Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Chance for an official Netrider vehicle perhaps?

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by jd, Sep 14, 2007.

  1. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/14/2032842.htm

    Nothing like 42 tonne of armoured steel to let car/4wd drivers know what it feels like to be on a bike in traffic :wink: .
    Now if we could just come up with a good lie..err...reason for needing one as a "ride support vehicle" :grin: :twisted:
  2. Can you imagine what a cool cubby house that would make for your kids?
    Or computer Den to get away from the other half?
    Hmmm... I think I have just let on that I have never really grown up :grin:
  3. pity, theyre a verry good tank, quite quick. but were just extra drivers for the yanks tanks so be it. id have one in the back yard
  4. "...began service in 1977...have never been used in action."

    So, in 30 years we haven't needed a tank in active service? Can someone please explain to me why the f**k we're buying more tanks?!!! We obviously don't need 'em! :mad:
  5. Because the Americans told us we need them.
    What sort of silly question is that you pinko Commie
  6. Ahh but maybe the reason we haven't needed them is because we had them.
    Just like this rock keeps tigers away....;)
    (If any Government officials would like to buy my rock I'll start the bidding at 3.4 million dollars US).
  7. If I remember correctly there aren't enough to operate by themselves, and no one will operate as part of a tank squadron. And also as Australian troops speciality is jungles and stuff tanks aren't much use there.
  9. Everyone needs tanks.
  10. Otherwise you cant scuba dive!! :LOL:
  11. Going frop a 1965 design to a 1979 design.

    Do I notice a pattern? :p
  12. meh! we need something like this:

    the official chase vehicle for *cough*melbourne*cough* ride days.


    i'd even offer to drive it :evil: ;) :p

    gawd, i need to do more productive things!
  13. Well i for one am happy to have them and not need em. Would suck if it was the other way around!. Either way the chief of Army is in love with em, in fact its basically all he talks about when he comes for a visit!
  14. yes, and all at a discounted cost because we are getting the first generation A1 model Abrams !

    Which means we also need to get new tank carriers, because they are bigger and heavier than the Leopards.
    They have Gas Turbine engines, therefore new logistics equiment . . . shit range.
    On the size thing, thats why we are also getting C-17 transports since our C130s cannot fit them.

    This kids is what makes the US Military industry rolls around !

    Essentially is flexing ones muscle in the region !
    Why do you think Indonesia bought some ex-Russian Kilo Class submarines recently !
    A stealthy diesel-electric sub used for anti-shiiping for shallow waters, I think the Indos have just have just toned their biceps !!
  15. If I buy one for a suburban house, can I get a Tank rebate from council?

    *edit* Oh yeah, my old man used to drive a Leopard tank, said they were REALLY quick, could lift four of seven road wheels off the ground from a standing start.

    Regards, Andrew.
  16. bah, the only reason we got the abhrams was interoperability with the seppos. the challe by all accounts is a much better peice of kit without the friggin chopper engine in its arse drying up the middle east.

    the indo just brought some subs did they? they obviously didnt put much thought into that given we actually have a somewhat decent anti sub warfare capability. might have been in response to our recent proposal for aquisition of long range air to surface missiles.

    and WHY THE fcuk are they giving the leopards away. all choc units just got stripped of their armour, why not just give it them? wait? what was that? oh yes of coarse that would make too much sense...
  17. Actually, we got a great deal on teh Abrhams, PLUS all it's support equipment, PLUS all the training required to put them into service and maintenence. Don't let that spoil a good rant though.
    The figures I have seen make it a no brainer, plus the added BONUS of buying this tank and the commonality is we just buy transporters etc off the shelf.
    *edit* I wouldn't worry about the Kilo subs, it'll take then a couple of years to get them operational, and they'll be hard pressed to find the money to run them enough to keep them a serious threat anyway.

    Regards, Andrew.
  18. Hi, The subject of whether we need tanks, and if the Abrams are the best choice is a good one and one that I have pondered myself. If there are any Military members on the site perhaps they have an explanation.

    My guess is that Australia being a "Land of Sweeping Plains" is that tanks are required for any incursions on to our soil. We don't have any ability to ship them overseas without using civilian transport vessels.

    The Abrams concern me, they are thirsty machines so need a strong logistics chain to keep running. The Seppos have that ability I don't think we do so if they are to fight anywhere they would need the logistical support of a foreign power. Admittedly they will run on just about anything so perhaps the Military thought is that they would scavenge. Transporting them is a problem, they can not be air deployed, even the Seppos using their biggest transport aircraft can only carry one at a time.

    Just on specs I would say the English Challenger would have been a better option for us. Lighter faster more modern Armour and diesel so fits in with our current logistics.

    Good thread. :)
  19. The big thing with the Abrhams is it is proven in a desert environment, which is what we have.
    Any tank is thirsty, the Abrams thirstier than others, but it ha sproven very reliable.
    Fact is, tanks probably will never be used on Australian soil for defence, they are a deterrent.
    We will have overseas abilities in a couple of years in the new ships, and the new big plane can carry them........

    Regards, Andrew.
  20. I find myself wondering if we'd have been better off with the Lepoard 2 (A6 derivative maybe).

    Interoperability can't be the only reason (Canada are purchasing Leopard 2A4's & 2A6's as an example).

    I suspect a political motivation for the choice of the Abrams (not knocking the choice of tank, just commenting on the 'why').