Re: [OT]Wither Canada? And Australias Abrahms

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
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 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
for
> DU. 

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
> 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.

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
> 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

The Engines are all refurb.  That's true for US forces as well.

> 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.

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
> general are going to be a joy on coral islands ;)

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
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.

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
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)?

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.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani