Army salutes tank order

The Australian ^ | 17th February 2005 | Greg Sheridan

[Restorer]

In Somalia our peacekeepers found they were confronted by Mohammed Aideed's irregulars in converted Toyotas, with armour bolted to them and cannons on top, which were superior to our lightly armoured vehicles.

So why not armor some pickups yourself, if they're so darn superior?

[Billthedrill]

That the tank is obsolete is a perennial argument among American military "experts." Funny - when it comes to the shooting they're awfully nice to have along. On a similar note, I believe we've rescued the A-10 from retirement for the third time now.

[SFC Chromey]

So why not armor some pickups yourself, if they're so darn superior?
---
It's not that the armor is superior, but the weapons systems that their armored vehicles had.

Somalis had mounted 120 recoiless rifles, etc which would punch a hole through just about anything. What their LAV's have (like some of ours) is the 25mm auto gun. It works nicely but when their one shot gets through, your day is done.

[Servant of the 9]

The Leopard I was a great tank, when the M60A1 was a great tank.

So9

[NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961]

Actually, put some reactive armour on the Lopard I and you have a system capable of defeating most of the RPG systems out there. Why bother with the M1A unless you're going to be taking on another nation with tanks?

[PzLdr]

Armor gives you firepower, speed (when necessary), mobility and protection (especially the Abrams, which has a self contained turret environment with protection against CBR). The Abrams also gives you excellent night and low visibility capability, and, as they taught us at Knox, there's the "panzer fever" that hits the opposition when they see tanks the first few (or more) times. Great acquisition for a GREAT ally. I had two Aussie WOs work for me in 'Nam, and they were OUTSTANDING!!

[Servant of the 9]

Why bother with the M1A unless you're going to be taking on another nation with tanks?

Because all current generation medium to long range anti-tank missiles like Roland or TOW now have dual warheads and popup capability enabeling them to defeat reactive armor.

So9

[brooklin]

How's the Leopard 2a5 /a6?

[NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961]

Because all current generation medium to long range anti-tank missiles like Roland or TOW now have dual warheads and popup capability enabeling them to defeat reactive armor.

Yes, and the Timor rebels as well as Afghani/Iraqi insurgents/terrorist don't have these weapons. Thus, it is a waste of dollars to buy a modern MBT given that the nature of warfare has dramtically changed since the late '80s.

All the weapons rebels currently deploying can and will be defeated by modern reactive armor. The TOW and Roland and Hellfire are well beyond the scope of anything the Australian Army will face.

[NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961]

Because all current generation medium to long range anti-tank missiles like Roland or TOW now have dual warheads and popup capability enabeling them to defeat reactive armor.

Yes, and the Timor rebels as well as Afghani/Iraqi insurgents/terrorist don't have these weapons. Thus, it is a waste of dollars to buy a modern MBT given that the nature of warfare has dramtically changed since the late '80s.

All the weapons rebels currently deploying can and will be defeated by modern reactive armor. The TOW and Roland and Hellfire are well beyond the scope of anything the Australian Army will face.

[naturalman1975]

One of the main reasons for changing over to the Abrams isn't so Australia can deal with the threats Australia faces, but so Australian troops can, if necessary, access US supply lines, and will be able to slot into the plans of our larger allies.

The Australian military doesn't just train and plan to meet threats to Australia. It trains and plans to help meet threats to our allies. If a large scale war developed where Australia was fighting alongside US troops, there would be considerable advantages to us using the same equipment as the United States, and being familiar with that equipment.

[Servant of the 9]

Yes, and the Timor rebels as well as Afghani/Iraqi insurgents/terrorist don't have these weapons. Thus, it is a waste of dollars to buy a modern MBT given that the nature of warfare has dramtically changed since the late '80s.

Yes, but the missiles are 'out there' and when they do get them, and eventually they will, it will be something that happens in a week.
You can't acquire, train on and deploy a new tank in a week.

A government has a responsibility to plan further ahead than 'right now'.

So9

[NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961]

Yes, but the missiles are 'out there' and when they do get them, and eventually they will, it will be something that happens in a week. You can't acquire, train on and deploy a new tank in a week.

Have you ever been to the solomon islands? Do you have any idea of how impoverished those island nations that Australia oversee are? I've been to Micronesia-there isn't a road that could handle a Abrams. Saying that these people would even want to get their hands on a RPG let alone a Milan or Roland is laughable. The wars of the 21st century are not going to be fought by tanks and B-1/2 bombers, but by special forces and light-infantry.

Can you rationalize some off-the-wall scenario where the Aussies could use an M1? Sure, but we're talking probability, not possibility when it comes to spending scarce defense dollars.

[naturalman1975]

What needs to be considered though is that Australia operates in a lot more than just our own backyard.

Since the 1970s, Australian troops have been involved in military operations in Vietnam, Cambodia, the Sinai, Somalia, Rwanda, Cyprus, Bougainville, East Timor, Syria, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, the Western Sahara, Mozambique, and the Solomons.

We've sent troops to a lot of different places, for a lot of different styles of operations. We don't just plan for what happens locally.

Remember that Australia's last two main tanks were the Centurion which served from 1951-77 (26 years), replaced by the Leopard (from 1977-today - 28 years) (I'm going on memories for the dates). It's likely we won't replace our current purchase for a similar length of time - so we're buying a tank that ideally we want to still be a credible weapon of war for our purposes in 2030 or 2035.

[Bald Eagle777]

I hope we ramp up mass production of a Twenty Second Century version of the A-10. Nothing will EVER be able to replace the vital role this plays in CAS. No way. Pilots will never be obsolete. Computers are "smart" yet also very "stupid" also. I'll place my bets on our well-trained flyboys any day. I hope the smart alecks who think they know better come to their senses, ditch some of their idiot theories, upgrade this pup, and roll out a new, improved model.

Call it the A-12, A-17 or whatever, but let’s roll with a new model with expanded capabilities, yet retaining the strengths of the A-10... Only a total idiot would "discontinue" this. Good God, it makes one wonder about the 'motives', yes the motives... Yes, we need UAVs, yet I foresee we will need a viable, updated version of the A-10 for the next 50-100 years, no matter what the technology is generally speaking. For example, even if China achieves parity with us across the board, there will ALWAYS be low intensity threats to deal with. Imagine a squadron of these flying over Mogadishu when our guys needed real support? I bet liberals hate the A-10; it’s too good to be true.

P.S. The M1A2 is unsurpassed. Only a Commie, liberal or traitor would be against the M1A2 Abrams. In war, we need every "unfair" advantage over our enemies. The A-10 and Abrams are extremely unfair from an Opfor standpoint, that is why I think that anti-US elements would be against these key assets. Do any politicians come to mind?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Do any politicians come to mind?

You can start with the KK twins, Kerry and Kennedy.

[Bald Eagle777]

Hmmmm....'maybe' ... Nothing like having public servants that hate U.S. the military! (sarc./ARGGH)

RE: Senators... on CSPAN, I saw the Honorable Senator Pat Roberts say something to the effect that "there are no lightbulbs in North Korea.."

I laughed out loud.

Context:

A) The insane claims to deity/religion the leadership has maintained (gen. #2), and;

B) A sly and witty play on the Honorable Senator's part on the fact that NK is almost completely blacked out if you look at the overheads.

I saw him effortlessly tie these issues together 'off the cuff' with ease and couldn't help but laugh.

Kerry, Kennedy. No comment.

[Bald Eagle777]

"Some British tanks in Iraq took 14 or 15 hits and were
still operating and their crews protected"

Chobham Ar%&*

Good!

[Servant of the 9]

Can you rationalize some off-the-wall scenario where the Aussies could use an M1? Sure, but we're talking probability, not possibility when it comes to spending scarce defense dollars.

When there is as much Islamic Petro-money as there is floating around a Roland or Milan can show up in any insurection involving Muslims.
It's not the wealth native to the locale that is dangeous.

We could all be in Indonesia or Sri Lanka or Sudan as unexpectedly as we were in Afghanistan.
And we can never be sure just what Iran, or Pakistani Inteligence Services for that matter will hand out to their puppets.

So9