This suggests that there might be much more going on behind the scenes than the public is privy to, particularly regarding some of the compromises that the US is discussing with Russia.
This issue simply demonstrates the disconnect between our sycophantic politicians with the ADF and more importantly, the Australian electorate. Did the military-industrial complex lobby Richard Marles to give away our tanks so that there would be a need for a replacement purchase? Who gave the Government a mandate to become involved in USA's proxy war with Russia? Australia is a minnow in the shark infested international geopolitical pool and it is time that we step back from games in the "big boy's swimming pool! And that includes a conscious review of the AUKUS project.
Abso-bloody-lutely mate! Join BRICS+ and drop those rotten Western plague-carrying rats AFAP! The US is a true friend to NO country except rotten Israel.. and you must surely know the Brita are as trustees a saltwater croc! BRICS+ is the future.. the West is toast! Be smart.. lose the losers!
I'm Australian. I do not support sending weapons to foreign conflicts which have nothing to do with us. Unfortunately both sides of our politics are captured.
In 18 months Ukraine lost around half the Abrams tanks donated by the USA. Other website says over 20 of the 31 is gone with the wind. U.S. tank manufacturers’ image might be taking some downgrading here and this can be a contributing reason why they do not want to send more. The shipments of the first 30 were new; the 49 in AU are decades old. If they ship the 49 aged tanks from AU and most of them bite the dust there, it could look real bad. Old age for tanks is a serious risk factor. Once they get into Ukraine they will likely never get out of there.
The principal decision to transfer Abrams tanks from Australia to Ukraine was probably taken about 12 months ago, that is long before Trump became president. The intervening months would have been used to bring them out of mothballs and make repairs and upgrades of some sort. Once combat and transport readiness is reached they would have been taken to a port to wait for a ship. But oops… president changed along with the policy! Transport links, ports, and permits are suddenly uncertain and no one wants to pay to send a hundred tons of equipment halfway across the world only to have to bring it back because someone out there didn’t cooperate.
And just maybe… Australian defence force didn’t want to cooperate with this project. They looked at Denmark and Canada and said “You people have nuttin’ left! F that!”
Just from the MIC-IMATT point of view, transferring the already reputationally dead Abrams to Ukraine is good, as it opens the market in Australia for replacements. It's like a great Australian said about the "War" in Afghanistan and the great flows of money there in.
Logistics are an issue though, Italy and Greece both have labour unions refusing to handle war materials to Ukraine, and few ports that can handle Abrams, particularly ones that still need repair.
The US is done with this proxy war which never would have started under Trump. Blinken convinced Biden ( it’s quite possible even he didn’t understand the gravity here) this was some just war and then Zelensky was paraded around like the second coming of Churchill(even he believed it) but Ukraine could never win this war as restrictions were placed on what could be done with the armaments that were given to Ukraine. This has been a debacle from the start and elections have shifted the will of many countries to continue this so those Australian tanks aren’t needed. Trump most likely pulls out of NATO which I can’t wait for as Europe figures out how to fend for itself and all those social programs get cut to pay for their own defense. The globalists have lost.
Could the rumor has been started by Australian defense sources? Surely they’re not too keen to lose some of their tanks, likely permanently given how the Abrams has performed.
Commonly, there are sweeteners behind these so called giveaways. The U.S. might have offered some new replacements with preferential pricing to AU. 49 Abrams - even when they are two decades old - are a considerable force in the right hands if they are already experienced in servicing them.
Since Iran presently fields tanks (and Iran has not waged a war of aggression since the 18th century when it was still "Persia") they must be of some use.
Iran is a VERY difficult nation to invade, geographically, and largely unsuited for tank warfare. Few amphibious avenues exist, and invading armour will be extremely vulnerable in the mountain passes.
What tanks Iran retains are largely a remainder from the Iran-Iraq war, in which USA armed Iraq with modern and chemical weapons to attack Iran. At any rate, they may be useful for defense. All tanks are not equal, smaller more agile vehicles than the 72 ton Abrams are more useful in mountainous terrain, is all.
This issue simply demonstrates the disconnect between our sycophantic politicians with the ADF and more importantly, the Australian electorate. Did the military-industrial complex lobby Richard Marles to give away our tanks so that there would be a need for a replacement purchase? Who gave the Government a mandate to become involved in USA's proxy war with Russia? Australia is a minnow in the shark infested international geopolitical pool and it is time that we step back from games in the "big boy's swimming pool! And that includes a conscious review of the AUKUS project.
Abso-bloody-lutely mate! Join BRICS+ and drop those rotten Western plague-carrying rats AFAP! The US is a true friend to NO country except rotten Israel.. and you must surely know the Brita are as trustees a saltwater croc! BRICS+ is the future.. the West is toast! Be smart.. lose the losers!
I'm Australian. I do not support sending weapons to foreign conflicts which have nothing to do with us. Unfortunately both sides of our politics are captured.
In 18 months Ukraine lost around half the Abrams tanks donated by the USA. Other website says over 20 of the 31 is gone with the wind. U.S. tank manufacturers’ image might be taking some downgrading here and this can be a contributing reason why they do not want to send more. The shipments of the first 30 were new; the 49 in AU are decades old. If they ship the 49 aged tanks from AU and most of them bite the dust there, it could look real bad. Old age for tanks is a serious risk factor. Once they get into Ukraine they will likely never get out of there.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/u-s-concludes-abrams-tanks-not-useful-for-ukraine-following-heavy-losses#:~:text=Over%2020%20of%20the%2031,single%20use%20'kamikaze'%20drones.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/ukraine-losing-abrams-fast
The principal decision to transfer Abrams tanks from Australia to Ukraine was probably taken about 12 months ago, that is long before Trump became president. The intervening months would have been used to bring them out of mothballs and make repairs and upgrades of some sort. Once combat and transport readiness is reached they would have been taken to a port to wait for a ship. But oops… president changed along with the policy! Transport links, ports, and permits are suddenly uncertain and no one wants to pay to send a hundred tons of equipment halfway across the world only to have to bring it back because someone out there didn’t cooperate.
And just maybe… Australian defence force didn’t want to cooperate with this project. They looked at Denmark and Canada and said “You people have nuttin’ left! F that!”
Just from the MIC-IMATT point of view, transferring the already reputationally dead Abrams to Ukraine is good, as it opens the market in Australia for replacements. It's like a great Australian said about the "War" in Afghanistan and the great flows of money there in.
Logistics are an issue though, Italy and Greece both have labour unions refusing to handle war materials to Ukraine, and few ports that can handle Abrams, particularly ones that still need repair.
The US is done with this proxy war which never would have started under Trump. Blinken convinced Biden ( it’s quite possible even he didn’t understand the gravity here) this was some just war and then Zelensky was paraded around like the second coming of Churchill(even he believed it) but Ukraine could never win this war as restrictions were placed on what could be done with the armaments that were given to Ukraine. This has been a debacle from the start and elections have shifted the will of many countries to continue this so those Australian tanks aren’t needed. Trump most likely pulls out of NATO which I can’t wait for as Europe figures out how to fend for itself and all those social programs get cut to pay for their own defense. The globalists have lost.
Could the rumor has been started by Australian defense sources? Surely they’re not too keen to lose some of their tanks, likely permanently given how the Abrams has performed.
Commonly, there are sweeteners behind these so called giveaways. The U.S. might have offered some new replacements with preferential pricing to AU. 49 Abrams - even when they are two decades old - are a considerable force in the right hands if they are already experienced in servicing them.
The tank is usless garbage
Simple. Those tanks are wanted for the upcoming war on Iran.
Looking at a map, how could Abrams be used against Iran?
Since Iran presently fields tanks (and Iran has not waged a war of aggression since the 18th century when it was still "Persia") they must be of some use.
Iran is a VERY difficult nation to invade, geographically, and largely unsuited for tank warfare. Few amphibious avenues exist, and invading armour will be extremely vulnerable in the mountain passes.
So why does Iran field tanks?
What tanks Iran retains are largely a remainder from the Iran-Iraq war, in which USA armed Iraq with modern and chemical weapons to attack Iran. At any rate, they may be useful for defense. All tanks are not equal, smaller more agile vehicles than the 72 ton Abrams are more useful in mountainous terrain, is all.
So Iran keeps tanks around some 30 years later, just because? The US never supplied Iraq tanks in the Iran-Iraq War, BTW.
Meanwhile, the US fielded tanks in its war on Afghanistan, which is, logisically and terrain-wise, a worse place for armor than Iran.
Never. The press always knows and reports everything. Journalists are gods!