Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australia's New Tanks.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Australia's New Tanks.

    Well they did have that run in with the Nips old boy,

    Actually theyve just signed a contract for 60 M1A1s, in a US "gift" where they buy a less efficient tank with a shorter desert service life than the L2A6 and get all the support kit FOC...
    Much cheaper in first two years of ownership but a fiasco after that.

    Incidentally the Australian Defence minister announced that for effeciency reasons they had to go for the lighter tank....I guess no one told him the Abrams was a full 15 tons heavier than the Leopard 2.
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

  • #2
    What's a Leopard2A6 weigh then C-Q?
    .
    .
    .
    With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

    Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

    Comment


    • #3
      55 tons approximately, compared to 70 tons on the Abrams
      "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

      Comment


      • #4
        Just under 60 ton actually......

        http://www.reserve-info.de/kpanzer/leopard2A6.htm

        compared to 54.5 ton

        http://www.reserve-info.de/kpanzer/m1.htm



        Regards etc
        Support the Search Function.

        Comment


        • #5
          FAS.org has
          Leo 2 @ 55.15
          M1A1/2 67.8
          "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

          Comment


          • #6
            Metric tonnes and American tons are quite different CQ......
            .
            .
            .
            With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

            Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

            Comment


            • #7
              How would that affect the comparison to such an extent as to make the M1A1 Lighter instead of Heavier:confused:
              I'll check it up in my Janes AFVs tomorow.
              "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

              Comment


              • #8
                Josh's figures are correct, as both are in the same units, ie metric tonnes.
                .
                .
                .
                With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

                Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Checked Janes Joshua's figures are for the M1 which is considerably lighter than teh leo 2, but australia is buting M1A1 which are heavier
                  "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    For those of you who are mathimatically minded 1metric tone (1000kg) = 1.0161 ton (imperical).
                    Last edited by Thorpe; 21 November 2003, 12:30.
                    Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato

                    "Where there is no guidance the people fall, but in abundance of counselors there is victory" Proverbs 11-14
                    http://munsterfireandrescue.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The Leopard is still heavier.

                      BTW, has this contract actually been formally decided yet?
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

                      Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Australia leaning to $600 million US muscle tanks
                        By Mark Forbes
                        Defence Correspondent
                        Canberra
                        November 20, 2003

                        The Australian Defence Force is to introduce the massive American-built M1 Abrams tanks as an armoured strike force to facilitate a frontline role for the army alongside the US in future international conflicts.

                        Although the choice awaits final approval, senior defence sources confirmed the deal to buy 60 Abrams M1 battle tanks for $600 million was set to proceed.

                        Defence Minister Robert Hill, force chief Peter Cosgrove and army chief Peter Leahy have supported the Abrams over British and German rivals.

                        The Government's about-face on buying heavy armour is intended to strengthen the US alliance by boosting "interoperability" for future Iraq-style conflicts. In an indication of the strategic importance of the move, the US Administration will handle the deal, selling the tanks directly to Australia.

                        Generals Leahy and Cosgrove and Senator Hill have all said the invasion of Iraq proved the value of tanks in modern warfare. Senator Hill said recent operations had demonstrated "the importance tanks have played in the protection of forces".


                        But critics claim the 70-tonne Abrams are unsuitable for operations along crumbling Pacific roads and bridges. The tanks are too heavy to be airlifted and must be transported by sea.

                        Hugh White, the director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and author of the Government's defence white paper, said he had been told that the decision to buy the Abrams "has in effect been made".

                        The $600 million price tag was high and could be better spent on more troops for the army, he said.

                        "The decision to buy the Abrams only makes sense if you want to upgrade the army's capability to to take part in high-intensity Iraqi Freedom-style operations. I don't think there is a coherent strategic rationale for this move," Mr White said.

                        An in-principle decision to buy new tanks was announced this month as part of a defence capability review. Senator Hill said the Government would quickly decide between the Abrams, the German Leopard 2 and British Challenger 2, but refused to give details.

                        The decision to buy tanks is backflip from the Government's white paper outlining the future shape of the Defence Force. The white paper decided against "the development of heavy armoured forces suitable for contributions to coalition forces in high-intensity conflicts".

                        The army has a 30-year-old fleet of Leopard tanks, which are yet to fire a shot in anger.

                        Discounts on the Abrams' $6 million price tag have been offered by the US, which is urging Australia to make the purchase. Included in the $600 million total are spare parts, transporters, training equipment, maintenance and support costs.

                        The Abrams would be modified for Australian requirements, including replacing its depleted uranium armour with ceramic plating.

                        A spokeswoman for Senator Hill refused to speculate on the tank choice. The decision would be announced "as soon as possible", she said.

                        Senator Hill was expected to discuss the Abrams deal in talks with US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

                        General Cosgrove yesterday said the Defence Force "really wanted to move ahead" on the tank purchase, but could not guarantee when a decision would be announced "because we are obviously dealing with foreign governments and foreign military forces".

                        Mr White said the choice of the Abrams was "not a reflection of a change in the Government's strategic priorities, but of pressure from within the army... A heavier tank is a liability in the region, harder to move and deploy."

                        The tank purchase must be approved by cabinet's national security committee and an announcement is expected before the end of the year.

                        Senator Hill has emphasised the need for interoperability with the US, and an Australian fleet of Abrams would facilitate easy training interchange between the two forces and access to ongoing development. It could also allow Australian crews to fight in pre-positioned US tanks.
                        _________________
                        "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Why are they removing the depleted uranium armour? Is this an American or Australian requirement?

                          Hope the Australians are investing in plenty of fuel tankers..
                          .
                          .
                          .
                          With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

                          Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Apparently a great deal surplus support equipment including transporters and tankers are being thrown in.
                            I guess weight might be the answer to the armour question, especially if removing it makes the weight more equivalent to the M1A0.
                            The weight issue was put to me as thus, in desert terrain the additional weight on hard packed ground stresses the drive sprocket.
                            There are also issues with Gas turbine engines and the air filters in desert warfare.
                            "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              By an Aus TA orifice
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              I'd seriously question if we could sustain m1a2s considering the amount of fuel they use and our already limited capacity to move fuel overland.

                              The 2nd issue that occurs to me is that the Leo 2 has won most of the service trials competitions.

                              The 3rd issue is that in buying tanks operated only by the Americans, any upgrades are going to have to be local efforts or purchased for (name price here) sort of figures from the Americans. The leo2 being operated by some fairly sophisiticated nations (germany, sweeden, belguim , spain etc) is more likely to have on going and continious improvements made, but more over considering each of those nations has some high tech capabality, it is therefore quiet likely that there may be some comepition.

                              4th issue , m1a2 battalions can be slotted inside american regimental or division orbats. Meaning more likely Aussie trips will fight under direct american tatical command eeekkk


                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Sums it up niocely I think
                              "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X