A few questions for our Aussie members

[Schone23666]

I had read about the recent, well, as in a few years ago anyway, purchase of a number of M1 tanks from the U.S. I know Paul had it mentioned on his site, though I can't recall the exact number or what variant they were (I can't access his site at work. Hey Paul, you're getting famous! ).

These were supposed to be refurbished models with new equipment in addition to the same type of armor found on American models. I'm told the ones that were exported to Egypt don't have the armor inserts, among other things.

Anyway, any feedback from the Australian Army on the new hardware? Also, I had read that the Australian military was offering commissions to American officers to serve in their branches and help provide experience. I suspect they have a somewhat similiar offer for enlisted as well. Anyone familiar with this?

Just fyi, I worked several years with Raytheon (one of the major U.S. defense contractors) on an OTHR (Over the Horizon Radar) system. I remember we would get regular visits each year from several Australian military advisors who had a somewhat similiar system, albeit a little smaller that they used to monitor airspace outside the continent, though I suspect I know who they were keeping a close eye on.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

I had read about the recent, well, as in a few years ago anyway, purchase of a number of M1 tanks from the U.S. I know Paul had it mentioned on his site, though I can't recall the exact number or what variant they were (I can't access his site at work. Hey Paul, you're getting famous! ).

GDLS whipped them up a special edition.

Why can't you access my site at your work? A few curse words? Some risque content in the Humor section?

[Rainbow Six]

At my last job I couldn't access your site either. Certain categories came up as blocked (any sort of online gambling site, porn, facepuke, etc, etc). If you tried to access anything deemed to be dodgy you used to get a screen coming up saying "This Site is banned under the (insert name of category here) category - if you have a valid business need to access this site please contact IT" or words to that effect.

I haven't worked there for a while but if IIRC the category that came up for your site was "weapons" or "firearms" or something similar.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

GDLS whipped them up a special edition.

Why can't you access my site at your work? A few curse words? Some risque content in the Humor section?

Meh, I think you just scared some fresh-outta-college IT security guy with zits still on his face with the number of times words like "grenade launchers", "heavy machine guns", "antimaterial rifles", "mines", "rocket launchers", etc. get mentioned. That's how they filter out/block some sites methinks where I work (which is now currently at a hospital in Virginia Beach, not far from Dam Neck, Little Creek and several other bases) OH! The horrors!

On another note....wasn't I supposed to get back to you on an idea for "Best Vehicles that Never Were" for another variant of the Landmaster? Urgh, damn my memory these days.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

Meh, I think you just scared some fresh-outta-college IT security guy with zits still on his face with the number of times words like "grenade launchers", "heavy machine guns", "antimaterial rifles", "mines", "rocket launchers", etc. get mentioned. That's how they filter out/block some sites methinks where I work

Sounds like the same problem I used to have.

[Brother in Arms]

The only question I have for Aussies is this:

Are Australian women as slutty as the rumors I have heard???

Also do you know Abby Winters? Because I am a fan of all natural flavors.

Brother in Arms

[robert.munsey]

I am an American and I know this!!!!

It was 59 M1A1 AIM Abrams plus some M88A2s

the website is;
http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Arm...s/m1a1ph_1.htm

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In regards to Paul's site, yeah it seems it's a common problem with the IT departments of various companies banning access to the site and they aren't all staffed by spotty twenty somethings, my last job had 40-somethings who were just as full of their own self importance and just as incompetent as the 20-somethings.
They list it as "forbidden category - weapons" or "forbidden category -military" from what I've seen. I've never seen it banned under the category of "games" however.


Anyway, onto the original questions...
The Australian Abrams are former US Army & USMC models built to M1A1 standard rather than new builds. They are rebuilt to "zero hour/zero kilometer" configuration. This was probably done so that they would not be fitted with the depleted uranium armour.
The reason for not using the depleted uranium armour was a government decision because they didn't like the idea of radioactive material trundling around the place (yeah, yeah, I know and you know it has no chance of contaminating anything or anyone but the government did not want to upset the greenies who are fanatically opposed to radioactive materials - although they don't seem to mind all the benefits from nuclear medicine or seem to care that the sun provides more radiation but that's another story for a different thread).
They are also fitted with the Tank Urban Survivability Kit i.e. TUSK.

We purchased 59 M1A1 AIM* MBTs and seven M88A2 recovery vehicles (some sources say five M88 but Australian government sources say seven) along with MAN TGA 8x8 prime movers (AKA tractor truck) towing trailers designed & built by Drake Trailers Australia to form 14 heavy tank transporters.
The trailer has a split deck that spreads to the width of the tank when needed just like other oversized load bearing trailers. It can also lower itself to the ground for loading so the suspension takes none of the loading forces.
* AIM - Abrams Integrated Management.

The tanks are run on diesel rather than avgas and this has no appreciable impact on the operational range of 430km. The decision for diesel is that every other vehicle in the Army (aside from staff cars and the like) runs on diesel.
The operational range is a sore point as the Leopard AS1 MBTs got about 500km. It's not a big problem for Europe or North America where there are many more facilities but it's a serious issue for Australia where the distance between rural towns may be anywhere between 200 to 500 kilometers. Particularly relevant for the Abrams because as far as I know, it does not have a fuel pump to allow it to refill itself. It still relies on an external pump to transfer fuel.

There are two specific reasons the Abrams was chosen (not taking into consideration the political reasons for buying it) - it was already wired up for network centric warfare and it makes for easier inter-nation operability and support (including parts, training etc. etc.) with the US.


As to commissions for US officers to provide experience, this is half right. For decades now, the Australian military has offered the opportunity for personnel from certain allied nations with the appropriate experience, to join our military. The most favoured nations are New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the USA although personnel from Rhodesia, South Africa, Malaysia, Singapore, Papua New Guinea and Fiji have also been a part of this.
Specific consideration is given to officers and personnel with technical training - they don't particularly want more grunts. It was not done to get experience for our defence force but done more so to get qualified personnel to fill out numbers as many of the potential candidates here are not always interested in joining the military
The same has been true in the past for the UK and the USA in regard to Australian military personnel joining them and I am assuming it still holds true today.

The Jindalee Over The Horizon Radar network AKA JORN (Jindalee Operational Radar Network) had its origins in some 1950s ionospheric testing but also took into account the proof of concept for OTH* work done by the USN in the 1950s.
* OTH - Over The Horizon

JORN itself was largely developed in a period from 1975 to 1985 and as I understand it, there was a lot of collaborative work between the US and Australia as part of The Technical Cooperation Program (AKA TTCP).
This collaboration came about because Australia could demonstrate that their research was as mature as the US research (and therefore the US would not be burdened with a partner that would contribute little but get all the benefit).
@ Schone - With all that in mind, I would assume that the visitors you had were all part of the ongoing collaboration. You may be interested in this PDF of the overall history of JORN http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/attac...izon_radar.pdf
And yeah, when you see just where the JORN is aiming, you can tell pretty damn quick, who we are concerned with but it's also used for detecting activity such as illegal immigration, smuggling and poaching... which, interestingly enough, does seem to largely originate from the same place we are militarily concerned with...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Brother in Arms

The only question I have for Aussies is this:
Are Australian women as slutty as the rumors I have heard??? Also do you know Abby Winters? Because I am a fan of all natural flavors.

Hilarious! I wouldn't say that in general Australian women are "slutty". We don't have as much of the hard-core Christian guilt hang-ups about sex as perhaps you have in America, so young women here aren't made to feel like they're dirty or sinners for having a healthy sexual appetite.

No I don't know Abby Winters personally LOL! But I can relate to enjoying all-natural flavours

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by robert.munsey

I am an American and I know this!!!!

I'm an American and I know that Paris Hilton is a slut with 17 strains of VD!!!

Good to hear from you again, Muns.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

On another note....wasn't I supposed to get back to you on an idea for "Best Vehicles that Never Were" for another variant of the Landmaster? Urgh, damn my memory these days.

Yeah, you had some ideas to sharpen the vehicle's stats and weapons fit.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The Australian Abrams are former US Army & USMC models built to M1A1 standard rather than new builds. They are rebuilt to "zero hour/zero kilometer" configuration. This was probably done so that they would not be fitted with the depleted uranium armour.
The reason for not using the depleted uranium armour was a government decision because they didn't like the idea of radioactive material trundling around the place (yeah, yeah, I know and you know it has no chance of contaminating anything or anyone but the government did not want to upset the greenies who are fanatically opposed to radioactive materials - although they don't seem to mind all the benefits from nuclear medicine or seem to care that the sun provides more radiation but that's another story for a different thread).
They are also fitted with the Tank Urban Survivability Kit i.e. TUSK.

We purchased 59 M1A1 AIM* MBTs and seven M88A2 recovery vehicles (some sources say five M88 but Australian government sources say seven) along with MAN TGA 8x8 prime movers (AKA tractor truck) towing trailers designed & built by Drake Trailers Australia to form 14 heavy tank transporters.
The trailer has a split deck that spreads to the width of the tank when needed just like other oversized load bearing trailers. It can also lower itself to the ground for loading so the suspension takes none of the loading forces.
* AIM - Abrams Integrated Management.

The tanks are run on diesel rather than avgas and this has no appreciable impact on the operational range of 430km. The decision for diesel is that every other vehicle in the Army (aside from staff cars and the like) runs on diesel.
The operational range is a sore point as the Leopard AS1 MBTs got about 500km. It's not a big problem for Europe or North America where there are many more facilities but it's a serious issue for Australia where the distance between rural towns may be anywhere between 200 to 500 kilometers. Particularly relevant for the Abrams because as far as I know, it does not have a fuel pump to allow it to refill itself. It still relies on an external pump to transfer fuel.

There are two specific reasons the Abrams was chosen (not taking into consideration the political reasons for buying it) - it was already wired up for network centric warfare and it makes for easier inter-nation operability and support (including parts, training etc. etc.) with the US.

They don't have the DU armor inserts? Urgh. Well, here's hoping your guys won't be needing those, though geopolitical events in the Pacific as of late don't seem to be boding well...

With that said, does that mean the Australians aren't using the DU sabot rounds in their tanks as well? Are they using something else, standard HEAT rounds perhaps?

As for the mileage....yeah, that was always one of the few chinks in the M1 Abram's package. Apparently the designers felt there was going to have to be tradeoffs between range, survivability, firepower, speed, etc. and chose to sacrifice range for the rest. They've been tweaking with the engine design for the Abrams back here in the U.S. but I don't think they've really come up with an effective alternative yet. You still got a lot of heavy armor to push with that engine and you need plenty of horsepower to do so. So hence there's always a long logistics chain that follows the M1 Abrams convoys.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Nope, no DU armour and no DU rounds.
I'm also given to believe that friendly nations cannot use DU rounds during training shoots here either.

As for the mileage of the Abrams, to be fair, it was originally designed to fight in Europe and everything was centred on that idea. To the best of my knowledge there are no tank designs that have addressed every aspect of a requirement for tanks in Australia. All our tanks with the exception of two designs, have been from the UK or the USA and these have generally been designed to fight either a European war or with a massive manufacturing and/or logistics tail (that we don't have the population to support).

Australia's Abrams will likely never leave our shores and so will bustle around the outback for most of their career (the last time we sent tanks outside the country was for the Vietnam War when we had Chieftains -- Edit: err, make that Centurions, we didn't have the Chieftain... I had a brain fart).

For those interested, the two non-UK/US tanks were the Australian designed/built Sentinel and the West German Leopard 1. The Sentinel was something of an achievement for Australian industry as it was the first time we had ever undertaken to design and build tanks and the armoured steel required for them. It was built to make up the shortfall in tanks able to be delivered from the UK during WW2 but unfortunately for the Sentinel, the USA was able to make up that shortfall so our indigenous tank was not needed in the numbers projected.
The Sentinel is also notable for being the only tank of the WW2 era to have a hull cast as one single piece.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Yeah, you had some ideas to sharpen the vehicle's stats and weapons fit.

Geez Paul, did you have to bring up Paris Hilton? Kim Kardashian and Snooky from Jersey Shore isn't bad enough???

Yeah, when I get a moment tomorrow I'll send you a PM of a few ideas I had.

[robert.munsey]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

<snip>
As for the mileage....yeah, that was always one of the few chinks in the M1 Abram's package. Apparently the designers felt there was going to have to be tradeoffs between range, survivability, firepower, speed, etc. and chose to sacrifice range for the rest. They've been tweaking with the engine design for the Abrams back here in the U.S. but I don't think they've really come up with an effective alternative yet.

The designers picked the best engine at the time. The power to weight ratio for the turbine in the late seventies was MUCH better than the piston diesel.

On the Engine development, we have had three or four engine replacements developed and the major factor for non-adoption is cost factors. The issue is requirements for the replacement engine, which are weight (equal to or less than current), reliability better than current engine defined in breakdown rate (ICR the exact term) and cost. The last one was a pretty good multi-fuel engine, but the cost factors killed its adoption. TIGER was the last attempt;
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...s-tanks-01790/

However with the new SEP v2 upgrade all the Active duty M1A2SEP tanks will be upgraded to SEPv2 configuration, which also places a generator in the left rear sponson...something needed sine the SEP came out in 2000.