Jump to content

M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams for Australia


Recommended Posts

https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_april_2021_global_security_army_industry/australian_army_to_expand_m1a1_abrams_mbt_fleet_with_u.s._acquisitions.html

 

Also: 29 M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles; 18 M1074 Joint Assault Bridges; 6 M88A2 Hercules Combat Recovery Vehicles.

 

I can understand the need for these, but the current increase of spend is supposed to be about countering expansion in island chains.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its also primarily about redressing some short falls in the original project due to funding constraints.

 

Its a bit hard to move from Leopard to M1 and not buy the relevant M1 family of AVLB, Engr vehicles, etc.

 

Of course you maybe happy to drive an M1 over a bridge rated for Leopard (MLC of 45) but I'd rather have something a bit more substantial under me. :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I am starting to think that Assault breacher would be good addition to Steelbeast, even if just AI controlled vehicle as AI miglic on many missions that come with Steelbeast has tendency to drive into minefield after breaching it... And often blows up as result. (Especially when AI owned due to mission design) Assault breacher in my opinion would work better as it has mineplows as well. So it could do both... Breach and proofing.

 

And if Australia is getting lot of those i think that's all the more reason to have those in Steelbeast. 

 

I would also love to see that Crows weapon station on tanks and IFVs in Steelbeast. Perhaps it will come at some point with Australian Army getting tanks that use that. Thought wasn't there complain that those are weak and break too often?

Edited by Lumituisku
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Lumituisku said:

And if Australia is getting lot of those i think that's all the more reason to have those in Steelbeast.

 

Only if the powers that be determine its worth writing a contract for it.

 

Personally I think the Land 400 family are a higher priority to be represented (since there is not Boxer + Turret or Lynx / Redback modelled), before we spend money on modelling a new AVLB, etc. (since we can just continue to use the currently modelled Biber).

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...