun platform with high levels of accuracy and firepower.
In regards to the current situation, we should simply up-armor the old M-60A3s we've got hundreds of and use them. They aren't as fast, but can handle a wider variety of ammo and are configured for indirect fire. A little more armor, and they'd be fine.

[Britboy]

Indirect fire from tanks?

Kind've like semi-artillery?

Read on here a Russian AFV (BMP3? BMD? Cavalry version of BMD?) could do that, and I thought someone had made a typo.

I know you can push arty into a direct fire role if its all gone pete tong, but can you really push an IFV/tank gun into an arty role?

[Ios]

Indeed there are advantages and disadvantages inherent to each powerplant however for a small army like Australia's where everything else has diesel engines it would be insane to choose a turbine over a diesel especially one that hasn't been in production since 1992.

Supporting orphan systems like the Avro Lycoming AGT-1500 thats designed to run on JP8 jetfuel is a major cost on top of its basic fuel inefficiency for a small army like ours, (I assume the army is expecting to get spare parts from US tank graveyards?) it may be slightly smaller and lighter than the MTU MB 873 Ka-501 of the Leopard II which is liquid-cooled, 47.6-liter, 4-stroke, turbo-charged V-12 diesel engine, which develops 1,500hp at 2,600 rpm, the Europack diesel is slightly smaller than the AGT-1500 which also can be changed out in under an hour like the turbine.
ie the Europack develops more power (the original Leo II MTU was unofficially 1800hp) far more fuel efficiently and with far less heat signature (1000 degrees F in the turbine) far outweighs the slight size and weight increase (less with the Europack) but far more importantly is no strain on the existing logistics and maintenance train because its a standard diesel engine like everything else in the army.
The turbine is very Quiet which is an advantage in WWIII type scenarios but in East Timor type scenarios which we are far more likely to become involved with the intimidation factor of heavy armour announcing its arival with powerful rumbling diesels shaking the ground is likely to diffuse many a situation before it actually starts which for a nation that doesn't like shooting at its neighbors unless it absolutely has to this feature could well be a winner in itself.

New Europacks are coming out with V16 V20 And V24 versions capable of producing 2000 to 3000hp no bigger than the original Leo II powerpack, Cat also has similar engines.

Having a helicopter engine designed to run on JP8 jet fuel and putting it in a tank could only ever make sense for the US army or perhaps the Russian as well for everyone else its a liabilty.

[winchester_down]

Someone mentioned before that the turbine engine uses heaps of energy sitting idle.

This is true but I was under the impression the Aussie Abrams would be fitted with a small generator(probably diesel) to power the turret and electronics when at a halted position.

anyone else concur?

maybe its been cancelled or they are doing it now?

[Ios]

The Abrams Australia received has an APU - Auxilary Power Unit so it can switch the main engine off and still use its radios, thermal imager, air cooler and the beer fridge on the turret bustle stays cool - even the Diesel powered Leo II has an APU.

[DesktopArmor]

Indirect fire from tanks?

Kind've like semi-artillery?

Read on here a Russian AFV (BMP3? BMD? Cavalry version of BMD?) could do that, and I thought someone had made a typo.

I know you can push arty into a direct fire role if its all gone pete tong, but can you really push an IFV/tank gun into an arty role?

It's one of the few remaining advantages of the M-60 over the M1 that it can engage targets it can't see. Just like the Shermans, M-10s, and M-36s from WWII. I think it has a quadrant and gun-laying sight, but I'm not 100% sure. The inherent flexibility of the rifled gun means it can fire HESH, HE, HEAT, Canister, APFSDS-DU-T, Smoke, Illumination, and all the other NATO 105 gun rounds.
I agree 100% that the turbine is unecessary for current use, however, it offers distinct advantages in high-intensity armored combat. In a future war, tanks will probably go head-head again. The only certain think is that the future of armored warfare is anything but certain.

[Ballistic]

Australia bought 59 M1A1s correct?

How many operational squadrons does that make (In Aussie terms)

Ex, Canada bought 100 Leopard2s, 80 of which will be gun tanks.
40 of those will be used mostly for domestic operations and training.
40 will be divided into 2 deployable squadrons.

We need those numbers as the minimum to train, refit and sustain constant overseas operation of 1 squadron at 6 month deployment cycles.

How do the Austalian numbers break down? That seems kind of small for more than 1 deployable squadron.

Will Leo1's be used as trainers?

3 Squadrons for 1st Armoured Regiment if I remember correctly. Will try and find the information on the distribution of the tanks and post back here.

[nowcivvy]

Indirect fire from tanks?

"I know you can push arty into a direct fire role if its all gone pete tong, but can you really push an IFV/tank gun into an arty role?"

Of coure you can, you just need to know the target range, bearing, elevation and you own elevation, the posn of the observer relative to you so you know what his corrections mean from your postion and importantly you need to ensure there is nothing in the way like a big F.O mountain and aircraft. If an Armoured unit has never practised this they should wear learner plates. It is easier if the observer is between target and tank, if so they could simply give a range to overshoot the target and correct back to the target. In most cases the range is limited compared to arty and it may be quicker to drive into a line of sight position use direct fire instead of stuffing around. In a situation where the armour is immobile or blocked it could be usefull to support lead units. The commander may not want to waste ammo either a point target from 1500m could use up a few rounds. Call the big guns or the enemy may think your on drugs!

[Ballistic]

3 Squadrons for 1st Armoured Regiment if I remember correctly. Will try and find the information on the distribution of the tanks and post back here.

41 M1A1s @ 1 Armd Regt
6 M1A1s @ School of Armour
1 M1A1 @ RAEME Wing, ALTC
11 M1A1s @ JLU-N and commercial maintenance provider

[guest]

Thanks for that info.

Why then, can Canada only come up with 40 Tanks for combat ops out of 100..?!?

I mean, while we could always bring the others into ops, the current plan is 40 deployable tanks, with 40 reserved for training/domestic and logistics.

It's interesting, even thought both the ADF and the CF are quite comparible in terms of size and budget, you guys always seem to get more out of things......

I suppose the Aussie Brass are just a little bit wiser..

[Ballistic]

Thanks for that info.

Why then, can Canada only come up with 40 Tanks for combat ops out of 100..?!?

I mean, while we could always bring the others into ops, the current plan is 40 deployable tanks, with 40 reserved for training/domestic and logistics.

It's interesting, even thought both the ADF and the CF are quite comparible in terms of size and budget, you guys always seem to get more out of things......

I suppose the Aussie Brass are just a little bit wiser..

Found this at another website about the distribution of the 2A4/6's:


Of those 100 tanks, 40 will be 2A4's for two training squadrons in Canada (one in Gagetown, one in Wainwright), 40 will be two squadrons of 2A6's that after some Canadianization and upgrades (especially to the armour) will be deployable anywhere we need them, and 20 will be specialist tanks (bridge-layers, ARV's, dozers, etc).

That's a pretty good deal and the specialist tanks are extremely important. This is something Australia has yet to invest in and it is something sorely missed.

Canada is doing alright for armour. I wouldn't worry too much. :)

Canada will have basically the same number of deployable tanks as Australia.

This is a further detailed look at the make up of 1st Armoured:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/Blargon2002/1armdregt.gif

[Eztyga]

That seems kind of small for more than 1 deployable squadron.

Will Leo1's be used as trainers?

The thinking is that Australian crews will man US tanks if required during joint operations. This will give the Aussies some frontline experiance with armoured ops and give crew respite to the Yanks.

Fly in, kick the tires and light the fires...:)

The Leo's are in the process of being disposed of, see link below.

Ezy

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=120094

[0497]

The thinking is that Australian crews will man US tanks if required during joint operations. This will give the Aussies some frontline experiance with armoured ops and give crew respite to the Yanks.


Ezy

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=120094

Seems somewhat similar to the current deployment of Australian artillery gunners to Afghanistan, giving repsite to a battery of British gunners.

[Plushy]

Found this at another website about the distribution of the 2A4/6's:



That's a pretty good deal and the specialist tanks are extremely important. This is something Australia has yet to invest in and it is something sorely missed.

Canada is doing alright for armour. I wouldn't worry too much. :)

Canada will have basically the same number of deployable tanks as Australia.

This is a further detailed look at the make up of 1st Armoured:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/Blargon2002/1armdregt.gif

Thats how it should look but after talking to a couple of the Abrams crew members at the Corowa military vehicle weekend earlier this month apparently not many of the 3rd squadron vehicles are running as they are cannablising them for parts . Apparently only 1/3rd of the spare parts package has been delivered and the the rest of spare parts package still hasn`t been put together yet in the U.S .
They were also saying the FBCB2 system still isnt up and running due to problems with the "Local " system not recognising it .

Apart from that they are great according to the crews the only other comment they had was that the maintenance intervals be a bit shorter as certain parts are breaking sooner than expected.

Next time i see my contacts at Bandiana or Pucka i will ask about the Camo schemes and the implementation dates .

Cheers Plushy

[Ballistic]

Thanks for the heads up Plushy, I guess that's why 3rd squadron is (Sustainment), but I'm sure cannibalising parts making them inoperable was NOT the idea.

[damo lux]

There are no plans to repaint them ,and they will never be cannibilised for parts.

[Eztyga]

There are no plans to repaint them ,and they will never be cannibilised for parts.

Cannibilising parts is an approved process in the ADF when the regular supply of parts isn't possible, i.e. 'nil stock global'. It just requires approval by signal.

Why would ABRAMS be an exception?

Ezy

[USMC Tanker]

I've never been anywhere where there wasn't a "rape tank" for parts.

We usually use tanks that are already deadlined awaiting parts or are tanks that are about to go back to the factory for rebuild.

As long as replacement parts are on order/in transit, why not temporarily rape those parts and get that tank back in the fight.

[larrystarling]

I've never been anywhere where there wasn't a "rape tank" for parts.

We usually use tanks that are already deadlined awaiting parts or are tanks that are about to go back to the factory for rebuild.

As long as replacement parts are on order/in transit, why not temporarily rape those parts and get that tank back in the fight.
Every unit I have ever been in always had several FLT (FLOAT) tanks available. Usually kept in one of the support battalions....When we caught one on fire at gunnery one time we were assigned to a FLT tank. And yes we did take some parts off it, But only what was needed until the parts came in....p-)

[Plushy]

There are no plans to repaint them ,and they will never be cannibilised for parts.

If they operated like that then there would be none running at the moment .

[Eztyga]

I don't think lamo dux has any idea on how the ADF operates...