Welcome to Reddit,

the front page of the internet.

Become a Redditor

and join one of thousands of communities.

×

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.

You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Arosian-Knight 665 points666 points667 points  (75 children)

Laugh as much as you want but Swedes actually made tank with retreat doctrine in mind: STRV 103.

The damn tank can even dig its own hulldown position.

Its idea is to shoot then retreat to better position while having extremely low profile and powerful gun, no turret either so its cheaper to make.

[–]crazyray98 199 points200 points201 points  (23 children)

The Brits actually had this idea back in WWII and built a gun carrier called the archer.

Also no turret, but instead of being fast in reverse, they straight up put the gun facing backwards so they would reverse the thing into an ambush position, and once you fire you pull forward towards a new position.

No fancy digging tools on the archer thou

[–]effectasy 37 points38 points39 points  (3 children)

That's actually what the Abrams was designed for as well and the entire NATO doctrine in central Europe during the later cold war.

A fighting retreat through prepared defenses and routing aggressors into areas you have terrain advantage was the name of the game if Pact forces had invaded.

The idea was you couldn't win head on and hold with the masses the Soviets and Pact would throw at you so you had to make it really nasty to gain ground until you could reach a peace settlement or we'd ended the world with a general nuclear exchange.

[–]ThaFuck 14 points15 points16 points  (0 children)

The first two sentences of this are correct. The part about being held is outdated, he won a court case two days ago and is released. The part about an undisclosed vaccine status is very wrong. He is famously anti-vax and has been openly so since vaccines were available. So much so media and fans have called him "Novax" for months.

He has come into Australia using the provision for unvaccinated where they carry antibodies from an infection in the last six months. And apparently he got Covid on Dec 16th. It's his evidence of this that is the entire reason for the stoush.

There are also articles and photos of him attending public events the day after testing positive. Including one involving being close to a large group of kids. So providing that evidence for entry into Australia is admission that he intentionally attended those events knowing he was infected.

[–]CakeisaDie 101 points102 points103 points  (29 children)

He isn't vaccinated.

He had covid a month or so ago.

So the Tennis association and someone else approved of a waiver (because he had covid). The border control side says that they specifically say you need to be vaccinated and not have caught it for the waivers. He went to court and the judge sided with him because Australia had a waiver for people who had gotten covid within the prior 6 months.

He is no longer locked in quarantine due to the judge's rulling. If the Health minister immigration minister decides on a personal level, they get to block him from australia for 3 years.

Edit: Some further clarification.

[–]Eve_Doulou 275 points276 points277 points  (21 children)

They don’t. All Australian military procurement contracts are ‘whole of life’ agreements.

Add the cost of the tank, ammo (depending on agreement), spares, maintenance, maintenance depots, contract admin etc and multiply these costs over the expected lifespan for the tank and then sign a contract that covers all of that.

Government is happy because we know our tanks are now paid for, all inclusive for their agreed service life and the manufacturer is happy because they know that if they can maintain them more efficiently it leaves them with a larger profit margin.

It’s one of those small differences between developed and developing militaries. If you were to buy the tanks only and downstream you had economic issues or faced some kind of sanctions you’re up shit creek, even though your initial buy price was much lower, it also means the manufacturer can shaft you over the cost of maintenance and spares because you have no price protections and no other way to source the parts.

[–]MiguelMenendez 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)

That must have sucked for the pilots.

Today’s mission: “Death Star Trench Run” through Milford Sound.

After landing, make sure to remove all personal items, bumper stickers, etc from your A4s. Then, feed your A4 into a shredder.

Tomorrow’s Mission: Pickup our C-130s at the dealer.

[–]ActualTart23 39 points40 points41 points  (7 children)

Fun fact: The Abrams can run off basically any petroleum-based fuel. Gasoline, jet fuel (JP-8, which is what it typically runs off of), kerosene, etc, etc. They were designed that way with an actual, horrific war in mind where logistics--which, over and above anything else, is America's real strong point--might be a problem.

Source: I was in a US Army cavalry unit that had Abrams, though I was a commo guy (radios and IT, etc).

[–]Thunderbolt747 91 points92 points93 points  (47 children)

Honestly as competition against Chinese armor, the SEPv3 is an outstanding vehicle. Other than the Armata there's been very little in terms of advancement in tank fabrication, with the ZTZ-99/96 and the ZTQ-15 representing the newest of Chinese tanks, but as a light tank.

If this what is to be encountered, the M829A2/3/4 round will have no issue completely buttering Chinese MBT's at 2000 meters.

The Abrams might be aging, but it's still the King of MBT's to this date, with little to no competition.

[–]ratt_man 79 points80 points81 points  (4 children)

NO australia is one of the few countries that does total life cost accounting. (the term is LCC cant remember what the acronym stands for and to lazy to look it up)

So thats the tanks + all the expected costs of the tanks over thier service life. (maintainence, spare parts, training, new repair and service facilities) The tanks themselves probably only cost 5-10 million

[–]lvlint67 181 points182 points183 points  (90 children)

If you want a genuine answer, it's largely diplomacy, it's partially saber rattling and posturing, and it's partially strategic.

The strategy is where a lot of people get caught up. A tank in hard strategy is only useful in some kind of ground invasion (whether offensive or defensive). They are a support vehicle. They offer a direct challenge to mechanized fighting units, provide limited artillery support and can be employed as part of security during troop movements.

Air superiority is useful, but eventually you have to project force on the ground (in the case of an invader).

Obviously, "let's don't do war dummy!" Is the ideal answer... But humans tend to act in non-ideal ways.

[–]Eve_Doulou 68 points69 points70 points  (3 children)

Knowing our history of using Matilda II’s in PNG during WW2 and the Centurions in Vietnam, our M1A2s will find some interesting use if war breaks out in the Pacific vs China.

Our Canberra class LHD can carry a couple of platoons each alongside the rest of our marine expeditionary forces and each has 2 landing ships capable of landing them.

You’ll be finding them on sandbanks in the SCS, in the mountains of Taiwan and in the deep rainforest on the islands surrounding the Malacca Straits. Every single nook and cranny where the American army says “there’s no way you’re taking a 73 tonne tank there” there will be some 22 year old Aussie tank commander saying “Cunt, hold me beer and watch me”

[–]DerButterkex 778 points779 points780 points  (76 children)

ohhh, finally my time to shine!

My first internship I ever did was at KMW (Builders of the German Tank Suite, Leopard 2, Puma, PzH 2000, you name it).

I wasn't allowed to talk about it until recently due to NDA's, but for some reason the Aussies wanted a PzH 2000 (its the heavy duty, 25 miles shooting range, incredible fuck-you-in-particular tank.) As almost all tanks, it is build with tracks. but for some reason none of us at KMW could wrap our head around, you guys wanted them with wheels. of all the countries in the world, we would have expect you to be the last to opt in for wheels. so we build the prototype for you and shipped it.

We joked about your military being bored and probably driving into the outback with them to get payback on the emus. Good times.

[–]Cynical_Cyanide 117 points118 points119 points  (25 children)

That's not a tank. That's a self propelled howitzer. Artillery. You of all people should know that.

Wheeled artillery makes a lot more sense than wheeled tanks. If you're having to drive your artillery through horrific terrain and enemy fire, something had gone really bad.

The outback is super dry and really hard ground 99% of the time. It's not Europe where there's a 50% chance that any random spot of ground in the entire continent is knee deep mud.

[–]Leather_Boots 189 points190 points191 points  (13 children)

You get it.

If any large scale conflict kicks off, then trained Aussie tankers could be flown in to pre deployed equipment.

The tanks also become part of a active ready maintained reserve that is available more quickly than restarting or refurbishing factory lines.

[–]likeasturgeonbass 206 points207 points208 points  (38 children)

120 tanks won't turn the tide, that's true. But you know what might? The thousands of tanks America has.

The logic goes like this: in an invasion, the US is going to be in Australia's corner. Both countries are going to be cooperating closely so commonality and consistency in standards/tactics/equipment is key. As part of that, the Aussies are on a spending spree bringing all of their equipment in line with whatever we're using. That way, in an invasion the US can ship over hundreds of its spare tanks and the Australians can quickly scale up their tank forces without worrying about a learning curve (and more cynically, it also means that Aussie tank crews can seamlessly slot themselves into any future American overseas adventures)

That's one of the reasons they cancelled that huge submarine deal with France in favor of American nuclear subs a few months ago, but on top of that they're also scrapping their relatively new fleet of European helicopters for American ones

And it's not just the Australians either, IIRC Poland is also placing big orders for American tanks for the exact same reason