Aussie MBT's

Botak said:
Not to breach OPSEC or anything, but I can tell you the number is definitely higher than 59.

Remember, there's not just 1AR who has them... you have to train in them first to learn to drive them right? :)

And it's on public record that a number of M1's are at School of Armour, so that should answer the questions posed as far as anyone needs to know them.

Defence also has it's current deployments on it's website. All you need to do is look at them, read about what those deployments actually are and ask "Would they be using MBTs there?"
Click to expand...

im pretty sure the number 59 is not including training tanks and recovery vehicles it refers only to the tanks that are designated for potential combat
 
I suppose an added advantage of being close allies with the US is that if Australians needed to use tanks in an overseas environment then Australian crews could use leased or borrowed US vehicles rather than carting our own around the place.
 
Wow? just 59 Abrams in Australia? Damn, I will get two drunk buddies of mine and we are going to invade armed with sticks.

Unreasonably huge beer cans... here we come.

Come on. Who would invade Australia? And it doesnt mean that Australia doesnt have other tanks. I'm sure they have plenty of weapons to face armored vehicules on land. Shoulder carried or not.

Even the most backward countries have some smart guys with strategic maps and huge budgets to spend... And they make plans to defend their country.

If they needed more MBTs they would get some...
 
lol we got 59 MBTs and they aren't much use on stopping those pesky boat people...
seriously what is the big deal if they come to australia as long as they are refugees and they don't make it to the mainland with out us knowing well be fine...:santa:
 
LeMask said:
Wow? just 59 Abrams in Australia? Damn, I will get two drunk buddies of mine and we are going to invade armed with sticks.

Unreasonably huge beer cans... here we come.

Come on. Who would invade Australia? And it doesnt mean that Australia doesnt have other tanks. I'm sure they have plenty of weapons to face armored vehicules on land. Shoulder carried or not.

Even the most backward countries have some smart guys with strategic maps and huge budgets to spend... And they make plans to defend their country.

If they needed more MBTs they would get some...
Click to expand...

Just try it mate
we dont need tanks to stop an invading force
 
Hah! A frenchman invaded Christmas Island and you didnt even notice... No dont shoot. I would fight for Australia is someone invaded. I love these kangourous...

No honestly, my argument is that Australia have the means to get tanks. Modern tanks. And not some export versions, but the best hardware available.

So if they dont have a lot of MBTs... It just means that they think that they wont need many tanks to reach their objectives.

Now the question is "what is their defense strategy?" And then, we have to know the real threats for Australia. And then the choices they have made to defend themselves against these threats.

Now, if the threat is China... I dont think that 59 tanks or 159 tanks would make a huge difference.

I want to hear a speech about combined arms... Is there someone here with enough knowledge about strategy and tactics to give us some insight?

I would welcome that.
 
good point le maske...
in the area of defence Indonesia is both our biggest headache and our friend.
a head ache in the sense it is a potential adversary and a friend in a sense that anyone who wants to occupy australia has to virtually conquer Indonesia in order to invade australia. unless they have a number of dispensable aircraft carriers or that the invaders ally themselves with indonesia which is unlikely as the Indonesians would be very suspicious of anyone doing such a thing especially if it was china...
 
It seem's that you guys are saying the word "Navy" too often.

What about air force? Having a good airforce is a even better deterrant IMHO.
 
Combined arms is the use of multiple elements such as air, ground and sea combined to complete an objective. Infantry supports armor so tanks don't get tore up by rpg's. Armor and air support deal with heavy and fixed elements so infantry don't get chewed up. Modern warfare is completely based on combined arms and would fall apart without it. It is the strategy of minimizing each elements weakness by utilizing another force to counteract that weakness. I am pretty exhausted and getting ready to finish the work day. I might give an example or 2 of how a situation might play out later tonight.
 
australia having such a small defence force relies and specializes on this ^^^
in order to be a viable force...
 
Yes, I do understand that quite well.

But my question is about how secure Australia's borders are. It's a pretty big island. It takes a lot of work to control all of this.

So when know that there is only 59 MBTs. It looks like a big gamble on the airforce. Like if the people responsible of Australia's defence are pretty sure that there is no one capable of setting a foothold on Aussie soil.

But I personnally still think that it very hard to say that the borders of such a big island are airtight...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top