Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Greece examining ‘free’ US tank offer
Agence France Presse (AFP) ^ | 7 December 2011

Posted on 12/07/2011 10:09:10 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki

Greece examining ‘free’ US tank offer

ATHENS — Cash-strapped Greece is considering a free offer of hundreds of redundant M1A1 Abrams tanks extended by the US government, the Greek army said on Wednesday.

“This is a free offer,” army spokesman Yiannis Sifakis told AFP.

“A delegation of officers has travelled to the United States to examine tanks in storage; we are departing on the premise of picking 400 of them,” he said.

“The only cost will be that of transport, which is estimated in the region of eight million euros ($11 million),” the spokesman added.

Ta Nea daily reported that the tanks, stored in Nevada, saw action in the 1990-1991 Gulf War and were first offered by the US government a year ago.

The state council on foreign policy and defence will have the final say on whether the offer is taken up, Sifakis said.

Greece is in the grip of a debt crisis that has forced the government to freeze procurement orders for tanks, frigates and fighter jets.

The country has traditionally been one of the world’s heaviest defence spenders per capita owing to decades of rivalry with neighbouring Turkey.

Greece has in the past bought tanks from Germany and there have been reports that Berlin has recently tried to sell updated versions of its Leopard model.

(Excerpt) Read more at khaleejtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abrams; asia; economy; globalism; greece; junk; mbt; metals; noamericans; noscrap; recycling; scrap; tank

1 posted on 12/07/2011 10:09:16 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Maybe they’ll sell a few of them on ebay. I’ve always wanted an Abrams tank, and since our .gov won’t sell me one, perhaps the Greeks will! ;p


2 posted on 12/07/2011 10:11:37 AM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Damn!

I’ll take a redundant M1A1!


3 posted on 12/07/2011 10:11:37 AM PST by roaddog727 (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Just in time for their communist revolution.


4 posted on 12/07/2011 10:13:28 AM PST by Londo Molari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

These Tanks were bought with OUR tax dollars.

We should be allowed the right of first refusal on taking possession!


5 posted on 12/07/2011 10:13:47 AM PST by roaddog727 (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

I worked for GD on the tank. The Army (not the politicians) think the tank has been overcome by air technology. The logistics of maintaining the tanks is too cumbersome and expensive and they are becoming more target than asset.

The tanks we’re talking about are worn out. But with 400 of them Greece should be able to cobble together 150 working units with spares for 10 years.


6 posted on 12/07/2011 10:20:57 AM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727

What makes them redundant?


7 posted on 12/07/2011 10:23:32 AM PST by edcoil (It is not over until I win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I’ll take a few off their hands.

Do they have some redundant M1028 120 mm anti-personnel canister cartridges to go with them?


8 posted on 12/07/2011 10:30:45 AM PST by EricT. (Is a country that would re-elect Baroke Hussein Owebama really worth saving?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

Redundant only because of 0bummer’s scaled-down military. Not redundant if needed in the future.


9 posted on 12/07/2011 10:32:46 AM PST by luvbach1 (Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727

Yeah me too. Especially since we were part of paying for them. Give the tanks to the only democracy in the Middle East because they are going to need them before it is over.


10 posted on 12/07/2011 10:33:20 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: luvbach1

Please take our redundant Usurper-in-Chief!


11 posted on 12/07/2011 10:34:09 AM PST by luvbach1 (Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

Who’s air technology? Besides, any tank is aircraft fodder if you don’t have air superiority. Any army unit is toast if there is no air superiority.


12 posted on 12/07/2011 10:38:40 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Why didn’t they ask us Americans first? Who wouldn’t want a ‘redundant’ M1A1 tank??!?!!!

I, personally, can not afford too much gas, but damn, does it come equiped with all them tank rounds?


13 posted on 12/07/2011 10:43:15 AM PST by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

They are waiting the Free Shipping offer.
US Gov will use postal service.


14 posted on 12/07/2011 10:54:40 AM PST by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

1. Why are they “redundant”?

2. Why can’t they be used for any good parts or backups or for other future yet-known needs?

3. Why “free”?

Almost like dropping off planes off the aircraft carriers coming home from Japan. “We’ll never need them again.”


15 posted on 12/07/2011 10:57:04 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727

Me too. I haven’t driven one since 95 (NG after Navy) but I bet I can still handle it.


16 posted on 12/07/2011 11:01:05 AM PST by wally_bert (It's sheer elegance in its simplicity! - The Middleman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

“Whose air technology?”
Our air technology. An Army commander told me (paraphrased); “If I have to kill a target worthy of a tank I illuminate it, call it in, and it’s gone in seconds. I don’t know if it was killed by the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines or an RPV. I don’t care. But the tank simply can’t go anywhere in Afghanistan without being attacked. There are only 160 miles of roads. The engagements are mostly at 50 yards with machine guns. Tanks are useless.”

The tank was designed to fight over tanks. The back of the tank is lightly armored and comparitivly easy to kill if you can get behind it. The old paradigm where tanks fought in a battle line are long gone. The battle is now wherever you are. There are no lines. The enemy doesn’t wear a uniform and they disappear after they’ve fired their round.

In addition, the battlefield is evolving with ever more sophisticated self-guided weapons. When you add in the logistics of getting a tank to the battle and then maintaining it and defending it and feeding it fuel the costs start to mount in comparison to competing systems. The tank has been comparatively useless in actual battle in Afghanistan. The Army much prefers the new 2-ton truck based weapons and took GD’s tank spares and upgrade money to buy those trucks. (This is why I got laid off in March.) The trucks can go places the tanks can’t. The trucks are specialized for the close-in machine gun engagements the Army is experiencing where the tank is comparatively helpless at short ranges. (Yes, I know it has a machine gun. But the tank is never where the enemy is attacking unless it is the focus of the attack.)


17 posted on 12/07/2011 11:02:48 AM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Available for sale soon at a local Cartel south of the border. Just have to drive them home.


18 posted on 12/07/2011 11:07:36 AM PST by oldasrocks (They should lock all of you up and only let out us properly medicated people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

I’m not worried about our air power killing our tanks. You are right about Afghanistan and other areas of the world that are still in the 7th century. MBTs still have a role to play against other modern militaries.


19 posted on 12/07/2011 11:09:54 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

We should sell a few to Taiwan. A few hundred Abrams would greatly complicate any contemplated amphibious assault by China. (Which is why Obama would never do that).


20 posted on 12/07/2011 11:14:27 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Probably the fact that we built over 9,000 M-1 tanks during the Cold War, and now the vast majority of them are just silently rusting away while mothballed. A few hundred of them is just a drop in the bucket.


21 posted on 12/07/2011 11:15:23 AM PST by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The inertial stabilization system costs about $500,000 smackers. I know a lot of DoD programs what wouldn’t mind having them free.


22 posted on 12/07/2011 11:19:13 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Ceterum autem censeo, Obama delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

“I’m not worried about our air power killing our tanks.”

I didn’t mean to imply that our air technology would kill our tanks. It’s a matter of what the troops on the ground need. The tanks are very expensive to buy, maintain and move around. They have limited utility in the theaters where the Army is currently engaged. The Army would prefer to spend the money they have on weapons they can use to better effect every day. The light trucks sprout significant firepower at the ranges where the enemy is engaging the troops. The light trucks can go most of the places the Army needs them. Further, the trucks can be packed five to a plane and with all their spares and logistics they can be delivered anywhere in the world in 24 hours.

The Army made a judgment call. It decided on the lesser capable but more practical platform. Despite the fact this cost me my job I applaud their decision.


23 posted on 12/07/2011 11:23:31 AM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Here's the guy negotiating the exchange:


24 posted on 12/07/2011 11:25:06 AM PST by COBOL2Java (Obama is the least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

I also agree with the army in Afghanistan, but unless they can somehow know that we won’t need MBTs against a conventional army I wouldn’t be in a big hurry to discard them.


25 posted on 12/07/2011 11:40:00 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

Rather along the lines of what I was thinking. Greece is basically bankrupt and looking at high $ military items w/ high $ maintenance/training requirements. That seems a poor match. That and many of the repair/spare parts require special storage. I could envision some of these disappearing from Greece and finding their way to an enemies research labs though.


26 posted on 12/07/2011 11:42:05 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

Rather along the lines of what I was thinking. Greece is basically bankrupt and looking at high $ military items w/ high $ maintenance/training requirements. That seems a poor match. That and many of the repair/spare parts require special storage. I could envision some of these disappearing from Greece and finding their way to an enemies research labs though.


27 posted on 12/07/2011 11:42:14 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Are these tanks truly the M1A1 variant with the full chobham armor package? We’re just going to give that away, huh?

Greece isn’t ideal “tank country”, either. They’d be better off with some light wheeled armor. Something like the LAV-III or its cousing, the Stryker.


28 posted on 12/07/2011 11:51:45 AM PST by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Hey Obama! I’ll take one or two and create jobs with them... How? EASY! and you can “de-mil” them by removing the gun barrel...

After WW2 there was a somewhat famous use for a Patton tank by a demolition company in the New York City area ... they’d just drive the tank through a building a few times and knock out all the supporting columns..

I’ll take delivery in DETROIT...

Neidermeyer.


29 posted on 12/07/2011 1:30:35 PM PST by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 556x45

“I could envision some of these disappearing from Greece and finding their way to an enemy’s research labs though.”
The TDP, Technical Data Package, has been sold twice that I’m aware of; once to South Korea and once to Egypt. The TDP is the entire drawing package and with it an industrious buyer could build the entire tank with all capabilities. The South Koreans, (Hyundai) immediately tried to undercut GD’s price on spares with their home built LRU’s (Line Replaceable Units; the boxes that make the tank functional.) The Egyptians are (or were) setting up production lines to also build the LRU’s. This may or may not be in violation of the agreements they’ve signed as I heard GD was upset over this. We found out because the Egyptians tried to hire some key people who told the company about the offer.

There are no gee-whiz technologies involved in the tank. It is a superb piece of hardware and software but nothing about it is now cutting edge. I would venture to guess that it now has serious rivals in the tank world and that winning against a rival armed with competing tanks made by Germany, Russia or Israel would be much more a matter strategy, tactics and chance than pure technical superiority.

Moreover, the Israelis, who have 1500 Merkavas, which is arguably at least the Abram’s equivalent if not its superior, have recently started planning on taking the tank out of service. They plan on replacing it with smaller, lighter vehicles. I believe the Israelis have arrived at the same conclusion the American Army has reached. The main battle tank’s capabilities are no longer worth the logistical foot print it requires. Also, the battlefield is rapidly evolving and munitions that could kill a tank might become rapidly so cheap and plentiful that they wipe out a huge investment before an army has a chance to react with new countermeasures.

I’m aware that we lost one tank in Gulf War 1, with the crew, to an apparently never before seen weapon. This weapon was not (to my knowledge) seen again and the thinking I heard suggested it was the field test of a prototype anti-tank device. If this is the case it might explain why Israel, which has unquestioned regional tank superiority, is planning to remove the Merkavas from service.


30 posted on 12/07/2011 4:03:25 PM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson