New weapons for ADF

[Major Fubar 0]

No denying the Merkava is a nice tank, but I doubt Australia would go with something that "exotic". I would imagine it will be something purchased from the US or England, or possibly license produced over here (but for the numbers we would be getting I can't see justification for setting up production facilities over here).

[killagee 0]

To get the Best value for money it is best to have the most parts commonality possible. Check out the Swedish CV-90 Series from Haggands.

"The CV 9030 was the only vehicle that could not only keep up with the Norwegian Leopard 1, it could also basically drive circles around the tank all the way to the top.

Furthermore, during the winter trials, the Bradley had to be delivered to the test area by heavy transport, since the deep snow was more than it could handle. The CV9030 made it there on its own."

"They have been seriously tested in the US desert proving grounds and came out on top of the Bradely, ASCOT and Warrior in servicability during trials for the UAE army. Political pressure forced the UAE into a US purchase"

CV-90 MK III (Boeing 35/50mm Bushmaster III canon):

Carriers 10 Troops with RPG resistant protection (15% RPG Penetraion rate). Swedish CV-9040 pictured below. Mk III has upgraded turret and engine.

CV-120 Light Tank

CV-90 AMOS Advanced MOrtar System

LvKv90 SPAAG

BGBV-90 Engineer Vehicle

Foward Command Vehicle

Export Versions

Why not get a fleet of CV-90's with CV-120's and AMOS instead of heavy MBT's which are not as flexible or transportable?

Seems silly to me...

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why not get a fleet of CV-90's with CV-120's and AMOS instead of heavy MBT's which are not as flexible or transportable?

Seems silly to me...

Have these vehicles ever proved themselves in places where 45 degrees celcius is the norm during Summer?

I'm not saying coldness isn't a harsh condition, but heat(the opposite of cold) is the prominant condition that these vehicles would have to contend with.

Sure hot weather testing and development wouldn't be hard, but there's systems out there that have already proved their combat effectiveness under extremeish heat and sand, and besides, I highly doubt that the Defence Department would accept and trust Sweedish 'workmanship' seeing as HMAS Collins, prefabricated in Sweeden, and about six years old, may have to have extensive repairs due to welding faults. But that's a political factor, but it would still be in the back of the mind of the DSTO, who would evaluate potential candidates.

I was gonna mention the South Korean Hyundai K1A1,

, but I doubt that Tank personnel would enjoy driving a vehicle that was made by the same people who made their wifes hatchback, that seems to fall apart after the five year/unlimited km warranty is not even up!

[ozanzac 0]

How about the merkava? Why isn't that an option? It is a decent tank. Merk.3 could shoot western ammunition, plus missiles. It can transport a small squad of soldiers, has a in built mortar. Ãt is Israeli but that shouldn't matter that much. I think the dutch will get some Israeli AT-weapons too... Don't flame me please, I'm just curious.

About the Merkava, is it just me or is the Merkava 4 substantially higher in profile than the Merkava 3. I'm curious as to why the consortium who built this fantastic MBT would give it a higher profile, as the low profile of the Merkave 3 would give it a real advantage against OPFOR tanks.

Merkava 3

Merkava 4

I'd like to see it as an option, But as Fubar stated, it's highly unlikely.

[EiZei 0]

Something still tells me that politicians are going to choose the one which benefits their foreign policy, not their army, what a waste.

[mr. Duck 0]

Quote[/b] ]About the Merkava, is it just me or is the Merkava 4 substantially higher in profile than the Merkava 3. I'm curious as to why the consortium who built this fantastic MBT would give it a higher profile, as the low profile of the Merkave 3 would give it a real advantage against OPFOR tanks.

Yeah it's the turret I guess. As far as I can see the chassis is the same height. But if the aussies wanted a merkava then I think they could only get the merk.3. I'm not sure, but I don't think the merk.4 is out for foreign sale yet. It's a shame indeed, it's a true sexy beast (merk.3).

And talking about oriental tanks... You could always ask the Japanese about their type 90's.

[stgn 39]

To get the Best value for money it is best to have the most parts commonality possible. Check out the Swedish CV-90 Series from Haggands.

"The CV 9030 was the only vehicle that could not only keep up with the Norwegian Leopard 1, it could also basically drive circles around the tank all the way to the top.

Furthermore, during the winter trials, the Bradley had to be delivered to the test area by heavy transport, since the deep snow was more than it could handle. The CV9030 made it there on its own."

"They have been seriously tested in the US desert proving grounds and came out on top of the Bradely, ASCOT and Warrior in servicability during trials for the UAE army. Political pressure forced the UAE into a US purchase"

CV-90 MK III (Boeing 35/50mm Bushmaster III canon):

Carriers 10 Troops with RPG resistant protection (15% RPG Penetraion rate). Swedish CV-9040 pictured below. Mk III has upgraded turret and engine.

CV-120 Light Tank

CV-90 AMOS Advanced MOrtar System

LvKv90 SPAAG

BGBV-90 Engineer Vehicle

Foward Command Vehicle

Export Versions

Why not get a fleet of CV-90's with CV-120's and AMOS instead of heavy MBT's which are not as flexible or transportable?

Seems silly to me...

Can it take a direct hit from a T72 ? I mean on its frontal amour cause eventho it can drive around it, it can be shot at too. There might be a reason why swedden has LEO2A6 or strw122 which has one of the thiggest turret frontal amor.

STGN

[stgn 39]

My point is that the Oplot is better armored.. ERA-5 is much better than Chobham armor since ERA-5 can withstand those "amazing" Du Shells from a Abrams..

Nice article about ERA-5

Official site about Armor Protection of the T-84 here (about the same as the Oplot)

And read Sigma's post about the Oplot >here<

well The Abrams has DU as frontal amor besides the chopham and I remember that it is estimatet thigger or just as thig as a T84 whit K-5 mesured in RHA.

STGN

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Something still tells me that politicians are going to choose the one which benefits their foreign policy, not their army, what a waste.

Hope you enjoy your new Abrams

[killagee 0]

re: CV-90's for ADF

Can it take a direct hit from a T72 ? I mean on its frontal amour cause eventho it can drive around it, it can be shot at too. There might be a reason why swedden has LEO2A6 or strw122 which has one of the thiggest turret frontal amor.

STGN

Yeah I agree! The LEOPARD 2a6 would be a great asset to the ADF, and KMW will always customize their products for export users. The ADF could get a Leopard 2A6 variant as unique to them as the strw 122 is to sweden! but I think the ADF has a prority elsewhere... Nice tho (unless you are on the recieveing end of it...)

I beleive you could still by two leopard 2A6's for every M1-1x.

Also, I dont think M1-A2 are allowed to be manufactured overseas, whereas the Leopards would be built, or at least assembled, using aussie industry.. I might be wrong tho.

[stgn 39]

re: CV-90's for ADF

Can it take a direct hit from a T72 ? I mean on its frontal amour cause eventho it can drive around it, it can be shot at too. There might be a reason why swedden has LEO2A6 or strw122 which has one of the thiggest turret frontal amor.

STGN

Yeah I agree! The LEOPARD 2a6 would be a great asset to the ADF, and KMW will always customize their products for export users. The ADF could get a Leopard 2A6 variant as unique to them as the strw 122 is to sweden! but I think the ADF has a prority elsewhere... Nice tho (unless you are on the recieveing end of it...)

I beleive you could still by two leopard 2A6's for every M1-1x.

Also, I dont think M1-A2 are allowed to be manufactured overseas, whereas the Leopards would be built, or at least assembled, using aussie industry.. I might be wrong tho.

Abrams is/was also bild in Turkey atleased the M1A1.

How does the Leo2 perform in dessert conditions??

Can the leo be fittet whit ERA??

Why has Abrams problery the strongset Hulls the turret isent much stronger(talking about frontal amor) in the world to day while the Leo has a much stronger Turret than hull?? and as fare as I remember would be killed by a frontal hit by the americans DU ammo on the hull. I can't remember the numbers excatly.

STGN

[FW200 0]

Interesting read.. suggest you read it completly ;)

Armor Article

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]Interesting read.. suggest you read it completly ;)

Armor Article

Hmm, very interesting. I was always under the influence that after GW1, Iraq didn't stand a chance in GW 2, and thought the Americans used alot of over kill, hell, they could wiped out alot of Iraqs armour using just tow equpipped humvees!

I'm looking around right now for what the indonesians have armour wise, seeing as they are our nearest 'rougish' state, I.E, the military has too much power concerning indonesian politics.

After a small google, their most modern tank is the British Scorpion, followed by the ageing AMX-13. I'm not aware of the capabilities of these tanks, but my basic belief is that bigger is better as it allows for more armour. I know the AMX is inferior to the Leapard one we possess, but am unsure of how the scorpion would be like against a Leapard one, or any MBT to be exact.

I suppose an average armor thickness of 25 mm is pretty poor, but I imagine that this tank has better systems than the original leopard, given that indo's scorpions were procured from about 1996-98.

This gets me thinking, could a force of these or similar mini tanks have a worthwhile position within the ADF's ranks as a supplement to MBT's?

[ran 0]

the AMX13 is a light tank design dating back from the early 50's with either a 75mm gun or a 90mm one

we've sent those to the scarpyard more than 15 years ago and by then those were only used in 2nd and even 3rd line troops and Gendarmerie armored squadron

[MrMilli 0]

Scorpian is none better, I believe it's got a 76mm or a 30mm

it is not a tank

Combat Vehicle Reconaissance (Tracked)

quick look for pictures shows this

I think if they were procured in 96/98 they would have the 30mm used in Warrior.

They would be blown away by any MBT in the time it takes to say "Look at that daft cu...."

[-TU--33ker 0]

Abrams is/was also bild in Turkey atleased the M1A1.

I don't think turkey has any type of abrams... Their newest US tanks are M60 IIRC.

[ran 0]

AMX13 with 90mm gun

AMX13 with 75mm gun

AMX13 with SS11 missiles and 90mm or 75mm gun

AMX13 with M24 Chaffee turret

AMX13 VCI (IFV)

105mm SPAG

155mm SPAG

30mm AAA

not hard to find spares .....

the AMX13 serie was great .. in its time

and anyway , if the soviets had invaded , i'm pretty sure we would have had 1940 bis , this tank just wasn't suited for the european theater (this explains its longer career in french units oversea)

[FW200 0]

$33ker @ Oct. 23 2003,20:25)]

Abrams is/was also bild in Turkey atleased the M1A1.

I don't think turkey has any type of abrams... Their newest US tanks are M60 IIRC.

True.. but they have chosen the Yatagan (Tailored version of the Oplot) as their MBT though..

Excuse me for another Oplot/Yatagan pic

However.. I must agree that "old" Leo2's are a good choise.. ...

[coporal_punishment 0]

$33ker @ Oct. 23 2003,20:25)]

Abrams is/was also bild in Turkey atleased the M1A1.

I don't think turkey has any type of abrams... Their newest US tanks are M60 IIRC.

Funny I taught it was Egypt which got the licence to build tanks for their army, they wanted a contract for 1000 tanks but the US Congress didn't let them.

On the other hand Australia has sent a militrary deligation to Germany to see the Leopard2a5 production lines yet the Australian government hasn't given he green light.

[coporal_punishment 0]

re: CV-90's for ADF

Can it take a direct hit from a T72 ? I mean on its frontal amour cause eventho it can drive around it, it can be shot at too. There might be a reason why swedden has LEO2A6 or strw122 which has one of the thiggest turret frontal amor.

STGN

Yeah I agree! The LEOPARD 2a6 would be a great asset to the ADF, and KMW will always customize their products for export users. The ADF could get a Leopard 2A6 variant as unique to them as the strw 122 is to sweden! but I think the ADF has a prority elsewhere... Nice tho (unless you are on the recieveing end of it...)

I beleive you could still by two leopard 2A6's for every M1-1x.

Also, I dont think M1-A2 are allowed to be manufactured overseas, whereas the Leopards would be built, or at least assembled, using aussie industry.. I might be wrong tho.

The US lets us break the rules, but yet we are given the option i.e. like surplus LAVs, F16s, FA18s etc. we don't use them

[-TU--33ker 0]

$33ker @ Oct. 23 2003,20:25)]

Abrams is/was also bild in Turkey atleased the M1A1.

I don't think turkey has any type of abrams... Their newest US tanks are M60 IIRC.

True.. but they have chosen the Yatagan (Tailored version of the Oplot) as their MBT though..

Excuse me for another Oplot/Yatagan pic

However.. I must agree that "old" Leo2's are a good choise.. ...

Turkey wanted to purchase our Leopard2 but we didn't give 'em the tanks because of turkey's violations of the human rights...

[stgn 39]

Interesting read.. suggest you read it completly ;)

Armor Article

well I don't see why this should make the OPLOT better than the Abrams it just say that there are no difference. and I have never said that the Abrams was better than the OPLOT just that I read somthing that said that the frontal amor of the Arams was just as thig as a T84 whit K5 or a little thigger. But I would still not buy the OPLOT if I was given the choice I would have an Abrams whit a modern gasturbine or a diesel eingine whit the newest chopham on. cause as you read the americans is making therer new M829E3 round and you would not have to have a longer barrel like the loe has to have to use there new round. plus the abrams is clearly the most beauteful of them.

But I would like to hear more about the FLIR and eletronics on the OPLOT is it only the OPLOT site where I can read about it?

STGN

[stgn 39]

Interesting read.. suggest you read it completly ;)

Armor Article

well I don't see why this should make the OPLOT better than the Abrams it just say that there are no difference. and I have never said that the Abrams was better than the OPLOT just that I read somthing that said that the frontal amor of the Arams was just as thig as a T84 whit K5 or a little thigger. But I would still not buy the OPLOT if I was given the choice I would have an Abrams whit a modern gasturbine or a diesel eingine whit the newest chopham on. cause as you read the americans is making therer new  M829E3 round and you would not have to have a longer barrel like the loe has to have to use there new round. plus the abrams is clearly the most beauteful of them. And the OPLOT has only a tree man crew and a Auto loader plus is 7 kmh slower than M1A2SEP.

But I would like to hear more about the FLIR and eletronics on the OPLOT is it only the OPLOT site where I can read about it?

STGN

[ozanzac 0]

Interesting read.. suggest you read it completly ;)

Armor Article

well I don't see why this should make the OPLOT better than the Abrams it just say that there are no difference. and I have never said that the Abrams was better than the OPLOT just that I read somthing that said that the frontal amor of the Arams was just as thig as a T84 whit K5 or a little thigger. But I would still not buy the OPLOT if I was given the choice I would have an Abrams whit a modern gasturbine or a diesel eingine whit the newest chopham on. cause as you read the americans is making therer new  M829E3 round and you would not have to have a longer barrel like the loe has to have to use there new round. plus the abrams is clearly the most beauteful of them.

But I would like to hear more about the FLIR and eletronics on the OPLOT is it only the OPLOT site where I can read about it?

STGN

I don't think I heard anyone using the article as a justification for the OPLOT being superior against the Abrams. What it does highlight is that Russian Export tanks were severly inferior to the Russian 'motherland' based tanks, and that American superiority against these export tanks shouldn't be gauged that all Russian Tanks are inferior. By your comment, is seems that you didn't read the whole article in detail.

Oh, and as a side note, don't forget that gas turbines in early Abrams suffered from extreme overheating and thus, break down problems + it guzzles fuel at a much greater rate than say a diesel powered engine. I'd rather a tank that goes longer than it does faster.

[Badgerboy 0]

Interesting read.. suggest you read it completly ;)

Armor Article

well I don't see why this should make the OPLOT better than the Abrams it just say that there are no difference. and I have never said that the Abrams was better than the OPLOT just that I read somthing that said that the frontal amor of the Arams was just as thig as a T84 whit K5 or a little thigger. But I would still not buy the OPLOT if I was given the choice I would have an Abrams whit a modern gasturbine or a diesel eingine whit the newest chopham on. cause as you read the americans is making therer new  M829E3 round and you would not have to have a longer barrel like the loe has to have to use there new round. plus the abrams is clearly the most beauteful of them.

But I would like to hear more about the FLIR and eletronics on the OPLOT is it only the OPLOT site where I can read about it?

STGN

I don't think I heard anyone using the article as a justification for the OPLOT being superior against the Abrams. What it does highlight is that Russian Export tanks were severly inferior to the Russian 'motherland' based tanks, and that American superiority against these export tanks shouldn't be gauged that all Russian Tanks are inferior. By your comment, is seems that you didn't read the whole article in detail.

Oh, and as a side note, don't forget that gas turbines in early Abrams suffered from extreme overheating and thus, break down problems + it guzzles fuel at a much greater rate than say a diesel powered engine. I'd rather a tank that goes longer than it does faster.

Also, don't forget that anyone with a infrared scope can see a Abrams coming from miles away. Those turbine engines give off rediculous amounts of heat.