Leopard tanks for free ?

[Mike K]

Is this legit or a furphy ?

http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=102418

Mike

[Richard Farrant]

Originally posted by Mike Kelly
Is this legit or a furphy ?

http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=102418

Mike

Mike it is a genuine one, it was on ABC, check this;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...14/2032842.htm

[Ian Pullen]

Gentlemen,
before everyone starts ringing DMO to get their name down for a Leopard. Read the fine print. These are for RSLs, Museums and other such organisations ( I doubt many privately owned museums would be considered). The vehicles will be totally gutted of any running gear and will also be on the proviso that said museums, RSLs etc won't get them up and running. That's a pretty big paper weight as there's not a real lot you can do with them.
Plus there will be ONLY 25 vehicles disposed of in this manner.
They are not for sale to the general public.
Granted, my wife is happy about that as there won't be one in our front yard.
As for the rest of the fleet, suffice to say, every collector and enthusiast in the country is getting rather excited about the prospects of buying a running Leopard. Everyone knows that they are currently being withdrawn from service and the govenment did sell the Centurion fleet off to the public.
THAT WAS 20 YEARS AGO.....
Today's political climate has changed dramatically since then. There is movement afoot in various parts of the world to ban private ownership of these types of vehicles and if we are not diligent, we can give them the ammunition to help make this happen.
I know that there were a lot of people getting excited about the M113 fleet in NZ and look what happened there.
I am not trying to burst everyone's bubble, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Paul Singleton]

At least they will be in one piece. I have heard that the U.S. cuts their surplus vehicles into four pieces when sold!

Paul

[Plushy]

I read this in the Herald Sun today even Tim Vibert cant get one !

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...4-2862,00.html


Doesnt look good for the rest of us

[Pedr]

WO2 Pullen,

Your post rings very much of an official stance. Perhaps you are standing too far inside the circle. Are you saying with any authority that private museums and collectors will definatively not be considered for this??

The 113 fiasco fell into a hole due to politics between the US and New Zealand. How do you believe that this could occur in this case, as Australia has a fantastic relationship with Germany ( Morgen alles miene Deutsche freinden ) ....Or at least we did have 'til some twit decided to go with the Abrams... a second hand, oversized, overweight gas-guzzler, over the Leopard 2 - a more realistic option.

Guess you all figure that you'll get to do as will with the stuff in Bandiana and other likeminded army history unit funded museums. However you army museums need to realise that if it wasn't for people like John Belfield and/or the South Australian group and others like them and not forgetting the lowly private collector, you wouldn't have access to half the stuff that has been preserved today.

You of all people should realise this. Alan Cobcroft was instrumental in your museum completing the 2pdr for Corowa 2005 - and he's just a private collector!

It was some army officer upstart whom put his moniker on the paperwork to dispose to scrap metal the WW1 Almiens Gun that was at Port Wakefield P & E range, that shows how much the general soldier cares about army history and its preservation.

Just because army museums are federally funded does not mean that they are the most successful at their chosen task. The government ought to try NOT funding them anymore and see where they'd end up then. Everybody knows that museums don't make money. However the private ones are able to just survive. If those within the system didn't act so high-and-mighty, then everyone would be on an equal footing. Tim Vibert, James Swan, John Belfield, Bandiana, Pucka, Keswick, the South Australian group ( whatever they're called this week ), and all PRIVATE COLLECTORS.

Dissappointed to say the least

Pedr

[Ian Pullen]

Ahh Pedr,

Lets firstly say that I have not used my worn rank (prior to discharging from the Army) on this forum. Any responses I write have nothing to do with the organisation I work for; they are My opinions and MY opinions only.

1. As for being too far in the inner circle and saying this with authority: I think that my reference is page 21 of Saturday's Herald Sun. It clearly covers what I wrote.

2. I don't recall in my post that I attacked the German Government politically?????? I don't know where you are going with this. As for the Abrahms buy. I'm sorry, I work in the Museum and wasn't consulted on the purchase. Personally, I like the Leopard 2; I believe that logistically it would have been a good purchase.

3. As for John Bellfield, I like the guy and get along well with him. I have posted before that his efforts with his Museum were superhuman. For a one-man band, he is beyond peers. Again, I don't know where you are going with this.........

4. Alan was an invaluable help with our 2 Pdr. It was a back scratching exercise. We actually helped each other. His vehicle was in our workshop for almost a year. We assisted in labour etc with his vehicle also. I have thanked Alan personally. Perhaps you should ask the new owners of his vehicle.

5. As for some Army officer disposing of the gun at Pt Wakefield. Try and realise that Army Heritage has changed dramatically in the past six years. With an organisation of oh, about 50,000 people, there are bound to be stuff ups. Have there ever been in any of the organisations in which you work? There are now safeguards to stop that happening again. I know the horse has bolted - but at least the whole herd can't get out.

6. As for being federally funded, I would really like to believe so. But as with most Armies, their main interest is bullets and bombs to support our troops who are actually overseas as I write this. Being an ex-serving member, I would like to think that the govt that sent me there is actually supporting me while I'm there doing their bidding.

7. As for Tim, John, Swanny, most of your SA brethren, Pucka and Keswick, I talk to them and work with them regularly. I wouldn't worry about these gentlemen, they are big boys. Again I don't know where you are heading with this.

Obviously my post offended you in some way... but if you actually read it, I stated that these were the 25 FREE Leopard tanks. It has not as yet been decided what will happen to the rest of the fleet. Let's face it, if they don't want to sell them, they don't have to. After Sep 11, govt's are more cautious. Let's be logical here and sort out the facts.

Disappointed to say the least.

IAN

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

G'day mate. I'm afraid I have to agree with the essence of Ian's reply to you - I've reread your post several times now, and I'm really not sure of what you're trying to say or where you're trying to go with it. And what on earth does the Abrams deal, much less the German connection, have to do with the disposal of old ordnance? If anything, that's a separate topic, is it not?

As far as the rest is concerned, if I were Ian, I would be grossly insulted at the inference that he - and many others like him, who work so hard to preserve your history but within the framework of a government organisation - are inept at best, and at worst, parasites incapable of doing their jobs.

I'll go one step further, to take personal umbrage with your statement "...shows how much the general soldier cares about army history and its preservation...". This is bloody nonsense. It suggests that I, and many others like me, are tarred with the same brush. Pedr, I put on my first uniform as a cadet in 1967 (and as a matter of fact, just picked up my battledress from the dry cleaners a couple of days ago) which makes for some 40 years of service and/or association with the military. I have never met any past or serving soldier, in all of those years, who 'doesn't care'.

Ian covered the subject beyond that, so I'll say no more, except, don't challenge the Khaki, my lad, it'll get you nowhere fast. Just what on earth do you think we're all doing here? By all means, have a go at the government, but leave us out of it! We don't make the decisions, we only bleed for those that are made on our behalf!

[Ian Pullen]

Quote Herald Sun Sat 16 Sep:

"In the meantime, 25 lucky RSL clubs & Military Museums have a rare chance to bid for a Leopard. Joe Public won't be able to apply, a defence source säid."

Thats about as Inner Circle and Authoritative as my post is......

It about sums it up for collectors I think. As for Museums, again, MY opinion only in my post.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by Ian Pullen
Today's political climate has changed dramatically since then. There is movement afoot in various parts of the world to ban private ownership of these types of vehicles and if we are not diligent, we can give them the ammunition to help make this happen.

As far as I know, the Netherlands Government has never auctioned off armoured vehicles to the public, though it is not illegal to own one. So a private Dutch collector wanting a M113 C&R, would have to buy an ex-Canadian one, since most ex-Netherlands Army ones ended up on the ranges.

H.

[alleramilitaria]

and as far as the M-1A1s go ....
how many times have the ausies and germans fought by each other?

how many times have the US and ausies fought together?

i can tell you that if the ausies were in iraq, or any place else where there was a US presence and needed a motor, trans, ISU, or any other componet that they would have a C-17 bringing it too them in a day or less if ask, most times free of charge.

could you say that about the germans?

also does the leopard 2 not have a gas turban motor? just like the M-1?

and now the US is going to start stockpileing parts down under for the US army that means that you will probably not even be charged shipping for the heavy stuff you need to keep a heavy armor fleet running. everything from tracks to computers will be at the depot in darwin.

sounds like a good deal to me.

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

I'll be blunt here: I don't want to see this thread turned into a pissing contest between supporters of the Leo and Abrams. The original subject was the disposal of the Australian Leo 1s and we'll keep it at that, shall we?

If you or anyone else wish to start a separate thread on the Leo vs the Abrams, by all means do so, in the appropriate forum.

Thank you,

Jif

PS: You're wrong about the engine, BTW, it's an "... MTU MB 873 diesel engine, providing 1,100kW (1,500shp), with a Renk HSWL 354 gear and break system. An enhanced version of the EuroPowerPack, with a 1,210kW (1,650shp) MTU MT883 engine, has been trialled on the Leopard 2."

Source

[alleramilitaria]

geoff
sorry about that
you are corect about the motor for the leo2
dave

[Ian Pullen]

Dave, I don't know how to tell you this mate, but ref para 3 of your previous post.
We are in Iraq, & Afghanistan too

[Tony Smith]

Some relevant points.

The Centurions weren't "sold to the public". The whole fleet (less a handful retained for museums) and 250 tons of spares were sold to one tenderer, who then proceeded to develop a business selling to collectors and making conversions for the mining industry.

The NZ M113s were readily for sale by the NZ Govt, who didn't have a problem with private ownership (and actually finalised the process of selecting tenders!), but the US Govt did have a problem, and used the notion of end user certificates to kybosh the sale to private owners. As the Leopards are of German origin, the US Govt should not be able to intervene in the sale in the same way.

The French Govt raised a storm with a proposal to ban private ownership of ex-military materiel, technically covering everything from Sherman Tanks to a Remington Typewriter. This caused a PR goof right before Normandy, and there was some furious lobbying and backpedalling going on.

It is much safer and more manageable for any Govt to say NO, than try to deal with the issues of someone asserting their right to do something different. It is up to the collecting community to demonstrate that private ownership is a viable and complementary way to preserve our heritage, without danger to the wider community and security. As Keith pointed out in the Maralinga thread, for many years the Civil Aviation Authority strongly disapproved with private flying of ex-mil aircraft. Gradual persistance allowed a change in the rules, and now we benefit from a thriving Warbird scene. 50 years ago, all that could easily have been lost forever.

[Mike K]

Originally posted by Tony Smith
Some relevant points.

The Centurions weren't "sold to the public". The whole fleet (less a handful retained for museums) and 250 tons of spares were sold to one tenderer, who then proceeded to develop a business selling to collectors and making conversions for the mining industry.

.

Hi Tony ,

I may be incorrect on this , but from memory the winning bid for the Cents was from a consortium , made up of three individuals ...

I recall reading about it , while in Tasmania in 1989 .. it was reported in the Examiner newspaper at the time ... again I may be wrong as it was a long time ago . If they paid 10k each for them , then they would have handed over over a million dollars .. is my arithmetic correct ?

I know of one incident where a cent nearly killed it's civilian driver , he missed a gear on a hiltop and it rolled , totally out of control down the hill. It hit a bridge bang on centre at high speed .... the owner/driver had to call the main dealer and arrange for a Cent recovery tank to come and pull out the stuck runnaway . A nice big toy , I wonder how many civilian people read the manual before driving the thing .

Mike

[Tony Smith]

Originally posted by Mike Kelly
Hi Tony ,

I may be incorrect on this , but from memory the winning bid for the Cents was from a consortium , made up of three individuals ...

I recall reading about it , while in Tasmania in 1989 ..

Mike

I also don't have first hand knowledge, but I think you're more or less right. I understand that some brothers mortgaged their families' farms for several Mil, I believe. Their tender was the only one for the complete fleet (there were others for lesser numbers of tanks, or for some spares).

While the particular details of that tender are not exactly relevant to the current issue of Leopards, I think that person sometimes comes on the forum and may clarify the point, although he need not. The point I was making was that there wasn't a public auction of many individual lots sold to the highest bidders, it was a closed tender sold at a price and method best suited to the Gov'ts interest.

[Col Tigwell]

I have some experience with ex WO's, and I read the comment as a compliment to you Ian.

But then maybe my attitude is away from the norm.

I have an RAAF WO armourer work for me in a large company, he had crossed trained to a computor operator, and a damn fine one at that.

In my department we all referred to him as the Warrant, and I rather think that he was rather chuffed, especially as one of the young ladies in the office used to give him a hug, and say "my very first Warrant". By the time I left, everyone one from the MD down called him by that name.

I would not get too upset about it Ian, after all some are good enough to get that far, and lets face it, it is that rank which really runs the service.

I remember my old CO, who when addressing a young boggy pilot saying "Listen, Learn, one day if you are lucky enough, you may approach his level of knowledge, but you will never exceed it"

Phoenix that ACCO is still at Maydena.

Regards

Col

[phoenix]

Originally posted by Col Tigwell
Phoenix that ACCO is still at Maydena.

My wife would kill me

I'll mention it to a couple of others who may be interested though.

[Col Tigwell]

Coming from Hobart, last road on right, about 150 meters on left.

still has army paint on it, and look complete

Regards

Col

[Ian Pullen]

Thanks Col for your comments. I retired from the ARA several years ago and now wear the rank in a reservist capacity. However, I purposely avoid the worn rank issue whilst on this forum..
If I were to do so, it may infer (or some may think, albeit incorrectly) that I am speaking for the organisation for which I work. Apparently some people have problems with such facilities for whatever reasons.
Therefore, as I have said previously, any post, replies or comments I write are mine and mine alone. They do not reflect any part of the organisation I work for. End of story.
Again, though. Thank you.

IAN

[Tony Smith]

Originally posted by Tony Smith
Some relevant points..........

Interesting reading on how we came to purchase the Leopard in the first place.