Twilight 2020

[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 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?

[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.