Twilight 2020

[ChalkLine]

(Yes, I know about Twight 2013. For the purposes of this thread I won't be using it.)

Not to worry about a 'how it could happen' scenario, we've done lots of those.

If a GM wanted to set a twilight game in today's world what changes would you need?

Would you change the starting kit? Night Vision Goggles and radios are pretty much standard in most major national armies now, would you make them standard? Do the battery rules need a change now that so many more things use batteries?

Basic vehicle lists. What needs changing? Would the old lists based on actual vehicles change? I think a list based on vehicle role would be better. Also rules on adapting vehicles for the needs of Twilight soldiers is needed. In Viet Nam you see things like a M551 Sheridan with a twin M2 .50 on the commander's cupola and an M60 on a pintle on the loader's hatch for example.

Currency and trading needs better rules. I have used the '1x 7.62mm cartridge = $1' as a basis for trading and also '1x cigarette = $1' but what other rules do we need. A lot of players practically become 'combat traders' moving slowly westwards! :)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Yes I would definitely change the starting equipment list to reflect the wider use of electronic devices (not just night vision gear but also military notebook & tablet type computers, micro-drones/UAVs and so on).

I don't know if battery rules need to change so much as be updated & supplemented. For example, you can get all manner of portable & lightweight rechargers for mobile phones and tablets plus there's lightweight solar powered chargers you can get. Quite a few military electronics went away from the use of specialized batteries to batteries of the same standard as commonly used civilian batteries. For example, many night vision devices use AA cell batteries - they benefit greatly from using high capacity AA cells but even these are no longer the sole domain of government as such batteries are commonly used by photographers using digital cameras.

I absolutely agree that currency & trading needs to have a good ruleset behind it. A lot of players these days look beyond the straight forward "this is *whatever genre* game" approach and look to see what else they can do within it.
Some are not content with just going out and slaying the monster and rescuing the person in distress. Some of them want to get more deeply involved in other aspects of gameplay. Economics is just one of them but certainly deserves a more comprehensive coverage than it has at the moment.

Vehicles and weapons. There is so much that could be done with vehicles and weapons beyond the Wear Factor rules that are already in place.
We've already seen a lot of discussion about fuel (rather illuminating overall) and while we know many military vehicles use multi-fuel engines, a number of civilian vehicles in Europe run on diesel (and I don't just mean trucks but also private cars). Does this mean that there would be greater stocks of diesel available? I don't know if that's correct but it's something that should be looked into.
As for weapons, there is still the overall concern about ammuntion. There should be more comprehensive rules dealing with manufacturing and reloading of ammo. I think there also needs to be more comprehensive rules regarding additions to weapons to make them more effective or easier to bring into use, e.g. sighting devices, laser target markers, foreward pistol grips, combat slings and so on.

[Raellus]

I agree that military personal electronic devices would be much more common, batteries too. That said, battery life, even rechargeable types, is finite. Even a new battery doesn't hold its charge forever. Three or four years after a TDM-style event, no new batteries will have been produced for some time. Those still left in their packages would be slowly losing juice. For an updated T2K, comprehensive battery life rules are a must- at least, if you want a realistic setting. It's simple and crude, but here's I've house-ruled battery life in my campaigns:

Device
Current Charge/Battery Capacity
7/9

The first number is the current charge. A battery loses one Current Charge point for every hour of use, under normal conditions (double this for cold conditions). The Current Charge number can be raised one point per hour by recharging the battery using a compatible recharger. The second number is the Battery Capacity. Every other time that the battery is recharged, it loses one Battery Capacity point. Eventually, the battery will no longer hold a charge, resulting in a totally dead battery. This will show as a Battery Capacity of 0. The device that relies upon said battery will no longer function until a fresher battery replaces the dead one.

[Legbreaker]

A couple of useful links re batteries.
http://www.batteryeducation.com/2006/04/battery_degrada.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_charger#Prolonging_battery_life

[Cdnwolf]

I would love to know the effects of and EMP on equipment now. Would the computers in things like tablets survive? Would the circuits in night vision devices be fried? Just curious.

[.45cultist]

More civil careers, including "prepper". The emergency personnel can be formed using existing ones. Civilian load outs, like 72 hour kits. Updated electronics.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Without trying to turn this into The Morrow Project or invoke the negative perception of preppers, I think it can be argued that Bug Out Bags would be part of the available starting equipment for various civilian careers.
Many people now are more aware of the usefulness of having some sort of gear bag to help them if they get caught in bad weather, run out of fuel, there's a major power outage or at worst some sort of attack against civilians.

[.45cultist]

Without trying to turn this into The Morrow Project or invoke the negative perception of preppers, I think it can be argued that Bug Out Bags would be part of the available starting equipment for various civilian careers.
Many people now are more aware of the usefulness of having some sort of gear bag to help them if they get caught in bad weather, run out of fuel, there's a major power outage or at worst some sort of attack against civilians.

Yeah, I mainly brought it up because I'm toying with a later date two part campaign. My original character's kid(s) active duty and a "Homefront" campaign with the retired character and civilian family.

[rcaf_777]

Would you change the starting kit? Night Vision Goggles and radios are pretty much standard in most major national armies now, would you make them standard?

While night vision goggles and radios are standard not every solider is going to have a set and not every military vehicle is going to radio or means to mount one. Some unit might Motorola Sabers or the AN/PRC-343 Integrated Intra-Squad Radio (IISR). Not everyone going to issue with one. As the war goes on both night vision goggles and radio are going to give out based on need and same with batteries.

[.45cultist]

While night vision goggles and radios are standard not every solider is going to have a set and not every military vehicle is going to radio or means to mount one. Some unit might Motorola Sabers or the AN/PRC-343 Integrated Intra-Squad Radio (IISR). Not everyone going to issue with one. As the war goes on both night vision goggles and radio are going to give out based on need and same with batteries.

This and the death of smartphones and internet should affect Western societies pretty quickly, especially among younger folk.

[WallShadow]

This and the death of smartphones and internet should affect Western societies pretty quickly, especially among younger folk.

You might find that much of the world would be affected by the collapse of the cellular systems.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You might find that much of the world would be affected by the collapse of the cellular systems.
No doubt about that but I wonder if the culture shock will be bigger for Western societies than some others simply because so much of our social and work life is conducted through computers/smart phones.
Not simply Western societies but also the younger generations in tech savvy societies who have found digital tech a portal into the outside world where otherwise their traditions/culture would limit their exposure/interaction to the wider world.

[ChalkLine]

The Prepper community is like everyone, made up of unique individuals. Some are going to help, some are going to hinder and as long as we don't have blanket statements I think it's okay. I have Prepper friends both here and overseas and I think highly of them but you also hear of individuals who seem to think a disaster is an excuse for a free-fire zone.

As I said in The Morrow Project forum they're going to come up against the military, police and disaster control and federal organisations such as the USA's FEMA. What the situation is and how it works out is a game situation

[.45cultist]

You might find that much of the world would be affected by the collapse of the cellular systems.

I bet you're correct, but I only see the smart phone addicts here since I can't travel abroad.

[unkated]

Rules for...

Computer systems and computer networks.
Computer and Network security.
Jamming (wifi)

Civvy & military both, where they are different.

Rules for determining wide area networks. For example, some Polish (or Czech or American) electronics wiz may cobble up a set of three towers covering downtown Krakow with cell or wi-fi, or a hardwired cameras.

Or someone rewires Sussex & Kent (but nowhere else and not out of England). Or all of Australia is fine if no one nukes it. Or Japan has enough power to rebuild its internet by building new equipment.

My point (and this is the problem with any post-apolcalyptic RPG), that you need to include rules for still-working tech, partially working tech, repairing tech. (Computers and commo systems are not the only holes).

Uncle Ted

[copeab]

And here I thought this thread was going to be about merging T2K with Cyberpunk 2020 ...

[Legbreaker]

And here I thought this thread was going to be about merging T2K with Cyberpunk 2020 ...

Already been done. Twilightcycle:2000.

[ChalkLine]

And here I thought this thread was going to be about merging T2K with Cyberpunk 2020 ...

That's all my games. The systems bolt together perfectly, although it becomes far, far more lethal

[.45cultist]

This forum has offered up so many useful things, food and water are two examples. I have the DC1 gear book with electronics, there might be some rules to form a basic guide.

[Jason Weiser]

Hmm, Twilight: 2020 as a background for "500 Miles..." something to do a post on in the near future.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

This forum has offered up so many useful things, food and water are two examples. I have the DC1 gear book with electronics, there might be some rules to form a basic guide.

Along the lines of food and water, there's so many other gear items that could be included these days. But that raises (again) the need for guidelines or rules dealing with equipment in general and more specifically wear and tear.

For example, personal water filterings. They used to be something only found in the military, search & rescue or expeditionary/exploration groups. Nowdays they are in common use with hikers, climbers, people who travel frequently and people who just want something extra in their emergency kit (and they come in so many different types and capacities, far more than the military used to have access to).
However they can only filter a certain amount before becoming useless. It's a simple enough task to keep check of how many litres a filter has cleaned but it's another book-keeping task that some players don't like doing.

This is not quite the same as recording Wear Value but it does amount to the same thing There should be some suggested alternatives to the traditional method of book-keeping say maybe giving the item, in this case the water filter, a lifespan of "general" use - for argument sake say 6 months of "general" use. The Referee is probably going to need to keep a check on any of the book-keeping if the players don't like doing such levels of accounting (but that's a problem encountered in every rpg since the hobby began) so simplifying the task would be the overall aim here.

[pmulcahy11b]

One thing that would be common before and during the opening phases of a Twilight War 2020 is cyberwafare. Electrical grids, water supply grids, the internet, would all be targeted with an aim to cause disruption in the enemy nation. I would be much harder, but friendly hackers would target enemy command and control, communications and switching systems for nuclear missiles, air defense networks, supply systems, and even communications systems and computers down to the tactical level would be targeted, possibly by white hat hackers operating in extreme-rear areas in hardened shelters or even large trucks.

There would be essentially the cyber equivalent of MIJI (Meaconing, Intrusion, Jamming, and Interference -- anyone who's been a radio operator knows that acronym and its implications in detail). Enemy units would be given orders that make them show up in the wrong place, supplies may never get to the troops, ammunition supplies would stopped for short periods of time, nuclear strikes may not be fully implemented. White hat hackers would be issuing orders to enemy troops that make them ineffective or less effective. Everything from individual command posts to NCA would be affected.

[Raellus]

Great point, Paul. In my 2030 campaign, most U.S. consumer electronics and computer-controlled infrastructure, like the power grid, were fried by Chinese and Russian viruses. My T2030U also includes nuclear strikes, but the damage caused by cyber attacks was greater than that caused by EMP, which tends to be fairly local when it is the effect of standard ground strikes and airbursts.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Excellent point Paul. I think we have to consider cyberwarfare in it's "total war" potential because with the push now for the "internet of things" it won't be just your infrastructure being attacked to cause disruptions.
Hacking the internet of things means the attackers could disrupt common household appliances. It sounds laughable and while I'm not suggesting it will be like The X-Files episode where ATMs and mobile phones began displaying messages to kill people, disruptive behaviour by your fridge or washing machine is a real possibility.

For example: the fridge indicates that all your food is bad and automatically reorders more. One fridge isn't a problem but if the city has forty thousand internet connected refrigerators all ordering food at the same time from the same suppliers, you are then suffering a variation of the Denial of Service attack.
Your washing machine determines that you are using the wrong brand of clothes washing powder. No biggie really but if it refuses to work until you use the "correct" powder, you're going to be a little annoyed because not only do we generally not want to reuse dirty clothes but we definitely are not going to like being told by the washing machine what powder we can use. And also because nobody these days is going to want to handwash their clothes.

When other internet connected devices start to play up like this and people lose all those "convenience" devices from their lives, the level of frustration in the public is going to rise and fear/paranoia of technology is a potential result - in a world where we are using high-tech nearly every day, all of a sudden you have a group of people who probably cannot function because their tech is screwing with them.
That's not even taking into account those people who will let their frustrations boil over into public disobedience or rioting.

[bash]

Attacks on consumer electronics in a coordinated fashion could actually be a useful weapon if used correctly. If you could cause a bunch of IoT appliances to turn on full blast (huge power draw) at the same time you cause some key power plants to shut down (or redirect their generation to unloaded circuits) you might be able to selectively black out cities. Couple blackouts with false flag terror attacks and you can multiply the damage and panic and throw a whole metro area into a dangerous panic.

At the same time there's a lot of cyber warfare doomsday scenarios that are too fanciful to actually be effective. Lots of systems work just fine air-gapped from the Internet proper. It's also trivial to simply shut down or throttle traffic from networks or groups of networks. Anymore network operators are well aware of DDoS techniques and patterns as are CDNs and a lot of cloud providers.

The sort of attacks that might have crippled networks and services twenty years ago are just Internet background noise today. Dedicated attacks by APTs still can and will cause damage to systems. Attackers only need to succeed once to be successful after all. However "unplug the router" is a fairly effective defense against a great deal of attacks.

[.45cultist]

Ok, I've started work on three civilian careers: Guide/Hunter/Poacher/Trapper, Prepper, Survival Instructor. The Instructor one can be used as an MOS with a Basic Training package. Ri-enactor is a possible one too.

Gadgets, Gear and Gizmos is also a chapter in my "Home Front" notes.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

<snip>
At the same time there's a lot of cyber warfare doomsday scenarios that are too fanciful to actually be effective. Lots of systems work just fine air-gapped from the Internet proper. It's also trivial to simply shut down or throttle traffic from networks or groups of networks. Anymore network operators are well aware of DDoS techniques and patterns as are CDNs and a lot of cloud providers.

The sort of attacks that might have crippled networks and services twenty years ago are just Internet background noise today. Dedicated attacks by APTs still can and will cause damage to systems. Attackers only need to succeed once to be successful after all. However "unplug the router" is a fairly effective defense against a great deal of attacks.

Thanks for the info, those of us outside the industry don't often hear about the newest protective measures.
Which leads me to another aspect of a Twilight: 2020 setting - nuclear power plants.

Newer NPPs use vastly different tech than their predecessors so the risk of a plant going critical and melting down like Three Mile Island or exploding like Chernobyl are very unlikely. I don't know the specifics so I hesitate to say that it could not happen at all, but again, the chance is very low.
So in regards to a T:2020 setting, the scenario of NPPs being left unmanned and melting down etc. etc. is confined to the older plants. Plants with newer reactor technology and containment principles are designed to slow the reactor process or remove the reactor fuel. If it all goes to hell, the reactor shuts down using the same principle as the dead man switch on locomotives. No nuclear devastation, no wrecked infrastructure, no radioactive contamination for miles around and there's the bonus possibility that the plant can be recovered and restarted.

Makes for some extra scenario possibilities.

[ChalkLine]

It looks like Russia is planning on deploying its new Ratnik Future Soldier System (https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_military_field_equipment/ratnik_future_soldier_individual_soldier_combat_ge ar_system_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pict ures_video_12205165.html#specifications) this year. Although this system has been 'deployed' since 2016 I know for certain that many of its components are still in train to be deployed but evidently it's getting to the troops in 2109.

It features:

- GPS individual positioning
- IR signature reducing camo
- Lightweight thermal individual weapon sight
- Exo-skeleton (I'll be very interested to see if they get this right)
- AK-12
- Lightweight 1kg helmet

all about 30 components.

This will make the Russians a bit more of a problem for modern campaigns
(crossposted in both forums)

[ChalkLine]

I think it is important to say that the USSR and Maoist China are gone, gone the way of the Aztecs. A Twilight 2020 should look at the modern world and base its models on what actually exists today rather than taking an easy way out and resurrecting old Cold War stereotypes. Yes, Russia may be an adversary of the USA but lets leave the kommissars in their graves.

In fact, Russia has to be an adversary. Every moderate power is going to have to fight the USA to make the scenario plausible, and this should probably include India, China and anyone else with a decent army. This is because in every aspect of military measurement the USA can annihilate any other coalition in a stand up fight. The USA easily outmatches Russia and China combined in the air and especially at sea and is only outmatched by the Chinese ability to muster more infantry, something easily offset by the USA planning and creating an army designed to obliterate any large mass of troops that confront it.

It will probably be easier to say who will fight with the USA rather than who will fight against it as the opposing coalition has to be huge to be a threat. The UK will definitely fight alongside the USA as will Australia. Both have armies inextricably linked to the USA fighting force and their foreign policies are usually exactly the same. Many allied nations might sit out a war until the nukes fly, as this is probably the greatest violation of international customs there is.

Once again, avoiding a 'this is how it happens' scenario we have to think where will the bulk of the war be fought. It really can't be fought in the USA as no one else can get close to it. To the south you have Central America and Mexico and those counties, while possible enemies of the USA, wouldn't invade even if they could and they can't. To the north is Canada which isn't about to, or even be capable of, invading the USA. It will have to be offshore.

Europe would be the best bet. Here the USA has a powerful presence and is creating a new centre of power in Poland. Most of the old NATO countries know Russia isn't an existential threat as Russia can hardly project power into Ukraine let alone Germany, but Ukraine, Poland and some of the Baltic States might be persuaded to go to war with Russia.

The question though is how to stop the USA beating Russia in an afternoon?

[Raellus]

I think it is important to say that the USSR and Maoist China are gone, gone the way of the Aztecs. A Twilight 2020 should look at the modern world and base its models on what actually exists today rather than taking an easy way out and resurrecting old Cold War stereotypes. Yes, Russia may be an adversary of the USA but lets leave the kommissars in their graves.

In fact, Russia has to be an adversary. Every moderate power is going to have to fight the USA to make the scenario plausible, and this should probably include India, China and anyone else with a decent army. This is because in every aspect of military measurement the USA can annihilate any other coalition in a stand up fight. The USA easily outmatches Russia and China combined in the air and especially at sea and is only outmatched by the Chinese ability to muster more infantry, something easily offset by the USA planning and creating an army designed to obliterate any large mass of troops that confront it.

It will probably be easier to say who will fight with the USA rather than who will fight against it as the opposing coalition has to be huge to be a threat. The UK will definitely fight alongside the USA as will Australia. Both have armies inextricably linked to the USA fighting force and their foreign policies are usually exactly the same. Many allied nations might sit out a war until the nukes fly, as this is probably the greatest violation of international customs there is.

Once again, avoiding a 'this is how it happens' scenario we have to think where will the bulk of the war be fought. It really can't be fought in the USA as no one else can get close to it. To the south you have Central America and Mexico and those counties, while possible enemies of the USA, wouldn't invade even if they could and they can't. To the north is Canada which isn't about to, or even be capable of, invading the USA. It will have to be offshore.

Europe would be the best bet. Here the USA has a powerful presence and is creating a new centre of power in Poland. Most of the old NATO countries know Russia isn't an existential threat as Russia can hardly project power into Ukraine let alone Germany, but Ukraine, Poland and some of the Baltic States might be persuaded to go to war with Russia.

The question though is how to stop the USA beating Russia in an afternoon?

As an American, I'm flattered by your assessment, but I think you are overestimating current U.S. military power, and underestimating Russian, and especially Chinese, capabilities.

First off, let's look at Russian and Chinese capabilities.

Just a few years ago, Russia annexed the Crimea, and they recently blockaded the port of Mairupol, impounded Ukrainian naval vessels, and shut Ukrainian traffic out of the Sea of Azov. NATO didn't/won't do anything about it. If Ukraine can't extinguish a long-running ethnic Russian separatist insurgency (which benefits from thinly-veiled Russian military support), how could it stop a full-scale Russian invasion without direct NATO intervention?

Russia could retake the Baltic States in a matter of a few weeks and there's not much NATO could do to stop it. Estonia has no air force. The U.S. simply doesn't have enough pre-positioned heavy combat units in Europe to respond quickly enough and with adequate force, to turn back a Russian invasion. This isn't just some amateur military-buff's assessment- US military think-tanks have concluded as much.

So that's where T2020 could start. The Baltic. Russian retakes Estonia and Latvia and NATO takes a belated stand on the Lithuania side of the Poland-Lithuanian border. Boom! WWIII. With the U.S. embroiled in a large-scale conventional war in the Baltics, China makes its play for Taiwan (and/or North Korea launches a second war of reunification) or, if that's too bold for your tastes, the Spratly Islands, attacking Vietnamese and Filipino navy vessels that arrive to assert their respective territorial claims.

The Chinese navy is growing faster than the USN. The USN is aging and it's newest [littoral combat] vessels have been beset by all sorts of mechanical and systems and structural problems. The Chinese have a large and formidable coastal defense force and are rapidly developing a capable blue water navy. Any naval war fought in either/both of the China Seas will mean that the Chinese have interior lines of supply and access to numerous land-based aircraft. Their new anti-carrier ballistic missile could be a game-changer. In a similar vein, the Russians are rolling out hypersonic SSM/ASMs. Meanwhile, the USN still relies on the 40-year old Harpoon ASM.

I've already touched on some US weaknesses above. Here are some more.

The US still has the largest military budget in the world, but instead of investing in new and improved major systems like replacements for its aging Ticonderoga class guided missile cruisers, or M1 MBTs, or F-16s, most of that money is spent to pay for its long-running "War on Terror"- and most of that is for upkeep and maintenance on old, hard-working systems.

The USAF is currently facing a pilot shortage. The F-35 is a highly problematic airframe/avionics platform and there's not enough money in the budget to restart F-22 production. Instead, the USAF is looking at a program to replace it's 40-year old F-15 fleet with a new, upgraded model, the F-15X. The workhorse of the USAF, the F-16 is also getting old (airframes are approaching the end of their serviceable career). Meanwhile, the Chinese air force is steadily growing and modernizing. It's catching up qualitatively too- they're starting production of their own stealth fighter.

Lots of U.S. tanks and IFVs have a lot of hard miles on them, from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, with replacements nowhere in sight. Thousands of new-ish MRAPs aren't going to help much in a conventional war against a modern foe like China or Russia.

These threads include links to various articles, mostly about Russian capabilities vis-à-vis the Baltics and NATO, some of which are referenced above:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?p=61416&highlight=Twilight+2030#post61416

[Legbreaker]

Ok, so the US military isn't likely to be beaten on the battlefield....
So don't try to.
Use economic warfare for a few years first to cripple the economy and make the US unable to sustain a large military.
Use social/cultural warfare to destroy the populations will to fight, even reduce their acknowledgement of the NEED to fight.
There's lots of ways to beat the US besides shooting at them. They just take a bit longer...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It's worth looking at what's happening with NATO in Romania and Bulgaria at the moment as a possible contribution to any casus belli, particularly in light of Russian jets buzzing NATO warships in the Black Sea.

[RN7]

I agree with some of this Raellus but I think you are being too critical of US capabilities.

First off, let's look at Russian and Chinese capabilities.

Just a few years ago, Russia annexed the Crimea, and they recently blockaded the port of Mairupol, impounded Ukrainian naval vessels, and shut Ukrainian traffic out of the Sea of Azov. NATO didn't/won't do anything about it. If Ukraine can't extinguish a long-running ethnic Russian separatist insurgency (which benefits from thinly-veiled Russian military support), how could it stop a full-scale Russian invasion without direct NATO intervention?

The Ukraine could do little to stop a Russian advance on their territory, they are massively outgunned. NATO could do little to aid them and wouldn't as they are not part of NATO.

Russia could retake the Baltic States in a matter of a few weeks and there's not much NATO could do to stop it. Estonia has no air force. The U.S. simply doesn't have enough pre-positioned heavy combat units in Europe to respond quickly enough and with adequate force, to turn back a Russian invasion. This isn't just some amateur military-buff's assessment- US military think-tanks have concluded as much.

Russia could take the Baltic States in a week as Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania have tiny and lightly armed militaries. NATO could do nothing to stop Russia doing it either outside air and naval attacks, although if NATO began mustering large land forces in Germany or Poland the Russians would likely retreat back to their border with the Baltics. They don't want to tangle with NATO and US forces beyond their own sphere of influence as they will lose.

So that's where T2020 could start. The Baltic. Russian retakes Estonia and Latvia and NATO takes a belated stand on the Lithuania side of the Poland-Lithuanian border. Boom! WWIII. With the U.S. embroiled in a large-scale conventional war in the Baltics, China makes its play for Taiwan (and/or North Korea launches a second war of reunification) or, if that's too bold for your tastes, the Spratly Islands, attacking Vietnamese and Filipino navy vessels that arrive to assert their respective territorial claims.

Its plausible, but the Middle East is also very dangerous at the moment with ISIS on the retreat but still dangerous, the Arabs fighting proxy wars with each other and Iran and Russia causing trouble. Israel and Turkey could also be dragged into it.

The Chinese navy is growing faster than the USN. The USN is aging and it's newest [littoral combat] vessels have been beset by all sorts of mechanical and systems and structural problems. The Chinese have a large and formidable coastal defense force and are rapidly developing a capable blue water navy. Any naval war fought in either/both of the China Seas will mean that the Chinese have interior lines of supply and access to numerous land-based aircraft. Their new anti-carrier ballistic missile could be a game-changer. In a similar vein, the Russians are rolling out hypersonic SSM/ASMs. Meanwhile, the USN still relies on the 40-year old Harpoon ASM.

China has greatly expanded its naval forces over the past 20 years. On paper its looks formidable, but there are flaws to their naval expansion. Chinese littoral forces will not come in range of US Navy warships unless the US Navy wants to engage them. US Navy aircraft, submarines and USAF aircraft are capable of picking them off at will from US carriers and land bases in the Pacific without China being able to do much about it. Quite frankly it would be a one sided slaughter if the US went full throttle at them. Also the Chinese cannot rely on the PLAAF to defend their ships close to China as the PLAAF is simply not good enough of an air force in equipment or experience despite the hype from Chinese propaganda. US Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet's and USAF F-22 and F-15E would wipe the floor of them and the Chinese probably know it.

To fully engage the US Navy out in the Pacific the Chinese need aircraft carriers and submarines, and a lot of them. The Chinese carriers are not capable of taking on US Navy carriers for a whole load of reasons, but principly because they don't have naval aircraft to compete with US Navy aircraft and their movement would be tracked by US intelligence resources particularly orbital satellites. US submarines or strike aircraft would blow them out of the water before they got in sight of Taiwan or the Philippines. Chinese submarine are also not a match for US submarines, and are also noisy and easy to track.

The Chinese DF-21D anti-carrier ballistic missiles threat is more an illusion than reality. The Russians tried this in the 1970's, gave up and switched their focus to the Tu-22M Backfire with supersonic nuclear missiles. China needs a powerful OTH radar, recon satellites, recon aircraft and submarines to all work in tandem to track the US carrier and hit it while its standing still about 1,700 miles offshore, and hope that the US carrier is not sailing full steam at 30 knots, and that all the US escorts with multiple anti-ABM missiles and ECM are asleep and that there is no clutter over the area. The OTH radar of questionable capabilities that China has constructed with Russian assistance in the Gobi desert would be vaporised long before the US sends its carriers in range of Chinese forces in wartime.

The Harpoon is an old missile but is still highly capable but it is now being replaced. The Freedom and Independence Class LCS are being fitted with new Norwegian NSM missiles. All US Navy combat aircraft and USAF and Marine aircraft are capable of firing the air launched AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER anti-ship cruise missile. It is an advanced anti-ship missile with a range of 170 miles and is considered the most accurate in US Navy service. The even more advanced AGM-158C LRASM or JASSM is currently entering service with a range of 300 miles, and potentially 1,000 miles, with US Navy aircraft. The AGM-158C can also be ship-launched and will probably be fitted to the Zumwalt Class destroyer and other ships. The Russians have had supersonic cruise missiles since the 1970's, they armed them with nuclear warheads as it was the only way they could attack a US Navy aircraft carrier and destroy it. But if you use a nuclear warhead against US forces you also risk a retaliatory American nuclear strike on you.


I've already touched on some US weaknesses above. Here are some more.

The US still has the largest military budget in the world, but instead of investing in new and improved major systems like replacements for its aging Ticonderoga class guided missile cruisers, or M1 MBTs, or F-16s, most of that money is spent to pay for its long-running "War on Terror"- and most of that is for upkeep and maintenance on old, hard-working systems.

The USAF is currently facing a pilot shortage. The F-35 is a highly problematic airframe/avionics platform and there's not enough money in the budget to restart F-22 production. Instead, the USAF is looking at a program to replace it's 40-year old F-15 fleet with a new, upgraded model, the F-15X. The workhorse of the USAF, the F-16 is also getting old (airframes are approaching the end of their serviceable career). Meanwhile, the Chinese air force is steadily growing and modernizing. It's catching up qualitatively too- they're starting production of their own stealth fighter.

The F-35 is a problematic aircraft and is aerodynamically inferior to an F-16 with a GE engine and is dependent on its sensors. But its primarily a BVR fighter and strike platform, and its stealth will give it an edge over any other fighter. The F-22 is aerodynamically superior to any other fighter at the moment and with the F-35 is the only 5th Generation combat jet flying. Only the Su-57 is believed to be in the same class and it is a less powerful aircraft than the F-22 and it is still a prototype, and it is unlikely to be built in great numbers or exported by Russia. The only other fighter that could take on an F-22 at the moment in a BVR or WVR air duel with any confidence of defeating it is a Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3, which basically means that the only air force that has a hope of taking on the F-22 is the British RAF. In regards to combating any 5th generation aircraft coming online from Russia or China over the next decade, the US has been designing and developing their 6th Generation F-X since 2012.

The F-15X is in my opinion a good idea as its in the same class as the ex-Soviet Flanker variants which are the main BVR combat aircraft of the Russian, Chinese and many other air forces. An upgraded F-15C with a new airframe, more powerful engines, new sensors and the latest missiles would be a very effective way of countering the proliferation of Flanker variants around at the moment other than building more F-22's which would be a problem in itself as they would need an upgrade themselves which would not be cheap.

As regards to China well they can't build reliable jet engines because they weren't able to steal the technology from America and Britain that is needed to build them. Basically they haven't been able to copy the metallurgical and engineering processes needed, or can they manufacture the crystal nickle-steel that is needed to sustain them for 2,000 hours plus without fail. Chinese jet engines burn out after about 40 hours and fall out of the sky. China uses Russian engines which are not as good as American or British engines but still way better than Chinese ones. Until they manage to build a reliable jet engine I will reserve my opinion of Chinese aircraft.

Lots of U.S. tanks and IFVs have a lot of hard miles on them, from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, with replacements nowhere in sight. Thousands of new-ish MRAPs aren't going to help much in a conventional war against a modern foe like China or Russia.

These threads include links to various articles, mostly about Russian capabilities vis-à-vis the Baltics and NATO, some of which are referenced above:

The US hasn't built any new tanks since the mid-1990's, but with good reason as practically all their M1 tanks have been rebuilt to such an extent they are practically new tanks. They are also fitted with DU armour, which is about the strongest armour around and none have been lost to enemy action by a direct hit in their critical frontal armour. In 2018 the US Army and Marines had 2,831 M1 Abrams in service with another 3,500 held in storage.

[ChalkLine]

Ok, so the US military isn't likely to be beaten on the battlefield....
So don't try to.
Use economic warfare for a few years first to cripple the economy and make the US unable to sustain a large military.
Use social/cultural warfare to destroy the populations will to fight, even reduce their acknowledgement of the NEED to fight.
There's lots of ways to beat the US besides shooting at them. They just take a bit longer...

Yep, but I'm trying to do a 'we are fighting US enemies in a foreign theatre after a nuclear exchange'. Even with a lot of weakening moves not much will make an effect before 2020. Maybe I should have thought 2025

[ChalkLine]

The Russian GDP, which is smaller than Spain's, is going backwards. They can't afford to outfit themselves with a division of their T-14s and have the Armata variants in the same division. Honestly, they have very little projection ability. Not only that but they don't want to. Crimea was transferred to Ukraine by Nikita Kruschev in 1957 from Russia and the Russians wanted it back. Ukraine has gone neo-fascist and actually is oppressing the Donbass Russians (I have a friend who is Ukrainian who tells me that their revolution was hijacked by the thugs from groups like the Azov Battalion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion) and they now run the defence ministry). Russia, no good guy either, is just settling scores in its neighbourhood. They aren't interested in the old soviet defence-in-depth perimeter the soviets set up after The Second World War

For expansionism, as many people said, they key area is The South China Sea. However this area doesn't give us the armoured war that we are kind of after so it looks like we're going to have to fight on the Chinese mainland. I assume that Taiwan will be 'bounced' in a time coinciding with hawk governments on both sides.

[Legbreaker]

Maybe I should have thought 2025.

Makes a little more sense I think and certainly allows more time to set up the needed conditions.

[Raellus]

The Russian GDP, which is smaller than Spain's, is going backwards. They can't afford to outfit themselves with a division of their T-14s and have the Armata variants in the same division.

And they took the Crimea back, by force, and Ukraine could do nothing about it. You seem to think Ukraine didn't really want it, or care about the Russian smash-and-grab of Ukraine's sovereign territory.

The Russians don't need a division of Armata MBTs to retake the Baltic States. They could do it without a single T-14. They have an overwhelming military superiority over all three Baltic States combined. Yes, the Baltics are part of NATO, but NATO is a hollow shell of its former, Cold War self. The US has no prepositioned heavy divisions in Europe. The UK has one aircraft carrier and a steadily shrinking, aging navy. The German military is in decline. It can barely field a single squadron of combat ready aircraft, and major defects have been found in its Puma IFVs, it's newest destroyers, its E90 transports, and the G36! The Russians have been flexing on the Baltics for the last several years. They've been projecting military power in the Baltic to the point that Finland is considering joining NATO. They could reconquer the Baltics and NATO couldn't stop them. There's your T2020-'25 right there.

Seriously, don't take my word for it. Read some of the articles I linked to in the other thread I shared. I posted those a couple of years ago and, since then, not much has changed. If anything, with Brexit, NATO is more disfunctional that it was then.

Honestly, they have very little projection ability. Not only that but they don't want to.

Neither of those statements is accurate. Were you forgetting the Russian forces currently operating in Syria? The same Russian air, sea, and land forces that saved the teetering Assad regime? If they didn't care about projection ability, why are they so desperately trying to hold onto their Mediterranean naval bases in Syria?

Putin longs for the days of Soviet (ne Russian) influence, in Europe and beyond. That's why he continues to flex on the Baltics, and support the Assad regime in Syria.

Ukraine has gone neo-fascist and actually is oppressing the Donbass Russians (I have a friend who is Ukrainian who tells me that their revolution was hijacked by the thugs from groups like the Azov Battalion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion) and they now run the defence ministry).

Your Ukrainian friend sounds like he has a strong pro-Russian bias. You might want to do a little more research on the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution and subsequent Russian-backed separatist movement.

[Legbreaker]

Putin longs for the days of Soviet (ne Russian) influence, in Europe and beyond.

You know this how exactly?
Note the media isn't exactly unbiased...

[Raellus]

You know this how exactly?
Note the media isn't exactly unbiased...

The western media. ;)

Seriously, though- you guys are intelligent. Are you not following current events? Do you seriously believe Putin's propaganda? I can't believe that we're having this debate.

Anyway, I don't need the media to tell me what Putin's mindset is. Just take a look at his behavior, including but not limited to:


Russia's seizure (by force) of Crimea
Russia's continued support of separatists in eastern Ukraine
Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election (according to the CIA, NSA, and FBI)
Russian defense procurement and spending (the fact that they can't currently afford to purchase the various modern, offensive weapon systems that they want to is largely immaterial- the intent is there)
Russia's various shows of force, like it's recent staging of Blackjack strategic bombers from Venezuela http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25570/venezuela-agreed-to-let-russia-set-up-a-bomber-outpost-on-this-carribean-island-reports
Russian bombers have been flying right on the edge of Finnish, Swedish, UK, Canadian, and US airspace
Russia's direct military support of the Assad regime in Syria
Russia's blockade of Mariupol and seizure of Ukrainian naval vessels
Russia's militarization of the Arctic http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25763/russia-projects-heavy-airpower-in-the-arctic-from-constellation-of-new-and-improved-bases
Russia's attempts to woo Serbia https://www.reuters.com/article/us-serbia-defence-russia-idUSKBN12Y1JX


Putin claims that most of this behavior is defensive in nature. He sees NATO and the US as an existential threat to Russia. This is clearly a Cold War mentality. So to is the concept of self-defense through the acquisition of buffer states (like Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, etc.), massive military- conventional and nuclear- strength, and power projection.

Bottom line Leg, are you saying that Putin doesn't long for the days of Soviet (ne Russian) power and influence in Europe and beyond? And you would know this how exactly?

[RN7]

The western media. ;)

Seriously, though- you guys are intelligent. Are you not following current events? Do you seriously believe Putin's propaganda? I can't believe that we're having this debate.

Anyway, I don't need the media to tell me what Putin's mindset is. Just take a look at his behavior, including but not limited to:


Russia's seizure (by force) of Crimea
Russia's continued support of separatists in eastern Ukraine
Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election (according to the CIA, NSA, and FBI)
Russian defense procurement and spending (the fact that they can't currently afford to purchase the various modern, offensive weapon systems that they want to is largely immaterial- the intent is there)
Russia's various shows of force, like it's recent staging of Blackjack strategic bombers from Venezuela http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25570/venezuela-agreed-to-let-russia-set-up-a-bomber-outpost-on-this-carribean-island-reports
Russian bombers have been flying right on the edge of Finnish, Swedish, UK, Canadian, and US airspace
Russia's direct military support of the Assad regime in Syria
Russia's blockade of Mariupol and seizure of Ukrainian naval vessels
Russia's militarization of the Arctic http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25763/russia-projects-heavy-airpower-in-the-arctic-from-constellation-of-new-and-improved-bases
Russia's attempts to woo Serbia https://www.reuters.com/article/us-serbia-defence-russia-idUSKBN12Y1JX


Putin claims that most of this behavior is defensive in nature. He sees NATO and the US as an existential threat to Russia. This is clearly a Cold War mentality. So to is the concept of self-defense through the acquisition of buffer states (like Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, etc.), massive military- conventional and nuclear- strength, and power projection.

Bottom line Leg, are you saying that Putin doesn't long for the days of Soviet (ne Russian) power and influence in Europe and beyond? And you would know this how exactly?

Also the state sponsored assassination by poison and nerve warfare agent of Putin's critics and opponents in Britain, Russia and the Ukraine, and Russian spies trying to hack the evidence from files from chemical weapons labs in the Netherlands and Switzerland.

[ChalkLine]

The western media. ;)

Seriously, though- you guys are intelligent. Are you not following current events? Do you seriously believe Putin's propaganda? I can't believe that we're having this debate.

Anyway, I don't need the media to tell me what Putin's mindset is. Just take a look at his behavior, including but not limited to:


Russia's seizure (by force) of Crimea
Russia's continued support of separatists in eastern Ukraine
Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election (according to the CIA, NSA, and FBI)
Russian defense procurement and spending (the fact that they can't currently afford to purchase the various modern, offensive weapon systems that they want to is largely immaterial- the intent is there)
Russia's various shows of force, like it's recent staging of Blackjack strategic bombers from Venezuela http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25570/venezuela-agreed-to-let-russia-set-up-a-bomber-outpost-on-this-carribean-island-reports
Russian bombers have been flying right on the edge of Finnish, Swedish, UK, Canadian, and US airspace
Russia's direct military support of the Assad regime in Syria
Russia's blockade of Mariupol and seizure of Ukrainian naval vessels
Russia's militarization of the Arctic http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25763/russia-projects-heavy-airpower-in-the-arctic-from-constellation-of-new-and-improved-bases
Russia's attempts to woo Serbia https://www.reuters.com/article/us-serbia-defence-russia-idUSKBN12Y1JX


Putin claims that most of this behavior is defensive in nature. He sees NATO and the US as an existential threat to Russia. This is clearly a Cold War mentality. So to is the concept of self-defense through the acquisition of buffer states (like Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, etc.), massive military- conventional and nuclear- strength, and power projection.

Bottom line Leg, are you saying that Putin doesn't long for the days of Soviet (ne Russian) power and influence in Europe and beyond? And you would know this how exactly?

Well, after Gorbachev was promised that NATO 'would not move an inch closer' to Russia, the INF treaty being repudiated on technical grounds, NATO exercises being held constantly on their doorstep, their long time ally Syria being attacked by the west, Ukraine's behaviour (honestly, they're both as bad as each other. Ukraine is not an angel), Venezuela - another longtime ally - being under constant attack by the US and the US expanding to 800 bases world wide and having a war on their border and assaulting Russia's allies everywhere, and finally Russia and Serbia are probably the longest allies that have ties - Russia went into WW1 to save them and almost started a war when NATO attacked them in 1999, I'm not surprised they're sabre-rattling.

When the powers we dislike do anything it is because of dark designs, but when we empire-build it is because we believe in the liberal world order of law despite we consistently - without fail - install worse governments than the ones we outright depose without any legitimacy except 'it was presented to the voters as an ethical move'.

Russia, China etc are not angels in no way shape or form, but it is not they who have been at war for nigh on twenty years with half the world. It's about time for everyone to take a long hard look and take note that it was the USA and it's allies (I include my country) that has plunged this world into perpetual war after the Cold War, a war that we prolonged as long as possible to the point where we almost annihilated life on the planet

[Raellus]

Russia, China etc are not angels in no way shape or form, but it is not they who have been at war for nigh on twenty years with half the world. It's about time for everyone to take a long hard look and take note that it was the USA and it's allies (I include my country) that has plunged this world into perpetual war after the Cold War, a war that we prolonged as long as possible to the point where we almost annihilated life on the planet

I agree with you here, Chalkline. I am no American foreign policy apologist. As I pointed out in my last post, a large portion of recent Russian "aggression" stems from atavistic fears the Russians have harbored since the betrayal and existential crisis of Operation Barbarossa. Putin, for one, believes that the best defense is a good offense. That doesn't change the fact that Russia is behaving aggressively in Eastern Europe. To say that the Russians aren't interested in, or capable of, projecting power is simply inaccurate.

To get back to your original question, if you want to start your future T2K with a land war between Russia and the U.S.A., then you needn't look any further than Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. All the ingredients are already there.

[Legbreaker]

I'm saying in the west we're subjected to a LOT of propaganda.
Without a reliable source close to Putin himself, everything we think we know is only conjecture. Not a single person on this board really has ANY idea of what Putin thinks, believes and desires. We can make guesses, but we cannot know.

[WallShadow]

I'm saying in the west we're subjected to a LOT of propaganda.
Without a reliable source close to Putin himself, everything we think we know is only conjecture. Not a single person on this board really has ANY idea of what Putin thinks, believes and desires. We can make guesses, but we cannot know.
One guess is that he wants to project an image of a personally macho manly moonshine-drinkin', Inuit-woman-killin', polar-bear-rapin' MAN! (old joke)

[mpipes]

The one thing everyone does know at this point is that Putin was to restore Russia as a first tier world power with closely aligned allies. He knows the former east bloc countries are a lost cause at this point, but he wants historically Russian territory officially part of Russia or closely aligned governments. The most obvious targets for expansion are the Baltic States and maybe Finland. He is not going further into Ukraine without stirring up a lot of trouble at this point.

Taking a step back, I think Russia will concentrate on expanding military influence in the West through sales and work on growing its ties with Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. Cuba is pretty much a write-off at this point, but Mexico, Brazil, Malaysia, and Vietnam are all attractive to Russian overtures. As funny as it may sound, I don't think Vietnam is much attracted to closer relations with Russia and instead is looking toward the west, especially the Philippines, New Zealand, Australia and the US. While many see a resurgence in a Russia-China alliance, I think Russia views China as a potential adversary just as much as it does the US and while it seeks to sell weapons to the Chinese, I don't think its goal is an alliance.

[ChalkLine]

I'm sorry if I got a bit strident there guys. I got called a 'Russian appeaser' over at RPG.net and it got my back up

[Legbreaker]

I'm sorry if I got a bit strident there guys. I got called a 'Russian appeaser' over at RPG.net and it got my back up

Actually, I think you were pretty much on point with your earlier comments. When we step back and look at the world from an unbiased viewpoint, there's plenty of good reasons why Russia might be just a tiny bit upset with the west and the US in particular.

[ChalkLine]

Back on Topic.

I think a 'Twilight 20x0' set on China's eastern seaboard might be an idea. An international coalition gets cut off after taking a large swathe of the area. This would have the flat terrain of China's coastal plain and the urban terrain of the various mega-cities

[unkated]

Actually, re-read the top message: "on topic" is a discussion of what things would appear in a modern Twilight:2020 that would need additional rules.

And I thought of one I don't think was covered: limits/capabilities on autonomous actions by unmanned vehicles.

The Israelis have a couple of (armed) ground vehicles capable or an amount of autonomy (it can navigate a track; stop and report if anomalies detected). Distinctly, it cannot attack automatically - but that is more a matter of programming than a lack of capability.

I also know there are other unmanned vehicles in the US, UK, and Russia with a mix of capabilities.

Uncle Ted

[StainlessSteelCynic]

<snip>
The Israelis have a couple of (armed) ground vehicles capable or an amount of autonomy (it can navigate a track; stop and report if anomalies detected). Distinctly, it cannot attack automatically - but that is more a matter of programming than a lack of capability.
<snip>
Uncle Ted
To go further with this, the matter of programming is more to do with legalities and liabilities than any inability to create the software that would allow any unmanned vehicle autonomy in regards to attacking.
Another aspect of the situation is that in some cases communications difficulties have lessened human oversight of various robots used in combat zones so a push to have them able to "think" for themselves is not seen as a bad thing by some people.

There's enough research and even practical examples of target recognition software available to show that the idea is viable e.g. traffic monitoring systems that have the ability to single out specific vehicles such as heavy trucks using roads they aren't supposed to. Refining the abilty would probably be a case of using various sensors to get confirmation that the potential target is an armed enemy rather than changing the software.

Many people are not happy with the idea of "armed robots" let alone the idea of those "armed robots" having the discretion to attack as their AI decides... echoes of Skynet and the Terminator...
Do you remember back in 2007 in South Africa when a 35mm AA system opened fire on some troops and killed 9 of them and injured others? That AA system wasn't even autonomous, it apparently just glitched.
https://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/

But the push for combat robots with more autonomy was being pursued even with that sort of negative publicity.
https://www.wired.com/2007/10/roomba-maker-un/

The legal/liability aspect plays a big part as obviously very few governments want the bad publicity that would be generated if an autonomous unit shot innocent bystanders.
This is similar to what's happening in the world of self-driving vehicles. In industrial areas where there's no unauthorised & untrained personnel around they are in use and working well.
There's a great barrier to their introduction for private vehicle use though because governments have not yet defined who would be at fault if a self-driving car crashes into someone or something.

[pmulcahy11b]

The US hasn't built any new tanks since the mid-1990's, but with good reason as practically all their M1 tanks have been rebuilt to such an extent they are practically new tanks. They are also fitted with DU armour, which is about the strongest armour around and none have been lost to enemy action by a direct hit in their critical frontal armour. In 2018 the US Army and Marines had 2,831 M1 Abrams in service with another 3,500 held in storage.

Sorry to get a little off-topic, but I have a question about DU armor. We know from vehicles and aircraft firing DU ammunition that DU is pyrophoric, which means that it tends to burst into a giant flaming mass when it penetrates a target. What happens if the DU layer of armor is hit by a good penetrator?

[RN7]

Sorry to get a little off-topic, but I have a question about DU armor. We know from vehicles and aircraft firing DU ammunition that DU is pyrophoric, which means that it tends to burst into a giant flaming mass when it penetrates a target. What happens if the DU layer of armor is hit by a good penetrator?

Good question and to be honest I don't know. I've been browsing around for a while and can't find an answer for you. Maybe the information is on some website but likely it is not as the composition of DU armor is highly classified defence material. However from what I've read and surmised the DU armor is fitted in layers with other extremely tough material such as Chobham or other ceramic materials, or is mixed with it when fitted to the Abrams tank making it less flammable. DU armor is concentrated on the frontal glacis of the Abrams and as far as I know it has never officially been penetrated by any type of tank round or missile ordinance. Only US Army and Marine Abrams tanks are fitted with DU armor and the US has not exported the tank fitted with DU armor to any country expect possibly Australia.

[unkated]

From a Quora article about the DU armor on the US M1 Abrams...

(Why is depleted uranium used in the Abrams new armor (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-depleted-uranium-used-in-the-Abrams-new-armor-It-is-heavy-like-lead-and-is-it-harder))

"The biggest drawback to DU armor was noticed during “blue on blue” fire during the Gulf War and the Iraq war - a DU penetrator passing through DU armor meant that higher levels of DU were present in the atmosphere of the tank immediately after it was hit, exposing the crew to higher levels of inhaled DU. So the greatest exposure was to tank crews was to those who were in a DU-armored tank hit with a DU round. Non-DU rounds (such as those used by the Iraqi army) were much less penetrating."

I found this in a Reddit article (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/233hjv/why_is_depleted_uranium_used_in_armor/):

Solid uranium isn't all that pyrophoric, because that reaction is based on surface area. Uranium shavings or powder, like what you might get when machining it, are the real danger; that's why you operate the machines under oil or a non-oxygen gas (nitrogen and argon are common choices, I think). However, a sheet of uranium isn't going to be very enthusiastic about catching on fire, because only the very surface is subject to pyrophoricity.

(Since I am not a scientist, I make no claims about this; just passing it on. The article includes a picture of where the DU armor is (turret front).)

Uncle Ted

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The Australian M1 Abrams do not have the DU armour composite, it was explicitly mentioned in the request by Australia that the tanks use conventional composite armour (i.e. non-DU armour).
Can't remember the source for that info but it was mentioned in a few of the defence magazines I was reading at the time of the Abrams purchase and there's likely to be something online about it.

[Vespers War]

Going back to the original question of what's needed, one of the things that should have been in the previous editions (but wasn't) are active defense for tanks - systems like Drozd, Arena, Malachit, and Trophy.

It would be also interesting to me to see the up-gunned tanks being worked on (the Rheinmetall 130mm L/51, the 2A83 152mm L/45) and possibly some of the old guns that were being developed before APFSDS ammo became prevalent, like the XM291 140mm L/47 and the Leopard 2-140 L/50.



For small arms, one fairly recent development is Serbia's adoption-for-testing of the Zastava M17 in 6.5mm Grendel (essentially an AK platform, with 20-round straight mags and 30-round bananas). I recently found a photo of an information card from a trade show in Belgrade, and according to that it's 3.7 kg empty, has a telescoping stock with an overall length of 88-94.5 cm, barrel length of 41.5 cm, has over-and-under Pic rails on the handguard, and accepts either a .165 kg 20-round or .22 kg 30-round mag. Running it through FF&S, I get:
Wt 3.7 kg, Mag 20 or 30, ROF 5, Dam 3, Pen 2-Nil, Blk 6, SS 3, Brst 7, Rng 50.

There's mention of barrel lengths being available for CQB, Assault Rifle, and DMR use, but no other barrel lengths are specified on the sheet I've seen.

[pmulcahy11b]

Unkated -- That second link pretty much had the information I needed (though I don't normally trust just one source if I can avoid it). But thanks!

[RN7]

The Australian M1 Abrams do not have the DU armour composite, it was explicitly mentioned in the request by Australia that the tanks use conventional composite armour (i.e. non-DU armour).
Can't remember the source for that info but it was mentioned in a few of the defence magazines I was reading at the time of the Abrams purchase and there's likely to be something online about it.

They do have DU armour but the Australian government won't officially confirm it.

I've suspected for some time that the Aussie tanks have DU armour and what has always made me think that is the weight of the tank they bought from the US. Here is a detailed explanation about why the Australian M1 Abrams are fitted with DU armour from someone who knows.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Australian-Army-M1-Abrams-have-the-same-depleted-uranium-armor-as-the-US-Army-Abrams-tanks

[RN7]

Also a reply by an Aussie AFV commander on the same link contradicts the American tank commanders opinion and states that Australian tanks do not use DU armour. I much prefer the American tank commanders answer.

[ChalkLine]

As of two years ago the ADF stated that the next batch of M1s will have DU and they'd like the old ones upgraded

[ChalkLine]

The Morrow Project's superb system for settlements, tech levels and so on is something I think should be emulated. If you haven't seen it have look, it transfers easily to Twilight

[Legbreaker]

As of two years ago the ADF stated that the next batch of M1s will have DU and they'd like the old ones upgraded

So essentially both people RN7 referred to are correct.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Put me on the list of people disputing the Quora comment from Ryan Parkinson (someone who hasn't had any experience with the Australian version of the Abrams). His answer infers the initial Aussie Abrams have DU armour. They don't.

All the Aussie vehicles were zero-hour rebuilds to M1A1-AIM ver1 standard. The extra equipment added by the AIM ver1 programme included FLIR, Far Target Locating sensors, a tank-infantry phone, more comms gear, FBCB2 & Blue Force Tracking for crew situational awareness as well as a thermal sight for the .50 cal. Plus some other mods for Australian conditions (just like our Leopard 1's were not the same weight and configuration as any other Leo 1 in service elsewhere in the world)

Now I'm not saying all that extra gear totals up to exactly to Ryan's "missing" two tonnes but it'd be pretty damned close when you add in all the upgrades to airconditioning to mitigate heat from the extra electronics, the extra cabling to connect everything and so on.
I pay more attention to the Quora answer given by Fahkyou Thatsmyname because I was in the Australian Armoured Corp and his language rings true to me so I am inclined to believe him when he says he has experience with the Aussie Abrams.

Now Chalkline says that we are asking for the next lot of M1s to have DU armour and the old ones to be upgraded. I'm inclined to believe Chalk because in the past I've typically found his research to be reliable.
Given two separate comments from Australians about an Australian topic, yes I am going to be guilty of jingoism and say that maybe we know more about it than someone who while having served on the Abrams in US service, doesn't actually have any experience with the Aussie variant.

EDIT: It needs to be kept in mind that at the time the Abrams was being considered for Australia, the government at Federal, State and Local levels (and a lot of the public) were generally, staunchly anti-nuclear. If Australian Abrams did have the DU armour, it would not have been a secret for very long and it would have caused protests. It's the same reason why we did not get DU penetrator ammuntion. The Abrams have been in service since 2007 and nobody here has heard so much as a whisper that they secretly have DU armour.

[RN7]

As of two years ago the ADF stated that the next batch of M1s will have DU and they'd like the old ones upgraded

With all due respect to you ChalkLine what is the explanation for the weight of the Australian M1 Abrams if they are not fitted with DU armour?.

[RN7]

Put me on the list of people disputing the Quora comment from Ryan Parkinson (someone who hasn't had any experience with the Australian version of the Abrams). His answer infers the initial Aussie Abrams have DU armour. They don't.

All the Aussie vehicles were zero-hour rebuilds to M1A1-AIM ver1 standard. The extra equipment added by the AIM ver1 programme included FLIR, Far Target Locating sensors, a tank-infantry phone, more comms gear, FBCB2 & Blue Force Tracking for crew situational awareness as well as a thermal sight for the .50 cal. Plus some other mods for Australian conditions (just like our Leopard 1's were not the same weight and configuration as any other Leo 1 in service elsewhere in the world)

Now I'm not saying all that extra gear totals up to exactly to Ryan's "missing" two tonnes but it'd be pretty damned close when you add in all the upgrades to airconditioning to mitigate heat from the extra electronics, the extra cabling to connect everything and so on.
I pay more attention to the Quora answer given by Fahkyou Thatsmyname because I was in the Australian Armoured Corp and his language rings true to me so I am inclined to believe him when he says he has experience with the Aussie Abrams.

Now Chalkline says that we are asking for the next lot of M1s to have DU armour and the old ones to be upgraded. I'm inclined to believe Chalk because in the past I've typically found his research to be reliable.
Given two separate comments from Australians about an Australian topic, yes I am going to be guilty of jingoism and say that maybe we know more about it than someone who while having served on the Abrams in US service, doesn't actually have any experience with the Aussie variant.

EDIT: It needs to be kept in mind that at the time the Abrams was being considered for Australia, the government at Federal, State and Local levels (and a lot of the public) were generally, staunchly anti-nuclear. If Australian Abrams did have the DU armour, it would not have been a secret for very long and it would have caused protests. It's the same reason why we did not get DU penetrator ammuntion. The Abrams have been in service since 2007 and nobody here has heard so much as a whisper that they secretly have DU armour.


StainlessSteelCynic if you want to go on Quora and dispute what Ryan Parkinson said then feel free to do that.

The Australian M1 Abrams is a very heavy tank, far heavier than it should be if it is not fitted with DU armour.

The only way to prove this is if they are sent into combat. If the Australian Abrams start getting creamed then we know they don't have DU armour just like the Arab M1's. If they don't then we know they have DU armour.

The Australian government says they are not fitted with DU armour and the Australian commander's answer follows that line. Fine. He was in the Australian Army although from what he said he was with AFV's not tanks. He put down Ryan Parkinson's comments but did not give any explanation whatsoever as to why the Australian M1's are so heavy.

Ryan Parkinson did serve as a M1 Abrams tank commander. He gave a very detailed explanation to account for the weight of the Aussie Abrams. Don't believe what he said if you don't want to, but until I am given an explanation as to why the Australian Army tanks are so heavy I will.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Respectfully RN7, I disagree and nothing that's been presented by anyone proves that Aussie M1s have DU armour. If anything the math indicates they wouldn't have DU armour based on the improvement package they recieved - base weight 60 tons + AIM package Ver1 approx 3 tons (but modified for Australian requirements + DU armour 2 tons would give a total weight of at least 65 tons.
The Aussie M1s are listed as 62 tons.
As for the Aussie on Quora, he explicity states that he worked with the Aussie M1.

[ChalkLine]

With all due respect to you ChalkLine what is the explanation for the weight of the Australian M1 Abrams if they are not fitted with DU armour?.

No idea mate. I gleaned that info from the ADF magazine and they didn't mention weights, only procurements

[Legbreaker]

I'm with SSC. There's no way Australian M1's have DU armour, not without first breaking physics or some form of antigrav tech involved.
Australian tanks have always been modified with additional equipment and the M1 is certainly no different there. The "missing" 2 tonnes is easily accounted for with this additional equipment. Further vehicles MAY have DU armour, but not without it being a huge issue in the media and possibly one of the worst political moves in Australian history.

[ChalkLine]

I'm with SSC. There's no way Australian M1's have DU armour, not without first breaking physics or some form of antigrav tech involved.
Australian tanks have always been modified with additional equipment and the M1 is certainly no different there. The "missing" 2 tonnes is easily accounted for with this additional equipment. Further vehicles MAY have DU armour, but not without it being a huge issue in the media and possibly one of the worst political moves in Australian history.

I'm a greenie but if they whinge about DU in the media I'll lose my bottle. Ordinary RH armour stopped working in WW2 and the journos have the responsibility to inform the public of that fact. It's not like Oz isn't loaded with uranium anyway. Anything less than some sort of advanced armour turns those MBTs into gun-carriers, and gun-carriers only survive until they shoot the first time.

[RN7]

All official information about the Australian Army M1 Abrams will tell you that the Aussie Abrams do not have DU armour. Not only that but even Australian government papers relating to the arms deal and the Australian Army guys themselves who tested it with US forces in the Middle East will state there was no DU armour fitted if you care to look online. Fine. All the environmentalists and green minded people in Australia including politicians are happy to hear that.

I've always had an issue with the weight of the Australian Abrams and thought it was a bit heavy for a non-DU armoured tank. I looked it up on the Australian Army website a few years ago and it was listed as 68.2 tons. But now it has been changed and the weight of the tank is officially 62,000 kilograms. A simple error perhaps, but this information has been completely retracted and changed to 62,000 kilograms everywhere you look. What happened? Was someone asking to many questions?

62,000 kilograms is 62 metric tons but this is equivalent to 68.2 US tons. The Americans use US tons not metric tons.


Australia bought either the M1A1-AIM or the M1A1-AIMSA

1) M1A1AIM v.1 (Abrams Integrated Management): Older units are reconditioned to zero hour conditions; and the tank is improved by adding Forward-Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) and Far Target Locate sensors, a tank-infantry phone, communications gear, including FBCB2 and Blue Force Tracking to aid in crew situational awareness, and a thermal sight for the .50 caliber machine gun.

2) M1A1AIM v.2/M1A1SA (Situational Awareness): Upgrades similar to AIM v.1 tanks plus new 3rd generation DU armour.

There is no available data stating which block of the AIM Australia purchased, but it does indicate that it was M1A1 AIM/SA tanks. The AIM v.1 does not have DU armor, but all subsequent blocks do (starting with block v.2, 3rd generation DU armour, which is slightly heavier than the 1st and 2nd generation DU armour and was the standard used in AIM upgrades. The Abrams has the capability to have DU armour packages added on fairly easily, but supposedly the Australian M1A1s do not have these add-on packages.

Quoting our friend Ryan Parkinson about the difference in weight between a DU armoured tank and one without DU armour. " This difference is about 3 tons and is NOT accounted for by ANY other equipment known to be installed on ANY version of the AIM tanks. Coincidentally the DU add-on armour package weighs just about 3 tons".

But as we know Australia didn't purchase DU armour right? So Australia got a tank with some bells and whistles but which has basically the same armour as the export model that America sold to Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco and Saudi Arabia despite being a first world country and a very close ally of America. Australia is in fact one of America's closest allies in the world alongside Britain, Canada and New Zealand, and all five countries closely share intelligence secrets with each other that they don't share with anyone else. However Australian Abrams have the same armour as the tanks sold to five second rate armies in the Middle East, and in the case of Iraq and Saudi Arabia have been fighting third rate armies and terrorists and losing their Abrams tanks. God help the Australian Abrams if they have to face front line Russian tanks.

The Weight of main variants of the M1 Abrams in US or short tons

M1: 61.4 US tons
M1IP: 62.8 US tons
M1A1: 67.6 US tons
M1A2: 68.4 US tons
M1A2 SEP: 69.5 US tons

The Australian M1A1-AIM weighs 68.2 US tons which is basically the same weight as M1A2 with DU armour.

Don't believe me if you don't want to cause I'm only saying!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

We've given the armour aspect a fair thrashing now so I'm going to instead bring up a different aspect of the Australian Abrams and it does have a bearing on a T20x0 setting.
Australian defence policy is that the tanks will not be deployed outside Australia (hence the change to the Australian camouflage pattern). The attitude is that if we ever send amoured support to fight alongside the US, we'll send crews to man US vehicles.

So that all basically means, if future governments stick with that policy, we'll be unlikely to see Australian tanks facing off against anyone, let alone someone equipped with Russian tanks - unless of course they choose to invade Australia!
An outsider could be forgiven for thinking our defence policy is... schizophrenic.

[Raellus]

Back on Topic.

I think a 'Twilight 20x0' set on China's eastern seaboard might be an idea. An international coalition gets cut off after taking a large swathe of the area. This would have the flat terrain of China's coastal plain and the urban terrain of the various mega-cities

But how does said coalition get there? Or does that matter?

The Chinese navy isn't quite up to par with the USN, but it also doesn't need to operate in both oceans, so the USN's dwindling numerical advantage is even smaller, in practice. By 2020, the naval parity gap will be even narrower, as the Chinese navy is currently growing faster than the USN is. Even if you add in naval forces from U.S. allies in the region, landing a large ground force on China's eastern seaboard is a monumental task.

You'd need an armada comparable to the ones employed by the Allies on D-Day or by the USN at Okinawa in WW2. You'd need to contend with Chinese surface and submarine forces, and land-based air. The "Allies" would need to cross oceans/seas to resupply their ground forces in China; the Chinese have internal lines of supply.

And then there's these...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25904/china-wants-u-s-to-know-its-ships-in-s-china-sea-can-be-targeted-by-long-range-ballistic-missiles

Then, IF you somehow manage to get a large ground force ashore, you've got to to stop the massive weight of the steadily-modernizing PLA from pushing your bridgehead into the sea.

IMHO, all of this makes a significant Coalition ground force in China c.2050 a pretty unrealistic scenario.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In view of what you've just mentioned Raellus (and similar thoughts others have raised), it's plain to see that the typical "war" approach to creating a T:20x0 is not going to be particularly satisfying and not particularly easy to achieve.
I'm tending towards the idea of some natural or man-made disaster as the trigger for breakdown of societies etc. etc. - along the lines of some of the scenarios outlined in the survey GDW did way back in the 1990s.

[ChalkLine]

This is a very good point. As I was reading last night it may be that peer-to-peer warfighting is as outdated as trench fighting in WW1.

In that case there may well be more fighting as in Merc:2000; PMCs and varying amounts of regulars with massive aircover fighting asymmetrical wars against irregular proxies. Turkey seems to have taken over from Saudi Arabia as the main exporter of jihadism while China and Russia seem more content to act as the unaligned world's armouries

[Raellus]

In that case there may well be more fighting as in Merc:2000; PMCs and varying amounts of regulars with massive aircover fighting asymmetrical wars against irregular proxies. Turkey seems to have taken over from Saudi Arabia as the main exporter of jihadism while China and Russia seem more content to act as the unaligned world's armouries

That seems to be the trend over the past 20 years or so. Africa seems like the next battleground in this sort of asymmetrical, low-intensity, proxy war.

China is investing heavily in the continent and, IIRC, just opened up its first military base there. Russia has PMCs in Central African Republic (where they may have murdered some Russian journos), and the U.S. has SOF all over the place, due to multiple Islamic insurgencies. Oil and mineral companies employ PMCs to guard their operations, and as leverage during mineral rights negotiations with the local rulers. And, as the recent election in Congo demonstrates, many African nations are a crisis away from a coup or oppressive dictatorship.

[swaghauler]

That seems to be the trend over the past 20 years or so. Africa seems like the next battleground in this sort of asymmetrical, low-intensity, proxy war.

China is investing heavily in the continent and, IIRC, just opened up its first military base there. Russia has PMCs in Central African Republic (where they may have murdered some Russian journos), and the U.S. has SOF all over the place, due to multiple Islamic insurgencies. Oil and mineral companies employ PMCs to guard their operations, and as leverage during mineral rights negotiations with the local rulers. And, as the recent election in Congo demonstrates, many African nations are a crisis away from a coup or oppressive dictatorship.

There are a number of countries including the US, UK, France, Russia, and China as well as PMCs (considered "Mercenaries" by UN forces in Africa) supported by mining and energy companies with vested interests in the region, all of whom are conducting training, counterinsurgency, or nation-building operations in a dozen African nations, add in ISIL, Al Queda, Christian Militants, and various Revolutionary Movements and Africa is a modern-day "Wild West" that can involve both civilian AND military professions. This is why my Merc campaign is set in Africa. If you consider African Union forces, both Kenya AND Uganda are operating armored units in Eastern Africa with everything from T-55s to wheeled APCs. The Algerians and the French are using AFVs in Mali and Nijer as well as on the Libyan border. It will be easy to set up a "low-intensity conflict" involving platoon or even squad level engagements.

[swaghauler]

But how does said coalition get there? Or does that matter?

The Chinese navy isn't quite up to par with the USN, but it also doesn't need to operate in both oceans, so the USN's dwindling numerical advantage is even smaller, in practice. By 2020, the naval parity gap will be even narrower, as the Chinese navy is currently growing faster than the USN is. Even if you add in naval forces from U.S. allies in the region, landing a large ground force on China's eastern seaboard is a monumental task.

You'd need an armada comparable to the ones employed by the Allies on D-Day or by the USN at Okinawa in WW2. You'd need to contend with Chinese surface and submarine forces, and land-based air. The "Allies" would need to cross oceans/seas to resupply their ground forces in China; the Chinese have internal lines of supply.

And then there's these...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25904/china-wants-u-s-to-know-its-ships-in-s-china-sea-can-be-targeted-by-long-range-ballistic-missiles

Then, IF you somehow manage to get a large ground force ashore, you've got to to stop the massive weight of the steadily-modernizing PLA from pushing your bridgehead into the sea.

IMHO, all of this makes a significant Coalition ground force in China c.2050 a pretty unrealistic scenario.

Consider a global recession that impacts America and Europe followed by a major natural disaster such as a tsunami/large earthquake that devastates the Pacific Rim including the US West Coast. During this "disaster," North Korea gets the idea that now is the time to fire up that War of Reunification before the US can recover from said natural disaster and pose a threat again. NK attacks and the US and A FEW MEMBERS OF NATO respond. Germany, France, and some other members decide to "sit this one out" and this leaves a weakened US, UK, Japan, SK, and some ANZAC forces taking on NK without significant Naval assets. They still manage to stall NK and a disaster-damaged China gets drawn into the conflict (with Iranian support). You now have a conventional armored conflict on SK soil involving several different nations. Due to the low numbers of troops in the various units (because the disaster is preventing a "troop surge" in SK) you will have small unit engagements with one or perhaps two AFVs in support in difficult terrain (which will allow the GM to control the scope of an adventure using impassable terrain). Is this the scenario you'd be looking for?

[ChalkLine]

Actually I think what is more likely is that a diplomacy failure creates a crisis that pushes Russia and China together into a bastard alliance of grievance. They then try and thwart US goals in various places by supplying weapons, advisers and paying for mercenaries. NATO falls apart as Turkey splits the alliance and Europe deploys piecemeal troops to various hotspots.

[Targan]

Is this the scenario you'd be looking for?

Then throw in a barrage of well-coordinated cyber attacks on utilities infrastructure, financial systems, and maybe the "internet of things", which achieves unexpected levels of success, and on the civilian side the US and some allies really feel the sting. Not that that would immediately stop anything on the military side, but it would divert much-needed resources in a protracted conflict.

[Legbreaker]

Australian defence policy is that the tanks will not be deployed outside Australia (hence the change to the Australian camouflage pattern). The attitude is that if we ever send amoured support to fight alongside the US, we'll send crews to man US vehicles.

Could you please point me towards where I can find that? Very interesting info with possible consequences for the ANZAC book.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Could you please point me towards where I can find that? Very interesting info with possible consequences for the ANZAC book.
Was in a defence mag i think, basic attitude was that with so few of them, we would not have any attrition spares. Plus we didn't have enough capable logistics platforms to transport them in enough numbers (still don't really, we'd need to get sealift or airlift from civvy or another military such as RN or USN/USAF). I'm looking through my piles of stuff to find it but it might take a while :o

But all of that is up for change if the expansion plan is approved, Army would like to increase the fleet from 59 to 90.
https://www.afr.com/news/special-reports/defence-and-national-security/armys-plans-for-more-and-better-tanks-20170303-guqamb

Related links
http://www.dtrmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Australian-Armoured-Vehicle-Programs-to-2030-Special-Supplement.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20091230184747/http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1143/topstories/story20c.htm


Well... this is probably a case of me misremembering or misunderstanding what was said because while I can't find the magazine that I think the article was in, I have found some web articles that suggest what I was thinking
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/abrams-power-wins-the-day-for-army/news-story/afa7edf3403fbeb59ea060900659a435
and this paste of a newspaper article - copied from https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/australia-to-buy-m1-abrams.62839/

The Age
Australia picks US tanks to 'harden' force
By Mark Forbes
Defence Correspondent
Canberra
March 10, 2004


American-built M1 Abrams battle tanks valued at $550 million will spearhead a "hardened" Australian Army role in major overseas conflicts alongside the US.

Cabinet's national security committee last night agreed to buy 59 reconditioned, 68-tonne Abrams, ahead of British Challengers and German Leopards. The decision will be announced today.

Senior Defence sources said the war in Iraq had reaffirmed the belief that tanks were essential in modern conflicts to protect infantry troops.

Last November, The Age revealed that the military had settled on buying the Abrams, with Defence Minister Robert Hill, force chief Peter Cosgrove and army chief Peter Leahy backing the US tank over its rivals.

The Government's about-face on buying heavy armour is intended to strengthen the US alliance by boosting "interoperability" for future Iraq-style conflicts. Its 2000 Defence white paper argued against "the development of heavy armoured forces suitable for contributions to coalition forces in high-intensity conflicts".

In an indication of the strategic importance of the move, the US Administration will sell the tanks directly to Australia at a substantial discount.

The Australian Abrams, to be based in Darwin, would facilitate training between the two forces and access to ongoing development.

It could also allow Australian crews to fight in pre-positioned US tanks.

The Abrams will be modified for Australian requirements, including replacing its depleted uranium armour with ceramic plating.

Critics claim the Abrams are unsuitable for operations in the Pacific region and are too heavy to be airlifted. The tanks must be transported by sea.

Late last year General Leahy predicted that new tanks should be in service by July. He attacked critics of the planned tank purchase and said he had looked for a manoeuvrable, mid-weight, well-protected tank.

"Frankly, it's not there," General Leahy said. "So what we need to do is to respond to the current threat environment... where protection is, quite frankly, achieved by heavier armoured vehicles."
Finally found the original article from The Age https://www.theage.com.au/national/australia-picks-us-tanks-to-harden-force-20040310-gdxgsu.html

[Legbreaker]

I don't think they know what they're talking about re Australia's ability to move M1's about. HMAS Tobruk could carry 18 by itself, and at the time of the article, both Kanimbla class (ex Newport) could have managed up to 39 each (although both ships were rust buckets and should never have been accepted from the US in that condition - wasn't found until after the sale that they were barely floating and virtually unseaworthy!).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Found this series on YouTube last week and been watching it sporadically. It's about the Russian military in the 2010s so has some bearing on this particular thread.
The first few episodes are about the newest Russian military unit the Arctic Brigade. The second group of episodes deals with the Plesetsk cosmodrome. It seems so far, that there's no particular number of episodes per military unit they examine - the Artic Brigade had 4 while the cosmodrome had only 2.

Despite the typical "reality TV" drama and the typical TV show use of appealing hosts, the show is still interesting simply for the behind-the-scenes views of these various units.
Episodes here https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=+In+the+Army+Now+Ep.1

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And then there's this for consideration as well. The Listva demining vehicle.
Never mind detonating IEDs, that microwave radar it's carrying will fry a person apparently.
Something else you'd haver to cover in the rules, electromagnetic systems for demining (and their effect on other electronic devices as well as their potential use against people/animals).

Plus the video gives some minor information on operating procedures for Russian strategic missile force travelling in convoy and deploying.
It's from RT so it's for general public consumption and is not going to reveal any great secrets and it indulges in a bit of flag waving (like all these shows do regardless of what country they're from) but it's interesting none-the-less.

Listva YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsL2RPZkCFg

[ChalkLine]

There's also a lot of ECM vehicles for pre-detonating electronic fuzes on the various flavours of artillery. I don't think this has ever had a task associated with it.

[pmulcahy11b]

And then there's this for consideration as well. The Listva demining vehicle.
Never mind detonating IEDs, that microwave radar it's carrying will fry a person apparently.
Something else you'd haver to cover in the rules, electromagnetic systems for demining (and their effect on other electronic devices as well as their potential use against people/animals).

Along those lines, some AAA radars are reportedly capable of frying (and by that, I mean literally flash-cooking) good-sized birds, some GSR units can kill small animals, and in that book (I can't remember the name offhand) about Viktor Belenko's defection to the West in the then-mysterious MiG-25, Belenko said that they would sometimes amuse themselves by turning on the radar on the ground while waiting for takeoff and killing the rabbits that tended to be hopping around on the runway.

[.45cultist]

Consider a global recession that impacts America and Europe followed by a major natural disaster such as a tsunami/large earthquake that devastates the Pacific Rim including the US West Coast. During this "disaster," North Korea gets the idea that now is the time to fire up that War of Reunification before the US can recover from said natural disaster and pose a threat again. NK attacks and the US and A FEW MEMBERS OF NATO respond. Germany, France, and some other members decide to "sit this one out" and this leaves a weakened US, UK, Japan, SK, and some ANZAC forces taking on NK without significant Naval assets. They still manage to stall NK and a disaster-damaged China gets drawn into the conflict (with Iranian support). You now have a conventional armored conflict on SK soil involving several different nations. Due to the low numbers of troops in the various units (because the disaster is preventing a "troop surge" in SK) you will have small unit engagements with one or perhaps two AFVs in support in difficult terrain (which will allow the GM to control the scope of an adventure using impassable terrain). Is this the scenario you'd be looking for?

Another variant is that the leader of North Korea leans towards the U.S. for aid, assistance and snubs China, like Vietnam did going USSR in 1973-75.If the response is fast, all you have to mention was a promise of social reforms that NK never gets to implement, so it's only a mild stretch of belief.

[.45cultist]

BTW, has any one checked Traveller, The New Era for any EMP rules? If we treat it as an attack and assign a CON/HP stat to electronics, there are still a lot of things to figure out. The "AV of a ground wire to the removal of batteries, static bags, Farraday cages, etc.

[ChalkLine]

BTW, has any one checked Traveller, The New Era for any EMP rules? If we treat it as an attack and assign a CON/HP stat to electronics, there are still a lot of things to figure out. The "AV of a ground wire to the removal of batteries, static bags, Farraday cages, etc.

That's a great point. The T2k 'electronics=dead' rule doesn't really reflect the science does it?

[Raellus]

Another variant is that the leader of North Korea leans towards the U.S. for aid, assistance and snubs China, like Vietnam did going USSR in 1973-75.If the response is fast, all you have to mention was a promise of social reforms that NK never gets to implement, so it's only a mild stretch of belief.

That's an interesting idea, and not outside the realm of possibility.

Let's say KJU orders one too many generals or high officials killed and there's a coup. Or he dies suddenly and there's a succession crisis. Imagine a situation like we saw in Berlin in 1989 (IRL), but at the DMZ. It could happen. The PRC could very see a reunified Korea as a threat to its regional dominance and use military force to eliminate it.

What if, as the DPRK regime totters and falls, South Korean launches a military expedition to "stabilize" the North and China responds shortly thereafter with its own. In that case, there's a good chance that the region is one minor clash away from a war, a war in which the PRC would have material superiority. Would the U.S. stand by if South Korea's independence was at stake? You could have a Second Korean War pitting the PRC against a reunited Korea and the U.S.A. as the opening round of an expanding WWIII.

Chalk, there's your land war in China.

[Legbreaker]

That's a great point. The T2k 'electronics=dead' rule doesn't really reflect the science does it?

Neither does radiation half life of months instead of years and centuries.
It's a game. There were specific, deliberate changes to real world physics such as these to make it more playable and a much more interesting world to play in.

[Legbreaker]

BTW, has any one checked Traveller, The New Era for any EMP rules?
I've had a look and there doesn't appear to be.

[ChalkLine]

Neither does radiation half life of months instead of years and centuries.
It's a game. There were specific, deliberate changes to real world physics such as these to make it more playable and a much more interesting world to play in.

A new EMP section would be good though seeing how there's so much more electronics in the world now.

[Legbreaker]

A new EMP section would be good though seeing how there's so much more electronics in the world now.

Much more to get broken really. The high tech toys are nice and all, but in my opinion at least, they should be fairly rare and highly prized.

[Raellus]

A potential flash point in the New World:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26174/russian-mercenaries-reportedly-descend-on-venezuela-to-help-protect-maduros-regime

-

[Legbreaker]

It's been "potential" for at least the last few years. With (allegedly) Russian backed mercenaries now protecting Maduro things just got a little more interesting, but I haven't actually seen any actual evidence the Russians have spent any coin whatsoever on this to date. Could be just smoke...
Fairly sure Maduro won't go quietly and there will be shooting at some point. Don't know if it's going to be just a single snipers bullet, full scale civil war, or something in between, but there will certainly be tears...
My guess is there are plans already being drawn up for an assassination with the blame put on one of his inner circle/security.

[Raellus]

It's been "potential" for at least the last few years. With (allegedly) Russian backed mercenaries now protecting Maduro things just got a little more interesting, but I haven't actually seen any actual evidence the Russians have spent any coin whatsoever on this to date. Could be just smoke...

Could be, but did you read the full article? The Russian "PMC" is strongly linked with the Russian state security apparatus, and Russia recently deployed two TU-1600 strategic bombers to Venezuela (AFAIK, there still there), and they've been very vocal in condemning the U.S.A.'s support for the newly self-declared opposition "president". Coincidence? I think not.

[Legbreaker]

But who linked them to the Russian government?
The media?
Not really seeing any solid evidence there just a LOT of conjecture, although it's possible....

[pmulcahy11b]

Good question and to be honest I don't know. I've been browsing around for a while and can't find an answer for you. Maybe the information is on some website but likely it is not as the composition of DU armor is highly classified defence material. However from what I've read and surmised the DU armor is fitted in layers with other extremely tough material such as Chobham or other ceramic materials, or is mixed with it when fitted to the Abrams tank making it less flammable. DU armor is concentrated on the frontal glacis of the Abrams and as far as I know it has never officially been penetrated by any type of tank round or missile ordinance. Only US Army and Marine Abrams tanks are fitted with DU armor and the US has not exported the tank fitted with DU armor to any country expect possibly Australia.

Just found out after doing some research into the new M1A2 updates. The M1's DU is encapsulated in graphite, which mostly stops potential pyrophoresis.

[RN7]

Just found out after doing some research into the new M1A2 updates. The M1's DU is encapsulated in graphite, which mostly stops potential pyrophoresis.

Good information Paul. Did you find any info about if the Aussie Abram's also have DU armor?

[cawest]

the updated M1A2C would have DU and TUSK maybe TUSK II

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Good information Paul. Did you find any info about if the Aussie Abram's also have DU armor?

Australian Abrams have never been equipped with DU armour. They may have had DU armour when they were in US use, before they were rebuilt for Australian use but they were specifically requested to be without DU armour. Future rebuilds/purchases will examine DU armour but the question of whether or not to equip them with DU armour remains as much a political consideration as it is military.


04/08/2004 MSPA 40804/04
Chief of Army Media Briefing Session
M1A1 Abrams integrated management (AIM) MAIN Battle tank
<snip>

BRIGADIER MICHAEL CLIFFORD
DIRECTOR GENERAL PREPAREDNESS AND PLANS, ARMY
ARMY HEADQUARTERS
<snip>

WE ARE BUYING 59 TANKS AS PART OF ONE OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST AND MOST PROVEN TANK FLEETS.

IMPORTANTLY HOWEVER THE ABRAMS IS PART OF A LONGER TERM STRATEGY ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT.

LAND 400 IS THE PROJECT WITH A YEAR OF DECISION OF 2011 THAT WILL MOVE US TOWARD A COMMON FLEET OF ARMOURED VEHICLES, TOWARD A SYSTEM OF COMBAT VEHICLES. THE ABRAMS IS JUST ONE STEP ON THIS JOURNEY.

THE ABRAMS ALSO PROVIDES US WITH ACCESS TO THE CUTTING EDGE OF NON DEPLETED URANIUM ARMOUR TECHNOLOGY.

<snip>

MEDIA QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
BRIEFING ON THE M1A1 ABRAMS INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (AIM) MAIN BATTLE TANK
LIEUTENANT GENERAL PETER LEAHY:
Ladies and gentlemen, do you have any questions?
<snip>

QUESTION:
If we're not getting DU armour what sort of armour are we getting.

COLONEL HAYWARD: Armour technologies are sensitive in a classified area. The armour that we are getting is an advanced non-DU armour. We have had a look at destructive testing of this armour and we have sent across an Australian scientist to have a look at it, and it provides us an excellent level of protection.

QUESTION:
It's basically armour isn't it?

COLONEL HAYWARD: [I]It's an advanced non-DU armour that provides us an excellent level of protection.

<snip>

QUESTION:
Neil James from Defender. Nick just stole my first question, in fact. I've got two questions. The first one is, is the new improved armour as good as depleted uranium armour - yes/no?

GENERAL LEAHY:
Duncan, you want to take that?

COLONEL HAYWARD:
The armour that we're getting is very close to depleted uranium armour. In some aspects it is better against some types of threats. But I'm unable to discuss those in this forum.

QUESTION:
Okay, let's assume that the new armour is not as good as depleted uranium armour. Is the only reason we're not getting depleted uranium armour because of political concerns in Australia, and therefore are we running the risk of Australian soldiers being endangered in the future because political considerations prevent them having the best protection?

GENERAL LEAHY:
Oh, I think Neil, you know me well enough that I wouldn't endanger our soldiers lives for a reason like that. We're getting very good armour. One that I have every confidence in, and one that I'd be happy for our soldiers to fight behind.

<snip>

Full transcript here: -
https://www.defencetalk.com/military/forums/t/australia-why-abrams-was-chosen-and-how-it-will-be-used.2160/

'The Age' newspaper
Australia picks US tanks to 'harden' force
By Mark Forbes
Defence Correspondent
Canberra
March 10, 2004


American-built M1 Abrams battle tanks valued at $550 million will spearhead a "hardened" Australian Army role in major overseas conflicts alongside the US.

Cabinet's national security committee last night agreed to buy 59 reconditioned, 68-tonne Abrams, ahead of British Challengers and German Leopards. The decision will be announced today.

Senior Defence sources said the war in Iraq had reaffirmed the belief that tanks were essential in modern conflicts to protect infantry troops.

Last November, The Age revealed that the military had settled on buying the Abrams, with Defence Minister Robert Hill, force chief Peter Cosgrove and army chief Peter Leahy backing the US tank over its rivals.

The Government's about-face on buying heavy armour is intended to strengthen the US alliance by boosting "interoperability" for future Iraq-style conflicts. Its 2000 Defence white paper argued against "the development of heavy armoured forces suitable for contributions to coalition forces in high-intensity conflicts".

In an indication of the strategic importance of the move, the US Administration will sell the tanks directly to Australia at a substantial discount.

The Australian Abrams, to be based in Darwin, would facilitate training between the two forces and access to ongoing development.

It could also allow Australian crews to fight in pre-positioned US tanks.

The Abrams will be modified for Australian requirements, including replacing its depleted uranium armour with ceramic plating.

Critics claim the Abrams are unsuitable for operations in the Pacific region and are too heavy to be airlifted. The tanks must be transported by sea.

Late last year General Leahy predicted that new tanks should be in service by July. He attacked critics of the planned tank purchase and said he had looked for a manoeuvrable, mid-weight, well-protected tank.

"Frankly, it's not there," General Leahy said. "So what we need to do is to respond to the current threat environment... where protection is, quite frankly, achieved by heavier armoured vehicles."

[cawest]

Your are dead on for the M1A1 AIM. but in 2016 it was announced that they were going to the M1A2C standard. I cut the below from the article. It does not say that it will have DU, but the M1A2sep3 does and tusk I and maybe tusk II. this was for Twilight 2020 so they could have DU.

It may include Australia aligning our baseline tank configuration with US Army tank development pathways (M1A2 Systems Enhancement Package Version 3).
The Land 907 Phase 2 upgrade will occur over the next 10 years with the intent to have a fully operational capability by 2025.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Your are dead on for the M1A1 AIM. but in 2016 it was announced that they were going to the M1A2C standard. I cut the below from the article. It does not say that it will have DU, but the M1A2sep3 does and tusk I and maybe tusk II. this was for Twilight 2020 so they could have DU.

It may include Australia aligning our baseline tank configuration with US Army tank development pathways (M1A2 Systems Enhancement Package Version 3).
The Land 907 Phase 2 upgrade will occur over the next 10 years with the intent to have a fully operational capability by 2025.
This is were it starts to get interesting from the Australian military point of view. The public & political situation here has been firmly anti-DU for decades but from what I'm seeing in defence circles at the moment, programmes for the future upgrading and/or expansion of the tank fleet are prepared to look at any available option (and select what's best suited to Australia's military and political needs).

That may very well mean we get a new generation of Abrams with DU armour but it could just as easily mean we get a newer generation of armour that supersedes DU. The critical factor is going to be political - no Defence Minister is going to order something that will mean political suicide for either the Minister or the Party. If the public says "No" to DU, there aren't many politicians here who would go against that for fear of being voted out at the next election.

[Legbreaker]

....at for fear of being voted out at the next election.

And the last couple of election results have been VERY difficult to predict, making the political risk extremely great.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And the last couple of election results have been VERY difficult to predict, making the political risk extremely great.
Yes indeed, I think this last one ended up being a surprise to people on every side of Australian politics.

[RN7]

Australian Abrams have never been equipped with DU armour. They may have had DU armour when they were in US use, before they were rebuilt for Australian use but they were specifically requested to be without DU armour. Future rebuilds/purchases will examine DU armour but the question of whether or not to equip them with DU armour remains as much a political consideration as it is military.


04/08/2004 MSPA 40804/04
Chief of Army Media Briefing Session
M1A1 Abrams integrated management (AIM) MAIN Battle tank
<snip>

BRIGADIER MICHAEL CLIFFORD
DIRECTOR GENERAL PREPAREDNESS AND PLANS, ARMY
ARMY HEADQUARTERS
<snip>

WE ARE BUYING 59 TANKS AS PART OF ONE OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST AND MOST PROVEN TANK FLEETS.

IMPORTANTLY HOWEVER THE ABRAMS IS PART OF A LONGER TERM STRATEGY ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT.

LAND 400 IS THE PROJECT WITH A YEAR OF DECISION OF 2011 THAT WILL MOVE US TOWARD A COMMON FLEET OF ARMOURED VEHICLES, TOWARD A SYSTEM OF COMBAT VEHICLES. THE ABRAMS IS JUST ONE STEP ON THIS JOURNEY.

THE ABRAMS ALSO PROVIDES US WITH ACCESS TO THE CUTTING EDGE OF NON DEPLETED URANIUM ARMOUR TECHNOLOGY.

<snip>

MEDIA QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
BRIEFING ON THE M1A1 ABRAMS INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (AIM) MAIN BATTLE TANK
LIEUTENANT GENERAL PETER LEAHY:
Ladies and gentlemen, do you have any questions?
<snip>

QUESTION:
If we're not getting DU armour what sort of armour are we getting.

COLONEL HAYWARD: Armour technologies are sensitive in a classified area. The armour that we are getting is an advanced non-DU armour. We have had a look at destructive testing of this armour and we have sent across an Australian scientist to have a look at it, and it provides us an excellent level of protection.

QUESTION:
It's basically armour isn't it?

COLONEL HAYWARD: [I]It's an advanced non-DU armour that provides us an excellent level of protection.

<snip>

QUESTION:
Neil James from Defender. Nick just stole my first question, in fact. I've got two questions. The first one is, is the new improved armour as good as depleted uranium armour - yes/no?

GENERAL LEAHY:
Duncan, you want to take that?

COLONEL HAYWARD:
The armour that we're getting is very close to depleted uranium armour. In some aspects it is better against some types of threats. But I'm unable to discuss those in this forum.

QUESTION:
Okay, let's assume that the new armour is not as good as depleted uranium armour. Is the only reason we're not getting depleted uranium armour because of political concerns in Australia, and therefore are we running the risk of Australian soldiers being endangered in the future because political considerations prevent them having the best protection?

GENERAL LEAHY:
Oh, I think Neil, you know me well enough that I wouldn't endanger our soldiers lives for a reason like that. We're getting very good armour. One that I have every confidence in, and one that I'd be happy for our soldiers to fight behind.

<snip>

Full transcript here: -
https://www.defencetalk.com/military/forums/t/australia-why-abrams-was-chosen-and-how-it-will-be-used.2160/

'The Age' newspaper
Australia picks US tanks to 'harden' force
By Mark Forbes
Defence Correspondent
Canberra
March 10, 2004


American-built M1 Abrams battle tanks valued at $550 million will spearhead a "hardened" Australian Army role in major overseas conflicts alongside the US.

Cabinet's national security committee last night agreed to buy 59 reconditioned, 68-tonne Abrams, ahead of British Challengers and German Leopards. The decision will be announced today.

Senior Defence sources said the war in Iraq had reaffirmed the belief that tanks were essential in modern conflicts to protect infantry troops.

Last November, The Age revealed that the military had settled on buying the Abrams, with Defence Minister Robert Hill, force chief Peter Cosgrove and army chief Peter Leahy backing the US tank over its rivals.

The Government's about-face on buying heavy armour is intended to strengthen the US alliance by boosting "interoperability" for future Iraq-style conflicts. Its 2000 Defence white paper argued against "the development of heavy armoured forces suitable for contributions to coalition forces in high-intensity conflicts".

In an indication of the strategic importance of the move, the US Administration will sell the tanks directly to Australia at a substantial discount.

The Australian Abrams, to be based in Darwin, would facilitate training between the two forces and access to ongoing development.

It could also allow Australian crews to fight in pre-positioned US tanks.

The Abrams will be modified for Australian requirements, including replacing its depleted uranium armour with ceramic plating.

Critics claim the Abrams are unsuitable for operations in the Pacific region and are too heavy to be airlifted. The tanks must be transported by sea.

Late last year General Leahy predicted that new tanks should be in service by July. He attacked critics of the planned tank purchase and said he had looked for a manoeuvrable, mid-weight, well-protected tank.

"Frankly, it's not there," General Leahy said. "So what we need to do is to respond to the current threat environment... where protection is, quite frankly, achieved by heavier armoured vehicles."


So the M1 that Australia has is 68 US tons like I said it was, but it doesn't have DU armour. So how does it weigh 68 US tons without DU armour? We already had that discussion and nobody gave me an explanation to how they could weight 68 US tons without DU armour.

But the Australian M1's have advanced non-DU armour. What type is that and how effective is it?

"We have had a look at destructive testing of this armour and we have sent across an Australian scientist to have a look at it, and it provides us an excellent level of protection."

Wow that's reassuring. Did the Arabs do the same when they got their M1's without DU armour.

But then we know that DU armour can be added on to the tanks, so that must be what happens when the tanks are sent outside Australia and fitted out for combat in a warzone and now weigh their listed 68.2 US tons. No politician will be going there and looking at the tanks and blurting out PC statements either. Which is just as well because without the DU armour the M1's wont survive long against even a half well equipped enemy, or will they weight 68 US tons unless they use British Dorchester armour. The composition of Dorchester armour fitted to British Army Challenger 2's is even more of a mystery than DU armour and the British don't export it.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I would argue that just because we are unaware of what armour the Australian M1A1 AIM SA variant is using, does not automatically mean any damned thing at all.
We don't know what armour it has because the Australian government and military is not telling us. What they have told us is that it is not DU and for those of us who live here, we see that the political situation here means that if the public found out that a politician had lied to us about depleted uranium, it would be the kiss of death for that politician and their party in the next election and probably the election after that.

Public sentiment here against DU is very strong and it is strong enough to shift the vote against a party. It seems that this factor is constantly underestimated by outsiders.

The Abrams we operate are not identical configuration to the M1A1 AIM SA model that the US initially offered. The Australian Abrams are a mix of US Army and USMC features. The Australian Abrams are fitted with a refrigeration unit, refrigeration power unit, various USMC fittings for wading,exhaust deflector, infantry telephone, elements of the TUSK system, elements of the SEP system and various other fittings to make it more suitable for the Australian bush, jungle and urban environments.
These vehicles are for all intents and purposes, bespoke.

The weight of 63,500 tonnes (69.9 Tons) is loaded combat weight. Australian tanks have often had a higher loaded combat weight than the same vehicle from other armies because in Australian service we tend to carry a hell of a lot more fuel and water per individual vehicle as well as having extra stowage bins for spares.
Note that a US Army configured M1A1 AIM is listed with a weight of 67.6 Tons. I don't see that extra 1.4 ton on Aussie Abrams as automatically proving the use of DU armour.

[RN7]

I would argue that just because we are unaware of what armour the Australian M1A1 AIM SA variant is using, does not automatically mean any damned thing at all.

The M1A1 AIP SA V1 does not have DU armour.
The M1A1 AIP SA V2 does have DU armour.

An M1A1 tank with DU armour is a far better protected tank.


We don't know what armour it has because the Australian government and military is not telling us. What they have told us is that it is not DU and for those of us who live here, we see that the political situation here means that if the public found out that a politician had lied to us about depleted uranium, it would be the kiss of death for that politician and their party in the next election and probably the election after that.

That may be so but the Australian government has abstained from voting in UN resolution to restrict or ban the use of depleted uranium weapons.


The Abrams we operate are not identical configuration to the M1A1 AIM SA model that the US initially offered. The Australian Abrams are a mix of US Army and USMC features. The Australian Abrams are fitted with a refrigeration unit, refrigeration power unit, various USMC fittings for wading,exhaust deflector, infantry telephone, elements of the TUSK system, elements of the SEP system and various other fittings to make it more suitable for the Australian bush, jungle and urban environments.
These vehicles are for all intents and purposes, bespoke.

The M1A1 AIM SA V.2 uses DU armour. All US Army and US Marine Abram's tanks are fitted with DU armour.

The Australian Army lists its Abram's as weighing 62 metric tonnes (68.2 US tons) including most of what you stated. Some US variants of the Abram's are heavier than the Australian version.


The weight of 63,500 tonnes (69.9 Tons) is loaded combat weight. Australian tanks have often had a higher loaded combat weight than the same vehicle from other armies because in Australian service we tend to carry a hell of a lot more fuel and water per individual vehicle as well as having extra stowage bins for spares. Note that a US Army configured M1A1 AIM is listed with a weight of 67.6 Tons. I don't see that extra 1.4 ton on Aussie Abrams as automatically proving the use of DU armour.

What the Australian Army or any other army carries (fuel, water etc) on its tanks after they are fitted out is not included in the official listed weight of a tank.

Were did you get these figures from? The only weight I have ever seen for an Australian Abram's is 62 metric tons (68.2 US tons). They used to be listed online as 68.2 tons before that figure was mysteriously retracted from the internet.

The M1A2 SEP is listed as 63.5 metric tonnes (69.9 US tons) on Wikipedia. Is this where you got your figures from? If that is so the Australians do not use the M1A2 SEP. The figure you gave for the US Army M1A1 AIM at 67.6 tons is also listed on Wikipedia.

Non-DU Abram's all weigh less than 66 tons

M1: 60 tons
M1IP: 61 tons
M1A1 Block 1: 63 tons
M1A1 AIM v.1: 63.5 tons
M1A1M (Iraq): 63 tons
M1A1 Special Armour (Morocco): 63 tons
M1A1 Situational Awareness: 66 tons

The DU add-on armour by itself weighs more than 2 tons. The Situational Awareness (SA) package weighs about 3 tons. The two packages together weigh more than 5 tons.

DU armoured Abram's variants

M1A1HA: 65 tons
M1A1HC: 66 tons
M1A1 AIM v.2/SA: 68.2 tons (Australia!!!!!!!!!)
M1A1FEP: 68 tons
M1A2: 70 tons

Australia bought M1A1 AIM/SA tanks, but it is not publically known which block of M1A1 AIM SA they bought. The AIM v.1 does not have DU armour, but all subsequent blocks do. Block V.2 has 3rd generation DU armour which is slightly heavier than the 1 and 2 generation DU armour and was the standard used in AIM upgrades.

The M1A2 and all subsequent Abram's tanks weigh 70 tons or more. Which means that the A2 upgrade package weighs at least 5 tons total more than a base M1A1, not including the weight of the DU armour. These two packages together are 7 tons more than the base M1A1 (63 tons).

The Australian Army lists the Abram's weight at 62 metric tons (68.2 US tons). The base M1A1 weighs 63 US tons. Adding the weight of the SA package gets you to 66 tons. The only way an M1A1 AIM SA tank can get from 66 to 68.2 tons is with the addition of 2 tons plus of something. Either the Australian Abram's have DU armour or their scales are wrong and the weight listed on their own website should actually be 60 metric tons (66 US tons). Or they are hoping that no one will noticed the weight differences between a tank with DU armour and one without it.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The weight of the Australian M1 comes from an acquaintance who is currently serving in the Australian Army.
The commentary about Australian politics comes from me from being a voter in Australia for several decades and from having family members involved in both sides of Australian politics.
Anybody who bothers to actually look at the situation knows that the Arabs used their tanks without support from any other service. They were vulnerable to simple infantry attacks because they had not taken them into consideration when they deployed their tanks - tanks are not invulnerable even with DU armour.
The Russian found the same result with their foray into Chechnya.

But you seem to have more investment in this than it would deserve, resurrecting a thread that's been left standing for nearly a year. Invested to the point where it seems that nothing anyone says is going to convince you that the Aussie tanks do not have DU.
This discussion has been rendered pointless, you're going to do T2k whatever way you see it and nothing I or any other Australian says is going to make any difference to your opinion.

[RN7]

The weight of the Australian M1 comes from an acquaintance who is currently serving in the Australian Army.

Well these figures are actually heavier than the official Australian figures for the weight of Australian Abram's, which further supports my argument that they are fitted with DU armour.

The commentary about Australian politics comes from me from being a voter in Australia for several decades and from having family members involved in both sides of Australian politics.

Well your government is playing to both sides in its stand on DU armour fitted to Australian tanks. On one hand it is publically condemning depleted uranium as a toxic weapon and claims it wants to eliminate the use of DU, but on the other hand through abstaining to vote in UN resolutions it won't commit to that policy. All five permanent UN security council members including Australia's major arms suppliers the United States, Britain and France also voted against or abstained from the UN resolutions as did Russia and China.

If Australia was so committed to not using DU armour it would not have bought the Abram's tank in the first place. The German Leopard 2 was the obvious choice back in the early 2000's as the Australian Army already used the Leopard 1. In fact they could have also bought the British Challenger 2, a remarkably powerful and well protected tank which has proven very adaptable for use in the deserts of the Middle East. It would also have been a logical choice given Australia's close links to Britain and history of using British tanks in the past. The Canadians also used the Leopard 1 and bought the Leopard 2 to replace them, and Canada also has a major uranium mining infrastructure and even closer links to America.

Anybody who bothers to actually look at the situation knows that the Arabs used their tanks without support from any other service. They were vulnerable to simple infantry attacks because they had not taken them into consideration when they deployed their tanks - tanks are not invulnerable even with DU armour. The Russian found the same result with their foray into Chechnya.

So the Arabs have incompetent tactics and leadership? Funny because some Arab countries have being closely training and fighting with American and other Western forces in the Middle East since 1991 and have been very well armed by them, and I'm sure they picked up a few things. However none of the Arab M1 Abram's are fitted with DU armour, unlike all of the American Abram's. The Iranians and other foreign players have made an industry out of developing ever more powerful IED's for use against Western armies in the warzones of the Middle East. Some US Abram's have been disabled or rendered scrap through ambush from IED and missiles from multiple directions including against their rears, but no US Army or Marine Abram's has ever been destroyed in a frontal assault on them by any weapons including IED, anti-tank missiles or any ordnance round from another tank. The British Challenger 2 has an equal if not even better reputation in warzones. As for the Russian tanks in Chechnya, they are no where near as well armoured as a modern US Abram's.


But you seem to have more investment in this than it would deserve, resurrecting a thread that's been left standing for nearly a year.

So the initial discussion I had with you and some of the others about this subject dates back to January 2019. I put up some data to support my argument and after I did nobody really seemed to want to debate those figures or go any further with it and it was sidestepped. Then Paul Mulcahy puts up with some relevant data about the composition of DU armour in June 2019, and after I reply and ask did he find out anything about the Australian Abram's you post up an Australian Army briefing about this some six months after saying nothing on the subject. That briefing you put up says a lot about what people wanted to hear but gives absolutely no technical information about the Australian Abram's or the contradictions of its very heavy weight. But I'm not allowed respond in my own good time?

Its 8 and half months not a year since I last put up something up on this subject. BTW other threads are also regularly resurrected after being left standing for a year or more, and in fact I've seen some threads resurrected after five years or more. Do you have a problem those threads to and do you also get on to the others about doing that?.

Invested to the point where it seems that nothing anyone says is going to convince you that the Aussie tanks do not have DU. This discussion has been rendered pointless, you're going to do T2k whatever way you see it and nothing I or any other Australian says is going to make any difference to your opinion.

You know its very hard to get motivated into discussing things when I get this criticism. I actually left the thread alone in the first place precisely because of this attitude. This website is about Twilight 2000 and military subjects in general. I am interested in that and so are others. I believe that the Australian Abram's are fitted with DU armour. I've presented a very plausible argument for that opinion and posted a lot of technical data to back that opinion up. Feel free to question that data in any way you want in your own good time.

[Legbreaker]

Looks like I'm going to have to get my hands on the Australian Army PAM then to prove there is NO DU in the Australian M1s!

[CDAT]

...
So the Arabs have incompetent tactics and leadership? Funny because some Arab countries have being closely training and fighting with American and other Western forces in the Middle East since 1991 and have been very well armed by them, and I'm sure they picked up a few things. ...
I have served in the Middle East for about 5 years out of my 20 in uniform, and spent a lot of that time working with the locals, yes they have learned somethings from us, but other things that we keep trying to teach them they (as of 2013 when I got out) had not picked up in the more then twenty years that we had been trying to teach it to them. For example there tanks shoot a lot, probably more then even we do. However getting them to practice maneuver warfare training is like pulling teeth, they just do not want to do it. From what I am told it has something to do with the differences in culture and how we look at situations or something like that (never really made clear to me).

...
... I've presented a very plausible argument for that opinion and posted a lot of technical data to back that opinion up. Feel free to question that data in any way you want in your own good time.
Now as I said I have been out for some time now, but to the best of my knowledge (and I will admit that I have not been tracking it) my understanding is that the US has never sold any DU equipped tanks, now if they were I would think a strong allies like Australia would be one to do so, but if we have not before and due to internal politics it is not a good way to make the sale, I have a hard time buying that they are just trying to sneak it in, when the troops with issued gear can tell if they are or not, and you know that if so someone would spill the beans. But this is just my thoughts worth what you paid for them.

[RN7]

I have served in the Middle East for about 5 years out of my 20 in uniform, and spent a lot of that time working with the locals, yes they have learned somethings from us, but other things that we keep trying to teach them they (as of 2013 when I got out) had not picked up in the more then twenty years that we had been trying to teach it to them. For example there tanks shoot a lot, probably more then even we do. However getting them to practice maneuver warfare training is like pulling teeth, they just do not want to do it. From what I am told it has something to do with the differences in culture and how we look at situations or something like that (never really made clear to me).

I am aware that Arab forces in general do not respond well to Western training and instruction methods, and a lot of that is due to a lack of education and the local culture and weird social stratification in their society. There are also major class divisions between officers and their troops and political rivalry within their armies, and there are definitions of authority that do not exist in the west. But they can fight when they want to. Just ask the Israelis in the Yom Kippur War. However this is a minor point in this discussion. The Arab Abram's do not use DU armour, which is why they have lost quite a few of them.

Now as I said I have been out for some time now, but to the best of my knowledge (and I will admit that I have not been tracking it) my understanding is that the US has never sold any DU equipped tanks, now if they were I would think a strong allies like Australia would be one to do so, but if we have not before and due to internal politics it is not a good way to make the sale, I have a hard time buying that they are just trying to sneak it in, when the troops with issued gear can tell if they are or not, and you know that if so someone would spill the beans. But this is just my thoughts worth what you paid for them.

This is well known and the Australian government has stated that their tanks don't use DU armour. But then it wont vote against the use of DU in UN resolutions. Then we have the issue of the weight of the Australian Abram's which are just two heavy not be fitted with DU armour.

The Australian military must be aware that the Arab armies have lost a quite a few of their Abram's tanks in the Middle East. Australia is a Western country and like other Western countries has a high regard for the safety of their soldiers. The Abram's listed as used by the Australian Army is generally the same in armour protection as that used by the Arab's, and without the DU armour it will take losses in a combat zone against a well armed opponent.

[.45cultist]

I am aware that Arab forces in general do not respond well to Western training and instruction methods, and a lot of that is due to a lack of education and the local culture and weird social stratification in their society. There are also major class divisions between officers and their troops and political rivalry within their armies, and there are definitions of authority that do not exist in the west. But they can fight when they want to. Just ask the Israelis in the Yom Kippur War. However this is a minor point in this discussion. The Arab Abram's do not use DU armour, which is why they have lost quite a few of them.



This is well known and the Australian government has stated that their tanks don't use DU armour. But then it wont vote against the use of DU in UN resolutions. Then we have the issue of the weight of the Australian Abram's which are just two heavy not be fitted with DU armour.

The Australian military must be aware that the Arab armies have lost a quite a few of their Abram's tanks in the Middle East. Australia is a Western country and like other Western countries has a high regard for the safety of their soldiers. The Abram's listed as used by the Australian Army is generally the same in armour protection as that used by the Arab's, and without the DU armour it will take losses in a combat zone against a well armed opponent.


Could the enhancements be the two extra tons? Any in depth maintenance would reveal DU lining.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Could the enhancements be the two extra tons? Any in depth maintenance would reveal DU lining.
Basically, yes.
Standard equipment for the Abrams in Australian service includes Barracuda multispectral cam nets, extra climate control (which has to contend with high heat and also high humidity), extra fuel, extra water, extra spares, extra stowage points for all of that gear, infantry/tank phone, a fridge, all the wading kit from the USMC Abrams, elements of SEP, elements of TUSK, exhaust deflectors, plus the fact that we only use diesel which is heavier than the AvGas per litre...

This situation is the same as why Australian 5.56mm ammo is a different weight to US 5.56mm - the item has been modified to suit Australian conditions (primarily, it uses a different propellant more suited to Australia's climate).
It's the same reason as to why the L1A1 in Australian service had a different weight to the British L1A1.
It's the same reason as why the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates in Australian service had different weights and crew requirements to the same frigate in US service.
It's the same reason why Australia's Leopard 1 MBTs had a different weight to the parent model they were based upon.
In the case of the 5.56mm ammo and the L1A1 the weight difference is minor, obviously the larger the equipment and the more complex the item, the greater likelihood that different fittings will have a larger weight difference.
But one point remains - all of them were modified to suit Australian requirements. Those requirements are as much political in some cases as they are geographic, climate and usability considerations.

[RN7]

Could the enhancements be the two extra tons? Any in depth maintenance would reveal DU lining.

The maximum weight of a M1 Abrams with all the bells and whistles without DU armour is 66 US tons. The Australian Abrams are listed at 68.2 US tons, but after further looking there is an article from the Australian Department of defence in 2008 with lists it at 63,005 kg (69.5 US tons). That's an extra 3.5 tons.

The tanks are maintained by the Australian Army in Bandiana, but the tank armour was installed in America. Probably at Lima Ohio but it could also have been at three other location in America. No Australian tanks has been damaged in combat because they have never been sent into a warzone overseas. The composition of the armour is not lined in the traditional sense that you probably mean and would be hard to detect. If the tanks armour has to be repaired or replaced it will be shipped back to the US, in fact most major work on them would have to be done in the US.

[RN7]

Basically, yes.
Standard equipment for the Abrams in Australian service includes Barracuda multispectral cam nets, extra climate control (which has to contend with high heat and also high humidity), extra fuel, extra water, extra spares, extra stowage points for all of that gear, infantry/tank phone, a fridge, all the wading kit from the USMC Abrams, elements of SEP, elements of TUSK, exhaust deflectors, plus the fact that we only use diesel which is heavier than the AvGas per litre...

This situation is the same as why Australian 5.56mm ammo is a different weight to US 5.56mm - the item has been modified to suit Australian conditions (primarily, it uses a different propellant more suited to Australia's climate).
It's the same reason as to why the L1A1 in Australian service had a different weight to the British L1A1.
It's the same reason as why the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates in Australian service had different weights and crew requirements to the same frigate in US service.
It's the same reason why Australia's Leopard 1 MBTs had a different weight to the parent model they were based upon.
In the case of the 5.56mm ammo and the L1A1 the weight difference is minor, obviously the larger the equipment and the more complex the item, the greater likelihood that different fittings will have a larger weight difference.
But one point remains - all of them were modified to suit Australian requirements. Those requirements are as much political in some cases as they are geographic, climate and usability considerations.


So the Abrams fully loaded without DU armour weighs no more than 66 US tons. The Australian listing for the Abrams is 68.2 US tonnes, but as you have said and I have seen there is a figure out there for 69.5 US tons for the Australian tank. I'm staring to go with that figure. So the difference in DU-armour versus the export armour is now 3.5 tonnes.

This figure dates from 2008 and include SEP and before most of your additional items were added.

At that time a Lt Col Hayward stated that "Australianisation" of the Abrams AIM would include stowage mounts for F88 Steyr rifle in the crew compartment, chilled drinking water and a camouflage system, the addition of an infantry telephone at the rear of the tank, the integration of the infantry personal role radio and, as a nicety, a 20cm red kangaroo stencil on each side of the turret.

This is not exactly a major upgrade. But if you add these items with the list of items that you said were added, and they weight 2 US tons then the weight of the Australian Abrams must be well over 70 US tons and as heavy as even the very latest versions of the US Army Abrams with DU armour.

Also Australian Abrams use diesel fuel since the use of JP-8 is less common in the Australian Army, but they have the same AGT-1500 Gas turbine engines as US versions. The Barracuda Mobile Camouflage Systems (MCS) is lightweight, and according to SAAB who make it weighs no more than 250 g/m². Also according to SAAB it minimizes the effects of solar loading passively, radically lowering the vehicle inner temperature, creating better conditions for personnel and electronic equipment and preventing the ballistic effects from temperature changes and shortens time for cooling down to operational temperature and lowering fuel consumption by minimizing the fuel used for cooling. It is supposed to lower total fuel consumption up to 25 % by minimizing the fuel used for cooling. Also other countries tanks use extra fuel, extra water, extra spares, extra stowage points for all of that gear, and its not included in the basic weight of their tanks. If you want to add all that up along with TUSK armour and the US Marine wading kits to the weight of the tank that is fine, but the basic weight of the tank before all that gear is fitted is still going to be 69.5 US tons.

[CDAT]

So the Abrams fully loaded without DU armour weighs no more than 66 US tons. The Australian listing for the Abrams is 68.2 US tonnes, but as you have said and I have seen there is a figure out there for 69.5 US tons for the Australian tank. I'm staring to go with that figure. So the difference in DU-armour versus the export armour is now 3.5 tonnes.

This figure dates from 2008 and include SEP and before most of your additional items were added.

At that time a Lt Col Hayward stated that "Australianisation" of the Abrams AIM would include stowage mounts for F88 Steyr rifle in the crew compartment, chilled drinking water and a camouflage system, the addition of an infantry telephone at the rear of the tank, the integration of the infantry personal role radio and, as a nicety, a 20cm red kangaroo stencil on each side of the turret.

This is not exactly a major upgrade. But if you add these items with the list of items that you said were added, and they weight 2 US tons then the weight of the Australian Abrams must be well over 70 US tons and as heavy as even the very latest versions of the US Army Abrams with DU armour.

Also Australian Abrams use diesel fuel since the use of JP-8 is less common in the Australian Army, but they have the same AGT-1500 Gas turbine engines as US versions. The Barracuda Mobile Camouflage Systems (MCS) is lightweight, and according to SAAB who make it weighs no more than 250 g/m². Also according to SAAB it minimizes the effects of solar loading passively, radically lowering the vehicle inner temperature, creating better conditions for personnel and electronic equipment and preventing the ballistic effects from temperature changes and shortens time for cooling down to operational temperature and lowering fuel consumption by minimizing the fuel used for cooling. It is supposed to lower total fuel consumption up to 25 % by minimizing the fuel used for cooling. Also other countries tanks use extra fuel, extra water, extra spares, extra stowage points for all of that gear, and its not included in the basic weight of their tanks. If you want to add all that up along with TUSK armour and the US Marine wading kits to the weight of the tank that is fine, but the basic weight of the tank before all that gear is fitted is still going to be 69.5 US tons.

What I am seeing is that no matter what anyone says you are convinced that they have DU armor, so what is the point of further discussion? As I see it the main reason that we can say that they do not have DU armor is two fold, one the Australian government did not want it, and two the US government has never sold it before. If you are trying to find places where the governments may (likely did) say something that they did not mean to say that way, or said something that really was not cleared you can follow that rabbit for a long way. It may come as a shock to you (not likely, but who knows) that the government does not always tell the truth, for example the M1/IPM1 has a listed top speed on road of 45/30mph off road, and the M1A1 and later is 42/25mph. I can tell you from personal experience that is not true, I have gone much faster in my tank back in the day, but that is what the government says it is. The F-15 has a listed top speed of Mach 2.5, but there are press releases out there where it was said to have gone Mach 3.5, was that an oops we released something we should not have, or a typo? Also the SR-71 is listed as top speed of Mach 3.32, however it has been said that it can our run the Soviet missiles shoot at it (they can go up to Mac 4.5). So from my experience weights and speeds are very subjective and so should be taken with a large dose of Skepticism.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

What I am seeing is that no matter what anyone says you are convinced that they have DU armor, so what is the point of further discussion?
That's pretty much the way it comes across to me. It stopped being a discussion a while back.
The American tanker who seems to be the main source for the claim that Australian Abrams have DU armour comes across as dogmatic in his beliefs despite rebuttals from an Australian Armoured Corp soldier who actually worked on the Australian Abrams.

The Australian government has a sometimes strange (read outright crazy) approach to the health and safety of military personnel at times, swinging between good practical common sense to "What the hell are they thinking?"
When the 76mm ammunition for the M113 MRVs was thought to be carcinogenic, the government immediately suspended all use of the 76mm gun (the gun does not have a fume extractor so fumes would vent into the turret).
When the Raven infantry radio was first issued, the batteries had a mercury component that could cause fumes if the case was cracked. SOP for damaged batteries was to immediately wrap them in plastic, burying them at a marked location and then a recovery team would remove the battery for full disposal.
At another point they went a little silly and decided that all General Service trucks in the Army had to be fitted with seatbelts in the flatbed so that they could safely transport troops (common sense finally saw the light of day and where necessary, coaches were used to transport personnel).

If the Australian Abrams were fitted with DU armour, there would be a stack of protocols in place to deal with everything from damage in peace time to damage in war time to general use to maintenance & refurbishment to who exactly in the Health & Occupational Safety government department would deal with it. The paper trail would be huge.
The fact that no such information has ever seen the light of day in the nearly two decades of us operating the Abrams suggest either a vast and incredibly effective conspiracy to deny such information to the wider world or, that DU armour is not being used.

[RN7]

What I am seeing is that no matter what anyone says you are convinced that they have DU armor, so what is the point of further discussion? As I see it the main reason that we can say that they do not have DU armor is two fold, one the Australian government did not want it, and two the US government has never sold it before. If you are trying to find places where the governments may (likely did) say something that they did not mean to say that way, or said something that really was not cleared you can follow that rabbit for a long way.

I gave you a polite and respectful answer to your reply. But if you want to be rude and condescending I can be like that too, in fact I can be like that with everything you type up from now on.

Your reply was this..

"Could the enhancements be the two extra tons? Any in depth maintenance would reveal DU lining."

16 words and that is supposed to be gospel. I've actually put a lot of time into researching and putting up information about the Australian Abram's tank on numerous posts on this thread. StainessSteelCynic doesn't agree with most of what I have said and that is his right, but unlike you he has actually done some research and made an effort to counter-argue his point with some data to back it up and I respect that.

If you know so much about DU armour and the Abram's in general well lets here it. Put up that information so I and everyone else on this board can see your obviously vast knowledge of the subject. I'll be happy to discuss it with you in great detail, in fact I'm really going to enjoy it.

It may come as a shock to you (not likely, but who knows) that the government does not always tell the truth.

If you read even one of my posts on this subject you will realise that this is exactly what I have been saying. Have you actually read any of them at all?


for example the M1/IPM1 has a listed top speed on road of 45/30mph off road, and the M1A1 and later is 42/25mph. I can tell you from personal experience that is not true, I have gone much faster in my tank back in the day, but that is what the government says it is. The F-15 has a listed top speed of Mach 2.5, but there are press releases out there where it was said to have gone Mach 3.5, was that an oops we released something we should not have, or a typo? Also the SR-71 is listed as top speed of Mach 3.32, however it has been said that it can our run the Soviet missiles shoot at it (they can go up to Mac 4.5). So from my experience weights and speeds are very subjective and so should be taken with a large dose of Skepticism.

What has this got to do with DU armour?

[RN7]

That's pretty much the way it comes across to me. It stopped being a discussion a while back.
The American tanker who seems to be the main source for the claim that Australian Abrams have DU armour comes across as dogmatic in his beliefs despite rebuttals from an Australian Armoured Corp soldier who actually worked on the Australian Abrams.

The Australian government has a sometimes strange (read outright crazy) approach to the health and safety of military personnel at times, swinging between good practical common sense to "What the hell are they thinking?"
When the 76mm ammunition for the M113 MRVs was thought to be carcinogenic, the government immediately suspended all use of the 76mm gun (the gun does not have a fume extractor so fumes would vent into the turret).
When the Raven infantry radio was first issued, the batteries had a mercury component that could cause fumes if the case was cracked. SOP for damaged batteries was to immediately wrap them in plastic, burying them at a marked location and then a recovery team would remove the battery for full disposal.
At another point they went a little silly and decided that all General Service trucks in the Army had to be fitted with seatbelts in the flatbed so that they could safely transport troops (common sense finally saw the light of day and where necessary, coaches were used to transport personnel).

If the Australian Abrams were fitted with DU armour, there would be a stack of protocols in place to deal with everything from damage in peace time to damage in war time to general use to maintenance & refurbishment to who exactly in the Health & Occupational Safety government department would deal with it. The paper trail would be huge.
The fact that no such information has ever seen the light of day in the nearly two decades of us operating the Abrams suggest either a vast and incredibly effective conspiracy to deny such information to the wider world or, that DU armour is not being used.

You know my opinion and the American tankers opinion are no more dogmatic than yours?

If you can explain how these tanks are so heavy without DU armour then I won't have an argument with you.

None of the Australian tanks have ever been send outside of Australia or have been in combat. The armour on these tanks was fitted in America before the tanks were shipped to Australia. All major work on them is done in America, although I know that the gun on one tank was damaged and was repaired in Australia under supervision by US experts send out by GD. If the armour gets damaged and has to be repaired or replaced the tank will be shipped straight back to America as they are the only ones who can do it. The Australian government seems ok with all that. Why? I dunno maybe they know something!!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Maybe it's because we don't have the facilities to repair advanced armours (we don't).
Maybe it's because we're required by the contract to have certain repairs/maintenance done by GD in the US (we are).
Maybe it's both of these things.

[RN7]

Maybe it's because we don't have the facilities to repair advanced armours (we don't).
Maybe it's because we're required by the contract to have certain repairs/maintenance done by GD in the US (we are).
Maybe it's both of these things.

Maybe its because they have DU armour!!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

This same situation would have occurred if we had bought the Leopard 2 or the Challenger 2. We don't have the facilities to even make ceramic armours let alone repair something like Chobham armour let alone any armour more advanced than Chobham. Any repairs would require the vehicle be sent back to the country of origin. Even with the Leopard AS1 tank, we would have had to send them back to Germany for any significant repair or refurbishment.

DU armour was unacceptable to the Australian public and was, as mentioned before, a vote killer for any political party that went against that aspect of public opinion.
For any political party to covertly acquire tanks with DU armour at that period in time would require a conspiracy of silence from 2004 until the present day that would involve politicians on all sides of Australian politics, public servants, civilian contractors and military personnel to the tune of thousands of individuals. The Australian Greens party in particular would have rained merry hell down on government if they found out any such duplicity involving uranium had occurred.
The implication of all this is that either: -
1. the rest of the Australian population are a bunch of dupes who believe whatever the government tells them
2. the entire population of Australia is "in on it" and is lying to the rest of the world to protect the conspiracy despite many Australians being firmly opposed to DU
or
3. the government is telling the truth, we have no DU armour

In the nearly two decades of Abrams in Australian service, there has not been a single piece of evidence to support the notion that the Australian Abrams have DU armour. The American tanker that claimed we do have DU armour was arguing from a point of supposition. He displayed no consideration for the Australian social-political situation, of Australian health & safety regulations, of Australian military practice or, to be blunt, he exhibited no proof that he had any idea whatsoever about any aspect of Australia, the Australian government and the Australian military.
The Australian tanker could at least claim direct knowledge of all three of those subjects even if he had not had direct experience of the Australian Abrams.

[CDAT]

I gave you a polite and respectful answer to your reply. But if you want to be rude and condescending I can be like that too, in fact I can be like that with everything you type up from now on.

Your reply was this..

"Could the enhancements be the two extra tons? Any in depth maintenance would reveal DU lining."

16 words and that is supposed to be gospel. I've actually put a lot of time into researching and putting up information about the Australian Abram's tank on numerous posts on this thread. StainessSteelCynic doesn't agree with most of what I have said and that is his right, but unlike you he has actually done some research and made an effort to counter-argue his point with some data to back it up and I respect that.

First Off this quote that you say I said, I never said it, if you are going to quote someone at least quote the right someone this was said by .45cultist. Also it would not even take in depth maintenance just someone with a Geiger counter as DU does have low levels of radiation, enough that military counters (never used civilian) can detect it. Second off you have never answered the question that I asked, that being if the US has never sold a DU armored M1 what makes you think they decided to do so with the Australians who do not want it? Have I done much research, no/yes/maybe (depending on what you call research) as I lived this for ten years, but two tons (about 4000lbs) is not a lot of weight when you are talking tanks. I do not know what was added to the Australian tanks, but based on what I have seen posted here they have extra fuel, cool water storage, an APU(?), and use a heavier fuel. So just the change to a heavier fuel and adding say an extra 100 gallons takes up almost 1000lbs all by its self (about 700 for the extra 100 gallons, and about 250lbs for the difference in weight from JP to diesel), not knowing how much water is added, but water weighs about 8lbs per gallon not counting the system to hold it, and cool it, but lets say 40 gallons (ten per person, this is about twice what we carried so maybe to much and ours was carried in Jerry cans on the tank so was not added to the official weight of the tank) that is 320lbs just for the water. An APU is about 400lbs. So right here we have used a bit more than 3/4 of a ton, if they also use some extra armor to replace the DU but is half the weight (just a guess from my fourth point of contact) we are now looking at just a couple hundred pounds still not accounted for. This could easily be things like different track blocks, end connectors, amount of ammo carried (40 mail gun rounds for M1A1, 42 for M1A2) radios, and who know what other little things that add up quickly. Heck even the CVC (Combat Vehicle Crewman) helmet, my old one from my time in tanks, is about 3/4 of the weight of my brothers (who served after I got out of tanks as a tanker) now his was better but also weighed more. So summing up lots of examples/thought/whatnot have been given on why the weights may be different, but you are the only one that I see saying that it has to be DU armor as nothing else could possibly explain how that much (and when talking tanks it is not much) weight was added/retained.


If you know so much about DU armour and the Abram's in general well lets here it. Put up that information so I and everyone else on this board can see your obviously vast knowledge of the subject. I'll be happy to discuss it with you in great detail, in fact I'm really going to enjoy it.
I am not a expert on DU armor, but I did spend ten years as a M1 armor crewman, so I do know a few things about them. I have tried putting some of the information out there, based on my having been a tanker, but you have just ignored it as it has not fit with what you want the end story to be.

If you read even one of my posts on this subject you will realise that this is exactly what I have been saying. Have you actually read any of them at all?

What has this got to do with DU armour?
I have read what you posted, but it looks like you believe 100% the weights are gospel and the only way they can be that is if it has DU armor. Anything else the government is lieing about. I was trying to point out that it looks like sometimes they error, sometime it is misinformation, and yes it is likely sometimes it is flat out lies, but if you only pick and choose the ones that back what you want it to say then you are not really being objective.

[RN7]

First Off this quote that you say I said, I never said it, if you are going to quote someone at least quote the right someone this was said by .45cultist.

Sorry about that I was busy last night when typing. But you were still being
rude.

Also it would not even take in depth maintenance just someone with a Geiger counter as DU does have low levels of radiation, enough that military counters (never used civilian) can detect it.

Right so you served on an M1. So did you ever use a Geiger counter on an Abram's or did someone you know ever use one, or did a superior officer ever allow you to use one near an Abram's and would you have been allowed go out and tell the world what you Geiger counter told you? They are military vehicles operated by the Australian Army. The only people allowed near them are military technicians who would need permission from a superior officer to use a Geiger counter, and they would be under orders and military laws.

Second off you have never answered the question that I asked, that being if the US has never sold a DU armored M1 what makes you think they decided to do so with the Australians who do not want it?

I think I tried to answer your question and others have also asked the same question and they got a reply from me too. Officially there is no DU armour and the Australian government has gone out of its way to state that, and I have stated that numerous times. But then there is the issue of the weight of the armour on the Australian Abram's. Read back on my posts I have put up a lot of information and data to try and support my view.

Have I done much research, no/yes/maybe (depending on what you call research) as I lived this for ten years, but two tons (about 4000lbs) is not a lot of weight when you are talking tanks. I do not know what was added to the Australian tanks, but based on what I have seen posted here they have extra fuel, cool water storage, an APU(?), and use a heavier fuel. So just the change to a heavier fuel and adding say an extra 100 gallons takes up almost 1000lbs all by its self (about 700 for the extra 100 gallons, and about 250lbs for the difference in weight from JP to diesel), not knowing how much water is added, but water weighs about 8lbs per gallon not counting the system to hold it, and cool it, but lets say 40 gallons (ten per person, this is about twice what we carried so maybe to much and ours was carried in Jerry cans on the tank so was not added to the official weight of the tank) that is 320lbs just for the water. An APU is about 400lbs. So right here we have used a bit more than 3/4 of a ton, if they also use some extra armor to replace the DU but is half the weight (just a guess from my fourth point of contact) we are now looking at just a couple hundred pounds still not accounted for. This could easily be things like different track blocks, end connectors, amount of ammo carried (40 mail gun rounds for M1A1, 42 for M1A2) radios, and who know what other little things that add up quickly. Heck even the CVC (Combat Vehicle Crewman) helmet, my old one from my time in tanks, is about 3/4 of the weight of my brothers (who served after I got out of tanks as a tanker) now his was better but also weighed more. So summing up lots of examples/thought/whatnot have been given on why the weights may be different, but you are the only one that I see saying that it has to be DU armor as nothing else could possibly explain how that much (and when talking tanks it is not much) weight was added/retained.

The weight difference between non-DU armoured Abram's and the weight of the tank listed by the Australian government is 3.5 US tons. That is equivalent to two medium sized cars added on to the tank. This weight was listed in 2008 before most of the additions that StainlessSteelCynic mentioned. This is the basic weight of the tank.

Extra fuel, extra water, extra ammo etc that you and StainlessSteelCynic mention is not part of that listed weight, and the Australian Army is not unique in carrying extra fuel, water, ammo etc in side and outside the tank.

I am not a expert on DU armor, but I did spend ten years as a M1 armor crewman, so I do know a few things about them. I have tried putting some of the information out there, based on my having been a tanker, but you have just ignored it as it has not fit with what you want the end story to be.

Lets be clear. This is what you said........

" I have served in the Middle East for about 5 years out of my 20 in uniform, and spent a lot of that time working with the locals, yes they have learned somethings from us, but other things that we keep trying to teach them they (as of 2013 when I got out) had not picked up in the more then twenty years that we had been trying to teach it to them. For example there tanks shoot a lot, probably more then even we do. However getting them to practice maneuver warfare training is like pulling teeth, they just do not want to do it. From what I am told it has something to do with the differences in culture and how we look at situations or something like that (never really made clear to me)."

" Now as I said I have been out for some time now, but to the best of my knowledge (and I will admit that I have not been tracking it) my understanding is that the US has never sold any DU equipped tanks, now if they were I would think a strong allies like Australia would be one to do so, but if we have not before and due to internal politics it is not a good way to make the sale, I have a hard time buying that they are just trying to sneak it in, when the troops with issued gear can tell if they are or not, and you know that if so someone would spill the beans. But this is just my thoughts worth what you paid for them."

" What I am seeing is that no matter what anyone says you are convinced that they have DU armor, so what is the point of further discussion? As I see it the main reason that we can say that they do not have DU armor is two fold, one the Australian government did not want it, and two the US government has never sold it before. If you are trying to find places where the governments may (likely did) say something that they did not mean to say that way, or said something that really was not cleared you can follow that rabbit for a long way. It may come as a shock to you (not likely, but who knows) that the government does not always tell the truth, for example the M1/IPM1 has a listed top speed on road of 45/30mph off road, and the M1A1 and later is 42/25mph. I can tell you from personal experience that is not true, I have gone much faster in my tank back in the day, but that is what the government says it is. The F-15 has a listed top speed of Mach 2.5, but there are press releases out there where it was said to have gone Mach 3.5, was that an oops we released something we should not have, or a typo? Also the SR-71 is listed as top speed of Mach 3.32, however it has been said that it can our run the Soviet missiles shoot at it (they can go up to Mac 4.5). So from my experience weights and speeds are very subjective and so should be taken with a large dose of Skepticism."

Tell me exactly what part of this is information directly related to the weight of the Abram's tank or DU armour? Its seem to be your opinion and experiences in the army, and a few examples of things which are not related to what I am talking about. It also includes a few comments which accuse me of ignoring what you and everyone else is saying because I don't want to listen to you and them and that I am arguing just for the sake of it. I have actually tried to answer you and everyone's posts with relevant information, but I've got a lot of accusations for doing that.

I have read what you posted, but it looks like you believe 100% the weights are gospel and the only way they can be that is if it has DU armor. Anything else the government is lieing about. I was trying to point out that it looks like sometimes they error, sometime it is misinformation, and yes it is likely sometimes it is flat out lies, but if you only pick and choose the ones that back what you want it to say then you are not really being objective.

And this is a prime example of what I just said.

I'm not being objective and I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but I do have an issue with weight of the Australian Abram's tank. I believe in facts and I've put up a lot information to support my view that the Australian Abram's has DU armour. According to you I'm accusing the Australian government of lying, but then you say......

"I was trying to point out that it looks like sometimes they error, sometime it is misinformation, and yes it is likely sometimes it is flat out lies"

What exactly are you trying to say? Are they lying? Yes I think they are lying about the Abram's tank. Thank you.

[RN7]

This same situation would have occurred if we had bought the Leopard 2 or the Challenger 2. We don't have the facilities to even make ceramic armours let alone repair something like Chobham armour let alone any armour more advanced than Chobham. Any repairs would require the vehicle be sent back to the country of origin. Even with the Leopard AS1 tank, we would have had to send them back to Germany for any significant repair or refurbishment.

DU armour was unacceptable to the Australian public and was, as mentioned before, a vote killer for any political party that went against that aspect of public opinion.
For any political party to covertly acquire tanks with DU armour at that period in time would require a conspiracy of silence from 2004 until the present day that would involve politicians on all sides of Australian politics, public servants, civilian contractors and military personnel to the tune of thousands of individuals. The Australian Greens party in particular would have rained merry hell down on government if they found out any such duplicity involving uranium had occurred.
The implication of all this is that either: -
1. the rest of the Australian population are a bunch of dupes who believe whatever the government tells them
2. the entire population of Australia is "in on it" and is lying to the rest of the world to protect the conspiracy despite many Australians being firmly opposed to DU
or
3. the government is telling the truth, we have no DU armour

In the nearly two decades of Abrams in Australian service, there has not been a single piece of evidence to support the notion that the Australian Abrams have DU armour. The American tanker that claimed we do have DU armour was arguing from a point of supposition. He displayed no consideration for the Australian social-political situation, of Australian health & safety regulations, of Australian military practice or, to be blunt, he exhibited no proof that he had any idea whatsoever about any aspect of Australia, the Australian government and the Australian military.
The Australian tanker could at least claim direct knowledge of all three of those subjects even if he had not had direct experience of the Australian Abrams.


I think I did say that the Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 would have been a better option for Australia at the time. The Leopard 2 is a fine tank but it has no real combat experience, and expect for maybe the very latest models available today in 2020 the armour on older models is not up to that of the DU-armoured Abram's or the Challenger 2. The armour on the Challenger 2 is equally as tough as the DU armour on the Abram's. I don't know what it is made of as the Brits wont tell anyone about it no matter how hard you look. Maybe some DU armour too huh!!

I think cost came into the equation when Australia was choosing which tank to buy, and America offered a relatively cheap package with mostly refurbished models. But all the work on them was done in America and there is ambiguity about which M1A1 SA AIP variant was supplied.

There is some secrecy about all of this and it is near impossible to find out which tank Australia really got. Australia says it got the M1A1 SA AIP v1 with no DU armour, but the data relating to the very heavy weight of the Australian tank points to M1A1 SA AIP v2 which has DU armour. All the major repair work is also done in America, and that is another part of the problem as you would have to closely inspect the armour to figure out what it actually is and that is only going to happen in America at a tank factory. Official secrets acts etc would mean you would end up in prison if you went near one.

But that is what you get when you don't have a major arms industry and have to buy from another country.

The Australian government has gone out of its way to state that there is no DU armour in it tanks and I have never denied any of this. However despite vocal support for condemning depleted uranium as a toxic weapon, the Australian government has abstained from voting in UN resolution to restrict or ban the use of depleted uranium weapons. Why was this?

The issue I have is the weight of the Australian tank. It is just far to heavy to be fitted with the export grade armour that was supplied to the Arabs.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Interestingly enough, there were three camps in regards to a tank to replace the Leo AS1 and also three groups that had vocal opinions on it, the three groups being the government, the army itself and the last group being military affairs writers/commentators (many of them being ex-military). Unsurprisingly the three camps were, Leo 2, Challenger 2 and M1A1 Abrams.

The decision to buy the Abrams came down to two things, a strong political desire to strengthen defence ties with the US coupled with the fact that US made an offer that was "too good to refuse". So yeah, total costs played a very big part.
To a lesser extent the fact that the Abrams would be supplied already fitted for network-centric warfare played its part too but that again comes down to price - the other two could have been fitted with the gear but it would have been at additional cost. Every Abrams we got was a zero-hour refurbishment/rebuild of M1A1 models drawn from US Army or USMC stocks. This would also benefit the US in that it kept people employed at the tank plant and it meant cycling older models of Abrams out of inventory as the M1A2 became the mainstay of the US tank fleets further reducing total costs for everyone involved.

As for the three tanks, support for Leo 2 and Challenger 2 were about equal from the army as I recall it, with the Abrams running somewhat behind but there was a very vocal group of journo's in the defence affairs side of things who were stridently waving the flag for the Abrams. I don't recall this actually having much (if any) impact on the government decision but I definitely recall some of the rubbish they printed to belittle the Leo 2 and Challenger 2.
With the exception of network-centric warfare kit, the Abrams was not the best choice for the Australian Army but it was a very good choice for the Australian government and overall, the Army appears pretty happy with them now.

As for the Australian government abstaining from voting on the use of DU, it's got less to do with our new tanks and much more to do with decades old trade. Australia was one of the major exporters of uranium in the past and is still in the top 15 of the world's exporters of depleted uranium. The silence of the Australian government in the UN likely has more to do with keeping the export dollars rolling in. There are three very big players in the uranium mining industry in Australia and they have worldwide presence - BHP Billiton, Energy Resources of Australian and Rio Tinto (which actually owns over 50-60% of Energy Resources of Australia). All three make big wads of cash from uranium.

We have some absurdly high percent of GDP provided by mining, in the region of 15-20% and we have apparently, the world's largest supply of uranium resources. We still use coal powered electricity generation in some areas, nuclear power would be far better in terms of short and long term environmental impact but no government is willing to pitch nuclear power stations to the public, because they know the answer will be a majority "no".

Now I'm never going to declare the Australian government are not a bunch of money grubbers nor are they without hypocrisy but I believe the trade in uranium has much more to do with their decision in the UN than the purchase of the Abrams did. Voting against the use of DU would lose too many dollars in trade, voting yes would be hypocritical. The only way to save face and more importantly all those lovely, lovely export dollars, was to abstain.

[nuke11]

The armour on the Challenger 2 is equally as tough as the DU armour on the Abram's. I don't know what it is made of as the Brits wont tell anyone about it no matter how hard you look. Maybe some DU armour too huh!!


I believe it is Chobham armor with a Tungsten alloy.

[Raellus]

Could the Abrams' proven track record (no pun intended) in arid, desert environments have factored into the decision? The Challenger II has also had some operational deployments in desert areas but, AFAIK, the Leopard II has not.

-

[RN7]

Interestingly enough, there were three camps in regards to a tank to replace the Leo AS1 and also three groups that had vocal opinions on it, the three groups being the government, the army itself and the last group being military affairs writers/commentators (many of them being ex-military). Unsurprisingly the three camps were, Leo 2, Challenger 2 and M1A1 Abrams.

The decision to buy the Abrams came down to two things, a strong political desire to strengthen defence ties with the US coupled with the fact that US made an offer that was "too good to refuse". So yeah, total costs played a very big part.
To a lesser extent the fact that the Abrams would be supplied already fitted for network-centric warfare played its part too but that again comes down to price - the other two could have been fitted with the gear but it would have been at additional cost. Every Abrams we got was a zero-hour refurbishment/rebuild of M1A1 models drawn from US Army or USMC stocks. This would also benefit the US in that it kept people employed at the tank plant and it meant cycling older models of Abrams out of inventory as the M1A2 became the mainstay of the US tank fleets further reducing total costs for everyone involved.

As for the three tanks, support for Leo 2 and Challenger 2 were about equal from the army as I recall it, with the Abrams running somewhat behind but there was a very vocal group of journo's in the defence affairs side of things who were stridently waving the flag for the Abrams. I don't recall this actually having much (if any) impact on the government decision but I definitely recall some of the rubbish they printed to belittle the Leo 2 and Challenger 2.
With the exception of network-centric warfare kit, the Abrams was not the best choice for the Australian Army but it was a very good choice for the Australian government and overall, the Army appears pretty happy with them now.

As for the Australian government abstaining from voting on the use of DU, it's got less to do with our new tanks and much more to do with decades old trade. Australia was one of the major exporters of uranium in the past and is still in the top 15 of the world's exporters of depleted uranium. The silence of the Australian government in the UN likely has more to do with keeping the export dollars rolling in. There are three very big players in the uranium mining industry in Australia and they have worldwide presence - BHP Billiton, Energy Resources of Australian and Rio Tinto (which actually owns over 50-60% of Energy Resources of Australia). All three make big wads of cash from uranium.

We have some absurdly high percent of GDP provided by mining, in the region of 15-20% and we have apparently, the world's largest supply of uranium resources. We still use coal powered electricity generation in some areas, nuclear power would be far better in terms of short and long term environmental impact but no government is willing to pitch nuclear power stations to the public, because they know the answer will be a majority "no".

Now I'm never going to declare the Australian government are not a bunch of money grubbers nor are they without hypocrisy but I believe the trade in uranium has much more to do with their decision in the UN than the purchase of the Abrams did. Voting against the use of DU would lose too many dollars in trade, voting yes would be hypocritical. The only way to save face and more importantly all those lovely, lovely export dollars, was to abstain.

I couldn't argue with this, and I would say all or most of it played a part in the Australian decision to but the Abram's.

I know Australia has a big uranium mining industry but as far as I aware it doesn't produce DU armour or DU ammunition. I could be wrong as I haven't done to much research on it, but I think you need nuclear reactors and an enrichment plant to produce depleted uranium. Australia does have a small stock of highly enriched uranium (0.001 tons).

At the time I would have placed the Challenger 2 as the front runner due to three factors. 1) armour protection 2) Non DU armour (so the they say!!!) 3) Experience of use in desert and temperate climates. The Abram's I think beat it on price and perhaps one other factor. The Challenger 2 uses a 120mm rifled gun and the Abram's and Leopard 2 have 120mm smoothbores. The British rifled gun itself is sound enough design and is actually longer ranged, but it is not compatible with most NATO ammunition. Converting the Challenger to a smoothbore gun would have added way to much to the unit cost.

The Abram's was chosen but I still think protection was an issue. The Abram's with DU armour is very well protected, but DU armour is no no in Australia. So I think Australia may have told a bit of a white lie about it, and has been able to cover it up through using GD to do all of the major engineering work in America. I would say much of this work could actually be done in Australia, but it suits everyone in involved in the programme to have it done in the States.

Again I could be wrong and there may be a very rational explanation to why the Australian Abram's is 3.5 US tons heavier than it should be if it doesn't have DU armour. I may have just missed something or read the wrong information. I don't think we will ever know the real specs of the Australian Abram's unless someone in the Australian or US governments blurts something out by mistake and it enters the public domain.

[RN7]

I believe it is Chobham armor with a Tungsten alloy.

It could well be, but I would say a bit of depleted uranium and something else is in the mix.

[RN7]

Could the Abrams' proven track record (no pun intended) in arid, desert environments have factored into the decision? The Challenger II has also had some operational deployments in desert areas but, AFAIK, the Leopard II has not.-

Definitely

[StainlessSteelCynic]

A couple of things here.

The proven track record in desert environments wasn't as big a consideration as one might expect. A more important consideration for the Australian Army was range on full fuel load so in that aspect, I believe the Challenger 2 was the lead candidate. But the Abrams deal saved the government a bucket-load of cash plus it was also pre-fitted for network-centric warfare (thereby saving further costs). That coupled with the then Prime Minister's desire to strengthen the bond with the US... we all know the end result.

Not something widely known but Australia has had an Atomic Energy Commission since 1952 and we've had a nuclear reactor since 1958. It's located in Sydney, the suburb of Lucas Heights specifically.
It was used for research and the production of medical & industrial isotopes. As a byproduct, it also supplied electricity to the local area. It was replaced by a newer technology reactor in 2007.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Digging a little into Australia's uranium exports, apparently a major customer in the last couple of decades is the USA, listed as accounting for over half of Australian uranium sales as of 2019-20
So, some idle speculation... Australia abstains in the UN vote against DU because voting yes would potentially sour the export of uranium to the US.
Something to consider...

[RN7]

After doing a bit of research this is what I found. Australia is a major producer or uranium, and I think it has the largest reserves of uranium in the world and certainly has the largest uranium mine. However Australia is only involved in the extraction of uranium, with the mined uranium shipped overseas.

Depleted uranium does not occur naturally. Natural uranium primarily contains two isotopes, uranium-238 (99.3 percent) and U-235 (0.7%). The concentration of U-235 which is the fissionable isotope needs to be increased to between 3 and 5% for nuclear fuel. Uranium enrichment plants use gaseous diffusion, gas centrifuge, or laser separation enrichment to do that, and one of the by products that they produce in depleted uranium..

Australia has no commercial nuclear power plants and limited domestic uranium requirements. An Open Pool Australian Lightwater (OPAL) research reactor is operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) at Lucas Heights south of Sydney, New South Wales. The OPAL reactor has the capacity to produce commercial quantities of radioisotopes utilising low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel.

Australia has no uranium enrichment facilities. Countries with major uranium enrichment facilities are located in the United States, Russia, Britain, China, France, Germany and Netherlands. There are also minor uranium enrichment facilities in Argentina, Brazil, India, Iran, Japan and Pakistan.

Countries that produce depleted uranium ammunition include the United States, China, Britain, France and Russia. India and Pakistan also produce small quantities. The United States is the biggest producer of DU ammunition

Countries that use depleted uranium ammunition include the United States, China, Britain, France, Russia,. Bahrain, Egypt, Germany, Greece, India, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and possibly Serbia.