US slip exposes 'deal' to buy tanks

The Australian ^ | January 27, 2004 | John Kerin

[Dundee]

US slip exposes 'deal' to buy tanks

A SENIOR US military commander says Australia has agreed to buy more than 100 US tanks for $780 million ($US600 million) in comments that pre-empt a deal.

Defence Minister Robert Hill insisted last night that no decision had been made on a replacement for Australia's 30-year-old Leopard tanks despite negotiations entering a sensitive final phase.

But the commander of the Coalition Military Assistance Training team in Iraq, Major-General Paul Eaton, said Australia had bought up to two battalions of Abrams tanks - 108 - during a media briefing on the types of armour the coalition could use to rebuild Iraqi tanks.

"If you're talking about the (Abrams) M1, I think Australia just made a purchase of a couple of battalions," Major-General Eaton told a media briefing in Baghdad on January 21. "You can check the price ... (but) I think they paid something in the order of $US600 million."

The Howard Government is considering three tanks to replace the ageing Leopard 1s: assorted versions of the Leopard 2, either ex-German Army A4s and A5s or newer ex-Dutch Army A6s, the M1 Abrams from the US and the Challenger 2 from Britain.

The US has slashed the price of the Abrams to try to be competitive with the cheaper Leopard 2 bids, which also have the advantage of being a later generation of the tank the army currently has in service. The Challenger is understood not to be a serious contender.

The Abrams, believed to be strongly favoured by Defence Force Chief General Peter Cosgrove, has been criticised by some defence sources as being more tank than Australia needs because it weighs up to 68 tonnes, has high fuel consumption and would require extra logistical support.

But it is a favourite given the extent to which Australian and US forces have been working together in the war on terror in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A spokeswoman for Senator Hill said final submissions were still being put together and a decision on which tank to buy had not been made.

[Dundee]

From what I've heard from those in the know, the M1A2 has it in the bag (last minute political BS not withstanding).

[The_Victor]

The M1 has demonstrated its capabilities in several real conflicts. Does the Leopard even have a battlefield record?

[snippy_about_it]

FYI- for those interested in learning more about the M1 Abrams.

The FReeper Foxhole's TreadHead Tuesday - M1 Abrams MBT - Jan. 13th, 2004

[templar]

Why would Australia need tanks?

[Dundee]

Let's see... 3 million square miles of country to defend (a lot of it excellent tank territory), 215 million Indonesians 400 miles away...

[SAMWolf]

Thanks Snippy.

[taxed2death]

Does Indonesia have heavy lift capabilities?

would they "ship" armour over to Austrailia, by freighter?....If so, it would seem like maybe they should purchase more aircraft with anti-ship missles.....

[templar]

Let's see... ...

I understand that Australia has only about 20 million people total and they are concentrated almost entirely in a relatively few cities on coastal regions. If Indonesia wanted Austrailia, why would they try to invade the 'outback' rather than the coast? And with tanks? If I were trying to prepare defense against a nation 10 times my size that had no choice except air or naval attack for their invasion, I would be looking more to air and sea defences than inland defence of almost unpopulated (and difficult to resupply) desert areas. IMO, If Indonesia wants Australia, the sheer size and resource differences between the two countries make Austrailia's only real chance keeping them from getting a foothold on the Island to start with.

[68skylark]

Why would Australia need tanks?

Simple -- the same reason the U. S. needs tanks.

[templar]

Simple -- the same reason the U. S. needs tanks.

To invade foreign countries? I doubt that Australia has the means to do this on any meaningful level. BTW, the US is moving away from tanks and toward light, fast, armor. IN the modern world, tanks are most useful against poorly armed civilian populations.

[SLB]

FYI

[Dundee]

At the moment Indonesia lacks both heavy lift capabilities and heavy armour. Indonesia does have the ability to move large numbers of troops reasonably quickly. When you're out numbered 10 to 1, having tanks when the other guy doesn't helps even the odds somewhat.

As for aircraft we've got F-111's, F/A-18's, and P-3C's all with Harpoon II's and (soon) cruise missles. We've got the ability to start taking the Indonesians out before they even leave port.

Whatever makes it through the air cover, frigates, and submarines will have to deal with the army.

Tanks are just an extra layer of defence.

[Dundee]

I understand that Australia has only about 20 million people total and they are concentrated almost entirely in a relatively few cities on coastal regions. If Indonesia wanted Austrailia, why would they try to invade the 'outback' rather than the coast? And with tanks? If I were trying to prepare defense against a nation 10 times my size that had no choice except air or naval attack for their invasion, I would be looking more to air and sea defences than inland defence of almost unpopulated (and difficult to resupply) desert areas. IMO, If Indonesia wants Australia, the sheer size and resource differences between the two countries make Austrailia's only real chance keeping them from getting a foothold on the Island to start with.

The vast bulk of Australia's cities and population are in the south eastern corner of the country. To land troops in that populated region requires a 5000 mile voyage under a hostile sky dominated by one of the most powerful air forces in the region and avoiding one of the regions most powerful navies.

Regardless of where they land (or try to anyway) the air force and navy will have attritted the hell out of them. Tanks form the core of the heavy 2nd Brigade whose job is to be the armoured fist to smash the landings.

[68skylark]

Well if you don't think the U. S. needs tanks, then I guess you won't think that Australia needs tanks either. To me, the need is obvious.

Both countries can use them to deal with bad actors like Saddam. (The Australian and U. S. militaries worked closely together in that war, and they can work even better if they both have the same great equipment.) And better yet, both countries need tanks to deter the bad guys so they back down without a fight.

As a field artillery officer I'm well aware of the Army's restructuring around the Stryker vehicle and other lighter forces -- they aren't going to displace heavy tanks for certain missions.

And hey, how to you expect countries like the U. S. and Australia to do a credible job supressing dissent and terrorizing their own civilians if they aren't given the proper tools to do the job! (end satire)

[Hoplite]

A tank thread? Yippee!!!

Australia should really use this upgrade window to reconsider the deleterious effect that having Armor units has on a nation's armed forces.

If the treadheads aren't lounging around drinking beers in their field expedient mud baths (and it would take more than that to improve their looks, believe you me), they're either engaging in perverse sexual role playing using their vehicles or trying to pretend they're attack helicopters, with the inevitable "no you can't fly" results.

Not that I have anything against Tankers, mind you - for some reason the manufacturers didn't install the heating ducts in the Abrams correctly, making it a mighty fine space heater (toasty!) for the grunts clustered around the back of them in the wintertime, so they do have their uses.

[FreedomPoster]

LOL; good one.

I guess I should expect something like that from someone with an obvious ground-pounder username. ;-)

[Kozak]

criticised by some defence sources as being more tank than Australia needs

Yeah, nothing makes as much sense as buying second or third rate when buying military equipment. /sarcasm

[archy]

Why would Australia need tanks?

You ever seen the order of battle for the Indonesian amphibious forces, including armor?

In February 1968, C Squadron of 1st. Armoured Regiment, reinforced by a Special Equipment Troop of bridge-layers and tank-dozers and integral to the RAEME (Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers) support, was committed to enhance the combined arms nature of the Task Force.

Such was the effectiveness of this armoured combat team, that many repairs, including major tasks, were performed in the field. This practice astounded a number of American Units which were content to recover vehicles to rear maintenance areas or to simply write-off battle damaged vehicles.

Despite considerable scepticism of many observers and senior Army personnel, the Centurion proved particularly effective at fighting in the paddy-fields and jungle areas of Vietnam.

They proved their worth on many occasions, notably in the defence of Fire Support Bases Coral' and Balmoral', during the Tet offensive of 1968, in fighting around Binh Ba and in a number of offensive operations in Phuoc Tuy Province. (NB: A good account of the Centurions involvement in Vietnam is provided in the book, "The Battle of Coral" by Lex McAuley).

By 1971, when the tanks were finally withdrawn, all three Squadrons of 1st. Armoured Regiment had served in South Vietnam, with C Squadron having served twice.

During 1955 the 1/15 RNSWL was introduced to the Centurion Tank and these were later to become its main fighting equipment. By 1965 a home training tank was taken on charge at Lancer Barracks and given the name Assegai. A further tank was received later and by 1968 three tanks were located at the Barracks. Prior to the delivery of these vehicles, all training and instruction was conducted at the Armoured Centre, Puckapunyal.

The Regiment was involved in infantry/tank cooperation training with the 5th and 7th Battalions, Royal Australian Regiment prior to their departure to Vietnam. In 1971, the role of the Regiment was changed the that of a Cavalry Regiment and was re-equipped with M113A1 Armoured Personnel Carriers. The Centurions were phased out of service at that time.

In all, the Australian Army purchased 131 Centurions including six ARV's Mk. 2, four Bridge-layers and four Tank-dozers. An interesting conversion undertaken by the Armoured Centre, Puckapunyal was the Driver Training Tank, this was achieved by removing the turrets from conventional tanks and fitting a lightweight enclosed structure fitted with a number of seats for trainee drivers. The Centurion was eventually phased out of military service in 1977.

[archy]

Not that I have anything against Tankers, mind you - for some reason the manufacturers didn't install the heating ducts in the Abrams correctly, making it a mighty fine space heater (toasty!) for the grunts clustered around the back of them in the wintertime, so they do have their uses.

You forgot the tank's value in proving the suitability of roadblocks and speedbumps. If it'll stop a tank, it's pretty effective against stopping or slowing most other lighter vehicles as well. If it won't stop a tank, it's time to upgrade. Get bigger speedbumps.

[katana]

You've also got the Seventh Fleet and a lot of folks in these parts who are quite fond of our cousins downunder. Cheers!