It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US tanks to replace Australias crappy leopards

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 06:56 AM
link   
A more in depth article from CNN
edition.cnn.com...




posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
It isn't like they get the same stuff that we get. What we provide to them is a lower tech version of what we use. It isn't as capable or (in my opinion) as lethal.


Prove it is low tech. Prove it.

Realise that the general plan is to give any western soldier/technician etc. the ability to be dropped into any theatre of war being fought for the US and have the knowledge and expertise to operate/repair/develop/modify any piece of equipment the second this happens.

This applies to both Australian troops going into a US war and US troops dropping into host country. This is all being applied just as there is talk of a Joint Training Facility being constructed in Northern Australia.

And if anyone thinks Australia is not under any future threat, get you atlas out and look north. Australia is a massive mineral rich jewell and a strategic winfall.

More evidence of people shooting from the hip in here with absolutely no idea what the reality is.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Prove it is low tech. Prove it.

Do you want specifics?



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RAAFY
What do you rekon they should do with the leopards. instead of scrapping them, do you think they should sell them to the iraqi's and refurbished?


Hell some of the stuff Ive seen in Off Road magazine wouldnt suprise me if some of those Leapords ended up in the back catalog section. But I agree with your idea about selling them at cut rate prices to the Iraqis, it made me wonder about what happened to all of those Mig 25 and Su22 s they found near Kabul after Afghanistan fell.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Prove it is low tech. Prove it.

Do you want specifics?


Yeah give me specifics. I want you to prove that the actual Abrams the ADF is getting will be low tech versions of the Abrams the US uses. No, I don't want Internet cut and paste about what some other country got. I want to actually see for myself hard evidence that Australians will not have the same advantage over the enemy that their US counterparts whom are fighting on the same side will have.

Do that, and I'll willfully concede.

Think about it. When Australian forces are deployed in future theatres along side US forces, do you really think its smart to equip them with a lower tech? What's the point? Those Abrams will be shipped over to the theatre and will be used to support US and Australian (and whoever else) Infantry etc.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarChild
Why are our Special Forces guys going all over the world, training other country's SpecOps units? That makes no sense what so ever.


Let's see... what was his name... umm... Bin Ladin?

And, oh, yeah... Iraq had American weapons, too...

Now, I'm not comparing them to Australia (my mom has friends there... that might be on ATS...
). But there has to come to a point, using common sense... if you give somebody the means to kill you, they will.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by soothsayer
if you give somebody the means to kill you, they will.


Granted the only tank that can really kill (one on one level playing field) an M1A1 Abrams is another M1A1 Abrams. But I think Australia is the least of your worries at the moment.

I should probably adjust my words. An Abrams shipped without technology the US (or anyone else for that matter) has sold Australia doesn't count. These Abrams will be dismantled - shipped - reassembled - outfitted and digitised. One thing is for sure, they will be old, and there is talk of them not being suited to Australia's conditions. Which is a pain in the arse if you ask me.



posted on Mar, 11 2004 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarChild
Why are our Special Forces guys going all over the world, training other country's SpecOps units? That makes no sense what so ever.


Um, the same can be said of the British SAS training Delta Force in the late 70's. It's called being an ally.

That concern can be applied to some instances though. The Australian SAS trained the Indonesian Kopassus (Indonesian Special Forces) who in turn trained an Indonesian Militia who then systematically raped, tortured and executed the East Timorese and ultimately were killed or repulsed by the Australian SAS and ADF.

There is more to it than that but generally that's how it went.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   
They won't have the IVCS system.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Think what your arguing about. If America or Australia gets into a war with another country, they are going to support each other along with Britian. Yah, US isnt going to give up the Best tech which we dont know about. But something that can hold up to all countrys. If we gave Austalia bad tanks, whats going to happen? More deaths to people. Thats why Australia would get top of the line stuff.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
If we gave Austalia bad tanks, whats going to happen? More deaths to people. Thats why Australia would get top of the line stuff.


Exactly,

also,

The US are selling us aussies decent sought of tanks because they know that Little johny howard( The PM of Australia for those who don't know) is to much of a soft cock to try anything that would make is boyfriend, george Dubya bush unhappy and never be allowed back at the Ranch.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by RAAFY

Originally posted by Laxpla
If we gave Austalia bad tanks, whats going to happen? More deaths to people. Thats why Australia would get top of the line stuff.


Exactly,

also,

The US are selling us aussies decent sought of tanks because they know that Little johny howard( The PM of Australia for those who don't know) is to much of a soft cock to try anything that would make is boyfriend, george Dubya bush unhappy and never be allowed back at the Ranch.



ROFLMFAO!!!

U know who i'm actualyl going to vote for...Little Johny Howard.

Why?

Coz i want Treasurer Peter Costello to stay the Treasurer coz damnit he is so good at what he does.
Though it would have been good if Costello was in charge of that Free Trade Agreement with the US.

if Costello was going for Pm..I would vote him...but he aint in the election for it. I feel sorry for him. i reckon they should give him something for doing what he's doing. I'm not hapy with Johny Howard not giving up leadership to Costello. But aww well shiot happens dont it?


Anyways...

Johny Howard has been impressing me lately even if he is doing things to make himself look good. Labour...

Liberal


u know what i've been discovering lately...

That i've become patriotic...Not just with australia...But with the whole world.

I think Australia is an awesome place to be, Australia rocks, and we are just damn friendly with other countries, and everyone.

One thing i wasn't happy witht hough was that Indonesian president not going to see our foreign affairs guy because they were pissed off about East Timor. That was damn rude.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE

Originally posted by RAAFY

Originally posted by Laxpla
If we gave Austalia bad tanks, whats going to happen? More deaths to people. Thats why Australia would get top of the line stuff.


Exactly,

also,

The US are selling us aussies decent sought of tanks because they know that Little johny howard( The PM of Australia for those who don't know) is to much of a soft cock to try anything that would make is boyfriend, george Dubya bush unhappy and never be allowed back at the Ranch.



ROFLMFAO!!!

U know who i'm actualyl going to vote for...Little Johny Howard.

Why?

Coz i want Treasurer Peter Costello to stay the Treasurer coz damnit he is so good at what he does.
Though it would have been good if Costello was in charge of that Free Trade Agreement with the US.

if Costello was going for Pm..I would vote him...but he aint in the election for it. I feel sorry for him. i reckon they should give him something for doing what he's doing. I'm not hapy with Johny Howard not giving up leadership to Costello. But aww well shiot happens dont it?


Anyways...

Johny Howard has been impressing me lately even if he is doing things to make himself look good. Labour...

Liberal


u know what i've been discovering lately...

That i've become patriotic...Not just with australia...But with the whole world.

I think Australia is an awesome place to be, Australia rocks, and we are just damn friendly with other countries, and everyone.

One thing i wasn't happy witht hough was that Indonesian president not going to see our foreign affairs guy because they were pissed off about East Timor. That was damn rude.


I have always been very patriotic when it comes to australia...and even though i will be voting for the first time this year (unfortunately).. I have always supported John Howard, something about him always stood out that he was the right person for the job (no it's not his eyebrows). but lately my views have been changing and i think...pauline hanson should run again.. she's funny as.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Pauline Hanson?

Are you serious?

No WAY!

She is a Shocker!

Yes she sis a bit funny..but she is mentally disturbed.

You might be one of those people who thinks the greenies might be a good option to vote in also?

You look at the name and say yes, or u see the frontal person and say yes.

well i have ot tell you something...NO

That is not what u look for.

If you want to vote for a party you have to cehck out their policies and what they plan.

If you've checked out Pauline hansons party they are SHOCKINg in what they want to do.

Same as the Greeny's.

Yes thename might sugge they are greenies...But what they want to do and osme of the things they want to implement are plain crazy.
Same as pauline Hanson.

So to me...they are a NoNO



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Pauline Hanson?

Are you serious?

No WAY!

She is a Shocker!

Yes she sis a bit funny..but she is mentally disturbed.

You might be one of those people who thinks the greenies might be a good option to vote in also?

You look at the name and say yes, or u see the frontal person and say yes.

well i have ot tell you something...NO

That is not what u look for.

If you want to vote for a party you have to cehck out their policies and what they plan.

If you've checked out Pauline hansons party they are SHOCKINg in what they want to do.

Same as the Greeny's.

Yes thename might sugge they are greenies...But what they want to do and osme of the things they want to implement are plain crazy.
Same as pauline Hanson.

So to me...they are a NoNO



i was jokin man... i was thinkin about that song about her..it was funny. anyway i'll probably vote for Johnny anyways...I just like the way he handled that TAMPA thing like 3 yrs ago and how he took all those islands off the Australian migration zone.

anyway enough about politics and crap. back with the tanks. do you think that the tanks where the right decision even though HMAS Tobruk is the only ship that can move em around.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   
wow i didn't know that.

But yes i think it is.

Take that ship with ya, with the tanks to back them up...

Yes we do some peace keeping missions, but not that many, so it dont bother me to think that that 1 ship isn't enough (unless it gets sunk), to take those tanks aboard for a peace keeping mission.

Otherwise..they should be left at home...

We aren't going to invade anyone...
We only do peace keeping missions...1 ship should be enough.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
wow i didn't know that.

But yes i think it is.

Take that ship with ya, with the tanks to back them up...

Yes we do some peace keeping missions, but not that many, so it dont bother me to think that that 1 ship isn't enough (unless it gets sunk), to take those tanks aboard for a peace keeping mission.

Otherwise..they should be left at home...

We aren't going to invade anyone...
We only do peace keeping missions...1 ship should be enough.


1 ship for upto 59(i think) tanks @ 60 odd tonne each? I see that happenin, even though they wouldn't need that many for a peace keeping mission.


Q

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Firstly, I don't view the Leopards as being so bad as everyone's making them out to be. They're perfectly good tanks, as are the Russian T-72's for that matter. In most situations, either of these are great tanks to have.

When are they not? When you're going up against an Abrams, or significant air power. The Abrams of course has an impeccable record for being tank killers--waves and waves of T-72's have been taken out by M1A1 (and yes, Bradley!) units, with minimal losses. If you're in a tank, and there are airborne units coming at you, you're screwed either way.

Insofar as whether selling these to the Aussies is a good idea, I say not yes, but a loud, resounding, Hell Yes! A lot of countries ride the fence, or support the US in political terms only (no real help), but Australia has been with the US through thick and thin, slogging it out wherever we are. You guys want some new tanks? We'll give ya the best we got, at a heck of a deal.

As far as selling "low tech" models is concerned, I think maybe there's a little misunderstanding there too. You've got to consider customization. Planned usage conditions as well as preferred armament layout will of course be different in US vs Australia. Just take the base model, and then tweak it as you see fit! This results in a more specialized force, which is able to respond more effectively in some situations than a "stock" model of the same unit.

Long-term possibilities for alliance reversal between US and Australia is probably about the same as walking out of your house in the morning and getting hit by a meteor.
I do not worry about Australia suddenly turning on us.

From one American to all the Aussies who support us: Thanks a bundle. It is appreciated. If you guys want some spiffy new tanks, all I have to say is "How many do ya want, and how soon do you want 'em?"




posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Selling a tank without a feature doesn't mean that feature won't be implemented upon receipt. Gotta ask yourself how a coalition force would communicate on a modern battlefield without the same equipment. It's not as if the Americans would be like, "Wait while I crank up this CB to coordinate with the Aussies".

Still, Im not privvy to any of this information which is why I ask for proof.



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   
And I agree, Leopards are not crappy at all. And are probably more suited to the conditions here. But as I said, one of the likely factors to influence the purchase would be to intergrate forces in any given theatre.

All you need to do is look at a modern Australian soldier and he looks just like an American with different camo pattern. Probably one of the greatest branding excercises around. And probably intended...

I dont care where they buy the equipment from or what they look like. As long as their casualty rates stay down and they can get the job done, go home.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join