EP Actual: Where to go with the Australian variant of the M-1 tank?

Where to go with the Australian variant of the M-1 tank?

The M-1 tank in Australian service has been an underwhelming capability for the money spent.

In 2004, Australia decided to take on 59 M-1 tanks from the U.S., with no competitive tender process. Australian M-1s are interesting in that they were bought as a then-United States Marine Corps specification without the depleted uranium armor.

U.S. was using it, it must be good.

Lazy.

Here are some of the issues with the M-1 tank.

It is too heavy to use for real military operations. Especially in our region of interest.

Operational momentum is the ability to sustain an offensive. In U.S. Army service during Desert Storm, the M-1s were stalled waiting on more fuel, while Iraqi Republican Guard formations got away.

The turbine engine in the M-1 tank provides superior torque/power advantages compared to conventional engines in other tanks. The fuel consumption of the M-1 tank is horrific compared to its peers.

It consumes twice as much fuel during cruising compared to conventional tanks. And, this is when it is at its best possible performance. Turbines burn a lot of fuel just by idling: 2.5 times compared to conventional tanks. Another figure is six time or more. (Note: an upgrade of putting in an auxiliary power unit that can run all systems, helps this.)

Every tank can go as far as its fuel trucks. The M-1 tank, significantly less so.

The M-1 tank has more breakdowns and readiness problems compared to conventional tanks.

So, weight, reliability and fuel consumption mean that the M-1 has poor operational momentum. The extreme weight, limits the ground it can travel on: including roads and bridges.

Overly heavy tanks are more difficult to move by boat, ship, rail and air.

Survivability of the tank is good, but today, not spectacular compared to other tanks because anti-tank weapons keep improving. Survivabilty has to be balanced. It is a dangerous job and even in victory, tanks will be lost.

Increasing the survivability of the M-1 with more modifications increased its weight--8-10 tons depending on the upgrade--thus lowering its mobility over ground and reducing its operational momentum even more with increased fuel consumption.

How useful is an unreliable, upgraded 71-73 ton M-1 which in turn is a logistical burden in the operational area?

Australian M-1s suffer even more sustainment issues than the U.S. Army.

"Army Head of Modernisation and Strategic Planning Major General Gus McLachlan recently hosted personnel from the US Army’s Tank and Automotive Command (TACOM) in Michigan to investigate what he describes as ‘very significant and reliability issues’ with the Abrams fleet in Australia.
“At the end of it the Americans back-briefed me, saying we are using our tanks at 10 times the rate of a similar American unit and also, we use them on terrain that our soldiers would never contemplate crossing,” he told delegates at the SimTecT 2016 conference in Melbourne recently.
A further difference between the two Abrams operators is that the Australian Army runs the AGT1500 engine on diesel, where US forces use Aviation Turbine (AVTUR) fuel."

Monday, May 18, 2020

Where to go with the Australian variant of the M-1 tank?