G'day,
> Buying the Abrams makes a lot of sense if you're planning on operating
That's the argument the Aussie government used (or put across in the general
media at least) for Australia getting Abrams now too, especially
the claim Aussies could just jump into US pre-positioned tanks on the
ground and save on logistics and have interoperabillity etc. What puzzles me
is that they then said we weren't buying exactly the same tank as the US uses
and we weren't ever going to be using tanks with depleted uranium armour or
rounds (a very entrenched political policy on both sides, same as our airforce
weren't allowed to use cluster munitions in Iraq and operated on stricter
rules of engagement). So how can we have interoperability if we can't use the
same rounds and are we're used to different systems etc, do the US have a
stock of older
models somewhere they could have pre-posiitoned for us? I'm also
guessing older marks aren't as good as isn't it the uranium that makes the
Abrams so tough? I must admit to being thoroughly confused by the whole thing.
Am I missing some simple logistics connect here or was it a typical
politican's statement?
Mind you I'm still wondering if the German military tech guys will ever bother
with Australian markets again, first the perferred sub tender was German but a
political jaunt sees us go with what ended up as the Collins design instead
and then we hold a competition for tanks the Leopard II wins in all critera*
and we go for the Abrahms;)
* Leopards came out with better range, speed and fuel efficiency (all
important for Aussies as we don't have the US logistics capability); they've
got a better gun; and on the interoperability front they're the NATO workhorse
(so lots of nations use them) and as they're NATO standard one would assume
the US would have to be ok with working with them; and as we're already
Leopard users it'd be less of a doctrinal leap to go to a Leopard II than to
an Abrams.
I must admit to knowing little about tanks in general after WWI so I may be
missing something subtle here.
On a side note, as to RPGs haven't tankers been dealing with them for decades?
Or is it an arms race thing between RPGs and tanks so its become a big thing
again?
Cheers
Actually Beth, I think it's the same gun. The Abrams AFAIK uses the same 120MM
smoothbore that the Germans use. Difference is in the firecontrol system, and
the depleted uranium sabot ammunition.
BTW, before the Berlin Wall came down, there used to be an annual NATO Tank
Gunnery Competition. The Canadians of 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade were
frequent winners.
[quoted original message omitted]
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 11:40:51 +1100, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au
> <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
> puzzles me is that they then said we weren't buying exactly the same
What model are they? Cross training for different Abrams models is a matter of
a few weeks of refresher course.
As for DU, there are certain rounds that use them. Other, older APFSDS rounds
use tungsten. It is the same damn gun.
> guessing older marks aren't as good as isn't it the uranium that makes
Not true. The DU reinforcement in the glacis plate adds to the survivability
(and I'm baffled by a country that would give up armor to make a political
point, but I guess its a quasireligious thing) but the tank was damn tough
before it was added. The Leopard is more lightly armored than ANY model of
Abrams, so you're still coming out ahead.
> * Leopards came out with better range, speed and fuel efficiency (all
Actually, it is an identical gun. It is the same gun built in the US under
license. I'd be very surprised if it were faster, and if it is it is a matter
of pulling the governor off that jet engine if you want speed. The killer on
the Abrams is the fuel efficiency or lack thereof.
G'day,
> What model are they? Cross training for different Abrams models is a
We're getting MiA1 AIMs
> Not true. The DU reinforcement in the glacis plate adds to the
Each to his own, Australians (like the Europeans) have done it for
environmental, political and health reasons, the Aussie armed forces
still smarting from Agent Orange, the goop troops (F1-11 refueler saga),
beryllium contamination of naval personnel etc.
As to which tank comes out better here's the comparison:
M1A1 M1A2 LeopardIIA6 Crew: 4 4 4 Length (m): 9.6 9.6 7.7 Width (m): 3.6 3.6
3.7
Weigh (tons): 63-67.6 69.5-68.4 62
Pressure (kg/cm2): 1.08 1.25 0.89
Obstacle Crossing (cm): 106.7 106.7 120.0
Top speed (km/hr): 66.8 67.5-72.0
68.0-72.0
Armour (KE-turret) (mm RHA): 800-900 940-960 920-940
Armour (KE-glacis) (mm RHA): 560-560 560-590 620
Armour (Chem-turret) (mm RHA):1320-1620 1320-1620 1730-1960
Armour (Chem-glacis) (mm RHA):510-1050 510-1050 750
Main armament (mm): 120 (L44) 120 (L44) 120 (L55
- 1.3m longer)
Muzzle velocity (m/s): 1700 1700 1800
Round: DU DU Tungsten Rod penetration (mm): >810 (if DU)>810 (if DU)810 Load:
40 42 42
Other armament: 2x7.62+50cal 2x7.62+50cal 2x7.62
Fuel efficiency (km/L): 3.6 3.6 3.0
Range (km): 442.5 426.5 500
Cost ($million AUD): 7 7 2-3
So the Leopard 2A6 is lighter (important in our jungle and desert terrain),
faster (remembering we're getting M1A1s not M1A2s), has comparable or better
armour (again remembering we're not getting DU), has 1.3m longer gun with
higher muzzle velocity (which is important again because we won't get the DU
rounds so the performance of the L55 will be greater than the Abrahm's L44
with tungsten rounds), has better fuel efficiency and cruising range and costs
half as much.
Now if I went for a slower, heavier car whose parts are no longer in general
manufacture and paid twice as much for it I think I'd feel a wee bit silly.
The Abrams looks like a really great tank (to me miss tank illiterate), but
for what Australia needs and with the budget we've got it seemed a poor choice
in comparison is all.
Cheers
> G'day,
Our intended purchase of the Abrams instead of the Leopard may be politically
motivated, but it can still be right!
For defending Australia, the Leopard should be better because it's lighter and
thus less likely to crush our bridges, better fuel efficiency and range, etc.
One could probably argue the same about Eurofighters instead
of the F-35 JSF, or maybe British destroyers instead of
Aegis. (I'm not disputing the quality of US equipment, only that it's real
expensive and we're a small country.)
On the other hand, the United States is the only country that *could* launch
any kind of serious invasion of us this decade. And if the US did decide to
invade, the kind of tank we had wouldn't make much difference. So if our army
buying the Abrams makes us popular with the US,
we're decreasing the risk of invasion :-)
cheers,
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> We're getting MiA1 AIMs
<snip>
> As to which tank comes out better here's the comparison:
Aha!
The 120mm on the M1A1 and M1A2 is a license-built version of the German
Rheinmetall 120mm/44 of the original Leo2. The longer 55 caliber
version was introduced on the Leo2A5.
The 120mm ammunition is NATO standard. Any NATO 120mm system can use any NATO
120mm ammution, so it doesn't matter whether you get ammunition made for the
Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, or LeClerc; it is all interchangeable.
The big differences between the M1A1 and the M1A2 are in the electronics, the
most appearent of which is the Commander's Independent
Thermal Viewer visible on the top-left of the M1A2's turret.
<snip table mangled in email>
> So the Leopard 2A6 is lighter (important in our jungle and desert
All NATO armor is made within standard parameters to enable them to use
the infrastructure agreed-to for western europe. The Abrams just uses
more of the allowed capability than others.
> faster (remembering we're getting M1A1s not M1A2s), has
I still don't understand that. I understand the objection to DU ammunition
(don't agree, but understand) but I don't understand the objection to the HA
package. <Shrug>
> has 1.3m longer gun with higher muzzle velocity (which is important
If you are planning to take them with you instead of just being able to use
local stocks (which you would have to do with the Leo2), there is nothing to
prevent ordering an "Australian model" (M1A1(A) or M1A3) with the L55 gun of
the Leo2A5.
> has better fuel efficiency and cruising range and costs half as much.
On fuel efficiency, one advantage of the Abrams turbine over the Leopard's
conventional diesel is that it will run on almost anything; gasoline, diesel,
jet fuel, even alchohol for short periods.
> Now if I went for a slower, heavier car whose parts are no longer in
Who says they aren't in general manufacture? There are quite a few Abrams
running around, and they all require a generous helping of spare parts on a
regular basis. The US alone has more M1s (over 8000 deliverd) than all of the
countries using Leo2's combined, with over 1000 more built for foriegn users,
excluding Australia. All of these need parts, especially if, like the US, the
forces actually take them out and practice with them instead of keeping them
shiny in a tank park. The tanks themselves may not be in continuous
production, but there are a lot of parts both existing and in production.
> and paid twice as much for it I think I'd feel a wee bit silly.
As the USD is down and the Euro is up, it is a good time to snap up US
products at a relatively low price:)
> The Abrams looks like a really great tank (to me miss tank
There are also other considerations. In order to use any tanks outside
Australia proper, you either have to bring them yourself or use the local
stocks of someone else. If you look at the places around the world were
Australia might get involved, the vast majority of Leo2's are in northern
Europe, while there are US stocks of M1 in many places around the world, and
also locally owned forces of M1s in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt.
In addition to allowing Aussie units to use prepositioned or locally owned
stocks, selecting the M1A1 allows them to draw on stocks of spares in the
field from those same sources and also to integrate Australian and US
logistical trains in the field. Going with the Leo2 would require both
Australia maintain a complete seperate stock of spares and require the
consideration of providing extensive additional logistical support.
Further, both of these vehicles are equipped with extensive electronics
suites. These require not just spares and replacements, but also seperate
testing and diagnostic electronics. Using the M1 allows Australian units in
the field with US forces to be able to employ US forward maintainance units
not just in terms of parts, but also the testers and personel trained in their
use in addition to those the Ausralian force bring with them, which they
couldn't do with the Leo2.
In all, looking at what Australia might chose to be involved in in the
next 10-20 years, any multinational operations are more likely to
involve the US and UK than any nation using the Leo2, so even if Australia
were not to select the M1, the Challenger or Challenger 2 would probably be a
better choice than the Leo 2, and all three have the advantage over the Leo2
of having been proved in combat.
J
> J L Hilal wrote:
> The 120mm ammunition is NATO standard. Any NATO 120mm system can use
it
> is all interchangeable.
Chally 2 has a different and rifled 120mm gun. The ammunition is not
compatible.
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
> On the other hand, the United States is the only country
Naw we wouldn't do that.... Can you imagine the number of US troops who would
surrender if you promised not to send them back..... I thought about every
time I got Liberty downunder.....
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
On the other hand, the United States is the only country that *could* launch
any kind of serious invasion of us this decade.
Just a random thought here, nowhere in the Common Wealth is there a danger of
being invaded by of all people Americans. Your all far too polite and nice, to
the point where we'd fell stupid and guilty almost instantly. Also fighting
the nations of the Common Wealth given our shared heritage is somewhat like
kissing ones own sister, it just isn't done.......)
G'day,
> The longer 55 caliber version was introduced on the Leo2A5.
Reviews I've read said it was the Leopard2A6.
> The big differences between the M1A1 and the M1A2 are in the
Leopard2A6 has similar and a cute little camera outback to allow fast
reversing;)
> All NATO armor is made within standard parameters to enable them to
Unfortunately the extra makes it heavy enough that it has the potential to be
a problem in areas where high PSI is an issue. The Leopard is only 5tons
smaller but its PSI is 20% (or there abouts) lower which puts it the other
side of the "will get bogged easily" threshold.
> I still don't understand that. I understand the objection to DU
For the same reasons given with the munitions Aussies just don't go for DU.
The widely available stats I could get access to seem to show (I'm not an
armour expert so may have misunderstood) that the latest versions of the
Leopard give the same degree of protection as the M1A1 and are comparable with
the M1A2 even though the Leopards don't use DU (how that manage that without
also being super heavy I don't know). The one weak
spot in the comparison does seem to be in the glacis - ok major weak
spot for a tank!
> If you are planning to take them with you instead of just being able
Based on the civilian access sites I've seen there is some question over
whether the Abrams can take an L55 - people in the know may say
something different I only have access to what I can google;)
More importantly for us "mates prices" was for refurbished tanks, tanks with
special new additions being one heck of a lot more. The US have said their DU
rounds mean they don't need to upgrade so won't be committing dollars to it
anytime soon, so Australia would have to shoulder the burden. We'd be looking
at so few tanks by that point we'd have to start paying JohnA's medical bills
for all the laughing he'd be doing;)
> On fuel efficiency, one advantage of the Abrams turbine over the
So how far's it run on a bottle of beer? We could be on to something
here! ;) ;)
On a related note though, according to the Aussie defence force mag I read it
would've required special tankers for us to use "standard fuel" as everything
else we have runs on diesel so ours are going to be running on diesel anyway.
> Who says they aren't in general manufacture?... All of these
Again I'm forced to rely on the info I can access which said that the engines
used in the M1A1s stopped being made 12 years ago so parts are hard to get
unless you are tied directly in to the US reliably all the time. Having been
in situation where US politicians have tried blocking (sometimes successfully)
supply of systems to US when it didn't suit them I for one would be a wee bit
wary. Same is true for the German government supply of Leopard2 parts too
though. Australia learnt the hardway in Vietnam about blocked supply when
Sweden wouldn't send Carl Gustav rounds and the French threatened similar for
Mirage parts.
> As the USD is down and the Euro is up, it is a good time to snap up US
As the values were in Aussie dollars which suffers compared to both I don't
think that helps unfortunately;)
> If you look at the places around the world were Australia might get
The Pacific, where I don't think there are any M1s and heavy tanks in general
are going to be a joy on coral islands;)
> you either have to bring them yourself or use the
Given or media (not 100% reliable source) says the US government houses are
complaining about the lack of equipment on the ground in preparation for
entering Iraq how likely is it that tanks would just be handed off to the
Aussies to use? This is equally true of the Leopards mind. Prepositioned tanks
are normally earmarked for units of the owning
country - if an army owns tanks and has moved them to an operational
area why would they just hand them off to another nation to use (who couldn't
get their butts into gear to get their own gear there)? Again I guess I could
be missing something obvious here as I don't usually put much time into
moderns.
> selecting the M1A1 allows them to draw on stocks of
That is a good point. One question though, I'm guessing that US vehicles other
than Abrams use diesel so it will be available in the US logistics
train or that it doesn't matter because of the multi-fuel option you
mentioned earlier? Another dumb quesiton do US normally carry non-DU
rounds in addition to standard DU ones (I'm guessing yes)?
> In all, looking at what Australia might chose to be involved in in the
We get involved in peace keeping stuff a fair bit and have worked with Leopard
owning nations in the past as part of that, but I must admit the tanks have
never gone. In fact our tanks haven't been outside Australia except to Vietnam
(even that was contentious as 'the people in the know' here thought the tanks
would be useless in the jungle, but as APCs were forced to act like tanks at
Long Tan the tanks ended up going over and were used well as strong points).
> so even if Australia were not to select the M1, the Challenger or
No Challengers currently available. There would be 40 surplus ones using
rifled ammunition (a major pain in the logistics butt) under a UK development
plan, but that's not enough to supply our Armoured Regiment (ignoring the need
for a tank squadran for the reserves) assuming they are actually surplus (some
question remains over that). On top of that it'd be $2.3 million AUD to do
what is a fairly marginal upgrade. Challenger 2s were never a serious
contender in the competition.
Cheers
In a message dated 2/5/05 7:41:08 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> laranzu@ozemail.com.au writes:
<snip> Our intended purchase of the Abrams instead of the Leopard may be
politically motivated, but it can still be right!
For defending Australia, the Leopard should be better because it's lighter and
thus less likely to crush our bridges, better fuel efficiency and range, etc.
One could probably argue the same about Eurofighters instead
of the F-35 JSF, or maybe British destroyers instead of
Aegis. (I'm not disputing the quality of US equipment, only that it's real
expensive and we're a small country.)
Glenn: A very frequently overlooked point by most of the third world. But the
issue of keeping it running is the killer that is ALWAYS overlooked (but
given lip service) -- at least in S. E. Asia.
On the other hand, the United States is the only country that *could* launch
any kind of serious invasion of us this decade. And if the US did decide to
invade, the kind of tank we had wouldn't make much difference. So if our army
buying the Abrams makes us popular with the US,
we're decreasing the risk of invasion :-)
LOL! I think Indonesia still has delusions of grandeur there... but it's a
long way from the IC of the Tuffleyverse...
cheers, Hugh
Gracias,
In a message dated 2/5/05 7:41:08 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> laranzu@ozemail.com.au writes:
On the other hand, the United States is the only country that *could* launch
any kind of serious invasion of us this decade. And if the US did decide to
invade, the kind of tank we had wouldn't make much difference. So if our army
buying the Abrams makes us popular with the US,
we're decreasing the risk of invasion :-)
cheers, Hugh
Actually it's logistically a nightmare unless your subs (unclassified reports
can neither be confirmed or denied) are completely accounted
for -- as in
sunk. And that assumes that your Air Force was completely neutralized by Naval
Air plus long range USAF assets. And that the amount of troops needed to
subdue the military (although hunting down your snake-eaters would be a
nightmare) was available for the duration.
Mostly though it would make no sense for the USA to attack Australia. The
geopolitical realities make such a scenario at least 100% laughable. Who would
be our most dependable (and honest in council) Asian Nation if we broke with
Australia? Singapore?? Too much tightrope walking to let themselves become
associated with any superpower outside the region. Taiwan??? Maybe in their
spare time they stop looking west but right now they are the 'invisible'
nation to most countries. Indonesia, ?!?!? HAH! Certainly not
Malaysia even with Dr.M out of power. Perhaps Japan? (Focused a lot on N.
Korea and PRC understandably.) Definitely not Vietnam (except maybe dealing
with the PRC
threat). Thailand - Too independent and unaligned by choice. Never mind
about Cambodia, Laos, Burma or the minor states of Oceania.
Gracias,
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 11:03:05 +1100, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au
> <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
> Unfortunately the extra makes it heavy enough that it has the
I havn't noticed a 'will get bogged easily' tendency in the Abrams chassis,
but I only operated them in Texas and Iraq.
> For the same reasons given with the munitions Aussies just don't go
Pseudoreligious ones. Everytime the issue is raised of theoretical
game polities that refuse modern technology for religious/social
reasons, I keep telling myself "but a civilized country wouldn't do that".
Just goes to show.
> On a related note though, according to the Aussie defence force mag I
The Abrams engine will burn anything, including kerosense. Diesel is not a
problem.
> Again I'm forced to rely on the info I can access which said that the
The Engines are all refurb. That's true for US forces as well.
> time. Having been in situation where US politicians have tried
When was the last time the Aussies got into a pissing match with the US that
bad? But what would be the odds that German politicos could have sold to their
communist^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H socialist constituiencies supplying Leopard parts
to Aussies involved in the invasion of Iraq?
> The Pacific, where I don't think there are any M1s and heavy tanks in
Which coral islands was Australia planning on duking it out on? And with whom?
> Given or media (not 100% reliable source) says the US government
Depends on how much time we have to build up. If possible, we would do it just
to make the point about how "multilatteral" we are.
> That is a good point. One question though, I'm guessing that US
All American miltary vehicles run off of JP-8. It's jet fuel. US
Specification MIL-DTL-83133 and British Defence Standard 91-87
Kerosense-based, mostly.
And yes, we still stock old-style APDS rounds, although in the heat of
battle I doubt any politicians will be looking over your tanker's shoulders to
make sure no DU rounds accidentally come near Australian hands.
> Singapore?? Too much tightrope walking to let
Strange you bring it up but I was reading about the buildup of the Peoples
Republic of China (PRC) Navy. If I read it correctly there will be at least
two large carriers in the PRC Navy and the support ships to defend them within
the next five years.
Give China a couple of victories against their local neighbors in the
potential "oil grab" for islands game and they may end up a super power. Take
all of the countries you listed and turn them into Chinese client states who
will "assist" the PRC and the question of could invade may be answered.
> At 5:23 AM +0100 2/6/05, John Atkinson wrote:
> All American miltary vehicles run off of JP-8. It's jet fuel. US
Isn't it a STANAG too?
In some ways JP-8 is like diesel, but it has
lower lubrication properties as compared to
diesel. You can take a JP-8 configured truck and
run it on No 1 or No 2 Diesel. The other way around works too, but some parts
like the fuel pump need to be designed differently for better reliability.
My M813 has a "JP-8 Only" label on the fuel tank
but the No 2 Diesel runs it just fine. The main difference is as I understand
it a bit more sulfur in the diesel.
The one fuel thing makes a lot of sense from a logistics standpoint. Its nice
for collectors like me because there's lots of kit getting surplused because
it runs on diesel only or more often MOGAS (aka petrol, aka gasoline).
> At 11:04 PM -0800 2/5/05, Scott Siebold wrote:
There's more to successful and effective carrier ops than building the carrier
and operating them. They'll have to run them to sea regularly and practice
practice practice. They don't have the cadre of people to teach the new guys
the science and art of ship board fixed wing aviation operations so I suspect
they'll have to learn all the things the US and Royal Navy's did over the last
100 years.
> Give China a couple of victories against their local
It'll take more than that to challenge the US and Royal Navy and also not
annoy the Japanese too much. But, Australia might want to watch to the North a
bit in the next 10 years.
In a message dated 2/6/05 12:37:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> johnmatkinson@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 11:03:05 +1100, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au
<Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote: <snip>
> The Pacific, where I don't think there are any M1s and heavy tanks in
Which coral islands was Australia planning on duking it out on? And with whom?
<snip>
Tanks on Coral Islands a re a lot like Tanks in Vietnam - depends on
operating leadership There was this book by a guy named (Zumbro?) that said it
was a stereotyped based decision not to employ more armor in Vietnam and told
his experiences in 'Jungle Busting' and varied operations in Vietnam.
Real Life scenarios:
Indonesia on * Australian Soil (okay anything with a * is not a coral island
scenario) should Indonesia be so bold/foolish/come under fanatical
fundamental leadership. Peace keeping gone awry in * Papua or some
smaller island
nation (smaller ones might be extraction of besieged/pinned troops
scenario). * Malaysia breaks up (possible but not currently probable) and
Australia is
part of multinational intervention force. Or * Indonsia/Malaysia
annexes Singapore.
I don't think Australia has sent armor to any of the island nations she has
assisted in the recent two decades -- usually police are sufficient...
Tuffleyverse: IC (there's a theme here. Grin.) Free Hawaii? <grin> OU would
operate off planet Earth mostly.
Gracias,
In a message dated 2/6/05 1:39:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> rmgill@mindspring.com writes:
> At 11:04 PM -0800 2/5/05, Scott Siebold wrote:
Glenn: There has been more heat then fire in PRC's 'Carrier Program.'
There's more to successful and effective carrier ops than building the carrier
and operating them. They'll have to run them to sea regularly and practice
practice practice. They don't have the cadre of people to teach the new guys
the science and art of ship board fixed wing aviation operations so I suspect
they'll have to learn all the things the US and Royal Navy's did over the last
100 years.
Glenn: Given how much face would be lost when the inevitable crash occurs
(Carriers test their damage control systems in these incidents and
shortcomings
are exposed/debated/solutions found and implemented) I can see the PRC
actually fielding a CVN with the Chinese equivalent of 'crossed fingers'!
The 'Middle Kingdom' analysts in some circles are divided among those who
think that the PRC actually plans a CV as a key element in a blue water navy
versus it being a way to gain knowledge in 'Carrier Busting' [one hell of
expensive manned target as it were] and/or a propaganda prop.
> Give China a couple of victories against their local
It'll take more than that to challenge the US and Royal Navy and also not
annoy the Japanese too much. But, Australia might want to watch to the North a
bit in the next 10 years.
In a message dated 2/6/05 1:18:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> gamers@ameritech.net writes:
<snip> P.S. I also read a news article about how Europe could never go to war
because it would be be politically impossible. The news article was dated
1908.
Like two democracies would never go to war with each other -- nice
theory but not reality based.
Gracias,
In a message dated 2/6/05 1:18:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> gamers@ameritech.net writes:
> Singapore?? Too much tightrope walking to let
Strange you bring it up but I was reading about the buildup of the Peoples
Republic of China (PRC) Navy. If I read it correctly there will be at least
two large carriers in the PRC Navy and the support ships to defend them within
the next five years.
Give China a couple of victories against their local neighbors in the
potential "oil grab" for islands game and they may end up a super power. Take
all of the countries you listed and turn them into Chinese client states who
will "assist" the PRC and the question of could invade may be answered.
Scott Siebold
Yeah but the critical mass for a nation involved in the level of export to
South East Asia (among other markets) the PRC is doing keeps being a victim of
'raising the bar' as the PRC 'succeeds' as an 'open market' (hah) nation.
Eventually the 'shop keepers' and the military are going to have to duke it
out politically internally. Such a move would have severe (not necessarily
limiting entirely) repercussions in political and economic sectors.
Gracias,
In a message dated 2/6/05 12:37:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> johnmatkinson@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 11:03:05 +1100, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au
<Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
<snip>
> For the same reasons given with the munitions Aussies just don't go
Pseudoreligious ones. Everytime the issue is raised of theoretical
game polities that refuse modern technology for religious/social
reasons, I keep telling myself "but a civilized country wouldn't do that".
Just goes to show.
<snip>
Cultural variance, John.
Gracias,
> Warbeads@aol.com wrote:
We thought of trying to get the US to manufacture it under licence instead of
the M1, but decided pigs would fly first.
Besides which, the history of the US "adapting" complex German weapons in
recent years is not a happy one. You start with converting all metric
measurements to Imperial... you then "improve" it... see the sorry
US-Roland Saga.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-115.html
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 06:07:37 -0800 (PST), Warbeads@aol.com
> <Warbeads@aol.com> wrote:
> All due respect, I think a UK or EU (Spain) carrier task force against
India, actually.
In a message dated 2/6/2005 12:39:28 PM Central Standard Time,
> johnmatkinson@gmail.com writes:
India, actually. India also uses VTOL carriers rather than conventional
carriers. There is some doubt the Indian carriers would be much use
operationally.
In a message dated 2/6/2005 12:39:28 PM Central Standard Time,
> johnmatkinson@gmail.com writes:
India, actually. The Indian navy is down to a single VTOL carrier Viraat, she
carries no more than a dozen Sea harriers.
> At 7:37 PM +0100 2/6/05, John Atkinson wrote:
And interestingly, they've developed their own MBT manufacturing capability. A
bit of help from the Brits and some Germans and they seem to be well on the
way to being a 1st world power what with their statement of not needing that
much aid and their military capability. Australia and the US should see about
getting as friendly as possible with the frontier of the AngloSphere that is
India.
G'day,
> I havn't noticed a 'will get bogged easily' tendency in the
I'm guessing you crossed some "soft" dunes in the desert though? I was going
on the PSI rating of 93 that we were given for equipment deployment for
experiments in the wet tropics and sandy deserts (though in reality things in
our deserts don't so much sink as get blown over the top of infuriatingly
fast).
> Pseudoreligious ones. Everytime the issue is raised of
Product of democracy in action.
> When was the last time the Aussies got into a pissing
We don't need to be in a pissing match for our suppliers to cut us off.
Biggest military one was when the band was actually playing at the hand over
of some old US Navy ships and a US politician decided that you guys couldn't
be parting with them even if they are rust buckets;)
We did get the ships... in the end...
In my own neck of the woods every time the US government wasn't to make a
point or remind Australia where its rightful place is it tightens the strings
and cuts off supply of parts for equipment they guaranteed wouldn't be
interrupt come hell or high water. We've lost many thousands of dollars in
having to work around "sorry you've become the latest casualty of the free
trade deal negotiations";)
Funniest thing is now we've got guys in the US asking us over to teach
them how we do x-y-z because our make-do has turned out more efficient
than what comes from their economy of scale. A silver lining to ever cloud;)
> But what would be the odds
> From the bottom of the stack view we have in Australia it looks as
> Which coral islands was Australia planning on duking
I said that mostly tongue in cheek (taking a lesson from you own book there).
Recently (some time in past decade through now) we've had peace keeping forces
in the Solomons, Bougainville and Timor to name a few. Tanks are unlikely to
turn up on peace keeping missions though (we did think about it for Timor
apparently). Beyond the nations Glenn mentioned Australia has to worry most
about failed states (and a police role in them) not rogue states around us.
> All American miltary vehicles run off of JP-8. It's
Ok next dumb tank question. Does this mean the diesel engine Aussie M1s
(apparently they get a slightly different engine put in to make diesel
efficient) would have to supply their own fuel anyway or is it general
practice for the diesel users to be able to go back to JP-8?
> And yes, we still stock old-style APDS rounds, although
If the Aussie airforce in Iraq (not allowed to drop cluster bombs) was any
indication they will be, even more so because people are more apt to
make-do in battle. There was fine tooth comb scrutiny on that one.
Cheers
What does India need a CV for?
> On Sunday, February 6, 2005, at 07:42 PM, Mike Hillsgrove wrote:
> What does India need a CV for?
I'm sure Pakistan enters the picture somewhere.
ALSO doesn't that region of the world suffer from piracy...like real bad
piracy?
Damo
> ALSO doesn't that region of the world suffer from piracy...like real
Lots of cheap cutters might be more effective than a single large ship that
seldom leaves port.
In a message dated 2/6/05 10:39:28 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> johnmatkinson@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 06:07:37 -0800 (PST), Warbeads@aol.com
> <Warbeads@aol.com> wrote:
> All due respect, I think a UK or EU (Spain) carrier task force
India, actually.
John
In a message dated 2/6/05 10:48:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> Popeyesays@aol.com writes:
In a message dated 2/6/2005 12:39:28 PM Central Standard Time,
> johnmatkinson@gmail.com writes:
> All due respect, I think a UK or EU (Spain) carrier task force
India, actually.
India also uses VTOL carriers rather than conventional carriers. There is some
doubt the Indian carriers would be much use operationally.
Yes but I think India might have a 50-50 chance of getting an
operational 'true' carrier before the PRC. But the Navy would have to sink a
ton of their resources into it to achieve that. And I think they aren't really
all that
interested in a CVN/CVA.
Gracias,
In a message dated 2/6/05 4:50:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> mikeah@cablespeed.com writes:
What does India need a CV for?
Ego.
Gracias,
In a message dated 2/6/05 4:55:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> damosan@comcast.net writes:
> On Sunday, February 6, 2005, at 07:42 PM, Mike Hillsgrove wrote:
> What does India need a CV for?
I'm sure Pakistan enters the picture somewhere.
ALSO doesn't that region of the world suffer from piracy...like real bad
piracy?
Damo
Relatively bad at key points. Actually one point IIRC. Not the Malacca Straits
but bad enough. At least India's military aren't seriously considered as part
of the pirate flotilla as some other nation is...
Gracias,
> At 7:37 PM +0100 2/6/05, John Atkinson wrote:
We're well ahead of the US on that, being fellow members of the Commonwealth.
Maybe you guys ought to start
playing cricket :-)
cheers,
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 09:40:59 +1100, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au
> <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
> I'm guessing you crossed some "soft" dunes in the desert though? I was
Not so much so, the parts of Iraq where I was weren't so much soft sand.
> > But what would be the odds
So basically, that issue is a red herring. It will exist regardless of what
tank you buy unless you are willing to spend the money to set up production
facilities in Australia.
Which would be neither cost-efficient nor economically feasible
without unacceptable sacrifices in other areas.
> Ok next dumb tank question. Does this mean the diesel engine Aussie
As far as I know.
> Warbeads@aol.com wrote:
[...]
> Tuffleyverse: IC (there's a theme here. Grin.) Free Hawaii? <grin> OU
The Hawai`ian Free State (HFS) has a very small navy; no need for anything
larger. Primarily needed only for police and anti-piracy work. It
doesn't really have any major ship building capacity, so many of the ships in
its navy are from other nations (NAC, OU, IJN mostly; some ships purchased, a
few, ah, "donated" during the HFS' seperation movement). The HFS doesn't
have any real off-Earth holdings, though is negotiating for some island
rights on one or two of the outworld planets.
Mk
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> G'day,
A quick scan of the top internet seach hits says the same thing, however all
of the books I have say it was A5. <shrug>
Best description: Encylopedia of Tanks and Armored Fighting Vehicles, Ed.
Chris Foss, 2002, p248
[about the Leo 2A5] "The most important of these [improvements] is a
lengthened 120mm gun extended from the previous 44 calibres to 55 calibres"
"Sweden will licence manufacture the Leopard 2A5, while Spain will
produce the Leopard2A6, a private-venture export model similar to the
Leopard 2A5, but with extras such as air conditioning, an auxilliary power
unit and yet more protection."
> > I still don't understand that. I understand the objection to DU
"Firing our DU penetrators at the enemy contaminates the envionment", how can
that be applied to the armor? "Firing our DU armor panels at the enemy
contaminates the envionment"?
> The widely available stats I could get access to seem to show
> From the same book, p51:
"In 1984, the M1 IP (Improved Protection) was introduced with heavier armour.
This armour was included in the M1A1 as well as an integrated NBC system and
many improvements to the fighting compartment. The M1A1HA (Heavy Armour)
version was first delivered to units in Germany in 1988."
"The M1A2 was the last production version. Most changes were internal"
"An option on export M1A2s is the German MTU883 diesel powerplant"
It's not clear whether the M1A2 has the same armor as the M1A1 or the HA
package as standard.
> Given or media (not 100% reliable source) says the US government
I can imagine a scenario where the forces tagged for a particular set of
prepositioned stocks are not all available; some being busy
elsewhere, or an infantry-heavy unit sent in place of an armor-heavy
unit. In these cases, it is plausible (I don't know likely) to offer some of
the stocks to entice an allied contribution.
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> Best description:
Chris Foss really should've known better than that. (Then again, it
wouldn't've been the first time Jane's got things backwards - eg., it
took them well over a year to figure out that there are currently *two*
companies "Bofors", and the Carl Gustaf system is *not* owned by United
Defence...)
> [about the Leo 2A5] "The most important of these [improvements] is a
The A4 and standard A5 have the same 44-calibre gun (which is quite
obvious when you look at two of them side by side); the most visible
difference
between them is the turret front armour - the Leo2A4 has a vertical (or
nearly vertical) turret front, whereas the A5 has a wedge of add-on
armour in front of that. IIRC some A5s were fitted with an L55 gun as part of
the process of developing the A6, but they're supposed to have been upgraded
into "full" A6s.
> "Sweden will licence manufacture the Leopard 2A5, while Spain will
All Swedish Leopards - both the Strv121 (Leo2A4) and Strv122 (Leo2S, ie.
A5s with upgraded armour and different electronics) - have the
44-calibre gun.
> >>I still don't understand that. I understand the objection to DU
Getting DU armour panels fired *at* by weapons strong enough to penetrate to
the actual DU causes a significant risk of throwing pulverized DU into the
environment (the armour material and penetrator mutually grind each other down
and the resulting dust gets thrown out of the penetration channel).
> It's not clear whether the M1A2 has the same armor as the M1A1 or the
IIRC the A2 has been further upgraded beyond A1HA level, though I may have
confused the A2 with the A2SEP.
Regards,
> A long, long time ago Jared Hilal wrote:
[...that Leo2A5 has an L55 gun, and then cites his references:]
> Best description:
Chris Foss really should've known better than that. (Then again, it
wouldn't've been the first time Jane's got things backwards - it took
them well over a year to figure out that the Carl Gustaf system is *not* owned
by United Defence, for example :-/ )
> [about the Leo 2A5] "The most important of these [improvements] is a
This is just plain wrong. The A4 and A5 have the same gun (L44); the most
visible difference between them is the turret front armour - the Leo2A4
has a vertical (or nearly vertical) turret front, whereas the A5 and later
versions have a wedge of add-on armour on the turret front. The Leo2A*6*
uses the L55 gun.
> "Sweden will licence manufacture the Leopard 2A5, while Spain will
All Swedish Leopards - both the Strv121 (Leo2A4) and Strv122 (Leo2S, ie.
A5s with upgraded armour, GALIX launchers and different electronics) -
have
the 44-calibre gun.
> >>I still don't understand that. I understand the objection to DU
Duh. The correct answer is "If the enemy fires at our DU panels and manage to
penetrate all the way to the actual DU bits, DU dust thrown out from panels
contaminates the environment."
> It's not clear whether the M1A2 has the same armor as the M1A1 or the
IIRC neither. AFAIK the M1A2 has even stronger armour than the M1A1HA -
though I may have confused the "vanilla" M1A2 with the M1A2SEP here.
Regards,