I agree with gf0012-aust that der_Master cannot make such sweeping and unsubstantiated comparisons (on the issue of logistics) and I also agree that "cost is relative to a nations military requirement."
der_Master, I would hesitate to make such sweeping comments about the M1A2 Abrams tank compared to the Leopard 2 tank. I'm sorry for not making it clearer in my earlier posts.
der_Master wasn't just generalising about the M1 Abram's flaws. It is extremely real. The M1 Abram's gas turbine engine is effectively a jet engine, a key distinguishing feature, as well as its major feature and flaw. Its a light and compact engine with great power-weight ratio.
However, I personally feel its disadvantages far outweight it - its simply a case of over-innovating a simple & proven component. With proven diesel engines in the market, there was no need to re-invent the wheel.
The space & weight savings of the gas turbine engine is negated by the huge amount of fuel needed to run it. Its tank is 500+ gallons in capacity. & it takes approx. 8 gallons just to start it up. Given that it gives off a huge jet exhaust, its heat signature is a dead give away and I would worry about its survivability in the face of ongoing developments & deployments of portable heat-seeking fire & forget anti-tank missiles featuring top-attack capabilities.
What is even worse is the problems with the logistics. Unlike wat was mentioned about a "sophisticated logistics train" needed to support it, I would term it as simply too long a train. This was illustrated in the 2 Gulf wars. Each time the armoured divisions sliced thru the Iraqi lines, the logistics had great difficulty keeping up to provide the M1s with enough fuel. Given the ineptitude and thereafter collapse of the Iraqi line, it wasn't too much of a disaster. The M1s just had to wait for the gravy train to catch up. But the advances were halted due to inherent M1 limitations - wasting any blitzkrieg momentum and initiative.
In a far more contentious mixed conflict, with more substantial
(or evenly matched?) enemy strengths, against more competent adversaries with large tank, missile and air support, say that of a WWIII scenario such a long and more importantly SOFT supply trail can be a disaster.
Why would Warsaw Pact / Russian / Chinese aircraft/attack copter/tanks bother engaging the M1s when they can simple outflank & strike at the sitting duck fuel trucks and support vehicles. In scenarios where air superiority cannot be a given, it is a problem.
In contrast the Leopard's diesel engines are proven and have a power rating the same as the M1 - up to 1500bhp -are as reliable as anything u can find and much more economical on fuel. It is similar to many commercial truck and marine boat engines, fully modular and swappable for maintenance and repairs, like just about most parts of the Leopard. In war, where anything, such as fuel and parts can suddenly be in short supply, due to enemy interference, this is critical.
Perhaps the key is that the SAF & ADF have vastly different needs. The SAF doctrine requires rapid advance into enemy territory to wage war on the aggressor's backyard, cos Singapore is too small. The ADF needs to defend vast tracts of its own backyard.
The M1's huge size and weight may not be such an issue for the ADF but in the actual terrain that the SAF needs to fight (concrete/jungle/rivers) the M1 simply wldn't be as suitable as the Leopard. I would also point out the M1's fuel guzzling qualities as a huge drawback in having to cover so much Australian coastal "frontline". Its size and weight will make airlifting within the Australian border a major expense and slow process too. The current US Army doctrinal review after the Gulf Wars questions precisely the relevance of MBTs given the difficulty in airlifting substantial numbers of M1s to conflict zones like the gulf in a timely fashion. If only the Galaxy C5s can carry them, how many does the ADF own? Shipping is the main method and takes weeks and months (including mobilisation).
As to the issue of the cost of Leopards / M1 vs T-72 variants - there's no argument here. The T-72 was designed by the Soviets for its huge numbers of not very well trained and certainly very expendable tank crews. Its squat, low-profiled, true, but its so cramped as a result, crew comfort is non-existent. Crews often have to be selected on size considerations. Its auto-loader can be dangerous to crew life and limb, the loading mechanisms are known to catch upon limbs or clothing and cause amputation severity injuries. Its ammo storage is a major cause of spectacular internal explosions once the armour is penetrated, as illustrated during the Gulf Wars, much like the Sherman tanks of WWII.
The SAF has a very small army & as a result, much like the Israelis, every man is important and must be trained to the best standards available to operate the best equipment money can buy. The SAF can probably buy many many T-72s but won't have the manpower to crew them!
