Current AFVs with withdrawn from service variants

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Hey all,

I'm aware that the M6 Linebacker and the LAV-AD (just off the top of my head) have been, per wackypedia, "withdrawn from service".

It seems to me that in the case of these two particular vehicles that little to nothing need be done to convert them back to either LAV-25 or M2 Bradley (or M3 Devers).

So typically when an in-service vehicle has a variant withdrawn from service, particularly these days, they rework them, right? I mean, I can't imagine they'd park 'em out for JDAM practice just because they need a turret rebuild (in the case of the M6). Particularly if there's lots of them.

[Legbreaker]

To my knowledge that would be correct. Take the 152mm armed M60 for example (the A2?) - whey they were withdrawn/cancelled they were reworked into the A3.

Vehicles, especially armoured ones are expensive. It makes no sense to leave them on the sidelines if they can be put through the workshop and converted to/back into something more useful.

The Australian M-113A1 FSV is a good example. Originally a base M113 they had the turret from the Saladin armoured car installed when the Saladin was removed from service. A few years later and the Saladin turret was replaced with the Scorpion light tank turret. A few years after that (in 2006 I think) and the turret was removed and (along with other upgrades to the hull systems) returned to a base APC again.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

To my knowledge that would be correct. Take the 152mm armed M60 for example (the A2?) - whey they were withdrawn/cancelled they were reworked into the A3.

Vehicles, especially armoured ones are expensive. It makes no sense to leave them on the sidelines if they can be put through the workshop and converted to/back into something more useful.

Makes perfect sense. Haven't they converted a bunch of vanilla M1s to AVLBs and Wolverine mine-clearing tanks?

The Australian M-113A1 FSV is a good example. Originally a base M113 they had the turret from the Saladin armoured car installed when the Saladin was removed from service. A few years later and the Saladin turret was replaced with the Scorpion light tank turret. A few years after that (in 2006 I think) and the turret was removed and (along with other upgrades to the hull systems) returned to a base APC again.

Wait, the 30mm cannon Scorp turret or the 90mm cockerill low-pressure anti-tank gun?!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

...Wait, the 30mm cannon Scorp turret or the 90mm cockerill low-pressure anti-tank gun?!

The Scorpion is armed with a 76mm gun, the 90mm low pressure gun was offered as an upgrade for all Scorpion users but I think only one Arab country and/or Indonesia actually put it into service.
The Scimitar and Sabre are Scorpion variants and have slightly different turrets to the Scorpion, fitted with a 30mm Rarden cannon. Australia only used Saladin (which also used a 76mm gun) and Scorpion turrets for the Fire Support Vehicles/Medium Reconnaissance Vehicles (FSV/MRV)

[95th Rifleman]

We did the same thing with the Sabre in British service. The Scorpion was withdrawn and some 100 Scorps where refitted with a 30mm Cannon turret as the Sabre.

I think we still have some old Chieftens converted over to AVRES aswell.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

If I remember the info, the Sabre was basically a Scorpion with the turret replaced with the turret from the defunct Fox armoured car (which used a turret similar but not quite the same as the Scimitar).
You used to be able to pick the difference quite easily between a Scimitar and a Sabre because of the position of the headlights but after a few upgrade programmes over the last decade or two, they now both look too similar to notice at a glance.

And I've just remembered something else, apparently the main reason for removing the Scorpion from service was that its 76mm gun didn't have a fume extractor and the fumes were allegedly carcinogenic.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

...the fumes were allegedly carcinogenic.

As is the issue insect repellent. Basically, if it was kit that worked, there was probably something damaging to your health in it.

[Arrissen]

Years ago in the early 90's I worked in the M113A1 APC, FSV/MRV and LAV 25 and they were all great vehicles. The FSV/MRV was converted back to an APC when the LAV 25 took over that role. In recent years all the M113 APC's have all been upgraded yet again with there being seven variants I think. They have been made longer and up armoured - basically everything on them has been completely rebuilt or replaced but they are actually the same old bucket from the mid 1960's! Way too expensive to just blow up!

I do remember shooting an old Centurion tank on the range once with a 84mm Carl Gustav - that was pretty cool - I hit the side of the turret square on. And another time I got to put up 6 illumination rounds with it during a live fire exercise. They burn for 60 seconds and light up a 1km grid square

[Legbreaker]

Hmm, so you may be able to answer a few questions I've got about the composition of a cavalry squadron then? I'm having trouble specifically with Squadron HQ and supporting troops.
Basically, how many vehicles, which types and how were they organised in the early to mid 90's?

I'm trying to peice together an Australian force consisting of 9 Brigade to have been sent to Korea in T2K. The specific unit (which was equipped with M113's and MRVs at the time) was 3rd/9th Light Horse which I'm wantign to expand to full strength before deployment.

I myself was an infantryman so really only have exposure to the actual combat Troops.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Hmm, so you may be able to answer a few questions I've got about the composition of a cavalry squadron then? I'm having trouble specifically with Squadron HQ and supporting troops.
Basically, how many vehicles, which types and how were they organised in the early to mid 90's?

I'm trying to peice together an Australian force consisting of 9 Brigade to have been sent to Korea in T2K. The specific unit (which was equipped with M113's and MRVs at the time) was 3rd/9th Light Horse which I'm wantign to expand to full strength before deployment.

I myself was an infantryman so really only have exposure to the actual combat Troops.

Hope this is of some help, I'm trying to remember stuff from over the 1980s to 1990s period though so my memories could 'politely' be called 'lacking' in some cases!

A single Troop would ideally = 2 x MRV (M113 with Scorpion turret), 2 x LRV (M113 with T50 turret), 1 x APC (M113 with T50 turret and 1 x Assault Trooper Section). Troop Leader was in one of the MRVs.
Reality was that there were never enough MRVs to go around for an entire Regiment although Independent Squadrons like 10 LH and 3rd/9th LH typically had enough to supply their Troops.

Of note, the M113 FSV refers to the bucket fitted with the Saladin turret while the M113 MRV refers to the bucket fitted with the Scorpion turret. The FSV lost their amphib abilities due to the turret being tall and heavy. The MRVs tried to get it back again with the fitting of buoyancy panels (those big rectangles that look like add on armour on the hull sides and front)
Of note, the MRVs were withdrawn from service by the mid-1990s when the ASLAV started being taken into service.
MRV = Medium Recce Vehicle; LRV = Light Recce Vehicle; FSV = Fire Support Vehicle

Assault Troopers were meant to be qualified in infantry & recce work meaning they were (ideally) to be trained in shallow water diving, parachuting, light demolitions, some field engineering and using motorbikes for recce. Reality was that training/operating with parachuting, shallow water diving and the motorbikes never occured for most units.

The support units (designation I cannot recall) had M113 Fitter's vehicles and M806 ARVs crewed by RAEME personnel on detachment except the drivers who were Armoured Corp (but sometimes there were M113 driver qualified RAEME). The Fitter's vehicles were not called M579, they were always called M113 Fitter's so I wonder if Australian Fitter's vehicles are/were different to the M579 variant offered to (but rejected by) the US Army? The Aussie ones certainly have different HIAB style cranes on them.
Plus they had small number of M548 TLCs (as in 2-3), the rest of the gear was hauled by International 4x4 GS trucks and then Mog GS trucks

Squadron HQ I think had 2 x M577 and 2 x M113 plus several LandRovers with trailers and 1 x 4x4 GS truck
QMS had several 4x4 GS trucks with the senior QM in his own Landie with trailer

[Legbreaker]

Yes, I've found that they almost certainly were not the M579 of the US Army but what appears to be a home grown unit. Looks like two variante too, one with a relatively light crane of about 2.5 tonne capacity and a much heavier one (can't remember cap).

The best info I've found so far on organisation comes from the AWM of all places... http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/structur..._structure.asp
Unfortunately it's the Squadron Headquarters with it's masses of vehicles that's making life difficult:

Support Troop (17 armoured personnel carriers, 3 tracked load carriers)
Administration Troop (4 armoured personnel carriers, 12 tracked load carriers)
Tech Support Troop (6 armoured personnel carriers, 1 cargo carrier, 1 armoured recovery vehicle)

4 x Armoured Personnel Carrier Troop


Doesn't help when I know from experience that the APC units I've worked with had Troops of four vehicles rather than three.

My assumption is that all the MRVs were given to 3/9th during the pre deployment buildup. 48 turrets were purchased by the Army so there's plenty to play with plus a few spares. Currently I'm toying with using about 12 of the 17 Support Troop APCs to create a recce/FSV troop mainly armed with the MRVs (3 troops of 3 MRVs plus a command group of 3 M113AS4s). With their 76mm guns there's little need for Leopards to go to Korea, at least not in the fire support role.

Note also that there's 2 Sabre Squadrons, plus Combat Support Squadron in the 3/9th so that's a LOT of vehicles to play with. My guess was the CSS contained the engineering troops and vehicles, but then what to do with everyone in Squadron HQ troops above? Basically it seems like an embarassment of riches.

AT capability would have to come from the 84mm Carl Gustavs and M72s, although I'm tempted to attach a couple of milan teams to Brigade HQ.

Artillery is decent with 12 105mm M2A2 towed guns plus numerous 81mm mortars in the two infantry battalions. Air assets would be limited to a couple of C-130s at best - nothing rotary. Anything additional would be sourced from the Americans or Koreans.

Once I've sorted out the deployed force, I'll then whittle it down to 2000 levels using Vietnam casualty ratios as a guide - in other words, the Australians suffered only half the casualty rate of the American units and are therefore effectively still relatively strong (approximately 1200-1500 troops and about 60% of vehicles in one peice, less a few stripped for parts).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I could understand if the 3 vehicles per troop is as a result of switching over to the ASLAVs or if it was peculiar to the APC squadrons but for the recce squadrons like 3/9 LH and 10 LH were at the time I was in, it was always four vehicles per troop with a possible fifth if the Assault Troopers in their APC was attached. They never worked as a three track unit, it was always four and even if there weren't enough MRVs, it would be 3 x LRV & 1 x MRV or it would be 4 x LRV & no MRV.

From memory, the number of TLCs was never up to the authorized strength for recce regiments as they seemed mostly for use in the APC regiments.

Don't forget that Australia started to manufacture the 105mm L118 Hamel Gun in the early 1990s

[Legbreaker]

I'll stick with 4 MRVs per troop then as a baseline (before I apply several years of warfare).
Both 16th Field Battery and 48 Field Battery were equipped with the M2A2's right up until they traded them in for 81mm Mortars sometime after 2004. I think I'll stick with that due to the possible parts commonality with the US units (and it's what they'd trained on for decades).

[dragoon500ly]

Back to the original thread.

When a specialist vehicle is withdrawn from service, Anniston Army Depot will survey the hull, if and only if the hull passes their inspection will it be reworked into a baseline vehicle or another variant. If the vehicle fails the hull inspection then it is either sold for scrap or condemned to a firing range as a brand new stationary target, again, this dependent on the condition of the hull.

The key thing that AAD looks for is cracks. Cracks too long to be welded or too numerous for economical repair. Bulges or impact holes that comprise the armor are also considerations.

There was a rather famous Sheridan at Fort Knox that was being used by a training squadron. Whenever the vehicle entered service and had its pack pulled, several of us would gather around the engine compartment and count the RPG holes burned in its armor. It had originally been a 11th ACR vehicle and had taken a record nine hits in the hull. It was no longer combat worthy, but could still be used for training. AAD had patched the holes, but the heat distoration rings could still be seen in the armor. To the best of my knowledge, when the Sheridans were removed from Fort Knox, this vehicle went to Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

[Arrissen]

"Hmm, so you may be able to answer a few questions I've got about the composition of a cavalry squadron then? I'm having trouble specifically with Squadron HQ and supporting troops.
Basically, how many vehicles, which types and how were they organised in the early to mid 90's?" - Legbreaker

"Assault Troopers were meant to be qualified in infantry & recce work meaning they were (ideally) to be trained in shallow water diving, parachuting, light demolitions, some field engineering and using motorbikes for recce. Reality was that training/operating with parachuting, shallow water diving and the motorbikes never occured for most units." - Stainlesssteelcynic

Well I'm not sure how much help I can be with this topic as it was along time ago that I served, but I'll try. OT with a bit of background, first. I was in the 2nd Cavalry Regiment (Reconnaissance) back in the early ninties and back then (unlike now) 2 Cav was not running at full strength. Instead of three line squadrons, we only had two; A & B + HQ and Support SQN's. I was in B SQN and was a qualifed M113A1 APC Driver/ Signalman and Assault Trooper, but mainly worked as the latter; as the Scout of an 8-man Section. So in a nut shell I was both Armoured and Infantry trained - more or less. BTW if we were meant to be trained in parachuting, scuba diving, demolitions etc as mentioned above; yeah that never really happened when I was there but some guys had done scuba and small boat training previously. While there a few became sniper qualified too. We only had basic demolitions training i.e. familiarisation with anti-personnel and anti-tank mines, mine detection (not disposal) and how to place and detect booby traps, both explosive and improvised. We were trained in, and maintained the full array of both Armoured and Infantry weapons and equipment, but our main focus was on recon, both mounted and dismounted, and everything that goes along with that. Oh, and we did have one dirt bike per troop with us from time to time - a Honda XR-250, all spray painted cammo for recce purposes, but we didn't use it enough for my liking!

A cavalry regiment typically conducts medium reconnaissance. The four main tenents being; Mobility, Communications, Flexibility and Firepower! There were 5 vehicles to a Troop and only 2 Troops to a SQN at that time. There may have been 3 Troops per SQN but I'm not sure now; and there should have been 5 I think ideally. 161 Recce SQN (Aviation) just across the way was really I suppose our defacto C SQN for all practical purposes. They were our eyes in the sky. Anyway, we had three carriers or LRV's per troop and 2 MRV's. The Troop Lance Cpl commanded the lead vehicle, an LRV, and scouted ahead followed by the Troop Cpl commanding an MRV, then the boss or Troop Leader, a Lt. in a LRV (we just called these carriers btw), then the Sarge in an MRV and then came us bringing up the rear - the Assault section - in an APC as the last vehicle. They called us "Vegies" as they reckoned we just sat there and vegitated, but I swear that's simply not true! Well mostly anyway. We were kept pretty busy clearing defiles like bridges, conducting clearing patrols, going out on patrols, setting up OP's, roadblocks, and ambushes and maintaining constant perimeter security. In fact working as a Scout, I seem to recall getting alot less downtime than most. And whereas the Regiment itself conducted medium recon, we as the Assault section conducted close recon for our troop/ unit. 'Assault Trooper' was later changed to 'Recon Scout' I think, to better describe the role, and then maybe later to something like Cavalryman-Dismounted (?) but don't quote me on that.

Assault sections, although attached to the individual SQN's on a semi-permanent basis for operational purposes, were actually a part of a troop in their own right, and from time to time (usually for training reasons) would form up as Assault Troop. This consisted of three 10 man sections + the Command element including our own Troop Leader, a Lt, a Troop Sgt and a Signalman, and we were basically a recon platoon if you like. And this is where I begin to get a bit confused, (it has been 20yrs!), I think technically we were actually a part of HQ SQN, same as Surveillance Troop with all their radar gear. Who btw consisted of a 5 vehicle troop of carriers, all modified specifically for their covert role. One of which may have had a command variant used for data collection/ dissemination. HQ Troop itself was, a 5 vehicle troop the same as A & B SQN but with command variants, I think, instead of MRV's. The CO of the regiment commanded his own LRV within this (his) troop. HQ SQN also had an Admin Troop that used several Land Rovers and may have had a Unimog truck or two as well. I think one of these was for the Catering Staff and their field kitchen. The Q Staff were part of Admin Troop also and did all of the refueling & resupplying in the field and got around in TSV's and Unimogs. All TSV's and Unimogs had .50 Cals on pintal mounts but the Land Rovers we not armed. They only had a had trailer!

Which then brings us to Support SQN; consisting of the RAEME 'Spanners' with their recovery vehicle carrier variant plus several Land Rovers, and Unimogs carrying spare parts, and even a Mack truck/ road train that could carry two or three of the unit's vehicles if needed. Support SQN may have been spilt into 2 or 3 troops but I can't say for sure. I think the unit's Armourer/Support SQN's SSM may have got around in an LRV as did maybe the OC of the SQN (who btw was a RAEME major) and they may have have had a couple of armed TSV's as well. Support SQN was all RAEME personnel yet they were an integral part of the unit and where applicable were Armour trained.

Note: We had no mortar carriers, although we were meant to have two I think. And by about 91' A SQN changed over to LAV 25's later modified and called ASLAV's. B SQN however remained old school with M113's till about 94 (?). Now, this being the case, what happened to all these vehicles? They were recycled/ handed down to Army Reserve units i.e. 3rd/9th Light Horse and 10th Light Horse etc. If we are looking for more vehicles to send to Korea in T2K by the mid-90's, 2 Cav had alot of M113's to pass along to those most in need. Send in the Cavalry!

[Legbreaker]

That's excellent information! Thanks.

Was the unit set up to enable carriage of another infantry unit in the APC role? As 3/9th is the only armour in 9 Brigade, and my intent is to send the Brigade to Korea in about mid to late 1997, this could be rather vital (especially since the two Infantry Battalions are both light/foot mobile). If that would involve too much of an alteration to the basic unit structure, I might just add in a squadron or three from New Zealand to the OOB.

[Arrissen]

Further to my last (head not so foggy this morning), plus I got a bit more info from an old mate of mine, and so we have couple of minor corrections. TSV's were Tracked Load Carriers (TLC's) to us. The high-sided one's were Armoured Command Vehicles (ACV's). Support SQN was known as Tech Support SQN and they did use carriers minus the turrets, but sported a .50 Cal each on top, except for the Armourer and the OC who had LRV's. So they were an Armoured SQN. The Armoured Recovery Vehicle (ARV) was the one with the crane or whatever it's called as you know. They also had a bunch of rovers and trucks too as mentioned. The Recovery Mechs were great at their job and could fixed just about anything in the field.

Both A & B SQN did have three Troops back then, not two. I think Surveillance Troop was actually part of B SQN also and not RHQ and may in fact have been our third troop (?) but A SQN did have three troops of 5 vehicles each. So yeah, each SQN could have moved a company of infantry no problem, but it's just that our role was a dedicated recon role. Other units however like 3/4CAV and the 2nd/14th Light Horse were APC SQN's set up for just that purpose though. And so the same goes for the 3rd/9th Light Horse who without changing a thing could role out the infantry and then continue to act as cavalry in their own right or support the diggers in the dirt!

[HorseSoldier]

What do the Australian members of the group think about the possibility of the general worsening of tensions in the world once the Soviet-Chinese War kicks off justifying a crash program to replace/augment the Leo 1s in service? Facing an increased potential for ops in Korea or elsewhere alongside US troops, I could see a transfer of M1s like some of the proposals floated in real life.

Refurbished M1s with the 105mm guns could have been provided basically for free or super cheap and would provide a current generation MBT circa 90s that shared calibers with the Leo 1s.

Maybe more Leo 1s could have been obtained from the West Germans as they were fielding the Leo 2 as well to allow potential Australian expeditionaries to have some more teeth and hitting power.

[Legbreaker]

I highly doubt the M1 would have been taken into service any sooner, especially with the US needing every available tank themselves (just look at their requisitioning of the Caddilac Gage and so forth).

Same goes for the Leopard of any version. Germany and other European users will be in desperate need of tanks.

Meanwhile over here in Australia, the heaviest tank we would be likely to face are the AMX-13 and Scorpions in Indonesian hands. The Leopard I, possibly upgraded with systems which IRL occured in the late 90's early 00's would be more than sufficient for the war with Indonesia.

Over in Korea, which is the only other likely theatre Australia may be involved with (and although I'm working on an OOB I'm still not 100% sold on it), armoured support would come from US and South Korean units.

So, the 90 Leopard I's in Australian service are likely to be sufficient for our needs, especially if backed by New Zealand Scorpions.

It is extremely unlikely that Australia would have accepted older versions of the Leopard I into service anyway, even had they been available. Although on a budget and always after a good deal, Australia ALWAYS reworks the acquired vehicles quite significantly (Take a look at Pauls site for some of the work done to them).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

What do the Australian members of the group think about the possibility of the general worsening of tensions in the world once the Soviet-Chinese War kicks off justifying a crash program to replace/augment the Leo 1s in service? Facing an increased potential for ops in Korea or elsewhere alongside US troops, I could see a transfer of M1s like some of the proposals floated in real life.

Refurbished M1s with the 105mm guns could have been provided basically for free or super cheap and would provide a current generation MBT circa 90s that shared calibers with the Leo 1s.

Maybe more Leo 1s could have been obtained from the West Germans as they were fielding the Leo 2 as well to allow potential Australian expeditionaries to have some more teeth and hitting power.

No, I don't pretend to be Australian, but (as an American) I thought I would share my POV anyway. I don't see the Horse's proposal as being totally beyond the realm of possibility. In fact, I see it as being rather likely. Let me qualify that, though.

Very soon after the Soviet invasion of the PRC, selling a few older model M1s to Australia could have been seen by those in the Pentagon as being a form of containment and a good investment. Early on in the Sino-Soviet War, the U.S. may have been reluctant to provide too much military support directly to China, both out of fear of provoking the U.S.S.R., and because of our somewhat tepid relationship with the Chinese circa the mid-'90s. Perhaps helping our traditional allies become more competitive/"helpful" in the region would have been a more attractive option.

As China's position grew more desperate, then the U.S. would have shifted military aid directly to the PRC, and Australia likely would have been overlooked. But, early on, I can see the U.S. trying to build up its Pacific allies with as much aid as could be spared. I see this scenario as kind of like Lend-Lease. Most of our direct military aid went to our more ideologically compatible ally, the UK, first. Then, later on, aid started flowing to our less amicable "frenemy", the USSR.

[Legbreaker]

Australia simply wouldn't go for it given the government of the day. There was no clear need to expand the armoured force nor replace the Leopards with anything else. As previously indicated, the Leopards were more than a match for the expected opposition of Indonesia.

Also, and this comes virtually from the horses mouth (several VERY senior NCOs I served and drank with for a few years), Australia at the time really only had tanks due to tradition. In the 80's and 90's we just didn't have any pressing need for them (in fact according to some reports I heard inside the system, only 4 tanks were actually active at any one time - can't say how accurate that was though).

As an infantryman I will say though that armour is very necessary, but you don't need a 10 pound hammer to squash a bug when a rolled up newspaper will do the job.

[Raellus]

Are you letting the real world '90s timeline color your suppositions about the Twilight War timeline (v1.0)? In a continued Cold War leading to a Soviet invasion of China, might the Australian government pass up an offer of a couple dozen American M1s? You Aussies know better than I do, but to my POV it seems a tad bit unreasonable.

[Targan]

I could see a situation where the Australian government of the day might have been willing to acquire half a dozen M1s for evaluation purposes during the mid-90s and that might result in there being M1s in Australia when the war started. I doubt (even in the V1 timeline) that by '95 or '96 Australia would have transitioned over to M1s. And I'm virtually certain that it would have to be a transitioning as the Australian Army wouldn't be willing to have two totally different types of MBT in service at the same time.

[Legbreaker]

My personal opinion is that the M1 isn't as suitable for the Australian environment and massive distances as the Leopard. The only real reason I can see for adopting the M1 is that it means the government of the day was thinking of overseas deployment possibilities - something that hasn't happened since we had Centurions over in Vietnam.

However, the Leopard was getting on when the M1s came on board in 2007 and probably needed replacing at the time.

[Arrissen]

A good suggestion but I'm not sure. I think that Australia might have accepted help with upgrades. A night fighting capability at least would have been useful! I don't even think they had that back then. The Germans were still using their Leopard 1's at that time I think, as recon vehicles out in front of of the Leopard 2's - kind of like ablative armour - err I mean recon in force. So they probably wouldn't have come to the party, but if the US offered some M1's, Australia might have gone for it. All very political though of course you understand. It would have had to have been more than just a few and more like an entire SQN properly supported. And yeah, as for whether the US would have had any to spare would depend I supose on how early on in the T2K timeline they were offered. But you know, 101 Leopard tanks that never fired a shot in anger; that's sure got to lead to some pent up anger and frustration. They did load them up to send them to the INTERFET mission in East Timor but then proceeded to unloaded them again because they didn't want to give the Indonesians the wrong Idea? What a tease! They are currently for sale if anyone wants one? Personally I think they should get sent to Korea in at least one game - you know to dispose of them thoughtfully!

[Legbreaker]

I was sooooo very tempted to send them to Korea, but with the Indonesian war going on and threat of mainland invasion, I can see more need for 1st line units here at home. This is why I'm working on sending 9 Brigade to Korea to show the flag - a reserve formation with only about 35% standing strength and in desperate need of at least 6 months intensive training and reinforcement prior to any thought of deployment.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I remember the general thought of the higher-ups and the politicians was that we didn't need tanks for Australia. The preference was to dispose of the Leopards and not get any replacement.
Then Gulf War 1 happened and the general line I heard was that it would be stupid to dispose of such an asset as the MBTs represented, however, at the time the talk was that the Challenger 1 would be the most likely replacement. The M1 was not really a contender particularly because it was regarded as a fuel hog.

There are a few reasons why the Australian government of the day decided on the Abrams in the 2000s, one was that it was already wired for network centric warfare, another was the supposed interoperability should we deploy MBTs with the US (still considered a bit unlikely in some circles and even more unlikely at the time). A big reasons was the strengthening of ties to the US.
However a significant factor behind the choice was that certain 'old school' senior officers and defence writers wanted 'tanks for the lads' and these same people were feeling quite anti-UK/Europe - they wanted American.

The criticism levelled against the Leopard 2 in Australia was particularly harsh and mostly ill-informed mud-slinging with one defence writer making the statement that the Leo 2 was outmoded because it was designed on principles from WW2 and the Abrams was a much more modern design.
Never mind the fact that both the Leo 2 and the Abrams are siblings, having both originated from the joint US/German MBT70 project and that for the Abrams to get a gun as good as the Leo 2, it basically uses a version of the same gun. And never mind the fact that every single tank since tanks were invented is designed from the same three principles.
Never let the facts get in the way of haranguing the government to buy the shiny toys you want.

The Abrams is a bad choice for Australia because of its fuel consumption and the travel distances required in this country but it was a good choice for the government of the day and it does bring a positive shift in military technology (i.e. network centric warfare). I don't see Australia taking Abrams in the 1990s for the reasons already mentioned above but we would certainly have been interested in more M113s and ASLAVs and perhaps other versions of them (such as the LAV mobile gun system, perhaps even the Blazer).

[Arrissen]

Yeah fair enough. An M1 is what it is though - a Big Piece of Ass! (US slang for armour). Look my thoughts on this are firstly, the Royal Australian Armoured Corps are the premier corps within the Army and 1st Armoured Regiment, who now have 59 fully referbished M1's are therefore in a sense the king of kings. And you know - it's good to be the king! So in a way yes, out-moded traditions are dictating the rules, sure. Secondly though, I'm not so sure that we have purchased them just for home defence. I bet that in the next few years if not sooner they will be deployed OS to support our troops, and if they're not then they should be IMHO. We've got them so we may as well get our money's worth and terrify the enemy with the sound of their approach...

[Legbreaker]

On the other hand, each unit is worth a lot of money. Will any government be willing to loose one given the relatively small size of the Australian economy?
I think this is partly why the Leopard was never deployed, but mainly because we simply weren't in any conflict worth deploying them to!

Hmm, perhaps it's time to split off into a new thread - something like Australian OOB, or Armour, or some such...?

[HorseSoldier]

My thinking was the possibility of the Australian military looking at a possible commitment in Korea or the Middle East as the mid 90s go down the drain. The Korean theater of operations in that time frame would still be rugged terrain but the other side is hugely gunned up from it's 1950s predecessor. I don't know how well an infantry centric force would hold up without some heavy firepower (a similar issue I see with some of the US forces in theater). The Aussie Leo I's could be sent but they're not ideal (fast/thin skinned for Korea seems a bad idea -- more viable for a force sent to CENTCOM maybe). Anyway, being able to gun up an Australian or ANZAC brigade with a battalion (-) of heavy armor would make a big difference when rolling up against North Korean motor rifle units or when the Soviets jump in even more.

But, anyway, just an idea.