T80 and T90 vs M1A1 without depleted uranium armour - Page 2

September 28th, 2012  

Topic: Re: T80 and T90 vs M1A1 without depleted uranium armour

One decent single source over-view of the chobhram armor is on wikipedia. It is general information on the armor and the history which led to the final development;
October 25th, 2012  
Originally Posted by Bampto
Hi Everyone.
I am a year 12 student in South Australia, Australia. One of my subjects is politics and for it I have to do an individual study on a political issue. My study is on the Howard governments decision to buy the M1A1 without the depleted uranium armour. This interests me as I hope to join the armoured core at the end of my education, hopefully at the end of this year.

I would be very grateful if people would give me thier opinions about the wisdom of purchasing the M1A1 for Australia, considering the models will lack depleted uranium armour. Also do you think this will reduce their surviviablity to the point were T80 and T 90s will be able to better them in terms of crew surviability and general peformance. Also Australia is also only buying 59, a token rather than effective force. Should Australia have spent the money on more JSFs (when they finnaly are built) or light armour? Anything will be helpful

M1A1 Abrams will not run underwater like T80/90s do. certain other features are good.
December 8th, 2012  
I think you will find the reason they bought the tank was that they got a good deal on it, and the Americans will make up the difference in cash on spare parts. I saying that it is still a good tank.
December 18th, 2012  
Why does SA even need it? SA has no enemies with weapons on par with it. Its only real threat is Zimbabwe, which is not much of a threat. I suspect the reason they went with the cheaper version was because as LeEnfield states, they got a better deal.

SA bought what it needed, it didn't overspend on gadgets it didn't need.