# Canada's purchase of the Leopard 2 MBT



## bison33

Just saw this on web.........thoughts?

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20061031%2fcanada_tanks_061031&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True


----------



## George Wallace

I may direct you first to this post:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52667/post-472819.html#msg472819


And then you may want to look at this post:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52660/post-472786.html#msg472786


----------



## GAP

Whether new or old, tanks just not for this war
April 07, 2007 James Travers
Article Link

Hard to win the hearts of Afghans with battle tanks

If crew comfort and safety are the biggest problems with deploying battle tanks in Afghanistan, then the federal government has a compelling solution. Air-conditioned and more heavily armoured, the new generation of German Leopards are far superior to the ones the Canadian Forces declared obsolete before hurriedly deploying them against the Taliban last year.

But as important as those considerations are, they are not the ones that should concern Canadians most. The rush to lease nearly two dozen Leopard 2 A6M tanks is the most compelling evidence yet that neither the Afghan mission nor the master plan for the new military is unfolding as predicted.

No matter how sophisticated, tanks are inconsistent with this country's objectives of rescuing a failed state and creating a light, fast and flexible armed forces capable of responding to a new century's chaotic threats.

Designed for set-piece, Cold War confrontations, the 55-tonne behemoths are hardly the weapons of choice in the close and often urban encounters of today's hearts-and-minds wars. Too often they cause the collateral damage that turns locals against foreigners and isolates soldiers from the civilians they were sent to help.

Worse still, even the world's best battle tanks – and the new Leopards are among them – are vulnerable to fast-evolving insurgent tactics and improvised weapons. During last summer's failed Israeli incursion into Lebanon, a minimum of 18 of its tanks, all various generations of the highly regarded Merkava series, were seriously damaged and at least two destroyed.

For complex political reasons, the deadliest anti-tank arms used by Hezbollah have not yet surfaced in Afghanistan. But it's far from certain that even the newest Leopards would fare as well against mines and rocket-propelled grenades as the specially modified Merkavas.

What is known is that the commander of Canada's army, the parade-ground crisp and refreshingly cerebral Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, studied the Israeli experience and drew vital conclusions. Among the most important is that even though the Merkavas had weaknesses, the survival rate of crews was high.

It's no coincidence that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor stressed this week that Canadian casualties have dropped since September when the nearly 30-year old Leopards were pressed into service. While the reasons for that happy decline have more to do with changed enemy tactics and limited winter fighting, any equipment that saves soldiers' lives is both welcome and a persuasive part of the continuing military campaign for more procurement.

Not surprisingly, Stephen Harper's government is susceptible to that persuasion. Having planted the Conservative flag alongside Canada's in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister now has little choice but to write monster cheques when the military argues publicly that its fighting machinery isn't up to the job.

That raises interesting questions. Did the military not know that its aging Leopards would be unusable in Afghanistan's summer heat? Or was it an exercise in planned failure, one that would put irresistible political pressure on the government to acquire the tanks that, in more cost-conscious times, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier deleted from his already-long shopping list?
More on link


----------



## George Wallace

:

Although many of his points are valid, he does show a lack of situation awareness in what is going on.  I have the opinion from his piece that he wants us to just give up on the Afghan people and come home.  The points he has put forward on the escalation of weaponry are valid and the natural trend in any warfare.  This is nothing new, and actually a common sense move on the part of anyone fighting belligerents.  

His "Winning the Hearts and Minds" argument is very biased and faulty.  It is here that he shows his true colours.  Since its inception, Canada's mission to Afghanistan has included the winning of the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.  In doing so, only a few Canadian soldiers have actually been doing that.  They are the guys who have been travelling 'outside the wire'.  A vast number of Canadians have been inside the wire and have had nothing to do with winning hearts and minds of Afghans.  They have been concentrating on the safety of Canadians and ensuring that they get the protection and supplies that they need.   Twenty tanks, does not take away from the work that the guys outside the wire have been doing and will continue to do.  They just give them more protection when they need it.  

James Travers has put forward some good points about weapons systems.  They are common sense points.  As a conflict progresses, each side will escalate their use of force.  They will get larger, better weapons to fight for their cause.  We have seen the Taliban increase the size of their IEDs.  We have responded by getting the G-Wagen to replace the Iltis, and the RG-31 to replace the G-Wagen, and now the Leo to add to the firepower of the LAV.  It is a logical and natural progression.  It is 'LIFE' Mr. Travers.  Don't be such a "Defeatist".


----------



## FSTO

The two posts above have effectively eviscerated Mr Traver's column.   You should send these comments directly to the Toronto Star.
Mr Travers should stick with what he knows and limit his comments to the battle between the press corps and the PMO in Ottawa.


----------



## Cloud Cover

FSTO said:
			
		

> The two posts above have effectively eviscerated Mr Traver's column.



Sounds painful, if only it were more than literal. Maybe we should develop an Evisceration round for the Leo, stuffed full of [sour] grapeshot.


----------



## GAP

Good Article for Ruxted to comment on. Seems to be a lot of Asshats out there that need direction...


----------



## Infanteer

The same tired arguments against the MBT.  Lt Col (Ret) Kilcullen has wrote a very good counterargument to those who see tanks as inappropriate in a modern Army.  Although it is written from the Australian perspective, the arguments easily cross over to the Canadian standpoint:

Bombers and Tanks: Understanding the Myths


----------



## geo

Infanteer... good read - thanks.....

"The ideal situation is to fight with both ASLAVs and tanks, along with infantry and air power as part of a balanced combined-arms team."

However... WTF... ASLAV as a six wheeled light armoured vehicle (pg 94) ???

AND 
"Moreover, if Australia were to match the new ‘lighter’ tanks sought by our allies, this would actually mean increasing the weight of our tanks."

... given that Australia has taken delivery of US M1 Abrams MBTs, I guess this statement sorta sound a little silly.


----------



## geo

I figure that with the MBT in close support, the infantry's need for Artillery in indirect support is lessened - allowing our forces to close with and destroy the ennemy with a much reduced risk of collateral damage.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

x


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

April to September of 2006 saw very conventional fighting in southern Afghanistan.  The Taliban staged a major offensive, openly taking District Centres in Helmand and standing and fighting in parts of Kandahar Province.  I was there until late August 2006, and I remarked at the time that the fighting evoked passages I read from fighting in Italy and Normandy (not the same intensity, of course).  While the world's attention was on Lebanon, Canadian soldiers liberated a town in Helmand by crossing a bridge over a river in their LAVs under fire, supported by artillery and aircraft.  Canadian troops have had to advance to contact in the face of dug-in where the civilian populations have fled before contact is made.   This is the kind of fighting for which tanks were made.

No tank is invulnerable, but they can still make a vital contribution.  LAVs are not invulnerable, yet we still employed them to great effect.  The arrival of Leopards brought together the "combat team" of infantry, armour and artillery backed by engineers and other vital arms.  Tanks can be remarkably precise with their devastating firepower.  Their use in counter-insurgency may seem counter-intuitive, but perhaps this is an insurgency of a different character than others.


----------



## 3rd Herd

Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
			
		

> For those looking for more information on the value of tanks in this type of conflict, suggest either some of the plethora of open sources about Iraq or Israel.  For Afghanistan in the Soviet era, two of the most reputable authors are Lester Grau and Michael Gress.  Their "The Soviet-Afghan War - How a superpower fought and lost" offers some good insight.  Publisher information and page reference are in my signature line or here:http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/grasov.html.



"The average Soviet soldier who entered Afghanistan in the invasion of 1979 appeared to be very much like his counterpart from the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45. He was a conscript. There were only a small number of specialized scout units and commando or Spetsnaz troops. Equipment was basic, with little protective gear except for the standard Soviet steel helmet. Ten years later, the Soviet soldiers that withdrew from Afghanistan were markedly different. They were still mostly recruits, but there was a far greater proportion of elite units as such. In addition, their uniforms, equipment and training had changed. They wore body armor, and muted insignia. Essentially, the army that went into Afghanistan looked like the army of Stalin, but the one that left looked like a modern army."(Shaw, 183)

There are a remarkable amount of similarities between the Soviets and our forces in the aforementioned quote. But have the learned lessons been learned ? Example in Grau's many treatise is the use of self propelled artillery in a direct fire role rather than tanks. Tanks stood off in an over watch while the artillery used it's heavier tubes to reduce strong points. Where self propelled was not available then towed was used.

source:

Shaw, Geoff and Spencer, David. "Fighting in Afghanistan: Lessons from the Soviet Intervention, 1979–89" Defense & Security Analysis Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 177–188, 2003 http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/content/jxmr4ngvmufqaxej/fulltext.pdf


----------



## observor 69

Comment on use of shape charge against armour:

What the Army must learn from Iraq
By Allan Mallinson

'It is with artillery that war is made," said Napoleon. But it is with the improvised explosive device that insurgents make war. 

Fenian bombs shook London in the 19th century, and Zionist terrorists grabbed the world headlines in 1946, when they blew up the British HQ in Jerusalem, the King David Hotel. In South Armagh, in the 1980s, troops could move only by helicopter, such was the IRA's mastery of the roads by their culvert mines.

Appalling though yesterday's deaths in Basra are, they come as no surprise, therefore: a counter-insurgency force must dominate its tactical area of responsibility, and it can do so only by getting among the people. Troops take every measure to protect themselves, consistent with achieving the mission, but the insurgent often has both the tactical and technological initiative.

In Iraq, the "bomb" is no longer simply a quantity of explosives and a detonator: the insurgents have progressed to an "explosively formed projectile". The effect is of an anti-tank gun firing. The Army will be putting counter-measures in hand, but this is a business of challenge, response and counter-challenge: a deadly game of cat and mouse.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/06/do0602.xml


----------



## 3rd Herd

Found in the September/ October 2006 Issue of Armour:

"The Russians entered the Chechen City of Grozny on 31 December 1994. The first unit to penetrate the city center was the 131st  “Maikop” Brigade. Russian forces initially met no resistance when they entered the city at noon. They drove their vehicles straight to the city center, dismounted, and moved into the train station. Other elements of the brigade remained parked along a side street as a reserve force. Then the Chechens attacked with RPGs. They first destroyed the Russian lead and rear vehicles on the side streets, trapping the unit. The tanks could not lower their gun tubes far enough to shoot into basements or high enough to reach the tops of buildings. Infantry fighting vehicles and personnel carriers were unable to support their tanks. Chechens systematically destroyed the column from above and below with RPGs and grenades................................"

W. Grau, Lester, "Preserving Shock Action: A New Approach to Armored Maneuver Warfare" http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/Preserving%20Shock%20action.pdf


----------



## Flip

The underlying premise seems to be; 

Because the military have no idea what they are doing,
we have to send in the diplomats and 
limit what the military have on hand,
so that things don't get out of hand.

I wrote a terse note to the author, because some of his presumptions were FALSE.

And worse, he suggests depriving our people in theatre is somehow a good thing.

I'm paraphrasing wildly,  I know, but his point of view should be challenged.


----------



## 3rd Herd

Leopard Tanks and the Deadly Dilemmas of the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan 
By Michael Wallace

Summary
At the end of September 2006, the Department of National Defence (DND) began to deploy a contingent of 15 of Canada’s 28-year-old Leopard 1 C2 tanks to the battlefield in Afghanistan.1 Three years previously, DND claimed that the Leopards were “obsolete” and would soon be replaced by 66 U.S.-designed Stryker armoured vehicles at a cost of US$460 million.2 The rationale for this abrupt reversal was the vulnerability of Canadian light armoured vehicles to attack, most notably by the now-infamous “improvised explosive devices” (IEDs), more simply named booby traps and anti-tank mines. The Leopards, it was argued, provided more protection for Canadian soldiers, while their 105- mm main armament provided superior striking power in battle. On closer analysis, this deployment was wrong-headed for two fundamental reasons. First, these tanks are themselves vulnerable to a variety of weapons easily obtained or manufactured by insurgent forces. Second, their deployment is part of a growing trend toward a blitzkrieg form of combat in Afghanistan that resembles the all-out warfare of the U.S.-led “Operation Enduring Freedom.” Thus, it is incompatible with the spirit of the civilian reconstruction mission envisaged by NATO in authorizing the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

The Vulnerability of the Leopard Tank It is a truism that even the most modern armoured vehicles, including main battle tanks (MBTs), are
almost totally helpless when deployed alone against advanced anti-tank missile systems, and even rocketpropelled grenades (RPGs). During the Israeli incursion into Lebanon in the summer of 2006, Israel’s Merkava tanks — perhaps the most powerful and safest in the
world3 — proved vulnerable to the advanced Soviet anti-tank missiles used by Hezbollah forces,4 such as the Russian-made AT-13 (METIS-M).5 The Merkavas were also vulnerable to advanced Soviet RPG-29 rocketpropelled grenades (VAMPIR).6 Leopard 1 C2’s Vulnerability to RPGs Older-model tanks such as the Leopard 1 are even more vulnerable. An RPG-29 uses a tandem shapedcharge warhead7 capable of penetrating as much as a metre of modern reactive armour,8 and can be fired from concealment at a range of up to 1.5 km. (It can also be aimed upward to attack helicopters, as the Americans have found to their cost in Iraq). In other words,  concealed insurgents so equipped could destroy a Canadian Leopard 1 C2 with a single shot, quite literally before its crew knew what hit it. Since the RPG- 29, like the older RPG-7, is infantry-portable, the light and mobile insurgent forces operating in Afghanistan should have no trouble deploying it in battle. It may be questioned whether such a relatively modern weapon would be available to the Afghan insurgents. It was developed by the Soviet Union in the 1980s to defeat the reactive armour developed for the upgraded American Abrams M1A1 and M1A2,9 and the end of the Cold War delayed its deployment until 1992. Yet Russian officials, speaking anonymously, admit that the RPG-29, along with many other former Soviet advanced weapons systems, have found their way onto the global black market.10 And if the unconfirmed but persistent reports that the Afghan insurgents are being aided by elements of the Pakistan Secret Service (ISI) are correct,11 it is possible that these insurgents have acquired RPG-29s. Military planners, who traditionally make their preparations based on worst-case scenarios, surely must assume that they have....................................................................http://policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2007/Leopard_Tanks.pdf


----------



## Bob Terwilliger

Hardly surprising, Mr. Travers is no friend of the CF or the Conservative party, and the Star is as Liberal as the sponsorship scandal. I too have sent him (and the editor in chief) a scathing dissection of his column. The scary thing is that while most of here recognise the myraid of faults in his article, the average citizen does not, and he does have a knack for dressing up BS as something that looks credible.


----------



## George Wallace

Ah!  Michael Wallace, close compatriot of Steven Staples, has reared his ugly little head.  (I wonder if I can sue him for defamation of character and the "Wallace" name.)  It is, as was stated in an earlier post, a shame that these characters can twist facts to their bidding to present a picture that seems plausible, yet is completely out to lunch.  If we took his piece and did some changes, we could just as easily be comparing Street Gangs in Toronto, with their Glocks, AKs, PPKs, etc., going against the Metro Police.  These guys are the Fifth Column.  They are distorting facts to fit their agenda.  Unfortunately, other than people on this site, who is to disprove them?  Steven Staples even frequents this site, as I am sure, do many of the others we have commented on, just to test the waters and get more facts to bend.  They lies to the Canadian public are a slap in the face to "Responsible Journalism".


----------



## George Wallace

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Found in the September/ October 2006 Issue of Armour:
> 
> "The Russians entered the Chechen City of Grozny on 31 December 1994. The first unit to penetrate the city center was the 131st  “Maikop” Brigade. Russian forces initially met no resistance when they entered the city at noon. They drove their vehicles straight to the city center, dismounted, and moved into the train station. Other elements of the brigade remained parked along a side street as a reserve force. Then the Chechens attacked with RPGs. They first destroyed the Russian lead and rear vehicles on the side streets, trapping the unit. The tanks could not lower their gun tubes far enough to shoot into basements or high enough to reach the tops of buildings. Infantry fighting vehicles and personnel carriers were unable to support their tanks. Chechens systematically destroyed the column from above and below with RPGs and grenades................................"
> 
> W. Grau, Lester, "Preserving Shock Action: A New Approach to Armored Maneuver Warfare" http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/Preserving%20Shock%20action.pdf



Interesting that you have brought this up.

Would you also be so kind as to post the solutions that they came up with to counter this initial 'mistake'?


----------



## observor 69

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah!  Michael Wallace, close compatriot of Steven Staples, has reared his ugly little head.  (I wonder if I can sue him for defamation of character and the "Wallace" name.)  It is, as was stated in an earlier post, a shame that these characters can twist facts to their bidding to present a picture that seems plausible, yet is completely out to lunch.  If we took his piece and did some changes, we could just as easily be comparing Street Gangs in Toronto, with their Glocks, AKs, PPKs, etc., going against the Metro Police.  These guys are the Fifth Column.  They are distorting facts to fit their agenda.  Unfortunately, other than people on this site, who is to disprove them?  Steven Staples even frequents this site, as I am sure, do many of the others we have commented on, just to test the waters and get more facts to bend.  They lies to the Canadian public are a slap in the face to "Responsible Journalism".



OK George as a blue job I am obviously out of my lane of this topic but how do you defend against being ganged up on by a bunch of RPG-29's?

A friend of mine is a WWII  RCD vet who crewed Staghounds. He mentioned to me last week, in light of the new Leos for Afghanistan, that in his experience the first thing he would attack would be the bogey wheels. They used to immobilize German armour and then it was vulnerable.


----------



## tomahawk6

Looks like the CF has worked out a deal with Germany for 20 Leopard 2A6M for use in Afghanistan as these tanks have air conditioning and other improvements which will make it a more desireable system.Total buy may be 80 tanks.


----------



## geo

Badenguy...

Wire mesh cages are being used by the US in Iraq on the Strykers (amongst others) for this particular reason.  The intent is to detonate the RPG warhead away from the vehicle.

As far as I know, this system does work - at least they're still using it.


----------



## George Wallace

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> OK George as a blue job I am obviously out of my lane of this topic but how do you defend against being ganged up on by a bunch of RPG-29's?
> 
> A friend of mine is a WWII  RCD vet who crewed Staghounds. He mentioned to me last week, in light of the new Leos for Afghanistan, that in his experience the first thing he would attack would be the bogey wheels. They used to immobilize German armour and then it was vulnerable.



OK Baden Guy, I could turn the question around and ask how all you Blue Jobs defend against AA missiles that can differentiate between the IR signature of an aircraft and its countermeasures, but it is a fair question......sort of.  First off, anyone aiming for bogey wheels is crossing his fingers and praying for a lot luck.  All soldiers are taught to aim for the center of mass, not head shots.  The same goes for antitank gunners.

These are age old arguments.  Imagine back in the days of the longbow, what they were saying when the crossbow was introduced, and then even later when gunpowder was introduced, and still later when rifling was introduced, and on and on.  Mankind will always develop a weapon system to defeat some defence, and at the same time be developing a defence for said weapon, and vis versa.  Life goes on.


----------



## Jammer

Good Lord!
Give me a frickin' break. NO ONE who is here posting has even been in Afghanistan since the tanks have been deployed. Yeah you can all figure out all kinds of mystical ways to blow a tank to Mars...woopee!
Now here it from me. The tanks have been I dare say the most effective weapon I have seen in theatre, I wish to god we had them when we crossed the Arghandab river last September, perhaps there would not have been the loss of life there was. Since they were deployed, and after a month of dicking around with then so the Sqn could get their shit together before they went out the door in Nov they have been used extensively with relatively minmal down time, in fact they have NEVER been unable to accomplish any mission given to them. Yeah there are places they can't get to, but hell anything with an internal combustion engine can't get everywhere. Shit, show me a vehicle that can and we should get it!
Like having a big dog, it doesn't have to bite to be intimidating. 
So forget about crossbows, and all the different ways to open up a panzer with a P-38 can opener, and think about how the hell we're gonna kill more Taliban!!!!!!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Leopard Tanks and the Deadly Dilemmas of the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan
> By Michael Wallace
> 
> The Vulnerability of the Leopard Tank It is a truism that even the most modern armoured vehicles, including main battle tanks (MBTs), are
> almost totally helpless when deployed alone against advanced anti-tank missile systems, and even rocketpropelled grenades (RPGs).



Our tanks are not deployed alone, which is my point regarding the combat team.


----------



## Flip

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They are distorting facts to fit their agenda.  Unfortunately, other than people on this site, who is to disprove them?  Steven Staples even frequents this site, as I am sure, do many of the others we have commented on, just to test the waters and get more facts to bend.  Their lies to the Canadian public are a slap in the face to "Responsible Journalism".



Thus - this is our obligation. To set the public record straight and confront their nonsense.
A civvy like me may not have the knowledge that you guys do but I know crap when I hear it.

Sometimes all we have to do is let "them" know we're not buyin it, or we can see we're being mislead. Given the chance the media will attack anything they think will make them more popular.
If it's clear that their position is making them unpopular - they will be inclined to adjust their position

Been awhile since we've heard from Taliban Jack hasn't it?
Maybe we should drop him a note  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows

Tanks are vulnerable.  So is everything else, usually to a greater degree than tanks.  What unmitigated idiots.


----------



## Infanteer

Took me a while to recognize that this author was one of my professors in university.  To give you an idea of the breadth of his military knowledge, I remember him lecturing our class about America's global strike force in Ft Lewis, the 10th Mountain Division.... :


----------



## Edward Campbell

The Ruxted Group debunked Prof. Wallace more than a month ago.


----------



## observor 69

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Ruxted Group debunked Prof. Wallace more than a month ago.



Now if you could only get Prof. Wallace to read the Ruxted article ! 

Then again you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.


----------



## geo

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Took me a while to recognize that this author was one of my professors in university.  To give you an idea of the breadth of his military knowledge, I remember him lecturing our class about America's global strike force in Ft Lewis, the 10th Mountain Division.... :



I thought the 10th was based out of Ft Drum?


----------



## George Wallace

It is.  That is why Infanteer put  : at the end of his post.


----------



## geo

Ahhh....

Subtlety..... make him an officer and 
make me an NCO


----------



## 3rd Herd

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting that you have brought this up.
> 
> Would you also be so kind as to post the solutions that they came up with to counter this initial 'mistake'?



For one the use of artillery in the direct fire role here quoting the mentioned article " Self-propelled howitzers accompanied the attack and provided direct fire on resisting enemy strong points. Multiple rocket launchers were even used in direct fire against a particularly stubborn enemy." Next as mentioned  in this thread was the development of a combined arms teams (a lesson forgotten from the Second world war, in which Canadians did quite well at). The Soviets had problems with the redevelopment of this concept( here again the "tank riders" of the march to Berlin have been left to the historians). Again refering to the article at hand the Soviets as with the Isrealis recognized a gap in urban armoured use. As mentioned in this thread the Isrealis developed the Merkava while the Russians brought forth the "BMPT or Beovaya mashina podderzhki tankov". Martin in his article gives a very good look at the example is used in the demise of the 131st “Maikop” Brigade and carries his evalutions into 1995 with "By early January 1995, the Maykop Brigade had suffered extraordinary casualties of 800 dead and wounded. The brigade had also lost twenty out of twenty-six tanks, 102 out of 120 BMP infantry fighting vehicles and all six of their ZSU-23 self-propelled antitank guns."( Here Martin is quoting another one of Grau's excellent works). 

In the infantry portion as mentioned in several of Grau's works came the reorganization of the basic Russian rifle section to a "troika fire teams comprising a sniper, a machine-gunner and a soldier equipped with a grenade launcher.Two other soldiers, acting as ammunition carriers or assistant gunners, supplemented these teams. The use of Russian fire teams forced Chechen fie teams to abandon fixed positions on upper floors of buildings, on balconies and in attics. The clearing and screening action of Russian all-arms teams led to greater protection for the armoured forces. Using manoeuvre by fire against buildings, apartment blocks and strong points, Russian troops were able to counter the supremacy of Chechen urban tactics." As I mentioned in other posts it is nice to have a closed conflict in which I mean the conflict itself is not featured on the evening news. That allowed the Russians certain extremes without censure in the world media public opinion polls. After all the Americans invented the terminolgy "we had to destroy it to save it". Martin ends his article with "Russia’s recent experience of urban combat remains relevant to future military operations and is worthy of close study Russia’s recent experience of urban combat remains relevant to future military operations and is worthy of close study." But to your average military member both NCM and Comissioned is the reaction of 'Why should we study them they lost".


Source:
Andrew,Martin.  Flight Sergeant, RAAF. "The Russian Experience of Urban Combat Some Lessons from Central Asia"
http://www.defence.gov.au/army/lwsc/AbstractsOnline/AAJournal/2004_S/AAJ_Dec_03_Insights_Andrews.pdf

Edit to add:

"The difficulty is determining how the guerrillas conducted their urban combat operations - - their literal techniques and methods. Few guerrillas conduct written after action reports. Consequently, although we often know from history what they did, it is more difficult to determine how they did it.(Marques, Patrick D. MAJ "GUERRILLA WARFARE TACTICS IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTS" Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 2003. http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/marques.pdf

2nd Edit:


"As the Russians regrouped, they brought in more infantry and began a systematic advance through the city, house by house and block by block. Russian armored vehicle losses dropped off with their change in tactics. Russian infantry moved in front with armored combat vehicles in support or in reserve. Some Russian vehicles were outfitted with a cage of wire mesh mounted some 25-30 centimeters away from the hull armor to defeat the shaped charges of an antitank grenade launcher as well as to protect the vehicle from a Molotov cocktail or bundle of explosives. The Russians began establishing ambushes on approach routes into a selected area and then running vehicles into the area as bait to destroy Chechen hunter-killer teams." Lastly based on loses the Russian General staff "convinced the Russian Minister of Defense to stop procuring tanks with gas-turbine engines" Grau, Lester W. “Russian-Manufactured Armored Vehicle Vulnerability in Urban Combat: The Chechnya Experience”. Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rusav.htm

For the Isreali Issues and experiences:

Urban Lessons Learned: Operation Peace for Galilee http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/740602/posts

(No source information but it has several good points)

Lesson 34: Tanks are central to Israeli urban warfare doctrine. The centrality of the tank in Israeli tactical doctrine led the IDF to examine how tanks could best be employed in cities while at the same time guarding against their recognized vulnerabilities. IDF doctrine also emphasized that the shock value of tanks in cities could sometimes compensate for a lack of dismounted infantry support. Despite this predisposition for using unsupported tanks in cities, the IDF moved to using combined arms tactics during the siege of Beirut where the tank was judged the single most valuable weapons for suppressing enemy fire. It should also be noted that the Israelis lost few tanks in urban fighting. It is unclear whether this modest loss rate was due to extensive use of infantry support to suppress anti-tank fire, superior design characteristics, or poor PLO anti-tank tactics

Lesson 46: Armored bulldozers are critical assets in urban combat. IDF combat engineers used armored bulldozers to clear barricades (some of which were mined) as well as other obstructions which slowed IDF operational tempo. Bulldozers were also used to smother bunkers, establish firing positions, widen and grade roads, and to create alternative avenues of advance to by-pass the urban infrastructure

Lesson 49: Dissatisfaction with the survivability of combat infantry vehicles led to significant technological improvements after the war. One of the outcomes of the war in Lebanon was the IDF decision in the early 1990s to build a heavy armored infantry vehicle, the Achzerit, based on surplus T-55 tank hulls. About 250 Achzerits were build as a supplement to the M113 armored personnel carrier, especially in urban combat situations. The Achzarit weights 43 tons and carries a crew of two plus 10 infantrymen. It is armed with a Rafael OWS remote control machine-gun station plus two 7.62mm manually-operated FN machine-guns. Additionally, the Achzarit carries an internally-mounted 60mm mortar for use against man-portable anti-tank weapons. The M113 also underwent a series of upgrades to improve its survivability to RPGs and to make it more suitable for urban terrain. With about 4,000 M113s in service, the IDF had no choice but to improve the M113 rather than replace the fleet with a more suitable urban assault vehicle. After the war the IDF developed an improved add-on spaced armor based on Rafael’s TOGA applique armor. This was a carbon-steel, lighter-weight, perforated applique mounted to the sides of the M113’s hull and front. Not completely, satisfied with the TOGA’s performance against RPGs, the Israelis developed two more passive armor packages. Finally, in 1996, the IDF fitted their M113s with a reactive armor package.


----------



## 3rd Herd

Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
			
		

> For those looking for more information on the value of tanks in this type of conflict, suggest either some of the plethora of open sources about Iraq or Israel.  For Afghanistan in the Soviet era, two of the most reputable authors are Lester Grau and Michael Gress.  Their "The Soviet-Afghan War - How a superpower fought and lost" offers some good insight.  Publisher information and page reference are in my signature line or here:http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/grasov.html.



Echoing Command-Sense-Act 105 see: 

USMC Small War Center of Excellence http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.mil/search/journals.asp as there are by rough count 22 articles by Grau on the reading list.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

Story here: http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/04/speaking-of-scoops-welcome-new-leos.html

Basic details:

20 Leopard 2A6M's borrowed, not leased, from the Germans, for deployment to Kandahar as quickly as possible.
A total of 100 used Leos from the Netherlands, for delivery sometime this fall. These tanks have apparently been properly stored and maintained to keep them in top shape. Of those 100 tanks, 40 will be 2A4's for two training squadrons in Canada (one in Gagetown, one in Wainwright), 40 will be two squadrons of 2A6's that after some Canadianization and upgrades (especially to the armour) will be deployable anywhere we need them, and 20 will be specialist tanks (bridge-layers, ARV's, dozers, etc).
The money to pay for this purchase (including an initial purchase of spare parts) comes from the cancellation of the MGS project - $650 million bucks already allocated.
I've heard speculation we'll be keeping our current Leopard 1 C2's around as training aids until they break down for good. Waste not, want not.


----------



## Cardstonkid

Great news.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

OH MY GOD<! I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD LIVE TO SEE THIS DAY!!!!!!!!

100 Leo's2A6's from Holland

Not only are we getting new tanks, but we are actaully getting more working equipment than currently used, a trend I hope contiues!!!


Cdn. troops to get new tanks in Afghanistan
Updated Thu. Apr. 12 2007 4:08 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

In an effort to bolster resistance against Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor announced a two-part plan that will provide soldiers with new tanks by this summer. 


O'Connor announced the Canadian government will purchase 100 Leopard A6M tanks from the Netherlands, which will replace the 17 aging Leopard C2s currently being used in the country. 


"Our Leopard One fleet is almost 30 years old and we are one of the last two countries in the world to use them," O'Connor said on Thursday during a press conference in Quebec City. 


The tanks are slated to arrive in Canada by the fall of 2007. 


The defence minister also announced a new deal with Germany to lease 20 Leopard A6M tanks which will arrive in Afghanistan as early as summer 2007 to help strengthen efforts against an expected Taliban spring resurgence. 


The new tanks will offer soldiers stronger firing capabilities, faster land speeds and more armour to protect against roadside bombs. 


"These tanks are truly effective," O'Connor said. 


The manufacturer has planned to stop making replacement parts for the current Leopard C2s tanks being used by the Canadian military by 2012. 


The 100 tanks purchased from the Netherlands are expected to arrive in Canada by late August or early September. 


"They have been well maintained because the Netherlands planned to sell them. They are in very good condition," O'Connor said. 


The tanks will be refurbished -- the work will be contracted out to a Canadian company -- and 20 of the upgraded tanks will be sent immediately to Afghanistan to replace the leased German Leopard A6M's. 


CTV's Paul Workman has reported on the incredible heat endured by personnel inside the aging Leopard tanks, which are not equipped with air conditioning. 


O'Connor confirmed today that both the leased German tanks and the 100 tanks purchased from the Netherlands will be equipped with air cooling systems. 


Eight NATO leaders met in Quebec City on Thursday to discuss how to better coordinate their efforts in Afghanistan. 


O'Connor said NATO leaders will not increase the amount of troops in the country. 


However, the U.S. has extended its presence in Afghanistan at least until the end of the summer, while Poland and Australia have committed more troops to southern areas of the country, which is believed to be enough to carry NATO forces through the hazardous summer months. 


Spring offensive 


NATO is in the midst of Operation Achilles, a spring offensive meant to pre-empt an expected Taliban campaign. Insurgent attacks are typically stepped up after winter snows melt and mountain passes reopen, allowing militants to travel more freely. 


Six Canadians were killed and a seventh was seriously wounded on Sunday when a roadside bomb was detonated. Two more were killed on Wednesday by another roadside bomb. 


For months, the U.S. and NATO have called on other member nations to make a greater contribution to the campaign. O'Connor has also joined in, urging countries to remove caveats on their soldiers so they can participate in the heavy fighting in the south. 


The U.S., U.K. and Canada have handled most of the actual combat operations against the Taliban. 


With files from The Associated Press

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070412/gates_oconnor_070412/20070412?hub=TopStories (linky added  8) )


----------



## LordOsborne

I'm very happy to hear the news. I might just have to rebadge now  :warstory:


----------



## warspite

Three cheers
HUZZA HUZZA HUZZA
 :cdnsalute:


----------



## Mike Baker

Hell yeah  ;D  :cdnsalute:


----------



## Babbling Brooks

Here's the official backgrounder from DND: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2252

It confirms much of my original post.

Fantastic news for the CF.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I guess all the armour types are to busy buying beers to post comments right about now.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Hmmm.....80 Leo 2A6M's + 20 Support Varients for $650 million.....or 66 MGS's for $680 million.

Hmmm....80 Leo 2A6M's + 20 Support Varients or 66 MGS's....

Let me think about that for a minute.  

Tough call.


Matthew.   ;D


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

a great day  to be a black hatter
ctv news has this story on them

Cdn. troops to get new tanks in Afghanistan

Updated Thu. Apr. 12 2007 4:08 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

In an effort to bolster resistance against Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor announced a two-part plan that will provide soldiers with new tanks by this summer.

O'Connor announced the Canadian government will purchase 100 Leopard A6M tanks from the Netherlands, which will replace the 17 aging Leopard C2s currently being used in the country.

"Our Leopard One fleet is almost 30 years old and we are one of the last two countries in the world to use them," O'Connor said on Thursday during a press conference in Quebec City.

The tanks are slated to arrive in Canada by the fall of 2007.

The defence minister also announced a new deal with Germany to lease 20 Leopard A6M tanks which will arrive in Afghanistan as early as summer 2007 to help strengthen efforts against an expected Taliban spring resurgence.

The new tanks will offer soldiers stronger firing capabilities, faster land speeds and more armour to protect against roadside bombs.

"These tanks are truly effective," O'Connor said.

The manufacturer has planned to stop making replacement parts for the current Leopard C2s tanks being used by the Canadian military by 2012.

The 100 tanks purchased from the Netherlands are expected to arrive in Canada by late August or early September.

"They have been well maintained because the Netherlands planned to sell them. They are in very good condition," O'Connor said.

The tanks will be refurbished -- the work will be contracted out to a Canadian company -- and 20 of the upgraded tanks will be sent immediately to Afghanistan to replace the leased German Leopard A6M's.

CTV's Paul Workman has reported on the incredible heat endured by personnel inside the aging Leopard tanks, which are not equipped with air conditioning.

O'Connor confirmed today that both the leased German tanks and the 100 tanks purchased from the Netherlands will be equipped with air cooling systems.

Eight NATO leaders met in Quebec City on Thursday to discuss how to better coordinate their efforts in Afghanistan.

O'Connor said NATO leaders will not increase the amount of troops in the country.

However, the U.S. has extended its presence in Afghanistan at least until the end of the summer, while Poland and Australia have committed more troops to southern areas of the country, which is believed to be enough to carry NATO forces through the hazardous summer months.

Spring offensive

NATO is in the midst of Operation Achilles, a spring offensive meant to pre-empt an expected Taliban campaign. Insurgent attacks are typically stepped up after winter snows melt and mountain passes reopen, allowing militants to travel more freely.

Six Canadians were killed and a seventh was seriously wounded on Sunday when a roadside bomb was detonated. Two more were killed on Wednesday by another roadside bomb.

For months, the U.S. and NATO have called on other member nations to make a greater contribution to the campaign. O'Connor has also joined in, urging countries to remove caveats on their soldiers so they can participate in the heavy fighting in the south.

The U.S., U.K. and Canada have handled most of the actual combat operations against the Taliban.

With files from The Associated Press


----------



## frist one

Great news.  ;D


----------



## midget-boyd91

Insert happy dance here ----------->                         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5tr8ssMKLk

*[sarcasm]*  But don't you think Dawn Black had a point on M Duffy Live a few minutes ago? What are the tanks going to do for the worlds olympics in 2010? Or the floods that are going to happen in Manitoba, and what are tanks going to to for the aging Buffalo's and ... what... tanks.. ...do.....for... *[/sarcasm]* 
 I'm sorry, I couldn't finish- I started laughing too hard.


----------



## KevinB

I still think the Aussies got the better deal with the M1A2's...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

...until you've seen the life cycle costs that they're paying...

It's a good deal for (arguably) a better tank.  The A6M is state of the art and has the 55 calibre main gun... I'll stack it against an electronics-festooned M1A2 any day.


----------



## ArmyRick

Good news!


----------



## Eggy

Dutch MOD brought out a press release for the sale of 100 surplus Leopard 2, consisting of 80 Leopard 2A4 and 20 leopard 2A6.


----------



## FEEOP042

I hope they are getting the AEV 3 Kodiak. That would be a parts nightmare and the AEV 2 needs replaced as well.


CHIMO
042 Forever


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Leopard 2A4
The most wide-spread version of the Leopard 2 family, the 2A4 models included more substantial changes, including an automated fire and explosion suppression system, an all-digital fire control system able to handle new ammunition types, and improved turret with flat titanium/tungsten armor.

370 vehicles Leopard 2; 190 by Krauss-Maffei (Chassis Nr. 10789 to 10979) and 180 by Mak (Chassis Nr. 20645 to 20825) were delivered between December 1985 and March 1987. 
Although only five batches were originally ordered, another batch of 150 Leopard 2; 83 by Krauss-Maffei (Chassis Nr. 10980 to 11062) and 67 by Mak (Chassis Nr. 20826 to 20892) was ordered in 1987. These included new batteries and tracks, and moved the warning light so it could be better observed by the driver when he was driving "head out". 
Yet another batch of 100 vehicles Leopard 2; 55 by Krauss-Maffei (Chassis Nr. 11063 to 11117) and 45 by Mak (Chassis Nr. 20893 to 20937) was delivered between May 1989 and April 1990, identical to the sixth. A smaller batch of 75 vehicles Leopard 2; 41 by Krauss-Maffei (Chassis Nr. 11118 to 11158) and 34 by Mak (Chassis Nr. 20938 to 20971) was delivered until 1992. 
All older models have been upgraded to the 2A4 standard.

Sweden received 160 used examples on loan while waiting for the 120 Leopard 2(S) they ordered. The Leopard 2A4 is designated Strv121 in Swedish service. 
Finland has bought 124 Leopard 2A4 from German Army reserve stocks. 
Poland received 128 Leopard 2A4 from German Army reserve stocks as military assistance, only paying for the transportation costs. 
Greece has bought 183 Leopard 2A4 from German Army reserve stocks. 
Spain has been leased 108 used Leopard 2A4 by Germany; between 2005 and 2015 these will be paid for after which Spain will have full ownership. 
Chile is now receiving initial deliveries of 118 Leopard 2A4 from Germany. 
Turkey has bought 298 used Leopard 2A4 from Germany including 10,000 rounds of DM-63 ammunition along with these tanks. 
Singapore will acquire 66 Leopard 2A4 tanks together with 30 spare tanks and supporting equipment from Germany; according to press release by Singapore's Ministry of Defence on 11th Dec 2006.[2][3] 
The Canadian Forces has expressed interest in purchasing 80 Leopard 2A4's from German reserve stocks, along with leasing 20 Leopard 2A6M's from Germany, with the leased Leopards heading directly to the Canadian deployment to Afghanistan in early spring of 2007. This has been confirmed on 12 April 2007; however, Canada will purchase 100 Leopard 2A4s from Holland. The loaned tanks from Germany (2A6Ms) will be sent to Afghanistan as soon as possible. The 100 tanks will include various engineering variants, and there are plans to upgrade the A4 models to A6 standards, which probably includes the L55 main gun[4]


----------



## Cpl.Banks

So are all three reg force regiments going to get the new Leo's 2's? How big is a tank squadron generally speaking? Otherwise who will be holding on to the C2's?
Dave


----------



## Garett

When the officer from the Armour School asked the German Col at the COIN Symposium if he had any tanks to sell him I thought he was joking.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

[edit] Leopard 2A6
Includes the addition of the 120 mm L55 smoothbore gun (Rheinmetall DeTec AG) and a number of other changes. All German tank battalions of the "crisis intervention forces" are equipped with the A6, as are all Dutch operational units.


[edit] Leopard 2A6M
Based on A6 plus several protections against mines.

Canada as of April 12, 2007, has announced it will purchase up to 100 A6Ms from the Netherlands. They will also lease 20 A6Ms from Germany. These tanks will be used primarily in the NATO deployment in Afghanistan, in an effort to increase firepower and to increase protection given to Canadian troops operating in the south of Afghanistan. The previous Leopard C2s used by the Canadian Forces reached temperatures of up to 60 degrees celsius in the Afghan summers. This was primarily due to the use of a hydraulic drive turret combined with the brutal Afghan summers. The new tanks all have turret electric drive as well as internal air conditioning.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2


----------



## jimmy742

Perhaps this has been answered elsewhere. I understand the money for this is coming from the $650 million allocated for the MGS. Will there be any left over funds or is that the price for the whole deal? Does it include parts and training?

I'm glad the C2s are being recycled.  All that money spent updating them...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Hillier said that he believes the majority of tanks that go to Canada will be going out west.


----------



## George Wallace

This started out so informative, and now everyone is starting to twist all the facts that were originally posted.  That or they just aren't bothering to read the posts....... :


----------



## Retired AF Guy

I had posted some links but realized that someone had already beat me to the punch, so I' removing them. However, I did get a chance to update the Leo 2 article in wikipedia.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

This is great news for the Corps.

I hope that the post about the mix of 2A4's and 2A6's is wrong.   The two tanks have many differences, the primary difference being the PERI sight on the 2A6.  We would require FCS trained on two different systems, different parts and a conversion course would have to be taught on personnel trained on the A4 before they could go to the A6.

However, if that is indeed the case, we would make it work.  I simply hope that all 80 tanks are of the A6 variant.


----------



## Mourning

Hey good news. Hope you guys like them as much as we do  .

Main difference with the German Leopard 2 versions are a different MG, different radio sets and different smoke-dischargers.

Never heard any complaints from people I know who have operated them from years and I remember our teams winning several NATO shooting contests, yes, also against Abrams.

We all shifted to the Leopard 2 A6 variant a few years ago. Main improvement is the new L55 gun which needs a little better maintenance but armour penetration is superb, but the original 120mm is a really good gun too. This is the first time CF's use the 120mm tank gun at all, right? IF so, let's just say your firepower and range of your tankfleet improved a lot aswell as the protection capabilities of your forces.

Like I wrote before, hope you like them as much as our tankers do!

Cheers Allies!  

And go Canada!  

Regards,

Mourning  8)


----------



## George Wallace

;D

MBGDs don't matter.  If the MGs are FNs then that is what we have.  The Radios are going to be changed anyway.  

 ;D


----------



## Mourning

Btw what I understood is that it's 40 Leopard 2A4's,  40 Leopard 2A5's (could be A6, but I heard otherwise) and then 20 various ARV variants of the Leopard 2 Buffel (again which ones I do not know.

What I DO know is that we won't be sending you 80 or 100 Leopard 2A6M's ... because I don't think we have the M-version (yet), so that would be hard to sell  . OTOH the CF's could have them updated, offcourse to that variant.

Regards,

Mourning  8)


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The Dutch use the same MG's as we do, so no problems there.  I'm sure we can recycle some of the Wegmann MBGD to replace the French version they use, and the radios are no big deal, either.

I still hope that there all A6, but then again, the dutch upgraded their A4 to the A6 standard, maybe they could do a few more for their UN friends.....


----------



## Kirkhill

Mourning - could you be a good fellow and translate this for us linguistically challenged types?  ;D  Your Mindef people haven't got round to issuing the English language version yet.

Near as I can make out you are selling us 20 x 2A6 and 80 x 2A4.

Would the Engineer types be based on the A4 model?  Because that would seem to leave us with a fleet of 20 x 2A6 with 20 x 2A4 to be upgraded to the same standard (possibly 2A6M), 40 x 2A4 to be upgraded to a lesser standard and 20 x 2A4 based engineer and support variants?



> Defensie heeft verkoopt honderd Leopard gevechtstanks verkocht aan Canada. De overeenkomst werd bekend gemaakt tijdens het bezoek van minister van Defensie, Eimert van Middelkoop, aan Canada. Het gaat om twintig Leopard’s 2 A6 en tachtig Leopard’s 2 A4.
> 
> Het afstoten van de tanks is onderdeel van de reductie van gevechtstanks waartoe Defensie al eerder besloot. Nederland houdt honderdtien Leopard’s 2 A6 tanks operationeel.
> 
> De aan Canada verkochte Leopard’s 2 A6 zijn vorig jaar volledig bijgewerkt. Defensie gaat als onderdeel van de overeenkomst de scholing van Canadese instructeurs verzorgen. De trainingen beginnen in mei.
> 
> Minister van Defensie Eimert van Middelkoop woont in Canada de ministeriële "Regional Command South" bijeenkomst in Quebec bij. Zie onderstaande link voor meer info over het bezoek.



http://www.mindef.nl/actueel/nieuws/2007/04/20070412_verkoop_leopard.aspx


----------



## retiredgrunt45

Holy Cromoly!!!! We actually went and done it. We have graduated from thinking about it, might do it, lets see if we have the money do it, to actually doing it!!! 

Wow to be 20 years younger, 50 lbs lighter... I'd love to be a tanker!


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill

The chassis of the Leo 2 variants are the same.  It is the MBTs that are classified differently due to the differences in their Turrets and Weapon/Fire Control Systems.  The chassis of all the MBTs are all basically the same.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

As I understand it, a significant chunk of the $650 million is going to be for upgrades to the units we're getting.  So I'd guess that means up-armouring, among other things.


----------



## Jammer

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heheheheehe....George you must be doing cartwheels....


----------



## George Wallace

......and more.......


----------



## Eland

This is great news! And long, long, long overdue. For a long time I was beginning to wonder if the army was
actually going to get any new 'cats' - you know how on-again, off-again governments (particularly
those of the Liberal persuasion) can be when it comes to big military procurements.

Did someone say that $650 million is being allocated to upgrade THE 2A4's? If so, does this 
mean the tanks will be upgraded to something approaching a 2A5 standard?

Now all we need is four hundred tracked IFV's to complement the Leopards and 
we'll have the makings of a proper mechanized infantry brigade.


----------



## jimmy742

From what I'm reading, it sounds like a good deal and exactly what is needed. A proven and modern vehicle, parts, training and upgrades - all in a timely manner and for a reasonable cost (as good as new but cheaper). I'll give the Govt. and DND credit for doing the smart thing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They should annouce that they get better gas mileage and will have a smaller Carbon footprint......


----------



## rosco

This probably explains why us new recruits have been "nudged" towards Armour!
Sounds good to me.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Kirkhill
> 
> The chassis of the Leo 2 variants are the same.  It is the MBTs that are classified differently due to the differences in their Turrets and Weapon/Fire Control Systems.  The chassis of all the MBTs are all basically the same.



Thanks George,  and Congratulations Daddy  ;D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just in case there is anyone involved in the project, in case you haven't seen this, this is a very interesting model if we're doing a Canadian refit.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/l/Leopard-PSO.htm



> ....Leopard Peace Support Operations (PSO) is a demonstrator vehicle, developed by Krauss Maffei Wegmann (KMW) to enable the German Army and other Leopard 2 users to evaluate the use of tanks in urban warfare scenarios. The PSO was displayed at Eurosatory 2006 fitted with add-on armor to the turret and hull (skirts), a dozer blade, operated by the driver, to remove road obstacles. A remotely controlled weapon station is mounted on the side of the turret, next to the loader's position, enabling the crew to effectively engage close-in targets under the protection of the tank's armor. This station also improves the tank's capability to engage targets at higher elevations.
> 
> Close-in panoramic coverage is provided by hull-mounted cameras, covering 360 degrees, augmenting the tank's vision and targeting systems. Existing sights are protected with metal screens to prevent damage by stones or debris. Internally, images from the vision systems can be distributed to all crew members, to share workload in continuous operation. To improve interoperability with nearby troops, external radio/intercom interface was added, enabling nearby troops to communicate with the tank. The tank was painted in an experimental urban combat pattern, recommended for deployment in Afghanistan.


----------



## vonGarvin

FYI: we are NOT getting the "PSO" variant.

The purchase will include a number of "older variant" Leo 2A4s.  Those purchased will be upgraded to A6 standard here in Canada.  
The purchase price (650 million) includes those upgrades.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> FYI: we are NOT getting the "PSO" variant.



I expect it will be something less than 8 hours before the femme de institute Rideau arrett les war group latch on to that piece of information.


----------



## Hebridean

Several things.

Will the Leopard C2's be going to reserve units?  I believe some reservists would probably be drooling over such an opportunity.  Let's keep these old lasses as it will provide more opportunities for reservists to be deployed abroad in the armoured capacity.  

Maybe some of these new Leopards should get some of the coyote recce kit put on them?  (i.e for every squadron one of the tanks should have coyote gear).   Information and intelligence is a force enabler as we all know.  

 I do have some criticisms on how the military brass are patting themselves on the back on this one.  Just a few a years ago Hillier (Iron Rick) and company convinced the government that tanks were no longer necessary, hence the proposed mobile gun system acquisition.  I also like who that has been now spun into a Liberal government decision, rather than a military one.  The military brass gave the Liberal government very bad advice and now it is being spun politically.  Ridiculous. Leopard 2's good have been in Afganistan years ago if the brass had given the right advice.   Also,  I believe Hillier owes Canadian Forces armoured units an apology for almost destroying them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think it was more of a case of trying to make lemonade from lemons, the Liberals would have been happy to get rid of the tanks and replace them white UN marked Prius cars, going for the MGS was the least worst option.


----------



## Hebridean

he flower power liberals were certainly helped by the face that even former tankers like Hillier thought they were no longer neccessary.  Can't blame the Liberals if the military agreed with them.


----------



## vonGarvin

Hebridean said:
			
		

> Several things.
> 
> Will the Leopard C2's be going to reserve units?  I believe some reservists would probably be drooling over such an opportunity.  Let's keep these old lasses as it will provide more opportunities for reservists to be deployed abroad in the armoured capacity.
> 
> Maybe some of these new Leopards should get some of the coyote recce kit put on them?  (i.e for every squadron one of the tanks should have coyote gear).   Information and intelligence is a force enabler as we all know.
> 
> I do have some criticisms on how the military brass are patting themselves on the back on this one.  Just a few a years ago Hillier (Iron Rick) and company convinced the government that tanks were no longer necessary, hence the proposed mobile gun system acquisition.  I also like who that has been now spun into a Liberal government decision, rather than a military one.  The military brass gave the Liberal government very bad advice and now it is being spun politically.  Ridiculous. Leopard 2's good have been in Afganistan years ago if the brass had given the right advice.   Also,  I believe Hillier owes Canadian Forces armoured units an apology for almost destroying them.


Actually, first thing: get back in your lane.  Your post is full of misconceptions and half-truths and outright falsehoods

1:  The Leo C2 is a maintenance intensive vehicle.  Unless reserve units can support the maintenance of said vehicle, then I doubt they would get them.  Nice idea, though.
2:  Putting Coyote kit on a leopard would be like putting tits on a bull.  Cows have tits, bulls don't.  There's a reason for it.  If you don't know the reason for why this is in the bovine world, then you shouldn't be talking about anything to do with tanks.
3:  "Iron Rick" et al had NOTHING to do with the whole MGS affair.  Minister McCallum announced the purchase, much to the surprise of DND, one day in the House of Commons.  A wheeled replacement to the tank was indeed looked at by the military several years prior to that sudden announcement in 2003 that recommended AGAINST that type of replacement.  One factor: look at the number they wished to purchase: 66.  Why 66?  Because when asked how many MGS 650 million would buy, GM Defence answered "66".  There is no other reason why that number.
Then, as any loyal public servant would do, "Iron Rick" supported his masters (the people of Canada) and did the best he could and make do with the tools that Canada gave the Armed Forces.  Remember, the CF does not make policy, we enforce the will of our masters: the Citizens of Canada.

Finally, the only person who owes an apology is you, for wasting the last 10 minutes of my life.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Hebridean:

You don't really know what you're talking about.  The Army abandoned attempts to procure tanks after it became painfully obvious that the government(s) of the day wouldn't support the purchase of such an "offensive" weapon.  Once that became clear, the Army - and Hillier - had to settle on the next best thing, the MGS.  We all hated the MGS and had the simulation data to prove why, but it was better than nothing.

As for deploying tanks to Afghanistan, the request for tanks came after Op MEDUSA late last summer.  It was a request from theatre based on some very specific lessons learned from that operation.  Deployment of tanks had never popped up on the radar (in the Afghan context) prior to that.  It's hardly a case of the "brass" (and your use of the term illustrates your prejudice) dropping the ball.

The C2s won't be cascaded to any Canadian units (let alone Reserve units), unless I'm sadly misinformed.  The Leopard 1 ceases to be supported by the spares system and by KMW in 2012 and will rapidly become an orphan fleet.  Moreover, the tank cannot be fitted with the Coyote's surveillance kit - period - there's no room.  Where would the Surv Op sit?  In the loader's hatch?  In the coffin bin?

HS: +10


----------



## SiG_22_Qc

I'd like to point out the fact that the Israeli MerkavaIV got stalled by Hezbollah's RPG-29  :skull:.(or correct me if i'm wrong).

Israel wont give out how many they lost and i dont expect Hezbollah to give the real number neither. 

But how will canadian army cope with that blow-a-tank-from-nowhere attacks with equivalent weaponery.
 :'(

Fighting 40 years old equipment raggy fighters in Afghanistan is one thing. Fighting brand-new russian RPG's is another.

And i dont think we can describe the Israeli army has a bunch of amateurs...

I guess... Leo2A6M would be a perfect fit in Afghanistan as Talibans got nothin' to fight them. BUT...well.. i guess the Leo 2 is the logical linear replacement for the Leo-1. :blotto:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Considering Taliban RPG's were bouncing off of less armoured vehicles I think and hope it will be a while before they get the stuff used in the latest Israel clash.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> I'd like to point out the fact that the Israeli MerkavaIV got stalled by Hezbollah's RPG-29  :skull:.(or correct me if i'm wrong).
> 
> Israel wont give out how many they lost and i dont expect Hezbollah to give the real number neither.
> 
> But how will canadian army cope with that blow-a-tank-from-nowhere attacks with equivalent weaponery.
> :'(



Using time tested Canadian tactics to counter such things.  "Blow a tank from nowhere"...heh.  You have no idea what you're talking about.



> Fighting 40 years old equipment raggy fighters in Afghanistan is one thing. Fighting brand-new russian RPG's is another.



Methinks you underestimate the "raggy fighters" in Afghanistan...



> And i dont think we can describe the Israeli army has a bunch of amateurs...



Actually, yes we can.  In fact, the majority of them _are_.



> I guess... Leo2A6M would be a perfect fit in Afghanistan as Talibans got nothin' to fight them. BUT...well.. i guess the Leo 2 is the logical linear replacement for the Leo-1. :blotto:



And what do you, with your obvious grasp of the complexities of tank tactics, suggest we deploy otherwise?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You will also note that Hezbollah had 5 years to prepare the ground and their tactics. The Terrain funneled mechanized forces into obvious routes, which allowed the bad guys to get flank and rear shots. Yet the actually numbers of totally destroyed tanks is quite small, I saw a very good estimate and it is much less than you think. Most tanks were recovered and repaired. The ATGM’s did not work as well as many people thought. As in 73, the IDF got stung, readapted and squeezed the enemy out of their defenses. Hezbollah needed the cease-fire far more than Israel. A lot of lessons have been learned and the IDF is in self-correct mode, the Hezbollah will not get a second chance like it had.


----------



## Mourning

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Mourning - could you be a good fellow and translate this for us linguistically challenged types?  ;D  Your Mindef people haven't got round to issuing the English language version yet.
> 
> Near as I can make out you are selling us 20 x 2A6 and 80 x 2A4.
> 
> Would the Engineer types be based on the A4 model?  Because that would seem to leave us with a fleet of 20 x 2A6 with 20 x 2A4 to be upgraded to the same standard (possibly 2A6M), 40 x 2A4 to be upgraded to a lesser standard and 20 x 2A4 based engineer and support variants?
> 
> http://www.mindef.nl/actueel/nieuws/2007/04/20070412_verkoop_leopard.aspx



Sure, no problem.

Here goes:

"Defensie heeft verkoopt honderd Leopard gevechtstanks verkocht aan Canada. De overeenkomst werd bekend gemaakt tijdens het bezoek van minister van Defensie, Eimert van Middelkoop, aan Canada. Het gaat om twintig Leopard’s 2 A6 en tachtig Leopard’s 2 A4.

Het afstoten van de tanks is onderdeel van de reductie van gevechtstanks waartoe Defensie al eerder besloot. Nederland houdt honderdtien Leopard’s 2 A6 tanks operationeel.

De aan Canada verkochte Leopard’s 2 A6 zijn vorig jaar volledig bijgewerkt. Defensie gaat als onderdeel van de overeenkomst de scholing van Canadese instructeurs verzorgen. De trainingen beginnen in mei.

Minister van Defensie Eimert van Middelkoop woont in Canada de ministeriële "Regional Command South" bijeenkomst in Quebec bij."

TRANSLATION:
"The Ministry of Defence has sold a hundred Leopard Main Battle Tanks to Canada. De agreement was made public during the visit of Minister of Defence, Eimert van Middelkoop, to Canada. It concerns twenty Leopard 2 A6's and eighty Leopard 2 A4's. 

The disposal of the tanks is part of the reduction of Main Battle Tanks to which the Ministry had already previously planned. The Netherlands will keep a hundred and ten operational Leopard 2 A6's.

The Leopard 2 A6 now sold to Canada were completely refurbished/overhauled last year. The Ministry will as part of the agreement take care of the training of Canadian instructors. Those will start in may.

Minister of Defence Eimert van Middelkoop is currently active at the ministerial "Regional Command South" meeting in Quebec."

Ok, a little more, but not much more clarity. You will receive 80 A4 models and 20 A6 models. I would expect out of a standpoint of standardization and logistics, etc. that those will all be upgraded to the A6 standard. But, that's only logic dictating and we all know how politicians can be concerning "logic" and "defence" in one sentence  .

Regarding the ARV's. Those are called "Buffels". I'm not sure on which variants your country will receive. ONE thing you should REALLY check though is the fire extinguishing equipment. There was a little row here that they weren't checked here for nearly a decade!  :-X. So, whoever is going to work with it ... check that. NONE of our MBT's has clearance now :. Supposed to be fixed immediately now... for us. So, check that.

Btw the Leopard 2 A6 is widely regarded as one of the best two MBTs in the world. The newest Abrahams versions are equal, so consider that a shared nr. 1 spot. Anyone telling you ONE of the other is superior is dribbling. EIther way BIG upgrade for you guys in Afghanistan. If there ever is a comparable operationin the south Medusa last year then the Taliban really would wish they were back in Pakistan.

Regards,

Mourning  8)


----------



## vonGarvin

I would argue that the Leo 2A6 is moderately ahead of the M1A2 SEP (latest?) variant.   But that's just an argument for beers, for both are very fine MBTs.  (Fine?  Whom am I kidding?  They both ROCK!)

I know a guy who knows a guy  ;D who just may be in a position to check those fire extinguishers.  Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## LordOsborne

Pardon my lack of knowledge on the subject, but is there a significant difference between the Leopard 2A6 and the 2A6M model? I know the A6 is supposed to have the longer 55cal barrel as well as the upgrades to the armour and various other systems over previous models, but I'm just wondering if there's any sort of difference between the two?


----------



## vonGarvin

From what I've read on the internet, the A6M is basically an A6 with more mine protection.  Other than that, any differences, if any, aren't public knowledge.


----------



## LordOsborne

HS, thanks for that.


----------



## Mourning

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> From what I've read on the internet, the A6M is basically an A6 with more mine protection.  Other than that, any differences, if any, aren't public knowledge.



That is correct.


----------



## ironduke57

IIRC the driver seat is new. The new one is hanging on the roof and has no connection with the bottom. Also the lowest row of ammo beside´s the driver is gone.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Trogdor

I would just like to jump in here to ask if there is any definitive answer as to what type of Leo 2s we are buying.  I've heard 40 2A4's and 40 Leo 2 A6s and support varriants and I've heard all A4s and all A6s.  What I want to know is what exactly are we getting?  

Cheers


----------



## Haletown

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I still think the Aussies got the better deal with the M1A2's...



don't the Aussies have beer fridges bolted onto their M1's ??


----------



## Kirkhill

Vele dank for the translation Mourning.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

+1 CSA 105

Folks you heard the man....

Army.ca Staff


----------



## gnplummer421

Wonderful news, love them Leo's. I'm very happy for the Armoured Corps. 

Leaving Germany after working on Leo's for four years almost broke my heart, but on this day, I feel a little better. ;D

Gnplummer421


----------



## BushmasterBob

Looks like what I was told at the CFRC over here was true.  100 Leo 2's withing a few months.  200 within a few years  :threat:


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

What 200?   :


----------



## TN2IC

Command-Sense-Act 105  +10!

I may be not Armour, but sure get along and enjoy being with the black berets.


----------



## prom

Wolfe117 said:
			
		

> I would just like to jump in here to ask if there is any definitive answer as to what type of Leo 2s we are buying.  I've heard 40 2A4's and 40 Leo 2 A6s and support varriants and I've heard all A4s and all A6s.  What I want to know is what exactly are we getting?
> 
> Cheers



from the previous page..... it will be 20 a6 60 a4 and 20 engr varriants


----------



## Lance Wiebe

That's correct.  20 of the A6, and 60 of the A4.  Twenty of the A4 will be brought up to the A6 standard, and will be held in a reserve force.  Of the remaining 40 A4's it appears that 20 will be located in Gagetown and 20 in Wainwright.

Great news for the Armour Corps, for sure.  It breathes new life in to the entire army!


----------



## prom

way out of my lane here now.........


the way i read and seen from press releases and the press conf. is that from the 100, 40 will be upgraded to the A6M standard the first 20 of which will be sent to k'har to replace the "leased" german A6M's. From what I have read here in other threads there is a vast difference from the A4 version to the A6 version, then would it not be more fitting if the entire force (remaining 40) were upgraded to teh A6 standard as well? Leaving teh A6M as a heavy armoured deployable version and all remainders for skill retention and such as they would be idenctical except for some details such as some of the mine protection alterations


----------



## Navor86

Moin
Will those 100 Tanks be put under one Regiment or will they split between Blindee and Strathona?
And maybe a more general Question, how is your Armored Corps organized iirc there are 3 Rgt,but how many Squadrons are in each Rgt?

Greetings


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

question about leased Tanks

if one of those tanks get damaged beyond repair, do we hva eot buy it or just replace it with one of our new to us tanks?

hard to understand the army leasing plans of actual afvs not like them leasing a staff car or?


----------



## Trogdor

So if we are in fact getting 20 A6M's borowed from Germany (that I hope we decide to keep) 40 A4M's, 40 A6's and 20 support varriants from the Dutch, my question is this.  Can we upgrade the A4M's to A6 standards if we wanted to.  I'm very happy we are going to have a modern tank force, however, I'd still like to see all the tanks being at the same level of protection.  Is it technically feasible to upgrade A4M's to A6 standards?!


----------



## 28402 engineers

I'm 95% sure that the A4s will be upgraded to A6 standard, and i'm equally as sure that the cost of the upgrades have been incorporatedinto the $650 million that we're paying the dutch.


----------



## midget-boyd91

Stridsvagn_122 said:
			
		

> I'm 95% sure that the A4s will be upgraded to A6 standard, and i'm equally as sure that the cost of the upgrades have been incorporatedinto the $650 million that we're paying the dutch.



40 of them right away ( if I'm recalling the numbers correctly   ) so they can be sent to replace the 20 leased from the Germans. The rest of them will be upgraded soon after.


----------



## Mourning

Wolfe117 said:
			
		

> So if we are in fact getting 20 A6M's borowed from Germany (that I hope we decide to keep) 40 A4M's, 40 A6's and 20 support varriants from the Dutch, my question is this.  Can we upgrade the A4M's to A6 standards if we wanted to.  I'm very happy we are going to have a modern tank force, however, I'd still like to see all the tanks being at the same level of protection.  Is it technically feasible to upgrade A4M's to A6 standards?!



It's how we went from A4 (not A4M btw. I don't think that version exists) to A6, actually the A5 before that (the L55 and some other small improvements followed a little later to complete the improvement to A6-program).

So, yes, that's very well possible. It's what started the program in the first place. To improve the existing Leopard 2A4 MBT fleet to be able to cope with the most difficult circumstances and see what was needed to do that. This was btw a Dutch-German co-program.

Regards,

Mourning  8)


----------



## cameron

*Well praise the Lord, its about bloody time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :tank:
Now i think i'll have myself a Guinness (or two)* :cheers:


----------



## Mourning

Ok, here's a compilation of YouTube video's:

Leopard 2 general documentaries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uVXZS6oEhg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86syxIAIKfY&mode=related&search=

Leopard 2 A4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_XP85nlgZo&mode=related&search= (crushing two cars)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG1sUD_NUik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs3oweeEj6A&NR=1

Leopard 2 ARV Buffel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v82USE3Hinc

Leopard 2 A6 and the Swedish Leopard 2 A6(best version in use):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa7Ao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDk5uFSaDNU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhbBWNcV5dA&mode=related&search=

Enjoy!  

Regards,

Mourning  8)


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

This is really good news. I'm glad we're getting them and renewing our tank capability. 
Not to derail but I wonder why the DND backgrounder had to include our elected Government's propaganda at the end of it

"This acquisition is a further demonstration of Canada’s New Government’s  commitment to renew and transform the Canadian Forces, providing them the equipment they need to do the demanding jobs we as Canadians ask them to do."

Hey I'm a fan but shouldn't we keep that stuff out of departmental briefing notes??


----------



## ironduke57

IMHO an upgrade to A5/A6 is clearly favourably. For example the A4 uses hydraulic for turret traverse and A5/A6 an electric system. Also I am not sure if the not strengthed hydraulics which absorb the back force of the cannon (sorry can´t remember the right english name for it atm) of the A4 can handle the new DM53/63 round´s, so it could be possible that you have to use two different APFSDS ammo type´s, if you don´t upgrade the A4 at least to A5. (Okay you could AFAIK without problems use the old DM33 round with L/55 cannon.) Oh and an APU for the turret would be a really good idea as the turret electronic has sometimes the habit to crash and has to be restarted, when the engine is started.

Regards,
ironduke57 (Hope´s that it is understandable what he write´s.)

edit: @Mourning The STRV122 is not an A6. It is an uparmored A5 with some other modification´s. It still uses the L/44.


----------



## Eggy

There are already leopard 2's in Afghanistan. cough cough  

Those are Leopard 2 "Buffel" ARVs.


----------



## Hebridean

I will withdraw my ludricous comments and suggestions.  Apologies all around to those who took offense.


----------



## Eland

I was watching a TV news show last night and Peter Churra of A-Channel News from London, Ontario
was interviewing someone on Parliament Hill. At one point during the interview, Churra criticized the recent Leopard
purchase, arguing that it would give the opposition in the House the ability to say that the mission in Afghanistan would 
be "overmilitarized" and that it should be cancelled.

I was dumbstruck by the comment. Does Churra not realize that Afghanistan is 
a bona fide war zone, and that the Taliban want to kill as many Canadian (and NATO) soldiers
as they can, by any means possible? How do you 'overmilitarize' a war zone, anyway? Does he not 
realize that, with no tanks or proper fire support, more Canadian soldiers will die
in firefights with the Taliban?

I suppose his 'solution' to the problem would be to have peacekeepers only in Afghanistan  
to satisfy people who want the Canadian military to be an uber-helpful Boy Scout type of organization. 
His solution (or non-solution, rather) would also please the left when inevitably, those peacekeepers 
find themselves unable to defend themselves and get shot to ribbons, thus providing a 
justification for withdrawal.

The ignorance some journalists have about military affairs sometimes amazes me. Courses
in military history, terminology, strategy and tactics ought to be required in journalism school
for those who want to cover military matters! 

I suspect Churra's comments might just be a case of 'sour grapes' since the GM Diesel plant in London will not be 
making hulls and other subsystems for the MGS project, now that it has been cancelled.


----------



## larry Strong

I know you can upgrade from an A5 to a A6 as both the Germans and the Dutch did, however I have not found info on going from a A4 to a 5 or 6.


----------



## ironduke57

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> I know you can upgrade from an A5 to a A6 as both the Germans and the Dutch did, however I have not found info on going from a A4 to a 5 or 6.


Sure, why not? For example all german A5 and A6 are upgraded A4. We didn´t got any new build A5/A6.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Trogdor

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Sure, why not? For example all german A5 and A6 are upgraded A4. We didn´t got any new build A5/A6.
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



Oh really?  That was my hunch but I hadn't found any documents talking about that.  I guess that makes the most sense since there were over 2000 A4s in German service when the first A5 and A6s rolled out.

I'm glad we are getting such a versatile tank.  Good to know they all can be upgraded.


----------



## geo

you can upgrade pert much everything.... you just have to keep up with what is being developed and deployed - so as not to fall so far behind that it suddenly becomes prohibitive.


----------



## cameron

Thanks for the excellent vids Mourning.  I was just wondering, in that Discovery Channel program where the Leopard 2 placed 1st, what did the M1 Abrams and the Challenger 2 place?


----------



## RWA

cameron said:
			
		

> Thanks for the excellent vids Mourning.  I was just wondering, in that Discovery Channel program where the Leopard 2 placed 1st, what did the M1 Abrams and the Challenger 2 place?



The Abrams was 2nd and Challenger 2 was 3rd.


----------



## cameron

Thanks RWA.


----------



## Dodger1967

I looked up the specs, on this tank, smoothbore 120mm main gun, with increased range and punch.

I'll do a search and post a link for you guys later.

Cheerz
Paul
GGHG 86-88


----------



## evil drunken-fool

RWA said:
			
		

> The Abrams was 2nd and Challenger 2 was 3rd.



The Challenger wasn't even mentioned in that program.

http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/greatest_ever/tanks/index.shtml


----------



## RWA

Steel Horse said:
			
		

> The Challenger wasn't even mentioned in that program.



Oops, sorry about that. I watched that episode months ago, so my memory of it was a little fuzzy.


----------



## TCBF

Somewhere right now, Col (retired) Ted Nurse is laughing, and DM (retired) Robert Fowler is crying.

 ;D


----------



## Steenburg

As a formal Patricia I am happy as hell concerning the news about the Lep 2. I know that this should have been done 10 years ago. I just hope that when the new tanks are in service we just don't throw away the remaining C2s. They may be old but they are still a highly rated MBT. Does anyone know what plans have been made conserning the old war horses if any at this point. Will some reserve regs finaly get to use tanks, Will they be used for training, I.E. enemy force armor at Wainright? I really hope we just don't throw them away.


----------



## prom

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28040.0.html

entire thread on just that question

before anyone else says it.... cough cough search button cough cough  ;D


----------



## George Wallace

Right.....Cough!.....Cough!      ;D


----------



## Steenburg

prom said:
			
		

> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28040.0.html
> 
> entire thread on just that question
> 
> before anyone else says it.... cough cough search button cough cough  ;D



Thanks. i did look at that thread, but all the posts are discusing what might happen? I was just wondering if any decision had been made? I have been out of the loop for a very long time when I left the FN was still in use, The Illtis was a new veh in the compound which I regret ed never having got the Chance to try. and the infantry battalions still had a mortar platoon. If my questions seem a little silly I apologize.


----------



## downinOZ

Haletown said:
			
		

> don't the Aussies have beer fridges bolted onto their M1's ??



Yes.  The reasoning behind that was operating in extremely hot conditions, water got hot, and soldiers didn't drink.  By having a fridge to keep their (spare) camelbacks in, the troops were more likely to stay hydrated.  Lookied for the article - couldn't find it tonight.

Chimo


----------



## Kirkhill

Steenburg said:
			
		

> Thanks. i did look at that thread, but all the posts are discusing what might happen? I was just wondering if any decision had been made? I have been out of the loop for a very long time when I left the FN was still in use, The Illtis was a new veh in the compound which I regret ed never having got the Chance to try. and the infantry battalions still had a mortar platoon. If my questions seem a little silly I apologize.



No worries on the silly questions Steenburg.  I specialize in them.  The problem is that a lot of us have been knocking around these boards for long enough that we have forgotten about learning curves and figuring out how this site works.  I am still learning.

As to your question - from what I can gather no final decision has been rendered against the C2s but the heavy betting is against keeping them because of the maintenance bill. The manufacturer will no longer be supplying parts by the 2010-2012 time frame meaning that parts would have to be custom manufactured at an exorbitant cost.

Cheers and welcome to the boards.


----------



## ironduke57

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...The manufacturer will no longer be supplying parts by the 2010-2012 time frame meaning that parts would have to be custom manufactured at an exorbitant cost.
> 
> Cheers and welcome to the boards.



May I ask where you got that information from? Because I said this in an discussion on an german mil forum, that I had read this here, and no one had heard of such an development.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Kirkhill

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> May I ask where you got that information from? Because I said this in an discussion on an german mil forum, that I had read this here, and no one had heard of such an development.
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



I was referring to this information ironduke57:

Teddy Ruxpin, this thread, Reply #49 on: April 13, 2007, 08:30:54 



> The C2s won't be cascaded to any Canadian units (let alone Reserve units), unless I'm sadly misinformed.  The Leopard 1 ceases to be supported by the spares system and by KMW in 2012 and will rapidly become an orphan fleet.



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/59827/post-555740.html#msg555740

Sorry, no other references.

Cheers.


Edited to incorporate the correct link.


----------



## ironduke57

Thx.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Lancaster

Quote
The C2s won't be cascaded to any Canadian units (let alone Reserve units), unless I'm sadly misinformed.  The Leopard 1 ceases to be supported by the spares system and by KMW in 2012 and will rapidly become an orphan fleet

To help “Kirkhill” and “ironduke57” out, another reference, to supplying  parts to the Leopard 1 tank until 2012, see DND website quote:

“Furthermore, by 2012 there will no longer be logistics support and spare parts 
for the turrets of Leopard 1s, resulting in complete obsolescence by 2015.”

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2252


----------



## ironduke57

Also Thx to you.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Kirkhill

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Also Thx to you.
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



Same here Lancaster.

Cheers


----------



## iceberg.lead

Good to see Canada is respectable again on the world stage.  2A6's are a big threat deterrent on the war
against terrorists.  Our soldiers will make them even fiercer!!


----------



## McG

FEEOP042 said:
			
		

> I hope they are getting the AEV 3 Kodiak.


Despite the backgrounder mentioning AEV, bridgelayer and dozer variants, I've heard DLR say that the 100 tanks do not include any Engineer variants.


----------



## Infanteer

iceberg.lead said:
			
		

> 2A6's are a big threat deterrent on the war against terrorists.



Huh?


----------



## KevinB

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Huh?



X2


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maybe he is thinking Taliban= terrorist?


----------



## KevinB

Colin P said:
			
		

> Maybe he is thinking Taliban= terrorist?



Well that's fine but it reads like - buying the tank is a deterrent to our actions.


Flip -- dude thats RTFO - rather put a flail on the C2 - and get multi use out of it.
 Second it will take one or two hits and the EN know it a RC tank and not to blow it 
These guys have a OODA loop too -- and they aint dumb (well some)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Well that's fine but it reads like - buying the tank is a deterrent to our actions.



Well the media and the left are experts on all types of warfare, so you should forget everything you learned outside of an approved university course and listen to them. Of course they will be telling their advice by long distance..... ;D


----------



## GAP

Cost of new tanks to be double initial estimate
Updated Thu. May. 17 2007 10:43 PM ET Canadian Press
Article Link

OTTAWA -- Canada's purchase and long-term support of 100 slightly used Leopard 2A6 battle tanks will be $1.3 billion -- roughly double the Conservative government's initial public estimate last month. 

As he detailed a laundry list of military hardware the Conservative government plans to buy over the next few years, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor surprised the Commons by announcing there will be a 20-year, $650-million service contract attached to the tank deal. 

"The capital acquistion is $650 million and the support for 20 years is about $650 million; about the same range," he said in reply to an opposition question during debate over Defence Department estimates. 

In order to bolster Canada's fighting forces in Afghanistan, O'Connor announced on April 12 that the army was going to borrow 20 modern Leopard 2 tanks from Germany and purchase 100 slightly used tanks of the same variant from the Dutch. 

But there was no mention at that time of a support contract, only the purchase of spare parts and cost of modifications. 

"The total project cost of the loaned tanks, the acquisition of 100 surplus tanks from the Netherlands, the requisite upgrades and enhancements to this new Leopard 2 fleet, and an initial acquisition of spare parts is $650 million, which will be funded from existing departmental allocations," said a National Defence background paper released at the minister's Quebec City announcement. 

Details of the proposed long-term maintenance program were not available Thursday night, but a spokeswoman for the minister, Isabelle Bouchard, confirmed the existence of the support contract. 

Later, a department official, speaking on background, said the figure released Thursday by O'Connor was only a rough estimate and based on the upkeep costs associated the army's existing Leopard 1 tanks, all of which date from the 1970s. 
More on link


----------



## geo

well.... consider that the Aussies purchase of 59 M1A1s is costing them 550million$
VS
Canada's purchase of 100 upgraded Leo2 A4s is costing us 650million$

Seen from this perspective, and getting boged down in details, I would say that we DID get a good deal.


----------



## KevinB

Well I think the Aussie's maint and support fee is inc in that number -- and they are M1A2's -- I think the "deals" are about the same.
  I think we'd have been better off with the M1A2's - which are nth exponentially more combat tested -- but I hear they would not fit in our hangars for them...
anyway I'm not a tanket - and not even in the CF anymore -- so my observations are pretty irrevlant.


----------



## vonGarvin

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Well I think the Aussie's maint and support fee is inc in that number -- and they are M1A2's -- I think the "deals" are about the same.
> I think we'd have been better off with the M1A2's - which are nth exponentially more combat tested -- but I hear they would not fit in our hangars for them...
> anyway I'm not a tanket - and not even in the CF anymore -- so my observations are pretty irrevlant.


Tanker or not, CF or not, your observations are far from irrelevant.  
The M1A2 SEP (the latest and greatest) is an OUTSTANDING tank, though the Leo 2A6 is superior in one area: firepower.  Its gun is 1.3 meters longer than the earlier leos and M1A1+ tanks (which all have the Rheinmattel L44 gun).  I think in terms of logisitcs as well (fuel, storage, what have you), we get a bit of a better deal, given that there is virtually no competitor for spare parts and the like in terms of combat users out there.
Both all variants of the M1A1+ and Leo 2A4+ are great tanks, and I don't think that we could have gone wrong with either choice.


----------



## KevinB

Well to show you how much I dont know -- I dont know why a longer barrel is good on a tank (I can think of added velocity and in theory accuracy - but I would have thought droop may be a negative -- plus manuverability decreased)

Anyway I'm damn glad the CF bought a real tank.


----------



## vonGarvin

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Well to show you how much I dont know -- I dont know why a longer barrel is good on a tank (I can think of added velocity and in theory accuracy - but I would have thought droop may be a negative -- plus manuverability decreased)
> 
> Anyway I'm damn glad the CF bought a real tank.


Added velocity which equates into more KE at the target end and accuracy at longer ranges.  Manoeuverability is probably marginally decreased, I suppose, in certain situations.

To put this in a non-sports analogy.  It's like being in a bar.  You are on "the hunt".  There are two women, both BEAUTIFUL.  Both have huge guns, but one has slightly more in terms of "guns".  One is a Euro-Model, the other is a Southern Belle.  I guess it comes down to preference!  >


----------



## George Wallace

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Well I think the Aussie's maint and support fee is inc in that number -- and they are M1A2's -- I think the "deals" are about the same.
> I think we'd have been better off with the M1A2's - which are nth exponentially more combat tested -- but I hear they would not fit in our hangars for them...
> anyway I'm not a tanket - and not even in the CF anymore -- so my observations are pretty irrevlant.



A couple of quick points......on Barrel length, just think of it as a rifle.  The length of the barrel on a rifle has an affect on the velocity and trajectory of the round.  Same goes for tank barrels.

M1's and hangars.  It may not necessarily be that they don't fit into our hangars, although I have seen shortcuts taken in recent construction, whereby some smart person with no Tank experience has decided to save money by narrowing the Hangar doors to cut costs..... and in the end resulting in a whole new hangar having to be built.  Such is the way the Government conducts business........................but back to the M1's.  With their engines and the exhausts, we can not back them into the hangars that we have, as they would burn the paint off the vehicle behind them.  We would have to stagger them in the hangars, which means we would need twice the number of hangars for the same amount of tanks.

Does that all make sense?


----------



## Long in the tooth

This works out to about $10 Million/tank over the life cycle, not too bad when fighter Aircraft are passing $100 Million.  Will we be keeping all the Leo 1A4s and LAV IIIs?  If so, will 8CH be raised to full strength (good news for the black hatters)?  And if the armour ends up with so many bright and shiny toys, maybe the Infantry could get the TOW back?


----------



## KevinB

George (and Dave) roger.
  I was just curious as to the extra length -- most get into the law of diminishing returns, or requiring a different to get a gain from the added length.

Thx


----------



## vonGarvin

Kev
The longer barrel means of course that you can have a longer burn time for the propellent.  The point of "all burnt" can be microseconds longer than with an L44, which of course means higher muzzle velocity.  As well, any droop can be discounted by higher accuracy (due to fewer rounds being fired)  (j/k on that one).  In all seriousness, the muzzle reference system (MRS) can offset droop, actually, compensate for it, I suppose would be more accurate.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Almost sounds like you are comparing it along the lines of a carbine to an assault rifle.


----------



## McG

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> Tanker or not, CF or not, your observations are far from irrelevant.
> though the Leo 2A6 is superior in one area: firepower.  Its gun is 1.3 meters longer than the earlier leos and M1A1+ tanks (which all have the Rheinmattel L44 gun).


However, the US KE rounds are fired with a much higher peak pressure in order to achieve the same kinetic energy at the muzzle.


----------



## KevinB

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Almost sounds like you are comparing it along the lines of a carbine to an assault rifle.


Like I said before I was out of my lane and knew it -- so I went with a frame of refrence I knew
-- I was suprised they had not tried to find the optimun length prior - thats all.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

No, you misunderstand me I6.....I was just musing outloud basically if the different barrel lengths would be comparable in performance to a carbine and assault rifle.


----------



## KevinB

Your the Ex-Armoured dude your supposed to know...


----------



## vonGarvin

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Like I said before I was out of my lane and knew it -- so I went with a frame of refrence I knew
> -- I was suprised they had not tried to find the optimun length prior - thats all.


Well, I think that there are alot of variables, some of which change as technology changes.  That Rheinmetall Gun was developed in the late 60's or early 70's, so machining was probably one thing that may have improved, as well as quality control ofthe gun, the muzzle reference systems (re: droop!) may not have been around, as well as increased propellent efficiency, etc.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> However, the US KE rounds are fired with a much higher peak pressure in order to achieve the same kinetic energy at the muzzle.



Probably at a cost of Equivalent Full Charges per shot?  Just a guess...


----------



## AmmoTech90

We're also hitting a point of dimishing returns with regard to shot material and composition.  Once you get past a certain point with Mv it matters less and less if its DU or Tungsten and as you increase your L/D ratio you have to start considering segmented penetrators.
By increasing barrel length you get a longer burn time as Capt S pointed out.  This can help barrel life by being able to use cooler burning propellant but still generating the same pressure, or you can go for hotter propellant and have a longer push.


----------



## ironduke57

MCG said:
			
		

> However, the US KE rounds are fired with a much higher peak pressure in order to achieve the same kinetic energy at the muzzle.



May I ask where you got that information from? AFAIK the US only changed the breach block and some minor thing´s for the there M256. The reason why there KE performance is on the same level as the DM53 fired from the L/55 is that they use DU for there APFSDS round´s.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Been ex armoured for 13 years lol......Navy now


----------



## KevinB

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Been ex armoured for 13 years lol......Navy now



Excuses, excuses...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

LOL I learned that in the Army


----------



## Lance Wiebe

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> May I ask where you got that information from? AFAIK the US only changed the breach block and some minor thing´s for the there M256. The reason why there KE performance is on the same level as the DM53 fired from the L/55 is that they use DU for there APFSDS round´s.
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



I am also curious as to the source of this information.  AFAIK, the peak pressure of the US AFFSDS-DU M829A2 & A3 rounds is virtually identical to the DM53.  The DU round, however, provides near identical penetration as the DM53, due to the nature of the beast.


----------



## McG

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> May I ask where you got that information from?


 Benet Labs.  I cannot seem to get to my source at the moment, but but this covers it:  http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA406817



			
				ironduke57 said:
			
		

> AFAIK the US only changed the breach block and some minor thing´s for the there M256. The reason why there KE performance is on the same level as the DM53 fired from the L/55 is that they use DU for there APFSDS round´s.


It was not changes to the weapon so much as accpeting a re-assesment of the acceptable peak pressure.  Additionally, tighter tollerances are in place on barrel wear & manufacutre.


----------



## ironduke57

MCG said:
			
		

> Benet Labs.  I cannot seem to get to my source at the moment, but but this covers it:  http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA406817
> It was not changes to the weapon so much as accpeting a re-assesment of the acceptable peak pressure.  Additionally, tighter tollerances are in place on barrel wear & manufacutre.



Ah okay. Thanks. Do you have number´s how far the pressure was increased for the A3 and how much impact it has on it´s velocity?
 I can´t think that the velocity was much raised with only the L/44 barrel. For example when fired from the L/55 the DM53/63 has an velocity of 1.750 m/s. But if it is fired from the L/44 it only has an velocity of 1.670 m/s. Not much more then the old DM33 with it´s 1.650 m/s. (Just for comparison. There is also the DM43. Developed in corporation with France. But we decide to wait for the DM53. The DM43 is only used by France in the Leclerc. It reach´s an velocity of 1.770 m/s. But I don´t know if this number is from firing it from an L/44, L/55 or the french L/52.) (I know that the velocity of the sabot isn´t everything but it is IMHO an relative good comparison base. 

Also are the proportion of the sabot changed for the A3? (For example for the A1 I have a value of  24:1. For comparison the DM53/63 sabot has an value of 30:1.

Regards,
ironduke57

(I hope it is understandable what I mean. It is hard to talk about technical things in different languages.)


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Irondukes;

You do very well getting your point across in English!

Although this is open source, it does answer some questions.  

http://www.defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm

It claims that the DM53 has a chamber pressure of 5,450 Bar.  It does not state the chamber pressure for the DM63 or the M829A3.  

I'm not sure that this site has all of the correct facts, although the M829A3 projectile weight would certainly increase chamber pressures by quite a margin if it indeed weighs 10 KG!  The weight would also account for the slower muzzle velocity.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Holy crap!

It appears that the M829A3 has a chamber pressure of 7590 Bar!

According to this article, only new barrels can fire it.  Here's the link:

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A406817&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

If that doesn't work, go here:

http://stinet.dtic.mil/ and search for M829E3.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Darn.  Forgot to add that the M829A3 projectile is 924 mmlong, width of 25mm ( surprising, given that the M829A1 was 22mm!)

That would give it an L/D ratio of 37:1


----------



## McG

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Ah okay. Thanks. Do you have number´s how far the pressure was increased for the A3 and how much impact it has on it´s velocity?


While my source is off the net, I’ve got nothing.  However, with all the numbers already turned up in this thread, I would be surprised if much more is available open source.  The US can’t possibly want an enemy to be able to calculate the penetration potential of its most lethal tank round.


----------



## TCBF

Velocities are generally available.

But: the actual mass of the projectile - in this case, the 'dart' - is normally unlisted.


----------



## LordOsborne

Out of my lane here - but I do spend some time reading the usual defence sites and have read some good books on tanks over the years - I've read that the composition of the different KE darts used might affect penetration performance. I know that the US APFSDS rounds tend to use DU in their penetrators and that nearly everyone else uses Tungsten Carbide (which, as I understand it, is apparently the type fired from the Leopard 2). I've also read that DU tends to sort of "peel away" when it is penetrating, thereby keeping the rough dart shape of the dart, something TC does not do. 

What I'd like to know, if one of you gentlemen can be so kind to answer, is:
1. Does DU perform better than TC? and,
2. if so, is it significant, or is it splitting hairs?

Cheers in advance.


----------



## AmmoTech90

DU does perform better than tungsten below a certain velocity.  Above a certain velocity the performance gap starts to close.  Right now tungsten penetrators aren't being pushed out at that velocity, but improvements in manufacuturing techniques have helped to close the performance gap.  For now DU still has the edge if you are firing at a heavily armoured target.


----------



## KevinB

Well the CF 25mm Practice sails thru a Leo 1 turret...


----------



## vonGarvin

TPDS-T also passes from bow to stern of a BMP2 at 800 metres, not that I would know that or anything


----------



## McG

Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
			
		

> I always considered this a potential option for us for the 25mm - TPDS will definitely 'do the job' against civilian pattern vehicles.  Since 25mm APFSDS penetration is questionable against MBT from the frontal aspect and most engagements have been against grape huts, SVBIED and lighter targets, a mix of HEI-T and TP may give us better results than APFSDS.


I don't think we should get into what is actually loaded in the bins (ours or our allies).  However, I will observe that you've not considered FAPDS-T in your theoretical analysis.


----------



## McG

I tend to think some HESH should be in there for grapehuts, caves, and fortifications.  HEAT & APFSDS don't fit the current opperational enviroment though.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Public pictures at the first deployment showed them bombing up with HESH, which would also be useful if the Taliban suddenly were able to find a running T-55.


----------



## tomahawk6

Warning Well Outside My Lane. 
However, my powers of googlefoo are pretty good. On the discussion of tank guns I saw where at the end of the cold war we were looking at the 140mm gun to be able to penetrate Russian future tanks with 700mm of armor or better.The M829 would not have been able to penetrate that much armor. It was estimated that today a gun needs 18 MJ muzzle energy to penetrate future armor. Electrothermal-chemical ignition is felt to be the future to be able to acheive the muzzle energies required. The lightweight 120 mm XM-291 acheived almost 17 MJ. Interesting possibilities.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-t.htm


----------



## McG

140 mm gun & 120 mm XM-291 discussions going on starting here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/28961/post-560637.html#msg560637


----------



## ironduke57

Just a little note. Today I read on the Bundeswehr site that additionally to the 20 Leo2 A6M you also borrow two ARV´s (probably Leo2 based Bergepanzer3 Büffel) and the needed supplies to operate them all.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## geo

Heh... with the incoming CF CWO being a sapper, I was sure we wouldn't be forgotten


----------



## geo

Doh!
 :warstory: True, but the work that they carry out is work we don't have to worry about  :warstory:

The sappers would be real happy to see the return of the Pioneer as well  >


----------



## ironduke57

Something more about that 20+2 vehicles. An newspaper article with some number and information's about this deal:
- http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/leih-leopard_aid_57703.html 
Sadly in german and I have no time ATM to translate it, but I know here are enough people who can read german and could be so nice to translate it for the rest. (To be exact sometimes I have the feeling half of the regular´s where stationed here one time or another. )

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## hammond

Semi Translation

The most modern German tanks will pull in the future in south Afghanistan in combat - however without German crew. The German Federal Armed Forces borrow 20 battle tanks for the employment in Afghanistan to the Canadian army.
Of FOCUS-correspondent Thomas's weighing old
Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan

The Ministries of Defense of both countries agreed that the Canadian Afghanistan troop receives the combat vehicles free of charge from the German Federal Armed Forces of the type leopard 2A6M, which is equipped with a mine protection. The tanks are to replace those approximately 20 years old and worn out Leopard-C2-Kampfpanzer of the Canadian army. The hiring contract runs on well two years.

Additionally to the hiring of the 20 combat and of two armored recovery vehicles the German Federal Armed Forces committed themselves to the training of the crews at the armored troops school in Munster. The Canadians receive besides an extensive "logistics package" with special tool, spare parts and ammunition. While the Canadian army for the check-out counter the leopard 2A6M does not have to pay anything, training and logistics are charged for "to the market value". However for the training Canada pays two million euro to the German Ministry of Defense, one further million for interpreters and several million euro for the provided ammunition.

Spare parts are charged for after consumption: To return Canadians have itself obligated, combat vehicles in same condition as with supply - which could become problematic in view of the conditions in south Afghanistan and the engagements, into which the troops are complicated.

Beyond that the leopards for 16 million euro are reequipped by the German manufacturing firms Rhine metal and Kraus Maffei Wegmann on the needs of the Canadian military and the conditions in Afghanistan. In addition among other things a stronger cooling and air conditioning belong as well as in some places a stronger armoring. The Canadians besides 55 million euro into account took, if further spare parts must be procured by the industry.

Those on loan hiring of the tanks is from German view "an indication of lived alliance solidarity". Canada had originally intended to buy the tanks which failed however because of the Federal Budget order. The German Federal Armed Forces had at present scarcely 50 leopard battle tanks in this newest version, altogether 70 is to be purchased of it for the German troop.


Translated using Altavistas Bable Fish web page translator... Not the best but puts out the General Idea http://babelfish.altavista.com/


----------



## Benny

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I still think the Aussies got the better deal with the M1A2's...


Not really. We bought less M1s than the Leos they replace, and unlike the CF, our Leo 1s will not be retained. On top of this, all reserve M113 units are losing them and being re-tasked.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Deja vu: Remember 1993 when the Libs made election campaign promises to scrap "cadillac helicopters"? 

From the looks of things, it wont be long before they do the same thing with the new tanks:

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=48fd3157-ea89-4d8a-8311-60c453e5d675

"Mr. Coderre questioned the military and government's claims that some of the big-ticket equipment purchases are urgently needed for the mission in Afghanistan. He cited the example of the multibillion-dollar program to buy the Chinook helicopter, which won't be delivered until 2011 or 2012. Canada's Afghanistan mission ends in February 2009, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has repeatedly said in the Commons.

"What strikes us is that we seem to be spending a lot of money on the back of the Afghanistan mission," said Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Coderre said equipment actually needed for use in Afghanistan would not be affected by a moratorium.

Mr. Coderre also said he was concerned some of the purchases, such as the deal to spend more than $1 billion on tanks, is coming at the expense of gear needed for domestic missions. He pointed out that the Canadian Forces program to buy new search-and-rescue planes is on hold because of a lack of money. *The tanks, which won't arrive for years, are not needed, Mr. Coderre argues.*
"The purpose of (the Forces) is not just international," he said. "We need equipment for the Arctic, for our domestic needs. Right now, we don't have that."


----------



## Genetk44

The tanks won't arrive for 5 years????????   I'm sure I read that we're getting them over the next 6 months.....or am I hallucinateing???


----------



## McG

The rentals come this summer.  The contract is not yet negotiated on the tanks we want to buy.


----------



## geo

Genetk44 said:
			
		

> The tanks won't arrive for 5 years????????   I'm sure I read that we're getting them over the next 6 months.....or am I hallucinateing???



That's why we are leasing the 20 German Leo2 A6Ms + other ARV, etc


----------



## McG

20 German Leo2 including x 2 ARV


----------



## Genetk44

my bad...i thought the leased Leos were going to Afghanistan this summer/fall and the Dutch leos comeing here dureing the fall/winter...time for new reading glasses :


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> Mr. Coderre also said he was concerned some of the purchases, such as the deal to spend more than $1 billion on tanks, is coming at the expense of gear needed for domestic missions. He pointed out that the Canadian Forces program to buy new search-and-rescue planes is on hold because of a lack of money. The tanks, which won't arrive for years, are not needed, Mr. Coderre argues.
> "The purpose of (the Forces) is not just international," he said. "We need equipment for the Arctic, for our domestic needs. Right now, we don't have that."



Once again, Coderre is talking out of his a**, much as he does every time he comments on defence issues.  What equipment for "domestic" needs are we lacking?  How is airlift Afghan-centric?  Why does he assume that we wouldn't need this equipment anyway?  What is the Liberal suggestion for rebuilding the CF after they virtually destroyed it?

The Liberal defence critic represents the type of politician - from all parties - that has plagued the CF for years:  completely without knowledge, entirely politically motivated, shooting from the hip, almost pathologically anti-military; full of empty-headed rhetoric without any analysis or practical application.  Such tripe...


----------



## GK .Dundas

I have become convinced that this all part of an incredibly brillant plan by the Liberal party.Once Mr.Coderre moves on to what ever post they deem fit ,who ever replaces him will look like an intellectual giant by comparison.


----------



## geo

Between Mr Dosanj (sp?) and Mr Coderre, they have dug a really big hole...... guess the next one will be really brilliant!

Hmmm... where is Bill Graham when we need him? (prolly agreeing with what is happening in the CF & thus keeping his mouth shut)


----------



## George Wallace

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Once again, Coderre is talking out of his a**, much as he does every time he comments on defence issues.



Just a minor correction to your comment; it isn't just his comments on Defence Issues, but all issues.  The man is a corrupt imbecile.  Look at what he was raising a stink about last month - the Capt of Team Canada's hockey team.


----------



## nihilpavor

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just a minor correction to your comment; it isn't just his comments on Defence Issues, but all issues.  The man is a corrupt imbecile.  Look at what he was raising a stink about last month - the Capt of Team Canada's hockey team.



Most high ranking PLC members from Quebec are. For them, political ends always justify whatever means.


----------



## Blue Max

I would like to congratulate the members of Canada's Tank Corp, for soon to be receiving the keys to a number of the finest MBT's in the world. 

I am sure that your crew skills will complement your country and protect the free world.   

Enjoy, cheers.
BM


----------



## vonGarvin

Blue Max said:
			
		

> I would like to congratulate the members of Canada's Tank Corp, for ...


By "Canada's Tank Corp" I'm sure you meant "Royal Canadian Armoured Corps".  I'm sure they send you their welcome.


----------



## Trooper Hale

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> By "Canada's Tank Corp" I'm sure you meant "Royal Canadian Armoured Corps".  I'm sure they send you their welcome.



Theres still no "RCAC" though is there? Got rid of that in the 60's?


----------



## baboon6

Hale said:
			
		

> Theres still no "RCAC" though is there? Got rid of that in the 60's?



There is. The term "Armoured Branch" was used for a while but it seems to have gone back to RCAC in the 70s:

http://www.rcaca.org/

http://www.regiments.org/regiments/na-canada/cav/RCAC.htm

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Royal_Canadian_Armoured_Corps


----------



## ironduke57

Canadian´s train on Leo2 A6M´s in Münster:


























Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Red 6

It's great to see the Candians with a world-class tank and also to see them back in Germany, even for a short while. On a lighter note, I hope that picture in the driving rain doesn't depict the weekly forecast for Germany. I'm flying there tomorrow and it better be sunny!


----------



## ironduke57

Red 6 said:
			
		

> ... On a lighter note, I hope that picture in the driving rain doesn't depict the weekly forecast for Germany. I'm flying there tomorrow and it better be sunny!


Bad luck for you. On TV they said earliest on Sunday the weather will be slightly better. BTW: Are you the same Red 6 from the WHQ Forum(before you/he got banned)?

Regards,
ironduke57

edit: More pix: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=11900&l=00b2d&id=669356328


----------



## Red 6

Iron Duke: No, definitely not me. Red 6 was my call sign in 4/37 Armor during Desert Storm. BTW–thanks for the weather report!


----------



## Trooper Hale

Great photos, good to see the Dragoons and some familiar faces there too. Great looking tank.


----------



## cameron

The Dragoons and Strathconas regimental banners are going to look great flying from the turrets of those  cats. :tank:


----------



## 3rd Herd

The usual disclaimer:
Wed, July 25, 2007
Army plan to upgrade used tanks hits snag
No company in Canada can do the job quickly
By CP

OTTAWA — The Conservative government’s $200-million plan to refurbish almost half of the 100 surplus Leopard 2 tanks being purchased from the Dutch has hit a snag. 
There’s currently no company in Canada capable of quickly improving up to 40 Leopard 2A4 armoured vehicles in order to meet the rigours and dangers of Afghanistan. 

An undetermined portion of the contract will likely have to carried out overseas, says a senior defence official. 

“Obviously, we’d like to do as much of it in Canada as possible but, of course, we currently don’t have any capability in Canada to do heavy armoured vehicle work, and so there is consultation with industry taking place,” Dan Ross, assistant deputy minister of materiel at National Defence, said in an interview with The Canadian Press. 

“We’re going to have to determine what can be done.” 

Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor and Public Works Minister Michel Fortier announced in April that the army’s aging Leopard 1 C2 tanks would be replaced at a cost of $650 million. 

Under the program, Canada would borrow 20 armoured vehicles from the Germans and purchase 100 slightly used tanks from the Netherlands. A month later, O’Connor revealed there would be an additional $650-million, long-term support contract — bringing the total pricetag to $1.3 billion. 

Industry would see benefits 

As part of the initial purchase phase, roughly $200 million was set aside to upgrade the used tanks, primarily with air conditioning and better armour, meant to withstand roadside bombs. Both O’Connor and Fortier said Canadian industry would see great benefits. 

While the government has promised open bidding for both the immediate upgrades and the long-term maintenance contract, it appears there’s only one company, located in Quebec, that might be capable of the job. 

Rheinmattall Canada, based in Montreal, is in talks with the federal government and Krauss-Maffei-Wegmann — the Leopard’s German manufacturer — about becoming involved, said Ross. 

But it remains to be seen how much work the company, formerly Oerlikon Canada, can do since its primary job has been to service air-defence vehicles. 

It could also turn into a politically touchy situation, as the Conservatives were criticized last week for a trail of feel-good defence spending projects in Quebec. 

Ross said the scope of modifications on the slightly used Dutch tanks has not yet been determined because the Defence Department has been concentrating on getting the brand new tanks, borrowed from the German Army, into Afghanistan by mid-August. 

30-year-old Leopard 1 tanks 

The army has been operating a troop of 30-year-old Leopard 1 tanks in the fight against the Taliban, but the absence of air conditioning in 55-degree heat and a dwindling supply of spare parts forced Ottawa into the unusual arrangement. 

A former tank commander said a Canadian Forces shop facility in Montreal used to have the expertise to handle upgrades on the 60-tonne monsters, but retired Col. Chris Corrigan says it slipped away, especially when the army looked at scrapping the Leopards a few years ago. 

“This isn’t rocket science, but given that we haven’t done it in a while it’s like ramping up anything,” said Corrigan, who spent 35 years in tanks and is now a member of the Royal Canadian Military Institute. 

“Once you lose a capability, it’s tough to get it back. It would be like trying to build frigates again. This is example of the argument people will give your for maintaining a defence industrial base. A nation like Canada needs to be able to service its own armoured vehicles.” 

Beyond the challenge of finding a Canadian company to do the upgrades, engineers will have to overcome technical hurdles. 

German defence sources are skeptical whether an air-conditioning system can be installed on the older A4 variant of the Dutch tanks. 

“That depends — I’m quite honest — on the auxiliary power unit,” said a German army source, who asked not to be identified. 

“I’m not aware whether the power unit in the Dutch tanks is able to handle the load.” 

Climate control system possible 

Ross said he’s been assured by the tank manufacturer that a climate control system is possible, but added the solution may involve a combination of blown air and a cooling vest for the crew, similar to what race-car drivers wear. 

Adding extra armour to withstand Taliban booby traps, which have grown increasingly powerful, will also be a complicated, time-consuming task. The tanks will effectively have to be disassembled, with their turrets, tracks and wheels taken off. 

Ross said the department is aiming to have at least 20 refurbished Leopards in Kandahar and to return the borrowed German tanks by the end of 2008, just before Canada’s current military commitment in Afghanistan ends in February 2009. 

Eighty the 100 tanks being purchased from the Dutch will be older Leopard 2A4 variants and the other 20 will be slightly newer Leopard 2A6s, which have a longer gun, Ross said. 

The tanks will be shipped to Canada sometime in the fall and will be organized into two squadrons, one at CFB Gagetown and the other in CFB Wainwright. 
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2007/07/25/4367625.html


----------



## Franko

Jeebus...making a mountain out of a mole hill.

These so called "problems" have already been address and sorted out.

As for the 2 squadrons...they left one out.       :

Regards


----------



## Spencer100

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Jeebus...making a mountain out of a mole hill.
> 
> These so called "problems" have already been address and sorted out.
> 
> As for the 2 squadrons...they left one out.       :
> 
> Regards



The MSM will do anything to tar the goverment.  They hate Harper and the CPC, also don't like Hiller to much either.  They would like nothing better than the CF to go back to "Peacekeeping"  (I know, like that was all the Forces have do for the last 50 years)  Really like Canadian industry is going to have instant ablity to build ships and tanks in months.  

Plus why is every Defence contract have to be about who in what province get what?

Sorry about the rant


----------



## Genetk44

I've been trying to figure out ...what does MSM stand for?


----------



## aesop081

Genetk44 said:
			
		

> I've been trying to figure out ...what does MSM stand for?



Main Stream Media


----------



## Genetk44

Thank you CDN Aviator.........talk about a brain-fart on my part  :-[


----------



## George Wallace

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> The usual disclaimer:
> Wed, July 25, 2007
> Army plan to upgrade used tanks hits snag
> No company in Canada can do the job quickly
> By CP
> 
> OTTAWA — The Conservative government’s $200-million plan to refurbish almost half of the 100 surplus Leopard 2 tanks being purchased from the Dutch has hit a snag.
> There’s currently no company in Canada capable of quickly improving up to 40 Leopard 2A4 armoured vehicles in order to meet the rigours and dangers of Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> A former tank commander said a Canadian Forces shop facility in Montreal used to have the expertise to handle upgrades on the 60-tonne monsters, but retired Col. Chris Corrigan says it slipped away, especially when the army looked at scrapping the Leopards a few years ago.
> 
> “This isn’t rocket science, but given that we haven’t done it in a while it’s like ramping up anything,” said Corrigan, who spent 35 years in tanks and is now a member of the Royal Canadian Military Institute.



Unfortunately, some of us have seen the end product of 101 Workshop's craftsmanship.




			
				3rd Herd said:
			
		

> “Once you lose a capability, it’s tough to get it back. It would be like trying to build frigates again. This is example of the argument people will give your for maintaining a defence industrial base. A nation like Canada needs to be able to service its own armoured vehicles.”



This is a very telling statement and one that military planners should never forget.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, some of us have seen the end product of 101 Workshop's craftsmanship.
> 
> 
> This is a very telling statement and one that military planners should never forget.



Wouldn't that be 202 Workshop George?


----------



## 3rd Herd

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, some of us have seen the end product of 101 Workshop's craftsmanship.
> 
> 
> This is a very telling statement and one that military planners should never forget.



You are preaching to a devote practionarie of this particular religion in my case.


----------



## George Wallace

;D

No Names; No Pack Drill.

Please don't take 3rd Herd's last post out of context.  My first line is in disagreement with Col Corrigan's assessment our past craftsmanship, while my second line is in agreement with his assessment on loosing capabilities.  In both cases we should have the capabilities and craftsmen to maintain our equipment.  Expensive propositions that past Governments of the land have allowed to slip away.


----------



## McG

DEW Engineering is another possible source for experience.  They've done a lot with armour & hull mods to other armoured vehicles.

For FCS, I think it was GD Canada in Ottawa that did the newest system for the M1 & they also did a British tank (Challenger?).


----------



## daftandbarmy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> No Names; No Pack Drill.
> 
> Please don't take 3rd Herd's last post out of context.  My first line is in disagreement with Col Corrigan's assessment our past craftsmanship, while my second line is in agreement with his assessment on loosing capabilities.  In both cases we should have the capabilities and craftsmen to maintain our equipment.  Expensive propositions that past Governments of the land have allowed to slip away.



Geez... just like our strategic airborne capability, eh?


----------



## cameron

Hopefully (I know it's a faint hope) this will be a lesson learnt to some of Canada's leaders and they'll think twice in the future before scrapping a particular capability.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

cameron said:
			
		

> Hopefully (I know it's a faint hope) this will be a lesson learnt to some of Canada's leaders and they'll think twice in the future before scrapping a particular capability.



That I think is wishful thinking....


----------



## cameron

Yeah 'sigh' I know.


----------



## ironduke57

> Munich, August 2nd 2007
> Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) has delivered the first of 20 main battle tanks LEOPARD 2 A6M CAN to the Canadian Forces. In the presence of the Canadian Ambassador to Germany, numerous high ranking officers and government representatives Stefan Krischik, Member of the KMW Board, handed over the key of the first LEOAPRD 2. Canada has leased from the German Army 20 latest state of the art main battle tank LEOAPRD 2 A6M with an integrated mine protection.
> 
> In the past weeks KMW has readapted those tanks in close cooperation with the Canadian Forces to a configuration that meets all requirements for the current missions. Among those is the installation of slat armor.



Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## retiredgrunt45

Oh what a sexy beast baby!! 

I'd like to shove one of then 120mm up a talibans rear end and say  ;D for the camera.


----------



## ironduke57

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Oh what a sexy beast baby!!
> ...



Not really. With all that slat armor it look´s more like this:
- http://www.absolutcleanexperts.de/assets/images/Einkaufswagen02.jpg

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Red 6

I'm with retired grunt on this one Iron Duke. The Leo was always an awesome looking and performing tank. It's outstanding to see the Canadians getting a world class system and putting it into combat service.


----------



## ironduke57

Red 6 said:
			
		

> I'm with retired grunt on this one Iron Duke. The Leo was always an awesome looking and performing tank. It's outstanding to see the Canadians getting a world class system and putting it into combat service.



I think you misunderstood me. I like the Leo2-look (especially of the older A4 version with it´s Tiger1 touch). But the slat armor give´s it an ugly shopping cart look.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## vonGarvin

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> I think you misunderstood me. I like the Leo2-look (especially of the older A4 version with it´s *Tiger1* touch). But the slat armor give´s it an ugly shopping cart look.
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57


Agreed.  Takes the "bite" out of it.  No less a dangerous cat, though.
Hopefully you can help me: Königstiger is German for "Bengal Tiger", no?

Tanks!

 :tank:


----------



## Jammer

Speaking as one whos veh was hit by a PG-7...lets take the whole slat armour idea and retrofit the other vehs in theatre...I like it!!!


----------



## ironduke57

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> ...
> Hopefully you can help me: Königstiger is German for "Bengal Tiger", no?
> ...



Well if you mean the animal yes, but IMHO "Bengal Tiger" is also the more used name for it in normal talk.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Armynewsguy

Here are a couple of links, 
One is for a print story and the other a video we shot while in Germany on the troops training on the Leopard 2A6M.


video    http://www.armee.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1_1.asp?id=2171


print and photo   http://www.armee.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=2108

Armynewsguy


----------



## Franko

I guess the Dragoons that were there don't get any notice....            

Regards


----------



## ironduke57

Another pic:






Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> Hopefully you can help me: Königstiger is German for "Bengal Tiger", no?



It's been a long time since I've used my german, but IIRC, Königstiger 'literally' translates to Kingtiger.


----------



## Armynewsguy

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> I guess the Dragoons that were there don't get any notice....
> 
> Regards




My mistake, sorry to all the Dragoons that were there. :-[

Armynewsguy


----------



## 3rd Herd

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's been a long time since I've used my German, but IIRC, Königstiger 'literally' translates to Kingtiger.


You both right  ;D
literial translation is king tiger as in the tank but if you use Zoologie(animal classification in German) then Bengal Tiger is Königstiger 
"Suchergebnisse für 'bengal tiger': Bengal tiger -- der Königstiger (Zoologie)"


----------



## vonGarvin

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's been a long time since I've used my german, but IIRC, Königstiger 'literally' translates to Kingtiger.


EDIT: 3rd Herd beat me to the punch


----------



## NovaScotiaNewfie

Well the new Leo's still use the C6? Why not use the .50 cal? Tanks use to have them mounted didn't they?  I've only seen the C6 mounted on vehicles etc...is it because the .50 is to use on other vehicles (not on personel) etc and since in the mission in Afghanistan it' s unlikely they will face vehicles that would require a .50 cal round that there is no need to mouth them to vehicles?


----------



## George Wallace

NovaScotiaNewfie said:
			
		

> Well the new Leo's still use the C6? Why not use the .50 cal? Tanks use to have them mounted didn't they?  I've only seen the C6 mounted on vehicles etc...is it because the .50 is to use on other vehicles (not on personel) etc and since in the mission in Afghanistan it' s unlikely they will face vehicles that would require a .50 cal round that there is no need to mouth them to vehicles?



There are several reasons: 
1.  The .50 Cal doesn't fit the mounts.  
2.  The .50 Cal was removed from Service.  
3.  The .50 Cal is not in large enough quantities in the War Stock to equip the Tanks, should it be brought back out to equip other vehicles.  
4.  That would mean yet another type and quantity of ammo would have to be carried in already limited space.  
5.  Modifications to existing mounts would be costly.  
6.  Modifications to rented equipment would not be permitted.  
7.  Canadian tanks have not had .50 Cal mounted since the Ranging Gun on the Centurian Tank (which went out of Service in 1978).  
8.  Although the .50 Cal can be used against many vehicles, aircraft, fortifications, etc., the main gun is much better.
9.  The Laws of Armed Conflict, the Geneva Conventions, etc. frown on the use of the .50 Cal against dismounted troops, but then again, war is hell.


----------



## Franko

NovaScotiaNewfie said:
			
		

> Why not use the .50 cal? Tanks use to have them mounted didn't they?  I've only seen the C6 mounted on vehicles etc...is it because the .50 is to use on other vehicles (not on personel) etc and since in the mission in Afghanistan it' s unlikely they will face vehicles that would require a .50 cal round that there is no need to mouth them to vehicles?



That weapon is too big for the turret. Then there is the problem of changing barrels, ammunition storage (rounds are bigger, therefore less space to stow it).

The other issue is common weapons use common ammo and loads. 

In a tank troop this is taken into consideration so resupply is quick and efficient on the battle field.

50 cal may be big and impressive on the TV or movie screen, they don't work on today's modern tank that Canada employs.

Damnation George....beat me to it.

Regards


----------



## Armymedic

Further to the answers from above..

The 7.62 mm C6 can put a whole bunch more rounds down more accurately then the .50. if you need to shoot 10m to the side of the tank, or 1200m to the front, those little bullets do the job just fine.

Not to mention the C6 takes a alot less work to keep running than a .50.


----------



## MJP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 9.  The Laws of Armed Conflict, the Geneva Conventions, etc. frown on the use of the .50 Cal against dismounted troops, but then again, war is hell.



Excellent points all.  George nothing in the Laws or the Geneva convention say anything about it being unlawful about using .50 on troops.  Very common myth but no shred of truth to it.  


Edited as I can't seem to spell common names........


----------



## ironduke57

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's been a long time since I've used my german, but IIRC, Königstiger 'literally' translates to Kingtiger.





			
				3rd Herd said:
			
		

> You both right  ;D
> literial translation is king tiger as in the tank but if you use Zoologie(animal classification in German) then Bengal Tiger is Königstiger
> "Suchergebnisse für 'bengal tiger': Bengal tiger -- der Königstiger (Zoologie)"



That´s why I said if he mean´s the animal. 

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## George Wallace

MJP said:
			
		

> Excellent points all.  Goerge nothing in the Laws or the Geneva convention say anything about it being unlawful about using .50 on troops.  Very common myth but no shred of truth to it.



That's why I said "frowns"....... ;D

PS.  I see you spell my name the same way I do in a rush..... ;D


----------



## Red 6

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There are several reasons:
> 1.  The .50 Cal doesn't fit the mounts.
> 2.  The .50 Cal was removed from Service.
> 3.  The .50 Cal is not in large enough quantities in the War Stock to equip the Tanks, should it be brought back out to equip other vehicles.
> 4.  That would mean yet another type and quantity of ammo would have to be carried in already limited space.
> 5.  Modifications to existing mounts would be costly.
> 6.  Modifications to rented equipment would not be permitted.
> 7.  Canadian tanks have not had .50 Cal mounted since the Ranging Gun on the Centurian Tank (which went out of Service in 1978).
> 8.  Although the .50 Cal can be used against many vehicles, aircraft, fortifications, etc., the main gun is much better.
> 9.  The Laws of Armed Conflict, the Geneva Conventions, etc. frown on the use of the .50 Cal against dismounted troops, but then again, war is hell.



No argument here with any of these except #9. Where do you get the idea that there's a prohibition against using a machine gun against dismounts?


----------



## George Wallace

;D  "frowns upon" doesn't mean "Prohibits", nor "unlawful".  What would they say about the 20mm Coax in the AMX 30 if we went down that path?


----------



## vonGarvin

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There are several reasons:
> 1.  The .50 Cal doesn't fit the mounts.
> 2.  The .50 Cal was removed from Service.
> 3.  The .50 Cal is not in large enough quantities in the War Stock to equip the Tanks, should it be brought back out to equip other vehicles.
> 4.  That would mean yet another type and quantity of ammo would have to be carried in already limited space.
> 5.  Modifications to existing mounts would be costly.
> 6.  Modifications to rented equipment would not be permitted.
> 7.  Canadian tanks have not had .50 Cal mounted since the Ranging Gun on the Centurian Tank (which went out of Service in 1978).
> 8.  Although the .50 Cal can be used against many vehicles, aircraft, fortifications, etc., the main gun is much better.
> 9.  The Laws of Armed Conflict, the Geneva Conventions, etc. frown on the use of the .50 Cal against dismounted troops, but then again, war is hell.


#2: .50 was removed from service, but is "back". (and therefore making #3 valid)
4: exactly
#9: it's been bnrought up.  One of the primary roles for the .50 is to "provide direct area neutralising fire" against infantry (or words to that effect)
FWIW, I understand that the MG 42...er..."MG 3" will be used vice C6 (at least in the "rent a tanks")


----------



## MJP

ack on the name...my bad 

I just don't understand who or what agency frowns upon it.   We use a large range of munitions of various sorts against our enemies, some of them much larger than .50.  I know there has been a long standing myth surrounding the .50 (and larger weapons) against ground troops but all of them are groundless and without merit according to the Geneva Conventions.

I know I certainly like all sorts of big weapons railing on the enemy........


----------



## HItorMiss

The .50 is certainly in use with the CF in Afghanistan, The Nyala uses it with it's RWIS so did the Recce GWagons to great effect or so I have heard. I cannot see commonality of ammo an issue or that it is less effective then the C6 ( I personally preffer it to the C6, though the the C6 is a great weapon) I am sure there are many reasons for not using it on the new tanks, like it's too large for the pintol etc etc I just don't personally believe those other two reasons were valid from my experience with the weapon not with Tanks.


----------



## vonGarvin

The .50 is in wide use in the CF again, as HoM stated.  Now, I believe the Centurion used a .50 as a coax (to assist with ranging), but doesn't the M1 series have it as a pintle mount?  Just curious.  If so, that would make 3 calibres (or, more accurately, 4, if they have smoke dischargers).


----------



## 3rd Herd

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D  "frowns upon" doesn't mean "Prohibits", nor "unlawful".  What would they say about the 20mm Coax in the AMX 30 if we went down that path?


All ready done George. 20 and 40 mm used in ground roles, .50 quads, 12.7. Went down this path with Micheal a while back and my ears are still ringing. However, the IHL bodies do prohibit certain types of ammunition which could be fired out of these guns. An interesting arguement though is what is the difference in using contact fused ammunition and an explosive round.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not to mention the IDF mounts one above and connected to their main tank armament to deal with minor threats.


----------



## 3rd Herd

Another Pic: (http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard2-netherlands.htm#2a6m)


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

So when do they remove the scaffolding?  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> The .50 is in wide use in the CF again, as HoM stated.  Now, I believe the Centurion used a .50 as a coax (to assist with ranging), but doesn't the M1 series have it as a pintle mount?  Just curious.  If so, that would make 3 calibres (or, more accurately, 4, if they have smoke dischargers).



The Centurion had a .50 ranging gun that fired a three round burst on the same trajectory as the main gun. The coax was the 7.62 GPMG frankenstien abomination. We also pintle mounted a .50 BMG AA in the CC hatch. The driver and CC had BHPs and the gunner and loader SMGs. MBSGDs that had to be hand primed and loaded with white phosphorus. Four FNC1s were supposed to be carried in the coffin bin, should something happen to the tank and we had to dismount and join a passing section (like that was ever going to happen : ). So lot's of different stuff, on top of the 105 of various types we carried.


----------



## Franko

Last thing you hear in a vehicle is the three knocks....           ;D

Regards


----------



## ironduke57

Large Version of the first pic and two new one´s:
- http://www.armyrecognition.com/Amerique_du_nord/Canada/vehicules_lourds/Leopard_2A6M_can/Leopard_2A6M_CAN_Canadian_Army_Kraus_Maffei_Wegmann_004_site.jpg
- http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/3961/leopard2a6mcancanadianane0.jpg
- http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/771/leopard2a6mcancanadianaot8.jpg

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## TN2IC

Here IronDuke.. I"ll give you a hand..


----------



## Franko

I can hardly wait.....     ;D

*  sound of drooling  *

Regards


----------



## Mike Baker

Hmm, methinks armoured is looking more favourable for me now  :blotto: What a nice beast though!


----------



## geo

HEH... wonder if DND will be selling advertising space on the shopping cart's grillwork?


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> HEH... wonder if DND will be selling advertising space on the shopping cart's grillwork?



"need an ass-kicking ?"


----------



## geo

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> "need an ***-kicking ?"


If you look at posts 233 and 238, you will see an example of same said advert.
Maybe the Psyop boys can think of something to hang on the grillwork to discourage / scare the Taliban
(a taliban suspended by the thumbs would be appropos.... don't you think?)


----------



## Docherty

So are we going to paint the rest of the panzer tan?


----------



## Franko

Maverick894 said:
			
		

> So are we going to paint the rest of the panzer tan?



Would you paint a rental car Tan?      ;D

Poo dust works pretty good. Give it about a day when they hit the ground...they'll blend right in.

Regards


----------



## Docherty

Too bad they are just rentals.


----------



## George Wallace

Maverick894 said:
			
		

> Too bad they are just rentals.



Why?  We've had rentals before, in very similar situations.


----------



## Docherty

Really?


----------



## Franko

Meh....we're getting a new fleet as well. Not bad IMHO.

We had rentals when the Centurions were being phased out in the late 70's. Come to think of it the CAT trophy was won by the RCD in the rentals.

Regards


----------



## vonGarvin

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Would you paint a rental car Tan?      ;D


Well, no.  But then again, I'd rather not rent a shopping cart.  I do prefer "Einkaufswagen", sounds very _Panzerkampfwagen_-esque.  ;D


----------



## Docherty

So with these new Leos they have CFRs, and once we get our upgraded Leos from the Dutch, will these German Leos be returned to the Germans or will we keep the German Leos, and give the Germans our upgraded ones in return?


----------



## George Wallace

Maverick894 said:
			
		

> So with these new Leos they have CFRs, and once we get our upgraded Leos from the Dutch, will these German Leos be returned to the Germans or will we keep the German Leos, and give the Germans our upgraded ones in return?



 ???

You didn't read the articles and posts?


----------



## geo

George,
I think he believes that we're going to pimp up our rides before we do anything else.

The vehicles are supposed to be returned in the same condition as we received them.... nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## George Wallace

Geo

Just silly questions, that have been covered in detail in the previous 17 pages.  Makes one wonder sometimes.


----------



## Docherty

Essentially we break it we buy it.


----------



## geo

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Geo
> 
> Just silly questions, that have been covered in detail in the previous 17 pages.  Makes one wonder sometimes.



Ayup... newbvie that's too lazy to do his homework - I guess


----------



## geo

Maverick894 said:
			
		

> Essentially we break it we buy it.



yeah - but at full retail $$$ - not the sweatheart deal we got from the dutch.


----------



## ex-Sup

Way, way out of my lane here...



			
				Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> doesn't the M1 series have it as a pintle mount?  Just curious.



Yes it does. M2 for commander and M240 for the loader.
http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_today/2005/july/images/jul03_08/08_05.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1a2#Secondary_armament
I didn't realize they removed the cupola mount from the A1 to the A2. Certainly a great feature in a urban environment (which I'm guessing they have found out from experiences in Iraq). I have been reading some material lately from the Battle of Hue and Marine M48's used their cupola 50's to great effect. They could engage targets buttoned-up, independent of the main/coax and the .50 rounds have a lot more penetrating power than a 7.62. I guess this is why the US is looking at adding a RWS to the turret of the M1.
http://bemil.chosun.com/brd/files/BEMIL098/upload/2007/04/M1A2%20TUSK%20(Tank%20Urban%20Survival%20Kit).jpg


----------



## prom

reproduced under fair dealing....etc.....

*First of 20 leased German Leopard 2 tanks arrive in Kandahar*
_Published: Thursday, August 16, 2007 | 6:10 AM ET
Canadian Press: MARTIN OUELLET_

Link

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - The first of 20 Leopard 2 tanks Canada has leased from Germany arrived in Kandahar this morning aboard an Antonov transport aircraft.

The tank operators encountered a minor technical glitch with the turrets, but military spokesman Capt. Hubert Genest says the problem can be repaired easily.

The rest of the tanks will be shipped in the coming weeks. They are replacing the aging Leopard 1 tanks, which were made three decades ago and are currently being used in battle.

Col. Christian Juneau, the deputy-commander of Canadians in southern Afghanistan, says the new tanks will increase security because of their superior firing capability and protection from landmines.

But Lt.-Col. Stephane Lafaut, the incoming commander of the Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team in Afghanistan, says the new tanks won't give Canadian soldiers much more protection from roadside bombings.

He says insurgents tend to target less robust vehicles, like Canada's LAV3, Nyala and Bison armoured vehicles. Still, he says the tanks will likely make a "difference" in the field because they project an image of strength.

"It's another weapon in our arsenal," Lafaut said. "It could give our soldiers more confidence and be a bit of a shock for enemy troops."

Over the longer term, Canada will get 100 more Leopard 2 tanks from the Netherlands. The first shipment is set for the fall of 2008.


----------



## ironduke57

And here are pic´s of there arrival in Kandahar:







More:
- http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=118324

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Colin Parkinson

WOOT!!!!!

Holy crap, pinch me because I must be dreaming, new tanks and a new transport plane in the same friggin week!!! 


Engoy your new toys guys!!!!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Colin P said:
			
		

> WOOT!!!!!
> 
> Holy crap, pinch me because I must be dreaming, new tanks and a new transport plane in the same friggin week!!!
> 
> 
> Engoy your new toys guys!!!!



We got a new shredder at work...that counts for something right?


----------



## 3rd Herd

prom said:
			
		

> reproduced under fair dealing....etc.....
> 
> *First of 20 leased German Leopard 2 tanks arrive in Kandahar*
> _Published: Thursday, August 16, 2007 | 6:10 AM ET
> Canadian Press: MARTIN OUELLET_
> 
> Link
> 
> Col. Christian Juneau, the deputy-commander of Canadians in southern Afghanistan, says the new tanks will increase security because of their superior firing capability and protection from landmines.



"Tanks are easily identified, easily engaged, much-feared targets which attract all the fire on the battlefield. When all is said and done, a tank is a small steel box crammed with inflammable or explosive substances which is easily converted into a mobile crematorium for its highly skilled crew."

- Brigadier Shelford Bidwell


----------



## geo

3rd  Great quote.  
BGen Bidwell musta been talking about the WW2 Sherman "Tommy  Cookers" / "Ronsons" / "Zippos"
The design of new MBTs has improved substantially over the last 60 - 75 odd years.

Blow a track or an engine - you get an expensive pillbox
Blow the gun - you get an expensive mobile radio


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> Engoy your new toys guys!!!!



Not a major point, but I find it disconcerting when people refer to military equipment as "toys".  To me, it harkens back to the "toys for the boys" mantra bleated by various far-left peace groups.  This is expensive, dangerous and _deadly_ equipment.

Pet peeve, I suppose.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am sure when those crews started training in Germany they were like kids at Christmas and rightly so. Having still the bad taste in my mouth from listening to the Liberals castrate the army, I am totally in awe that they are there and so fast, my head is almost spinning. I am also fully aware of what they are capable of and what they were designed to do. but I can't stand being serious all of the time. There has only been 3 tanks purchases since WWII and I intend to enjoy the moment!!  ;D


----------



## geo

If you go to the website that Ironduke57 provided, you get a good part of the story.
Franco and anglo troopers dealing with german instructors.  Learning how to do it the german way & at the very end, teaching their instructors a couple of things the canadian way.


----------



## 3rd Herd

MSM is reporting no A/C installed in these new units and the first one came broke, "reported to be a minor glitch"
See:

Newer tank gives Canadians more muscle in Afghanistan, still no aircon
August 16, 2007 - 14:42 
By: MARTIN OUELLET
http://www.680news.com/news/international/article.jsp?content=w081658A
http://www.570news.com/news/international/article.jsp?content=w081658A

"But for all that technical superiority, the Leopard 2 still doesn't have air conditioning - a key drawback in a land where high temperatures regularly reach well into the 40s Celsius and tank crews have suffered dehydration.

To avoid wilting in the extreme heat, the four crew members - pilot, gunner, loader and crew leader - wear cooling vests to circulate chilled water over their bodies.

"I don't know if it's the best way, but I can tell you it works," said Capt. Craig Volstad of the Lord Strathcona's Horse armoured regiment based in Edmonton.

The tank rolled off the Antonov aircraft two hours late, with mechanical problem in one of its turrets. Military spokesman Capt. Hubert Genest called it a "minor glitch that will take 15 minutes to fix."

Somebody sneak a second turret into the desgin ?


----------



## aesop081

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Not a major point, but I find it disconcerting when people refer to military equipment as "toys".  To me, it harkens back to the "toys for the boys" mantra bleated by various far-left peace groups.  This is expensive, dangerous and _deadly_ equipment.
> 
> Pet peeve, I suppose.



+1

"tools" in the arsenal might be more apropriate


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I thought one of the reason's we went with these was because they did have A/C?


----------



## geo

(maybe it's the driver that feels he deserves better pay - Pilot sounds much better thatn driver)
(Sanitary engineer VS Garbageman, Administrative assistant VS Secretary, etc VS etc)


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

geo said:
			
		

> (maybe it's the driver that feels he deserves better pay - Pilot sounds much better thatn driver)
> (Sanitary engineer VS Garbageman, Administrative assistant VS Secretary, etc VS etc)



Does that mean us "Sky Pilots" can get more pay too?? ;D


----------



## geo

( heh.... pay & pray)


----------



## Haletown

hard to tell from the photos but the turret bustle looks very big . . . maybe its a plan to do this:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-isaf-armour5.htm


----------



## Retired AF Guy

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Just a small point, tanks don't have "pilots".  They have a Crew Commander, Loader, Gunner and Driver.
> 
> Isn't the media supposed to check its facts?  Perhaps a minor detail but an irritant.



Sounds like another candidate for Dr K's and Mr J's "Stupidism of the Week:

http://www.drjandmrk.com/

Reporters (and editors) have a problem when it comes to using proper military terms. Last year there was an article where the reporter mentioned that after an attack a LAV-25 was so damaged that it had to be destroyed in place or "scuttled" as he/she described it. Or how about when a Canadian patrol is "strafed" by the Taliban.

Go figure.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Hey the 1 RCR call the LAV a boat all the time in A Stan.


----------



## Mortar guy

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I thought one of the reason's we went with these was because they did have A/C?



You're opening a big can of worms here! Some higher ups did say we were getting the new tanks for the a/c but Leo 2A6's don't quite have that feature! Oh, and they also don't have plows/rollers which sucks because the Leo C2s were used extensively to breach grape fields/walls/etc.

MG


----------



## ironduke57

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> You're opening a big can of worms here! Some higher ups did say we were getting the new tanks for the a/c but Leo 2A6's don't quite have that feature! Oh, and they also don't have plows/rollers which sucks because the Leo C2s were used extensively to breach grape fields/walls/etc.
> 
> MG



Don´t forget that this are just loaned tank´s. To incl. an A/C relative large modification´s are necessary.
Just compare the back of the turret of an danish A5DK (which has an A/C) with the normal A6M:
A6M: http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/bw_kpz_leopard_2a6m-003i.jpg
A5 DK: http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/dk_kpz_leopard_2_a5dk-005.jpg

With your own tank´s you can do anything you want, but not with our´s.
For example you could use this as your standard camo on your own tank´s:  ;D
- http://www.zwote-online.de/images/Kompanie/Milka_Pz_22.JPG

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## George Wallace

If it comes with chocolates, I could handle it.  May be good in the winter, or in "Dairy country".   ;D


----------



## foo32

I suspect the ultimate solution to the internal heat problem which tank crews have to endure in Afghanistan will very much depend on which party is in government after the next election.   The Conservatives may want to install expensive cooling units, but I expect Canada's other national party will prefer a more fiscally responsible approach.


----------



## George Wallace

foo32 said:
			
		

> I suspect the ultimate solution to the internal heat problem which tank crews have to endure in Afghanistan will very much depend on which party is in government after the next election.   The Conservatives may want to install expensive cooling units, but I expect Canada's other national party will prefer a more fiscally responsible approach.



 ???

The ARV ?


----------



## foo32

Which is for the purposes of humour a tank with the turret removed. ;D


----------



## GAP

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> You're opening a big can of worms here! Some higher ups did say we were getting the new tanks for the a/c but Leo 2A6's don't quite have that feature! Oh, and they *also don't have plows/rollers which sucks because the Leo C2s were used extensively to breach grape fields/walls/etc*.
> 
> MG



Are they not going to be using the ones presently over there for that?


----------



## George Wallace

It would all depend if they were equiped with the correct mounting brackets or not.

Now here is an airconditioned Leo 1 C 1:


----------



## SABOT

Betcha that would go like snot.


----------



## Mortar guy

GAP - nope. They don't fit on the A6M and even if they did, the A6M doesn't have the hydraulic attachment necessary to operate the plow/roller (IIRC).

MG


----------



## Donut

So, for my general education, what are the Germans using for mine clearance and obs breaching?

Strikes me as odd that they'd up-armour to defeat most mines, but not have a means to plow a lane.


----------



## George Wallace

You would be surprised at how many nations do not have "anti-mine" equipment for their MBT's.  In fact there are very few that do.  Some have specialized Engineering equipment to deal with mines.  The majority of nations have nothing.


----------



## Donut

Ouch.  Can you say FASCAM?


----------



## 3rd Herd

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The majority of nations have nothing.



Rats are cheap

But a couple of questions here.
Does/did not the AFG have/had some of the soviet era equipped tank rollers/plows ?

As to MG
going backwards
- G-Wagons did not come with turrets
-"Rhino Tanks"-2nd Armored Division Sgt. Curtis Culin
- British 79th Armoured Division

edit: spelling


----------



## George Wallace

The Rollers and Plows we have were derived from the Soviets and improved upon by the Israelis and of course further modified by us Canadians as per norm.    ;D


----------



## GAP

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> GAP - nope. They don't fit on the A6M and even if they did, the A6M doesn't have the hydraulic attachment necessary to operate the plow/roller (IIRC).
> 
> MG



I didn't say that quite right....I am talking about the Leo's Canada sent over...are they not going to continue to be used?


----------



## Roy Harding

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> ...
> The tank rolled off the Antonov aircraft two hours late, with mechanical problem in one of its turrets. Military spokesman Capt. Hubert Genest called it a "minor glitch that will take 15 minutes to fix."
> 
> Somebody sneak a second turret into the desgin ?



That's what the "2" is for in Leopard 2

Jeez - don't you guys know _anything_?
 ;D


----------



## George Wallace

Now that is a good question, and one that we probably won't hear an answer to, until well after the Leo 2's have "settled in".  Perhaps the Mine Plows and Rollers (if there are any) will stay.  Is there really a requirement for them though?  Mine Plows are quite heavy and change the whole feel of the tank for Driver's (it becomes very 'front heavy' and tends to 'plow into the ground' when going over rough ground (even in the raised position).  The Rollers are hard to drive with over any long distance, unless driving in Reverse.  The Rollers weight several Tonnes each, and are usually transported by truck and assembled (time intensive) when needed.  So the question is are they really required that much?  A tank really doesn't need either to break down walls.  Does the LC factor of having plows on the front have any validity?  Yes and No.  They look mean....or make a mean looking tank look meaner...... but is that enough?

Time will tell us all what the answer will be.  Will those tanks stay or be returned to Canada, for others to train on or with?


----------



## Red 6

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> Ouch.  Can you say FASCAM?



Oh yeah, now you're talking. Repeat, over!


----------



## tdwebste

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Mine Plows are quite heavy and change the whole feel of the tank for Driver's (it becomes very 'front heavy' and tends to 'plow into the ground' when going over rough ground (even in the raised position).  The Rollers are hard to drive with over any long distance, unless driving in Reverse.  The Rollers weight several Tonnes each, and are usually transported by truck and assembled (time intensive) when needed.  So the question is are they really required that much?  A tank really doesn't need either to break down walls.  Does the LC factor of having plows on the front have any validity?  Yes and No.  They look mean....or make a mean looking tank look meaner...... but is that enough?




Pearson Engineering has a vehicle integration system with hydraulic jettison and quick attach. http://www.pearson-eng.com/products/viewProduct.aspx?id=15&type=m

I am aware of some research into steerable pushed implements designed for use with either tracked or wheeled vehicles. I will be better able to provide more information about the system in a few months. The remaining concern is lifting or jettison/quick reattaching the implements for mobility in tight quarters.


----------



## George Wallace

Ah! Yes!  Explosive Bolts!  Right on!


There is a lot of modifications that have to be done to the hull to attach Mine Rollers or Mine Plows.  Let's simplify it some.  Your neighbour has a snow plow on his truck.  He has gone to Arizona for the winter and you want to use it, but his truck is in Arizona.  How are you going to attach his plow to your car?  Now add the factor that you have a Rental.


----------



## Mortar guy

GAP - there was talk of leaving some of our Leo C2s in theatre to handle the mine plow/rollers but there has been firm direction from on high: "no mixed fleet".

As to mounting our current inventory on the Leo 2A6s, it can't be done (well, not without a huge expenditure/effort).

George - I would say yes, we do need the plows and rollers over there. Not to get into too many details (OPSEC), but the plows are used extensively to breach everything from minefields (old soviet ones) to grape fields. Also, the rollers have "proven" their worth at least once, if you catch my drift.


MG


----------



## geo

The directive of "no mixed fleet" is all fine and good... but the phasing out of the C2s can be dragged out a little bit.  Get your hands on a couple of our newish Leo2 A4s work on them to take plows and rollers & get em out to KAF soonest... early enough to cross path with the last of the C2 going out.


----------



## Mortar guy

Good plan but someone has to crew them and the OC of the Armd Sqn would have a hard time crewing his new 2A6s and the old C2s at the same time. There's also the issue of parts scaling as they will soon stop sending C2 parts into theatre. Finally, if the MSM got wind of this plan, they would scream bloody murder, asking why we bought new tanks that don't even fully replace the capacities of the old ones.

Nonetheless, I am sure that as soon as we can, we will modify our Dutch 2A6s to take plows and rollers and get them into theatre (if it isn't too late).

MG


----------



## geo

Time will tell I guess, time will tell.


----------



## mover1

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2007/08/17/4424929-sun.html

So do tank drivers wear pilot wings now?


----------



## Reccesoldier

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Just a small point, tanks don't have "pilots".  They have a Crew Commander, Loader, Gunner and Driver.
> 
> Isn't the media supposed to check its facts?  Perhaps a minor detail but an irritant.



Oh come on... You_ KNOW_ you want to be a Leo2 Pilot... Fess up! ;D


----------



## Spencer100

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Good plan but someone has to crew them and the OC of the Armd Sqn would have a hard time crewing his new 2A6s and the old C2s at the same time. There's also the issue of parts scaling as they will soon stop sending C2 parts into theatre. Finally, if the MSM got wind of this plan, they would scream bloody murder, asking why we bought new tanks that don't even fully replace the capacities of the old ones.
> 
> 
> MG



OOOHHH  I did not think of the press angle.....why do we have to "fight" our own MSM and the enemy?  Decisions should be made for what is right for the mission?  I'm dreaming right?


----------



## mover1

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Oh come on... You_ KNOW_ you want to be a Leo2 Pilot... Fess up! ;D



Naww been there done that, bought the t-shirt then sold it on ebay for 20 bucks along with a CAT coin for 45!


----------



## Genetk44

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> MG....surely its only a matter of time before the MSM or some hack from the opposition parties gets wind of this aspect. :rage:


----------



## George Wallace

mover1 said:
			
		

> http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2007/08/17/4424929-sun.html
> 
> So do tank drivers wear pilot wings now?



No.....but they tend to pretend they are pilots in the bar when wearing Crewsuits and all go "ga ga" over those Pilot visors for their helmets..... ;D


----------



## Mortar guy

Genetk44 said:
			
		

> MG....surely its only a matter of time before the MSM or some hack from the opposition parties gets wind of this aspect. :rage:



It might be, but please stop calling me Shirley.

MG


----------



## Genetk44

ooops.......sorry about that ....Sue ;D


----------



## 3rd Herd

looks like some else is rethinking some of this:

....." Tanks were considered “nice to have,” said Maj. Gen. in the reserves Eyal Ben-Reuven. But Israel didn’t need that many, and several battalions were disbanded. 

The army became so engrossed in fighting the intifada soldiers were taken off their tanks and sent to police the Palestinian territories. 

Then, when 22- and 23-year-old tank commanders completed their compulsory military service and joined reserve units, it suddenly emerged they were not as good as older reservists, a tank company commander noted............"

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Analysis/2007/08/17/analysis_israel_turns_to_old_tech/9187/"Tanks


----------



## TCBF

"Skill-fade", like rust, never sleeps.


----------



## 3rd Herd

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Just a small point, tanks don't have "pilots".   They have a Crew Commander, Loader, Gunner and Driver.
> 
> Isn't the media supposed to check its facts?  Perhaps a minor detail but an irritant.


 ;D
Leopard 2 in Flight
Courtesy of the Department of National Defence, GN2002-0247-01d


----------



## George Wallace

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> ;D
> Leopard 2 in Flight
> Courtesy of the Department of National Defence, GN2002-0247-01d



Done that in 3B trying to keep up with Garry in 3A on the way to the Railhead in Ralston.

By the way, that is a Leopard 1 C 2..........not a Leo 2.


----------



## 3rd Herd

George Wallace said:
			
		

> By the way, that is a Leopard 1 C 2..........not a Leo 2.



"Courtesy of the Department of National Defence".


----------



## George Wallace

Public Affairs Officers, like all the Press, really suck at AFV Recognition.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

We had to do that jump for the big dog and pony we did every year for the Staff College.  Staunch Gladiator.  It was stupid, the tank was always bombed up, ammunition would fall all over the place....it was a stupid stunt that I had to do twice.

I guess it looked good, though.


----------



## Franko

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> We had to do that jump for the big dog and pony we did every year for the Staff College.  Staunch Gladiator.  It was stupid, the tank was always bombed up, ammunition would fall all over the place....it was a stupid stunt that I had to do twice.
> 
> I guess it looked good, though.



Glad you said it....         ;D

That damn picture is everywhere...and everyone and their dog claims to have been in that tank doing the jump.

Regards


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I can name a few that have done it.

And I know that there are also a few that say they have done it, but haven't.

I still say it was one of the sillier things that the army ever made me do!


----------



## Kat Stevens

I made my AVLB (sans pont) do a wheelie. Well, first three road wheels off the ground anyway.  Not recommended, by the way.


----------



## 3rd Herd

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I thought one of the reason's we went with these was because they did have A/C?



Lone wolf,
there is an article going back to July in which an "unnamed" German officer expresses doubt as to the a/c possibilities as the Dutch tanks may not have the power to supply such units.

"Beyond the challenge of finding a Canadian company to do the upgrades, engineers will have to overcome technical hurdles. 

German defence sources are skeptical whether an air-conditioning system can be installed on the older A4 variant of the Dutch tanks. 

“That depends — I’m quite honest — on the auxiliary power unit,” said a German army source, who asked not to be identified. 

“I’m not aware whether the power unit in the Dutch tanks is able to handle the load.” http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2007/07/25/4367625.html

also there are reports that the "the borrowed German tanks by the end of 2008". Are free, the Germans are not charging us for them.

Edit for George's Post Below

"The Germans, who've been criticized for not allowing their troops to take part in the fighting in southern Afghanistan, have refused to take any money for the tanks Canadians have borrowed.
"http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070802/Leopard_tanks_070802/20070802?hub=Politics

As to the sales, Chile is looking at buying some also with the money from Copper sales.


----------



## George Wallace

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> also there are reports that the "the borrowed German tanks by the end of 2008". Are free, the Germans are not charging us for them.



I don't know about that, so I will leave a rumour as just a rumour for now.  However, this will be a good "Sales Pitch" for the Leo 2, with it in a War Zone where actual combat is being waged.  Although they were deployed by the Germans in Kosovo, they did not receive any enemy fire.  A big selling point for the M1 and Challenger, are that they have seen combat and been 'proven'.  I think the Germans would also like that 'selling point' to be able to be said about their tanks.   Perhaps they can give us a discounted rental fee for providing them this testing and advertising.   ;D

I wonder if the French may start to think along the same lines and deploy LeClercs?   ;D


----------



## larry Strong

Is upgrading to a larger auxiliary power unit a major refit?


----------



## ironduke57

That you don´t have to pay for the borrowed tank´s themself was mentioned in more then one publication, so IMHO it is most likely so.

Regarding the APU´s on dutch tank´s. AFAIK at least there A4´s (as our´s too) don´t have an APU.

Here are some pic´s of the two borrowed ARV´s:

















(Source: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=367292&id=669356328&l=37359, taken by Sean Stafford)

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## TCBF

Back around 1990 or so, we had a rep from Krause Maffei visit the 8CH(PL) in Lahr and give us all a briefing in the SNCO Rest Area about the Leopard 2, which was a contender for the New Tank Project (under Col Nurse).   The question was asked if the tank had/could have installed air conditioning and he replied "Yes".

So, what does "Handle the Load" mean in a 1500 HP Tank? (That's 1500 HP until the cooling fan sucks away 165 HP or so to operate).

As for 'jumping tanks', I can vouch for the fact that being on the loader's side on landing and getting your left hand caught between a ready-racked HESH rd and a collapsing 2000 rd COAX bin is no fun.


----------



## George Wallace

TCBF said:
			
		

> As for 'jumping tanks', I can vouch for the fact that being on the loader's side on landing and getting your left hand caught between a ready-racked HESH rd and a collapsing 2000 rd COAX bin is no fun.



.......but it feels much the same as if you were water skiing.    ;D


----------



## Red 6

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't know about that, so I will leave a rumour as just a rumour for now.  However, this will be a good "Sales Pitch" for the Leo 2, with it in a War Zone where actual combat is being waged.  Although they were deployed by the Germans in Kosovo, they did not receive any enemy fire.  A big selling point for the M1 and Challenger, are that they have seen combat and been 'proven'.  I think the Germans would also like that 'selling point' to be able to be said about their tanks.   Perhaps they can give us a discounted rental fee for providing them this testing and advertising.   ;D
> 
> I wonder if the French may start to think along the same lines and deploy LeClercs?   ;D



There's no arguing that I'm a big fan of the Leopards and I've always thought they were awesome tanks, and every bit as capable as the M1-series. To be fair though, it will take a whole heck of a lot more than 20 tanks in Afghanistan for the Leo 2 to have the same combat proven stamp that the M1 and Challenger have. This has absolutely nothing to do with the outstanding Canadian Soldiers who are serving in these tanks. Anyone who has read my posts here in the forum knows how much I respect and admire your men and women in uniform.


----------



## George Wallace

RED6

It really doesn't matter if there are 20 or 2,000.  It is the mere fact that there are some employed in Afghanistan.  It has nothing to do with the soldiers manning them, but the opportunity for some salesman in Germany to now say that their tank has seen combat.  The better it survives, and performs, the more the PR people will be able to put a spin on it.


----------



## Red 6

You're probably right George!

Mark


----------



## Donut

Was that not the rationale for the offer of the L2's for the 1st Gulf War (or 2nd, if you count Iran-Iraq)?

I was at UBC shortly thereafter, and it was accepted (and taught) by some of the "better" profs in the department that the L2 was offered to Canada, if we'd chosen to deploy armour, so they could add the "Battle Proven" label to their marketing.  At the time, if I recall, Germany was still prohibited from deploying forces outside their borders.

Any truth to this, or urban legend?


----------



## George Wallace

Never heard about the Leo 2.  Did hear of the offer from down South for the M1.  TCBF and a few others also heard of it.


----------



## Franko

Heard about the Leo 2 offer at the time at the school.

Regards


----------



## Donut

Thanks for the info, I'm learning more from this thread about Armour then I did in all the times I chased after them in Wx   ;D


----------



## TCBF

Fall 1990, at the time the 8CH(PL) was in Grafenwoehr doing a gun camp and getting ready for the Gulf, the LdSH(RC) was in Calgary getting ready to deploy to the US to train on the M1A1 tank with a view to manning a company (or so) of M1A1s in the Gulf.  Once the decision point was reached and the gummint of the day decided to guard Lahr and Baden instead, the train in the US plan was canned - perhaps as close as the day before they left.


----------



## geo

heh... should we merge this thread with the "what if" one?  (JK)


----------



## ironduke57

Sound´s like he like´s his new "toy": 
- http://youtube.com/watch?v=rfRauhF0xPU

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Sound´s like he like´s his new "toy":
> - http://youtube.com/watch?v=rfRauhF0xPU
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



Thanks that was an excellent clip.


----------



## Franko

Johnny Harju....pronounced: HAR-yoo.

Holy crap...he got promoted!

Holy crap...a Dragoon was interviewed!

Regards


----------



## Lance Wiebe

John did well.

He'll do a fine job with his new tasking as the Gunnery WO at the Armour School.  It will be nice whenever the "new" tanks arrive in Canada!


----------



## Blue Max

Interesting addition to the Canadian armoury is the Germany MG3 in the Leo 2A6M as the coaxial MG. WO Harju noted that the MG3 has a greater firing rate then the C6 (MG3 can be configured to fired between 900 & 1200 rpm depending on which bolt is installed vs 600 to 900 rpm for the C6 if I am not mistaken). 

Question in my mind is what the loaders pintle MG will be?  It does appear in the Munster training video to be an MG3 as well.

Good luck, BM.


----------



## TCBF

Remember, this is our second borrow of the MG3, the "rentatanks" (Leo 1A2s?) the RCD used before the C1 was delivered had MG3s.

Not counting any MG-42s we may have turned around in the past.

 ;D


----------



## Lance Wiebe

As TCBF mentioned, we are only borrowing the Leo2A6 equipped with the MG3, there is no plan to buy them for our inventory.  Once the tanks we bought are "Canadianized" , they will mount the C6.


----------



## George Wallace

Blue Max said:
			
		

> Interesting addition to the Canadian armoury is the Germany MG3 in the Leo 2A6M as the coaxial MG. WO Harju noted that the MG3 has a greater firing rate then the C6 (MG3 can be configured to fired between 900 & 1200 rpm depending on which bolt is installed vs 600 to 900 rpm for the C6 if I am not mistaken).
> 
> Question in my mind is what the loaders pintle MG will be?  It does appear in the Munster training video to be an MG3 as well.



It isn't a bolt change; it is changing the setting on the Gas Regulator.  Remember: the higher the rate of fire, the quicker you use up your ammo and overheat your barrel, burning out barrels quicker.  That is why we have modified our Gas Regulators to the lower rate.  Conservation of Ammo and Prolonging the Barrel Life.

The pintle of on the Leos is the same for both the MG3 and C6, if I recall correctly.


----------



## Mortar guy

George,

The MG3 isn't gas operated like the C6 - it's short recoil operated so the ROF has nothing to do with a gas regulator (which the MG3 doesn't have). The ROF can be changed by swapping out the 550g bolt with the 950g bolt.

Cheers.

MG


----------



## George Wallace

I misread his post and thought he was going on about the c6..........Skimmed over his line "MG3 can be configured to fired between 900 & 1200 rpm depending on which bolt is installed vs 600 to 900 rpm for the C6 if I am not mistaken). " too quickly, missing the "vs".    :-[


----------



## Mortar guy

Oh, sorry.  :-[


----------



## McG

Reference the wall breaching, the CF plan (at least, the vision as it was three months ago) is to retain the old AEV & AVLB until some future project (FFCV) can replace them.  The AEV is more than capable of any wall breaching a dozer tank would have done.  The AEV is also already in Afghanistan.  Unless anyone has heard that they are being pulled from country, then I would expect this capability to continue to exist.

Minefield breaching would be another issue though.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

hoping no one uses me for using a copy  writed story here, but ithought it was an interesting read
I am glad some people put their necks on the line to get them for the troops. 




November 18, 2007 

Army faced bureaucratic battle to get tank purchase approved

By Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS



A Leopard 2 Tank in Afghanistan. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Bill Graveland/file 
OTTAWA - The decision to borrow 20 Leopard A6M battle tanks from the Germans and purchase 100 slightly-used models from the Dutch was a hotly debated and ultimately last-minute decision for the Conservative government and Canada's Defence Department. 

The debate was so intense it almost cost the army its most senior commander, political and defence sources say. 

Records released under access to information laws also show that the army was conducting research tests as late as last February on its Leopard C1s to determine whether the older tanks could withstand the rigours of duty in Afghanistan. 

The results of those tests - showing the old tanks were not suited for the searing Afghan summer - touched off an intense debate within National Defence and the wider bureaucracy. 

Although contingency plans were prepared, former defence minister Gordon O'Connor faced push-back, particularly in the Privy Council Office which was deeply skeptical about replacing the army's inventory of antique Leopards with newer Dutch models, said the defence sources. 

No one questioned the need to borrow up to 20 modern, mine-resistant battle tanks from Germany for the current mission in Kandahar, said the sources. 



"It was clear that lives were being saved by their presence in theatre," said an official who asked not to be named. 

But the debate over the purchase of the other tanks dragged on throughout last March and prompted the head of the army Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, to put to his job on the line, demanding that it go through. 

The debate was ultimately silenced when O'Connor put his foot down and rammed the entire package, which is now estimated at $1.3 billion, through cabinet in early April. 

In a recent interview with The Canadian Press, Leslie was asked about the battle to get the purchase approved. 

"I can't answer any of the specifics because that's cabinet confidentiality; advice that I and others gave to the minister must remain between he and I because that's part of the bond of trust that exists," he said. 

"In terms of debate there is always debate within this building because the pool of gold is not infinite. If you spend money on A you can't spend money on B. 

"There was a vigourous debate with all of the right questions being asked by a bunch of folk around town." 

But one defence expert said that, after the deaths of more than 70 soldiers in Afghanistan, he can't understand why such a basic requirement for a modern army resulted in such a heated debate. 

"I think we still live with that myth of Canada, the peacekeeper," said Alain Pellerin, executive director the Conference of Defence Associations. 

"The government in the 1990s sort of fed that myth because they didn't want to spend money on defence. We've been in conflict situations since Bosnia and there are some people - bureaucrats - who don't recognize it." 

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, who at one point described the military's older Leopard tanks as a "millstone around the neck of the Canadian Forces" and favoured the introduction of a light, mobile gun system, said the war in Afghanistan should have changed a lot of minds. 

"The combat situation and environment our soldiers faced during Operation Medusa in September 2006 made it abundantly clear to us that the platforms such as the Mobile Gun System could simply not yet do what we need them to be able to do," Hillier said in an e-mail statement. 

"The mission in Afghanistan has demonstrated the on-going requirement for tanks in the Canadian Forces so that we are ready to carry out whatever task our government asks of us. Tanks are saving lives in Afghanistan, and will in future missions. Minister O'Connor and I were of one mind, both on the lease of the tanks for immediate use in theatre, and on the purchase." 

The $650 million purchase and borrowing scheme was approved and announced on April 12, even before a cost estimate on a long-term support contract was finalized. 

That crucial bit of number-crunching eventually added another $650 million to the program cost - and became public only when O'Connor was questioned over his department budget in the Commons. 

The German were initially going to charge Canada a rental fee on the tanks that are now deployed in Afghanistan, but they eventually waived it, said Leslie. 

"The Germans were trying to figure out how to be generous," he added. 

The government in Berlin has refused repeated NATO calls for it to send troops to southern Afghanistan to help hard-pressed Canadian, American, British and Dutch forces, but Leslie said he doesn't believe the Germans were trying to make amends with the loan. 

"They're good friends," he said. 

Guilt about not being willing to send troops into combat "was not at the forefront of their thinking. It didn't resonate well with anybody that they would be charging money to have these fine machines."


----------



## Rayman

If the Germans wanted to be generous since it is around Christmas they would say "Merry Christmas" in the form of those 20 Leopard 2A6s. 

One can only hope...


----------



## McG

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> hoping no one uses me for using a copy  writed story here, but i thought it was an interesting read


Where is this from?  Do you have a link to the source?


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

sorry  i forgot  to include the link to the news story
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/11/18/4666076-cp.html


----------



## GAP

Rayman said:
			
		

> If the Germans wanted to be generous since it is around Christmas they would say "Merry Christmas" in the form of those 20 Leopard 2A6s.
> 
> One can only hope...



It's not about generosity, but about credability. Someone earlier, with far more cred than me, stated that the Leopard needed field time to advance future sales. Now, that makes sense.


----------



## GK .Dundas

No one questioned the need to borrow up to 20 modern, mine-resistant battle tanks from Germany for the current mission in Kandahar, said the sources.



"It was clear that lives were being saved by their presence in theatre," said an official who asked not to be named.

But the debate over the purchase of the other tanks dragged on throughout last March and prompted the head of the army Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, to put to his job on the line, demanding that it go through.


From the above article it seems fairly clear to me at least ( I've been looking at this situation for nigh on thirty years now) There are people in the Government of Canada and the Privy Council and even more disturbingly DND   who don't care how many troops they kill just so long as their ideologically based  need to prevent Tanks from being purchased is met. It dates back even farther to at least one completely cooked study just after the Arab -Israeli war of 73'. check out the name Ivan Head and the "Non -group".
 If I'm out of line  I'm sorry but over the years I've seen one decision or another based entirely on the prejudices of a few people as opposed to hard military realties .The decision to do away with tanks as part of a combined arms battle group would have cost real human beings their lives.


----------



## Haletown

brave real echelon chair warmers always know what is best for the front line troops.

The longer they delay things, the closer they get to their pension dates.


----------



## ironduke57

Just read the following at MP.net:


> By the way, in today´s issue of renowned german newspaper "FAZ" there is an article saying the german DoD received a "Thank you" eMail from a canadian officer. He allegedly wrote "My crew stumbled upon an IED and made history as the first [crew] to test the [Leopard 2A6]M-packet. It worked as it should."
> 
> The driver allegedly broke a hip and the crew was battered, but the author was convinced they would have fared worse in any other vehicle. The tank itself however seems to be badly damaged and is suspected to be bought instead of given back in that shape.



Anyone heared about it/has more info?

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## ironduke57

Noone heared anything?

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Haletown

just this

  http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-vehicle-casualties-1.htm

see the brief entry for  02 Nov 2007


----------



## dapaterson

Vehicle damage reports are not in the public domain.  If, for example, the enemy hit an LSVW, revealing the damage in a public forum may permit them to assess and adjust their techniques to enhance future attacks against LSVWs.

Basic OPSEC.


----------



## ironduke57

Ah, okay. But a pic of what is left of the tank would be quite interesting. Or if the tank is repairable. What this make especially interesting is that it is probably the first serious real battle damage to an Leo2.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## dapaterson

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Ah, okay. But a pic of what is left of the tank would be quite interesting. Or if the tank is repairable. What this make especially interesting is that it is probably the first serious real battle damage to an Leo2.



Again, showing the enemy the effects of their handiwork would be a Bad Thing.  I'm curious about it, too... but I'd rather have our troopers home safe and sound.


If you want a nice pic of a Leo 2, take a gander at http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_e.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=30711&site=combatcamera


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I don't think an LSVW is a good example seeing a hammer could disable that piece of crap.  Point taken mind you


----------



## McG

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Ah, okay. But a pic of what is left of the tank would be quite interesting.


All pictures of battle damaged vehicles were declared SECRET on my tour.  Some get out by the media (possibly specifically approved ones) but, for the reasons above, we want to keep these pics as much under wraps as possible.


----------



## Franko

Battle damage of the panzers is considered OPSEC.   Full stop.

As for the crew member, he's recovering and doing fine.

Regards

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## German Visitor

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Just read the following at MP.net:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, in today´s issue of renowned german newspaper "FAZ" there is an article saying the german DoD received a "Thank you" eMail from a canadian officer. He allegedly wrote "My crew stumbled upon an IED and made history as the first [crew] to test the [Leopard 2A6]M-packet. It worked as it should."
> 
> The driver allegedly broke a hip and the crew was battered, but the author was convinced they would have fared worse in any other vehicle. The tank itself however seems to be badly damaged and is suspected to be bought instead of given back in that shape.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone heared about it/has more info?
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57
Click to expand...

Hi folks,

Maybe you are interested in the article from German Newspaper "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" (which is a serious newspaper, not a tabloid) about the blast. You need a subscription for the Newspaper to read it originally online there, but I put it in this post:
---------------
Unfreiwilliger Minentest
Kanadier dankt für deutschen Leopard-Panzer

Manchmal ist es auch freundliche, ja geradezu herzliche Post, die das Verteidigungsministerium von den Verbündeten im Afghanistan-Einsatz erhält. So etwa eine E-Mail, die mit dem Betreff "Thanks" kürzlich einging. Sie kam von einem kanadischen Offizier, der, wie er schrieb, sich für den neuen Panzer bedanken wollte, der nämlich neulich nachts sein Leben und das seiner Mannschaft gerettet habe. Es geht um einen Satz Leopard-2-Kampfpanzer, den die Bundeswehr an die Kanadier für den Afghanistan-Einsatz abgegeben hat - leihweise sozusagen. Dazu wurden die 20 "Leos" für die Einsatzerfordernisse umgerüstet, unter anderem durch zusätzlichen Minenschutz, weswegen die Typenbezeichnung 2A6 mit einem "M" ergänzt wurde. "Meine Crew stieß auf ein IED (Sprengfalle) und ging in die Geschichte als die erste ein, die das? ,M'-Paket getestet hat", schrieb nun der Kanadier. "Es funktionierte so, wie es sollte." Zwar habe sich der Fahrer die Hüfte gebrochen und den anderen hätten die Ohren gehörig geklingelt, doch wäre man in einem anderen Fahrzeug weit weniger gut weggekommen, meint der Kanadier und scherzt: "Ich weiß, dass dieser Schlag wohl ein bisschen mehr Arbeit auf Ihren Schreibtisch bringen wird, denn ich glaube nicht, dass der Schaden vom Mietvertrag abgedeckt ist. Dieses Exemplar haben wir wohl gekauft." 2009 sind die Panzer "wie übergeben" an Deutschland zurückzugeben. Es muss sich aber nicht um dieselben Panzer handeln. Es gehört nicht viel Phantasie dazu, sich diese oder entsprechende Exemplare auch bald mit dem eisernen Kreuz im Auslandseinsatz vorzustellen. (löw.)


Text: F.A.Z., 19.11.2007, Nr. 269 / Seite 8
---------------
You can also find the article for free at http://www.sondereinheiten.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14684&start=60 (a forum for German military personal). 

For the not-German-speaking: The translation on MP is basically a correct summary of the email. The officer also says that the vehicle saved his life and that of his crew and he gives his thanks for that.

Personally, I think the CF really opposes the taliban thread in Afghanistan and the German Bundeswehr sits in its camps in Kunduz and Masar-I-sharif and is not allowed go out and therefore does nothing, with the exeption of giving those 20 tanks to Canada: So maybe at least you can use our equipment. :'(


Kind Regards,
a German Vistor of your site
(from Hamburg, Germany)


----------



## dapaterson

And if you wonder how Google would translate that text,



> Canadians thanked for the German Leopard tanks
> 
> Sometimes it is friendly, if not cordial Post, the Defense Ministry by the allies in Afghanistan-use. How about an e-mail with the subject "Thanks" recently received. She came from a Canadian officer who, as he wrote, for the new tanks would want, namely his life recently at night and his team had rescued. It is a sentence Leopard-2-Kampfpanzer that the Bundeswehr to the Canadians for the use of Afghanistan - has-as it were on loan. These were the 20 "Leos" for the use of converted requirements, including through additional mine protection, which is why the model designation 2A6 with an "M" added. "My crew met with an IED (Explosive Trap), and went down in history as the first one, which?, M'-Paket tested," wrote to the Canadians. "It functioned as it should." Although the driver is the hip broken and the other had the ears belonging jingled, but it would be in another vehicle far less well weggekommen, said the Canadians and jokes: "I know that this probably beat a little more work on your desk that will bring, because I do not believe that the damage is covered by the lease. copy of this, we have probably bought. " 2009, the tanks "like hand over" to be returned to Germany. It must not act in the same tanks. There is not much imagination, or is this appropriate specimens soon with the Iron Cross abroad to be used. (Löw.)


----------



## German Visitor

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And if you wonder how Google would translate that text,


Not bad for a translating machine. As a human I corrected the automatic translation a bit (see below).
----------------
*Involuntary Mine-Test
Canadian thanks for German Leopard tanks
*
Sometimes it is friendly, if not cordial Mail, that the Defense Ministry gets by the allies in the Afghanistan-mission. E.g. an e-mail with the subject "Thanks" recently received. It came from a Canadian officer who, as he wrote, wants to thank for the new tank, that recently at night had rescued his life and his team, he supposed. It is a set of Leopard-2-battle-tanks that the Bundeswehr has given to the Canadians for the use of Afghanistan - on loan, so to speak. For this matter the 20 "Leos" had been converted for the mission-requirements, including additional mine protection, which is why the model designation 2A6 has an "M" added. "My crew met with an IED (Explosive Trap), and went down in history as the first one, who tested the 'M'-package," now wrote the Canadian. "It worked as it should." Although the drivers hip is broken and the others had a buzzing in the ears, in another vehicle they would be far less well done, said the Canadian and jokes: "I know that this probably brings a little more work on your desk, as I do not believe that the damage is covered by the leasing-contract. This piece we have probably bought." 2009, the tanks have to be returned to Germany "like handed over". It may also be other (but similar) tanks. It takes is not much imagination, to see those ore similar tanks soon with the Iron Cross in foreign missions. (löw.)


Text: F.A.Z., 19.11.2007, Nr. 269 / Seite 8
--------------
Unfortunately, the original humor is "lost in translation".


PS
Maybe we should also "loan" you for free 8) also the Marder 1A5 tracked IFVs (commander, gunner, driver + 6 troops, 20 mm cannon) with comparable additional mine protection to the Leo. The Marders never left the German Kundz-base, as we don't have the nuts to use them ourselfs :-[. Greece gets 500 Marder IFVs and does not need or use them, neither.


----------



## vonGarvin

Here's my stab at the translation (with an attempt to retain the humour)

There are times when friendly, almost cordial letters are received by the German Ministry of defence from allies in the Afghanistan mission.  Such was the case in an email they recently received.  It simply had the subject line “Thanks”.  It came from a Canadian officer who wanted to thank the ministry for his new tank.  It recently saved his life, and the lives of his crew.  The tank in question was the Leopard 2, which the Bundeswehr recently delivered to the Canadians for their deployment in Afghanistan.  The 20 Leopards were specially outfitted for the mission, including added mine protection, hence the designation 2A6M.  
“My crew hit an IED and as such went down in history as the first to test the “M” variant’” wrote the Canadian.  “It worked exactly as it was supposed to.”  The driver broke his hip and the rest of the crew’s ears were ringing.  However, if the crew were in another vehicle, the result would have been much worse, suggested the officer as he joked, “I realise that this attack will certainly cause a bit more paperwork, because I don’t think that this damage is covered in the rental agreement.  I think we just bought this tank.”  The tanks are to be returned to Germany in 2009 “as rented”.  They do not, however, have to be the same tanks.  It doesn’t take much to imagine to soon see these or other tanks with the iron cross in foreign duty.


----------



## German Visitor

Maybe you want to see the 2A6M CAN Leos in Kandahar and hear what the tankers say. The ZDF report (Title: "Battlefield instead of road works: The lonely fight of the Canadians in Kandahar.") about the Canadian forces in Afghanistan is in German, but has Leo-2 footage and english-speaking interviews with the tankers about their experience with the new tank (from 0:50 to 3:20 within the 5:47 clip). 
At youtube :
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8bpteWCajEo&feature=related
Original (for me a bit cumbersome to view):
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/content/359838?inPopup=true


----------



## TN2IC

German Visitor said:
			
		

> PS
> Maybe we should also "loan" you for free 8) also the Marder 1A5 tracked IFVs (commander, gunner, driver + 6 troops, 20 mm cannon) with comparable additional mine protection to the Leo. The Marders never left the German Kundz-base, as we don't have the nuts to use them ourselfs :-[. Greece gets 500 Marder IFVs and does not need or use them, neither.



I'm starting to like you. Next time I'm in Germany, I"ll look you up.


----------



## German Visitor

Sgt  Schultz said:
			
		

> I'm starting to like you. Next time I'm in Germany, I"ll look you up.


After Schultz enters Barracks 2 and see the prisoners trying to pull apart up a wall:
    * Hogan: How else would we get the tank in?
    * Schultz: Tank? Tank? Tank? Tank? Tank? Tank?


----------



## ironduke57

German Visitor said:
			
		

> ... Greece gets 500 Marder IFVs and does not need or use them, neither.


Sorry, but this is wrong. The Marders have already been offered to Greece twice, either by Rheinmetall or directly by the German state. The initial proposal by Rheinmetall was to fit the Marders with the new E4 turret before selling them to Greece; that was regarded as too expensive. Then there was an initial deal between Greece and Germany (I think Rheinmetall wasn't involved) to buy 415 Marders (1A3) for 250 million Euros without major modifications except radios etc. That deal was almost
completed, but the Greek MoD changed its mind at the last moment, opting for a tender for new generation AIFVs. ATM there is a third offer to the Greece directly by Rheinmetall to lease 164 Marder 1A3. (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3171231&C=landwar) 

Regards,
ironduke57
(One more German on here. Today this forum and tomorrow the world! Eh wait. I didn´t mean that as it sounded. /me Note to myself: Don´t speak about world domination in the open.  ;D )


----------



## geo

LOL Duke, LOL

Not a problem


----------



## Kat Stevens

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> (One more German on here. Today this forum and tomorrow the world! Eh wait. I didn´t mean that as it sounded. /me Note to myself: Don´t speak about world domination in the open.  ;D )



That is quite possibly one of the funniest things I've ever read on here, good one duke!


----------



## ironduke57

Regarding the Leo2A6 which hit the IED:


> OTTAWA - A Canadian officer in Afghanistan sent a personal thank you to the German government after he and his crew rumbling along in a tank borrowed from the NATO ally survived a powerful Taliban roadside bomb blast.
> 
> "My crew stumbled upon an (improvised explosive device) and made history as the first (crew) to test the (Leopard 2A6)M-packet," said the unidentified officer in an email to German defence officials about the specially-designed battle tank.
> 
> "It worked as it should."
> 
> The crew of four was battered by the blast and the driver broke a hip, but otherwise they were fine. The note, passed to Berlin through a Canadian defence attache, has been quoted in the German media, but Canada's Defence Department was loath to acknowledge its existence.
> 
> Interview requests with both army and defence officials in Ottawa were denied and in what has become a troubling pattern for the department, it released only a series of written answers to questions about the incident posed by The Canadian Press.
> 
> The 13-line note failed to explain the unprecedented secrecy surrounding the incident.
> 
> A defence analyst said Canadian officials' silence mystifies him when they have an opportunity to trumpet such a success, particularly since the tanks' formidable presence has helped contribute to a decline in civilian casualties in their areas of operation.
> 
> "The Leopards are an extremely accurate direct fire weapon, far more accurate than air strikes," said Alain Pellerin, a retired colonel, and executive director of the Ottawa-based Conference of Defence Associations. "Civilian casualties is a major issue for both Canadians and Afghans and the tanks are proving their worth."
> 
> In deploying the army's older Leopard C1 tanks in the fall of 2006, former defence minister Gordon O'Connor faced accusations in the House of Commons that the Conservatives were escalating the war. The Conservatives' insisted that tanks, sometimes by their very presence, save lives.
> 
> The unidentified tank officer, part of a contingent of 2,500 Canadian soldiers serving in the volatile Kandahar region, told the Germans there likely would have been casualties among the crew had they been in any other type of vehicle.
> 
> The majority of the 73 soldiers killed in Afghanistan have died because their vehicles have run over improvised explosives, including seven casualties in the current rotation.
> 
> Despite three days of repeated requests, the Canadian military refused to shed much light on the incident. It acknowledged the tank was damaged during the recent battle of Arghandaub, which took place in early November, north of Kandahar, and that one tanker was injured.
> 
> A stipulation of borrowing the 42-tonne iron monsters from the Germans was that they be returned in the same condition. Although the tank was nowhere near wrecked, a German Army official who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the Canadians will likely keep vehicle and pay out its roughly C $6.4 million cost.
> 
> Canadian officials refused to say whether that is the case.
> 
> Last spring the Conservative government announced it was going to borrow 20 modern Leopard C2A6 tanks to meet immediate combat needs in Afghanistan. The existing Leopard C1s were deemed too old to withstand the rigours and oppressive heat of the Afghan desert.
> 
> The German tanks - borrowed at no cost - were upgraded with anti-mine protection and began arriving in Kandahar in mid-August along with the latest rotation of infantry from the Royal 22nd Regiment.
> 
> Over the long-term, the Conservatives plan to replace the borrowed tanks with relatively new ones purchased from the surplus stock of 100 Dutch Leopards. Pellerin said it is imperative that National Defence follow through on intention to upgrade those tanks with the latest mine-resistence armour kits.
> 
> The government was supposed to take delivery of the Dutch tanks this fall, but the department has refused to say what the status of the project might be.



Source: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/12/05/4709453-cp.html

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Panzer Grenadier

So the Government wont make this more public because they have to possibly pay 6.4 million dollars of taxpayers money, for a tank that saved the lives of its operators, and not be able to return it to the German government?


----------



## geo

Geez... so, according to the press, we were using Leo C1s in Afghanistan and are now using Leo C2s... Interesting & just goes to show you that MsM has made absolutely no effort to consult someone with a smidgen of knowledge as to what we do or do not have / use in theatre.

WRT the Leo 2A6M that was "bent" in the very big IED incident, I think we all knew that we'd have to pay the sticker price on the vehicle.... unless the German Gov't is willing to take a slightly used Dutch Leo 2A4 for which we'd pay for upgrades ... that would bring it up to 2A6M standard.


----------



## German Visitor

our monster is heavier: the a6 already has 62 tons (without m-package and w/o slat armor)


----------



## McG

Panzer Grenadier said:
			
		

> So the Government wont make this more public because they have to possibly pay 6.4 million dollars of taxpayers money, for a tank that saved the lives of its operators, and not be able to return it to the German government?


... or the government recognizes that publicizing the strengths & weaknesses of battle damaged vehicles is a stupid way to give information to the enemy and get more Canadians killed.


----------



## blacktriangle

MCG said:
			
		

> ... or the government recognizes that publicizing the strengths & weaknesses of battle damaged vehicles is a stupid way to give information to the enemy and get more Canadians killed.



Somehow when I saw your name by the post, I knew exactly what it would say.  ;D

I couldn't agree more MCG...


----------



## Panzer Grenadier

MCG I was actually referring to the financial cost portion, not the strengths and weaknesses. :-[


----------



## German Visitor

geo said:
			
		

> WRT the Leo 2A6M that was "bent" in the very big IED incident, I think we all knew that we'd have to pay the sticker price on the vehicle.... unless the German Gov't is willing to take a slightly used Dutch Leo 2A4 for which we'd pay for upgrades ... that would bring it up to 2A6M standard.



According to your Chief of the Defence Staff you won't have to pay the sticker price, as the tank is back in theatre.



> Tank hit by IED back in service: Hillier
> 
> ALAN FREEMAN
> 
> December 8, 2007
> 
> OTTAWA -- General Rick Hillier, speaking to reporters yesterday in Ottawa, denied reports that a Leopard II tank that was struck by an IED last month was a writeoff, insisting that the tank has been repaired and is once again in use.
> 
> "It's now back operational," Gen. Hillier said.
> 
> He confirmed that the tank, one of 20 that are on loan from the German Armed Forces was struck by an IED or anti-tank mine. The army is also awaiting delivery of as many as 100 used Leopard IIs that Canada is purchasing from the Netherlands.
> 
> "The Taliban have been engaged with some of the new Leopard II tanks in several ambushes," he said, noting that he did not believe the tanks had been deliberately targeted but were hit because they were part of military convoys.
> 
> Gen. Hillier said the Leopard performed as it should - even though the IED blew up beneath the driver's seat, the tank driver suffered nothing but a small hip fracture - and that as a result the Taliban "learned some very harsh lessons" and lost the battle in question "very quickly and very violently."
> 
> "That young kid called home and said, 'Mom, I would not have been alive if it had been any other vehicle but a Leopard II,' "Gen. Hillier said.
> 
> The General said that 14 or 15 of the German Leopard IIs have so far arrived in Afghanistan, of which four have been operational since mid-August.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071208.AFGHANSIDE08/TPStory/TPInternational/Asia/


----------



## Franko

Rayman said:
			
		

> I hope that blast that hit was a huge one. Not wishing ill harm but to show the Taliban that these machines can take a lot. That might nice and screw with their morale.



Ummm....no. It'll just make the next one bigger, and bigger and bigger.

Remember, Coyotes,  LAVs and RG31s were doing well for a while. Timmie just made the IEDs bigger.

Regards


----------



## aesop081

Its a never ending cycle of bigger bombs and more armour.  The solution to IEDs is not to always come up with better armour,

It is to Win the war. No insurgents, no IEDs.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Its a never ending cycle of bigger bombs and more armour.  The solution to IEDs is not to always come up with better armour,
> 
> It is to Win the war. No insurgents, no IEDs.



maybe while some of these guys are making their homemade bombs they'll make a mistake and go to meet their maker a little earlier than they planned... ;D....I know, i know..."other cheek, other cheek, other cheek....


----------



## aesop081

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> ....I know, i know..."other cheek, other cheek, other cheek....



"Praise the lord and pass the ammunition"


_Note : I was originaly going to ask "Why ? Is the other cheek better armoured ?"_


----------



## Rayman

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Ummm....no. It'll just make the next one bigger, and bigger and bigger.
> 
> Remember, Coyotes,  LAVs and RG31s were doing well for a while. Timmie just made the IEDs bigger.
> 
> Regards



You're right. Like Aviator said best way to cure the problem is to take care of them. I will say hopefully these machines can stand up to whatever Timmie will throw at them for a while.... or run out of supplies to make these IED's.


----------



## Franko

Rayman said:
			
		

> I will say hopefully these machines can stand up to whatever Timmie will throw at them for a while.... or run out of supplies to make these IED's.



The Soviets left them enough materials to keep them in business for years.       

Regards


----------



## McG

okay, the stupid stuff is gone: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/68744.0/all.html

Let's keep this on track.


----------



## German Visitor

I think I found the text of the original thank-you-mail about the mine-protected leopard tank - without the multiple translations english-german-english:


> “Sir,
> 
> I'd like to pass on a little note of thanks from my crew and myself for all your work in helping procure the new tanks and to let you know that it saved our lives the other night. My crew hit the IED the night of 2 Nov and went down in the history books as the first crew to test out the ‘M’ package of the 2 A6 M. It worked how it was supposed to.
> 
> Unfortunately we didn't all walk away unharmed, my driver broke his left hip, but the fact that most of us only suffered bumps and bruises and ringing ears is testament to how well the new tanks function. This was our second IED strike in six weeks and much bigger than the first and only through sheer luck we were travelling in a Leo 2. I'm certain that we wouldn't have fared as well in another vehicle.
> 
> I know this strike will probably put a bit more work on your desk since the damage is at the point were I don't think the lease will cover it and we probably bought this one, but it helped four soldiers walk away relatively unharmed. At least the German Army and KMW can take comfort in the fact that the kit works and does save lives even if I did write off a tank.
> 
> Thanks again sir and your work on that end is truly appreciated.”


http://www.defence-forum.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=106515
or
http://www.soldatentreff.de/modules.php?op=modload&name=eBoard&file=viewthread&tid=16080


----------



## cameron

As far as i'm concerned saved lives are more important than a written off tank.  Godspeed to all the tankers and other Canadian warriors over there in harm's way. :cdnsalute: :tank:


----------



## Mackie

MCG said:
			
		

> However, the US KE rounds are fired with a much higher peak pressure in order to achieve the same kinetic energy at the muzzle.



In some years you will see how press writing about a high incidence of cancer in former battle zones. 

Example from Germany:
A study says that we have a higher incidence of cancer around nuclear power plants. Radiation reports over the years were normal. No critical incident in the documents. 
Scientist cannot explain this aspect. 
It shows that we must be very careful in handling nuclear technologies. 
In 2023 Germany shut down the last nuclear power plant.


----------



## George Wallace

???

I think you have a few things confused here.

KE is not DU.  KE is "Kinetic Energy" NOT "Depleted Uranium".


----------



## X-mo-1979

Leopard=my porn.

It's the reason I stayed in the army.


----------



## Mackie

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> I think you have a few things confused here.
> 
> KE is not DU.  KE is "Kinetic Energy" NOT "Depleted Uranium".



Upps. 
I notices.  

About Ke Amunition: http://www.defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm


----------



## vonGarvin

FYI: KE ammo is anything that uses its motion to cause damage (in simple terms).  So, fists of fury are KE, ball ammo is KE, and so forth and so on...


----------



## Mackie

I know. I read out. 
My question: The much higher peak pressure of M1s with the same gun? Reduce service life?


----------



## vonGarvin

Mackie said:
			
		

> My question: The much higher peak pressure of M1s with the same gun? Reduce service life?


Yes.  Same with any gun/cannon.  Each barrel has a life expectancy expressed in terms of "Equivalent Full Charge" (EFC).  The actual EFC for each type of weapon varies.  Some "bullets" will use in excess of 1 EFC per round, others less than 1 EFC per round.  Armourers will keep track of the EFCs per barrel, which helps aid them in their servicing of the barrel (eg: at x EFCs, conduct such and such test).


----------



## PzBrig15

Hello ,
I ´am a ex-soldier from the German-Army .
I repair 1986 the MBT Leopard 2 A4.
I interested for the actually Leopard 2 A6M Can-Version.
Can anyone post photos or links ( Action-Pics from Afghanistan / ISAF).
Thanks

Sorry for my bad english , but my teacher was a silly-man.
He speak at the first time,who see me english, but I understand
this man ..........great,or ???


----------



## midget-boyd91

Try this thread here, there should be plenty of pictures there:
 http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/65930.0.html  *(Leopard 2 Pictures)*

   I'm sure you will also find many other pictures if you look for them using the search function.


Midget


----------



## vonGarvin

PzBrig15 said:
			
		

> Hello ,
> I ´am a ex-soldier from the German-Army .
> I repair 1986 the MBT Leopard 2 A4.
> I interested for the actually Leopard 2 A6M Can-Version.
> Can anyone post photos or links ( Action-Pics from Afghanistan / ISAF).
> Thanks
> 
> Sorry for my bad english , but my teacher was a silly-man.
> He speak at the first time,who see me english, but I understand
> this man ..........great,or ???


Herzlich Willkommen in "army.ca".  Hier gibts viele Fotos vom leo 2A6CAN.  Man kann die Suchfunktion einfach benützen.  Viel Glück!


"Mortarman"


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24BL-225-16850&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=pdldErIx17TWSULPr3KQEg%3d%3d



> Tank Replacement Project
> 
> Trade Agreement: NONE
> Tendering Procedures:
> Attachment: None
> Competitive Procurement Strategy: N/A - P&A/LOI Only
> Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement: No
> Nature of Requirements:
> LETTER OF INTEREST
> TANK REPLACEMENT PROJECT
> 
> 1. GENERAL
> 1.1. The Government of Canada (GOC) has a requirement for the
> upgrade and conversion of up to 100 Leopard 2 tanks in Canada.
> 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
> 2.1. The Tank Replacement Project will provide Canada with a
> long-term, sustainable replacement of its current main battle
> tank fleet, including some variants such as recovery vehicles.
> The project consists of 2 phases as follow:
> 2.2. Phase 1 of the Project, which is currently in progress,
> includes the loan, support and sustainment of 20 mission-ready
> Leopard 2 A6M Main Battle Tanks (MBT) and 2 armoured recovery
> vehicles (ARV) to meet urgent operational requirements in
> Afghanistan in 2007. It also includes the procurement of 100
> Main Battle Tanks and the restitution of the loaned German
> tanks.
> 2.3. An agreement was signed between the Government of Canada
> and The Netherlands Government on 14 December 2007 for the
> purchase of 80 Leopard 2 A4 and 20 Leopard 2 A6 main battle
> tanks which will be the basis for all future work.
> 2.4. The restitution may be accomplished through a
> restitution-in-kind approach by which the Canadian government
> will use the 20 Leopard 2 A6 tanks purchased from the
> Netherlands. These tanks would be brought to the same
> configuration as the tanks loaned from Germany. As a result, the
> loaned Leopard 2 A6M tanks currently in Afghanistan would be
> retained by Canada for Phase 2.
> 2.5. Phase 2 includes the upgrade and conversion of the tanks,
> repair, and/or overhaul of major components to be completed in
> Canada. Canada is considering selecting one contractor as a
> system integrator for the entire Phase 2 work. Canada may also
> consider one contractor for the work associated with the tanks
> and a second contractor for the work associated with the
> variants.
> 3. BACKGROUND
> 3.1. The intensity and complexity of recent military operations
> in countries like Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that
> main battle tanks provide military forces with protection,
> mobility and firepower that cannot be matched by more lightly
> armoured wheeled vehicles.
> 3.2. The capabilities provided by Leopard 2 tanks increase the
> flexibility of the Canadian Forces to employ ground forces in
> medium to high threat environments until 2035.
> 
> 4. PURPOSE OF LETTER OF INTEREST
> 4.1. The purpose of this Letter of Interest (LOI) is to
> communicate the Canadian Forces' requirements and solicit
> information and feedback from the industry regarding possible
> upgrade and conversion to the MBT and/or recovery variants. The
> information may be used to support the Crown's decision-making
> process such as finalizing its requirement and determining its
> procurement strategy.
> 4.2. It is anticipated that subsequent to this LOI, the
> government will issue a request for Price and Availability (P&A)
> information.
> 4.3. This is not a bid solicitation and no contract will result
> directly from this LOI or subsequent Price and Availability
> (P&A) request.
> 
> 5. PROJECT SCOPE
> 5.1. The interim requirement is contained within Annex A. The
> Statement of Work (SOW) will be developed in due course based on
> an internal analysis of available information from various
> sources, including information received from industry. In
> general, the project scope may consist of the following:
> 5.1.1. Upgrades of up to 92 Leopard 2 tanks to a Canadian
> Leopard 2 standard;
> 5.1.2. Conversion of up to 8 Leopard 2 A4 tanks to Canadian
> Leopard 2 Bpz ARV 3 recovery vehicle;
> 5.1.3. Initial Repair and Overhaul (R&O) of up to 100 tanks or
> their major components consisting of Leopard 2 A6M (up to 20)
> and Leopard 2 A4 (up to 80). However, the Department of National
> Defence may opt to conduct the Repair and Overhaul utilizing
> internal resources; and
> 5.1.4. Logistic support associated with the introduction of this
> new capability into the Canadian Forces. Potential work may also
> include requirements for munitions and test, ancillary and
> training equipments. The requirement for In Service Support
> (ISS) is not yet determined.
> 
> 5.1.5. Following the upgrade and conversion, Canada's Main
> Battle Tank requirement may be as follows:
> 
> Quantity Vehicle
> Requirement
> 
> 20 Tanks (2 A6M CAN) Operational-Ready
> Operational Tanks
> Level
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Armoured Recovery Vehicle
> Operational Tanks
> Operational-Ready Level
> 
> 
> 20 Tanks (configuration TBD)
> Operational Tanks
> 
> 
> 2 Armoured Recovery Vehicle
> Operational Tanks
> Operational-Ready Level
> 
> 20 Tanks at Training Level (2 A4+)
> Training Tanks
> 
> (Individual & Collective)
> 
> 
> 2 Armoured Recovery Vehicle
> Training Tanks
> 
> (Individual & Collective)
> 
> 
> 20 Tanks at Training Level (2 A4+)
> Training Tanks
> 
> (Individual & Collective)
> 
> 2 Armoured Recovery Vehicle
> Training Tanks
> 
> (Individual & Collective)
> 
> 12 Logistic Stock Vehicles
> TBD
> 
> 5.1.6. The upgrade and conversion will be associated with, but
> not limited to the following issues, as detailed in Annex A:
> 5.1.6.1. Primary Focus/Core Requirements:
> i. Canadian Communications;
> ii. Recovery Vehicle;
> iii. Survivability/Protection Technologies;
> iv. Electric Turret Drive;
> v. Climate control including crew cooling; Integrated Logistic
> Support (ILS); and
> vi. Repair and Overhaul.
> 5.1.6.2. Secondary Focus/Longer Term Requirements:
> i. Component Obsolescence;
> ii. Firepower;
> iii. Fire Control System;
> iv. Turret Ergonomics and Configuration;
> v. Mobility;
> vi. Tank Mounted Implements (mine rollers, mine ploughs and
> dozer blade); and
> vii. Miscellaneous.
> 
> 
> 6. PROCUREMENT MILESTONES
> 
> 6.1. In providing responses the following schedule should be
> utilized as a baseline:
> Milestones
> Projected Timeline
> LOI closing
> 9 April 2008
> Price and Availability release
> June 2008
> Price and Availability closing
> September 2008
> Draft Request for Proposal
> April 2009
> Request for Proposal release
> June 2009
> Request for Proposal closing
> September 2009
> Contract Award (CA)
> November 2009
> Initial delivery of 20 tanks and 2 recovery vehicles
> 2011
> Project Closeout
> TBD
> 
> 7. SECURITY
> 7.1. Respondents are requested to indicate their ability, and
> that of any subcontractors, to accommodate personnel and
> facility security requirements, together with controlled goods
> restrictions (e.g. International Traffic in Arms Regulations
> (ITAR)), export licenses and 3rd party release requirements.
> Respondents are to clearly identify any implications that may
> affect delivery of the proposed project in accordance with the
> Industrial Security Program of Public Works and Government
> Services Canada (PWGSC) requirements.
> 8. INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL BENEFITS (IRB)
> 8.1. The work is to be performed in Canada to the maximum extent
> possible, in such a manner as tonot put at risk the operational
> requirement. In all aspects, the maximization of Direct work in
> Canada should makebusiness sense.
> 8.2. The eventual contractor will be required to provide
> high-quality Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) equivalent
> to 100% of the contracted value. All IRB requirements will be
> negotiated and accepted by Industry Canada (IC) and the regional
> development agencies prior to Contract Award.
> 9. REQUESTED INFORMATION
> 9.1. Based on the requirements detailed in this document, the
> LOI seeks potential suppliers to provide the following
> information:
> 9.1.1. Capability of the respondents to have access to the
> Intellectual Property (IP) Rights of the Leopard 2 A6M, Leopard
> 2 A4 and recovery vehicle and other upgrades. Respondents are
> requested to demonstrate their ability to access and use the
> Intellectual Property of the vehicle systems, sub-systems and
> any components.
> 9.1.2. The respondent's interest and capability for the
> different aspects of the work addressed at Annex A. Respondents
> are invited to provide their comments and concerns on the
> technical aspect, feasibility and reasonability of the
> requirement. Respondents should feel free to provide alternative
> recommendations where applicable. Respondents should explain
> their rationale for a change or addition to the requirement.
> 9.1.3. In responding to this LOI, respondents should clearly
> identify all assumptions with clear explanations for why those
> assumptions were made.
> 9.1.4. Industrial capacity and infrastructure requirement for
> this work and if such capacity and infrastructure are in place
> in Canada.
> 9.1.5. A statement of the delivery capability. Indicate whether
> or not the initial of delivery of 20 tanks and 2 recovery
> vehicles in 2011 can be achieved. If not, then provide the best
> possible delivery schedule. The respondents should highlight any
> critical areas that will impact the schedule either positively
> or negatively
> 9.1.6. Information on any controlled goods restrictions (e.g.
> International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Controlled
> Goods Regulations), export licenses, security and 3rd party
> release implications that may affect delivery of the solution,
> and constraints and assumptions associated with the proposed
> upgrade and conversion.
> 9.1.7. Company point of contact for future communications.
> 10. NOTE TO POTENTIAL RESPONDENTS
> 10.1. This is not a bid solicitation and a contract will not
> result from it.
> 10.2. The Statement of Operational Requirement (SOR) is
> currently being developed and is subject to change based on the
> evolution of the requirement, which may be as a result of
> information provided by industry.
> 10.3. Potential respondents are advised that any information
> submitted to Canada in response to this LOI may be used by
> Canada in the development of a competitive Request For Proposal
> (RFP).
> 10.4. The issuance of this LOI does not create an obligation for
> Canada to issue a Price and Availability (P&A) and Request For
> Proposal (RFP), and does not bind Canada legally or otherwise,
> to enter into any agreement or to accept or reject any
> suggestions.
> 10.5. Canada assumes no responsibility or obligation with
> respect to the cost of preparing a response to this LOI.
> 10.6. Participation in this LOI is not a condition or
> prerequisite for participation in any subsequent Price and
> Availability (P&A) or Request For Proposal (RFP). As a result of
> this LOI there will be no short listing of firms for the
> purposes of undertaking future work.
> 10.7. Respondents to this LOI should clearly identify all
> submitted information as to whether or not it must be considered
> as confidential and/or proprietary. Information provided in
> response to this LOI will be divulged only to government
> officials authorized to participate in this pre-procurement
> activity. However, respondents must be aware that aspects of
> their response may be used as a basis for modifying the draft
> documents, as any future procurement for this requirement is
> prepared.
> 10.8. PWGSC reserves the right to meet with industry concerning
> the feedback, suggestions or alternative approaches related to
> the project scope.
> 11. ENQUIRIES
> 11.1. All enquiries, clarification requests and other
> communications related to this LOI shall be directed exclusively
> to the point of contact named below.
> 11.2. Interested suppliers that intend to respond to this LOI
> are requested to advise PWGSC by email so that questions and
> answers, clarification or changes may be promulgated if required.
> 12. CLOSING DATE
> 12.1. Responses to this LOI are to be submitted to the point of
> contact identified below, on or before the close of business on
> 9 April 2008. You are requested to submit fourteen (14) hard and
> electronic copies of your response to the point of contact.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good catch - thanks for sharing!

Here's a .pdf version for when the link expires.....


----------



## McG

The following news article came about as a result of the press finding the LOI (quoted above) ... I'm surprised that the press is surprised about the time lines.  Do they expect these things grow on trees?


> Canada to rely on borrowed German tanks until 2011
> Ottawa Sun
> By MURRAY BREWSTER, The Canadian Press
> 
> OTTAWA — Canada will be forced to rely on borrowed tanks for the war in Afghanistan until 2011, a federal tendering document has revealed.
> 
> Public Works Canada recently asked the defence industry if it was interested in upgrading some of the 100 Leopard tanks it purchased second-hand from the Netherlands last fall.
> 
> The first of those refurbished, 60-tonne A6s will not be ready for service for another 3-1/2 years — just as Canadian troops begin their withdrawal from Kandahar.
> 
> The “initial delivery of 20 tanks and two recovery vehicles” is not expected until some time in 2011, said the letter of interest issued to industry on March 19.
> 
> The federal government likely won’t even issue a tender for the work until November 2009.
> 
> 
> When the $1.3-billion tank-replacement program was announced almost a year ago by former defence minister Gordon O’Connor, the plan called for Canada to borrow 20 mine-resistant Leopards from Germany for immediate use in Afghanistan.
> 
> Those tanks arrived in theatre last summer and were to be returned once the Dutch Leopards had been purchased and upgraded to Canadian battle standards.
> 
> The loan arrangement with the Germans, which isn’t costing Canadian taxpayers anything, was expected to run until September 2009.
> 
> The fact that the Dutch tanks won’t be ready by that time means the loan will likely have to be extended.
> 
> National Defence was asked to explain the reasons for the delay, but declined. Most information and interview requests are flagged to the attention of the Privy Council Office — the administrative arm of the prime minister’s office.
> 
> The only comment defence officials made was that “a number of options were being considered, including replacement in kind and extending the loan.”
> 
> It has been suggested that, given the wear and tear on the German Leopards in Afghanistan, it would be simpler for Canada to hold on to the borrowed vehicles and replace them with spiffed-up ones purchased from the Dutch.
> 
> “As stipulated in the arrangement, Canada will be returning the tanks in the same condition that they were received,” Defence spokesman Jeremy Sales said in an e-mail note.
> 
> It was suggested last fall that some of the upgrade work might have to be done in Europe because Canadian industry isn’t capable of overhauling the iron monsters.
> 
> A defence expert said the delay can likely be traced back to the fact that few Canadian companies have the technical ability to overhaul battle tanks and the Defence Department virtually gave up the skill in the late 1990s, when it planned to phase out tanks.
> 
> “I’m not surprised it’s going to take that long to pull the upgrades together given that we no longer have the capability,” said retired colonel Chris Corrigan, who spent 32 years in the armoured corps.
> 
> “That was a straight dollars-and-cents budgetary decision.”
> 
> One of the companies that could be in line for the refurbishment, which was estimated in the range of $200 million, said last year that a worldwide shortage of armour plating — generated by the war in Iraq — could also contribute to delays.
> 
> Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said he doesn’t understand why it will take until 2011 and accused the Conservative government of mismanging the program by spending the federal treasury dry in wartime.
> 
> “If the troops need equipment, they need equipment,” said Coderre, who pointed to the fact the Tories recently rushed out to buy 15 retired German tanks for spare parts.
> 
> The federal government spent $120 million to buy 100 surplus Leopards from the Netherlands, the vast majority of which are older A4 models, dating from the mid-1990s. The Dutch government mothballed them at the end of the Cold War.
> 
> In about the same timeframe, the Canadian government began to consider whether it needed tanks at all and began planning to retire its fleet of Leopard C1s, which were purchased in the 1970s.
> 
> Plans to acquire a mobile gun system were started under the former Liberal government. But with the rising casualty count in Afghanistan and the need to shield troops behind heavy armour, defence bureaucrats were forced to reconsider the role of the tank in modern warfare.
> 
> Corrigan said he worries the urgency will go out of the tank program once Canada’s combat role comes to an end. “We’ve always had this on-again, off-again attachment to tanks and there’s always been a need to re-educate bureaucrats as to their usefulness,” said Corrigan, who is a member of the Royal Military Institute.
> 
> “They’re absolutely essential to the modern army.”


----------



## X-mo-1979

They’re absolutely essential to the modern army.

.... I remember a certain Mcpl telling that to a certain General when he came to talk to a certain regiment a couple years ago.

Imagine that.


----------



## geo

Ummm... if the newish Dutch Leo2s are only delivered in 2011 then I can only ask myself..... are they truly "surplus" to their needs?  From my perspective, if I declare something as surplus, the buyer can pert much get his hands on the kit RIGHT NOW!?!  WTF???
IIRC there is supposed to be a mix of 2A4, 2A6 and ARVs.... soo - why would we have to upgrade the 2A6s beyond the "M" additional armour plating on the bottom?


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm... if the newish Dutch Leo2s are only delivered in 2011 then I can only ask myself..... are they truly "surplus" to their needs?  From my perspective, if I declare something as surplus, the buyer can pert much get his hands on the kit RIGHT NOW!?!  WTF???
> IIRC there is supposed to be a mix of 2A4, 2A6 and ARVs.... soo - why would we have to upgrade the 2A6s beyond the "M" additional armour plating on the bottom?



I would think that three years for "Refits" would be a reasonable amount of time.  Seems that it took much longer for the Workshops in Montreal to do the same with the same number of Leo 1's that we had in the mid 80's.


----------



## geo

considering that the german manufacturers are just up the Autobahn from Holland (German army proved that  ) would certainly be a lot easier to have them look after whatever refit the 100 might require.... IMHO!


----------



## McG

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm... if the newish Dutch Leo2s are only delivered in 2011 then I can only ask myself..... are they truly "surplus" to their needs?  From my perspective, if I declare something as surplus, the buyer can pert much get his hands on the kit RIGHT NOW!?!  WTF???


They are surplus geo.  In fact, some of the maintenance problems that have to be sorted before we get them are a result of sitting idle for a dog's age.



			
				geo said:
			
		

> considering that the german manufacturers are just up the Autobahn from Holland (German army proved that  ) would certainly be a lot easier to have them look after whatever refit the 100 might require.... IMHO!


but the government has already promised this work to be done in Canada.  They really don't care about your humble opinion.


----------



## TCBF

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would think that three years for "Refits" would be a reasonable amount of time.  Seems that it took much longer for the Workshops in Montreal to do the same with the same number of Leo 1's that we had in the mid 80's.



- Yup.  And after some of the hachet-jobs "Two-Oh-Two Paintshop" did on our vehicles, most of the RCAC would be happy to have some 'old world craftsmanship' applied to them in Germany.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

I see that bureaucratic who know nothing about military issues are again making decisions that should be made by the military, nothing changes. 

Oh that's right , I almost forgot, the privy council doesn't trust the military to make its own decisions :. Yet again a bunch of bloated bureaucrats do know so much more than our military commanders. I wonder were they get all their so called expertise from, the "military channel" (Oozing with sarcasm). Wankers can't tie their own shoe laces without a form, yet again their making decisions on a major piece of military hardware that most of them have only seen either on a television set or in a picture. "Something wrong with this scenario."


----------



## McG

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Yup.  And after some of the hachet-jobs "Two-Oh-Two Paintshop" did on our vehicles, . . .


Don't worry about 202.  The government promise was to give the work (and so the jobs & money) to Canadian commercial industry.  So maybe it will be DEW, GDLS or Rhinemetal.


----------



## geo

The only thing I see happening if the vehicles are brought back to Canada for refit by commercial contractors is that they will have to "raid" EME & weapon tech tradesmen currently in the service.  Offering them promisses galore to leave the service ... thereby stripping us of our internal resources.

We've "lost" the capacity - and we have to accept that fact.
Time to look at where we can find it AND move on from there.
Develop the caacity for the future - certainly - but delaying everything till 2011 (or later) is NOT the solution.


----------



## McG

You are right that it would probably have been a better decision to have the upgrades done by KMW in Germany.  However . . 


			
				geo said:
			
		

> We've "lost" the capacity - and we have to accept that fact.


The Challenger 1 FCS & the current Abrams FCS are both from the same Canadian source.
A large many of M113A2 were converted into TLAV & MTVL in Canada.
The LAV family of vehicles are build primarily in Canada.
Canada has produced several add-on & upgrade armour packages.
Rhinemetal (a company with a lot of experience in this area) has recently established a big presence in Canada.
I also suspect the Leo C1 to Leo C2 conversion was Canadian work (at least partially).


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The Leo C1 to C2 conversion was mostly done by Wegmann in Germany, but the matching of turrets to hulls, and the installation of the barrels was completed by DEW in Canada.

Trying to find a Canadian company that has experience in converting, for example, a hydraulic turret drive to an electric turret drive may be problematic.

I noticed in the LOI that no mention was made of converting the commanders' station of the Leo2A4 with the "hunter-killer" version of the Leo2A5/A6.  I wonder if it was because the Crown suspects that no Canadian company has the capability and that those upgrades will be done in Europe, or if it is because we do not plan to upgrade the Leo2A4 commanders' station?


----------



## McG

As of last week, the intent was that all the Leopard 2 would be identical on the in side (so as to eliminate the requirement for in theater conversion courses).  The hunter killer sight on the ops fleet will also be on the training fleet.  I don't know why it's not in the LOI.  Could be that we've not yet decided if we want the German sight or the Swiss sight (or maybe another one all together).


----------



## geo

MCG said:
			
		

> You are right that it would probably have been a better decision to have the upgrades done by KMW in Germany.  However . . The Challenger 1 FCS & the current Abrams FCS are both from the same Canadian source.
> A large many of M113A2 were converted into TLAV & MTVL in Canada.
> The LAV family of vehicles are build primarily in Canada.
> Canada has produced several add-on & upgrade armour packages.
> Rhinemetal (a company with a lot of experience in this area) has recently established a big presence in Canada.
> I also suspect the Leo C1 to Leo C2 conversion was Canadian work (at least partially).


All the TLAV work was done in the 202 workshops... I would venture that, if a commercial contractor was seeking / hunting for tradesmen, the best of our 202 staff would be No 1 on their list of potential candidates... and THAT would not be a good thing IMHO


----------



## McG

geo said:
			
		

> All the TLAV work was done in the 202 workshops...


Go Google DEW Engineering.


----------



## geo

Hmmm... OK, done.

I note that here http://www.dewengineering.com/whats_new.htm they talk a lot about the work on the Bison Command vehicle & Ambulances.  Also some of the seat design for Blast resistance.

While DEW may have been involved in some of the design / CAD work that went into the TLAV, I got to see a lot of our old APCs on the 202 yard being worked upon - a bit of a "chop shop".


----------



## McG

geo, 
In days gone by, DEW was heavily involved in the MTVL & TLAV project.  A year ago they were still doing design & develpment work (physically) on M113.  If you want to pretend there is no experience there just because you did not physically see it, then go float your boat.  The reality is that the company does have experience (which you've suggested does not exist in Canada).


----------



## ironduke57

MCG said:
			
		

> ... The hunter killer sight on the ops fleet will also be on the training fleet.  I don't know why it's not in the LOI.  Could be that we've not yet decided if we want the German sight or the Swiss sight (or maybe another one all together).



The Leo2 had the "hunter-killer" capability from the beginning and I don´t know of any changes to this between A4 and A5/A6.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## McG

The commander's PERI-R 17 panoramic sight has been moved to the left rear of the commander's station on the 2A5. The commander's improved independent sight now includes a thermal channel.  You can see the sight behind the Comd's hatch on the 2A5.  The unimproved sight is forward of the hatch on the 2A4.


----------



## geo

MCG said:
			
		

> geo,
> In days gone by, DEW was heavily involved in the MTVL & TLAV project.  A year ago they were still doing design & develpment work (physically) on M113.  If you want to pretend there is no experience there just because you did not physically see it, then go float your boat.  The reality is that the company does have experience (which you've suggested does not exist in Canada).


MCG
don't get me wrong, I certainly believe that outside of CF talent was used to concept, design vehicle improvements & new builds.  I just have to take a look at GM Diesel.... uh... General Dynamics... uh... whatever and the construction of the Piranah/LAVIII/Stryker/Auslav, etc.... 
Am certain that DEW had been instrumental in designing & modeling a lot of the work that our mech & techs produce.


----------



## McG

geo said:
			
		

> Am certain that DEW had been instrumental in designing & modeling


and building.


----------



## ironduke57

MCG said:
			
		

> You can see the sight behind the Comd's hatch on the 2A5.  It is not there on the 2A4.


Ups. My fault. I misunderstood you both.

In the A5 the periscope was relocated and is now mounted behind the commander's cupola, not in front of it anymore.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## McG

The Commander's station is different as a result.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

MCG;

I'm glad to hear that the commanders station will be common throughout the fleet.  I hadn't known that decision had been made.

So we do know that the fleet will all have the L44 barrel, TED, and the hunter killer.  

But, I think we can safely assume that the external configuration between the "training" tanks and the "operational" tanks will be different.


----------



## McG

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> I'm glad to hear that the commanders station will be common throughout the fleet.


The sigh of relief might be premature still though.  One of the problems with launching a major capitol project at UOR speeds is that many of the essential steps are missed in ensuring that a plan is in place before we've committed (or ensuring that we've got the price accurately determined before sealing a cap on it).  When the statement of requirement is written a year after the decision has been made, we're stuck with the decision even if it's not meeting the full requirement.  

If money gets tight (and it is) then some of the things intended may get dropped.  So, while it is intended, I'd wait for the contract to be signed before getting too high hopes that the training tank will be a 2A4+ as opposed to a 2A4.



			
				Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> But, I think we can safely assume that the external configuration between the "training" tanks and the "operational" tanks will be different.


No assumption required.  That is the plan and it is the low cost route so money issues will not change it.  Personally I don't like it because it limits the pool of replacement vehicles for Ops & it denies us the option of ever deploying a larger force.  Everything should be built to the Ops standard.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

MCG said:
			
		

> No assumption required.  That is the plan and it is the low cost route so money issues will not change it.  Personally I don't like it because it limits the pool of replacement vehicles for Ops & it denies us the option of ever deploying a larger force.  Everything should be built to the Ops standard.



I understand the bit about the SOR, just notice the way the LOI left out the minor tidbit about the commander station.  

Leaving the tanks as an A4+ isn't a bad idea, as long as the external mods are completed so that they can be upgraded to the A5 standard relatively quickly and easily.  Leaving a few tons off of the training tanks would make life easier for the power pack, suspension, and probably, buildings and trees.  I knid of doubt that will be done, though.  The wording of "training" tank and "operational" tanks doesn't leave much to the imagination, does it?


----------



## TCBF

- Better than when our training tanks were Cougars...


----------



## geo

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Better than when our training tanks were Cougars...



I consider the Cougar days to have been our "Peacekeeping / Constabulary" days.
Now that we are back to being on a "war fighting" frame of mind, we've started our reality check - progress is ongoing


----------



## TCBF

- Up until a year ago, the Cougar fleet had more 'trigger time' in action than the Leo C1/C2 fleet did.


----------



## GAP

Tanks for the Lesson: Leopards, too, for Canada
08-Oct-2008 11:50 EDT
Article Link

It would seem that the Canadian Forces are taking some of the lessons re-learned during Operation Medusa in Afghanistan to heart. Canada’s DND:

_“The heavily protected direct fire capability of a main battle tank is an invaluable tool in the arsenal of any military. The intensity of recent conflicts in Central Asia and the Middle East has shown western militaries that tanks provide protection that cannot be matched by more lightly armoured wheeled vehicles…. [Canada’s existing Leopard C2/1A5] tanks have also provided the Canadian Forces (CF) with the capability to travel to locations that would otherwise be inaccessible to wheeled light armoured vehicles, including Taliban defensive positions.”_

In October 2003, Canada was set to buy the Styker/LAV-III 105mm Mobile Gun System to replace its Leopard C2 tanks. In the end, however, the lessons of war have taken Canada down a very different path – one that now has them renewing the very tank fleet they were once intent on scrapping with one of the world’s best tanks, and backing away from the wheeled vehicles that were once the cornerstone of the Canadian Army’s transformation plan. 

This updated article includes a full chronology for Canada’s new Leopard 2 tanks, and adds information concerning DND’s exact plans and breakdowns for their new tank fleet. along with recent reports from the front lines…
More on link


----------



## old medic

First batch of used Dutch tanks arrive in Canada
By Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS
numerous newspapers online.



> OTTAWA - The first batch of used battle tanks that Canada purchased from the Dutch have arrived more than a year behind schedule.
> 
> Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, head of the Canadian army, said 40 Leopard 2A-4 tanks rolled off a supply ship and onto the dock in Montreal last week.
> 
> "They are in better shape than any of us could have hoped for," Leslie said in an interview Tuesday with The Canadian Press.
> 
> The tanks, to be upgraded with extra armour for overseas missions, are being stored at the 202 Canadian Forces workshop depot in Montreal.
> 
> A tender for the work, estimated at about $200 million, isn't expected to be issued for a year, say federal documents.
> 
> The 50-tonne iron monsters will sit idle while the federal government finds a company capable of the specialized modifications, which will include installing an electric turret drive, a shorter gun barrel and an air-cooling system.
> 
> The $120-million purchase of 100 tanks from the Netherlands was announced by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor in April 2007, who said they would arrive within six months. The Dutch government mothballed the tanks at the end of the Cold War.
> 
> The deal was part of a two-step process to reinforce Canadian troops battling the Taliban in the hinterlands of Afghanistan.
> 
> Fierce battles in the summer of 2006 convinced ground commanders that tanks would be needed to blast enemy fighters from behind thick mud-walled redoubts outside of Kandahar.
> 
> The army dispatched nearly 30-year-old Leopard C1s, vehicles with few spare parts and no air conditioning. In the blistering 55 C Afghan sun and choking dust, conditions in tanks were soon unbearable for their crews.
> 
> The Defence Department quickly arranged to borrow 20 Leopard A6Ms from the Germans, with the promise that they would be replaced by some of the tanks bought from the Dutch.
> 
> The German tanks, with extra armour to resist roadside bomb and mine blasts, are still in service in Kandahar.
> 
> A federal tendering document last spring said Canada would have to rely on the borrowed tanks until 2011 because modifications on the Dutch armoured vehicles would take longer than expected.
> 
> Part of the problem is that industrial expertise to refurbish the vehicles has been lost over the years because, until Afghanistan, the army was planning to get out of the tank business and rely instead on wheeled big gun vehicles.
> 
> Leslie said negotiations are underway with the Dutch to deliver the next batch of 40 tanks, which will not require as much modification because the army intends to use them as training vehicles.
> 
> The last 20 armoured vehicles are expected to remain in Europe, where they will be modified and presented to the Germans as replacements for the vehicles being banged up in Afghanistan.


----------



## ironduke57

> ... a shorter gun barrel ...



Huh? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## McG

The 2A6 that we've bought will receive shorter barrels to match the 2A4 that we've bought.


----------



## ironduke57

Ah okay. 

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Lance Wiebe

But the article is misleading.  We are not replacing the L44 with a shorter gun!  But none of our tanks will have an L55, either.

I see that there is still no mention of modifications to the commander's station.  I don't know if the PMO staff has decided on what to do yet, the last I heard no decision had been made on what commander station we would install, if indeed we even change the A4 configuration.


----------



## geo

> THE HAGUE, 14/04/07 - The Netherlands has sold 100 Leopard tanks to Canada. They include 20 Leopard 2-A6s and 80 Leopard 2-A4s. http://www.nisnews.nl/public/140407_2.htm



Well, would imagine the 20 2A6s should be sent back to KMF in order to make them compatible to German Army 2A6M


----------



## ironduke57

That what was what I also thought and what puzzled me in the article. Just hadn´t time to elaborate earlier.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Lance Wiebe

From what I understand, the 20 2A6M that we bought from the Dutch will be given back to the Bundeswehr as direct replacements for the ones we are using in Afghanistan.  

I have no idea what is going to happen to whatever is left of the 20 "leased" tanks, I would presume that we would retain ownership of those.


----------



## Spencer100

I have no idea what is going to happen to whatever is left of the 20 "leased" tanks, I would presume that we would retain ownership of those.  
[/quote]

What kind of shape will those be in?


----------



## geo

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> What kind of shape will those be in?



Umm... well & lovingly used.
Worse comes to worse, they can always go to the EME & Armoured schools where they can be cut away (if necessary) and used as training aids (as required)

Else, they can certainly become dandy lawn ornaments once they've gone thru the body & paint shops


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Glad they are here, less chance of the contract being cancelled. even if the Libs get in the army can sell the contract as a job creation scheme.


----------



## McG

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> I see that there is still no mention of modifications to the commander's station.  I don't know if the PMO staff has decided on what to do yet, the last I heard no decision had been made on what commander station we would install, if indeed we even change the A4 configuration.


Same story here. Everything will have the same commander's station, but no decision if that will be based on the A4, the A6, the Pz 87 WE, or something else.


----------



## Infanteer

God - we never do anything the easy way, do we....


----------



## Franko

Hopefully it'll be the A6 variant. 

The CC's station is very user friendly (once you get used to it) and allows for more freedom in how to actually engage targets.

Mind you anything is better than nothing.

Regards


----------



## GAP

Hulking Leopard 2 tanks a boon for Canadian troops in Afghanistan
Bill Graveland, THE CANADIAN PRESS December 25, 2008, EDT.
Article Link

Canadian Leopard C2 Tanks conduct a road move on the camp at the Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan. ?DND/For Editorial and Educational Use Only"
BAZAR-E PANJWAII, Afghanistan - After more than a year of rumbling across the bomb-scarred roads and dusty plains of southern Afghanistan, positive reviews are coming in on the 62-tonne Leopard 2 tanks used by the Canadian Forces.

The Canadian army borrowed 20 Leopard A6Ms from the Germans in the summer of 2007 to quickly replace its own nearly 30-year-old Leopard tanks which were not suited for use in Afghanistan.

The military has since completed a deal to buy an additional 100 surplus tanks from the Dutch, and will return the loaners once the newer tanks are delivered.

The Leopard 2 tanks offer more firepower, better landmine protection, longer range and better mobility.

"We're dealing with the best main battle tank in the world right now," said tank troop leader Capt. Tim Day, from the Lord Strathcona's Horse armoured regiment based in Edmonton.

"We've got more mobility due to the size. We've got less concerns of damage to the equipment. It's a big beast and can go where it wants to really," he added.

Although it's not ideal for a lot of the terrain in southern Afghanistan, the tank's size and power offer an intimidation factor in skirmishes with the Taliban.

In Kandahar province, insurgents have rarely targeted tanks with roadside bombs - the biggest threat facing Canadian troops.

Instead, the Taliban have more frequently used improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, against lighter armoured vehicles - troop-transport vehicles that are more vulnerable to such attacks.

"It's the demonstration of force that we can provide that is just talking without having to talk," explained Day, who operates out of a Canadian forward operating base in the Panjwaii district.

"We roll in with a big tank and it sends a pretty powerful message. We don't have to fire any shots, don't have to make any threats, just have to drive a tank into a village and the bad guys get the idea."

It also gives some added safety to those riding inside the tanks - called "superbeasts" by the Taliban. The extra armour better protects occupants in an explosion, Day said.

Cpl. Joel Ribert from Montreal spent three years driving the Leopard 1 and switched to the Leopard 2 on this tour of duty. He said the difference is like night and day.

"Driving it is awesome. Usually its about 18 hours in the tank a day when we are out there," he said.

"The Leopard 2 is like a car. The steering is smooth. It just follows the road."

But the Taliban have been building bigger and bigger IEDs over the past couple of years and that still poses the biggest risk.

"It's more of an infantry problem, so we try to be like the protection for the infantry," Ribert said.

"The IEDs? We've been lucky because we have good teams for EOD (explosive ordnance disposal) who try and find the IEDs, and locals are helping us as well."

The most glaring deficiency in the design of the Leopard 2 is lack of air conditioning - a key drawback in a country where high temperatures regularly reach well into the 40s Celsius and tank crews have suffered dehydration.

To avoid wilting in the extreme heat, the four crew members - pilot, gunner, loader and crew leader - wear cooling vests to circulate chilled water over their bodies.

"Both models (Leopard 1 and Leopard 2) have now been outfitted with a refrigeration unit so the crews will wear a chiller vest which gets plugged into a refrigeration unit which chills the water and flows through the vest. It makes a huge difference," Day said.

Content Provided By Canadian Press.
More on link


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> To avoid wilting in the extreme heat, the four crew members - pilot, gunner, loader and crew leader - wear cooling vests to circulate chilled water over their bodies.



pilot? crew _leader_? What happened to driver & crew commander?


----------



## geo

recceguy said:
			
		

> pilot? crew _leader_? What happened to driver & crew commander?



Would venture to think that these are the words of the reporter and NOT those of the crew
Driver,
Loader,
Gunner, and
Crew commander


----------



## Trooper Hale

geo said:
			
		

> Would venture to think that these are the words of the reporter and NOT those of the crew
> Driver,
> Loader,
> Gunner, and
> Crew commander



 Nope, if anyone asks, from now on i'm a pilot!


----------



## geo

OK.... will have to inform our Airforce pilots that they are now "tank drivers"... this is just gonna FLY !!!  >


----------



## Yrys

geo said:
			
		

> OK.... will have to inform our Airforce pilots that they are now "tank drivers"... this is just gonna FLY !!!  >



Can we have a video of theirs reactions, please   ?


----------



## Franko

Guys were wondering why I was wiping my brow when they named who was going to be interviewed.

Reporter couldn't even get that one thing right.

Regards


----------



## blacktriangle

hi iz dis teh racruting senter, i wud like 2 be a tank pie let  :

So I still don't get it are we going to have a mixed fleet of A4 and A6, how many different fleets and modifications did they decide on?


----------



## McG

popnfresh said:
			
		

> So I still don't get it are we going to have a mixed fleet of A4 and A6, how many different fleets and modifications did they decide on?


We are buying different fleets because that is what was available on the market at the time, because the CF decided it wanted to do this quickly, and because there never was enough money in the project to upgrade the announced 20 additional Leopards to 2A6 standard and procure all the support variants.

In the end, the plan is two have two Canadian variants (which may or may not be in line with A4, A5 or A6 standards).  The operational variant will have all the upgrades.  The training variant will have all the upgrades to make it the same inside (so crews and maintainers do not have to be re-trained just prior to deployment), but this fleet will not have the expensive armour upgrades.  If we are lucky it will be fitted for not with (FFNW).

... and until the breaching capability is figured out, we will also see the old Leopard C2 remain in service (maybe even after the turret has become unsupportable).


----------



## ironduke57

MCG said:
			
		

> ...
> ... and until the breaching capability is figured out, we will also see the old Leopard C2 remain in service (maybe even after the turret has become unsupportable).



Well you could just put T-72 turrets on them. 

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## TN2IC

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Well you could just put T-72 turrets on them.
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57




When East meets West..?


----------



## geo

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Well you could just put T-72 turrets on them.
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



Heh... East german T72 is sitting outside my office window - lawn ornament - couldn't be all that hard to remove the turret ;D  Must be some more of em hanging around our various bases


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Seven turns to left IIRC and off pops the turret  ;D


----------



## tango22a

If you WANT the turret and gun systems off a T-72 more power to you ! I still would prefer that a NEW breaching vehicle be either purchased or developed on LEO2 chassis.

Cheers,

tango22a


----------



## McG

tango22a said:
			
		

> I still would prefer that a NEW breaching vehicle be either purchased or developed on LEO2 chassis.


That would be a new project as the work falls outside the scope of the tank project.  Without another project, the capability dies when our Leopard 1 stop operating.  

If there is a new project, where do the PYs come from to operate this new fleet of vehicles?  Doctrinally, we are still teaching that tanks will do their own breaching.  If the tanks are not doing it, who does it & where does the equipment belong on the battlefield?


----------



## X-mo-1979

The old girls still have a lot of go left in em! 3 c2's per Sqn would be good.I have had zero issues over 4 months with my old girl.....55km per hour aint too bad either. ;D


----------



## TCBF

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> The old girls still have a lot of go left in em! 3 c2's per Sqn would be good.I have had zero issues over 4 months with my old girl.....55km per hour aint too bad either. ;D



- Heck, I've driven an M60A1 faster than 55 kmh!


----------



## X-mo-1979

With rollers?


----------



## ironduke57

Well the official top speed for the Leo1 is 65 km/h, so 55 shouldn´t be a problem. 
The official top speed of the Leo2 is 72 km/h, but in unofficial troop test´s they got it already at ~100 km/h (on a long flat Autobahn, the noise and the vibrations should be enormous in the inside).

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## dapaterson

But will it fit through the drive-through at Timmies?


----------



## Michael OLeary

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But will it fit through the drive-through at Timmies?



Why does that matter? We've had enough demonstrations that CF members can't always get any other vehicle through without collecting yellow paint.    ;D


----------



## X-mo-1979

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Well the official top speed for the Leo1 is 65 km/h, so 55 shouldn´t be a problem.
> The official top speed of the Leo2 is 72 km/h, but in unofficial troop test´s they got it already at ~100 km/h (on a long flat Autobahn, the noise and the vibrations should be enormous in the inside).
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



I've only seen a leo 1 do 60 and it was down a very large hill.With rollers most tanks will only get up to 30-35,however my beast goes like snot.Your right on the Leo2.I have seen it going well in excess of 72.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

IIRC the Armoured School had a Leo1 (can't remember if it was an ARV or not) with a German Power Pack (I think) that could do in excess of 70 km/h on flat ground


----------



## Kat Stevens

All the packs are German.  You can squeeze a little extra oooomph if you put 5 gals of kerosene in the fuel tank... at least, that's what I read somewhere... 8) .  Every AVLB and AEV I ever drove could bury the needle if the circumstances were right.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Kat the one I'm talking about, you didn't need to add kerosene. Got to ask my buddy at the armoured school to tell me that story again.


----------



## Franko

The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> IIRC the Armoured School had a Leo1 (can't remember if it was an ARV or not) with a German Power Pack (I think) that could do in excess of 70 km/h on flat ground



C/S 1B...won't name the CFR.

Top speed of 83km/h on flat ground. Mind you that was in 1995.

The pack came straight from Germany, not a 202 Paint Shop job.

Regards


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Thx RBD, I believe that's the one I was told about.


----------



## TCBF

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> With rollers?



- Ohhhhhhh.... rollers....

 :-[


----------



## McG

MCG said:
			
		

> ... and until the breaching capability is figured out, we will also see the old Leopard C2 remain in service (maybe even after the turret has become unsupportable).


If we had gone competitive and insisted that proposed tanks had to be compatible with our current doctrine and have integration complete for track width mine ploughs and rollers.  I did a search of the web, looked through Jane's (the subscriber thing, not the little AFV handbook from Cole's) and even bounced some questions of members of the project team.  

It seems that the only two modern western tanks that would have met this requirement would have been the M1 Abrams and the Merkava (however, I've not been able to find a picture confirming that the Magov plough has been fitted to the Merkava).  If we were to lower the requirement so that the tank only needed integration complete for the rollers, then the Mitsubishi Type 90 could be added to the list.  Coincidentally, the Mitsubishi Type 90 also appears to be the only modern _western_ MBT to have the option of an already integrated and functioning dozer blade.

There have been threads here before that have examined why the Merkava would not have been a good fit for Canada, I don't know enough about the Type 90 to say if it could have been a viable option or not, and the M1 also comes with its own strengths and weaknesses.  So, I'm not suggesting we should have bought something else.  Just that, it is interesting to note that at a time when operations are becoming more & more dispersed, nations are moving away from dispersed breaching capabilities and more to specialized breaching vehicles which are best suited to supporting the mobility of concentrated armour forces.


----------



## a_majoor

MCG said:
			
		

> There have been threads here before that have examined why the Merkava would not have been a good fit for Canada, I don't know enough about the Type 90 to say if it could have been a viable option or not, and the M1 also comes with its own strengths and weaknesses.  So, I'm not suggesting we should have bought something else.  Just that, it is interesting to note that at a time when operations are becoming more & more dispersed, nations are moving away from dispersed breaching capabilities and more to specialized breaching vehicles which are best suited to supporting the mobility of concentrated armour forces.



That might be a means of supporting the PUMA IFV as the Canadian Close Combat Vehicle (or whatever the acronym of the week is), since it has similar mobility to the Leopard and the "C" armour package provides the protection of a tank. Engineer section vehicles and PUMA engineer variants would be a good fit for a Leopard 2 based battlegroup (with PUMA IFV's for everyone else), cost as always would be the big issue here. The potential of economy of scale (PUMA IFV + Engineer section vehicles + engineer variants) *might* make this plausible. We could always say a huge AFV buy is economic stimulus as well.......

CV-90's are much cheaper and more available, but might not have the protection and power to do the engineer tasks.


----------



## geo

let's not forget the advantages to having a fleet with common parts.... a broken down plow awaiting parts won't serve us well in the long run.


----------



## TCBF

geo said:
			
		

> let's not forget the advantages to having a fleet with common parts.... a broken down plow awaiting parts won't serve us well in the long run.



- I would guess that 99% of the time we run out of parts because the CF didn't buy them in time.  Common parts just means that several ECCs get to be sidelined at the same time.  Only advantage is cannibalization.

- Only times I recall different, was in the early 70s when we could not get Pittman Arms for our Dodge 3/4 ton fleet (continental recall and replacement) and the early 80s when we could not get Cougar turret parts. Iran had priority, after which we got parts labelled "RAOC - Iran only".


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> That might be a means of supporting the PUMA IFV as the Canadian Close Combat Vehicle (or whatever the acronym of the week is), since it has similar mobility to the Leopard and the "C" armour package provides the protection of a tank.


I'm not sure how the lack of breaching capability on the Leopard 2 would be cause to procure Puma for IFV/CCV.  First off, having common mobility charictaristics will not allow the vehicles to magic themselves across explosive obstacles (mines & IEDs).  Secondly, the project will not procure an engineer variant of the CCV/IFV as this is not in the scope, and (even if were within the project scope) a section carrier is not the right platform to be a breach vehicle (if things go bad during the breach that is 10-12 soldiers killed as opposed to the 3-4).

The inability of the Leopard 2 to mount implements means that we need to re-establish that capability somewhere else with all the necessary new equipment and PYs to support.


----------



## TCBF

- What are the Germans using?


----------



## ironduke57

TCBF said:
			
		

> - What are the Germans using?


The Badger or as it called here Pionierpanzer 2 "Dachs". No money to replace them with the Pionierpanzer 3 "Kodiak".

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## a_majoor

MCG said:
			
		

> The inability of the Leopard 2 to mount implements means that we need to re-establish that capability somewhere else with all the necessary new equipment and PYs to support.



I was suggesting an alternative route that could also solve the IFV issue at the same time. Certainly developing custom PUMA based engineer vehicles along the line of the Badger would be prohibitively expensive if done on its own, but if there was a larger program *that included* PUMA based Pionierpanzers along with IFV's then there is some justification to follow that route.

Incidentally, it seems rather incredible that there isn't a provision for mounting breaching equipment on the Leopard 2. I recall there is an upgrade package for Leopard 2's that does include a 'dozer blade (the Leopard 2 "Peace Support Operations").


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Incidentally, it seems rather incredible that there isn't a provision for mounting breaching equipment on the Leopard 2. I recall there is an upgrade package for Leopard 2's that does include a 'dozer blade (the Leopard 2 "Peace Support Operations").


If you dig through the threads on Leopard 2 on this site (probably this thread) you will find that (while the PSO does have pictures of a blade & there is a well coreographed video of it pushing an empty vehicle in perfect perpendicular contact with the tank), the blade on the PSO is relatively fragile and not effective.  TWMP and rollers have not been integrated for use on the Leopard 2, and KMW has indicated that the vehicle is not structurally up to the challenge without modification.


----------



## McG

TCBF said:
			
		

> - What are the Germans using?





			
				ironduke57 said:
			
		

> The Badger or as it called here Pionierpanzer 2 "Dachs".


... and the Badger AEV (which is in Canadian service) does not breach mine/explosive obstacles.

Interesting Jane's article on this topic last spring.  Here are some experts: 


> Canada plans to upgrade Leopards for use in Afghanistan
> Sharon Hobson
> 28 May 2008
> 
> Canada's Tank Replacement Project has several key decisions remaining as the army tries to fit its requirements into a CAD650 million (USD657 million) budget.
> 
> Canada announced in April 2007 that it had leased 20 Leopard 2A6M main battle tanks and two armoured recovery vehicles (ARVs) from Germany for use in Afghanistan, and is also buying 80 A4 and 20 A6 surplus Leopard 2 tanks from the Netherlands. The A6 variants will be modified to the German standard by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and Rheinmetall Defence and then handed over to Germany to replace those being used in Afghanistan.
> 
> The 20 A6M tanks currently on lease from Germany will be kept as an operational squadron, while 20 of the 80 A4 tanks being purchased from the Netherlands will be designated as a second operational squadron, but their configuration has yet to be determined.
> 
> Lieutenant Colonel Perry Wells, project director, told Jane's : "We recognise that because of the funding cap that is placed on us, we won't have all the operational tanks the same." Forty of the A4 tanks will be used for training, but they "will probably be of a lesser capability", and eight will be reconfigured as ARV 3s, while 12 will be kept as logistics stock in a yet-to-be-determined configuration.
> 
> Lt Col Wells noted that the Leopard 2A6 was designed for tank-on-tank battles, as envisaged in the Cold War, but maintaining the 20 Leopard 2A6 versions is aimed at providing the Canadian Army with the flexibility to deal with any future high-level conventional threat, although "the threat is all around and the likelihood of seeing a high-end tank is pretty low".
> 
> For the more likely asymmetric threat, he said that the tank "doesn't need all this armour, all this stuff on the front" but that "it needs it to be distributed better all around the sides". He added: "That's those 20 which are still to be determined - how are we going to reconfigure them for a more asymmetric threat?"
> 
> ...
> 
> Longer-term requirements for the tank project include modernising the grenade dischargers, upgrading the fire-control system, replacing or upgrading the torsion bars and hydraulic track tensioners and possibly replacing the power pack with the Euro Powerpack as part of a mid-life upgrade. The army may also replace the L55 gun on the A6s with the L44, which is currently used on the A4s.
> 
> Canadian doctrine calls for tanks to be fitted with mine ploughs and mine rollers, and Lt Col Wells said "that is an expectation that [the Canadian] army still has for the Leopard 2", adding: "The challenge will be: can the Leopard 2 take the weight of having that type of implement on the front?"
> 
> Depending on what the structural analysis shows, Lt Col Wells said that they may have to revisit their doctrine. "Maybe we'll have tanks that don't have guns, or have other systems going into theatre that have rollers and ploughs and things [the Expedient Route Opening Capability] and maybe that's what does it for the future Canadian armoured group," he said.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> The 80 Dutch A4 tanks will be modified by Canadian industry "to the maximum extent possible", with the contract to be awarded in November. The initial delivery of 20 tanks and two recovery vehicles is scheduled for 2011.
> 
> The army expects to start a separate project to replace the Badger armoured engineer vehicles and possibly the Beaver armoured bridge layers. According to Wells, that project will run in parallel with the tank project to take advantage of the synergies inherent in them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MCG said:
			
		

> If you dig through the threads on Leopard 2 on this site (probably this thread) you will find that (while the PSO does have pictures of a blade & there is a well coreographed video of it pushing an empty vehicle in perfect perpendicular contact with the tank), the blade on the PSO is relatively fragile and not effective.  TWMP and rollers have not been integrated for use on the Leopard 2, and KMW has indicated that the vehicle is not structurally up to the challenge without modification.



My understanding is that the base hull of a Leo 2 is thicker than the Leo 1. So I would assume the hull is strong enough to take the attachment points and accompanying weight and forces of the plows and rollers. I would suspect that the problem is the total weight or the current weight placement coupled with the added equipment is the problem?


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would suspect that the problem is the total weight or the current weight placement coupled with the added equipment is the problem?


That is a major part of it, but ...





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> My understanding is that the base hull of a Leo 2 is thicker than the Leo 1. So I would assume the hull is strong enough to take the attachment points and accompanying weight and forces of the plows and rollers.


It is not quite that simple as just a factor of hull thickness. As you no doubt can appreciate, varying the structure and/or material of an item can have a significant impact on an items reaction under different types of loads.  Many times, strength in one area is traded away to gain strength in another area (this is particularly true in AFV where the requirement to manage weight limits the ability to needlessly over-engineer).  Items can be designed specifically to provide greater resistance to bending vs twisting (consider 1040 steel I-beam and tube of equal lengths & mass under these types of loads), or strengthening against fatigue could be traded for a greater static load capacity or greater hardness.   We know the armour of the Leopard 2 is different than the Leopard 1 (details to this effect can be found in Jane's) with different material properties.  As the designers were likely focused on the armour protection, the ability to mount implements could have been sacrificed consciously or unintentionally in order to meet weight/mobility requirements.


----------



## ironduke57

MCG said:
			
		

> ... and the Badger AEV (which is in Canadian service) does not breach mine/explosive obstacles.
> ...


I know that. Obstacle clearing is part of the mission of the badger. And any obstacle can be booby trapped. There isn´t always the possibility to send some pioneers/sappers first to check it. 
Regarding minefield breaching you are right. That is the mission of the Keiler/Boar. I didn´t mentioned it in my last as I thought that the original question was more regarding "normal" obstacle reduction.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## geo

Always been our problem...
Because we don't have much in the way of rolling stock, we try to do everything with (almost) nothing... trouble is, we continuously find ourselves challenged with structural problems.

Nothing that a bit of chewing gum, gun tape & baling wire can't solve.


----------



## McG

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Regarding minefield breaching you are right. That is the mission of the Keiler/Boar.


Which goes back to my origional comment.  Without the ability of the Leopard 2 to breach mine obstacles, we will need to re-establish that capability somewhere else with new dedicated platforms, re-allocated PYs and whatever other infrastructure & equipment needs to go along with this.



			
				geo said:
			
		

> Always been our problem...


What has always been our problem?


----------



## geo

Always wanting to tinker with the product..... straight outa the box.

Mind you, It's not a bad problem in itself


----------



## McG

geo said:
			
		

> Always wanting to tinker with the product..... straight outa the box.
> 
> Mind you, It's not a bad problem in itself


I can be if you compromise the armour or become a self-inflicted mobility-kill by forcing the vehicle to do what it cannot.  Chewing gum, gun tape & baling wire cannot solve the Leopard's implement problem.  Attempts using even the proper tools have so far failed.


----------



## geo

Well... IIRC the Leo C2 did fairly well with those same tools.  There are enough Leo 1 hulls stacked up in Longue Pointe to last us a good long while.... Otherwise, we mught just have to breakdown and use what everyone else is using.... which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Just creates a situation of mixed inventory.  The US appear to be happy with their M1A1 Abrams mine plow


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> Well... IIRC the Leo C2 did fairly well with those same tools.  There are enough Leo 1 hulls stacked up in Longue Pointe to last us a good long while.... Otherwise, we mught just have to breakdown and use what everyone else is using.... which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Just creates a situation of mixed inventory.  The US appear to be happy with their M1A1 Abrams mine plow



Some of those Leo 1 hulls are probably awaiting a concrete pad to rest on, or worse.  Many of them are reaching the point that metal fatique is a major concern.


----------



## geo

not sure about that.... stripped of paint, they've been stacked there for a long, long time.... prolly dating back to the time we went from C1 to C2.  For a long while they were stacked up in a faraway corner of the yards - but I noticed (on last visit to the dentist) that they had been moved closer to the actual workshops (but no turrets) ­..... - so I figure that they will either use em or or do something with em...


----------



## Franko

geo said:
			
		

> not sure about that.... stripped of paint, they've been stacked there for a long, long time.... prolly dating back to the time we went from C1 to C2.  For a long while they were stacked up in a faraway corner of the yards - but I noticed (on last visit to the dentist) that they had been moved closer to the actual workshops (but no turrets) ­..... - so I figure that they will either use em or or do something with em...



Maybe sell them to Gillette?       ;D

Regards


----------



## TCBF

geo said:
			
		

> not sure about that.... stripped of paint, they've been stacked there for a long, long time.... prolly dating back to the time we went from C1 to C2.  For a long while they were stacked up in a faraway corner of the yards - but I noticed (on last visit to the dentist) that they had been moved closer to the actual workshops (but no turrets) ­..... - so I figure that they will either use em or or do something with em...



- Are we talking about the original C1 hulls, or the 1A5 hulls used to carry the the C2 turrets off the boat?

 8)


----------



## Lance Wiebe

When we bought the Leo1A5 turrets, we also bought an extra 8 hulls.  Three were to replace three worn out hulls from the C1 fleet, and five were kept for spares.  So having eight hulls laying around would make sense, although three of them are no good.


----------



## TCBF

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> When we bought the Leo1A5 turrets, we also bought an extra 8 hulls.  Three were to replace three worn out hulls from the C1 fleet, and five were kept for spares.  So having eight hulls laying around would make sense, although three of them are no good.



- So, where are all of the 1A5 hulls that were used as "C2 turret prime movers"?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

We sold them back to the Germans.  Most of them were the original Leo 1 hulls, with the rest Leo1A1 hulls.  Those hulls had some differences from the A3 hulls we own.


----------



## GAP

A Bit of an update on the same article by DID

Tanks for the Lesson: Leopards, too, for Canada
10-Mar-2009 13:50 EDT
Article Link

The front part of the article gives the background and information and is interesting, but this seems to added

In the aftermath of their sales to Norway, Denmark, and now Canada, The Dutch will be left with 110 Leopard 2A6-NL tanks in their arsenal [DID: dropping again to 73 if the proposed December 2007 sale to Portugal goes through].

Canada’s 100-tank buy includes 20 Leopard 2A6-NL, and 80 Leopard 2A4s. Why 100? Because Canada’s Department of National Defence believes this is the minimum fleet size to support a deployed tank squadron:


Badger AEV
(click for full photo)40 for deployed operations. The Canadian Forces need 2 combat-ready squadrons of approximately 20 tanks each: one for deployment and a second for rotation into theater to allow for depot repair and overhaul of the first.

40 for training. An additional two squadrons of 20 tanks each are required for collective and individual training in Canada: individual training at the Combat Training Centre at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick and squadron training at CFB Wainwright at the Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre in Alberta. These tanks do not need the same up-armoring conversion as the 2A6Ms, but they do need the same guns ad electronics if training is to be faithful.

20 specialists. The final 20 vehicles will consist of key support vehicles such as armored recovery vehicles (Canada’s Leopard 1 version: Taurus ARV, one was deployed to Afghanistan), armored bridge-laying vehicles (Canada’s Leopard 1 version: Beaver bridge-launcher), and armored engineering vehicles (Canada’s Leopard 1 version: Badger AEV, also deployed to Afghanistan and used in preference to LAV-III engineering vehicles). See DID’s coverage of the Swiss “Geniepanzer” purchase for the Leopard 2 “Kodiak AEV” variant. The 20 Leopard 2A4s would make good Kodiak conversion stock. On the other hand, without turrets that drive a 2015 expiration date, it may be practical for Canada to simply keep many of their existing Badger and Taurus vehicles for this role.

In the end, the 20 specialist vehicles were reduced to 8 ARV-3 Armored Recovery Vehicles, and 12 vehicles used for spare parts.

Next Steps and Updates


Leopard 2A6-PSO
(click to view full)March 10/09: Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper reports that 80 of the 100 new Leopard 2 tanks [the Leopard 2A4s] remain in storage, over a year after the formal contract with the Netherlands, 18 months after the first Leopard 2A6s were shipped to Afghanistan, and over 2 years after the initial agreement in principle. Without even a contract to get them ready for service:

“Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff, said he can not explain why he is still waiting for the badly needed tanks. ...[He] told the Senate committee on national security and defence. “They bought 100 Leopard 2s. Forty are still in Europe and 40 are currently in Montreal and they’ve been in Montreal since I believe November of last year. And I do not yet have my hands on those Leopard 2s with which to train our soldiers.”

Gen. Leslie told senators the government has yet to contract a private firm to do the upgrades required to get the vehicles into service. As a result, soldiers training in Canada must use nearly 40-year-old Leopard 1 tanks, which he said have a breakdown rate of 71 per cent.”

Oct 2/08: Leopard manufacturer Krauss-Maffei Wegman issues a release that discusses Canada’s field experiences in Afghanistan:

”[The 2A6 model’s extra mine-protection] proved its worth in November, 2007, when the Taliban attacked a Canadian Leopard 2A6M-CAN with a large booby trap. The tank did sustain damage, but the entire crew survived. The Canadians had purchased the tank from the German federal army’s inventory. The Canadian commander wrote a letter of thanks to the German ministry of defence, emphasising that survivors would have been highly unlikely in any other vehicle. Canadian Chief of Staff General Rick Hillier also pointed out that the Leopard 2A6M had not been destroyed, but was indeed back in operation after repairs.
More on link


----------



## geo

Are you surprised ?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

geo said:
			
		

> Are you surprised ?



Not in the slightest.  The fact that we would buy equipment with no line of parts is disappointing, but not surprising.


----------



## geo

... how about the buying of 100 MBTs - 20 we give back to the germans....... 
80 Hulls just sitting around after going thru the puchase process in record time.


----------



## McG

geo said:
			
		

> ... how about the buying of 100 MBTs - 20 we give back to the germans.......
> 80 Hulls just sitting around after going thru the puchase process in record time.


We keep the 20 rental tanks that the Germans gave us, so in the end it is 100 tanks.


----------



## geo

and returned to them the 20 Leo2A6s we got from the dutch  

Even stevens..... +/-


----------



## retiredgrunt45

"Deja'Vu". I see nothing has changed with our ridiculous procurement process. 

Purchase the vehicle and then after we've driven them into the ground, some bureaucrat scratches their head and finally clues in that we have no parts to repair them.

I would think that after 8 1/2years in Afghanistan, this would have been the perfect opportunity for someone to clue in and update and revamp our antiquated procurement system.  : Guntape and 5/50 cord may have worked to hold together our vehicles during the cold war years but now real bullets are flying...


----------



## George Wallace

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> "Deja'Vu". I see nothing has changed with our ridiculous procurement process.
> 
> Purchase the vehicle and then after we've driven them into the ground, some bureaucrat scratches their head and finally clues in that we have no parts to repair them.
> 
> I would think that after 8 1/2years in Afghanistan, this would have been the perfect opportunity for someone to clue in and update and revamp our antiquated procurement system.  : Guntape and 5/50 cord may have worked to hold together our vehicles during the cold war years but now real bullets are flying...



Yes.  We have really advanced in this age of technology.  We are now at that stage that you describe without having driven them into the ground.   ;D


----------



## McG

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Purchase the vehicle and then after we've driven them into the ground, some bureaucrat scratches their head and finally clues in that we have no parts to repair them.


To be fair, parts probably were purchased.  However, we are operating the tanks at a higher tempo and over greater distances than the Germans thought was possible and we are doing it in an environment that the tank was not designed for.  Failures in Afghanistan don't match what Leopard 2 user nations have observed operating the tanks in Europe.  The result is that we need more of some parts than could have been predicted (some items which 'never' failed in Europe have shown a patter of frequent failure in Afghanistan).


----------



## Nfld Sapper

MCG said:
			
		

> To be fair, parts probably were purchased.  However, we are operating the tanks at a higher tempo and over greater distances than the Germans thought was possible and we are doing it in an environment that the tank was not designed for.  Failures in Afghanistan don't match what Leopard 2 user nations have observed operating the tanks in Europe.  The result is that we need more of some parts than could have been predicted (some items which 'never' failed in Europe have shown a patter of frequent failure in Afghanistan).



Consider it extended testing on our part. Think about it, we are improving the Leo for them.

My  :2c:


----------



## Kat Stevens

This was the problem when the AEVs and AVLBs were parcelled out in Canada after return from Germany.  In 1CER we had to beg chassis parts from the Strats, and engineer specific parts from Gagetown.  There was no parts establishment for us.  Everyone wanted us in the field all the time, and we bagged our chassis into the ground, with a corresponding VOR state.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

> To be fair, parts probably were purchased.  However, we are operating the tanks at a higher tempo and over greater distances than the Germans thought was possible and we are doing it in an environment that the tank was not designed for.  Failures in Afghanistan don't match what Leopard 2 user nations have observed operating the tanks in Europe.  The result is that we need more of some parts than could have been predicted (some items which 'never' failed in Europe have shown a patter of frequent failure in Afghanistan).



You would have thought that with all those bright minds in Ottawa, they could have figured this out before hand, after all, all we had to do was ask our neighbours to the south for some insight from their experiences in Iraq with their armour. 



> Yes.  We have really advanced in this age of technology.  We are now at that stage that you describe without having driven them into the ground.



Isn't progress great George?  ;D


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> To be fair, parts probably were purchased.  However, we are operating the tanks at a higher tempo and over greater distances than the Germans thought was possible and we are doing it in an environment that the tank was not designed for.  Failures in Afghanistan don't match what Leopard 2 user nations have observed operating the tanks in Europe.  The result is that we need more of some parts than could have been predicted (some items which 'never' failed in Europe have shown a patter of frequent failure in Afghanistan).



This is understandable.  What isn't, is the fact that there are Leo 2s sitting in Montreal for refit and that is not being done.  Someone dropped the ball there.


----------



## geo

... for the CLS to come out in a press conference & bring it out in public (VS private) is something new.  Mind you, it'll be hard to ignore the message that was sent.


----------



## dapaterson

Watching two gunner generals (one serving, one retired) slug it out in public may be amusing to some, but it have long-reaching effects - and not good ones.


----------



## McG

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> You would have thought that with all those bright minds in Ottawa, they could have figured this out before hand, after all, all we had to do was ask our neighbours to the south for some insight from their experiences in Iraq with their armour.


Our neighbours to the south did not fight with Leopard 2.  Their failure data related to the M1's turbine engines & different electronic systems would not be magically transferable to the vehicle we now have.  To point the I-need-to-blame-somebody finger at Ottawa is unrealistic when our problems have taken the whole Leopard 2 user community by surprise.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is understandable.  What isn't, is the fact that there are Leo 2s sitting in Montreal for refit and that is not being done.  Someone dropped the ball there.


The refit has not even gone in front of Treasurey Board yet.  There is absolutely nothing the military or PWGSC can do at the moment.  Wait for June.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

geo said:
			
		

> ... for the CLS to come out in a press conference & bring it out in public (VS private) is something new.  Mind you, it'll be hard to ignore the message that was sent.



Indeed


----------



## George Wallace

Makes sense to me.  Having been exposed as an end user to tanks refitted, refurbished and/or rebuilt in Canada, I think it is a sound plan and very cost effective in the long run.  We can not afford to keep cleaning up faulty or poor workmanship by inexperienced persons just to keep jobs in Canada.  We are in a recession and it is a great savings in Tax dollars to have the job done right the first time by professionals, than two or three times incorrectly by 'amateurs'.


----------



## Love793

I'm sure that Ken Lewenza and the rest of the CAW mafia will be up in arms over this.


----------



## Journeyman

I'm shocked George...simply shocked. You have no faith in the unionized abilities of 'Tanks R Us de Longue-Pointe' to do quality work, on time, on budget?  

No use pork-barreling there anyway; La Pointe-de-l'Île riding voted Bloc, and they wouldn't be grateful for _anything_ the government did, so we may as well get it done right the first time.


----------



## The_Dictat

I go through the Workshop everyday.  I am always amazed by all the kinds of parts they make there.  But it does show that the spare parts supply chain from the original manufacturer is really broken.

As for companies in Canada able to do the work,  Rheinmetall bought Oerlikon in St-Jean.  Perhaps they will retool it for Leo 2 maintenance and refurb.

Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Makes sense to me.  Having been exposed as an end user to tanks refitted, refurbished and/or rebuilt in Canada, I think it is a sound plan and very cost effective in the long run.  We can not afford to keep cleaning up faulty or poor workmanship by inexperienced persons just to keep jobs in Canada.  We are in a recession and it is a great savings in Tax dollars to have the job done right the first time by professionals, than two or three times incorrectly by 'amateurs'.



Well said George!


----------



## geo

I don't think Longue Pointe has anything to do with it.

Public Works & DND tendering has taken forever to get the Leo2s delivered to Canada & upgraded.  To date, there are no contenders to do the job NOW.  Given that that there are no viable contenders NOW, when we need the vehicles NOW, there is only one option.... Having the vehicles upgraded in Germany, by the original manufacturer, NOW.


----------



## Franko

The_Dictat said:
			
		

> As for companies in Canada able to do the work,  Rheinmetall bought Oerlikon in St-Jean.  Perhaps they will retool it for Leo 2 maintenance and refurb.



Rheinmetall is not allowed to work on Leo 2 chassis or turrets, only guns.

Personally I'd rather the Germans working on them and not 202 Paint Shop, having been on the recieving end of their "craftmanship" in the past. Engines being shipped out without pistons in them. Radiators still leaking and only painted....the list is almost endless.

Nope, prefer German expertise working and refurbishing tanks that I have to trust with my and my crew's lives. They both have the knowledge, know-how and dedication to ensure that quality is maintained.

Regards


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We had a 105 howizter delievered from them after the rebuild from C1 to C2, the recoil system failed during firing, luckily while returning to battery, although the gun shoved it's muzzle into the dirt and the trails sticking up in the sky like a 2 dollar hooker's legs. We were in Shilo for black bear at the time, took the gun to the plumbers and helped them strip it down, there was metal shavings in the recoil system that got caught in the seals that had cut grooves into the cylinder wall. It was a good year before we saw that gun again.


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> I don't think Longue Pointe has anything to do with it.




Excuse me!

When we strip down and replace all worn parts on a Leo to send off to Mtl to be rebuilt and get worn, rusted and broken parts back, I would definitely say that there is something wrong with Longue Pointe.  Brand New Track and Pads do not turn into stretched and heavily worn track and pads on a rebuilt.

We did an acceptance inspection of a Leo when it arrived back to the Sqn.  When the Power Pack was raised above the backdeck the ET yelled "STOP!" before it could be swung over the side.  Daylight was visible between the engine and transmission where there should have been none.  There was one inch of metal holding the two halves of the Power Pack together. 

Wrong lubricants, metal filings, .......The list can go on.   

Perhaps there is a saboteur at work in 202 Workshops ?


----------



## Dissident

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Engines being shipped out without pistons in them. Radiators still leaking and only painted....the list is almost endless.



I says pardon!?


----------



## 421 EME

I remember doing acceptance inspections on Cougars turrets that where refurbished at 202 Workshop, and they need more work on them after refurbishment then before. Yeah they had a great paint job but that was it. The job that they did was crap.
 Now, the LAV III's that we are getting back from refurbishment from GDLS in Ed are almost like brandnew. My hats off to GDLS in Ed, they do the job the right way.


----------



## geo

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Excuse me!



The point I was making is that Longue Pointe was not in the running for doing the work.  This was supposed to be going out to a public tender - through the services of Public Works Canada.

Longue Pointe has nothing to do with this..... (this time!)

Am not particularly pro OR con Longue Pointe & 202 Workshop... though I should point out that, given the last CDS' position on the Leopard.... IE that it was going to be disposed of & replaced by something akin to a LAV... IE the MGS.  

It is obvious that, given our dwindeling interest in Tanks might have had something to do with the loss of expertise in Civy & Military personnel knowing the difference between the front & rear end of a Tank.


----------



## McG

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Rheinmetall is not allowed to work on Leo 2 chassis or turrets, only guns.


Maybe in Europe.  For North America, your statement is incorrect.  In fact, I believe there is a Rheinmetall agreement with KMW that they should do the work if it is done in Canada.

MCG's prediction:  The government sticks to its 'all work in Canada' promise in order to avoid embarrassment.  We see Rheinmetall win the competition & take a year to build the line and train workers.  We then see all work completed two years after that.  The plant, at this point now without enough work to keep itself open, pleading with the government for something so that its employees do not all loose their jobs.  Throwing them a bone, the government directs DND to upgrade to the training tanks to operational standard &  to fund it by cutting the money out of our existing budget.  Another year later, all tanks are upgraded to Canadian Op Stock standard, the line is close (all employees out of work), and the CF is without some critical capability because the money was spent on a make employment project with the training tanks.


----------



## Kat Stevens

geo said:
			
		

> The point I was making is that Longue Pointe was not in the running for doing the work.  This was supposed to be going out to a public tender - through the services of Public Works Canada.
> 
> Longue Pointe has nothing to do with this..... (this time!)
> 
> Am not particularly pro OR con Longue Pointe & 202 Workshop... though I should point out that, given the last CDS' position on the Leopard.... IE that it was going to be disposed of & replaced by something akin to a LAV... IE the MGS.
> 
> It is obvious that, given our dwindeling interest in Tanks might have had something to do with the loss of expertise in Civy & Military personnel knowing the difference between the front & rear end of a Tank.



That's a load.  There have been Leo chassis of one sort or another in Canada since the 70s, and 202 has never got a refurb right yet.


----------



## geo

Kat,
Not arguing with you.
Canada hasn't demonstrated much interests in tanks over the last many years... regardless of the some sort or another.

During the time of CFEurope, most all tanks were kept in Germany - with some in Gagetown.
When CFEurope was shut down, the Leo C2s were distributed (for a short little while) across the country... without any critical mass... then were "all" scooped up and sent to Wainwright - bleak prospects for the Tanks at that time.

It takes a long time to develop the expertise to maintain something like the Leo2 & given the hot/cold/hotitude we gave the Leo C2s over the years, I am not at all surprised we have reached the point where we couldn't / can't support ourlesves.


----------



## The Bread Guy

1)  From the latest CF Backgrounder on the Leopard purchase:


> (....) Phase 2 – Repair/Upgrades
> 
> The extension of the Afghan mission from 2009 until 2011, announced in March 2008, created a need to rotate the 20 Leopard 2A6s currently used in theatre.  The 20 tanks have been serving in the harsh Afghan conditions for the last two years and as such, they are scheduled to be rotated out of theatre in 2010 for repair and overhaul.
> 
> The original equipment manufacturer, Krauss Maffei-Wegmann of Germany, was contracted to conduct the urgent repair and overhaul and upgrade work.  This urgent contract, valued at $86.9 million (CAD), was awarded in June 2009 to Krauss Maffei-Wegmann.
> 
> Krauss Maffei-Wegmann will perform repair and overhaul and essential, specific Canadian mission upgrades to 20 of the Leopard 2 A4 tanks acquired from the Netherlands, still located in a climate-controlled facility in the Netherlands.  The immediate repair and overhaul will be conducted at Krauss Maffei-Wegmann’s facilities in Germany.  From Germany, the 20 tanks will be deployed to Afghanistan in 2010.
> 
> The Industrial and Regional Benefits Policy applies to all Phase 2 contracts, including the two contracts awarded to Krauss Maffei-Wegmann.  This means that the company must generate one dollar of economic activity in Canada for every dollar of their contract.
> 
> Phase 2 of the Tank Replacement Project also presents excellent opportunities for Canadian industry.  Contracts will be competed for the repair, overhaul and conversion of up to 50 tanks purchased from the Netherlands, and the repair and overhaul of the former German tanks being rotated out of Afghanistan.  Furthermore, in-service support for the tanks will be required for the next 30 years, which Canadian industry will have the opportunity to provide.
> 
> (....)
> 
> When completed, the Canadian Forces Leopard 2 fleet of 100 tanks will be made up of the following:
> * 40 tanks for use on operations (2 squadrons)
> * 42 tanks for use in training in Canada (2 squadrons)
> * 8 Armoured Recovery Vehicles (“tow-trucks” for tanks)
> * 10 additional tanks for use in force mobility



2)  From MERX:


> .... The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for the Repair and Overhaul (R&O) of 42 Leopard 2 A4 Training Tanks (Leo 2 A4 Trg Tanks) to return them to serviceability. The Work will consist of, without being limited to, Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), testing of the turret and chassis, R&O Work of critical components, and Integrated Logistics Support (ILS). The expected minimal throughput for this R&O program is six (6) Leo 2 A4 Trg Tanks every three (3) months starting one (1) year after Contract award.
> 
> A mandatory bidders' conference and vehicle viewing will take place in Montreal, Canada, Monday, 14 December, 2009 to Thursday, 17 December, 2009. Failure to attend the bidder's conference and vehicle viewing will render bidders non-responsive ....


----------



## X-mo-1979

* 40 tanks for use on operations (2 squadrons)
Please say Petawawa please say Petawawa.
Anyone heard anything concrete on this? I have been on leave for...well a long time.


----------



## George Wallace

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> * 40 tanks for use on operations (2 squadrons)
> Please say Petawawa please say Petawawa.
> Anyone heard anything concrete on this? I have been on leave for...well a long time.



 >  You do remember where three Sqns landed up.........and what has since happened to them all?


----------



## Franko

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> * 40 tanks for use on operations (2 squadrons)
> Please say Petawawa please say Petawawa.
> Anyone heard anything concrete on this? I have been on leave for...well a long time.



Wonder how many bridges in Pet, Gagetown, Valcartier, Wainwright, Edmonton are up to a minimum of 70 tons....great to have them on a base. Too bad they'll be staying on base until the bridge classes and culverts are brought up to spec.

Now what if one gets stuck? We have no ARV 3s on the way anytime soon either.

Seeing that no base in Canada has the infrastructure nor the support to maintain them yet, I don't think anything concrete will come out any time soon.

Regards


----------



## KJK

As far as bridges go in western Canada : AB unless otherwise posted all bridges are good to 202,000#, SK and MB have to be approved by the bridge department @ 154000#, BC - the Yellowhead corridor from Jasper to Vancouver over the Coq are restricted to 161,500# and the rest of the province 140,000#

ON - I can't remember other than I have had permits for more than 180,000#. I'm not sure if it had to go to the bridge department.

KJK


----------



## Franko

KJK said:
			
		

> As far as bridges go in western Canada : AB unless otherwise posted all bridges are good to 202,000#, SK and MB have to be approved by the bridge department @ 154000#, BC - the Yellowhead corridor from Jasper to Vancouver over the Coq are restricted to 161,500# and the rest of the province 140,000#
> 
> ON - I can't remember other than I have had permits for more than 180,000#. I'm not sure if it had to go to the bridge department.
> 
> KJK



So these are not the bridges in any of the training areas then right?         

Regards


----------



## KJK

I wouldn't exactly say that. I been in the Primrose Lake Air Weapons Range At 180,000# and CFB Suffield at 160,000+.


FWIW All roads and bridges in AB are legal at 140,000# unless otherwise specified. If you are saying that the DND has different rules, fine I can't say one way or the other. I have however hauled a lot of heavy equipment onto both ranges without any issue. Range control seemed more concerned that we didn't touch anything that might explode or wander into areas where we might have a live bomb dropped on us or be hit by a live tank round than they ever were about the size or weight of the equipment.

KJK


----------



## dapaterson

Short version:  You know not of what you speak.

Longer version:  Training areas and their bridges are more than merely the main raods in the areas.  Tanks generally avoid the highways - too many speed traps (note: this is a joke) - and thus travel along other routes.  It is those bridges that require replacement, as most were built for the old Leo C2 max weight; the Leo II is heavier.


----------



## KJK

DA - If those god forsaken goatpaths that I was on in the ranges are the main roads then I understand why you would need a tracked vehicle for the rest.   Yes, I am familiar with the weight difference between the C2 and the Leo II. But I concede the point.

As an aside the company I worked for has in fact hauled a couple of the LSH tanks including the Sherman. We also bid on the contract for hauling the Leopards to NB when they went to get their new turrets. 

KJK


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Not sure what classes are the bridges in most training areas but wrt the ACROW Bridge, the standard CF Acrow bridge is capable of carrying MLC 60. And IIRC the CF bought the DSR2H version of the ACROW.


----------



## X-mo-1979

As long as there is a RCD squadron again I have hope for the future. 

Making roads in the training area for the Leo 2....give me a badger, a plow and two months. ;D
Send me some cement culverts on "dump 1" on occasion.


----------



## Franko

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Send me some cement culverts on "dump 1" on occasion.



 :rofl:


----------



## The Bread Guy

This, from the _Ottawa Citizen_:


> Industry representatives will meet in Montreal at the end of the month to examine Leopard 2 A4 tanks now in storage as the Defence Department prepares to ask for bids on the repair and overhaul of 42 of the vehicles.
> 
> The tanks would be used for training Canadian Army crews in Canada. The meeting between Defence Department officials and industry representatives will take place Jan. 26, according to documents provided to _Defence Watch_.
> 
> Government technicians have produced reports on the state of the used tanks and will provide those to interested companies. The contract would be for various maintenance work, testing of the turret and chassis, work on critical components and integrated logistics support ....



More on bidders' meeting in attached bid document obtained by Milnet.ca.


----------



## 1911CoLt45

In the link below it states under , LEOPARD 2 IN FOREIGN SERVICE it states that in the second last sentence is says that Canada will be buying 100 used Leopard 2A4's from Holland.  Can any one comment on the validity of this statement and if they have seen any progression towards this move to replace or possibly add to Canada's armour capabilities.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Pics/Leopard-2-1980.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm&usg=__63WOrV93TZhAB5CgTvaFjh0NCiI=&h=274&w=600&sz=46&hl=en&start=29&um=1&tbnid=rwf075MdSk-DuM:&tbnh=62&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dleopard%2Btank%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D21%26um%3D1about:blank


----------



## ajp

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0407/news/160407_leo2.htm

I think this sums it up nicely.  Its a 2007 update, so its not NEW News at all.


----------



## ajp

http://www.casr.ca/bg-leopard2-netherlands.htm

And this one has more.


----------



## 1911CoLt45

Thanks AJP , Are you in RCD?  If so have you sceen any about in Petawawa.


----------



## ajp

I am not in Pet.  I am not at the Armour School either, but I believe they have a few there, but have not heard that they are training on them yet, I suspect there are more qualified pers to comment on that.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

ajp said:
			
		

> I am not in Pet.  I am not at the Armour School either, but I believe they have a few there, but have not heard that they are training on them yet, I suspect there are more qualified pers to comment on that.



When I left Gagetown in late OCT 09 there was still no 2A4's in Gagetown.... there was still some rolling stock of Leopard C2's though.....

Maybe DerPanzer can comment on if there are any LEO2 A4's at the school now.....


----------



## REDinstaller

None at the Strathconas either. We were supposed to have 5 in Aug 2009.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

There are some at the School.


----------



## Franko

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> When I left Gagetown in late OCT 09 there was still no 2A4's in Gagetown.... there was still some rolling stock of Leopard C2's though.....
> 
> Maybe DerPanzer can comment on if there are any LEO2 A4's at the school now.....



There are 4 Leo2A4s at the school. They won't be rolling around any time soon due to lack of parts, recovery and qualified pers to work on them. 

The replacement / refurb program is underway, it's just going to take some time.

Regards


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> There are 4 Leo2A4s at the school. They won't be rolling around any time soon due to lack of parts, recovery and qualified pers to work on them.
> 
> The replacement / refurb program is underway, it's just going to take some time.
> 
> Regards



Thx for the update!


----------



## The Bread Guy

...according to attached amendment document obtained by Milnet.ca.


----------



## The Bread Guy

....according to an official speaking to _Jane's_:


> Canada is to field its upgraded Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks (MBTs) in Afghanistan later this year, according to military officials.
> 
> Lt Col Alan Bolster, Director Land Requirements 3, Armoured Fighting Vehicle Systems, revealed the information during a briefing at the IQPC International Armoured Vehicles conference held in London in February.
> 
> Canada has leased 20 Leopard 2A6M MBTs from the German Army, of which 19 were deployed to Afghanistan and one retained by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann in Germany as a reference model ....


----------



## ironduke57

How much will be send? Will they replace the tanks already there?

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Franko

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ....according to an official speaking to _Jane's_:



Hmmm....one question: and we're pulling out _when_?

I think someone in Jane's neck of the woods quoted him incorrectly.

Regards


----------



## SeanNewman

Sorry I haven't read the rest of this thread, but there are few things that reassure you as much when looking out the LAV3 air sentry hatch and seeing this behind you:


----------



## mariomike

Awesome machine in the pic above. Imagine seeing that in your rear-view mirror!


----------



## MaDB0Y_021

mariomike said:
			
		

> Awesome machine in the pic above. Imagine seeing that in your rear-view mirror!



Oh yeah, that tank's sweet!


----------



## vonGarvin

That pic says it all!  I mean, seeing the "danger: curve ahead" sign is probably saving dozens of lives a year! ;D

(just kidding: awesome pic!)


----------



## SeanNewman

Why thank you.  I took it myself when I probably should have been covering my arcs a little better.

I didn't want to post it in high res and jam up everyone's bandwidth, but it makes it hard to see the awesome crew commander cam net umbrella.

That was moving east on a very well-known route named after a foreign beer and has a giant moutain range that skirts the road on the north.

Before going there I was very COIN-centric that we were going the wrong way with tanks (damaging farmers' fields, more admin supply, less boots on the ground, etc), then I had two IEDs go off beside me triggered by a guy behind a mud wall.  The tank that was just hit traversed and blew a 3m x 3m hole in the wall.  Trigger man gone, Petamocto lives on to say how awesome tanks are, and to annoy all of you fine people.


----------



## PanaEng

mariomike said:
			
		

> Awesome machine in the pic above. Imagine seeing that in your rear-view mirror!


"WARNING: IMAGES IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR"


----------



## Franko

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Sorry I haven't read the rest of this thread, but there are few things that reassure you as much when looking out the LAV3 air sentry hatch and seeing this behind you:



Would you mind throwing it up? That panzer looks rather familiar......

Regards


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Would you mind throwing it up? That panzer looks rather familiar......
> 
> Regards



Yours DP?


----------



## SeanNewman

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Would you mind throwing it up? That panzer looks rather familiar......



Sure, I have tons.  For OpSec reasons I can not really give any details that go along with these photos, since they show defensive structures.  
















Added:  Even though this is not the L 2A6, it's still my favourite tank photo from the tour.  It's not out of focus, it's the dust/haze from my LAV and him.


----------



## Franko

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Yours DP?



I think so, can't make out the fume extractor marking though. It looks like it could have been another troop's.

Now the second one in Petamocto photos was mine. Trying to remember which OP that was on just for shits and giggles.

Regards


----------



## 1feral1

WRT the cam-net shade shelter thingo, on our tour in Baghdad we learned that in MOUT, with Murphy's Law, that thrown grenades, incendiairies, and other similar devices could end up hung up in the cam net or support structure, causing unfortunate incidents over open hatches. 

Also, if there was POL jerry cans on the outside, near these shelters, when a nasty was detonated, they too could start the cam net thingos on fire, along with other equipment and material,  and I remember quite vividly a similar shelter on a Stryker, placed over the crew area, which indeed did catch on fire after an indendiary incident (along with other equipment), severely burning several soldiers as they tried to escape. 

Hence all Australian shade shelters were removed from Type 1 (turret w/25mm M242 configuration) ASLAV under the orders of our ASM, to some rather unhappy blokes that their 'LCF shade shields' were indeed coming down no matter how hard they fought, that being said, only after the news of the burns from the Stryker broke, they humbly changed their minds.

I know an ASLAV is not a MBT, but just a thought

OWDU


----------



## Jammer

As a general rule we aren't rolling pz though a MOUT type environment...much too large to manouver effectively through...thus the sunshades really aren't exposed to that type of threat... excellent point though for crews of TLAVS and the sort.

DP...OP-2


----------



## Franko

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> WRT the cam-net shade shelter thingo, on our tour in Baghdad we learned that in MOUT, with Murphy's Law, that thrown grenades, incendiairies, and other similar devices could end up hung up in the cam net or support structure, causing unfortunate incidents over open hatches.
> 
> Also, if there was POL jerry cans on the outside, near these shelters, when a nasty was detonated, they too could start the cam net thingos on fire, along with other equipment and material,  and I remember quite vividly a similar shelter on a Stryker, placed over the crew area, which indeed did catch on fire after an indendiary incident (along with other equipment), severely burning several soldiers as they tried to escape.
> 
> Hence all Australian shade shelters were removed from Type 1 (turret w/25mm M242 configuration) ASLAV under the orders of our ASM, to some rather unhappy blokes that their 'LCF shade shields' were indeed coming down no matter how hard they fought, that being said, only after the news of the burns from the Stryker broke, they humbly changed their minds.
> 
> I know an ASLAV is not a MBT, but just a thought
> 
> OWDU



We never operated in areas where that was a concern at all. Never carried jerry cans of fuel either. A couple 100 liters of fuel doesn't make a dent in a vehicle that takes over 1100L to fill.

Regards


----------



## SeanNewman

Yes that is the impression I got as well (that the manouevre area is the open desert for the most part).

The "one" city is rarely traversed by the Leos, but I do see some merit to what he's saying in the populated area just to the east of where they have been parked.

If you've driven through there you've likely been pelted with rocks like I have with kids ducking in alleys or lobbing them over the tall walls.

I suppose it's not that much of a stretch to think it could be a grenade, but I'm sure it's just a matter of taking them down for those 5 minutes.  If I'm a tanker and know I'm going to be in the open desert for several hours then I think it's a great idea.

MarioMike,

Thank you for the kind words, but I'm certainly not in the crowd who risked the most.  Yes IEDs are killing more than anyone else, but the BG rolls with LAVs, tanks, engineers, and more layered air cover than has ever been seen in war.

The guys who really deserve the back pats are the OMLT troops who rely on good old fashioned soldiering day in and day out on their feet and living among the people.


----------



## Franko

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Yes that is the impression I got as well (that the manouevre area is the open desert for the most part).
> 
> The "one" city is rarely traversed by the Leos, but I do see some merit to what he's saying in the populated area just to the east of where they have been parked.
> 
> If you've driven through there you've likely been pelted with rocks like I have with kids ducking in alleys or lobbing them over the tall walls.
> 
> I suppose it's not that much of a stretch to think it could be a grenade, but I'm sure it's just a matter of taking them down for those 5 minutes.  If I'm a tanker and know I'm going to be in the open desert for several hours then I think it's a great idea.



True enough. 

Although we normally rolled before day break/ just after or early evening and  the umbrellas were collapsed....so it's a mute point. 

I was more worried about the RPG, SAF and IED threat to be honest.

In the desert for several hours? Naw, try over 18 in one day during one OP. 70 tons gets real hot and retains it's heat overnight. That little umbrella allows the crews to be a little less sun-fucked and able to concentrate on the important things....like covering the boys conducting the operations.

Regards


----------



## SeanNewman

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> In the desert for several hours? Naw, try over 18 in one day during one OP...



Haha, yes I guess I should have been less vague than "several".

I am all for anything you can do to alleviate duration-based stress that results in inattentiveness/fatigue.


----------



## 1feral1

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> We never operated in areas where that was a concern at all. Never carried jerry cans of fuel either. A couple 100 liters of fuel doesn't make a dent in a vehicle that takes over 1100L to fill.
> 
> Regards



Very true WRT the fuel tank amount, ha! Thats a good way to put it. But, I guess we did things different, as we carried Jerry cans of diesel, and OMD-13 on ASLAVs, along with Jerry cans of the more precious H2O.

Of all the M1's Bradleys, and M109's I observed in the city and surrounding areas, I seen no shade shelters, but on the smaller veh's like the Humvee's they (US) used them often (and they were made locally in Army workshops), and I can remember (sadly) not long before our RIP came in, on a local patrol out of our FOB (Union III), an insurgent had lobbed a frag on to this vehicle, and it rested in the shade shelter cam net (supported by chain link) and detonated, killing the bloke in the turret of the Humvee. There was nothing he could do but attempt to take cover.

The advantage to these shade shelters aside from the obvious was to darken the area of the vulnerable person exposed, and worked as a sniper deterrant, and that part was sucessful. The crewman under the shelter could see out, but it was difficult to see in. 

Anyways just a point to place in the back of your minds shopuld any of you use these shelters on different types of vehicles in MOUT scenerios.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## SeanNewman

I suppose the counter-argument to that (grenade sticking) point could be that it might also provide some protection against it, too (?).  Thinking of a scenario where an enemy pops out on a 3rd or 4th floor window and tries to drop a grenade Molitov Cocktail style on a vehicle passing by below.  Who knows.

Getting back to the conditions and stress-based fatigue, I think what buddy mentioned above about that soldier not getting sun-f___ed is a huge factor.  As mentioned, the vehicle is hot enough as it is, then add the stationary fatigue of standing (air sentry) or sitting (raised crew seat) for 12+ hours without walking around, and you've got all sorts of problems that make that person less and less effective, but add 12+ hours of super-hot sun to that equation and now you're really crippling that guy to be able to be vigilant and alert.

*Note: I'm still a light fighter at heart and of course I'm conditioned to think that anyone driving is weak..._until I see a tank blow a hole in a mud wall killing a trigger man._  Anything we can give those guys to keep them protecting Infantry I say "sure".


----------



## Franko

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I suppose the counter-argument to that (grenade sticking) point could be that it might also provide some protection against it, too (?).  Thinking of a scenario where an enemy pops out on a 3rd or 4th floor window and tries to drop a grenade Molitov Cocktail style on a vehicle passing by below.  Who knows.



True enough. The big thing is some things that are GTG in Afghanistan would be not on in Iraq and vice-versa.

But that's not what this thread is about, so I digress.



> Getting back to the conditions and stress-based fatigue, I think what buddy mentioned above about that soldier not getting sun-f___ed is a huge factor.  As mentioned, the vehicle is hot enough as it is, then add the stationary fatigue of standing (air sentry) or sitting (raised crew seat) for 12+ hours without walking around, and you've got all sorts of problems that make that person less and less effective, but add 12+ hours of super-hot sun to that equation and now you're really crippling that guy to be able to be vigilant and alert.



With the temperatures sometimes soaring to the +70C range in Leo C2s and Leo2s it's more or less a way to cope with staving off heat stroke. The cooling vests and umbrella (which is part of the Barracuda kit) are a necessity.....not a nicety.

Regards


----------



## 1feral1

Yes the heat stress was a bastard. It would often be 48C by 0800, and climb into the low 50's by 1000h. I was often in the shooter/operator role in Type 2 and 3 ASLAVs, with the daily heat, then body armour, nomex gloves and anti-flash hood, CVC helmet, EPS goggles, and then the wind which assisted the heat index, one could dehydrate quicky. We always had heaps of water. A normal day on the outide meant about 10 litres of water gulped over the period of a day, which that water turned hot in a matter of minutes from a cold bottle, but as long as it was wet. All this then with the physical part of doing one's job by constantly covering his arcs, playing the hard target as per our TTPs.

Yes, it often reached 70C inside the ASLAVs too, which did not use their air-conditioning due to power loss and possible overheating, so all there was on the inside was small fans. The driver was always buttoned up, and the C/Comd on T2 and T3's was down also monitering his RWS screen. Only on the T1 were the Gnr and C/Comd exposed, and the shooter/Ops in T2 and T3's, so there was also a lot of dust to be eaten.

No cooling vests either, as at the time we were over there (06-07), the chemicals in the vest were toxic and fatal if introduced to the body via shrapnel, so the idea was shelved.

At times, in QRF mode, we'd wait under a tree lined street in some local f'd up neighbourhood to roll in and assist our sister patrol, if/when they got brassed up. That was kind of a treat in a way, as there was no wind or dust, but then being static for at times a few hours in a unhappy area had its drawbacks with sniper and SVBIED threat increasing.

Oh, the good ole days.

Cheers,

OWDU


----------



## vonGarvin

Slightly OT, but the whole "It was 50+ C in Kandahar" and other temperature "enhancements" I've seen in this thread, and others, is just too much to handle anymore.
According to the BBC, the record high for Kandahar was 44 degrees C.  Now, I don't care who you are or where you are, but that it HOT!  Yes, your thermometer may read higher, but let us not forget that it may be getting heat from other sources, and they aren't as accurate as a meteorologist's.

Anyway, yeah, tanks.  In the sun, it's friggin' hot.  70 degrees?  We're talking death.


----------



## SeanNewman

I do agree that the air temperature padding does exist, but that does not mean a soldier can not operate in conditions that are above that.

If the air temperature is 44C, UV rays can still be reflected and absorbed by materials sush as a vehicle or clothing so the actual air the soldier is breating and touching may be hotter.

The general air temperture may be 40C, but if you are holding a thermometer in a tank hatch and it's showing 50, then that soldier's body is in 50 degree temps redargless of what the air temp is in the rest of the atmosphere or even 10 feet away.


----------



## Franko

Wonder who is going to get the other batch in Europe. Hopefully they will be done in situ by experienced teams.

Regards


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Wonder who is going to get the other batch in Europe. Hopefully they will be done in situ by experienced teams.



Two prototypes of the Leo2A4 Ops have been produced already.


----------



## Franko

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Two prototypes of the Leo2A4 Ops have been produced already.



Are they the one's that Chuck is going to see?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

He's already been there, and has lots of pictures!


----------



## Tank Troll

I see they have rollers and mine ploughs on the ones in theater now also


----------



## SeanNewman

Really?  If so good news.

I'm not a tanker, but two years ago it was not the 2A6s with the rollers but the older (smaller) variants.

On of my best memories was seeing a Leo (C2 I think) take an IED hit on the roller, shake it off, then traverse to 3 o'clock and blow a 6' wide hole in the mud wall where the trigger man was.


----------



## ironduke57

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> He's already been there, and has lots of pictures!



Post pix or it didn´t happen! :clubinhand:

SCNR ;D

But really some pix would be really nice. 

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## vonGarvin

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Really?  If so good news.
> 
> I'm not a tanker, but two years ago it was not the 2A6s with the rollers but the older (smaller) variants.
> 
> On of my best memories was seeing a Leo (C2 I think) take an IED hit on the roller, shake it off, then traverse to 3 o'clock and blow a 6' wide hole in the mud wall where the trigger man was.


It would have been a C2. 

Interestingly, the Leo 2 was never intended to breach, as the German concept was for Engineers to do that.


----------



## dapaterson

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Interestingly, the Leo 2 was never intended to breach, as the German concept was for Engineers to do that.



So, if the German engineers do breaches, does that mean the German artillery handles indirect fire like, oh ,mortars?  >


----------



## REDinstaller

Different strokes for different folks. The Germans also tinkered with a Mine flail mounted on a Leo1 chassis. Looked cool, but don't know if it made it in to full production.


----------



## McG

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> I see they have rollers and mine ploughs on the ones in theater now also


I know we managed to put the rollers on, but last I'd heard (information is now 1 year old) both the project and KMW were saying the tank cannot take the ploughs.  Any pictures?



			
				Tango18A said:
			
		

> The Germans also tinkered with a Mine flail mounted on a Leo1 chassis. Looked cool, but don't know if it made it in to full production.


Actually, the Kieler was based on an M48A2 hull as the tank had been retired from German service but the hull offered superior mine protection.


----------



## STONEY

Not all Leopard 2's are in Montreal  there was a leopard 2a4 at the Shearwater air show still in Dutch paint job.

As an interesting aside the Leopard C2 demo (firing blanks while on move) had to be cancelled on the second day of the airshow because a kid crawling around the tank broke it (disabling turret drive ).  For an airshow there was far more Army equipment on display than Air Force ( 1   C177, 1  Seaking &  1 Harvard II)   

Cheers


----------



## ArmyRick

With a sea king on display, all the grand pappys who used to be in the Navy back in the fifties and sixties must of gotten nostalgic at seeing such an old bird still serving. On that note, what level of CD does an aircraft with 50+ years service get (CD 4th clasp?)


----------



## The Bread Guy

KMW delivers 20 upgraded Leopard 2 main battle tanks to Canada


> Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) has handed over the first of 20 Leopard 2 A4M CAN modernised battle tanks to the Canadian armed forces yesterday, October 7th 2010. The roll-out took place in the presence of the Canadian military representative, Vice Admiral Denis Rouleau, the deputy armed forces inspector, lieutenant-general Bruno Kasdorf, and numerous other representatives of the Canadian and German army on training area at Bergen near Hannover (Germany). The next deployment location for the Canadian Leopards will be Afghanistan.
> 
> On the occasion of the roll-out, Brigadier-General Steve Bowes, Commander of the Canadian Land Force Atlantic Area said: "The complexity of the contemporary operational environment has done nothing to dimish the importance of armour supporting the combined arms team. Canadians are proud to serve our nation and support our allies abroad with the best main battle tank Leopard 2 for today's complex operational environment."


From a sidebar to the news release:





> KMW delivers 20 upgraded LEOPARD 2 to Canada
> - Tanks will be sent straight to Afghanistan - Deployment in urban terrain also guaranteed - Development, upgrading and delivery in less than one year  [ next ]


Photo from the company's web page:


----------



## PuckChaser

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> With a sea king on display, all the grand pappys who used to be in the Navy back in the fifties and sixties must of gotten nostalgic at seeing such an old bird still serving. On that note, what level of CD does an aircraft with 50+ years service get (CD 4th clasp?)



It doesn't get a medal, the crews that have to fly in it should get one though....


----------



## dogger1936

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Really?  If so good news.
> 
> I'm not a tanker, but two years ago it was not the 2A6s with the rollers but the older (smaller) variants.
> 
> On of my best memories was seeing a Leo (C2 I think) take an IED hit on the roller, shake it off, then traverse to 3 o'clock and blow a 6' wide hole in the mud wall where the trigger man was.



Gee that seems really familiar! The worst thing was waiting for the roller to come back as it had a little ding in it. Had to go to kaf to get xrayed.


----------



## dogger1936

As for the umbrella I never used the darn thing. When it was mounted on a C2 after  Iwas done getting hit by a mortar  I tried to close my hatch...only to find with the bracket mounted for the umbrella it wouldnt close!  I found the cooling vest was the saviour and hated that umbrella.


----------



## NavyShooter

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It doesn't get a medal, the crews that have to fly in it should get one though....



Seen the air-crew patch they did up a few years ago?

"Flying yesterday's technology Tomorrow"

A bloody shame.

NS


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting note from the article that Toni posted for those concerned about the Leo 2 being able to conduct breaching operations.  They seem to have found a fix.



> The main focus of the new design was consistent protection of the crews, who are subjected to enemy attacks with powerful anti-tank projectiles and are in constant danger from mines and IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices). The starting point for the protection concept is outstanding protection from mines and good all-round protection.
> 
> *Furthermore, the capabilities of the new battle tank have been significantly extended by integrating a pioneer equipment interface. Mine rollers, mine ploughs and dozer blades * allow the Canadian armed forces to carry out a wide range of dangerous tasks in spite of the small number of heavy vehicles. Provisions have also been made for deployment in the extreme heat of southern Afghanistan.


----------



## dogger1936

They have been for near 2 years.


----------



## Kirkhill

I've always been a bit slow.....


----------



## ironduke57

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> KMW delivers 20 upgraded Leopard 2 main battle tanks to CanadaFrom a sidebar to the news releasehoto from the company's web page:


Bigger pics:










Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## SevenSixTwo

It's beautiful, although it is odd not seeing the A6 armour on the turret on a CF Leo 2. Thanks for the bigger pictures.


----------



## George Wallace

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> It's beautiful, although it is odd not seeing the A6 armour on the turret on a CF Leo 2. Thanks for the bigger pictures.



"Add-on Armour" is just that; add-on.  It doesn't really matter what model the tank is, as long as the turret and hull are configured to take the armour.


----------



## Franko

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> It's beautiful, although it is odd not seeing the A6 armour on the turret on a CF Leo 2. Thanks for the bigger pictures.



I'm sure the birdcage will get mounted as soon as it hits KAF.

Regards


----------



## SevenSixTwo

George Wallace said:
			
		

> "Add-on Armour" is just that; add-on.  It doesn't really matter what model the tank is, as long as the turret and hull are configured to take the armour.



I didn't mean the additional slat armour (bird cage) we put on in Afghanistan. I meant the A6's armour vs. the A4's armour.

Reference 2A4: http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.armyvehicles.dk/images/leopard2a4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.armyvehicles.dk/leopard2a4.htm&h=287&w=428&sz=29&tbnid=cgzLQH2RB8bCGM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dleopard%2B2a4&zoom=1&q=leopard+2a4&hl=en&usg=__MRKsbeTjJi9vrNeHhKg99FdUumQ=&sa=X&ei=VmOyTPytGo6nnQfJ5Mj2BQ&ved=0CBsQ9QEwAA

vs.


Reference 2A6: http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2a6.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2a6.htm&h=374&w=600&sz=41&tbnid=zLOD4aZrJ_rPwM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dleopard%2B2a6&zoom=1&q=leopard+2a6&hl=en&usg=__ev6CdoYqJjSsIe96nyrwNdw8-Jw=&sa=X&ei=gGOyTMKCOJKinQeeou2BBg&ved=0CBwQ9QEwAg

Unless of course you were actaully talking about this armour.

EDIT: Nevermind I am just foolish. I didn't recognize it had the A6 armour upgrades on the turret already in the pictures.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit more from an online defence publication:


> .... It is the first deployment in which the Leopard 2 has been exposed to several attacks, particularly with improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Major André Picard of the Canadian Equipment Management Ram for Heavy Armoured Vehicles told defpro.com at a KMW celebration for the tank’s 30-year anniversary (see http://goo.gl/VJ3T) that the Leopards had suffered an unnamed number of IED hits and were involved in several attacks by insurgents. Picard did not confirm any attacks with rocket propelled grenades (RPGs), which have become one of the major threats in the combat zones of Afghanistan. However, he emphasised that troops are very satisfied with the tank and its show of force and fire power has significantly helped to suppress attacks. Picard confirmed in 2009 that Canada would keep the Leopard 2 in the Afghan theatre as long as the mission continues ....


More here.


----------



## McG

So, Is the 2A4 CAN more like a 2A4(+) or a 2A5(-)?
I see from the pictures that we did not adopt the more capable commander's sight of the 2A5 & 2A6.  So, what upgrades did we go with?


----------



## Franko

MCG said:
			
		

> So, Is the 2A4 CAN more like a 2A4(+) or a 2A5(-)?
> I see from the pictures that we did not adopt the more capable commander's sight of the 2A5 & 2A6.  So, what upgrades did we go with?



There are a few that can't be/ shouldn't be discussed here.       

Regards


----------



## PuckChaser

> Furthermore, the capabilities of the new battle tank have been significantly extended by integrating a pioneer equipment interface. Mine rollers, mine ploughs and dozer blades allow the Canadian armed forces



Assuming we have the applicable equipment/Leo1 C2 equipment is compatible, perhaps we can finally get the Leo1 C2s back to Canada and use the safer vehicles.


----------



## Franko

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Assuming we have the applicable equipment/Leo1 C2 equipment is compatible, perhaps we can finally get the Leo1 C2s back to Canada and use the *safer vehicles*.



They are both safe. Trust me.        

Regards


----------



## REDinstaller

And the C2s have been an extremely safe platform for its age.


----------



## SevenSixTwo

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> There are a few that can't be/ shouldn't be discussed here.
> 
> Regards



I could sort of tell they looked slightly different but being having an untrained eye vs. armoured vehicles I can't "really" tell what's different other than the exterior armour.


----------



## dogger1936

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Assuming we have the applicable equipment/Leo1 C2 equipment is compatible, perhaps we can finally get the Leo1 C2s back to Canada and use the safer vehicles.



Nothing wrong with the c2 at all. Still a great platform and a awesome little tank. I would love to see them still used, they were easy to maintain over there...no issues what so ever. Gunnery systems are very similar and makes a transition to a a6 a mere 2 drill changes and some buttonology.

I would love to see these placed at cfb's for reserve training during the summer...alas I know that it would be a huge logistical/ maintance issue.In an ideal world however i think it would be vaulable.


----------



## ironduke57

More pix:






















Source: 
- http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?187529-Leopard-2-A4M-CAN-New-Variant

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## PuckChaser

Great pics, thanks for sharing!


----------



## Franko

Ungh....Militaryphotos forum.....nothing but speculation and inuendo backed up by rumours.

I guess we're off to the Kush....our A6's are still loaners as well.        :

Regards


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So do they have the "New tank" smell?  

Stunning to think how far we have come in regards to tanks in the last few years. From the grave to almost new!

I wonder if all western tank rebuilds will include pioneer equipment mounting point from now on?


----------



## ironduke57

Two pics from the above set and one without the barracuda net:














Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

That A7 armour on the sides is sexy  :nod:


----------



## McG

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> That A7 armor on the sides is sexy  :nod:


----------



## larry Strong

Is that a phone inside the small hatch at the rear?


----------



## dogger1936

nope. c2's have em leo 2 dont. Its a slave cable.


----------



## SevenSixTwo

What exactly is this tanks designation? A4 equipment, M classification and A7 side armour + many other unknown parts.

Leopard 2A4M CAN?


----------



## Franko

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> What exactly is this tanks designation? A4 equipment, M classification and A7 side armour + many other unknown parts.
> 
> Leopard 2A4M CAN?



Leo2A4 Ops


----------



## The Bread Guy

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> I guess we're off to the Kush....our A6's are still loaners as well.        :


Indeed - this out today from the Canadian Press:


> .... the Canadian army is taking the opportunity to return some of the tanks it hastily borrowed from Germany more than three years ago as the war was exploding in the withered farmland west of Kandahar city.
> 
> The heavily armoured Leopard 2 A6Ms were rushed into Kandahar in the summer of 2007 to help defend troops against bigger and more powerful roadside bombs.
> 
> Fewer than half a dozen of the 20 borrowed machines are being replaced with upgraded Leopard 2 A4M tanks, which the Defence Department purchased from the Dutch and modified for use in Afghanistan's arid desert, said Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin, the head of the army.
> 
> All of the borrowed vehicles will be returned after the combat mission ends next spring, and will have to be refurbished before they are returned, Devlin said in a recent interview.
> 
> "The ones going now are part of the normal replacement, based on hours and mileage." ....


----------



## Rafterman1

I would love to have the opportunity to ride in one of these bad a$$ war machines!!


----------



## sunrayRnfldR

The remarks attributed to the CLS suggest a major change in procurement. It had been the plan to refurbish 20 ex-Dutch 2A6 and give them to the Germans. Now the question is this, will Canada refurbish another 20 ex-Dutch tanks to 2A4M or 2A6M Canada standard to provide the 40 operational tanks that the replacement program sought?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Perhaps the tanks are worth more to the Germans in their current conditions as testbeds that they examine at leisure to determine long-term fatigue rates and part needs for their fleet over the next 20 years.


----------



## ironduke57

> ... Canada has also contracted with Rheinmetall to modernize and overhaul Leopard main battle tanks taken over by the Canadian Army from the Dutch armed forces; the order is worth around 17 million. By the start of 2012, a total of 42 Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks are to be refitted to meet Canadian Army standards and enable integration into existing C4I structures.
> 
> The two orders underscore Rheinmetall's wide spectrum of competences as a leading supplier of army technology - ranging from heavy armoured platforms to individual weapon systems and the accompanying ammunition. ...








- http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.p...=3&fid=5486

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## ironduke57

There is a rumor that canada bought ~12 Leo 2A4 from the swiss and will rebuild them to some sort of support vehicle? (Pionierpanzer 3 Kodiak?)

Anyone knows something about this?

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## REDinstaller

It was more of take 12 MBTs from the 100 purchased and convert them to AEV/ARV. The Swiss have experience with these conversions. I think RUAG is looking at setting up a Cdn office to compete for this work.

http://www.ruag.com/en/Defence/Land_Systems/Heavy_weapon_systems/Armoured_Engineer_Vehicle_KODIAK


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> - http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.p...=3&fid=5486
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



This would be a cool place to take a tour in.


----------



## NavyShooter

Aye, that it would Colin.  I got to play with C1's once upon a time.  It was good fun.

NS


----------



## ironduke57

Well Colin you could attend this years I&I from Tanknet. AFAIK they try to visit some Rheinmetall facility.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hmm interesting thought, I had to miss last years I&I and SHOT so the wife might be willing to let me loose for a week.  :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... according to one Austrian media report:


> Austria is in talks to sell 40 second-hand Leopard 2A4 tanks back to their German manufacturer after Vienna balked at the Canadian military buying them, a press report said Monday.
> 
> Austrian defence ministry spokesman Michael Bauer confirmed only that talks with the firm, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, were "going well, although nothing has been signed yet."
> 
> The Austrian daily Kronen-Zeitung said that the Canadian military had also expressed interest in buying the 15-year-old tanks, which Krauss-Maffei will buy back for 400,000 euros ($532,300, CAN$545,280) each and then modernise.
> 
> "But that would have meant so much red tape, since the Canadians are fighting in Afghanistan, meaning that the sale would not have been approved," the paper cited an unnamed army insider as saying.
> 
> This created consternation among some partners in the NATO military alliance, although "as luck would have it" Canada decided it was no longer interested, the daily added ....


expatica.com, 12 Dec 11

More in the original report here (in German) and here (in Google English)


----------



## Kirkhill

I wonder how much Kraus-Maffei is charging us for them, seeing as how the Austrians don't want to be seen dealing with us nasty tank-using Canucks.


----------



## The Bread Guy

In case you're interested in more detail on the sub-cal request for proposals ....
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/104771/post-1120197.html#msg1120197
.... attached find an excerpt from the bid document with a bit of an overview of what's needed.


----------



## Franko

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In case you're interested in more detail on the sub-cal request for proposals ....
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/104771/post-1120197.html#msg1120197
> .... attached find an excerpt from the bid document with a bit of an overview of what's needed.



Let's reinvent the wheel yet again.         :

You'd think by now we'd just buy the exact same system the Germans and Dutchies have been using.....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Let's reinvent the wheel yet again.         :
> 
> You'd think by now we'd just buy the exact same system the Germans and Dutchies have been using.....


You crazy, sense-making kinda guy......


----------



## ldshrecceboy

Photos of the 14 Leo2A4M sitting all pretty.


----------



## George Wallace

The Gun Tape and your Watermark almost make it look like it has Digicam.


----------



## Franko

:

He's stamped the photos already. Seriously, if you don't want them out there - don't put them out there.

Regards


----------



## ldshrecceboy

Another photo for the gang, all my photos are approved by PAO office, as well as the completed books that I am working on and have finished:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bump with engine work contract award....


> The Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Member of Parliament for Lévis-Bellechasse, on behalf of the Honourable Minister Valcourt, Associate Minister of National Defence, today announced that the Government of Canada awarded a significant support contract for the maintenance of the Canadian Army’s Leopard 2 family of vehicles.
> 
> Wajax Power Systems of Québec City, Quebec, has been awarded a contract valued at $10.16 million for the repair and overhaul of engines for the Leopard 2 family of vehicles over three years, which will sustain approximately 10 jobs in the region. The contract includes two one-year extension options, which could bring the total contract value to $22.09 million ....


DND Info-machine, 30 Nov 12


----------



## The Bread Guy

Wanted:  "updated commander's periscope, thermal imager for the gunner's sight and a tactical navigation system" .....


> .... The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for Upgrades to the Leopard 2 A4M CAN Main Battle Tanks. The upgrade work will include the supply and integration of an updated commander's periscope, thermal imager for the gunner's sight and a tactical navigation system.
> 
> To complete this requirement, the supplier must possess the required intellectual property rights to the Leopard 2 A4M Canadian MBTs and shall be capable of maintaining and adjusting the corresponding original drawing set.
> 
> Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH & Co. KG (KMW) owns the intellectual property data related to the Leopard 2 A4M CAN MBTs, as well as its associated software and Engineering Drawings. KMW, as the System Integrator, is the only company capable of performing the work as they have the technical expertise and own the Intellectual Property data of the central logic/main distribution and commander's system control unit required to fully integrate all of the upgraded subsystems of this requirement into the Leopard 2 A4M CAN MBTs.
> 
> (....)
> 
> The estimated value of the proposed contract is $40,000,000.00 CDN (including GST/HST).
> 
> (....)


----------



## GAP

So.........it's a sole source 40M contract.....


----------



## McG

Is this to bring the Comd's sight up to the same as our A6s?


----------



## McG

GAP said:
			
		

> So.........it's a sole source 40M contract.....


Technically, an ACAN is not sole-source.  It gives industry the opportunity to say "he is not the only guy who can do that" and then we would have to go back to competition.


----------

