Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7
What the Aussie Army wanted and what the Aussie government wanted where and probably still are entirely different things. The Challenger 1 or 2 was probably overlooked despite a tradition of British tanks in Australian service dating to well before WW2. I sence a cynical bias against all things British in Australian government circles and maybe some military circles as well, and it also occurs in Ireland were I'm from, despite the fact that British equipment may sometimes be the best suited for its needs. The Leopard 2 would be a logical choice to replace the Leopard 1, so the Abrams was a bit of a suprise.
|
Generally true and despite the numbers of US armoured vehicles in service during and just after WW2, Australia literally did nothing except "buy British" when replacements were chosen for those WW2 vehicles.
As for a bias against all things British, I do think that this is somewhat correct but not in the "We are anti-British" sense.
It was more that certain people in Defence wanted nothing but US equipment and they took every opportunity to push the pro-US agenda and rubbish the competitors, these same people argued that we "must have" the AH-64 even though it was overkill for our projected needs. This was more a "toys for the boys" mentality than a proper consideration of our military needs.
For the government it was a very measured decision, it strengthened our ties with the US and proclaimed some sense of future interoperability... but it also made us beholden to the US for not just the tanks themselves but also an upgrade of our logistics system that would not have been required with tanks that were more fuel efficient as we also had to buy heavy fuel tankers and heavy recovery vehicles for those tankers just to support the Abrams.
The heavy lift argument has somewhat diminished with the C-17 entering service with the RAAF and the Canberra Class amphibious ships coming into service in the next half a decade.
But other than that, Chalkline's statement (The government that bought was happy to because the centre-right government in Australia is very 'big and powerful friends' orientated, and really seems a little insecure about being an independent second (or even third) rank power.) is right on the mark.
The other aspect of the Abrams that was initially overlooked was their thermal signature compared to the competitor tanks. The engine heat from the Abrams stands out far more in thermal scans than the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 even against a background of 45-50 degree C ambient temperature that is common in Australia's north where the tanks are based.
The single aspect of the Abrams that stands in favour of them was that they would already be wired for network centric warfare whereas the other two would have to be upgraded.
I remember one article in an Australian defence magazine claiming that anything other than the Abrams was bordering on criminal negligence because, to paraphrase
...the Leopard 2 was nothing more than a development of the Leopard 1 and the Leopards have never fired a shot in anger and they are based on WW2 design philosophy.
Well, even in a respectable defence magazine, the truth is sometimes lacking The Leopard 2 and the Abrams are in fact related, sharing not just the main gun but also their pedigree. The Leopard 2 is not a development of the Leopard 1 as it (and the Abrams) was the result of the failed German-US MBT-70 tank project. Also, Danish Leopard 1 tanks have been involved in combat albeit minor (if you call being shot at with ATGWs minor) in former Yugoslavia. Yes it was not tank combat as such but they have fired shots in anger so to speak.
And finally, what modern tank today isn't based on design philosophies from WW2?! There are three principles governing armoured vehicle design and they never change; protection, mobility, firepower. Each design team chooses to promote one or two over the other but the design philosophy will always be based on those three elements. these three elements have never changed and are unlikely to ever do so, so you could argue that every tank is based on design philosophies not just from WW2, but from WW1!
I would argue that the claim of "best tank" is too subjective, the Abrams is not as well suited to Australian terrain/climate as say the Merkava but it is faster. It certainly is not as fuel efficient as the Leopard 2 but it is wired for network centric warfare whereas the Leopard 2 would have to be upgraded. The Abrams has arguably less all around protection than the Challenger 2 but not too much less and again, it is faster. The reality is Australia probably does not need tanks unless they are to be used as the centrepiece for combined arms groups but unfortunately we seem intent on thinking that we need tanks because we might get into a tank fight sometime down the road.