Thread: Australian tanks being (re) assembled.

Yeah I watched that....it was a good show.

The spare-parts storage facilities and computerised retrieval system was pretty awesome too.

Interesting that while they were blowing their horn about how their American tank is the best in the world...they failed to mention that the only reason it is so good, is due to the British Chobham armour...LOL!!!

And I doubt that the Brit's would agree with their claims, considering their Chobham armour is supposedly better, as the M1 recieved a slightly 'diluted' version. Much the same as the Yanks and Soviets, etc have an export version of a lot of their hardware.

Cheers,

Kev.

Originally Posted by Celtoid

Yeah I watched that....it was a good show.

The spare-parts storage facilities and computerised retrieval system was pretty awesome too.

Interesting that while they were blowing their horn about how their American tank is the best in the world...they failed to mention that the only reason it is so good, is due to the British Chobham armour...LOL!!!

And I doubt that the Brit's would agree with their claims, considering their Chobham armour is supposedly better, as the M1 recieved a slightly 'diluted' version. Much the same as the Yanks and Soviets, etc have an export version of a lot of their hardware.

Cheers,

Kev.

Apparently the extreme heat signature of the M1s gas turbine engine is also very susceptibal to a heat seeking missile up the jacksie too.
How can they claim them as the best when their only real world test was against a poorly disciplined,trained and equipped tin pot armoured force in Iraq.
Wagoo.

Thats right,they have only fought against 1950's vintage T55's.Thier protected by British armour and shoot a German gun. Pat

Originally Posted by wagoo

Apparently the extreme heat signature of the M1s gas turbine engine is also very susceptibal to a heat seeking missile up the jacksie too.
How can they claim them as the best when their only real world test was against a poorly disciplined,trained and equipped tin pot armoured force in Iraq.
Wagoo.

That's true! The heat signature is appalling. When I was in the army and we were running exercises against American forces we could see them for miles with our night vision equipment.
In addition to that, when they were traveling in convoy on public roads they had to have a safety vehicle at the rear of the column to keep other vehicles away from them as the extreme heat had damaged some paint on following (private) vehicles (and their owners sued the Americans successfully).
All this was almost 25 years ago and one would think things should have improved a bit, but obviously this is not the case. Good luck, Aussie Guys, with American equipment .

I'd heard....so it's hearsay..but...LOL....that even when stationary, they have to keep the donk at quite high revs.

I'm guessing the Poms are happy they chose an oiler for a power plant.

Mind you I'd read the earlier Challenger was a dog.....great when it worked but always having problems. Supposedly all in the same system...engine I think. Usual systemic lazyness....nobody ever bothered trying to actually fix the problem....always a band-aid solution.

Just before the first Gulf War, there must have been a change of management, 'cause I read that a directive was raised...."find the problem and find a permanent fix!"

Money spent, research carried out, fix found. At the end of the day, I believe it's an awesome tank. Now they have the Challenger II.

I'd read some crazy stats after the war......Challengers drive 260Ks....kill a lot of tanks...admittedly old 55, 60 and 72s....but still.....and then drive back to their staging point with no serious breakdowns.

Another....first shot fired in anger by a column of Challengers....direct hit....5.8Ks. Not certain about that distance as I read the article years ago but it was pretty impressive.

Unfortunately another stat is the only loss of a Challenger in combat...was to another Challenger. A 'Blue on Blue' incident. :-(

Originally Posted by Celtoid

I'd heard....so it's hearsay..but...LOL....that even when stationary, they have to keep the donk at quite high revs.

I'm guessing the Poms are happy they chose an oiler for a power plant.

Mind you I'd read the earlier Challenger was a dog.....great when it worked but always having problems. Supposedly all in the same system...engine I think. Usual systemic lazyness....nobody ever bothered trying to actually fix the problem....always a band-aid solution.

Just before the first Gulf War, there must have been a change of management, 'cause I read that a directive was raised...."find the problem and find a permanent fix!"

Money spent, research carried out, fix found. At the end of the day, I believe it's an awesome tank. Now they have the Challenger II.

I'd read some crazy stats after the war......Challengers drive 260Ks....kill a lot of tanks...admittedly old 55, 60 and 72s....but still.....and then drive back to their staging point with no serious breakdowns.

Another....first shot fired in anger by a column of Challengers....direct hit....5.8Ks. Not certain about that distance as I read the article years ago but it was pretty impressive.

Unfortunately another stat is the only loss of a Challenger in combat...was to another Challenger. A 'Blue on Blue' incident. :-(

I know absolutely nothing on this, only a few snippets from the 'net so take it for what it's worth

Someone did a pro/con list of the latest Abrams, latest Challenger II and latest Leopard II and it was a swings and merry-go-rounds exercise, they pretty much came out equal.
Where one had a smooth bore gun the other was rifled, where one had speed the other had better armour, one had better suspension and therefore faster manouverability but the other had faster targeting, etc, etc.

wouldve been interesting to add the Israeli Merkava MBT to the equation.....

I used to work with a guy that was an ex Aussie Tankie. I'm sure it was him that told me that he thought both the Merkava IV and the Leopard II had a subset of Chobham armour.

I read that the Merkava IV was the only model out of all the Israeli tanks that didn't get 'lost' in the battle with Hamas. The Spandrel and Kornet ATMs that Hamas had aquired, are duel war-head and pretty potent. You'd have to have very capable armour to withstand a hit from either of those.

But I guess the comparision is always going to be a bit like cars....pros & cons.