Well, after Gorbachev was promised that NATO 'would not move an inch closer' to Russia, the INF treaty being repudiated on technical grounds, NATO exercises being held constantly on their doorstep, their long time ally Syria being attacked by the west, Ukraine's behaviour (honestly, they're both as bad as each other. Ukraine is not an angel), Venezuela - another longtime ally - being under constant attack by the US and the US expanding to 800 bases world wide and having a war on their border and assaulting Russia's allies everywhere, and finally Russia and Serbia are probably the longest allies that have ties - Russia went into WW1 to save them and almost started a war when NATO attacked them in 1999, I'm not surprised they're sabre-rattling.

When the powers we dislike do anything it is because of dark designs, but when we empire-build it is because we believe in the liberal world order of law despite we consistently - without fail - install worse governments than the ones we outright depose without any legitimacy except 'it was presented to the voters as an ethical move'.

Russia, China etc are not angels in no way shape or form, but it is not they who have been at war for nigh on twenty years with half the world. It's about time for everyone to take a long hard look and take note that it was the USA and it's allies (I include my country) that has plunged this world into perpetual war after the Cold War, a war that we prolonged as long as possible to the point where we almost annihilated life on the planet

I agree with you here, Chalkline. I am no American foreign policy apologist. As I pointed out in my last post, a large portion of recent Russian "aggression" stems from atavistic fears the Russians have harbored since the betrayal and existential crisis of Operation Barbarossa. Putin, for one, believes that the best defense is a good offense. That doesn't change the fact that Russia is behaving aggressively in Eastern Europe. To say that the Russians aren't interested in, or capable of, projecting power is simply inaccurate.

To get back to your original question, if you want to start your future T2K with a land war between Russia and the U.S.A., then you needn't look any further than Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. All the ingredients are already there.

I'm saying in the west we're subjected to a LOT of propaganda.
Without a reliable source close to Putin himself, everything we think we know is only conjecture. Not a single person on this board really has ANY idea of what Putin thinks, believes and desires. We can make guesses, but we cannot know.

One guess is that he wants to project an image of a personally macho manly moonshine-drinkin', Inuit-woman-killin', polar-bear-rapin' MAN! (old joke)

The one thing everyone does know at this point is that Putin was to restore Russia as a first tier world power with closely aligned allies. He knows the former east bloc countries are a lost cause at this point, but he wants historically Russian territory officially part of Russia or closely aligned governments. The most obvious targets for expansion are the Baltic States and maybe Finland. He is not going further into Ukraine without stirring up a lot of trouble at this point.

Taking a step back, I think Russia will concentrate on expanding military influence in the West through sales and work on growing its ties with Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. Cuba is pretty much a write-off at this point, but Mexico, Brazil, Malaysia, and Vietnam are all attractive to Russian overtures. As funny as it may sound, I don't think Vietnam is much attracted to closer relations with Russia and instead is looking toward the west, especially the Philippines, New Zealand, Australia and the US. While many see a resurgence in a Russia-China alliance, I think Russia views China as a potential adversary just as much as it does the US and while it seeks to sell weapons to the Chinese, I don't think its goal is an alliance.

I'm sorry if I got a bit strident there guys. I got called a 'Russian appeaser' over at RPG.net and it got my back up

Actually, I think you were pretty much on point with your earlier comments. When we step back and look at the world from an unbiased viewpoint, there's plenty of good reasons why Russia might be just a tiny bit upset with the west and the US in particular.

Back on Topic.

I think a 'Twilight 20x0' set on China's eastern seaboard might be an idea. An international coalition gets cut off after taking a large swathe of the area. This would have the flat terrain of China's coastal plain and the urban terrain of the various mega-cities

Actually, re-read the top message: "on topic" is a discussion of what things would appear in a modern Twilight:2020 that would need additional rules.

And I thought of one I don't think was covered: limits/capabilities on autonomous actions by unmanned vehicles.

The Israelis have a couple of (armed) ground vehicles capable or an amount of autonomy (it can navigate a track; stop and report if anomalies detected). Distinctly, it cannot attack automatically - but that is more a matter of programming than a lack of capability.

I also know there are other unmanned vehicles in the US, UK, and Russia with a mix of capabilities.

Uncle Ted

To go further with this, the matter of programming is more to do with legalities and liabilities than any inability to create the software that would allow any unmanned vehicle autonomy in regards to attacking.
Another aspect of the situation is that in some cases communications difficulties have lessened human oversight of various robots used in combat zones so a push to have them able to "think" for themselves is not seen as a bad thing by some people.

There's enough research and even practical examples of target recognition software available to show that the idea is viable e.g. traffic monitoring systems that have the ability to single out specific vehicles such as heavy trucks using roads they aren't supposed to. Refining the abilty would probably be a case of using various sensors to get confirmation that the potential target is an armed enemy rather than changing the software.

Many people are not happy with the idea of "armed robots" let alone the idea of those "armed robots" having the discretion to attack as their AI decides... echoes of Skynet and the Terminator...
Do you remember back in 2007 in South Africa when a 35mm AA system opened fire on some troops and killed 9 of them and injured others? That AA system wasn't even autonomous, it apparently just glitched.
https://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/

But the push for combat robots with more autonomy was being pursued even with that sort of negative publicity.
https://www.wired.com/2007/10/roomba-maker-un/

The legal/liability aspect plays a big part as obviously very few governments want the bad publicity that would be generated if an autonomous unit shot innocent bystanders.
This is similar to what's happening in the world of self-driving vehicles. In industrial areas where there's no unauthorised & untrained personnel around they are in use and working well.
There's a great barrier to their introduction for private vehicle use though because governments have not yet defined who would be at fault if a self-driving car crashes into someone or something.

Sorry to get a little off-topic, but I have a question about DU armor. We know from vehicles and aircraft firing DU ammunition that DU is pyrophoric, which means that it tends to burst into a giant flaming mass when it penetrates a target. What happens if the DU layer of armor is hit by a good penetrator?

Good question and to be honest I don't know. I've been browsing around for a while and can't find an answer for you. Maybe the information is on some website but likely it is not as the composition of DU armor is highly classified defence material. However from what I've read and surmised the DU armor is fitted in layers with other extremely tough material such as Chobham or other ceramic materials, or is mixed with it when fitted to the Abrams tank making it less flammable. DU armor is concentrated on the frontal glacis of the Abrams and as far as I know it has never officially been penetrated by any type of tank round or missile ordinance. Only US Army and Marine Abrams tanks are fitted with DU armor and the US has not exported the tank fitted with DU armor to any country expect possibly Australia.

DU Armor Additions
 

From a Quora article about the DU armor on the US M1 Abrams...

(Why is depleted uranium used in the Abrams new armor)

"The biggest drawback to DU armor was noticed during “blue on blue” fire during the Gulf War and the Iraq war - a DU penetrator passing through DU armor meant that higher levels of DU were present in the atmosphere of the tank immediately after it was hit, exposing the crew to higher levels of inhaled DU. So the greatest exposure was to tank crews was to those who were in a DU-armored tank hit with a DU round. Non-DU rounds (such as those used by the Iraqi army) were much less penetrating."

I found this in a Reddit article:

Solid uranium isn't all that pyrophoric, because that reaction is based on surface area. Uranium shavings or powder, like what you might get when machining it, are the real danger; that's why you operate the machines under oil or a non-oxygen gas (nitrogen and argon are common choices, I think). However, a sheet of uranium isn't going to be very enthusiastic about catching on fire, because only the very surface is subject to pyrophoricity.

(Since I am not a scientist, I make no claims about this; just passing it on. The article includes a picture of where the DU armor is (turret front).)

Uncle Ted

The Australian M1 Abrams do not have the DU armour composite, it was explicitly mentioned in the request by Australia that the tanks use conventional composite armour (i.e. non-DU armour).
Can't remember the source for that info but it was mentioned in a few of the defence magazines I was reading at the time of the Abrams purchase and there's likely to be something online about it.

Going back to the original question of what's needed, one of the things that should have been in the previous editions (but wasn't) are active defense for tanks - systems like Drozd, Arena, Malachit, and Trophy.

It would be also interesting to me to see the up-gunned tanks being worked on (the Rheinmetall 130mm L/51, the 2A83 152mm L/45) and possibly some of the old guns that were being developed before APFSDS ammo became prevalent, like the XM291 140mm L/47 and the Leopard 2-140 L/50.



For small arms, one fairly recent development is Serbia's adoption-for-testing of the Zastava M17 in 6.5mm Grendel (essentially an AK platform, with 20-round straight mags and 30-round bananas). I recently found a photo of an information card from a trade show in Belgrade, and according to that it's 3.7 kg empty, has a telescoping stock with an overall length of 88-94.5 cm, barrel length of 41.5 cm, has over-and-under Pic rails on the handguard, and accepts either a .165 kg 20-round or .22 kg 30-round mag. Running it through FF&S, I get:
Wt 3.7 kg, Mag 20 or 30, ROF 5, Dam 3, Pen 2-Nil, Blk 6, SS 3, Brst 7, Rng 50.

There's mention of barrel lengths being available for CQB, Assault Rifle, and DMR use, but no other barrel lengths are specified on the sheet I've seen.

Unkated -- That second link pretty much had the information I needed (though I don't normally trust just one source if I can avoid it). But thanks!

They do have DU armour but the Australian government won't officially confirm it.

I've suspected for some time that the Aussie tanks have DU armour and what has always made me think that is the weight of the tank they bought from the US. Here is a detailed explanation about why the Australian M1 Abrams are fitted with DU armour from someone who knows.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Austr...y-Abrams-tanks

Also a reply by an Aussie AFV commander on the same link contradicts the American tank commanders opinion and states that Australian tanks do not use DU armour. I much prefer the American tank commanders answer.

As of two years ago the ADF stated that the next batch of M1s will have DU and they'd like the old ones upgraded

The Morrow Project's superb system for settlements, tech levels and so on is something I think should be emulated. If you haven't seen it have look, it transfers easily to Twilight

So essentially both people RN7 referred to are correct.

Put me on the list of people disputing the Quora comment from Ryan Parkinson (someone who hasn't had any experience with the Australian version of the Abrams). His answer infers the initial Aussie Abrams have DU armour. They don't.

All the Aussie vehicles were zero-hour rebuilds to M1A1-AIM ver1 standard. The extra equipment added by the AIM ver1 programme included FLIR, Far Target Locating sensors, a tank-infantry phone, more comms gear, FBCB2 & Blue Force Tracking for crew situational awareness as well as a thermal sight for the .50 cal. Plus some other mods for Australian conditions (just like our Leopard 1's were not the same weight and configuration as any other Leo 1 in service elsewhere in the world)

Now I'm not saying all that extra gear totals up to exactly to Ryan's "missing" two tonnes but it'd be pretty damned close when you add in all the upgrades to airconditioning to mitigate heat from the extra electronics, the extra cabling to connect everything and so on.
I pay more attention to the Quora answer given by Fahkyou Thatsmyname because I was in the Australian Armoured Corp and his language rings true to me so I am inclined to believe him when he says he has experience with the Aussie Abrams.

Now Chalkline says that we are asking for the next lot of M1s to have DU armour and the old ones to be upgraded. I'm inclined to believe Chalk because in the past I've typically found his research to be reliable.
Given two separate comments from Australians about an Australian topic, yes I am going to be guilty of jingoism and say that maybe we know more about it than someone who while having served on the Abrams in US service, doesn't actually have any experience with the Aussie variant.

EDIT: It needs to be kept in mind that at the time the Abrams was being considered for Australia, the government at Federal, State and Local levels (and a lot of the public) were generally, staunchly anti-nuclear. If Australian Abrams did have the DU armour, it would not have been a secret for very long and it would have caused protests. It's the same reason why we did not get DU penetrator ammuntion. The Abrams have been in service since 2007 and nobody here has heard so much as a whisper that they secretly have DU armour.

With all due respect to you ChalkLine what is the explanation for the weight of the Australian M1 Abrams if they are not fitted with DU armour?.

StainlessSteelCynic if you want to go on Quora and dispute what Ryan Parkinson said then feel free to do that.

The Australian M1 Abrams is a very heavy tank, far heavier than it should be if it is not fitted with DU armour.

The only way to prove this is if they are sent into combat. If the Australian Abrams start getting creamed then we know they don't have DU armour just like the Arab M1's. If they don't then we know they have DU armour.

The Australian government says they are not fitted with DU armour and the Australian commander's answer follows that line. Fine. He was in the Australian Army although from what he said he was with AFV's not tanks. He put down Ryan Parkinson's comments but did not give any explanation whatsoever as to why the Australian M1's are so heavy.

Ryan Parkinson did serve as a M1 Abrams tank commander. He gave a very detailed explanation to account for the weight of the Aussie Abrams. Don't believe what he said if you don't want to, but until I am given an explanation as to why the Australian Army tanks are so heavy I will.

Respectfully RN7, I disagree and nothing that's been presented by anyone proves that Aussie M1s have DU armour. If anything the math indicates they wouldn't have DU armour based on the improvement package they recieved - base weight 60 tons + AIM package Ver1 approx 3 tons (but modified for Australian requirements + DU armour 2 tons would give a total weight of at least 65 tons.
The Aussie M1s are listed as 62 tons.
As for the Aussie on Quora, he explicity states that he worked with the Aussie M1.

No idea mate. I gleaned that info from the ADF magazine and they didn't mention weights, only procurements

I'm with SSC. There's no way Australian M1's have DU armour, not without first breaking physics or some form of antigrav tech involved.
Australian tanks have always been modified with additional equipment and the M1 is certainly no different there. The "missing" 2 tonnes is easily accounted for with this additional equipment. Further vehicles MAY have DU armour, but not without it being a huge issue in the media and possibly one of the worst political moves in Australian history.

I'm a greenie but if they whinge about DU in the media I'll lose my bottle. Ordinary RH armour stopped working in WW2 and the journos have the responsibility to inform the public of that fact. It's not like Oz isn't loaded with uranium anyway. Anything less than some sort of advanced armour turns those MBTs into gun-carriers, and gun-carriers only survive until they shoot the first time.

All official information about the Australian Army M1 Abrams will tell you that the Aussie Abrams do not have DU armour. Not only that but even Australian government papers relating to the arms deal and the Australian Army guys themselves who tested it with US forces in the Middle East will state there was no DU armour fitted if you care to look online. Fine. All the environmentalists and green minded people in Australia including politicians are happy to hear that.

I've always had an issue with the weight of the Australian Abrams and thought it was a bit heavy for a non-DU armoured tank. I looked it up on the Australian Army website a few years ago and it was listed as 68.2 tons. But now it has been changed and the weight of the tank is officially 62,000 kilograms. A simple error perhaps, but this information has been completely retracted and changed to 62,000 kilograms everywhere you look. What happened? Was someone asking to many questions?

62,000 kilograms is 62 metric tons but this is equivalent to 68.2 US tons. The Americans use US tons not metric tons.


Australia bought either the M1A1-AIM or the M1A1-AIMSA

1) M1A1AIM v.1 (Abrams Integrated Management): Older units are reconditioned to zero hour conditions; and the tank is improved by adding Forward-Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) and Far Target Locate sensors, a tank-infantry phone, communications gear, including FBCB2 and Blue Force Tracking to aid in crew situational awareness, and a thermal sight for the .50 caliber machine gun.

2) M1A1AIM v.2/M1A1SA (Situational Awareness): Upgrades similar to AIM v.1 tanks plus new 3rd generation DU armour.

There is no available data stating which block of the AIM Australia purchased, but it does indicate that it was M1A1 AIM/SA tanks. The AIM v.1 does not have DU armor, but all subsequent blocks do (starting with block v.2, 3rd generation DU armour, which is slightly heavier than the 1st and 2nd generation DU armour and was the standard used in AIM upgrades. The Abrams has the capability to have DU armour packages added on fairly easily, but supposedly the Australian M1A1s do not have these add-on packages.

Quoting our friend Ryan Parkinson about the difference in weight between a DU armoured tank and one without DU armour. " This difference is about 3 tons and is NOT accounted for by ANY other equipment known to be installed on ANY version of the AIM tanks. Coincidentally the DU add-on armour package weighs just about 3 tons".

But as we know Australia didn't purchase DU armour right? So Australia got a tank with some bells and whistles but which has basically the same armour as the export model that America sold to Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco and Saudi Arabia despite being a first world country and a very close ally of America. Australia is in fact one of America's closest allies in the world alongside Britain, Canada and New Zealand, and all five countries closely share intelligence secrets with each other that they don't share with anyone else. However Australian Abrams have the same armour as the tanks sold to five second rate armies in the Middle East, and in the case of Iraq and Saudi Arabia have been fighting third rate armies and terrorists and losing their Abrams tanks. God help the Australian Abrams if they have to face front line Russian tanks.

The Weight of main variants of the M1 Abrams in US or short tons

M1: 61.4 US tons
M1IP: 62.8 US tons
M1A1: 67.6 US tons
M1A2: 68.4 US tons
M1A2 SEP: 69.5 US tons

The Australian M1A1-AIM weighs 68.2 US tons which is basically the same weight as M1A2 with DU armour.

Don't believe me if you don't want to cause I'm only saying!

We've given the armour aspect a fair thrashing now so I'm going to instead bring up a different aspect of the Australian Abrams and it does have a bearing on a T20x0 setting.
Australian defence policy is that the tanks will not be deployed outside Australia (hence the change to the Australian camouflage pattern). The attitude is that if we ever send amoured support to fight alongside the US, we'll send crews to man US vehicles.

So that all basically means, if future governments stick with that policy, we'll be unlikely to see Australian tanks facing off against anyone, let alone someone equipped with Russian tanks - unless of course they choose to invade Australia!
An outsider could be forgiven for thinking our defence policy is... schizophrenic.

But how does said coalition get there? Or does that matter?

The Chinese navy isn't quite up to par with the USN, but it also doesn't need to operate in both oceans, so the USN's dwindling numerical advantage is even smaller, in practice. By 2020, the naval parity gap will be even narrower, as the Chinese navy is currently growing faster than the USN is. Even if you add in naval forces from U.S. allies in the region, landing a large ground force on China's eastern seaboard is a monumental task.

You'd need an armada comparable to the ones employed by the Allies on D-Day or by the USN at Okinawa in WW2. You'd need to contend with Chinese surface and submarine forces, and land-based air. The "Allies" would need to cross oceans/seas to resupply their ground forces in China; the Chinese have internal lines of supply.

And then there's these...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...istic-missiles

Then, IF you somehow manage to get a large ground force ashore, you've got to to stop the massive weight of the steadily-modernizing PLA from pushing your bridgehead into the sea.

IMHO, all of this makes a significant Coalition ground force in China c.2050 a pretty unrealistic scenario.

In view of what you've just mentioned Raellus (and similar thoughts others have raised), it's plain to see that the typical "war" approach to creating a T:20x0 is not going to be particularly satisfying and not particularly easy to achieve.
I'm tending towards the idea of some natural or man-made disaster as the trigger for breakdown of societies etc. etc. - along the lines of some of the scenarios outlined in the survey GDW did way back in the 1990s.

This is a very good point. As I was reading last night it may be that peer-to-peer warfighting is as outdated as trench fighting in WW1.

In that case there may well be more fighting as in Merc:2000; PMCs and varying amounts of regulars with massive aircover fighting asymmetrical wars against irregular proxies. Turkey seems to have taken over from Saudi Arabia as the main exporter of jihadism while China and Russia seem more content to act as the unaligned world's armouries

That seems to be the trend over the past 20 years or so. Africa seems like the next battleground in this sort of asymmetrical, low-intensity, proxy war.

China is investing heavily in the continent and, IIRC, just opened up its first military base there. Russia has PMCs in Central African Republic (where they may have murdered some Russian journos), and the U.S. has SOF all over the place, due to multiple Islamic insurgencies. Oil and mineral companies employ PMCs to guard their operations, and as leverage during mineral rights negotiations with the local rulers. And, as the recent election in Congo demonstrates, many African nations are a crisis away from a coup or oppressive dictatorship.

There are a number of countries including the US, UK, France, Russia, and China as well as PMCs (considered "Mercenaries" by UN forces in Africa) supported by mining and energy companies with vested interests in the region, all of whom are conducting training, counterinsurgency, or nation-building operations in a dozen African nations, add in ISIL, Al Queda, Christian Militants, and various Revolutionary Movements and Africa is a modern-day "Wild West" that can involve both civilian AND military professions. This is why my Merc campaign is set in Africa. If you consider African Union forces, both Kenya AND Uganda are operating armored units in Eastern Africa with everything from T-55s to wheeled APCs. The Algerians and the French are using AFVs in Mali and Nijer as well as on the Libyan border. It will be easy to set up a "low-intensity conflict" involving platoon or even squad level engagements.

Consider a global recession that impacts America and Europe followed by a major natural disaster such as a tsunami/large earthquake that devastates the Pacific Rim including the US West Coast. During this "disaster," North Korea gets the idea that now is the time to fire up that War of Reunification before the US can recover from said natural disaster and pose a threat again. NK attacks and the US and A FEW MEMBERS OF NATO respond. Germany, France, and some other members decide to "sit this one out" and this leaves a weakened US, UK, Japan, SK, and some ANZAC forces taking on NK without significant Naval assets. They still manage to stall NK and a disaster-damaged China gets drawn into the conflict (with Iranian support). You now have a conventional armored conflict on SK soil involving several different nations. Due to the low numbers of troops in the various units (because the disaster is preventing a "troop surge" in SK) you will have small unit engagements with one or perhaps two AFVs in support in difficult terrain (which will allow the GM to control the scope of an adventure using impassable terrain). Is this the scenario you'd be looking for?

Actually I think what is more likely is that a diplomacy failure creates a crisis that pushes Russia and China together into a bastard alliance of grievance. They then try and thwart US goals in various places by supplying weapons, advisers and paying for mercenaries. NATO falls apart as Turkey splits the alliance and Europe deploys piecemeal troops to various hotspots.

Then throw in a barrage of well-coordinated cyber attacks on utilities infrastructure, financial systems, and maybe the "internet of things", which achieves unexpected levels of success, and on the civilian side the US and some allies really feel the sting. Not that that would immediately stop anything on the military side, but it would divert much-needed resources in a protracted conflict.

Could you please point me towards where I can find that? Very interesting info with possible consequences for the ANZAC book.

Was in a defence mag i think, basic attitude was that with so few of them, we would not have any attrition spares. Plus we didn't have enough capable logistics platforms to transport them in enough numbers (still don't really, we'd need to get sealift or airlift from civvy or another military such as RN or USN/USAF). I'm looking through my piles of stuff to find it but it might take a while :o

But all of that is up for change if the expansion plan is approved, Army would like to increase the fleet from 59 to 90.
https://www.afr.com/news/special-rep...0170303-guqamb

Related links
http://www.dtrmagazine.com/wp-conten...Supplement.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20091230...s/story20c.htm


Well... this is probably a case of me misremembering or misunderstanding what was said because while I can't find the magazine that I think the article was in, I have found some web articles that suggest what I was thinking
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...a060900659a435
and this paste of a newspaper article - copied from https://forums.spacebattles.com/thre...-abrams.62839/

The Age
Australia picks US tanks to 'harden' force
By Mark Forbes
Defence Correspondent
Canberra
March 10, 2004


American-built M1 Abrams battle tanks valued at $550 million will spearhead a "hardened" Australian Army role in major overseas conflicts alongside the US.

Cabinet's national security committee last night agreed to buy 59 reconditioned, 68-tonne Abrams, ahead of British Challengers and German Leopards. The decision will be announced today.

Senior Defence sources said the war in Iraq had reaffirmed the belief that tanks were essential in modern conflicts to protect infantry troops.

Last November, The Age revealed that the military had settled on buying the Abrams, with Defence Minister Robert Hill, force chief Peter Cosgrove and army chief Peter Leahy backing the US tank over its rivals.

The Government's about-face on buying heavy armour is intended to strengthen the US alliance by boosting "interoperability" for future Iraq-style conflicts. Its 2000 Defence white paper argued against "the development of heavy armoured forces suitable for contributions to coalition forces in high-intensity conflicts".

In an indication of the strategic importance of the move, the US Administration will sell the tanks directly to Australia at a substantial discount.

The Australian Abrams, to be based in Darwin, would facilitate training between the two forces and access to ongoing development.

It could also allow Australian crews to fight in pre-positioned US tanks.

The Abrams will be modified for Australian requirements, including replacing its depleted uranium armour with ceramic plating.

Critics claim the Abrams are unsuitable for operations in the Pacific region and are too heavy to be airlifted. The tanks must be transported by sea.

Late last year General Leahy predicted that new tanks should be in service by July. He attacked critics of the planned tank purchase and said he had looked for a manoeuvrable, mid-weight, well-protected tank.

"Frankly, it's not there," General Leahy said. "So what we need to do is to respond to the current threat environment... where protection is, quite frankly, achieved by heavier armoured vehicles."
Finally found the original article from The Age https://www.theage.com.au/national/a...10-gdxgsu.html