 |
| |
|
|
Case
|
 |
The backlash starts here
Feb 2000
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Palaiologos
So theoritically we can kick your ass any time! |
Yeah, if you could land that stuff in Australia. Which you can't. 
Australia's defencive strategy is based around using the Air Force and Navy to smash up any major invasions. As such, all the Army has historically needed to be able to do is to counter small raiding parties and mop up any isolated remnants of invasion forces which made it through the air-sea guantlet.
However, this strategy is being abandoned with our conservative government returning to the suitably retro 'forward defence' policy of the 1960s. As a result, the Army is after new tanks so that it can operate in South Korea, and that means Leopard 2s, which, as you point out, are extreamly good tanks.
quote:
Leos1 a deathtrap? Never heard that before. |
These days they're considered to be too lightly armed and armoured. Aparently the Australian PM promised the US the services of the 1st Armoured Brigade ahead of the recent Gulf War only for the Army to refuse to deploy it on the grounds that the Leo 1s were inferior to Iraq's T-72 tanks. Having wargamed it out in Steel Panthers 3, I tend to agree.
quote:
But we use a special made version of Leos 1A5 customized for the Greek army. Although i think the customization only applies to their tracks....i am sure Tanerlorn can shed more light here. |
The Australian version is the Leo 1AS, which is essentially a tropicalised version of the Canadian Leo C1, which in turn is considered the tank's peak of development. However, the tank dates back to the mid 50s, and is simply outdated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Case
|
|
The backlash starts here
Feb 2000
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rmsharpe
Not to start a policy debate, but what baffles me is how we (the U.S.) sell our M1A1 tanks to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two countries who's history toward the United States is...interesting, to say the least. Yet, we don't offer these utilities to our REAL allies like Australia. |
AFAIK, the tanks are freely available to Australia if we were to want them. The RAAF recently bought AMRAAMs without any drama and the USN keeps trying to get us to buy their old AEGIS cruisers, so the M1 technology certainly wouldn't be restricted to Australia.
However, the Army wants the Leo 2's becuase a) they're second hand, so they're much cheaper to buy b) the Army has 25 years experiance operating Leo 1s so introducing the Leo 2 would be easier then the M1 c) the Leo 2 is better suited to Australian conditions - Australia needs a reliable tank with decent range. The M1 is a real fuel hog and is a bit mechanically cranky. Bear in mind that the Army has had a good look at the M1 over the years - the USMC regularly deploys them to Australia on training exercises.
As an example of how this works, I understand that in the recent attack helicopter competition, the Army favoured the AH-64D Apache Longbow over the Tiger. The Government then told the Army how much money was available, and told it that it should pick the helicopters which delivered the most bang per buck. As a result, the Army went for 22 Tigers over 12 Apaches. IMO this decision was completly correct - while the Apache is a great chopper, it's capabilities are in excess of what Australia actually needs, and 22 adequte choppers are a better idea then a mere 12 execelent ones. The same principle holds for the M1 - the Leo 2 is more then adequte, and buying them would deliver a lot more bangs per buck then spending the same amount of money on M1s.
Last edited by Case on 28-09-2003 at 14:40
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
typhoon
|
 |
of Bollocks
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
Er, they're MBTs, not IFVs. 
quote:
Not to start a policy debate, but what baffles me is how we (the U.S.) sell our M1A1 tanks to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two countries who's history toward the United States is...interesting, to say the least. Yet, we don't offer these utilities to our REAL allies like Australia. If I'm ever President, feel free to give me a ring and ask for a couple, I'll get you a good price. |
Regarding the S. Arabia and Egypt issue, its actually not such a bad thing.
1) Back in the Clinton days the Saudis were used to contain Saddam. (Same reasons why the Kuwaitis have M1s too.)
2) Interoperability with US forces.
3) Kept the oil flowing.
Don't worry, rmsharpe- the Saudi M1s are considerably downgraded (as with their F-15s.) It seems that the US is wary of another Iran taking place.
And if its any assurance, Saudi Arabia's army is widely acknowledged as the worst trained in the Middle East. I'll take a Jew in a Merkava anytime. 
As for Egypt... that goes way back to Camp David.
quote:
However, the Army wants the Leo 2's becuase a) they're second hand, so they're much cheaper to buy b) the Army has 25 years experiance operating Leo 1s so introducing the Leo 2 would be easier then the M1 c) the Leo 2 is better suited to Australian conditions - Australia needs a reliable tank with decent range. The M1 is a real fuel hog and is a bit mechanically cranky. Bear in mind that the Army has had a good look at the M1 over the years - the USMC regularly deploys them to Australia on training exercises. |
I completely concur. The M1 (70 tons!) is way to heavy for the type of terrain that the ADF is going to encounter. The Leo II at 55 tons is a better choice. Case is right too that the M1 is a gas guzzler- back in Operation DS they had to stop and refuel every three hours.
Oh yeah, forgot to mention that the a secondhand Leopard 2A4 costs just $4.5 million while an M1A2 costs somewhere around $6-7 million.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
FiGu
|
 |
Fighting a fierce battle for the Rodina!
Oct 2002
time: 07:16
|
|
A130 Camo Set!
 Attachment: a-130-camo-set.gif
This has been downloaded 278 time(s).
Last edited by FiGu on 28-09-2003 at 22:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tanelorn
|
 |
of the deep blue sea
Jun 2001
time: 07:16
|
|
Kewl, Pablo & Figu 
Here is a little project of mine, most of the Mirage family:
In the first row I have generic unpainted airframes to make customization easier.
In the second row I have Armee de l' Air fighters. The second camo scheme (light grey/green) is the most common by far, with foreign operators (Switzerland, Australia etc.)
In the third row the fighters that gave Heyl Ha'Avir its reputation and most of its victories. The planes with the yellow triangles are from the Yom Kippur war onwards.
Israel ordered the development of the Mirage 5 daytime fighter, but a French weapons embargo diverted them to other customers, including Israel's enemies. Israel first produced a near copy of Mirage III, the Nesher (that later served Argentina during the Falklands war as the Dagger). The Kfir is a Mirage 5 with the F4's J79 engine and superior avionics. The Cheetah is a furter development of the design for the South African Airforce, as is the Pantera for Argentina, both by IAI.
In the fourth row I have some exported mirages. The S.African is from the war with Angola, hence the old flag.
The PAF is where many second hand mirages end up these days. The Egyptian Airforce Mirage 5's carry similar triangular markings to the Israelis, again from 1973. The Libyan carries pre-Qadafi markings and is similar to the Iraqi. The Argentine's colours are the same as the Belgian's.
As for Mirage 2000's, black raddome means old -C type. The blue/grey camo is almost universal, there are exceptions however. -N is a nuclear strike variant, -D is similar and carries conventional weapons aswell.
The tan French one is from desert storm.
Abu Dhabi uses similar camo.
Enjoy.
Attachment: tanelorn mirage series.gif
This has been downloaded 229 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
tanelorn
|
|
of the deep blue sea
Jun 2001
time: 07:16
|
|
Thanks Fairline, I value your oppinion. The Paton turret basis was from Kihen (surprise-surprise, its a common secret) with a little help from Nemo's magic box of colour shades. The mirage original is from turbosquid. I found about them about a while back, their source material is highly reccomended.I also use black and white photos.
As for DU shells, they are in standard use by nato countries. The press protested whenit was rummored we got UD shells for the apache chainguns, then the matter was silenced.
In the comparison trials for the new Greek MBT, the Chalenger got the best marks for mechanical reliability. The Leopard 2 offered better standardization and integration with existing infrastracture and units, plus generally better performance.
IMHO the Abraams is slightly overrated and vastly overpriced.
Its a true tank-killler but:
Just to move it around, you have to build a new road network and bridges capable of supporting its huge weight. Its limmited by poor fuel eficiency, and where it can go in the battlefield. In realtime operational conditions as in Iraq, tracks that are supposed to last a year get worn down every two months. You cant really establish a beachhead with it. It is not LST friendly. It has bad environmental reputation so it's bad for PR
It is not a surprise the US army is looking into the 15 tone range for a supplement, and the FST that is projected to replace it will weigh half as much, 35 tonnes as a prerequisite.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-09-2003 08:50
Anybody have one? (or two 
|
