RE: [OT]Wither Canada? And Australias Abrahms

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
> electronics, the most appearent of which is the Commander's
Independent
> Thermal Viewer visible on the top-left of the M1A2's turret.

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
use
> the infrastructure agreed-to for western europe.  The Abrams just uses
> more of the allowed capability than others.

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
> ammunition (don't agree, but understand) but I don't understand the
> objection to the HA package.	<Shrug>

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
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.

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
> Leopard's conventional diesel is that it will run on almost anything;
> gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, even alchohol for short periods.

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
> 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.

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
> products at a relatively low price :)

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
involved...

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
> local stocks of someone else.

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
> spares in the field from those same sources and also to integrate
> Australian and US logistical trains in the field.

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
> next 10-20 years, any multinational operations are more likely to
> involve the US and UK than any nation using the Leo2, 

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
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.

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

Beth