Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australian Centurion's

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by dfg209 View Post
    Abrams uses Turbines : Means high fuel consumption, yet a high output of power. Turbines require special parts because they are somewhat delicate, specially trained engineers. A single grain can tear a turbines blades to bits.
    High fuel consumption? where? the tests run by the evaluation team didn't show that at all - and as I said before (which I think you have selectively ignored) the APU means that Oz Abrams are more fuel efficient in certain op regimes.

    Quite frankly, I'm more likely to believe what a blackhat eval team come back with than the rubbish that gets trotted out on the internet

    But, how many Abrams have been rendered inop due to dust in Iraq? SFA as far as I know - in fact the US and Oz have developed finer filters since the initial design.

    Originally posted by dfg209 View Post
    Leo 2 uses a diesel engine: Cheap, easy to maintain, reliable, but not the same power to weight ratio as a turbine.
    and the fuel that an M1 uses is all over the joint - thats why they developed them - and guess what, they can also run on other fuels if necessary. The issue of niche fuel and its limits is another urban myth that has grown in stature.

    Originally posted by dfg209 View Post
    As far as I know Leo's are cheaper, (Surplus ones should be cheaper, yes?) and almost twice as fast.
    err, no, the Abrams is significantly faster over various terrains - again, based on real tests not assumptions

    Originally posted by dfg209 View Post
    They can operate longer distances, although they use different armour to the abrams, but it stood up to an IED attack in service with the Canadians.
    Range is governed by logistics - most armies realise that - you think that the RAAC hasn't?

    As for IED attacks - well good on the Leo. Seen the stats on Abrams ie deployed to destroyed?

    Originally posted by dfg209 View Post
    Just because something doesn't have fame, doesn't mean to say it's the worst.
    Who said its worse? you've jumped into this thread and made a series of ludicrous assumptions based on the fact that you have a penchant for another tank.

    Here's a tip sport - point out anywhere in here where I slagged off at the Leo2? In actual fact, if you knew me at all you'd know that my initial preference was the Leo2, but I'm quite happy to accept that the blokes who evaluate them probably have a better clue than others who don't even work with them (and yes, the RAAC went to Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland in their evals)

    The Canucks made a choice based on their own needs, Canadas needs are not Australias needs. It's not an episode of Top Gear
    Linkeden:
    http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
    http://cofda.wordpress.com/

    Comment


    • #17
      Like I said... BS.

      Dude, CAJONE EH was running in military speed inspite an RPG hit into its somewhat delicate turbine engine setting it on fire.
      All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
      -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by dfg209 View Post
        Abrams uses Turbines : Means high fuel consumption, yet a high output of power. Turbines require special parts because they are somewhat delicate, specially trained engineers. A single grain can tear a turbines blades to bits.

        Leo 2 uses a diesel engine: Cheap, easy to maintain, reliable, but not the same power to weight ratio as a turbine.

        As far as I know Leo's are cheaper, (Surplus ones should be cheaper, yes?) and almost twice as fast. They can operate longer distances, although they use different armour to the abrams, but it stood up to an IED attack in service with the Canadians.

        Just because something doesn't have fame, doesn't mean to say it's the worst.
        No offence intended to anyone but I'm writing in support of what gf0012-aust has written.

        There is discussion on this issue same on another forum where gf0012-aust is a moderator. In that thread in the other forum, the defence professionals have explained why the Abrams is a logical choice for the ADF. Try to use google to search for it. It takes some effort to read the number of pages posted, just to give you a better idea of the options available under each platform.

        The Leos are good machines but so are the Abrams. That's just my point of view, as a Singaporean. And Singapore operates Leo 2A4s. Even I think that the Abrams supplied to Australia are great tanks at a very good price when you take into consideration the ADF's needs and specifications. :))
        Last edited by sunnyamy; 25 Jan 09,, 05:56.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
          Who said its worse? you've jumped into this thread and made a series of ludicrous assumptions based on the fact that you have a penchant for another tank.

          Here's a tip sport - point out anywhere in here where I slagged off at the Leo2? In actual fact, if you knew me at all you'd know that my initial preference was the Leo2, but I'm quite happy to accept that the blokes who evaluate them probably have a better clue than others who don't even work with them (and yes, the RAAC went to Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland in their evals)

          The Canucks made a choice based on their own needs, Canadas needs are not Australias needs. It's not an episode of Top Gear
          Easy gf0012-aust - I was merely trying pointing out the differences. I wasn't trying to make a competition out of this.


          Originally posted by Triple C
          bs!
          Last edited by dfg209; 25 Jan 09,, 07:57.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
            The Canucks made a choice based on their own needs, Canadas needs are not Australias needs. It's not an episode of Top Gear
            Indeed! There is one reason and only one reason why Canada went with the Leo 2s - $300K a copy with no strings attached. The Australians went with the M1s for $1 a copy BUT with the supporting contracts (GF, correct if I am wrong but the point is that Canada and Australia paid about the same price).

            Comment


            • #21
              The Canadian press reported some time back that Canada would pay a total of C$650 million over five years for its 100 tanks, including the cost of the loan agreement with Germany, the purchase of the Dutch tanks, spare parts and upgrades.

              And the 59 Aussie Abrams complete package was about A$550 million, including Tank haulers, Recovery vehicles, spares, etc, etc.

              The complete package seems a bit expensive, but by all accounts it was a good deal as far as the Abrams goes.

              Saw a doco on Fox, of the Aussie Abrams being refurbished, quite a impressive overhaul, the yanks called the Kangaroo emblem ''the Aussie rat''

              Comment


              • #22
                @gf0012-aust and OOE, wishing both of you 'fu lu dong hai, shou bi nan shan' (prosperity and long life) in the year ahead.

                @OOE and tanks only move with the permission of their armoured engineers right?

                @ANZAC thanks for the price comparison. This info provided by you is very interesting as I could not find out how much Singapore paid for our Leos. The Canadian price at least it gives me an idea.

                @dfg209, now that everybody is more chilled let's all have a drink of Macallan to celebrate Chinese New Year together.:P

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  Indeed! There is one reason and only one reason why Canada went with the Leo 2s - $300K a copy with no strings attached. The Australians went with the M1s for $1 a copy BUT with the supporting contracts (GF, correct if I am wrong but the point is that Canada and Australia paid about the same price).
                  Correct, it all averages out. the blackhats are very happy from all accounts. and at a procurement level, the through life support and extra bits were pretty good

                  Personally, I prefer the Leo2, but the armoured side of the house is way outside my skillset. :)
                  Linkeden:
                  http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                  http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by sunnyamy View Post
                    @gf0012-aust and OOE, wishing both of you 'fu lu dong hai, shou bi nan shan' (prosperity and long life) in the year ahead.

                    .......................... celebrate Chinese New Year together.:P
                    ditto to you, although I must confess I haven't been down the end of Sussex St to see the chinese astrologer yet. I'm a Fire Pig so have no idea what the Ox brings for me this year...
                    Linkeden:
                    http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                    http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by dfg209 View Post
                      Easy gf0012-aust - I was merely trying pointing out the differences. I wasn't trying to make a competition out of this.
                      ack.

                      gf
                      Linkeden:
                      http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                      http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Why dont Aussies just upgrade to centurian 2.
                        I saw it on extreme machines -discovery channel and from what they described it looked pretty good with advance electronics which can hit a football size moving object at distance of 5 km ,as far as i can recollect, and it would be very easy for them to move to it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by martinmystry View Post
                          Why dont Aussies just upgrade to centurian 2.
                          I saw it on extreme machines -discovery channel and from what they described it looked pretty good with advance electronics which can hit a football size moving object at distance of 5 km ,as far as i can recollect, and it would be very easy for them to move to it.
                          .....i think its impossible.....
                          Everyone has opinions, only some count.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Centurion : tank from around 1945, mostly gone from major armies around 1970
                            (actual australian one on the picture)


                            Challenger-2 : tank from around 1990, based on Challenger-1 (around 1980)
                            Attached Files
                            Last edited by BD1; 25 Jan 09,, 20:38.
                            If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

                            Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by martinmystry View Post
                              Why dont Aussies just upgrade to centurian 2.
                              I saw it on extreme machines -discovery channel and from what they described it looked pretty good with advance electronics which can hit a football size moving object at distance of 5 km ,as far as i can recollect, and it would be very easy for them to move to it.
                              Thats what the Israelis did didn't they?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by dfg209 View Post
                                Thats what the Israelis did didn't they?
                                Nope.

                                You have to look at political history to track their armoured development. (it impacts on their development and buying patterns)
                                • basically british and american at independance
                                • included french until the french "reneged" on some sales (incl patrol boats and mirages)
                                • because they found it difficult to buy new gear - they cannibalised a lot of stuff they secured as victors
                                • went through a heavy development cycle of modding centurions, shermans, AMX's
                                • then elected to go for their own development as they didn't think that contemp armour suited their doctrine - hence front engined merkava
                                • been merkava ever since
                                • all other other has been modded or used (as is their want), but not as MBT's


                                there would have been no point in upgrading a centurion as a battle tank as its not survivable and the mods would also be cost negative in capability

                                maybe you're thinking of a Challenger (as has been pointed out?)

                                maybe ask one of the engineers or blackhats in here - they'll be sharper on the subject....
                                Last edited by gf0012-aust; 26 Jan 09,, 01:48.
                                Linkeden:
                                http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                                http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X