Why Australia is Upgrading to the World’s Most Advanced Tank

[@MelPikos]

Was Australia's purchase of the M1A2sepV3 Abrams tanks a good idea?

[@darrenmonks4532]

Yep. 75 is about right. However, focus needs to be on quantity, lighter and more mobile armour...like Boxers.

[@kenfowler1980]

The Leopards & the first M1’s never fired a shot in anger! And 1st Armoured has been turned into a weird experimental unit so ask yourself are they really suitable for keeping possible threats away from our shore?

[@bleeper999]

Ukraine has shown that apc’s drones and artillery inc missles seem to be the modern battlefield tools of choice. If we were to fight in audtralia mobility and range is the most important thing so not sure tanks have a leading role anymore

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

Yes. Get your workshops to add: *SLINGER remote weapon station is indeed a different system designed by EOS Defence Systems. It's similar to the CROWS but developed with specific requirements in mind for the Australian Defence Force. The SLINGER station can be equipped with various weapons, including the M230LF 30mm cannon. Automate to intercept FPV munition drones. Position it onto the commander optics so as to not obstruct hunter-killer field of view functions. *TROPHY system. Bonus fantasy upgrades. *Add some reverse pike nose composite armor in the forward fuel tanks to negate modern munitions from the frontal arch. *Investigate a pair of Koenigsegg hybrid electric motors that take up a square foot of hull space each, weighing 49 kg's each and add 800 horsepower to each drive sprocket resulting in 3100hp combined with the standard 1500hp turbine engine. There's probably room for batteries in the hull between the torsion bar suspension. *Consider removing torsion bar suspension to save weight and hull space in exchange for Challenger proven hydro-gas suspension. * Consider wider track for greater flotation on treacherous ground and electric hub motors to export hull volume saving hull space for more fuel, batteries and armor. A wider track profile could result in a skinnier/lighter hull volume if staying within the transport envelope is still a requirement. *consider laser or radar integrated FPV/drone defense systems given new power supply redundancy. *consider explosive reactive armor in placements like the Ukrainians are doing to positive effect on Abrams on the frontlines using Relict One. *Consider ECM or jammer equipment. Summary: Potentially have twice the km range with power pack redundancy, more emergency engine power, silent watch/advance under quiet electric power. Save hull weight. Improve % of navigable terrain available on the map to fight in adverse weather. Capable of dealing with all currently known battlefield threats going into the future.

[@defectiveclone8450]

Tanks are the battleship of the land... 100% useless when versing a technologically advanced adversary (Russia has proved it not one of those adversaries) Control the of sky = no tank will ever get close to firing range... much like ships can never get close enough to fire a cannon. Long range missiles and drones are the future full stop... Artillery is the economically cheaper shorter range option. Australia just needs to buy around 10,000,000 kamikaze drones and we wont need to ever worry about a land force getting close enough to get into a direct fight...

[@damonjones4972]

We don't need them until we need them. Drones can take out a tank but good electronic jammers and anti drone weapons can take out drones.

[@GM-fh5jp]

Given the costs of drone defense it's looking likely a counter drone will be the best answer for a low price per unit. A small combat patrol of "counter drones" overhead of our armored forces seems a good option.

[@subaruadventures]

We will see

[@gerhardgiedrojc991]

WTF do you ever think (sic) they would be used for?

[@mrcookiethief2128]

anti drone weapons are the big one, as drone jammers disturb communications and GPS and do not counter fiber optic drones which are increasingly being used

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@@GM-fh5jp You're not going to detect and intercept a drone with another drone.

[@artistjoh]

Drones don't make tanks obsolete, they just make older pre-drone tactics obsolete. Tanks definitely need anti-drone protection systems. And, no matter how good, and well protected they are, 75 is not enough.

[@HermannCortez]

Probably would've been a good idea to keep the old ones in storage and gradually upgrade them. Instead we give them away to nazis in Ukraine

[@mrblack888]

Australia never buys enough armored vehicles to be worthwhile. In any conflict where the tanks were actually required to engage as part of a general mobilization, the Army would be down to just a handful within a week or two. Same goes for the other highly advanced machines purchased in tiny quantities.

[@MotoWot]

Guided munitions e.g. M982, HIMARS or similar make tanks obsolete. UAVs can easily designate for guided munitions from kilometers away.

[@colofthedead6101]

I'm sorry, but from the thousands of hours of the Ukraine/RUS war I've watched, tanks currently have no defence against drones. Until they have automated guns or something, they are expensive sitting ducks. Even EW is useless against the current drones being employed by Russia in Ukraine using fibre optics with 4K video. 75 old-school tanks would be lucky to last a few weeks in a modern war.

[@williamzk9083]

The Leopard 2A8 tank which is entering Service next year with the German army will feature a trophy APS that can defeat drones. The same or a similar system will be in Australia’s Abrams. Plus there’s a bunch of new vehicles equipped with anti-drone guns and radars coming into Service.

[@Tom-q9h3s]

we really needed these tanks

[@Heshhion]

No, no we don't.

[@jayjayspoon8824]

@@Heshhion last time people said that we got pulled into WW2 and needed tanks BUT these tanks are not suited for our Roads and Bridges they can't hold the there weight

[@wattlebough]

@@jayjayspoon8824Did you know that part of the purchase of these 75 tanks includes another 18 Joint Assault Bridges that use the same chassis as the tank? The units will literally carry their own portable bridges to the battlefield capable of taking more than their own weight.

[@jayjayspoon8824]

@@wattlebough leopard AS1 didn't need it

[@adamparker9765]

Australia has never deployed our tanks OS . We cant even ship them to Ukraine without the American help. So unless you think Australia is going to get invaded any time soon then I woud say these will end up like the last batch. Most of Australias military's purchases are purely to satisfy the American demands that we spend a certain amount of our GDP on weapons . Don't even mention nuclear subs either when under water sea drones will make them obsolete to. Look up the Manta drone.

[@scotttucker3673]

Love your videos. Keep up the good work!

[@stevetaylor8298]

A strong Defence Force is often self-defeating. If you have it, you don't need it. Yes we need these tank and more.

[@DaveOz-mx5oh]

I love how our salt water crocs and irukanji box jellyfish are strategically placed to protect the north coast

[@alexlanning712]

The Japanese found that out in Burme,later on towards the end of WWII

[@charlienewbery4157]

thanks Mel good job and no worries about the traffic just keep doing what your doing mate and they will come

[@peterjasper5156]

Great overview. Excellent kit for our people in the army.

[@andrewstrongman305]

I think they are a great purchase. I'd suggest that the remote 7.62 mm mg be swapped out for a Slinger system. Reactive armour should also be fitted.

[@chriswhite3692]

The Leonidas anti-drone protection system looks impressive.

[@MichaelAussie05]

Thanks Mel for another banger of a segment. I wish you, your family, your friends and everyone. A Very Merry Christmas, A Happy and Prosperous New Year and a Safe Holiday Season. Cheers.

[@chrisFg818]

OK. He's one of the few (the only one) reporting on Australia's military equipment. The problem is the information reads like a manufacturers "tear sheet." No mention of a tank's weight, with or without fuel. Or how long the tank can run for at 65km/hr. Or whether it's propulsion system works in our dusty environment. Or whether we could actually repair them fast enough to be useful defending Australia if attacked. We need leaders and planners who design how we can defend ourselves if, in the very unlikely event, we are invaded. That also involves how we sustain our defence for years. The idea that the UK or US is going to send troops to fight alongside ours in Australia is mythology. We can't base our existence on mythology.

[@pigswhen102]

there will always be a need for mobile direct fire suppport assets regardless of fpvs as the arms race has already begun with jamming, physical defences such as slat and era armors and active protection systems e.g iron fist, it just stands to be seen whether or not these adaptations can effectively defend against emerging advances in drone technology such as with the ai controlle loitering muntions such as some serials of lancet, as well as the new fibre optic fpv drones e.g prince vandal immune to jamming however on that issue it appears that the limited distance of said fpvs and the addition of armor has overall lead to all round sound protection atleast in western pattern vehicles, if interested watch task and purposes new doco in which he traveleld to kursk and spoke with members of the afu ( bradley crew included) and russian populus

[@mylesdobinson1534]

Yes, a great report from Task. Includes talks with crews of upgraded M1a1s That are providing great mobile gun support out too 3ks.

[@MrBarefoot09]

Chappy is a farken legend , awesome report

[@Mark_Williams.]

1:43 - that clip looks awesome! They're needed, all part of having a good combined arms mix. Drones work in Urkaine well. For Austraian land based warfare I'd assume the distances involved doesn't favour drones as much for it to be an overwhelming problem to deal with.

[@No_Use_For_A_Name]

I am agame artist and recently worked on the mil sim LSCore 2.0 for the ADF, and worked on all of these in the video.

[@GM-fh5jp]

The new V3 will form the backbone of our heavy armored assault battalions for decades to come. Who knows when and where they will be needed but at least we will have them online and in fighting trim if a sudden conflict requires them. tank forces can't just be conjured up overnight no matter what the peaceniks tell you.

[@MS-wz9jm]

These tanks have no protection from FPV's. This means the tanks are essentially consumables. 75 is a meaningless amount. Too expensive and under equipped, underpredicted. This is the issue with western militaries, they don't have any experience with modern warfare and the purchases are reflecting that. I recall recently the Australians buying switchblade drones (consumables) at $60,000 a drone yet it has been proven that these drones do not work and were effectively useless in Ukraine due to jamming. We buy them anyway - why? because the yanks tell us too.

[@GM-fh5jp]

@@MS-wz9jm and just how you suppose an "enemy" is going to be able to close within 10-15kms (FPV flight endurance) of one of our armored formations hmm? Our own drones/radars/ISR assets are all scanning furiously for even the slightest impediment to our heavy units going anywhere. They will be operating on the Australian mainland most likely, it's preposterous to think some controllable drones are just going to pop up from "somewhere" 200kms inland. You also don't admit to the long range firepower they bring to an open terrain fight.A tank on the move has little to fear from their manually controllable drones. Their range is too short and they are very vulnerable to data link jamming and spoofing. Our tanks fight as part of a sophisticated combat team. many people are involved protecting the armored battle groups.I could go on...

[@happycarnivore5481]

Our heavy armoured assault battalions? You are kidding right?

[@billorr2213]

Decades??? Decades??? You are obviously not from Australia. The military tub-thumpers will be demanding their replacement after the last one is commissioned, because… obsolete… National emergency… no-one but us understands the urgency… blah, blah, blah… Oh… and it has to be American made. Not better options, just American. We kiss one kind of butt, and one kind of butt only. Pathetic.

[@alexlanning712]

@@MS-wz9jm drone warfare is the new kid on the block,but that doesnt mean much

[@RobertLewis-el9ub]

Good as they are for continuation training - if deployed they need upgrading with the 'Trophy' active protection system (e.g. drone defence). I would leave this live system off the tank during training for safety reasons. 75 is a good number given tactically we normally use them as infantry support systems and not as large armoured formations like the US.

[@richardthomson4693]

they are fit for and but not with trophy, we will be getting a small number of trophy (20ish) and will be fit when needed or training

[@KillaKangaroo282]

Australia uses tanks in large armoured formations like the US as well as infantry support. You got to remember that the Australian army has only about 3000 regular infantry soldiers. 75 tanks with 3000 infantry soldiers is quite a lot. In the US that is a heavy armoured formation so if you think about it. We have a small armoured force but overall we have a way smaller infantry force as well.

[@malakaiunseen]

For effective performance in a modern peer-to-peer combat, combined arms tactics are still a gold standard for force composition. This means that if Australia wants to use its infantry, anywhere, ever, it will be substantially more effective if supported by armoured divions as well. Modernising our tanks isnt just about the tanks, its about keeping the entirety of or ground operations relevant.

[@Internetbutthurt]

armoured divisions? Just how big do you think the Australian Army is mate?

[@paulrussell7446]

The late Senator (and Major General (retired) and head of the Australian Army) Jim Molan said 'the Australian Army must have tanks and the Abrams are the best tanks'. I'll take Jim's advice thank you. When your going street to street, in a real fight for your life, I'll want an Abrams tank on my side thank you.

[@knowhow8521]

I’m not sure tbh. I understand the benefits of armoured mobile direct fire support but depending on the conflict (eg. many a regional expeditionary scenario) these monsters due to their weight and size (limits on transport, terrain usability, logistical support) might not even be in the fight. It seems an expensive contingency for when the conditions suit. On the other hand we could invest the same amount into more of our cheaper per unit and more nimble acquisitions that would be applicable to a wider range of scenarios (eg. Javelin, Switchblade 300, Redback IFVs with Spike Long Range 2, etc) not to mention long range strike.

[@JCZ_888]

Love the negativity. No one wants a tank until you need a tank.

[@paulc6766]

Never much good in Australia as the logistics are impractical.

[@moystonadv3651]

@@paulc6766 defence expert are we?...been in tank warfare...?..coming from armoured defence, can refute your claim ...they need also need to purchase more long range missles to help....but ask any infantry , they need the tanks .....

[@Tater-]

@@moystonadv3651 defense also needs to think realistically about locations of units and avenues of approach as having a long range fires battery in Adelaide makes 0 sense. should be up in darwin (cant have everything in Townsville makes it way to juicy of a target)

[@AndyViant]

75 tanks stretches very thin across the north of Australia, and with minimal ability to project vehicles of that weight extraterritorially we need to consider bang for buck. In the end I think that's kind of a minimum order size to be relevant, but K21 Black Panther's would potentially be better bang for buck up there. But they're not so insertable into a joint force. I hope we can tweak the contract for the AS21 Redback to combine a second block that produces K21's locally. Historically just MBT's has been an expensive use of resources in major conflicts, even despite the benefits of production volume.

[@hiddendragon415]

@@AndyViant It's unlikely Australia will ever be invaded. Ground forces are more likely to be used overseas. Centurion tanks were used in Vietnam.

[@politenessman3901]

Drones are essentially like MGs in the early phases of WW1, some people believed MGs had defeated the attack forever, but over time equipment and tactics evolved to make the just part of the battlefield mix, this will happen with drones, more jammers, SPAAGs, anti drone drones and direction finding their controllers and hitting them with arty will all come into the mix.

[@mckaypaterson2519]

Maybe add drone detection with shoot down multipule drones capability. The Russians are using drone swarms and anti-armour drones guided by wire/ fibre optics. Australia has hugh swathes of tank country, particularly on the western slopes of the Great Dividing Range. Limitations of the armour are refuelling and rearming during extended operations. Future wars will be highly mobile with high attrition rates of expensive equipment, if objectives cannot be gained rapidly and the enemy's ability to fight, quickly destroyed.

[@andrewsmith2591]

We need some tanks and a whole range of other weapons and platforms. There is no doubt about that. But I believe that Australia's best defensive strategy would be to prevent any attacker from being able to land a sizeable force anywhere on our mainland. Early warning is the key here and improved surveillance and missile defence systems should be our priority. To my mind, this means satellites and longer range missile systems.

[@OniFeez]

I get that the tanks are important, but given the tank churn that Russia is going through (even if they aren't supported correct), 75 feels way too low, especially in an active war scenario. Indonesia alone operates 100's of various tank options (which is another problem for them), but still - it's a lot more. I'm also pretty sure that of all the options we are getting for this tank, the one thing we aren't is the depleted uranium tank shielding that the US will have for its variants. Another thing to consider imo is the force reshuffling in the wake of the recent defense review. The one that saw the self-propelled South Korean artillery Huntsmen order cut and the Redback cut back too. If our army is being remodelled into more of a marine force expeditionary one, then having the Abrams is a bit weird because even the USMC is transferring it's tanks to the US Army. If the purpose of our Army is to not only defend Australia but also to conceivably island hop amongst the Pacific and the rest of Asia, why is our defence forces not seeking to introduce lighter tank variants into our force like the Light Tank BAE or the M10 Booker MPF? Surely tank support, even during landing operations would be a powerful force multiplier.

[@michaelmcdougall8868]

I dig the content and the format, but I'd love to know where you've developed your cadence as you're following your cues. It's part Christopher Walken, part Ron Burgundy and all 'I need to focus on what you're saying coz I don't know what's important by intonation'

[@HarryCriswell-ky5xt]

It's smart of Australia to work on their military potential. Thank you Australia 🇦🇺 an ally and USA 🇺🇸 for helping them.

[@paulc6766]

Yes but money needs to be spent wisely. This money should have gone towards more aircraft.

[@robertbroadbent216]

Australia’s biggest weakness is the Anthony ALbanese government?

[@MS-tm2yz]

The UK government cant work out what to have for breakfast.............

[@JoeyGonzales-qs6ne]

Nice blog TY

[@johnroberts9922]

I think Australia would have been better served purchasing two top of the line destroyers from Korea. About equal money and the Sejong the Great class has a capacity of 128 missiles in VLS cells. Damn hard to land combat troops in Australia facing those two behemoths.

[@Rimasta1]

The sea is an important realm but so is the land. As someone once said, “Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo, not Trafalgar.”

[@AndyViant]

Reality is we should have bought the 75 M1A2 sep V3's from the US, as well as completed the full order for AS21 Redbacks. We should have started an upgrade package for the ASLAV's, kept the upgraded M113AS4's, and gifted the older spec M113's to Ukraine. This should all be funded by a cancellation of the Aukus submarines and a completion of the Suffren Class nuclear subs as per French spec. The UK Astute class subs are absolutely the closest to a match to our needs, but they will come far too late, given where the Collins class are at in their cycle. We need to order the Suffren/Shortfin Barracuda class in nuclear powerplant variant. Sending them one at a time to France for refuelling every ten years is not as much of an issue as is running incompatible subs to our Naval staffing levels, which is especially a big deal with the US equipment. We need more funding for staffing over new toys. BTW we should buy KAI FA-50's in decent numbers as a replacement for the Fa-18F when their time is done. While frontline ability matters, so does depth of resources and the affordability of training time.

[@trevorspeedy6333]

@@AndyViant everything good except the Suffren, having the requirement for France to refuel is unacceptable, political situations change, what could France hold over Australia for the refuelling.

[@AndyViant]

@@trevorspeedy6333 The requirement for France to refuel is basically domestic non-war time politics. That would go out the window if we had a nuclear industry. I don't think our current nuclear reactors (IIRC we have 2) are suitable sources, as they're not really for that but for nuclear medicine products and small scale experimental power.

[@bobster852]

a better question is why Australia did not get the number of tanks they originally wanted. the dream of 3 brigades rotating through levels of readiness is gone.

[@JPT-fz8wc]

75 MBT's is not safe guarding anything lol, 3 to 1 means we will have about 25 tanks active out of the 75, the other 50 will be 25 for training and 25 in maintenance.. Our ADF is becoming weaker not stronger because we lack capacity and economic resilience, majority of our fuel comes from the middle east then is processed in south east asia before it gets here, worse of all we have no war stocks and would be lucky to last 1 week maybe 2 at the most in a conflict before we start running out of almost everything.. USA is our defence force because of Canberra neglecting our ADF for the last 3 decades.. 5 years now into the 10 year window to prepare for a conflict and our ADF is becoming smaller with ships being retired contracts scaled back and canceled and a massive reliance economically the country that we will be in a conflict with, let this sink in when the CCP fires missiles at us they will be made from Australian steel..

[@lambbosbread123]

Coudnt agree more

[@adamparker9765]

We do have war stocks of oil , in the US of course . 😂☹At the moment we have no way to store it hear in Aust . Mind you China only has to stop sending us Add Blue and we come to a grinding halt. Not enough military men in Canberra to think tactically .

[@jamesgiles6572]

And all the Australian industry disappearing or going to disappear that are the remaining few that can build parts like shell casings, gunpowder, steel etc.

[@reddyreddog9025]

Surely 25 for maintenance and training each is way to much i can't see that many being inactive at the same time maybe 10 maintenance max and 5 training cause we hardly have the numbers for the adf in the first place

[@JPT-fz8wc]

@@reddyreddog9025 Nope it's not to far off, it will vary from time to time, maintenance we do not have the existing facilities so you have to do it in smaller batches which increases the maintenance process time, crews take over 12 months to train, you have tank training, combined arms training and now amphibious operations training.. Biggest thing is look at the restructuring of our army and it being downsized to 1 active amphibious force, even if we had more active tanks we do not have the structure in the 1 active amphibious force to utilise them..

[@peterk2455]

Australia already has 13 armoured recovery M88A2. Now will have 6 more of these 1950's designed, M60 chassis recovery vehicles. That's 19 recovery vehicles for 75 Abrams tanks. Must be expecting a lot of recovery work for them. Having 75 tanks is pointless for the Australian army. We have 1st Armoured, which is 'armoured cavalry' apparently. 2nd Cavalry, also 'armoured cavalry' and 3/4 Cavalry Regiment. That is also a 'cavalry regiment'. Also a 'training support and logistics squadron' at Puckapunyal. Also a part of 3rd Brigade in Townsville. Basically no one seems to know what to do with armour. The fractured state of the units. The dogs breakfast that is the make up of armoured recon/cavalry/infantry/engineer/ is shadowed by the range of gear. There's a mashup of Abrams, M882 ARV, M1150 Breacher, M1074 Assault Bridges, ASLAV, Hawkei, Bushmaster, Mercedes G-wagons and M113AS4. No armoured supply vehicles and not a single piece for self propelled anti-aircraft capability amongst them? Logistics staff would be earning their pay keeping those supplied with bits and bobs. Not to mention the RAEME crews trying to keep them going. Maybe Australia would be better off with true 'cavalry' and reconnaissance units, and spending their tax $ on AGM114R and Spike -MR/VR/ER missiles.

[@stabsfeldwebela4178]

1st Armoured Regt has been disbanded. Recovery vehicles, when you integrate Tanks everywhere like they are doing, you need the highest common denominator for recovery, the recovery vehicles can recover every vehicle in the fleet, a MRV cannot that’s the logic behind it. ACR’s have existed for decades in US. It’s not a new idea, they were the backbone of the defence of West Germany. They were supposed to be replaced by Striker Brigades. Offensive combined arms units were designed for the deep battle which is by definition a Cavalry action. Using the term is not a misunderstanding of it.

[@AndyViant]

Sending out IFV's without tanks is a suicide mission. the only question is whether a 2:1 ratio is reasonable. I question that, especially without a significant upgrade to the ASLAV's that have been our recon and support vehicles for so long.

[@paulwallis7586]

Tanks can't be ignored. They have to be countered. If they're not countered, they can cause chaos. We have plenty of anti-drone stuff. They're also a mobile organic fire asset, and able to keep up with all our other gear. This is the "stronger harder faster" scenario in practice.

[@adamparker9765]

The only use tanks will get in Australia would be a direct invasion. Can you think of any potential adversaries where they could invade Aust and not have air superiority over us ? Because tanks like these would only be useful if we have air superiority , or they would be sitting ducks.

[@kennethhammond4028]

​@adamparker9765 one springs to mind a future potential new radical Islam comes to power in Indonesia, who with their extreme overpopulated land, see Australia very underpopulated land.

[@paulwallis7586]

@@adamparker9765 We're quite capable (to a point) of any military action and if we had something like a systemic acquisition process air capacity is not an issue.

[@AndyViant]

most of our anti drone assets cost far more than the drone cost, for a percentage chance of countering the drone. This is what drones are great at. Economically draining the enemy through asymmetric warfare.

[@KillaKangaroo282]

@@adamparker9765 Australia is a expeditionary force and we bought our tanks in mind for that. The army hasn't seen combat since Afghanistan and Australia has changed its doctrine to focus on combined arms. Australia is actively deploying tanks for exercises worldwide. We have the ability to do so now. That means in a future conflict minor or major tanks will be deployed no matter what. Its part of our doctrine.

[@noosatraders]

Warfare and military equipment and tactics are in constant evolution

[@quansun7633]

Active defense system is a must for the tanks. Tank as weapon platform still has its place in the modern battlefield field. More resource should divert to the USV especially the small one for the front line troops.

[@scoaus]

It’s so weird thinking it’s been nearly 20 years since we updated from the Leopard. The first Abrams rolled into the school of armour the same week I discharged and I feel old thinking about that 😂

[@BreakingWildGaming]

I remember being on exercise at Shoalwater Bay and meeting my first Abrams as it rolled near our gun pit popped a hatch and flashed a torch at us as the crewman said “bang, your f$&ked!” 😆

[@8519224]

i would have kept the old ones to! reckon we going to need them

[@jamesgowing3856]

Tanks have a place even with improved drone technology. An effective fighting force has multiple layers of attack and defence. Australia is such a large country the number of tanks may need to be higher in my view.

[@Nanovations]

Most advanced Tank is the Panther KF51 main battle tank. Drohne on board automatic loading an firing. ready for crewless remote operating.

[@operation4wheelz]

As long as the tank can do things that other things can’t, it will be relevant.

[@joshuarees4342]

Thank you! 😀

[@pollyskirt1]

No1 problem is they are very heavy on fuel ,and dont use diesel like other Army vehicals ,therefore need special fuelling vehicals to follow them around. And 75 is bugger all and also how to transport them around this huge country to where needed ,the engines wear out quickly .,no mention was made about tank transporters .

[@firstandlastname6194]

The drone problem will be defeated from a technological perspective. If you write tanks off, you get into a conflict and the opposing force has more and better tanks than you, you've lost. You get positions collapsing as they're rolled over by tanks and mechanized infantry with drone defeating capabilities. I keep saying it but I think eventually tanks will be defended with modular pods like on aircraft with point defence capability. They will either use extremely miniaturized ammunition or lasers.

[@andrewsmall6834]

Can you please do a video on the Australian navy's plan to upgrade to the largest fleet in Australian history. (Second time asking).

[@JPT-fz8wc]

It's not the largest fleet, we had a larger fleet back in WW2 with only 7 million population..

[@iamjordandavis]

Strategy & Analysis Center already has multiple videos on this if you are interested.

[@AndyViant]

We will never build to the largest fleet in Australian History. When WW2 finished we had the 4th largest fleet in the world. We are unlikely to ever reach those levels again.

[@KillaKangaroo282]

Australia's navy is pathetic. We have the US navy anyway so there is no point in having a bigger navy anyway.

[@charliepirhonen9734]

I think we need tanks in the ADF. They are still a relevant weapon. If Australia never uses them then it is still worth it for training to use tanks if we need them and training to defeat tanks even if we don't use our own.

[@arunta5]

Drones are now lethal and getting more so almost daily. Probably better to work on autonomous fighting vehicles that can be remotely controlled by soldiers behind the front line.

[@bigman23DOTS]

It’s the logistics support that makes tanks of any use or value….its a step in the right direction but

[@The_Last_Ninja]

When Tanks are deployed in a covered environment like a bush or tree line for example are the drones effective then? Of course it’s better to have Tanks and not need them, then to not have Tanks and need them.

[@Nathan-yy2xs]

Even though tanks are no longer the game changer of the battlefield, some are still needed for artillery support. So 79 tanks would be appropriate fleet size for Australia regardless the battlefield is changing with drones and long-range artillery systems like HIMARS, etc. Its how they are deployed and used on the battlefield that will determine the effectiveness

[@ron9665]

I would think that Australia would try to incorporate the Metal Storm as a means of protecting the Abrams from infantry and possible swarm attacks. This would also help to support AUS industry.

[@richardthomson4693]

metal storm has gone bankrupt 3 times, its a dead idea. They will be fit for but not nessecarly with trophy

[@chrisar6068]

All systems need to be used with combined arms tactics to be effective.

[@Paulwalken1993]

These small numbers of acquisitions are inadequate. I get that Australias place in the pacific Alliance/coalition with the US, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea etc. is more of a naval and air force role, but with their buildup due to the threat of China, they definitely need more numbers for ground hardware to be able to provide more static support and establish a firmer ground presence.

[@wonniewarrior]

Does the M1A1 and the Newer M1A2 had the same gas turbine engine as the USA version ? And did we actually use diesel in our Abrams while retaining the actual turbine - which I understand is multi-fuel ?

[@HarryAirborne]

G'day Mel, a good informative overview of another major investment in military hardware. Major considerations in respect to need for heavy armor, like MBT's, like all our Defense expenditure, the priority must remain... 1/. Best for defending Australia, (not foreign overseas adventure) 2/. Best Bang for Buck: combat rated compared to both competitor manufacturers & likely adversaries? 3/. Best Support: Particularly for MBT's, Technical Superiority at purchase & upgrades, in both hardware & software for weaponry, protection & mobility. 4/. Best Crew's - Training & Command. Main Battle Tanks are bloody expensive bit of gear, to purchase & maintain in battle readiness with great, smart command of well selected, cohesive, best trained battle ready crews. None of which you can afford to lose let alone replace. Nothing is more vulnerable in battle than poorly trained crewed, outdated hunks of iron.

[@leighmurrell5494]

In modern warfare with guided rockets and drones of the current technology (as demonstrated in Ukraine), it appears that tanks are little more than an easy, moving target and pretty much a waste of money just like the ludicrous AUKUS submarines we might get in 30 years. By then, underwater drones will be so sophisticated that they will totally overwhelm them...if we even get them.

[@BSenta]

Subs can't get attacked by cheap drones lol

[@leighmurrell5494]

@@BSenta If you actually read what I said, it referred to sophisticated drones that will be available in 30 years time.

[@williamhardes8081]

add a slinger or two to each section?

[@KenMcKinnon-c4r]

75 tanks for Australia that has an area of 7,688,287 km2. I'm guessing that an invader would go for strategic assets like minerals and energy sources. I wonder where the tanks will be located and how long it would take to relocate them those areas? I recall an exercise in the past where the army gave up after 2 weeks to trying to move tanks by road to the north of WA.

[@wattlebough]

The ADF will rely on the F35, HIMARS rocket artillery and Apache helicopters for quick response to scenarios like that.

[@treefarm3288]

The tanks are not a bad purchase for the army,but the projected nuclear submarines, so far in the future,are. In war games,thearmy can find out now if the tanks can handle drones. However buying expensive submarines to arrive in the distant future, we can't know if they will handle the future defense situation. Thanks for the video..

[@captaron]

everyone commenting about drones but if the crew survives being overwhelmed by drones the crew survives making a tank worthwhile

[@bazexo12.73]

Those M1A1s I beleive are Retired Desert Storm Vehicles. As they are second hand.

[@RexusOutfitters]

Aussie vehicle camo is the BEST.

[@stunick1573]

In all honesty it's better to have and not need then not have and then need. The Slep 3v is a really good up to date tank, USA is working to upgrade to the Slep 4v atm. It's not the export dumbed down version given to Iraq so there is that. With the French, Brits, USA and most every country all working on improved anti drone weapons, jammers, dazzlers, directed energy EMP and lazers drone effectiveness will be countered to some extent. The ability to detect a drone or swarm of drones is important combined with the new 3 P ammo. Drones will have a much more difficult time locating and taking tanks out.

[@JPT-fz8wc]

That's being done too, Dronesheild has their C-UAS systems and EOS has their Slinger and Dazzler DEW, that's just 2 of a few SME's involved, although Canberra not showing much of an interest in our countries defence and just doing the minimum.. The russian invasion of Ukraine is not really the best example either because of tech transfer restriction most of what Ukraine gets from western countries is stripped right back compared to what our countries use, even the armour is removed from tanks along with most the electronics, our bushmasters were gutted back to the basics too before they went to Ukraine..

[@stunick1573]

@@JPT-fz8wc So they get the export version or a variation of it. Don't need the Russians getting top shelf M-1's to study.

[@Pahwah]

Ukraine has proven that its the Bradley that is the king of the battlefield and not the MBT. With Australia's limited need for a MBT, expecially on overseas deployments, 400 Bradleys instead may have been a smarter purchase. I know that the two have different purposes, but we have a greater need for IFV than MBT.

[@peterlangan1181]

While I agree with your thoughts the Bradley has hardly proved itself the king of the battlefield. There was an area in Southern Ukraine christened Bradley Square because of the number of destroyed Bradley’s in that area. The Abrams tank is hardly a star. The fact is the U.S. organises its minions (of which Australian is one) to buy US products which are not always the best.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@peterlangan1181 Abrams is one of the least protected NATO tanks. There is nothing at all special about its design, no internal inserts, minimal composite coverage. It has the forward facing plate, and three sided turret coverage. This is a bare minimum degree of protection. No spall liners, no compartmentalized design, there's nothing special about it. It's like a dude wearing a plate carrier. Which is perfectly serviceable, but it's not a great tank. Almost anything America's allies puts out is better.

[@Internetbutthurt]

King of the battlefield? Clearly a subscriber to Denys the Draftdodger.

[@noosatraders]

The Bradley’s did well because they where supplied in large numbers, you have more options in tactics when you have the numbers

[@bradbamman4879]

Are these vehicles the variant with depleted uranium hulls?

[@harrysmith6561]

Yes they are

[@Idahoguy10157]

Where is Australia expecting to use these tanks? At home or abroad?

[@ttacygeddes]

When?

[@nevermind594]

These tanks, along with our landing craft and new missiles, may make the real goal obvious. Australia appears to be focusing on the ability to take hostile nearby (within F35 range) islands, with our tanks landing on enemy-held beaches. Does Australia expect our next major battles will be like Guadalcanal? What other capabilities do we need for this?

[@morningchaps]

Tanks seem like a poor return on investment - very much like the AUKUS submarines. For the money spent, Australia could get a lot more lighter, more mobile vehicles, more varied missile systems, more drones & anti-drone weapons, for a more nimble and deeply resourced army that would have weapon systems it *actually* has doctrine for.

[@paulc6766]

Yes spot on, if the US marines don't want them then that is a good guide.

[@adamparker9765]

There is only a quarter of Australia's bridges that can take their weight . We never deployed the older Abrams , these tanks will be the same . Did we get the gas turbine engines or the diesel ones we insisted on in the old version ? I get the impression the Americans just want a battalion of Aussie soldiers trained on their tank in case of emergencies .

[@iamjordandavis]

I would be surprised to see them deployed anywhere south of Townsville

[@mrsock3380]

This isn't the channel to find out the difference between the old and new, this guy makes it sound like they spent 3.5 billion on some upgrades to a night vision viewer, which could be the case.

[@glennllewellyn7369]

Couldn’t of said it better myself.

[@richardthomson4693]

@@iamjordandavis you mean like the detachment that been in brisbane for years, or the US forces that every 2 years move up a couple of dozen from their storage faciilty near Albury Wodonga to shoal water for talisman saber. The whole bridge thing is a myth. The gross weight of the tank and transporter is absolutely a concern. The issue is the point weight of the tank, but if you carrying it on tank transporter the weight is distributed over greater area. Thats why if you look at military low boys they have 2 sets of triple axels and one set is set forward of the rest closer The short of it is if they are moving them anywhere along the east and south coast they just use standard lowboys/tank transporters. If going somewhere off the beaten track they use a specialised tank transporter for them

[@stabsfeldwebela4178]

The turbine is multi fuel, as we don’t have a massive Air Force ergo a massive need for Jet A we will run them on diesel as it’s the main bulk fuel needed, why create another supply chain. There is negligible difference in performance.

[@neilkavanagh2946]

In relation to surface ships they will prove to outdated as missile technology has overtaken them, best value for any country is missile defense, area access denial capability, submarines, hypersonic missiles and drone ie loitering munitions

[@Clint450f]

Good they are finally coming. They serve a part of the whole service drones or not. Pity they slashed the Redback buy, guess a lot M113AS will be soldiering on. The boxer if they can let us manufacture the fused proprietary rounds for the autocannon I'd like that but afaik RM has not. Relying on a Euro supplier with it's own problems at current has not worked well for Australia in the past.

[@superpala2025]

Australia needs a bigger military we need to upgrade everything.

[@VenturiLife]

We need to make our own stuff even if under license..

[@OniFeez]

I'm not sure if this is fair criticism, if not I really do apologise, but sometimes when you read out some of the weapon specifications or gear specifications, it's like you don't have the foggiest idea what they are, and you are just reading it without sort of processing it. Like you're doing it by rote. I'm not sure what you can do to fix this really, it's obvious you do do a lot of research when it comes to making these videos, which I do appreciate. For example 4:48 when you say: 'it's also equipped with a number of fire control systems, including a 'digital ballistic computer'' you literally shake your head at the same time as if to say 'i have no idea what this means.' Even if you don't say it, maybe a quick summary in text on screen could highlight to the viewer that you do know, and it might be a good way to add value to your content with hopefully less editing and re-recording time spent. Also, and this is a pretty minor criticism I think, but because you seem to favour quick cuts, it sometimes feels as if you're not emphasizing the right syllables in a sentence, which is sort of distracting. It's good that it makes me pay attention to what you're saying though. Once again, I don't want to sound rude, mean or even unappreciative of your work, I actually really enjoy watching your content. It's clear that this is as much a passion project for you as anything else, and I remain interested as well. Between the Ghost's and various ADF gear upgrades, I think we are watching a potentially transformative stage for our military, and hopefully not too late.

[@harddobe]

The era of the tank is over. Ukraine has shown how even the newest Leopards, Challangers, Abrams and the newest Russian tanks, with the latest reactive armour, are getting taken out by FPV drones with minimal explosives on them. 75 tanks is a basic nothing in real terms. Australia needs to concentrate of doing what it needs to make it too dangerous or impossible to land here. That means missiles, planes and subs.

[@mackbolan1733]

A capable land force should be able to field armoured vehicles, including tanks. We've found ourselves operating in various environments and types of conflict over the last 30 years and often at relatively short notice. It takes a long time to get a unit up and running to an operational standard, years when you include equipment procurement, so it make sense to simply maintain all the different types of units that you may conceivably need so they are always operationally ready to go. Tanks are not obsolete...they may not be as effective as they once were, but they are far from obsolete...

[@RestorationWatch]

You beauty, we're buying a batch of Armata tanks!

[@ididthat1st]

Combined Arms doctrine will need to be updated to counter drones and emerging threats - same as warfare always evolves. Tanks - better to have them and not need them, then to need them and not have them. Nothing moves and hits like them.

[@stuartkcalvin]

IOC is Initial Operational Capability, not Capacity.

[@xmst5]

What makes this the most advanced?

[@jdare99]

Do we know what Gen of Thermal optics the tanks Aus is getting are fitted with? Do we know the AU Gov stance on fitting the APS to the tanks? And while the M1A3 is a a Teck filled beast, It's also one of, if not the, heaviest tanks out there. Must be a nightmare to move these things around.

[@allrounder1214]

since Australia don't have land borders its safe to assume the tanks will be used against its own people in a hostile environment, when needed.

[@The_Pub_]

As the Australian Military is Primarily a Defence Force, and We live on an Island, of course we need more tanks... Go Navy...

[@AusExplorer]

If Australia ever needs MBTs on home soil, something has already gone so wrong that they won't make a difference.

[@brianfoley4328]

Pick the tank you like. The M-1A2 SEPv3 is a very good tank, an excellent combination of firepower, protection, integrated technologies and mobility. The latest Leopard is also a good tank as are the South Korea and British tanks. Avoid the Soviet junk and the spin-offs from those designs. One question is: How many do you need? Another question is : How quickly do you need them? and finally: How much do you want to pay? Australia should have been given a special discount on the M--1's as Australia is a beloved ally and will make good use of them. Having a customer that will do your product proud is worth giving a generous discount. If I were running things, the Aussies would get any American gear they wanted at cost with a generous discount on spare parts, etc. The Aussies will make whatever you sell them look good, which in turn increases sales across the board.

[@Internetbutthurt]

The soviet junk is still defeating some of the latest NATO crap which is overpriced, underperforming, and overweight.

[@guygareau2028]

Considering the high tank losses on both sides in Ukraine I wish Australia kept its older M1s in reserve.

[@pizzagogo6151]

Only thing Im not a fan of is the gas turbine engine, while its certainly poweful & reliable, Australia just doesn't have the infa structre to keep fuel up to them...& Australia is rather- big😮. Still in every other way, of whats currently available, theyre as it gets! Good move by Australia.

[@brook280]

Not sure the most advanced? But anyway we need to modernise and expand quickly but with a small population it makes military spending tight

[@philiplucky7170]

our tanks will never leave Australia

[@KillaKangaroo282]

49 of our tanks are going to Ukraine

[@scottsmith1742]

I have no Idea why we need this? Are we not just training to join a US unit if combat kicks off? We should be looking at the USA new light heavy fighting vehicle (light tanks). Australia will never deploy these?

[@ericwood1942]

The Bradley seems to be the most effective armoured vehicle used in Ukraine, and would probably be well suited for Australia.

[@theoverlord1925]

Don’t know how much these cost but I think the Merkava Mark IV Barak is also pretty bad #ss…..

[@shaneabdoo3460]

Change the name to 'Talking Tab Data' More fitting

[@charliepyle1626]

At the senate hearings they said Albo gave away the spares for these new tanks with no new funds allocated. This was achieved by giving the old ones to Ukraine, tanks that were listed as spares as they share similar platforms.

[@Truth4Freedom]

Must be used in combine arms maneuver, infantry support with air cover. Can’t operate in open without support, otherwise they’ll be sitting ducks for AT, drones etc. look at the Ukraine situation, 75 tanks will be finished in a few days.

[@kingjulian1549]

It’s hard to see how 75 Abrams tanks will do much good defending a country the size of Australia. Maybe the plan is that they could be used, should we need to step in to control a revolt with our Pacific neighbours.

[@glennllewellyn7369]

It’d be wise to build an anti drone vehicle…with a cannon sticking out.

[@arcspike193]

TANKS WILL ALWAYS BE REVELANT

[@mitchelldavidson4252]

To all the keyboard generals out there. We do need these in order to conduct effective combined arms defensive and offensive battle plans. There is a reason tanks are being used in ukraine despite drone warfares huge role.

[@adamwhite9330]

Started strong but you copped out on the ending.