RE: [OT]Wither Canada? And Australias Abrahms

--- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:

> We're getting MiA1 AIMs
> 

<snip>

> 
> As to which tank comes out better here's the comparison:
> 
>				M1A1		M1A2 LeopardIIA6

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
> terrain),

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
> comparable or better armour (again remembering we're not getting DU),

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
> 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),

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
> general manufacture

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 
> illiterate), but for what Australia needs and with the budget
> we've got it seemed a poor choice in comparison is all.
> 

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