Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australian Centurion's

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
    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....
    Without using knitting needles to jab out your eyes when I say( :)) ) this but;
    On Wiki, it was saying that the Israelis

    Originally posted by Wiki
    Sho't (meaning "Whip" in Hebrew) is the Israeli designation of the 105 mm L7 gunned Centurion tank, which entered Israeli service in 1970.
    The main reason the Israelis have them in service is because they consider it to be there most effective tank - During the Yom Kipper war, two Sho't's were damaged but their crews stood their ground as the Syrian's poured down the Golan slopes. In the course of the 30 hour battle, they engaged 150 Syrian tanks, knocking out over 60, bringing the assault to halt.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by dfg209 View Post
      The main reason the Israelis have them in service is because they consider it to be there most effective tank - During the Yom Kipper war, two Sho't's were damaged but their crews stood their ground as the Syrian's poured down the Golan slopes. In the course of the 30 hour battle, they engaged 150 Syrian tanks, knocking out over 60, bringing the assault to halt.
      I think there's a temporal disconnect here.

      Why would we replace Abrams with Centy's? (even an advanced Centy?)
      If you are talking about the Centurion replacement - why would we look at a Centurion Mod when the best tank in the world as far as we (and a lot of others thought) was the Leo1?
      We never had the same buying and strategic constraints as the Israelis, for us it was a 2 horse race, the M60 or the Leo1

      Yom Kippur and esp the Golan Heights is a lesson in tactics and discipline more than the issue of what they were sitting in. There is a biography running around of an Israeli tanker from the Golan who states that by any right, they should have been slaughtered as the Syrians held every elevated and numerical advantage - but they were lousy tacticians, brave because they were relentless, but ultimately dead because they lacked tactical discipline and initiative. You'll also find at Golan that the Israelis fielded upgunned shermans - and they got whacked early because even though they had decent guns they were sitting up high and made perfect targets. they were also using recoilless rockets on jeeps (which didn't last long either)

      The Golan is not a lesson on who had the "best tank", but who had the most professional operators on the ground.
      Linkeden:
      http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
      http://cofda.wordpress.com/

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
        I think there's a temporal disconnect here.

        Why would we replace Abrams with Centy's? (even an advanced Centy?)
        If you are talking about the Centurion replacement - why would we look at a Centurion Mod when the best tank in the world as far as we (and a lot of others thought) was the Leo1?
        We never had the same buying and strategic constraints as the Israelis, for us it was a 2 horse race, the M60 or the Leo1

        Yom Kippur and esp the Golan Heights is a lesson in tactics and discipline more than the issue of what they were sitting in. There is a biography running around of an Israeli tanker from the Golan who states that by any right, they should have been slaughtered as the Syrians held every elevated and numerical advantage - but they were lousy tacticians, brave because they were relentless, but ultimately dead because they lacked tactical discipline and initiative. You'll also find at Golan that the Israelis fielded upgunned shermans - and they got whacked early because even though they had decent guns they were sitting up high and made perfect targets. they were also using recoilless rockets on jeeps (which didn't last long either)

        The Golan is not a lesson on who had the "best tank", but who had the most professional operators on the ground.
        Point taken.

        How good could a Centy be if modernized I wonder?

        Comment


        • #34
          @dfg209, while I lack the technical ability to discuss tanks and the reasons for their choice, I can find some online links to help with the discussion and share with you some of my thoughts (for whatever they are worth).

          1. There was a Nov. 2003 Australian Parliamentary Research Note on Australia's New MBTs. In this note, it states that the 103 Leo AS 1 were acquired in 1977. The Leo AS1 was from an era when heavy armour was sacrificed for speed. Unfortunately, in its current state, the Leopard AS1 is vulnerable to mines and handheld anti-armoured weapons and its frame is not suited to being upgraded... New advanced MBTs of the kind currently proposed could offer Australian troops more protection in certain combat situations. They would also make Australian troops more capable in some conflict scenario against an identifiable enemy...

          2. The first Merkava Mk 1 tanks were supplied to the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in 1979. Production of the Mk 1 continued up to 1983, when the IDF began to receive the Merkava Mk 2. This meant that some of the Sho't was being phased out service by 1983. Some of these Sho'ts may have allegedly found their way to Singapore and were not surprisingly called Tempests.

          3. Prior to the purchase of the Leo 2A4s, Singapore never admitted having a MBT capability (informed observers like Tim Huxley believes that Singapore has at least 80-100 Tempests MBTs). There are two things to note:
          (i) Singapore has never and still does not admit having the Tempests MBT for fear of offending Malaysia; and
          (ii) no published photograph that I know of, exists of a Tempest MBT in Singapore service.

          4. With Malaysia's purchase of the 48x PT-91M (which is a Polish made, T-72 design derivative), even the 105 mm Tempest tank with its older era FCS was not a good match against the modernised Polish tank. The solution for Singapore is the Leo 2A4, which most observers would agree is more than a match against any T-72 derivative.

          5. I'm guessing that the the Leo 2A4 purchase by the SAF was to replace the Tempests MBTs. If the Tempest/Sho't are accessed not to be suitable to meet modern armour threats like a T-72 derivative, then its modern utility would be limited. A Tempest/Sho't would be more than capable to meet the threat posed by APCs/IFVs, but otherwise, it is only a direct fire gun platform. As I understand it, in terms of modern armour doctrine APCs/IFVs do not fight unaccompanied by tanks.

          6. I'm of the view that a tank can always be upgraded, but the question is: Would it make sense and would the upgrade cost so much that it is better to buy a new tank? Especially, since the Americans and Germans have surplus to requirement MBTs on sale to select countries.

          7. Off the top of my head, the areas of upgrade to any tank are as follows:
          (i) the FCS;
          (ii) the turret and gun calibre (i.e. up-gun the tank);
          (iii) the suspension; and
          (iv) the engine/power pack (or even add an APU).
          There is also a limit to how much you can up-gun a small tank before it becomes top heavy or exceed its design specifications (which then leads to the law of un-intended consequences). Add on armour like the ERA packs on the PT-91M has limited protective utility. IMHO, each tank has its own inherent design limitation. For the T-72, the auto loader and its method of storage of rounds limits this tank's survivability in a modern MBT tank v MBT tank battle. There are some interesting low profile turrets in development and would be an interesting upgrade for a Centurion.

          8. Please keep in mind that the countries who tend to massively upgrade their old equipment either (at that time) faced tremendous budget constraints or were not able to buy what they really wanted on the open market because of other considerations (if there is such a thing as a open markets for tanks). In the case of Israel, they had problems acquiring the weapons they wanted due to past arms embargo. Today, Israel has such a strong defence industry sector that the levers France tried to apply to Israel (through an arms embargo) would not work today.
          Last edited by sunnyamy; 26 Jan 09,, 05:43.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by sunnyamy View Post
            @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.
            As you say, it's hard to get figures on Singapore's purchase, rumors had it at about US$1 million per tank, if that was true you have fantastic bargain, spares etc, etc would drive the overall cost up.

            If I remember correctly the Aussie Abrams worked out at about $5 million per tank, with the complete package ending up at $550 million.

            Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
            Personally, I prefer the Leo2, but the armoured side of the house is way outside my skillset. :)
            Yep, I preferred the Leo too. At the time of the debate on which tank was best suited for the Aussies, the chief of the army’s main tank unit wanted the Leopard 2.

            Defence Department chief Ric Smith was opposed to the Abrams and army chief Peter Leahy was believed to favour the Leopard 2, but said he would be happy with either purchase.

            About the time the decision was about to be made Bush was paying a visit to Aus, a mate said 'put your house on the Abrams' hope he had some money on it.:))

            The Centurion was a fantastic tank, soldering on since WW2, when it was designed,
            and used by the Brits in Korea, Aussies in the jungles of Vietnam, to the deserts of the Middle East with the Israel's in their wars.

            Even used as late as the Gulf war by the Brits as a AVRE's, and the Israeli's converted them as APC Pumas, Nakpoden's, etc. that's over half a century, not bad for the old timer.

            Probably the most extensive upgrade was the the South Africans Olifant Mk. 1B commenced production in 1991 and is barely recognisable as a Centurion as it includes additional appliqué armour, a double floor, a new fire detection/suppression system, new side-skirts, day/night sights, laser rangefinder, a new torsion bar suspension system and a more powerful diesel engine (900hp).

            As far as I know, it's still soldering on, any Saffies know of any planned replacement?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
              why?

              they're zero framed, the Leo 2's were not (guess whats better)

              and contrary to all the media BS, they can cross bridges in aust, have been trained adelaide to darwin and fit on our planes (C-17's) - and the usual pearler that they're too heavy? it's about 4 metric tonnes difference. (the problem with the media is that they didn't bother to do the conversions and assumed that US tons is a metric tonne)

              they've got APU's (the Leo's didn't)
              they're actually cheaper to run as they run off the APU's at idle (most of their working life will be at idle unless they're racing across to engage something)

              much ado about nothing. and one of the reasons why there is an embarassing shortage of military savvy journos in Oz. They've got no frigging clue about the subject matter that they often attempt to wax lyrical about.
              The M1A2 may have an 'Auxilary Power Unit' (Generator), but he Leo 2 still has far superior mileage. Leo 2 = 550Km/hr, M1A2 = 425Km/hr. Regarding speed they are on par with each other, reliability, I would go for German any day. The turbine on the M1A2 gives off a huge heat signature compared to Leo 2, have operated on the Cheiftain, Challenger 1 and 2, M1A2 and Leo 2 I would opt for the Leo over the Abrams any day.:)

              Comment


              • #37
                The Israelis, Swedes and South Aficans still use the tried and trusted Cent. She served well in Korea, Vietnam, Yom Kapur etc. a real stunner of a Tank.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Chaobam Armour View Post
                  The turbine on the M1A2 gives off a huge heat signature compared to Leo 2, have operated on the Cheiftain, Challenger 1 and 2, M1A2 and Leo 2 I would opt for the Leo over the Abrams any day.:)
                  vanilla M1 with no APU hiding in the bullrushes = heat signature
                  aust M1 with APU hiding in the bullrushes = much much lower signature

                  vanilla M1 with no APU run through normal op including idle time = x range
                  aust M1 with APU run through normal op including idle time = comparitive x range

                  eval stats obviously not going into the PD

                  but the evaluatiuon team certainly didn't think that they were on a par speed wise . "goes like a cut snake" is one of the expressions used

                  the other thing worth noting is that the regular comment about the M1 having a massive heat signature has not been borne out in the trials - and a number of these blokes jockeyed on them prior to purchase as part of the eval.
                  Last edited by gf0012-aust; 26 Jan 09,, 04:58.
                  Linkeden:
                  http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                  http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Having been a Tank Crewman for 24 years I know the difference between Tanks, there capabilities, speeds etc. Oh and Heat Signatures. Ever since I joined the Army all British MBTs' have been fitted with APUs', therefore I am fully aware of what they do and how you use them. At some stage the M1A2 will have had to have had used his Turbine to get from A (Bush) to B (Another Bush), they don't idle all day, Tank Warefare is manouvre warefare!!! Also the M1A2 is not particularly fast, I have had the privalege of Driving the M1A2, Leo 2, Challenger 1 and 2, Cheiftain, Centurion, Leclerc and apart from Centurion and Chieftain they are fairly close speed wise.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      A lil off topic but I cannot resist.

                      Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                      but the evaluatiuon team certainly didn't think that they were on a par speed wise . "goes like a cut snake" is one of the expressions used
                      It should be more like, "Goes like the person who tried to cut the snake". :))

                      Ever missed a snake and really pissed it off?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Chaobam Armour View Post
                        Having been a Tank Crewman for 24 years I know the difference between Tanks, there capabilities, speeds etc. Oh and Heat Signatures. Ever since I joined the Army all British MBTs' have been fitted with APUs', therefore I am fully aware of what they do and how you use them. At some stage the M1A2 will have had to have had used his Turbine to get from A (Bush) to B (Another Bush), they don't idle all day, Tank Warefare is manouvre warefare!!! Also the M1A2 is not particularly fast, I have had the privalege of Driving the M1A2, Leo 2, Challenger 1 and 2, Cheiftain, Centurion, Leclerc and apart from Centurion and Chieftain they are fairly close speed wise.

                        Mate I defer to your generation of experience.

                        I will again refer to my incredibly internet approved but sanitised analogy of some of the trials performed by the blackhats on the eval team - and I would assume that they're not novices on their job.

                        As you know, our blokes do get to drive in lots of other peoples kit as well. In fact, sometimes I have the joy of helping to arrange it (not armour)

                        Although it should be self evident, I would assume that there is no need for me to point out issues of context?
                        Last edited by gf0012-aust; 26 Jan 09,, 05:10. Reason: postscript
                        Linkeden:
                        http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                        http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Chaobam Armour View Post
                          The M1A2 may have an 'Auxilary Power Unit' (Generator), but he Leo 2 still has far superior mileage. Leo 2 = 550Km/hr, M1A2 = 425Km/hr. Regarding speed they are on par with each other, reliability, I would go for German any day. The turbine on the M1A2 gives off a huge heat signature compared to Leo 2, have operated on the Cheiftain, Challenger 1 and 2, M1A2 and Leo 2 I would opt for the Leo over the Abrams any day.:)
                          @Chaobam Armour, how important is a APU for a modern MBT (in relation to its performance)?

                          I understand the some models of the Leo 2s have them, some don't. Is the integration of an APU necessary because of the implementation of electric turrets? Or is this developmental trend driven by other needs? :P

                          Your blur friend in Singapore.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Chaobam Armour View Post
                            Having been a Tank Crewman for 24 years I know the difference between Tanks, there capabilities, speeds etc. Oh and Heat Signatures. Ever since I joined the Army all British MBTs' have been fitted with APUs', therefore I am fully aware of what they do and how you use them. At some stage the M1A2 will have had to have had used his Turbine to get from A (Bush) to B (Another Bush), they don't idle all day, Tank Warefare is manouvre warefare!!! Also the M1A2 is not particularly fast, I have had the privalege of Driving the M1A2, Leo 2, Challenger 1 and 2, Cheiftain, Centurion, Leclerc and apart from Centurion and Chieftain they are fairly close speed wise.
                            Hi CA,
                            I'm envious.

                            Your a lucky bloke, tearing around in those MBT's, the closest I've come to any of those is seeing the Leo 1 going through it's paces, and taking a gander at the Aussie Abrams.

                            Hope the powers that be upgrade the M1 with the full TUSK specs. because 'if' any are deployed overseas in an urban environment, they could get some nasty surprises.

                            Bye the way, what did you think of the auto loader on the Leclerc?

                            Some think that manual load is better, and some think that auto is the way to go in the future.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by ANZAC View Post
                              Hi CA,
                              I'm envious.

                              Your a lucky bloke, tearing around in those MBT's, the closest I've come to any of those is seeing the Leo 1 going through it's paces, and taking a gander at the Aussie Abrams.

                              Hope the powers that be upgrade the M1 with the full TUSK specs. because 'if' any are deployed overseas in an urban environment, they could get some nasty surprises.

                              Bye the way, what did you think of the auto loader on the Leclerc?

                              Some think that manual load is better, and some think that auto is the way to go in the future.
                              I do consider myself to being a lucky guy, having played with those vehicles and more besides.

                              I had a go with Leclerc in the Emirates. The vehicle was designed around the autoloader and is therefore fairly reliable, it has a very impressive rate of Fire (12 a minute). From a personal perspective I would much prefer the additional crewman, as the crew still have the same amount of work to do, but with only 3 guys. Also you cannot switch ammunition during an engagement with an autoloader, not very good in that respect.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by sunnyamy View Post
                                @Chaobam Armour, how important is a APU for a modern MBT (in relation to its performance)?

                                I understand the some models of the Leo 2s have them, some don't. Is the integration of an APU necessary because of the implementation of electric turrets? Or is this developmental trend driven by other needs? :P

                                Your blur friend in Singapore.
                                As I have mentioned previously every MBT that I have worked on in the British Army have all had the Auxilary Power Unit. The plus side with the APU is that you can switch off the main engine and still run all your systems from the APU (FCS, Radios', NBC, Cooker etc.) thus conserving fuel and reducing the noise levels. Those vehicles without an APU would only be able to run critical systems for a very short period of time without the Main Engine running, the systems would suck the batteries dry within seconds, especially power traverse etc.

                                I also believe that tanks of the future are all going down that line, as you can see with M1A2 having them fitted.

                                The problem with Generator type engines, if they are not loaded sufficiently they do tend to 'Coke Up' giving off black smoke.

                                I trust that helps.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X