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: 1 2 3   NEXT
Enterpriser    Here's why.....   10/15/2008 6:16:42 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
 
Quote    Reply

Raven22       10/15/2008 6:30:53 AM
The package offered for the Abrams was the cheapest of the packages offered. The Leopard 2 variant considered was actually second-hand Swedish Strv122 which is a less capable tank than the M1A1 AIM tank that Australia bought (and in far worse condition). The Challenger 2 was never ging to be able to offer a competive package. While the Leopard MAY have been a better choice for Australia (and there has been a lot of argument at the tank regiment over that very issue) we would have had to pay a premium to buy it.
 
I think the publication with the findings of the tank replacement project is actually online somewhere. I'm sure someone will be able to find it.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Enterpriser   10/15/2008 8:24:55 AM


1) We wanted a tank that was not at the apex of tank development (Otherwise we would have M1A2SEP + Tusk)
 
Which would have been just about useless because the landing craft on the Manoora and Kannibla can't carry an M1A2SEP + Tusk.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Volkodav   10/15/2008 8:35:21 AM


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?

That probably has something to do with the fact that the German's and Dutch started retiring large quantities of their armed forces as soon as the Soviet threat disappeared. Most of Leopard 2's around the world are second hand from those countries. In contrast I'd imagine that the US kept their earlier models in service until they were replaced, because of their global roles. Consequently there probably wasn't the same stock available. 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.
 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       10/15/2008 8:49:06 AM





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

 


Which would have been just about useless because the landing craft on the Manoora and Kannibla can't carry an M1A2SEP + Tusk.




Don't panic, I was only joking. Just telling the people what they want to hear. :p 
But if we are going to open up that old chestnut ("Is the Abrams suitable?") then might I add that the weight capacity of the LCM is barely (if at all) able to deal with the M1A1 AIM. (max load of 53-54 ton versus weight 61ton or more).
 
Brett.
 
P.S Isn't the ability of the LHD to operate with them more important? (Bring on the LCACs!)
 
Quote    Reply

Raven22       10/15/2008 9:17:34 AM
There's no signficant weight difference between an M1A1 and an M1A2 - at most the A2 is two tonne heavier. All in service landing craft can handle either. There's no significant difference in capability between the M1A2 and M1A1 AIM besides the commanders independent thermal viewer either, and since we are not planning on fighting the 3rd Shock Army any time soon, there's no real differenc for Australia. Our Abrams are getting the TUSK upgrade as well, so no difference there.
 
Quote    Reply

Cyrus       10/15/2008 11:00:53 AM
But the important Question is will our tank crews still be able to plug the barrel let off a fire extinguisher inside throw in some beer and have cold drinks wile on maneuvers :) just joking I'm certain they haven't done that in years due to the trouble they got into when caught and the slightly smaller problem of warping the barrels
 
tho I am interested if the turbines are having problems with the red dust of the Aussie outback if anyone knows.
 
Quote    Reply

Raven22       10/15/2008 11:08:17 AM
There's been no real problem with dust in Australia - its certainly no worse than the dust in the Middle East. All it means is you have to clean out the air filters a couple of times a day.
 
There's also need need for theatrics in order to have a cold drink - the Abrams come fitted with a fridge in the rear bustle bin. The RAAC doesn't go to war without a few cartons of cold cokes afterall... :)
 
Quote    Reply

Cyrus       10/15/2008 11:35:39 AM

There's been no real problem with dust in Australia - its certainly no worse than the dust in the Middle East. All it means is you have to clean out the air filters a couple of times a day.

 

There's also need need for theatrics in order to have a cold drink - the Abrams come fitted with a fridge in the rear bustle bin. The RAAC doesn't go to war without a few cartons of cold cokes afterall... :)

lol real flash Israeli's still have you's beat tho they can have 3 bed's in the back of theirs :)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/16/2008 9:04:29 AM

There's no signficant weight difference between an M1A1 and an M1A2 - at most the A2 is two tonne heavier. All in service landing craft can handle either. There's no significant difference in capability between the M1A2 and M1A1 AIM besides the commanders independent thermal viewer either, and since we are not planning on fighting the 3rd Shock Army any time soon, there's no real differenc for Australia. Our Abrams are getting the TUSK upgrade as well, so no difference there.



Some other areas where there?s some confusion.  The weight.  Mark, it can fly.  Not on it?s own but we?re going to put it in either C5 Galaxy.  It can fly it the C17 or in the Antonov which are commercially available around the world at the moment.  Let me give you some of the weights and I?m talking in tonnes not in other versions of weight.  Leopard 1, current tank 42.4.  Centurion 52 as used in Vietnam up to 1970.  35 years ago in Vietnam - you can draw your own conclusions about other areas.  Challenger, considered as part of this package, 62.5.  Leopard 2 and there were a variety of Leopard 2s looked at, from 58 to 62.  M1A1 AIM (D), and I?ll say that carefully.  The AIM (D), not the SEP version or some other versions that clearly people have been getting off the internet.  Combat weight 62 tonnes and 57 tonnes for transport.  To give you some idea of scale a Northern Territory road train weighs about 100 tonnes. 
 
 
Fair enough, that was a misconception I developed because I misread these comments by Leahy, thinking that he was saying the AIM could be lifted but the SEP couldn't.
 
:" target="_blank">http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:b7zTGvduEq4J:>
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics