Jump to content

Australia requests more armor


Recommended Posts

Erm... I think the second paragraph is pretty detailed as to what will be supplied under the proposed contract. 

 

Chris. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Whitewolf said:

Perhaps the UK should place an order for M1A1s

Only if they're drone-proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, grahamwalker said:

y we can make great tanks for our selves'

Even better together.
 

Always reminds me of the M3's arriving in North Africa in 1942. And later M4's.
Thank God the British did not get stuck in "only own tanks" at that time. That's a luxury one has in peacetime.
It proved the right tank then and soon the great British designs followed.
It is never OR it is always AND.

That's something you learn as Belgians. We are trained in getting in other stuff and adapting it to our needs.

Speaking about Belgians... Guess the L1A1 was a rubbish rifle? Not.

Edited by Steben
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Be nice if they spent the 1.685 billion on building the infrastructure/capacity to manufacture our own stuff here rather than relying on questionable imports.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably, Australia's M1A1's (and associated vehicles) are reasonably satisfactory or they wouldn't be ordering more? I will say that their camo schemes are some of the more striking on modern armor.

 

http://QrezConl.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Slater said:

Presumably, Australia's M1A1's (and associated vehicles) are reasonably satisfactory or they wouldn't be ordering more? I will say that their camo schemes are some of the more striking on modern armor.

 

 

Depends on whom you ask. Those that thought it was a good idea to purchase them (the ones whose only armour is a chest full of long service medals and a large desk), definitely. Those of us that serve/d on them, mixed bag but definitely more against's than for's. Now, admittedly, I only spent 2 of my 12 years on them, with most of my time on the combat roller skate, but I don't have one good thing to say about them. Merely my personal experience and opinion of course.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Crayons said:

I don't have one good thing to say about them.

Would you be able to elaborate on that, Crayons?

 

Chris. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, grahamwalker said:

y we can make great tanks for our selves'

Not with a force of 148 operational tanks we can't. Well, we shouldn't anyway. We'd find ourselves paying a fortune for a small force of tanks that weren't inter-operable with those of our allies and we'd have to shoulder the whole cost of upgrades. Just like Challenger II. 

 

Which isn't to say we should buy the M1. It's eye-watering fuel consumption should rule it out. We should have bought Leopard II back in the 90s. 

 

UK armed forces should be equipped to defend the UK. Not provide a meal ticket for BAE executives. And logistical support should be a major point in any procurement exercise. If we stopped wasting money developing unique bespoke kit we might be able to afford more kit in the first place.

 

Just my opinion of course.

 

Stuart

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m reminded of the great Sir Sydney Camms’ quote on where the TSR2 failed. 
“All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right."

Sounds like that can apply to tanks as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

Would you be able to elaborate on that, Crayons?

 

Chris. 

My immediate recollection, my unit received 6 as part of the initial batch purchased many years ago as a supplement to the Leopards (and the eventual replacement of) and to familiarize ourselves with the vehicles. By the end of the second week, we had two that were still operational. Two had had turbine failures, one had its ventilation system fail (turning it into a WWII Japanese hot box. It got the subsequent nickname of the slow cooker) and the other suffered transmission failure (never saw that vehicle again). Not a good introduction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Crayons said:

...with most of my time on the combat roller skate...

 

What was the "combat roller skate"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, Crayons. That does not sound good - were they brand new vehicles, or "pre-loved"?

 

I remember having a conversation with a bloke who had been in the British army in the First Gulf War. He claimed that the Challenger had a much better reputation for reliability than the Yank tanks during that conflict, but it was not actually justified. He said that the Brit tanks broke down in the harsh conditions just as often as the Abrams used to, but the Challengers were repaired much quicker than their American counterparts. The reason for this, he claimed, was that the British support teams were following about a mile behind their charges and the American support units were often 15-20 miles away from their tanks. As a result, it made the British armoured units appear to be more reliable. How true this story was, I have no idea, but I found it interesting, none-the-less.

 

Chris.      

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crayons is it right that the Challenger had a good chance in being selected but failed mainly due to the rifled gun?
I seem to remember reading this on Aussie Modeller.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that some variant of the Leopard II would have been high on the list.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

Thanks for the reply, Crayons. That does not sound good - were they brand new vehicles, or "pre-loved"?

 

Chris.      

If I recall correctly, they were "re-manufactured" vehicles.

 

3 hours ago, ivan-o said:

Crayons is it right that the Challenger had a good chance in being selected but failed mainly due to the rifled gun?
I seem to remember reading this on Aussie Modeller.

The exact reasons it was not selected, I was not privy to.

 

3 hours ago, Slater said:

I would think that some variant of the Leopard II would have been high on the list.

Both Challenger and Leopard II were the other tank options considered.

 

I don't recall the exact conversation word for word, but I remember my OC stating that "at least the Yanks are giving us a reach around with this deal".

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Abrams' AGT-1500 engine is a product of the 1970's, although I'm sure it has seen some updates over the decades. One would think that an entirely new engine would have been adopted by now. I suppose it's a product of the "If it's not broke then don't fix it" viewpoint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leopard II would be a better choice. Its still one of the best tank world wide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We didn't even go for the DU armour. Oh no, Australia can't have anything to do with radioactive materials. No instead, lets go for composite armour consisting of kitchen foil and plastic wrap.

 

Same thing will happen when they decided on new submarines. No, let's not consider nuclear powered subs, never mind the fact we have 31% of the worlds recoverable uranium. Let's do what we did the last time. Wring our hands for ten years trying to make a decision, then come up with and agree on the crappiest design ever that makes more noise than a Def Leopard concert and runs on something akin to deep fryer oil.

 

"Australians are around sir!"

"How do you know Ensign?"

"I can smell a fish and chip shop in the middle of the pacific ocean, sir".

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Crayons said:

We didn't even go for the DU armour. Oh no, Australia can't have anything to do with radioactive materials. No instead, lets go for composite armour consisting of kitchen foil and plastic wrap.

 

Same thing will happen when they decided on new submarines. No, let's not consider nuclear powered subs, never mind the fact we have 31% of the worlds recoverable uranium. Let's do what we did the last time. Wring our hands for ten years trying to make a decision, then come up with and agree on the crappiest design ever that makes more noise than a Def Leopard concert and runs on something akin to deep fryer oil.

 

"Australians are around sir!"

"How do you know Ensign?"

"I can smell a fish and chip shop in the middle of the pacific ocean, sir".

Cynical you, no way mate. :D

Steve.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is, even the first M1 was choosen for the US while the Leopard 2 got better results. That too was politics.
As Stuart said: defense forces should be equipped to defend, not to spice the economy. It can be combined, but does not need to.
Again: if Belgium would think like that, we would be double bankrupt. Instead, we work in joined programs where we can go for a result and nibble here and there with own companies (electronics, some parts etc....).
We are NATO, I think the answer lies there. Just as the UK used Belgian rifles once and many used the L7 gun.

Edited by Steben
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...