Modern MBTs don't destroy roads. Rubber track pads prevent this. Bridges with weight limits yes, modern roads no. The equivalent to light tanks currently fielded are not appreciably faster than an abrams. They are significantly more vulnerable to modern infantry anti-armor weaponry.
Tracked guns that aren't MBTs exist. They are slower than the abrams and less effective in direct fire.
You are examining things from ww2 design perspectives. Modern equipment is different. A bradley is functionally a light tank. It is penetrable by a .50. It is not faster than an abrams, it is much worse armored and higher profile. It's nearly the same size, as well. It does not have the versatility of the main gun of the abrams. Tanks do not just shoot kinetic penetration rounds. They have high explosive, or canister (big shotgun) rounds as well. Other modern MBTs can use barrel launched missiles. One abrams platoon used effectively is easily superior to a bradley company. This is proven in war game exercises frequently.
The only nation that would even conceivably attempt to take Australia would be China. If they were invaded, Australia would not be able to stop them from getting armored vehicles on land. The MBT is the most effective armored vehicle for ground combat.
Modern MBTs don't destroy roads. Rubber track pads prevent this.
Yes they do. They weigh >100t each. How many do you think can trundle down a road before it is mush? I watch the (very few) Abrams saddle up for exercises and see each and every one loaded onto a custom low-loader to be transported to and from the exercise, specifically to prevent a convoy of Abrams (with rubber track pads) from wrecking the roads.
Logistics is king. Diesel is the resource, and unless the Chinese Navy lands in fucking Darwin, they are going to have to haul their supplies across the most rugged continent on earth.
Australia just signed a contract for the delivery for 75 M1A2 Abrams, and I am not alone in thinking that for the job the Abrams is overweight and over armored.
Sheridan’s critique of the opportunity cost of purchasing the SEPv3 models is valid, notwithstanding Australia’s continued need for the direct-fire support capabilities that tanks provide. Australia’s M1A1s were initially intended to operate until 2035, and it seems likely this upgrade will push the platform’s operating life in Australia out to at least the 2040s. While the army should continue to operate a tank platform, the Abrams is simply too heavy for Australia’s needs, and Defence has missed an opportunity to consider lighter alternatives, such as the US Army’s light tank ‘mobile protected firepower’ program, which is set to deploy its first units by 2025.
The M1A2 SEPv3 is a continuation of the army’s tank capabilities: fast, powerful, reliable and overkill and overweight for Australia’s needs, with little room to manoeuvre for future developments.
As amusing as it is to watch you stroke your e-peen and daydream about tank on tank battles in the outback, Main Battle Tanks are not the most effective armored vehicle for ground combat under every circumstance.
Vs actual knowledge and experience. An abrams is 72 tons. They are loaded on the superheavy trucks for transport to save fuel, maintenance and operational time. They can drive on roads fine. The steel tracks are what gave tanks the reputation for destroying roads - the weight distribution of tracks actually has less pounds of weight per square inch of surface contact area than cars.
And you're trying to twist this entire argument from "MBTs bad" to "my irrelevant country doesn't need them" and still saying wrong things. It is the king of armored warfare. It is the best choice for infantry support and any direct engagement. It is not a troop transport, it is not an anti-air platform, but in any kind of situation where vehicles or troops need to be destroyed and terrain permits vehicles, the abrams will do it better, faster and have the highest survivability.
Modern MBTs don't destroy roads. Rubber track pads prevent this. Bridges with weight limits yes, modern roads no. The equivalent to light tanks currently fielded are not appreciably faster than an abrams. They are significantly more vulnerable to modern infantry anti-armor weaponry.
Tracked guns that aren't MBTs exist. They are slower than the abrams and less effective in direct fire.
You are examining things from ww2 design perspectives. Modern equipment is different. A bradley is functionally a light tank. It is penetrable by a .50. It is not faster than an abrams, it is much worse armored and higher profile. It's nearly the same size, as well. It does not have the versatility of the main gun of the abrams. Tanks do not just shoot kinetic penetration rounds. They have high explosive, or canister (big shotgun) rounds as well. Other modern MBTs can use barrel launched missiles. One abrams platoon used effectively is easily superior to a bradley company. This is proven in war game exercises frequently.
The only nation that would even conceivably attempt to take Australia would be China. If they were invaded, Australia would not be able to stop them from getting armored vehicles on land. The MBT is the most effective armored vehicle for ground combat.
Yes they do. They weigh >100t each. How many do you think can trundle down a road before it is mush? I watch the (very few) Abrams saddle up for exercises and see each and every one loaded onto a custom low-loader to be transported to and from the exercise, specifically to prevent a convoy of Abrams (with rubber track pads) from wrecking the roads.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3901/14349238546_eee8f20a41_b.jpg
Logistics is king. Diesel is the resource, and unless the Chinese Navy lands in fucking Darwin, they are going to have to haul their supplies across the most rugged continent on earth.
Australia just signed a contract for the delivery for 75 M1A2 Abrams, and I am not alone in thinking that for the job the Abrams is overweight and over armored.
From:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-new-tanks-are-overkill-and-overweight/
As amusing as it is to watch you stroke your e-peen and daydream about tank on tank battles in the outback, Main Battle Tanks are not the most effective armored vehicle for ground combat under every circumstance.
Vs actual knowledge and experience. An abrams is 72 tons. They are loaded on the superheavy trucks for transport to save fuel, maintenance and operational time. They can drive on roads fine. The steel tracks are what gave tanks the reputation for destroying roads - the weight distribution of tracks actually has less pounds of weight per square inch of surface contact area than cars.
And you're trying to twist this entire argument from "MBTs bad" to "my irrelevant country doesn't need them" and still saying wrong things. It is the king of armored warfare. It is the best choice for infantry support and any direct engagement. It is not a troop transport, it is not an anti-air platform, but in any kind of situation where vehicles or troops need to be destroyed and terrain permits vehicles, the abrams will do it better, faster and have the highest survivability.