Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why did Australia choose the M-1 Abrams over the other contenders.
Volkodav    10/15/2008 5:00:24 AM
I am not saying the M-1 is the wrong choice or that the Leopard would have been a better choice but am curious as to why we chose the M-1 when the majority of Western nations chose the Leopard when they didn't have an indiginous project to support. In fact come to think of it we are the only first world nation, outside of the US, to have selected the Abrams. Why is it so?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Raven22       10/16/2008 11:03:04 AM
A lot of confusion with tank weights is due to the differences between metric tonnes and US short tons. So while an M1A2 SEP is 63 tonnes, it is also 70 US short tons. Hence why you see the weight of the Abrams often being quoted as 70t compared to Challenger/Leopard 2 being 62t - they're the same weight its just the US uses differents measures. Bloody Yanks, get with the times!
 
Quote    Reply

Rhaemyr       10/16/2008 12:12:57 PM

A lot of confusion with tank weights is due to the differences between metric tonnes and US short tons. So while an M1A2 SEP is 63 tonnes, it is also 70 US short tons. Hence why you see the weight of the Abrams often being quoted as 70t compared to Challenger/Leopard 2 being 62t - they're the same weight its just the US uses differents measures. Bloody Yanks, get with the times!

Never!
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       10/16/2008 3:18:42 PM
I suspect if there were a land war on the Australian Continent the only country that could and/or would come to Australia's aid is the US and if Australia would send a significant expeditionary force anywhere it would likely be in partnership with the US and they would share a common logistic base.
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       10/16/2008 8:34:46 PM


Remember that the USMC used M-60's in ODS, so the US armed forces weren't going to be retiring their M-1's in a hurry.


USMC using it probably played a role - amphib ops and infantry support.
 
But, the real reason is the better deal. The Army wanted tanks, they didn't want to piss off anyone ($) went with best deal.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       10/18/2008 8:11:38 AM



I am not saying the M-1 is the wrong choice or that the Leopard would have been a better choice but am curious as to why we chose the M-1 when the majority of Western nations chose the Leopard when they didn't have an indiginous project to support.



In fact come to think of it we are the only first world nation, outside of the US, to have selected the Abrams.



Why is it so?



Because! No, seriously, because:

 

1) We wanted a tank that was not at the apex of tank development (Otherwise we would have M1A2SEP + Tusk)

 

2) We wanted a tank that was not able to go for 4 1/2 hours without refueling.

 

3) We wanted a tank that was comprised in armour package by the loss of the depleted uranium armour.

 

4) We wanted a tank that had thin armour around the back and sides.

 

So there you go........all the reasons.

 

Brett

Ah, no, here's why:
 
w*w.anao.gov.au/download.cfm?item_id=A80C477D1560A6E8AA0CE1B9B0FB5AA8&binary_id=CD9871C91560A6E8AA3E05069976F651
 
 
In summary:
 
The M1A1AIM was the most advanced variant of the M1 we could acquire for political reasons. (M1A2 has depleted uranium armour).
 
 
The M1A1AIM was a more advanced and completely refurbished tank with better armour protection and better C4ISR capabilities and one that was cheaper than the most advanced second-hand Leopard II variant we could find, which was the ex-Swiss Army Leo II's.
 
The weaknesses you refer to are being addressed through:
 
Partial incorporation of TUSK features at time of acquisition and incoporation of TUSK and other upgraded (Barracuda IR reduction and "shade" systems amongst other) components.
 
The criticisms laid against the M1A1 acquisition for Army match the shite put out by APA in my opinion.
 
What is it, that supports all these opinions that state OPENLY that ADF no longer knows what it's doing? 
 
Failure on operations? Or an ADF that is not allowed to justify it's decisions publicly anymore? 
 
I am finding these "debates" absolutely unbelievable.
 
I REMEMBER a time when my Regiment only had a SINGLE set of night vision goggles and no-one criticised the ADF this much...
 
 
Quote    Reply

jammy       9/6/2012 12:10:51 PM
Also the ability to cross train with u.s troops on tank exercises is invaluable. As is the ability to drive u.s tanks into actual combat something that happened in iraq or afghanistan i believe. And let's not forget the undoubtedly superior simulators available. 
 
Quote    Reply

hairy man       5/21/2014 8:05:53 PM
If Australia was to increase the number of tanks it has, would it be better to buy a lighter tank than the Abrams that is more transportable?   If so, what tanks would be considered?
 
Quote    Reply

jammy       11/4/2014 2:34:14 AM
The tank purchase was a terrible decision. Apart from having enormous logistic and operating costs that brought a superpower to it's knees, we also can't deploy our tanks overseas. (No runways overseas to support our C17s) The only way Australians are operating tanks offshore is if the U.S transports them for us. John Howard no doubt was richly rewarded by his U.S friends for crippling us militarily. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5bytSjxUNOBW4FAfSCWLpA
 
Hopefully our submarine tech sharing with Japan will enable us to buy their tank, which only weighs 50 tons and has C4 integration. Along with being superior in every way to the M1. The other possibility is the K2 Black Panther by Korea, which looks like an even better tank and can be license built in Australia.
 
Quote    Reply

jammy       11/4/2014 5:14:42 AM
The tank purchase was a terrible decision. Apart from having enormous logistic and operating costs that brought a superpower to it's knees, we also can't deploy our tanks overseas. (No runways overseas to support our C17s) The only way Australians are operating tanks offshore is if the U.S transports them for us. John Howard no doubt was richly rewarded by his U.S friends for crippling us militarily. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5bytSjxUNOBW4FAfSCWLpA
 
Hopefully our submarine tech sharing with Japan will enable us to buy their tank, which only weighs 50 tons and has C4 integration. Along with being superior in every way to the M1. The other possibility is the K2 Black Panther by Korea, which looks like an even better tank and can be license built in Australia.
 
Quote    Reply

jammy       11/5/2014 5:18:06 AM
The tank purchase was a terrible decision. Apart from having enormous logistic and operating costs that brought a superpower to it's knees, we also can't deploy our tanks overseas. (No runways overseas to support our C17s) The only way Australians are operating tanks offshore is if the U.S transports them for us. John Howard no doubt was richly rewarded by his U.S friends for crippling us militarily. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5bytSjxUNOBW4FAfSCWLpA
 
Hopefully our submarine tech sharing with Japan will enable us to buy their tank, which only weighs 50 tons and has C4 integration. Along with being superior in every way to the M1. The other possibility is the K2 Black Panther by Korea, which looks like an even better tank and can be license built in Australia.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics