Twilight 2020

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

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...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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by RN7

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]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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]

Originally Posted by RN7

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 [indistinct] armour isn't it?

COLONEL HAYWARD: 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...-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

....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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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 [indistinct] armour isn't it?

COLONEL HAYWARD: 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...-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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?.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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]

Originally Posted by RN7

...
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).

Originally Posted by RN7

...
... 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]

Originally Posted by CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by CDAT

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]

Originally Posted by RN7

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]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

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]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

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]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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]

Originally Posted by RN7

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]

Originally Posted by CDAT

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]

Originally Posted by CDAT

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.

Originally Posted by CDAT

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?

Originally Posted by CDAT

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?