Australian tanks being (re) assembled.

[langy]

On last nights 'Ultimate Factories' episode ( 7mate), Ultimate Factories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Ultimate_Factories_dvd_cover.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Ultimate Factories dvd cover.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Ultimate_Factories_dvd_cover.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/3/39/Ultimate_Factories_dvd_cover.jpg , the story was how M1 tanks are re-made in the US. Lo and behold there seemed to be a familiar shape painted on the vehicles- the red rat ( although black paint used, I believe the term translates better that way). The timing is about right for the Australian Army vehicles, and although it's been dumbed down a bit, the episode is still reasonably informative. It should be available on the web, but for those interested in such things and not able to find it, I have a decent digital broadcast of the episode archived on DVD (No ads either - the wonders of modern technology).

[Celtoid]

Yeah I watched that....it was a good show.

The spare-parts storage facilities and computerised retrieval system was pretty awesome too.

Interesting that while they were blowing their horn about how their American tank is the best in the world...they failed to mention that the only reason it is so good, is due to the British Chobham armour...LOL!!!

And I doubt that the Brit's would agree with their claims, considering their Chobham armour is supposedly better, as the M1 recieved a slightly 'diluted' version. Much the same as the Yanks and Soviets, etc have an export version of a lot of their hardware.

Cheers,

Kev.

[wagoo]

Yeah I watched that....it was a good show.

The spare-parts storage facilities and computerised retrieval system was pretty awesome too.

Interesting that while they were blowing their horn about how their American tank is the best in the world...they failed to mention that the only reason it is so good, is due to the British Chobham armour...LOL!!!

And I doubt that the Brit's would agree with their claims, considering their Chobham armour is supposedly better, as the M1 recieved a slightly 'diluted' version. Much the same as the Yanks and Soviets, etc have an export version of a lot of their hardware.

Cheers,

Kev.


Apparently the extreme heat signature of the M1s gas turbine engine is also very susceptibal to a heat seeking missile up the jacksie too.
How can they claim them as the best when their only real world test was against a poorly disciplined,trained and equipped tin pot armoured force in Iraq.
Wagoo.

[PAT303]

Thats right,they have only fought against 1950's vintage T55's.Thier protected by British armour and shoot a German gun. Pat

[Jojo]

Apparently the extreme heat signature of the M1s gas turbine engine is also very susceptibal to a heat seeking missile up the jacksie too.
How can they claim them as the best when their only real world test was against a poorly disciplined,trained and equipped tin pot armoured force in Iraq.
Wagoo.

That's true! The heat signature is appalling. When I was in the army and we were running exercises against American forces we could see them for miles with our night vision equipment.
In addition to that, when they were traveling in convoy on public roads they had to have a safety vehicle at the rear of the column to keep other vehicles away from them as the extreme heat had damaged some paint on following (private) vehicles (and their owners sued the Americans successfully).
All this was almost 25 years ago and one would think things should have improved a bit, but obviously this is not the case. Good luck, Aussie Guys, with American equipment :cool:.

[Celtoid]

I'd heard....so it's hearsay..but...LOL....that even when stationary, they have to keep the donk at quite high revs.

I'm guessing the Poms are happy they chose an oiler for a power plant.

Mind you I'd read the earlier Challenger was a dog.....great when it worked but always having problems. Supposedly all in the same system...engine I think. Usual systemic lazyness....nobody ever bothered trying to actually fix the problem....always a band-aid solution.

Just before the first Gulf War, there must have been a change of management, 'cause I read that a directive was raised...."find the problem and find a permanent fix!"

Money spent, research carried out, fix found. At the end of the day, I believe it's an awesome tank. Now they have the Challenger II.

I'd read some crazy stats after the war......Challengers drive 260Ks....kill a lot of tanks...admittedly old 55, 60 and 72s....but still.....and then drive back to their staging point with no serious breakdowns.

Another....first shot fired in anger by a column of Challengers....direct hit....5.8Ks. Not certain about that distance as I read the article years ago but it was pretty impressive.

Unfortunately another stat is the only loss of a Challenger in combat...was to another Challenger. A 'Blue on Blue' incident. :-(

[rick130]

I'd heard....so it's hearsay..but...LOL....that even when stationary, they have to keep the donk at quite high revs.

I'm guessing the Poms are happy they chose an oiler for a power plant.

Mind you I'd read the earlier Challenger was a dog.....great when it worked but always having problems. Supposedly all in the same system...engine I think. Usual systemic lazyness....nobody ever bothered trying to actually fix the problem....always a band-aid solution.

Just before the first Gulf War, there must have been a change of management, 'cause I read that a directive was raised...."find the problem and find a permanent fix!"

Money spent, research carried out, fix found. At the end of the day, I believe it's an awesome tank. Now they have the Challenger II.

I'd read some crazy stats after the war......Challengers drive 260Ks....kill a lot of tanks...admittedly old 55, 60 and 72s....but still.....and then drive back to their staging point with no serious breakdowns.

Another....first shot fired in anger by a column of Challengers....direct hit....5.8Ks. Not certain about that distance as I read the article years ago but it was pretty impressive.

Unfortunately another stat is the only loss of a Challenger in combat...was to another Challenger. A 'Blue on Blue' incident. :-(

I know absolutely nothing on this, only a few snippets from the 'net so take it for what it's worth ;)

Someone did a pro/con list of the latest Abrams, latest Challenger II and latest Leopard II and it was a swings and merry-go-rounds exercise, they pretty much came out equal.
Where one had a smooth bore gun the other was rifled, where one had speed the other had better armour, one had better suspension and therefore faster manouverability but the other had faster targeting, etc, etc.

[Sprint]

wouldve been interesting to add the Israeli Merkava MBT to the equation.....

[Celtoid]

I used to work with a guy that was an ex Aussie Tankie. I'm sure it was him that told me that he thought both the Merkava IV and the Leopard II had a subset of Chobham armour.

I read that the Merkava IV was the only model out of all the Israeli tanks that didn't get 'lost' in the battle with Hamas. The Spandrel and Kornet ATMs that Hamas had aquired, are duel war-head and pretty potent. You'd have to have very capable armour to withstand a hit from either of those.

But I guess the comparision is always going to be a bit like cars....pros & cons.

[Barefoot Dave]

Thanks Langy. I saw that on TV a couple of years ago.
It seems the DMO had a lucid moment speccing the order for M1A1s without DU armour and with CAT powerpacks.
Makes a pleasant change from decisions like Seasprite/ F111-F35 ad nauseum
Dave.

[Bigbjorn]

I can't get that video to download. I know Abrams were built by Chrysler Defence which has been sold to General Dynamics. Where is the refurbishment being carried out? Does Cadillac still have the Cadillac Cleveland Tank Arsenal?

[Celtoid]

Thanks Langy. I saw that on TV a couple of years ago.
It seems the DMO had a lucid moment speccing the order for M1A1s without DU armour and with CAT powerpacks.
Makes a pleasant change from decisions like Seasprite/ F111-F35 ad nauseum
Dave.

Hey mate,

You think it was a good idea to not get the slab of DU in the armour? Why's that? I know they use ceramic or some other composite instead but my first thoughts would be that it may have compromised the effectiveness of the armour. Is that not the case?

Cheers,

Kev.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Cm'on guys, the Aussie M1A2 Abrams has to be better than any of the Yank M1A2, Challenger II or Leopard whatever.

The Aussie Abrams has a fridge, and what more do you want after a hot day's tanking around but a cold one! :D

(BTW: Do you know where the name Abrams came from? - Lt Col. Creighton Abrams was a tank battalion commander in WWII and was one of the first to breach the seige of Bastogne. Patton described Abrams as the world champion of tank commanders.)

[THE BOOGER]

Thanks Langy. I saw that on TV a couple of years ago.
It seems the DMO had a lucid moment speccing the order for M1A1s without DU armour and with CAT powerpacks.
Makes a pleasant change from decisions like Seasprite/ F111-F35 ad nauseum
Dave.

Dave dont know about the DU armour but they have a honeywell gas turbine not a cat I dont think cat make a gas turbine engine.
Brian the tanks are rebuilt at the Lima Army tank Plant:)

[THE BOOGER]

Cm'on guys, the Aussie M1A2 Abrams has to be better than any of the Yank M1A2, Challenger II or Leopard whatever.

The Aussie Abrams has a fridge, and what more to you want after a hot day's tanking around but a cold one! :D

(BTW: Do you know where the name Abrams came from? Lt Col. Creighton Abrams was a tank battalion commander in WWII and was one of the first to breach the seige of Bastogne. Patton described Abrams as the world champion of tank commanders.)

The brit challengers have a electric billy for a hot cup of earl grey:D:p

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The brit challengers have a electric billy for a hot cup of earl grey:D:pI guess the pommys wouldn't care for a fridge, they drink their cold ones warm! :( Yuk.

[D mac]

Just my 2Cents worth.
Leopard = Multi fuel engine (works on anything that will ignite)
Abrahams = Turbine requires top class diesel only (and heaps of it)
makes you wonder in difficult situations in a theatre of war can the required fuel be supplied to this tank

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I thought our Abrams are designed as training aids and if our tankies are deployed, they will be supplied with Abrams in-theatre from US stock. Hence no need for the additional armour protection.

Is that not the case?

Just my 2Cents worth.
Leopard = Multi fuel engine (works on anything that will ignite)
Abrahams = Turbine requires top class diesel only (and heaps of it)
makes you wonder in difficult situations in a theatre of war can the required fuel be supplied to this tankTurbines work on JetA1 - the same fuel as used in Blackhawk helicopters and FA18. In this day and age who's army would go in-theatre without air support?

[Hoges]

I thought our Abrams are designed as training aids and if our tankies are deployed, they will be supplied with Abrams in-theatre from US stock. Hence no need for the additional armour protection.

Is that not the case?
Turbines work on JetA1 - the same fuel as used in Blackhawk helicopters and FA18. In this day and age who's army would go in-theatre without air support?

And..... their special purchase of LR Defenders!!!:D:D:D

[87County]

Abrahams =

don't mean to be a pedant, but

It is named after General Creighton Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff and Commander of US military forces in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972

M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Abrams-transparent.png" class="image"><img alt="Abrams-transparent.png" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Abrams-transparent.png/300px-Abrams-transparent.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/b9/Abrams-transparent.png/300px-Abrams-transparent.png

they could've called it Eisenhower or something easy I guess :)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

don't mean to be a pedant, but

It is named after General Creighton Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff and Commander of US military forces in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972

M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams)

they could've calles it Patton or Eisenhower or something easy I guess :)They couldn't have named it a Patton tank, cause they already named one that! :D

BTW WWII Tank battalion commander Lt Col. Creighton Abrams is the same person as Vietnam era General Creighton Abrams, but Gen. Abrams did not relieve Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge and it was in that battle that he won his second DSC.

[THE BOOGER]

Just my 2Cents worth.
Leopard = Multi fuel engine (works on anything that will ignite)
Abrahams = Turbine requires top class diesel only (and heaps of it)
makes you wonder in difficult situations in a theatre of war can the required fuel be supplied to this tank

Our deal with the yanks was for the tanks and tankers to follow them with fuel but in theory you can refuel with diesel from a servo, yeh right:D

ADM: Abrams wins Army tank contest (http://www.australiandefence.com.au/D7555950-F806-11DD-8DFE0050568C22C9?&showresult=D9DDBFAE-070A-11DF-A28B005056B05D57)

8 tactical fuel tankers to follow them around para 18 I think:o

[Celtoid]

I thought our Abrams are designed as training aids and if our tankies are deployed, they will be supplied with Abrams in-theatre from US stock. Hence no need for the additional armour protection.

Is that not the case?
Turbines work on JetA1 - the same fuel as used in Blackhawk helicopters and FA18. In this day and age who's army would go in-theatre without air support?

I heard the Greenies objected to the DU. Not sure if that's true....but if it compromises the integrity of the armour....and I'm not saying it does, or the story is true but if so, maybe they should sit in the tank while it gets hammered by kinetic penetrators and plasma bolts.....:mad:

Jet turbines can run on lots of stuff....as long as it's Kero/Diesel'ish in flavour.

The old Huey manuals quoted standard diesel as an alternate fuel....of course it shags the 'Hot-end' of the engine in that case but you could design the engine to run diesel.

I think the Yanks invented AVTAG....which is a hybrid....it will run aircarft, trucks and tanks. One fuel supply....lots of vehicles.

[Celtoid]

Our deal with the yanks was for the tanks and tankers to follow them with fuel but in theory you can refuel with diesal from a servo, yeh right:D

ADM: Abrams wins Army tank contest (http://www.australiandefence.com.au/D7555950-F806-11DD-8DFE0050568C22C9?&showresult=D9DDBFAE-070A-11DF-A28B005056B05D57)

8 tactical fuel tankers to follow them around para 18 I think:o

Mate thanks for that, I hadn't read that article before.

Maybe it lends evidence to the post I'd made earlier, regarding hearing that the US M1s had to run at high RPM even when stationary....an APU would take that need away...of course you'd want a Jet Turbine that comes up to operational temps and pressures real quick, should you need to move and start the main engine.....:confused:....generally Jets aren't too good on that front.

And no DU rounds???.....I hope Tungsten works as well as DU does......It lacks the density....but maybe hardness compensates......

[THE BOOGER]

Tungstun works very well not as good as DU but as far as I know the only tanks tungston will not penetrate are the m1 and challanger may be the leopard 2 as it also has chobham amour:)

[Nero]

Mate thanks for that, I hadn't read that article before.

Maybe it lends evidence to the post I'd made earlier, regarding hearing that the US M1s had to run at high RPM even when stationary....an APU would take that need away...of course you'd want a Jet Turbine that comes up to operational temps and pressures real quick, should you need to move and start the main engine.....:confused:....generally Jets aren't too good on that front.

And no DU rounds???.....I hope Tungsten works as well as DU does......It lacks the density....but maybe hardness compensates......

Most turbines idle at a minium of 60%, well thats the ones that do variable speed most applications power plants turbo props helicopters the the turbine runs at a set set speed and the amount of torque/load is the thing that varies.