Current AFVs with withdrawn from service variants

[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]

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.