#15 Australian OOB Queries

[TDR]

Ok fine with that as it clears up th M1A1query.

Just leaves the Leo issues an the 105 Pack How.
The 105 Ph alos has a weapon Owen SMG which went out about mid 60's from memory and replaced by the F1 SMG, totally useless bit of toy cf Owen. That was my experience with it.
The Owen was initialy used in Nam but replaced by the F1 but dropped for the Inf with the M16. Dates are blury with time.
I used all but the transition is varied due to issue dates, both in ops and at home.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
I don't know what thread it's in but, it dealt with the ADF armored formations from what, 3/4 years ago I think. Remember I had gotten that info directly from the ADF MOD. I believe the ABRAMS/LEO issue came up at that time. I think I still have those emails and will try to find that thread. As part of the ABRAMS deal the ADF did purchase I believe it was 2 or 3 HERCULES (M1A1 modified chassis.) recovery vehicles. The LEO's are gone which I thought was fixed unless I'm missing something here. Have some info on arty as well as the ADF about a year or two got targeting package upgrades for their M777 (Is the M777 an issue? I'll check later this evening.) pieces.
http://army.gov.au/Our-work/Equipmen...M1-Abrams-Tank
http://army.gov.au/Our-work/Equipmen.../M777-Howitzer

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

OK using government and mainstream local sources mainly. I'll try to post these in time order. Highlights are as follows...
1. ADF initially evaluates M1A2, LEOPARD 2 and CHALLENGER 2 ~2002.
2. Settles on the M1A1 AIM as it became available these tanks will all be RESET in the U.S.
3. U.S. Congress informed of potential foreign sales request in 2004 it gets approved later.
4. ADF starts training crews by early 2006. Darwin will be the point of entry later that year of two shipments in September and December of that year.
5. I can dig deeper however I feel it unnecessary, ADF announces it will retire their LEOPARD 1A3 (In service since 1976.) tanks before the M1A1 AIM becomes operationally ready. Further the ADF states the LEOPARD 1A3 will be retired at the beginning of 2007 and that the M1A1 AIM will become operational by mid-2007. So based on this let's make life easy here, I recommend the following all LEOPARD 1A3 (And any other LEO based unit.) have an END DATE of JAN 2007. As for the M1A1 AIM I recommend a START DATE of JUN 2007. The ABRAMS I believe has that now, as the discussion seems embedded in my head from the past somewhere in this forum, maybe the MBT Thread(?) though I've checked elsewhere.
6. A quick note on the Ammo issue one of the ADF refs below specifically mentions the capibility of the M1A1 AIM to be able to fire the Tungstan round and makes no mention of the D/U round at all.
7. Don my work list or yours? If on mine, like the Pave Low issue I will need to transfer this into it's "home" thread for my tracking. No worries TDR the credit is yours.

Bear with me again on the timeline here...
MARCH 10, 2004 A very good read on the process.
http://defence.gov.au/minister/hillt...currentid=3643
MAY 21, 2004 This order would be filled as requested below.
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressRelease...alia_04-12.pdf
NOV. 16, 2005
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...1-tanks-01489/
FEB 17, 2006
http://defence.gov.au/minister/Nelso...CurrentId=5413
AUGUST 30, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/...816945773.html
SEPT. 14, 2007
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1111114419632
SEPT. 16, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1111117494039
MAY 14, 2010
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/down...514b/index.htm

Hope this is good enough though, I have my normal refs if needed.

Now about those Pack 105's, well first let me enjoy the rest of my day off here while I consider whether this will turn into the still unanswered though compromised French 105 issue.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
Saw TDR response in your Thread below, in Post #5 I posted based on the Mr. Martin MOD email that the M1A1 AIM went operational in AUG 2007. I haven't in any of this been able to get to the OOB-sorry, but I believe that's what we have. And again I still can't shake the feeling this was discussed elsewhere.

Regards,
Pat