Skip to comments.General Dynamics to beat out Germany for Saudi tank deal-report
Posted on 07/12/2013 4:37:28 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
General Dynamics to beat out Germany for Saudi tank deal-report
(Reuters) - U.S. defence firm General Dynamics is in talks to deliver battle tanks to Saudi Arabia, beating out German rival Krauss-Maffei Wegmann for the lucrative deal, a German newspaper reported.
Handelsblatt daily cited industry sources as saying on Friday that a deal for Saudi Arabia to buy M1 Abrams tanks from General Dynamics was already in sight.
General Dynamics and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann were not immediately available for comment.
There has been speculation for months that Saudi Arabia could order more than 200 Leopard 2 tanks from Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, though the company has never confirmed such reports.
According to other unconfirmed media reports, Germany gave pre-approval for the export of 270 Leopard 2 tanks to Saudi Arabia in 2011.
Defence sources in Germany have said that the German government wanted to hold off making a decision until after federal elections in September, and Handelsblatt speculated on Friday that Saudi Arabia was no longer willing to wait.
Arms exports are a sensitive issue in Germany given its Nazi past as well as the role arms makers such as Krupp played in feeding 19th and 20th century wars with exports to both sides of conflicts.
Peer Steinbrueck, a leader of the opposition Social Democrats running against German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the election, has criticised her government for letting arms exports surge.
After World War Two, successive West German and later united German governments placed tight restrictions
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
its great to be arming our future enemies
I thought they shut down the M-1 line.
surprised Russia doesn’t have this contract
I was happier when all the Arabs had were clapped out T-72’s only fit for target practice.
When money is no object, people, even muzzies tend to opt for the best.
Right now there are a number of top tier MBTs out there, but none with the proven track record of the Abrams. The Challenger probably comes in second.
Saudis have had M-1s for decades.
Because they’re our steadfast allies.... :P
Yep yep yep. I’ve often wondered who maintains all the hardware the Saudis buy and use. You think Saudi men are going to do it? I don’t.
Actually I like having the Kingdom Of Saud on the end of OUR spare parts chain. :)
Another move on the big chessboard that is the Middle East.
>>>>Right now there are a number of top tier MBTs out there, but none with the proven track record of the Abrams. The Challenger probably comes in second.<<<<<
Oh, c’mon. Give USMC T-72s and Arabs M1A1s and both Gulf Wars won’t be any different. It wasn’t all about tanks.
Abrams has numerous obvious cons and Leo2 seems to be a much more refined platform.
I remember how everyone loved Merkava. It was undisputed “best tank” right before it met any competent terrorist armed with 1970s Soviet technology, instead of 1940s.
Arms exports are a sensitive issue in Germany given its Nazi past as well as the role arms makers such as Krupp played in feeding 19th and 20th century wars with exports to both sides of conflicts. Peer Steinbrueck, a leader of the opposition Social Democrats running against German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the election, has criticised her government for letting arms exports surge.Gotta love Krupp's non-judgmental, all-inclusive approach, doncha?
Both the French AMX-56 Leclerc and ROK K2 for example, may actually outperform an Abrams or a Challenger in certain regards. Neither has the battle record. the Leopard 2 has seen limited use in Kosovo and Afghanistan, but nothing like the engagements fought by the Challenger and Abrams in both Desert Storm (Challenger 1 / M1A1) or the Gulf War (Challenger 2 / M1A2).
Yes thanks. Only Challenger ever taken out. Friendly fire by... another Challenger.
I think the only people the Saudis will be using these against will be other Saudis.
Yes thanks. Only Challenger ever taken out. Friendly fire by... another Challenger.<<<
Irrelevant. It haven’t seen any real hot battle.
Until the royal family is all killed.
Radical islam was invented there.
The Marines didn’t have the Abrams when they went right up the middle of Saddam’s armor that included the T-54, T-55, T-62, Type 69, and T-72s. That fight was done with the M60A3. Only one tank lost, no casualties.
A few M60A3’s scored over 30 kills.
Israel still has over 700 M60A3’s in service. The Abrams is superior and the Marines have them now but there is no armor made by anyone that even comes close in head-on battle to the Abrams.
Not trying to be (too) pedantic, but the truth is that if you look at the top three Western tank designs they are all equal. These three tanks are the US M1A2 Abrams, the British Challenger 2, and the German Leopard 2. Ofcourse there are certain aspects one will be better than the other in, but on aggregate the top three Western tanks are equally effective in terms of offensive capability, electronics, and armor ...and for that matter even the strategy used by the tank crews.
A lot of debate can be had on certain aspects that each tank has that the other doesn't. For instance, the use of depleted uranium rounds by the Abrams (and depleted uranium armor around certain parts of the tank), or the more developed Dorchester upgrade of Chobham armor of the Challenger 2 that is alleged to be better than the Chobham of the Abrams, or the Leo 2's ability to fire a missile from its main gun at ranges over 100% longer than using a normal round. Fact is that a lot of those differences are largely moot. For instance, any real information on the difference between Chobham + DU armor vs Dorchester armor upgrades is secret, and were it to be revealed the difference would be moot. Why? Because both approaches are largely virtually impermeable to most opposing force weaponry. For all three tanks your best chance against them is a mobility kill, and even then you have to shoot at them before they shoot at you, which considering the tank doctrine of the three main countries using those three tanks, would be quite difficult to do. Same thing applies for the disadvantages. Some say the gas turbine of the Abrams is a gas guzzler, and it is, however the logistics supply chain of the US armed forces is second to none. Thus, it is not a problem. Or the 'disadvantage' of the Leo 2 not using depleted uranium APFSDS rounds, as compared to the Charm 3 DU tipped round of the Challenger 2 or the M829A3 for the Abrams. Well, true, but the heavy tungsten penetrator for the Leo 2 has consistently been shown to be able to punch through both turret and frontal armor. In terms of what the enemy feels the effect is the same ...dead enemy, with the difference being one round was like cutting butter with a blow torch, and the other like cutting butter with a slightly hotter blow torch.
Anyways, if one says the Abrams is the best that is probably accurate. The British may disagree, as would the Germans, and all would have good points to make. However, one thing that is pure fact and not speculation is that it is simply not true that none come close to the Abrams. The three Western tanks could easily be substituted for each other without any of the three main users complaining. In many ways, especially when it comes to the Leopard and the Abrams, they were originally meant to be the same tank.
Logistics is a critical aspect and nobody comes close to the support for the Abrams.
So I guess it depends on how remote and how large the battlefield.
However, the speed and range of the Leopard II is amazing and it was superb performer in Afghanistan.