# New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?



## Wm. Harris

Our current Leopards have given many years of good service, but a time will eventually come when they will have to be replaced. If the government were to replace the Leopards today, what would you recommend for their successors?

I personally would say the Israeli Merkava III or the German Leopard 2A5. Both are pretty tough tanks, heavy on armour, fast, and armed to the teeth. But perhaps someone else has a better suggestion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It‘s hard to say if and when we will replace our MBT‘s. The current political climate offers no hope what so ever. We currently take the Leo‘s out hardly at all, to preserve what life is left in them. Most modern MBT‘s have reached a point of sophisticated technology. The biggest hinderance to them all is weight, hence transportability. The Brits have long been innovators of armour that is copied, bought, stolen, whatever. At the moment they are developing an MBT made primarily of plastic and ceramics. This should seriously deplete the weight problem. When will it hit service? Who knows. Will we buy it? Not likely. If, and it‘s a big if, we decide to retain tracks as the MBT, it would likely be something from south of the border, based on the current climate and formation of the European Union and our own North/South American union, presently in it‘s infant stages. All western tanks are pretty well on par as far as armour, gunnery, etc. Some a little better than others. It would just be nice to get something up to date. Hopefully the replacement will be battle proven what ever it is. It‘s nice to see an infanteer that‘s concerned about the armour, at least you know who carries the hot coffee and fresh rations! "The objective is 3000 meters that way, We‘ll cover you from here"!


----------



## John Nayduk

Since we are being hypothetical, I like the Merkava.  Like the Couger, it has the ability to carry a couple of troops inside giving extra bodies for hide protection, GAP drills and running replen security.  Of course, like the Couger, we probably would not exploit this "extra" space inside the vehicle and use it for the barbeques and lawnchairs.


----------



## Armoured Fist

I only know one person who is concerned about the placement of a barbeque and lawn chair,    I like tanks, tanks are good.  Thats all I have to say.


----------



## corporal

i must say that i have been out of the loop for many years .It has only been ,since we sent something to afghanistan that my desire to know the state of affairs pewrtaining to the military,have been aroused. I LIKE THE LEO 2A5 JUST BECAUSE THE GERMANS ALWAYS KNEW HOW TO MAKE A GREAT TANK!. That being said the poor reality is so long 
as the gov has this lax attitude to our services and all the good the military does the chances are we will not see another tank again. More likley some armoured variant of a troop carrier.


----------



## MikeH

We are not going to get a new main battle tank.
The polaitical support is not there for such
touchy-feely things as SAR helicopters, how
are we ever going to get support for the M1A2
or the Merkava 3?  So mean and dangerous...

What we will get is some kind of LAV3 with a
direct fire support capability.  Maybe 105, but
someone who knows more about stab systems
can tell me if hellfire can be stabilised in a turret.

How can we structure a war-fighting force with
no MBT‘s?  Well, we could buy Apache Longbow
to fill our holes in direct fire, maybe form mixed
air assault battalions (a la the brits), but that
would also require a proper helicopter.  And the
entire air force seems to be falling apart the last
few years, I don‘t know what they‘re losing faster,
aircraft or aircrew.  So their resources to support
us would be limited.  I‘m a track guy myself, so
maybe we can get political support for a ‘light tank‘
with tracks, like the old us XM8 Armored Gun
System, maybe even get GM to assemble it to 
ensure political support.

Sigh, just a few thoughts...


----------



## Gordon Angus Mackinlay

Gentlemen‘

Re the Merkava, the ‘cubbyhole‘ at the rear of the vehicle is not designed to carry personnel, it is actually for ammunition resupply.  Jane‘s Armour and Artillery 1996 issue has a couple of very interesting photographs showing the fitment of the ammunition pallet into the space.

The Royal Australian Armoured Corps has been having a look over the past two years in regard to our unmodified Leopard I‘s.

The vehicle which has comes out on tops for replacement of the Leopard (if the money comes) is the British Challenger II.  Good mobility, fuel consuption, armour and gun.  The main thing in it‘s favour is however - spare parts - the majority of the vehicles working systems (ie automotive, transmission, electrical etc) are standard commercial commonents, thereby ensuring that replacement parts are easily available and at a resonable price.  This is not the case in the Leopard II A6 or the Abrams (its fuel comsuption knocked it out of the computation very quickly).

No other vehicles were considered suitable.

Yours,

Jock in Sydney who loved Centurion tanks in SVN, they gave the Nogs something to shoot at, and they did wonderful things to bunker systems!


----------



## enfield

Which raises the question, do we need MBT‘s? 
They‘re expensive, and if we get MBT‘s then we better go buy the transport aircraft/ships to go with them. And in what situation will the application of Canadian armour be so important? What about the Reserves? The "Armoured" Militia runs around in jeeps....

(Of course I want tanks, but I‘m trying to play devil‘s advocate)

What about a LAV with a 105-type vehicle? Isn‘t the US testing such weapon systems for their new Medium Brigades?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

We‘ve been through all this over on the Armoured section. Lot‘s of good stuff there, including some pictures.


----------



## portcullisguy

Looking through history, tanks seem to play a vital role in armed land conflict, and it would be silly for a country the size of Canada (area wise) to ignore completely their value in getting from A -> B really fast with lots of ordinance.

In WWII, Germany swept across Europe within months with their "Blitzkreig" double-whammy of tanks and fighters, easily defeating any resistance through bringing massive superior firepower to bear in a short period of time - something just not possible with infantry alone.

But the question is, is a conventional warfare scenario realistic for our Forces?  Tanks didn‘t fare very well in Viet Nam.  They tend to be susceptible to guerrilla warfare.  They require lengthy logistics/maintenance supply chains.

I heard during the Gulf War, for each company of M1 tanks, 2 companies of maintenance and supply personnel were required, and tanks were only operational 1/3 of the time they were in present, the rest of the time they were having sand cleaned out of the working parts.

And, what about the Reserves?  We call them armoured regiments, but in fact there is nothing armoured about an Iltis jeep.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Yet your joining an INFANTRY res regiment which doesn‘t have all the equipment the RCR or PPCLI does, what‘s that make you?


----------



## 30 for 30

While reserve armoured recce regiments are part of the RCAC, I think the focus is more on "recce" than "armour". Reserve units with Cougars are certainly armoured regiments, and I think they make up half of all our reserve armoured units. I think the important thing to remember is that they may only be Iltus, but they do have certain recce advantages over big lumbering coyotes. It really isn‘t accurate to imply that reserve recce units use "Iltus instead of tanks", you know? I could be wrong here, but that‘s my impression...


----------



## fortuncookie5084

For one, removing a role for tracked vehicles from our doctrine will never get passed the Armoured Corps Conference.  Likewise, we‘ll never get any money for something new.  The Leo 1‘s, cleverly updated to misleading C2 status, are here to stay (or until they‘re blown off the battle scape of some future conflict).  We need tracked vehicles!


----------



## Infanteer

> big lumbering coyotes



Haha...there is an overstatement!


----------



## Infanteer

Hey I am not a tanker, but I had a question.
What are the possibilities for designing a tracked main battle tank that can hold an infantry section (8-10 troops) in the rear.  Too much extra logistics to make the extra addition?  I was just curious.


----------



## portcullisguy

> Originally posted by recceguy:
> [qb]Yet your joining an INFANTRY res regiment which doesn‘t have all the equipment the RCR or PPCLI does, what‘s that make you?     [/qb]



I might be a little optimistic when I say this, but I don‘t believe infantry require any more equipment than a ride to the battle and a good rifle.

Call me crazy!

Even the ride is optional... afterall, infantry are supposed to be expert at forced marching.

But seriously, I do‘t think it was ever the CF‘s intent to equip the RES F to the full capacity of the REG F.  However, you would think that an res armd regt would have something ... armoured, perhaps?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Not all reserve armoured regts are armoured. Some are recce, and the iltis is a good mud recce veh. Our new SMP LUVW, for recce, will have add on armour capability. Oh, and reserve armoured (tank) regts have cougar, which is armoured and has add on capability. At least it‘s a closer approximation to a tank than your LSVW cargo is to a carrier.


----------



## rceme_rat

Interesting thing about this query is that the responses draw the same contenders that were being championed in the late 80s (LEO II, Abrams, Merkava, Challenger, etc.  MBT technology has been moving slowly.

Merkava III - great tank, in its theatre of ops.  Not suitable for Europe - too wide.  Some of you may know the old saw about out rail guages having been determined by the width of Roman chariots.  Guess what - the width of tanks is determined by those same chariots.  How so? -- tank have to fit on flatcars for transport -- Europe has standard size tunnels that tloaded flatcars have to fit through.  A Merkava doesn‘t.  As an aside - theory also applies to transporting AFVs in Hercs - if you forget about add-on armour until after you‘ve built the hull, you have to choose between flying in without the applique, or finding a staging area!  Not that anyone would make such a basic mistake.

For MBTs, it eventually leads back to the "Leo II v. M1" question.  Appropriate, since the two started out as the same project until the Germans insisted on one gun and engine, and the Americans on the others.

Aside from the question of engines, the other big concern is the source of your spare parts - do you want them coming from the U.S. or Germany.  Again, if considering the European theatre (arguably no less important than ever, particularly wrt MBTs), the choice is having them closer, if the factories aren‘t destroyed (Germany) or further away, but more certain (U.S.)

As has been discussed elsewhere, the first question to be asked is "do we need tanks at all?"  This is a big strategy question that goes beyond our allegiance to a particular arm, our lust for the biggest and baddest toys, and our tendency to prepare for the last war.   

Unfortunately, no one seems to have the necessary bits to make the call - what do we want our military to do for us, how much notice will we give our troops (and industry) to prepare, and how much money we are willing to throw at the problem.

Maybe there is some hope - it seems that the Minister is hot for the new joint fighter - maybe the army can squeeze a few bucks out to get some new toys, too.  After all, the F-18s haven‘t been around anywhere near as long as LEO I.


----------



## enfield

Do we want tanks? Of course! But, I‘d also want amphibious assault ships, an extra couple battalions, Apaches, a solid fleet of choppers, a hundred new CF-18‘s, AFV‘s for the Militia, Wainwright turned into a NTC, and a decent set of boots. 
Unfortunatley, most oif the above will probably never happen. It‘s not a question of what the military wants, it‘s a question of what the government will pay for. 

The politburo, I mena liberal cabinet, will look at CNN see a bunch of high-speed infantry running around, and order that kit. Forget the choppers, ships, fighters. Or maybe build another MFRC.

We need to be realistic here. Given our resources and predict resources, and the conflicts we will have to meet, do we need tanks? Because if we choose one  item, we‘re forgoing something else. MBT‘s or helicopters?


----------



## John Nayduk

Enfield has a point about wanting other pieces of kit but getting rid of tanks would also get rid of a whole section of the army.  The Armoured Corp has a unique role within the army and canning it would be a detriment to the Forces.  I don‘t think anyone can argue the benefit of tanks in the Gulf War of the early 1990‘s  and given the rhetoric dealing with Iraq they maybe needed again (not that Canada will send anyone).  
The argument that the width of European railways eliminates many tanks from the list of possible Leopard replacements doesn‘t wash.  According to Jane‘s AFV Recognition Handbook gives the following widths:
Merkava - 3.7 meters
Leopard 2 - 3.7 meters
LeClerk - 3.71 meters
M1 - 3.65 meters


----------



## rceme_rat

I won‘t argue with Jane‘s on dimensions, although a Merkava seems a lot wider than that when it‘s coming up the highway towards the Golan.

Perhaps I‘m mistaken on whether it was height, width or what not -- but I distinctly recall the clearance issue being highlighted by everyone who looked at the Merkava [when I was on course (mid-80s) and we had to go over the comparison and contrast of historic and modern tanks].  Still too young for the brain cells to be fading that rapidly, I hope, and I would never be able to find the notes.  I‘ll have to leave it as a point to ponder.

While on the topic of Merkava, it is reputed to pitch violently due to its howizer-like layout.  Think "M109 with more weight and speed".  I suppose active suspension might solve this --  and if not, perhaps it is a reasonable price to pay for having the engine as a bit of extra frontal protection.  Just screen your tank crews for strong stomachs.


----------



## rceme_rat

I agree tanks would be needed if we deployed to the Gulf.  We‘ll either have our own or someone else‘s taking care of us -- and most of us would prefer to have our own.

The question is whether the government will have the integrity to either tell the military it needn‘t be concerned with certain roles (and therefore won‘t need the associated kit) or to tell the people that they‘ve got to spend the bucks to properly outfit their soldiers.  

It‘s just so pathetic that the government continues to tell the people that the military can do it all with the limited resources they are grudgingly paying for.  

Maybe you can fool them all the time.


----------



## Recce41

Well 

 1. i‘ve just came back from the MAIS trail, To test the Lav III. We need Tanks. In the end the Lav could not equal a tank. 
 2. The Lavs should be manned by Crewmen, the inf. had no real clue how to fight a vech. the cryed for it and in every attack, the lavs could not be used it a self defence role.
 3. A big MBT we do not need, a light med  tank, this would keep the tank skills and they could be used for UN tasks that the Coyote can‘t.
 4. We even did Recce in the tanks, which got all thoughs anti Recce tankers crying.
 So to all a tank is gone, no we have to find a useful one.

  Sgt J.   CD, CDS com        Bold and Swift,  Airborne :tank: PS: we need some wings added to your smiles.


----------



## Bill Green

You know we talk alot about a force multiplier and a battlefield presence.  And the theory of having a light cav role while sexy in concept with atk helos and air mobility, really doesn‘t exist in our current forces.

We have a tank with recent upgrades that gives us lots of flexibility as queen of the battlefield or a real presence in peace-making or keeping.  On the other hand, our tank trainer the cougar has outlived its maintenance, and so the armour (tank) reserve units are left with a broken piece of worn-out kit and no parts or will to fix them.

The reserve units are left with only a few options: 
A. continue with the cougar and hope things get better
B. adapt the coyote or lav to an armour role in the hopes that this kit that was bought for reserves will eventually make its way to the MTC‘s in sufficient numbers and maintenance to allow sub-units to train.
C. reroll or concentrate on a mud recce role with Luvw or COS version.

So as I look at things the reserve is already cut-off from armour (tank) training.  And just so you know where I stand I support a tracked tank in our corps.  Unfortunately in this climate of living with less and less I don‘t see too many armour CO‘s arguing or laying the ground work for enhancing the armour role with tracked tanks.

It almost seems that everyone is waiting to see what unit or army component is next in DND‘s sights.  Armour soldiers should be standing shoulder to shoulder with Inf units, Arty units and other armour units to insure that we have the balanced general purpose combat ready forces that our mission statement declares.  It is too easy to wait for the boot to fall and then run around wringing our hands.  We need to get the public and our government on line with us.  I think for the most part citizens are there already--now to move the government on line I need your suggestions.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Irrespective of government parsimony, I think the introduction of non-infantry soldiers into the infantry battalion is worth investigating - engineers man the pioneer platoon; gunners man the mortar platoon; black-hatters man the anti-armour platoon, the crewed AFVs, and maybe the recce platoon; and the infanteers concentrate on bread-and-butter infantry.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Governments don‘t change their path unless threatened by the prospect of a loss of power.  That can happen by foreign invasion, revolution, or at the polls (or the threat of any of those).  The first is too unlikely to be a realistic consideration, the second is beneath us, and so the third is the only practical option.  Pressure to change can be applied to the government only via the citizenry.  So simply having the citizenry on-side is insufficient.  They must believe that not only are the Forces worthwhile, but the Forces are neglected by government and urgently require priority in the line of departments with their hand out for a share of the federal pie.


----------



## John Nayduk

Infanteer:  In response to your question on page 1 of this thread.

Hereâ€™s my opinion.  Iâ€™ve seen photos of infantry coming out of the Merkava.  You really only need to carry two in each tank.  Four tanks to a troop means an infantry section in each troop and an infantry platoon in each squadron.  This would make clearing defiles easier as there would be a full crew to fight the tank in case of contact.  Hide security would be better as the crews would be able to service the tanks while the infantry provided security.  I had written an article for the Armour Bulletin but being a reserve force master corporal at the time it probably went straight into the garbage pail.


----------



## TOW2B

> Originally posted by Another Recce Guy:
> [qb]Infanteer:  In response to your question on page 1 of this thread.
> 
> Here’s my opinion.  I’ve seen photos of infantry coming out of the Merkava.  You really only need to carry two in each tank.  Four tanks to a troop means an infantry section in each troop and an infantry platoon in each squadron.  This would make clearing defiles easier as there would be a full crew to fight the tank in case of contact.  Hide security would be better as the crews would be able to service the tanks while the infantry provided security.  I had written an article for the Armour Bulletin but being a reserve force master corporal at the time it probably went straight into the garbage pail.[/qb]


How would this make clearing defiles any easier as there would be a full crew to fight the tank????What do you do ...dismount the loader and have him clear it????With ref to hide security,I don‘t know how your unit plays but in the real world the Infantry do the security in the hides now,while the zipperheads play with their toys and do everything possible to break light and noise discipline.The Merkava is an Infantry support tank (think of an updated Matilda)..period It is heavily armoured and slow and is awesome when cruising across the Golan Heights or dug in along a defensive line but not suited to much more than that.The Infantry being carried inside is a PR stunt,the space is intended or ammunition pallets and evac of wounded in emergencies.As for splitting up the Infantry Section in the troop who is in command???How do the Infantry see their objective prior to dismounting???How does the Section Communicate with each other??? Questions like these most likely killed your paper you can‘t look at it from one point of view. 
  :sniper:


----------



## John Nayduk

Here are the answers to your questions.

How would this make clearing defiles any easier as there would be a full crew to fight the tank????  What do you do ...dismount the loader and have him clear it????

Currently, yes.  In the Couger, it‘s the gunner or commander.  Makes it hard to fight with one of the crew missing.

With ref to hide security, I don‘t know how your unit plays but in the real world the Infantry do                     the security in the hides now, while the zipperheads play with their toys and do everything possible to break light and noise discipline. 

Well, I‘ve been in plenty of hides where we were the only occupants.

The Merkava is an Infantry support tank (think of an updated Matilda), period It is heavily armoured and slow and is awesome when cruising across the Golan Heights or dug in along a defensive line but not suited to much more than that.

Given the weapons systems carried on the tank, I think it carries quite a punch.  As far as the speed and range, I don‘t have my reference in front of me and I would hate to speak without knowing the facts.  I will look it up and get back to you.

The Infantry being carried inside is a PR stunt, the space is intended for ammunition pallets and evac of wounded in emergencies.  

PR stunt or not, the fact remains that it is possible.  The ammunition pallets are extra ammo over and above the usual load.

As for splitting up the Infantry Section in the troop who is in command???  

I would imagine the troop leader, who is a lieutenant or a captain, would be in command as opposed to a section commander who is usually a sergeant, is it not?  Once the troop leader has given the task to the section commander, he would carry out the mission assigned to him. 

How do the Infantry see their objective prior to dismounting???

I guessing the infantry would take a look at the objective after dismounting similar to the way it must be done after getting out of a carrier.   The infantry would get a briefing from the troop leader who would give them their objectives and support them with tank fire if needed.  The infantry would be more like the panzer grenadiers of the second world war dedicated to the armour as opposed to our traditional use of infantry independent of but capable of supporting armour and visa versa.

How does the Section Communicate with each other???

Via radio on the troop net, this would let everyone in troop know the situation. 

Questions like these most likely killed your paper you can‘t look at it from one point of view.

Well it was submitted to the Armour branch, thinking it was a good place to start.  It didn‘tget a follow up response.  These questions could have been answered then or at least opened up a topic for further discussion, as it seems to have done here.


----------



## rceme_rat

I think the question of command was with respect to the infantry section - if you are splitting the section, how does the section commander keep tabs on both parts of his section -- particularly since they will be separated by greater distance than typical.

Personally, I think this discussion is rooted in the Canadian tendency to focus on section and troop level tacticsat the expense of formation level operations.  This has been driven by our small forces, great dispersion, and limited budgets.  When was the last exercise which deployed more than a brigade?  Even a brigade?

At larger level operations, I would think it almost a truism that neither infantry nor armour would work alone -- hence combat teams, on up. 

In short, I think the answer is not breaking up infantry sections and spreading them around tanks, but employing IFVs among the tanks -- the way we are taught.  The real trick is ensuring that the tanks and IFVs are compatible -- which probably means addressing issues like tracks vs wheels, track width, single fuel type, etc.  All strategic level decisions.


----------



## John Nayduk

Sorry for taking so long to get back with the MBT debate.  Using Jane‘s
Tank Recognition Guide as a reference, here‘s a maximum road speed
comparison of a few modern MBT.

Leopard 1 - (not modern, but it‘s ours) - 65 k/hr
Leopard 2 - 72 k/hr
Leclerc - 71 k/hr
Merkava 1 - 46 k/hr
T80 - 70 k/hr
Challenger 2 - 56 k/hr
M1 - 72 k/hr

It‘s true that the Merkava is the slowest.  Unfortunately, I couldn‘t find any data on the latest marks of these tanks.
Maybe someone out there could help out.  I would imagine that there has
been improvements to these in the latest models.

The use the term infantry section was used to describe the job (as opposed
to the trade).  They would be like the assault troopers in the Recce
squadron.


----------



## Recce41

Well
 1. The gunner in a tank dismounts to clear a blind corner or short D File. There is a concept on the books, the have Armour crewman man the LAVIIIs. and 1 Inf coy to go to the tank Sqns. 
 2. Like I said the grunts used the LavIII like the Grizzly. We tryed to get them to use it to fight light vehs. And the Tanks can take on the heavys and then punch to their ring of steel, for their next task. 
 3. A heavy tank is S*** now for usein Peacekeeping/making. 
 4. We had the tanks in Bosnia and Kosovo and all they were are Recce or as in Bosnia Flowerpots. 
 5. A real tank, that would be useful would be the CG 2000, We donot have heavy lift. and they would be great for our Hercs. 
 6. Even the US is going wheeled.
 7. In a hide an Armour Sqn will be cleared by the SSM and Adm/ Maint Tp.
 8. Recce does not do Sqn hides. 99% of the time it is Tp. 
 The Doctrine for a Tank Sqn new is a 14 veh Tank Sqn, 1 Inf Coy, FOO, Eng Tp.
 For Recce it will be3 x 7 Coyotes, 2 LAVIII TOW per Tp( made by crewmen), an Assault TP, 1 Attack Helo det, 1 Obs Helo det. , and a Eng Tp for heavy Eng tasks. This is what the new Army is going to look like if we have time to suck back  and reload.

 SGT J.     CD,CDS com (Airborne, Bold and Swift)  :tank:


----------



## Black6

Just a few points:

The driving force behind the devlopement of the tank was Protection. The Leo 1 does not provide that any more. Then came along this C2 variant - more applique armour but what will it stop? The next characteristic of armour is Mobility. How does all this new "armour" affect that? And the third aspect of armour is Firepower. the L7 105mm does not cut the mustard anymore. Period. The best anti-tank system is another tank. There is no way that the Leo 1 (in any variant) can go toe to toe with any other modern MBT. 

The government is rethinking the role of the CF. I think the "General Warfighting Capability" will be struck off the list very soon. We will become UN ‘specialists‘ and involved in nothing more low intensity conflicts.

The tank will go the way of the Buffalo in our Army. The Armd Corps is desparately trying to find roles for the Leos on UN missions (like the Danes and the US do) in order to continue to justify the expense of keeping obsolete equipment around.

An intersting twist on the MBT for small armies can be found in Australia. In that army, most of the Leos are used by reserve units. This keeps operating expense down and gives the reserves a clear cut role: The defence of Australia. 

Hmmmmmmm


----------



## Black6

Tommy Atkins:

So tell me lad, how DO the infantry see the objective PRIOR to dismounting?
I have been in combat team hides where 1 RCR REFUSED to do hide security. It was a f*cking mess! 

We did security while they were doing carrier landings in mud puddles THEN drying out their wet and muddy combats with bonfires - no word of a lie. I was a troop leader then, and did a shift on sentry to take up some of the work and prepared my orders while on "sentry". 

Finally my troop sgt had enough and grabbed one of the little pongo fellas by da throat and put ‘im to the ground   

He was charged (I was his assisting officer) and he got a caution, lol. Well Done Sgt! (and you know who you are)

So stuff it, Tommy!


----------



## John Nayduk

The minister of National Defence has stated that they are looking to buy a wheeled direct fire support vehicle soon.  So does this mean that we will keep the DFS role instead of going all RECCE in the Corp?  If so, does anyone have any idea about what the squadrons will look like in the future?


----------



## Recce41

ARG
  The DFS (LAV105) will replace the Tank. As for Recce. It will be as stated in one of the last posts. I have some pics of the new look for, the Recce Sqn and the new look for a Coyote. But cannot get them off the damm disc. It maybe the format? If anyone has an Idea email me. Thanks.


----------



## Korus

According to  This Website, we already have the LAV-90 "Bobcat I", and will be replacing them with the LAV-105 "Bobcat II"   
The kicker is that both the pictures of the "bobcat I" and "bobcat II" are of the same type of vehicle, the LAV-90, and both are from Qatar. (In fact, they‘re from a single picture, but it was split in 2 by that website)

On a serious note, though, I‘m wondering about the effectivness of a 105mm gun.. I don‘t think it would have the same punch as a 120mm when both are firing HEAT, but what about Discarding Sabots? How much does reduced barel size affect the kill power of a Sabot..


----------



## Recce41

The only LAV we have is the LAVIII.  The rest are US/Aussie. Canada only builds them. The 105 is just as good as a 120.


----------



## Zoomie

Korus, I believe we have already debuffed those kind of websites.  They are for an online computer game.  Full of inaccuracies and fiction.

There have been tests that have proven the 105mm SABOT to be more effective at killing a tank over a 120mm SABOT.  When it comes to tank killing, it is the Kinetic energy of the dart that makes the difference.  During the most recent Gulf War, Bradly IFVs were engaging and destroying Iraqi T-72s with their 25mm Auto-cannon.

DRES in Valcartier is working on some new innovative projects for transforming the firepower and defense of a 20 ton LAV into the equivalent of a 70 ton MBT.  See the most recent copy of "Maple Leaf" for more info.


----------



## Korus

Yeah, I know that website was inaccurate, I was poking fun at it too.


----------



## Ghillie

Here is an article from Janes def on the 105mm mounted on wheels.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Wright [mailto:dwwright@golden.net]
Sent: Tuesday, 10, June, 2003 11:21 AM
To: dwwright@golden.net
Subject: Jane‘s Defence Weekly 4 Jun 03


Testing Time For The Mobile Gun System
By Kim Burger, JDW Staff Reporter, Washington, DC

The US Army is still developing the most complex of the Stryker 8 x 8
medium-armoured vehicle variants - the Mobile Gun System (MGS) - and
recently decided on several design changes that reflect the challenges of
putting a 105mm gun on a lightweight platform.
A pepper-pot muzzle brake, which was included in the design to ease recoil,
has been eliminated because it was creating a blast overpressure when gases
escaped the gun tube, said Don Howe, senior director of the Stryker
programme for manufacturer General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). The problem
evolved after the MGS chassis was lowered so that the turret can fit into
the C-130 Hercules tactical transport aircraft, as required by the army,
moving the cannon closer to the front of the vehicle.
The ‘halo‘ of hot gas released by the muzzle brake was damaging the front of
the chassis, GDLS officials said. It also presented a burn hazard to
personnel nearby and crew when the vehicle hatch is open, according to an
army briefing on the subject.
GDLS will adjust the recoil system and, after having conducted simulations
and live-fire testing, believes the system will be able to handle the recoil
without the muzzle brake.
A lighter-weight barrel is also being introduced as part of a
weight-reduction effort to bring the MGS within the 18,733kg combat loaded
weight it must meet for C-130 flight. The new barrel and associated
components save 108.8kg. The army and GDLS will look at incorporating
lighter-weight composite materials and eliminating some items on the
platform as other weight-saving measures, Howe said.
The army also approached GDLS with a list of concerns about comfortably
fitting soldiers in the system, and the removal of obstructions, enabling
crew to make best use of equipment and interfaces. Howe noted that these
issues were caught during testing, which is appropriate for a developmental
programme. "I‘m also pleased to say that most of these issues are corrected
or are being corrected," he said.
Congressman Jim Saxton, a member of the House Armed Services Committee,
raised questions he still has about the MGS at a hearing on 1 May. This
included "danger to the crew when the gun is fired because of the muzzle
velocity, and the recoil and the relatively light weight of the vehicle for
purposes of handling the recoil from the gun", he said. An amendment
co-sponsored by Saxton was included in the 2004 defence-spending bill passed
by the House directing the army to provide extra information on Stryker
brigade lethality and sustainability.


----------



## Recce41

They already have a 105. It was fired in Canada, about two yrs ago. I have a tech film about it.

  :evil:    :tank:


----------



## Gorgo

Going along with this, a question to all the ARMD folks out there:  what sort of DFSV do you guys really want?  Tracked or wheeled?

Fred


----------



## Slim

I spoke to a friend last night in the LdSH(RC) who told me that the Strathcona‘s are getting all of the Leo‘s moved out west. The RCD and 12 Rubberboot are going to get a squadron‘s worth of Stryker combat support vehicles. However when you do the math you quickly realizes with the deployments that they have planned there will be no Strykers at the school to train on or extra‘s for deployment replacements such as combat damage and mine strikes.
Does anyone happen to know how the government arrived at the decisions about this thing that they did? Have they bought replacement vehs or extras for the school?
  :tank:


----------



## patt

so what ur saying is that the LdSh(RC) are getting the leopards and useing them? or just for training purposes


----------



## Danjanou

> Does anyone happen to know how the government arrived at the decisions about this thing that they did?


I‘d bet that they gave it no thought at all then and randomly pulled a number out of their hat.....or some convenient bodily orfice.


----------



## 30 for 30

with 66 Stryker MGS purchased sounds like they could pull such a situation off.

If 20 went to a squadron of the RCDs, and 20 went to a squadron of 12 RBC, that would leave 26 as training vehicles/replacements. Sounds like it could work to me, unless I‘m missing something. I think this scenerio would be ideal, as it would see us carry on using our tanks out west, at least for a few more years (2010 expiry?). It makes a lot more sense to me to use a combination of both MGS and tanks as direct fire support, with MGS simply giving recce regiments some added firepower.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Are they still going to use the Coyote DSV?


----------



## Slim

Hey all...thanks for adding to the discussion. I‘m new to this and didn‘t explain very well.
The RCD and 12RBC are getting a squadron of Strykers each. So are the Strats. The Strats will keep one sqn of Leo‘s in Edmonton...the rest go to Wainwright as training vehicles...Lets face it the Leo C1 or C2 couldn‘t stand up to a strong backfire from a car muffler, let alone an enemy shell ( the modern stuff anyway.)
As for the nimbers listed above. Don‘t forget the Strykers that will go to SHQ in the opperational sqns. By my count that leaves three extra vehicles.
Oh...forgot to mention that the REME school in Borden will need some to work on as well...Wow, did the government screw this up or what!  :sniper:


----------



## onecat

Of course they screwed this up.  Its the Liberals, and they put no thought into any Military purchase, unless someone want‘s a kick back.

Didn‘t they just re-build the Leo C-2 a few years ago. I‘m sure they can take a backfire or two, and stand up to more than the Stryker MGS.  

I was on one of the other sites and math for the Strykers just doesn‘t work.  How can 66 of them be 600 million.... and who this a good deal for.  Certianly not the CF and Canadian taxpayer.


----------



## Slim

One thing that my bud from the Strats did say was that the stryker has some sort of 105MM hyper-velocity gun which is supposed to be very powerful. The crew doesn‘t even sit up in the turret anymore but down inside the vehicle someplace. It also has an autoloader( which the vote is still out on.) Basically if it hits you you‘re done for...Of course I don‘t know if I‘d go head to head with any of the tanks from the big leagues like the Abrams, Leo 3,Merkava, leclerc or Challenger.
Likewise the stab, sights and lase capability is fantastic. Too bad they didn‘t put it all on a new tank!  :tank:


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan

There is a Leo 3 now?  Anyone got pics?  Cuz Leo 2‘s kick *** .  So I can only imagine the Leo 3 would be absolutely kick *** .  :fifty:    :gunner:


----------



## patt

i think he means the German leo 3


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I thought they stopped development of the Leopard2 A6?


----------



## RCD

There is alternives to Mobile gun platform to the Stryker. that the goverment didn‘t look at or examined thoroughly when they made this decison. [  Nobody respects a country with a poor army,but everybody respects a country with good army.        
                       Joesph Stalin


----------



## RCD

when DND announce their plan to purchase the Stryker. I wonder if they also look at the Stingray light tank, or Armor gun platform that was being tested in the mid 90s by the 82 Airborne? Both these veh;s are track.


----------



## RCD

Thank you Major. Yes it is an impressive machine.It has A 105 rifled with 31 ROUNDS & 21 in autloader.An to reduce production cost it uses  a lot of  it‘s items base on the M2 Bradley.Their is also 3 levels of armour package. With level 1 being air-dropped


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Would be much better for our armoured recce regiments then the Coyote (I wonder if you could put the Coyote sensor package in it?)


----------



## Danjanou

This it?

 http://www.uniteddefense.com/prod/lt_tank.htm 

 http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/supplement/lav/lav_m8.shtml 

 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm 

If so it looks like something that might actually get us some decent bang for our buck compared to the Stryker.


----------



## Slim

Gents
    I do believe I caught site of a bunch of strykers painted in desert colours going by close to my house ( pickering, Ont.) on a train.


----------



## RCD

Thank you Major with your update. Our public library isn;t as up to date.On the Stingray II did they up gun that tank also? I know that the Thai army uses this tank Stingray I.I‘ve read that the M113 is back in production for two middle east countries?


----------



## assaulter_44d

If it had to be wheeled: Rooikat 105
If it had to be tracked: Leopard 2A6 EX
                         Merkava Mk 4

or I am surprised no one has thought of this one yet MTVL/TLAV (M113A3) w/ the MGS Weapon System LOL   :rocket:


----------



## Brock

If we choose the LAV III platform the most immediately available and best operationally proven 105mm turret is the TML 105mm turret from GIAT if we wanted a proven turret.  It is mounted on the French Army‘s upgraded AMX 10RC vehicle, the vehicle arguably is not the best, but the turret is supposedly quite good.  Another excellent system is the United Defense--maker of the M113/MTVL--Armoured Guns System.  Like the MGS turret it is a 105mm turret, and it is fully developed.  Unlike the MGS turret, the AGS turret has been accepted for service by the US Army without restrictions.  The only reason it was not purchased in 1994 was because of the Clinton administrations military budget cuts.  Personnaly, I think either would be sufficient.  I like the TML 105 turret better, because it has a 4 person crew.  Check out a picture of it on the GIAT‘s Vextra DFSV/Arm Recce vehicle from this link   http://www.army-technology.com/projects/vextra/vextra1.html


----------



## RCD

Tracks over Wheels.


----------



## RCD

Take a look at Korus. Read his reply, click on to (this website) USA medium tanks. There you will find the Stingray II The other one is call M8 Thunderbolt.Both of these tanks have 105‘s for main armament.They can be air-dropped from C-130 Hercules.


----------



## Spr.Earl

> Originally posted by RECON-MAN:
> [qb] Tracks over Wheels. [/qb]


F‘n A!!
Don‘t let the Boffin‘s fool you.

We who have the time in know what we need but what we have is a bunch of Civies who revue what is asked for and we get stuck with ****e from the lowest bidder.

Give me a Eng. M113 with blade against a Lav. and I‘ll cross more country than that beer can!
Yes they are good but are limeted on terrain!
We still need track!!!!!!!!!

We have to combine both with in a Light Force as this is the way we are going.

We need Track and Lav.‘s combined,supporting each other to be effective.  :fifty:


----------



## Strath

Anyone who maintains that a 105 is as effective or better than a 120 hasn‘t got a clue about modern MBT guns or armour, let alone the history of recent armour battles.
-Former RCAC (RCD/LdSH(RC)) officer 1962-1999


----------



## Recce41

Strat
 The new 105s are just as good as the 120MM. The new 105s have a high energy level. I saw a flic about the 105, for the MGS. The only problem is the veh its on. The Brits are also working on a new 105. 
 Fellas, the 25MM cannot take out T72s. US BS. 
 Strath, e mail me. I‘m a old Hussar and RCD.


----------



## 1oldtq

This is going to be a "hot button" topic for both old and new Armd soldiers everywhere. Whether or not an MBT can be replaced by a wheeled variant isn‘t the question. The questions raised should deal with "when" we get the ?Wombat? what will it‘s role be? There is no established doctrine for employment of this vehicle!   :tank:  From that question comes many more. At the individual crewman level, it becomes a matter of how best to employ individual skills as part of a well trained, disciplined and effective crew, which is part of a well trained, disciplined and effective larger organization such as troop, squadron, regiment, or whatever. Effective use of whatever equipment, vehicles, munitions, weapon systems we are dealt is the mark of a professional soldier. Ive just read an article about the Stryker Bde deployed in Iraq. I‘ll post it here.
Quick-Hitting Brigade Test-Drives a New Army Vehicle in Iraq

By ERIC SCHMITT



 SAMARRA, Iraq, Dec. 24 â€” The United States Army is betting much of its future on the success of an unlikely new warrior: an ungainly 19-ton wheeled combat vehicle wrapped in a steel-grilled hoop skirt. 



Here at the edge of the Iraqi desert, the vehicle‘s combat debut is unfolding with the Army‘s first Stryker Brigade combat team. This much-debated $10 billion experiment aims to field as many as half a dozen 3,600-soldier units equipped with these high-tech, lightly armored vehicles that can speed infantry to a fight.



Unlike an Abrams tank or a Bradley fighting vehicle, the Stryker is a medium-weight, eight-wheel vehicle that can carry 11 soldiers and weapons at speeds of more than 60 miles an hour. With its giant rubber tires instead of noisy tracks, it is fast and quiet and draws on the brigade‘s reconnaissance drones, eavesdropping equipment and the Army‘s most advanced communications gear to outflank an enemy rather than outslug it. 



Critics of the system, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, say the Stryker is a risky gamble that could leave American soldiers vulnerable to guerrilla attacks. But proponents in the Army say it is an alternative to light infantry and heavy armored forces in the shift from a heavy cold-war arsenal to a more agile, mobile force that can be dispatched quickly to hot spots around the world. 



The Stryker, supporters contend, also fits the new American blueprint for war: use an array of sensors to pinpoint an enemy, share that information through satellite links, and quickly direct precision firepower on that target.



"The strength of our engagements in the future is the ability to gather, see and share information rapidly across the battle space," said Col. Michael Rounds, a West Point graduate and a native of Greene, N.Y., who commands the brigade, formally known as the Third Brigade, Second Infantry Division. 



Originally conceived to rush troops to battle in the early days of a conflict and, later, to assume peacekeeping duties, the Stryker Brigade has been thrown into a counterinsurgency role in Iraq for which it was not specifically designed. It is adapting on the fly.



"Obviously, this is a big experiment," said Michael O‘Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "This is going to be Stryker‘s real-world test." 



The Stryker has already weathered a wave of criticism. A report prepared by a defense consultant earlier this year for Representative H. James Saxton, a New Jersey Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said the Stryker was vulnerable to rocket-propelled grenades, an easy target for any hostile forces and too cramped for gear-laden soldiers. 



The Stryker has more armor than a Humvee and is equipped with a .50-caliber machine gun and a grenade launcher (an antitank variant has heavier weapons), but it was never intended for front-line combat. The vehicles, which cost $2 million each, were built to take a hit from a heavy machine gun, but confidence in that capability was shaken last summer when some of the ceramic tiles that form the protective skin on the brigade‘s 309 Strykers were found to be faulty. Army officials say they have fixed the problem. 



Like almost every other combat vehicle and helicopter here, the Stryker is susceptible to rocket-propelled grenades. So General Dynamics, the Stryker‘s manufacturer, built a protective grille, called slat armor, that is bolted onto the vehicle. It is designed to deflect a grenade‘s explosive blast before it reaches the Stryker‘s ceramic skin, but it has yet to face the ultimate test here. 

The new armor also adds 5,000 pounds to the vehicle, making it too heavy to be flown on an Air Force C-130 transport and calling into question whether the brigade can live up to its billing of being deployable anywhere in the world within four days. 



That capability was not tested when the brigade rolled up from Kuwait this month, but Stryker soldiers and commanders say the vehicle is well suited for missions like guarding checkpoints, patrolling urban streets and rushing soldiers to raids on suspected insurgent hide-outs. The vehicle is named after two unrelated combat heroes who earned the Medal of Honor, Pfc. Stuart S. Stryker in World War II and Specialist Robert F. Stryker in Vietnam. 



Before leaving for Iraq, the brigade received 30 days of training at Fort Irwin, Calif., and Fort Polk, La., and 10 more days at its home base, Fort Lewis, Wash. "They‘ve put us through every training situation imaginable," said Sgt. First Class Max McLaughlin, 39, a platoon sergeant from Olympia, Wash. 



With the cost of fielding each brigade now at about $1.5 billion, the Army is not cutting any corners in seeking the unit‘s success. It is even spending $9 million on individual gear for the soldiers, like kangaroo-leather gloves and custom-designed uniforms with built-in knee and elbow pads. "The Army has set this unit up to do well," said First Lt. Leonardo Flor, 23, a platoon leader from Leavenworth, Kan. 



Still, there have been setbacks. Shortly after the brigade moved into Iraq with its Strykers, three soldiers died when two of the vehicles flipped into a rain-swollen irrigation ditch. 

Then, two Strykers were attacked by roadside bombs. One vehicle was destroyed by fire and the other lost a tire but kept going. Only one soldier was injured, and commanders say the incidents show the vehicle‘s survivability. 



The brigade passed its first combat test on Dec. 15 when a patrol thwarted a complex ambush and, with help from other soldiers, waged a 45-minute firefight in Samarra, a hotbed of forces loyal to Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi leader. Soldiers came under fire from mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and gunmen on motorcycles, but suffered no casualties or damage to the vehicles. Stryker commanders said 11 attackers were killed. 



Since then, the eastern half of this city of 250,000 people that the brigade oversees has been largely quiet, commanders say. They think the insurgents have fled or are lying low until the brigade moves on. 



Three truckloads of weapons, including 271 AK-47‘s and 412 grenades, as well as 47 detainees, have been seized since Dec. 10. "We‘re cleaning up the town and trying to set the conditions so we can turn it over to the Iraqi people," said Lt. Col. Rob Choppa, of Glens Falls, N.Y., the deputy brigade commander.



On two missions this week â€” one a night patrol here and another a raid against a suspected recruiting center in a nearby town â€” Stryker soldiers showed the system‘s versatility.

Soldiers spend a lot of time inside the vehicles, and many have customized their cramped interiors with coffee pots, stereo systems and even small television sets to watch DVD‘s during lulls. On their way to their predawn raid on Tuesday, Sgt. Billy Parker, 23, of Clemson, S.C., and Sgt. Anthony Glover, 31, of Los Angeles, both from Company C, Fifth Battalion, 20th Infantry, studied a laminated sheet of useful Arabic phrases, including the phrase for "Shut up!" 

Some soldiers shrugged off criticism of the Stryker‘s vulnerabilities but others showed concern. "I‘d feel better if we‘d gone in after they‘d tested it more," said Specialist Jake Herring, 20, of Kirkland, Wash. 



During an early-morning patrol on Wednesday, Strykers from Company A disgorged soldiers who fanned out into streets and alleys, the vehicles following at a distance. 



Inside his command vehicle, Capt. Eric Batchelor, the 30-year-old company commander from Barnesville, Ga., monitored his vehicles‘ movements on a digital mapping system, ready to reposition them quickly at the first sign of trouble or fresh intelligence. Stryker vehicles are blue icons on the screen. Opposing forces are marked in red. Every soldier on the ground had a radio, and the patrol columns moved silently through deserted streets.



Suddenly, an insurgent‘s .50-caliber machine gun barked three times, and Stryker radios crackled. By the time a team rushed inside a building, the attacker had fled into the night. The 12-hour patrol detained one person after finding rifles, a submachine gun and bomb-making material. 



"We‘re on the threshold of something new," Captain Batchelor said afterward. "We‘re making history."


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Is this really a fair comparison between our new vehicle and this version? They are different vehicles with different capabilities.


----------



## Brock

Good point ex-Dragoon.  The US Army‘s Strykers and the Canadian Army‘s LAV III vehicles should not really be compared.  The Strykers mostly have .50cal HMG/40mm AGL remote turrets while the Canadian Army vehicles have 25mm chain gun conventional turrets.  The standard Stryker is a true wheeled APC while the LAV III APC is not really an APC at all, but a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle (IFV).  Although, I think infantry combat vehicle (ICV) is more appropriate, but that is topic for another discussion.

It is interesting to read that they are "too cramped for gear-laden soldiers" yet soldiers find room for coffee machines and TVs.  Some of the troops in 2RCR found a way to hook up Playstations for downtime activity, and the Canadian Army‘s LAV III vehicles have a 25mm chain gun turret and are far more cramped.  The person who said the vehicles are cramped was obviously comparing their interior to a hotel suite rather than the inside of a Bradley, M113 or similar, because in comparison their is a lot more interior room.


----------



## Jason Jarvis

I know there isn‘t a lot of love for Scott Taylor on this forum, but he raises some good points in this article in today‘s Chronicle-Herald.

--------------------------------------------------

*Hard questions about Stryker*

By Scott Taylor

IN OCTOBER, when then-defence minister John McCallum made the unexpected announcement that the Canadian army would be purchasing 66 new Stryker Mobile Gun Systems, the $600-million procurement immediately blew up into a storm of controversy. 

Touted as the cornerstone upon which Canada will build a modern combat force, the Stryker MGS was the focus of some astonishing claims by McCallum and his spokesmen. 

Unfortunately, much of their sales pitch to the public was sorely undermined by media revelation about the Defence Department‘s internal study of the Strykers. The report outlined many of the design flaws that were revealed during tests conducted by the U.S. army, as well as the Canadian military panel‘s conclusion that to purchase Strykers as tank replacements "would be morally and ethically wrong." 

When critics questioned how the purchase of 66 lightly armoured 23-ton wheeled vehicles could possibly replace our existing 115 Leopard 42-ton tanks, McCallum and his generals were quick to respond. The defence minister declared tanks were, in fact, "obsolete weapons" and "relics of the Cold War." 

McCallum was already out of the Defence portfolio when another internal DND study hit the media Jan. 8. After careful analysis of the U.S.- led attack on Iraq, Canadian tactical planners had concluded that "tanks were crucial" to the Americans crushing Saddam‘s forces. 

Naturally, those opposed to the Stryker purchase were quick to point out this disconnect between the reality of the modern battlefield and DND‘s procurement policy. In defence of his political masters, army commander Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier wrote a lengthy rebuttal. 

Unfortunately, the good general put a little too much torque on some of his counter-spin and thereby created distortions of his own. To wit: While admitting that it was tanks that spearheaded the Americans‘ drive into Iraq, Lt.-Gen. Hillier noted that the U.S. marines had also successfully employed light armoured vehicles such as the Strykers. However, it was when Hillier tried to compare this to a Canadian case that his leap of logic fell drastically short. 

"Deployed with a variety of air and ground systems, as Canadian units will be (the U.S. vehicles) protected their crews, were lethal to the enemy and helped to completely overwhelm the ground defences," Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote. "Our medium weight army will be able to do the same." 

Unfortunately, those support systems he speaks of mean squadrons of modern helicopter gunships and fleets of 70-ton main battle tanks - none of which Canada has any plans to ever acquire.

The other myth the commander continues to perpetuate is that the acquisition of the Strykers will mean his army will become more flexible and readily deployable.

True enough, the major selling point for the U.S. army was that the Strykers can be deployed by Hercules aircraft. But due to its increased weight, the Mobile Gun System variant which Canada intends to purchase is too heavy to be transported in this manner except by the very latest upgraded model of Hercules. 

Again, Canada does not possess any of these, and there is no plan to replace our old tactical airlift planes before 2015. 

Lt.-Gen. Hillier cleverly skirted this issue by acknowledging: "We may at times move the Mobile Gun System ... by sea. But we will be able to move the MGS aboard C-130 Hercules aircraft, particularly directly from allied ports into a theatre." Alert readers will notice the army commander did not specify Canadian Hercules, and he implicitly acknowledged that airborne deployment into a war zone would first necessitate a sealift to an "allied port." Again, Canada now has no strategic sealift capability, and no plans or funding are in place for any. 

The final point stressed in Lt.-Gen. Hillier‘s rebuttal appears to contain an inherent contradiction. On the one hand, the general claims that "protection for our soldiers is vital," but then, in the next paragraph, he admits that the new Strykers are vulnerable to rocket-propelled grenade launchers. It is these versatile anti-tank weapons that have been widely employed by the Iraqi resistance and are reportedly responsible for more than half the combat deaths suffered by American forces in Iraq. 

So if the Strykers can‘t really be transported by air and they‘re proven to be a liability on the modern battlefield, then why are we suddenly planning to build the Canadian army around them? More importantly, one might ask why Lt.-Gen. Hillier - himself a former tanker - is so desperately trying to sell the Stryker.

--------------------------------------------------

So? Thoughts, any one?


----------



## Franko

I can‘t believe I‘m saying this... I AGREE with Scott Taylor on this one. Mark it down in your calendars   

Stryker is to the Armour Corps
           As
Cheese is to a roast

They just don‘t go together!

Regards


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Rick Hillier was my last CO before I remustered to the navy and I must admit for a man that was happy to have tanks again in Pet he has since done a full reversal of his position. It saddens me to see such a fine officer bend to the will of the politicians.


----------



## Franko

You said it Ex-Dragoon... I won‘t be able to look him in the face this year at the annual cadet parade inspection in Connaught. He‘s let us ALL down.

Regards


----------



## Franko

We are still going in the wrong direction in the post 911 era. I for one will never be able to look the man in the face, he‘s let us all down. He should have fought harder for more or better MBTs. Now that we‘re stuck with this POS, who‘s going to be the one going to battle in it? Sure isn‘t going to be Rick. I always looked up to the man, seemed he was one officer who had the best interest of the troops in mind. I guess at the rank he‘s got he is now more of a politician than soldier.

Sir if you‘re reading this forum answer this one question:

Why have you sold out the Army?

Regards


----------



## Gunnar

And we will transport these Strykers to the theatre how?  He says with Hercules aircraft, but the reporter has already pointed out that our superannuated Hercs are insufficient to the task, particularly the Strykers we are planning on getting.

<QUOTE>The MGS and LAV III have significant
protection from direct fire and mine blast, but we need more. We are aggressively pursuing, together with other countries and many companies,
improved armoured protection through additional armoured plating and what is referred to as active protection systems (that actually destroy
incoming projectiles). 
Our short-term goal is protection from the most common rocket propelled-grenade that we encounter, the RPG 7, and we will not rest until
that is achieved. </QUOTE>

So they really *are* vulnerable to RPG‘s, but you‘re looking at ways to minimize that.  Great.  And what exactly does "not rest until that is acheived" mean?  That you‘ll buy the Strykers anyway, then do a long-term and expensive review on possible upgrade options, which will be shelved as soon as the newspapers start to comment on something else?  Or do you actually mean that you won‘t buy the Strykers until they do what you want them to?  Or, most likely, that you‘ll buy the Strykers, do a long-term expensive review, then buy a specially made upgrade package which no other nation will use, which will cost us more than the original order and will never be fully implemented due to the need for spare parts?

It‘s a response to the article, but it‘s short on answers.  All it really says is that we‘re moving to a rapid-reaction force concept instead of using the old set-piece battles concept of warfare, and that we should get used to that idea.  Great.  I‘m used to the idea of trimming our forces down to something like the US Marines.  Now are you going to answer the **** questions about the shortcomings of the Stryker and our transport issues?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Sad to say but if this keeps up the only black berets in the CF will be those worn by the navy.


----------



## Garry

Gen Hillier was my CO as well, and I have great respect for him.

Guys, nothing‘s changed.

Read the article again. Canada is NOT going to get $$ for MBT‘s. We are NOT going to be an all arms, balanced war machine. Never.

That truly sucks.

However, it is reality. We have passed the defence of our country on to our Allies. 

That truly sucks.

So, what do we do about it? Either we change the rules, and elect a Government that will make us what we were, or we groan and moan and whine and do nothing, or we accept the fact and try to move on.

Hillier is (imho) trying to move on.

We may well see the CF specialising. We may lose more assets and abilities than heavy armour- who knows, maybe the Fighter Force (F-18‘s) are next.

If I read Hillier right, we‘re going to lose some capability in some areas, and gain in others. Always with the concept of fighting as part of an Allied war machine. 

Just for giggles, we could become the experts on Recce. Not just in Armoured, but Infantry as well. F-18‘s could go to the Recce role, as well as the Navy. Heck, the enitre CF could be the eyes and ears for our Allies. 

Nice? No, but at least we‘d be the best we could be, and provide a credible asset to NATO. 

That‘s one idea, there will be more. Whatever way we go, I want our troops to be well equipped, well trained, and well led.

I believe Hillier thinks the same way.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## Franko

I hope so Garry...it‘s hard to read between the lines with the drivel that makes the news these days.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace

Gents.  I cut out and saved Gen Hillier‘s half page letter to the Ottawa Citizen and once again I feel betrayed by him.  He has proven that he no longer wears the Black Beret in my eyes.  Too many flaws with his rational.  At the looks of it the MGS will not fit into a Herc fully prepared for combat.  How many Hercs would be required to move a Sqn or even a Troop of these vehs?  If you have to spend days of prep time at both ends of the flight, what is the sense?  If on the other hand a flight of Hercs arrived at a remote airfield and could unload a Sqn of MGS blazing away and killing the enemy dead, then I would hold that as a relevant arguement.  No.  Nowhere in Armour Doctrine has it ever been stated that Armour is to be Air Portable, Air Transportable or Air Dropable.  Armour usually arrives by Sea and goes into a Battle Zone fighting.  Anyone, including Gen Hillier, who wants to take DS1 or DS2 as an example of modern battle is nuts and looking for a disasterous fall in the future.
When I listen to people say that the ‘tank‘ is a "Cold War Relic" and obsolete, I can only shake my head at their ignorance (Even if it is a Past CO, and there are even worse working for him, all past CO‘s--our Somolia ‘hero‘ who thinks ISTAR is the greatest thing since sliced bread comes to mind).  So we are replacing our Leopards with the MGS.  Well that is a step backwards in my opinion.  The MGS is an Assault Gun/Tank Destroyer and that idea is a relic from WW II.  
We have now destroyed the Combat Team.  No longer do we have a tank to close with and destroy the enemy and fight alongside the attacking Infantry giving them mutual support.  IMHO this is the destruction of the Army.

GW


----------



## tmbluesbflat

sounds like the officer or one of his relatives, may be a share holder in the company selling the iron. He would not be the first!


----------



## Garry

George,

Back when you and I were Troopers drooling over the Centurions, the Armoured Corps managed to convince the Government that the Cent‘s were dead, and that we truly needed new tanks. The problem was brought to Trudeau, and his response was "disband the Armoured Corps". 

Not the response we expected.

After much discussion, it was decided to mothball the Cents, buy enough Leo‘s to outfit Germany    (and maintain our NATO commitment) and some for the school. The rest of the Corps would be given "Tank Trainers" so as to maintain their skills for the few years it would take to get the $$ for new tanks.

IIRC we went from 500 Cent‘s to 120 leo‘s and a bunch of Cougars.

Well, this is screw the Armoured Corps, round two. Thing is, is what are we gonna do about it? I have no idea about the Stryker- never seen one, will never crew one- and agree that it does NOT sound like a tank..and NOTHING  projects power like a tank. However, as long as we do NOT employ it like a tank, then who cares?

The all arms/capable army is gone. We may as well find something to do that lends itself to our skills. 

Is this rolling over? maybe. If we deny the truth, certainly.

We fulfill the role that Canadians set for us. That apparently does not include all out war.

Should our generals resign in protest? maybe. Years ago, that action would have given the Government a public slap in the face. I suggest that option now would be a futile gesture. 

Tough times, my friend- but good folk.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## George Wallace

Good Morning.

On Parade this morning we got the news from our OC of the suicide bomber taking out an Iltis this morning in Kabul.  This is where I feel betrayed by the Upper Echelons laying down and playing dead for their civilian masters.  They are not fighting hard enought for the proper equipment for the job that we have to do.

When we first took on the role of Peacekeepers in the ‘60s we used Ferrets to patrol in dangerous zones.  Our "Kinder - Gentler Army" attitude is what killed our troops.  I am sure that a suicide bomber would have had little effect against an armoured car like a Ferret (ie. the crew would have been shaken up, but not seriously injured).  We are letting our troops down.  It has to stop.

GW


----------



## Franko

Agreed


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Funny thing is, there are still countries out there using the ferrets, the Chinook, the 5/4 ton truck and the Kiowa amongst other things.  Tell me that makes sense to you??  Frustration.

Bzz


----------



## Franko

The RCD have a Ferret and it drives like a dream...right George?

Regards


----------



## George Wallace

> Originally posted by Franko:
> [qb] The RCD have a Ferret and it drives like a dream...right George?
> 
> Regards [/qb]


Well....you could get rid of that gas tank from your boat


----------



## Franko

Actually George, the tank belonged to SSM Whelan(ret)...you haven‘t seen it lately have you? I put in the gas tank, installed the radios etc. It‘s pretty much done with the exception of the wiring harness. Still missing some relays and juctions.

At least we have it running and drivable/ stoppable.

Regards


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Are you referring to CWO Whelan that is here at the school? He is not retired..


----------



## Franko

Nope, his brother Rick. He just retired.

Regards


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Seen.  I am not "current" on the RCD nominal role.. hehe


----------



## Franko

and you never will be  :evil: 

Regards


----------



## Bzzliteyr

That‘s right.. I am a true regimental soldier and have no plans of rebadging.  The only other badge I ever want to wear (again) is the RCAC badge. That may or may not happen, but dreams never hurt anyone (except the ones about you in spandex Franko)..

Bzz


----------



## Colin Parkinson

> Originally posted by Recce41:
> [qb] The only LAV we have is the LAVIII.  The rest are US/Aussie. Canada only builds them. The 105 is just as good as a 120. [/qb]


It is unlikely that the 105 M68A1 on the MGS will be as good as the 120mm. the Sabot round will certainly be less although the HEAT round will be fairly close. A 105mm HESH would be the most useful round for this, as the MV are fairly low.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

> Originally posted by Recce41:
> [qb] Strat
> The new 105s are just as good as the 120MM. The new 105s have a high energy level. I saw a flic about the 105, for the MGS. The only problem is the veh its on. The Brits are also working on a new 105.
> Fellas, the 25MM cannot take out T72s. US BS.
> Strath, e mail me. I‘m a old Hussar and RCD. [/qb]


the gun from the MGS is from the US M60 and is almost exactly the same as the Leo‘s 105.

they are talking about the use of a smooth bore 105 from Rheinmatal (spelling?) but have no plans to buy it.
From the article I read here, it would seem that the designers feel they have overcome the recoil problem.....care to buy a bridge?


----------



## George Wallace

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] I am not an expert on Armored vehicles (yet        )
> but last year I met one of the chief designers of the United Defense AGS.
> 
> The AGS is suppose to give the US 18th ABN Corps some armored defensive capability (similar to the M-551 Sheridan) other than man portable systems.  IMO, the new thunderbolt (AGS) concept with 120mmm and autoloader meets most of the objectives of an AGS. The new future combat systems (FCS) vehicles are a step in the right direction, IMO, there is still a need for a MBT! [/qb]


Couldn‘t agree with you more.

This is a vehcile that comes out of WW II mentality/philosophy of the Tank Destroyer or Assault Gun.  It plays a completely different role on the battlefield than a tank.  It stands off and fires onto a target, or lays in ambush for a target.  It does not necessarily require to carry many rounds.  A tank on the other hand ‘closes with and destroys the enemy‘ in cooperation with Infantry.  For Canadian Generals and Politicians to think of replacing tanks with this vehicle is nonscience.  It is a vehicle that would supliment the tanks in a Combat Team, not replace them.

GW


----------



## Franko

How true George....

Too bad the monkeys in Ottawa don‘t see it that way.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace

Just got a flight date today.  Am on the Big Silver Bird Monday.  Probably see you late Tuesday evening or Wednesday.  Don‘t know what Tpt is like, but am leaving Pet in PM  (1600) weather permitting of course.

GW


----------



## Franko

It‘s anywhere from 24 to 36 hours travel time. It also depends on the road conditions, mountains, and if your in a Hungarian bus or one of ours. If it‘s the Hungarians...I‘m suggesting you take the rear seats at the very back...the rest are plywood covered in 1/8 inch of foam   

Leaving on Monday eh? See you on Wednesday...


----------



## John Nayduk

Best of luck, George.  Thought you‘d had enough of that place.


----------



## George Wallace

> Originally posted by Another Recce Guy:
> [qb] Best of luck, George.  Thought you‘d had enough of that place. [/qb]


Guess the place had enough of me.....got the word at 0700 this morning that I would not be gettion on the 0900 bus to Trenton on Monday.  Sorry Franko...I won‘t be dropping in to see you.

GW


----------



## Recce41

George
 Have a good one. Yea I thought you would never get out of there. I too have lost all respect for Hiller. I guess that bonus for saying YES, counts.
Colin
 The 105 is as good as the 120. Just because "Bigger is not always better". The old Sherman had a 37mm Ram, 17 pdr,75,76,90,and last a 105. The old 17 was the best out of the bunch. It was the same size as the 76 but hit harder. There is a big differnce between a tank 105 and a Arty 105.


----------



## George Wallace

Was really looking forward to it, but it got canned at the last minute.  Now I am reconnecting all my Phone, Internet, etc. that I had cut off for the Tour.  Turning out to be expensive.  Guess I am still the Phanthom RCD.  

GW


----------



## Franko

Just read your email 2 min ago. Sorry to hear about it.

Claim it all George...make ‘em pay  :evil: 

Oh well..ther‘s always this ‘grate‘ site and TN

Regards


----------



## George Wallace

Let‘s get back on subject for a while.    Some of us know of the problems that the MGS has, but why aren‘t they relevant to the ‘Non-Armour‘ types?    Some questions I have and would like addressed as to why their relevance isn‘t as high as they should be are:

1.  What is the field of view for the Commander?  Degrees and in what directions?

2.  What is the field of view for the Gunner?  Degrees and directions?

3.  What is the Full Combat Load of Main Gun Ammo?  How many rds in the Ready Rack?  How many in the Carousel?  

4.  How long does it take to Bomb Up and is any specialized equipment required?

5.  Can the crew fire with the hatches open?  If not, how dangerous are the effects of firing on supporting Infantry?  What is the Danger Radius of gun firing?

6.  What is the rate of fire for the Main Gun with auto loader?  How much time does it take to switch ammo selection after firing?

Let‘s clear up these questions before moving onto mobility questions.

GW


----------



## Korus

How difficult is it for the crew to clear up a jam in the autoloader? (Do they have access from inside the vehicle?)


----------



## Recce41

Korus
 The crew has to get out of the **** thing. 
George
 Hows it going. E mail me. I can respond between the field weeks here in Gagetown. Have you recieved the 638 for the Scarlets?
Later


----------



## patt

http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/id-leo.htm


----------



## Franko

Patty...is that for real? I hope it‘s not

Regards


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Why not go all the way and use the 165mm Demo gun that the Cent ARVE had?


----------



## babicma

Here is a short clip of a Leopard firing...

 http://www.12rbc.ca/images/clip/leo_tir_1_mpg.mpg


----------



## George Wallace

Franko....can you make out the C/S?  It is 2___?
Looks like a RCD tank in Kosovo, perhaps?  Trying to figure out the Range layout.  Don‘t remember any hills like them.

RBC tanks are A Sqn and I believe LdSH are C Sqn.

GW


----------



## Franko

Sorry George...it won‘t come up for me at all. 5 tries and nothing.

BTW the Ferret and the Restoration team is planning to go to the activity you passed on to me. Hopefully the Bren is ready too...we‘ll see.

Regards


----------



## Franko

What about PPCs and it changes into a huge robot ala Optimus Prime....

Utter rubbish.

Regards


----------



## Bzzliteyr

George, my regiments tanks always belonged to B sqn, hence the 2_ callsign, I am waiting to see if it will download to confirm but I think the "hiils" are those of our range in Valacartier...

Bzz


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Franko,

Just curious as to why you think the CIBUA role for the Leopard is "utter rubbish"?


----------



## Franko

Try getting a vehicle that was meant to go into battle in Western Europe with guns blazing....to rolling into a town to try and clear it is a bad idea to a certain extent. I‘d would much rather it be on overwatch while ops happen.

Mind you the Leo would provide more than adequate protection to the crew instead of the bloody MGS, which as we all know is a bit lacking in the RPG/ MG protection department.

Leo‘s have been on ops in Kosovo, passing over bridges and getting into towns where the roads were just too narrow for other tanks to go.

The "Rubbish" remark was in reference to the diagram to the proposed modifications. How the blazes is the crew supposed to maintain a vehicle by all acounts wrapped up in it‘s own cage effectivly? Ever drive a dozer tank? I have and let me tell you it‘s no walk in the park. Puts a great deal of stress on the front torsion bars...more than normal. It leads to handling problems as well.

Also...would you mind updating your profile   

Like to know who I‘m talking to.   

Regards


----------



## Garry

Franko,

While I for one am not a fan of tanks in a fibua situation, I‘m reminded of how our ancestors solved the problem in WWII- two tanks leading, followed by infantry. Tanks were side by side, and they systematically took the tops off of every building on the street as they slowly advanced- bringing the tops floors down on the remainder. Infantry mopped up the remains as they went.

Blindingly slow, and expensive both in terms of Hesh and infrastructure, it nonetheless made for a safe ride through town.

Matt- lesson time- a tank is a combination of three attributes. Armoured protection, speed, and firepower. In the "old" days (pre Leopard 2 and M-1) there was a tradeoff between protection and speed- make the tank heavy, you could take hits- but had a tough time avoiding them. Make a tank light, and you could avoid many hits- but one good one would kill you. With improved drivetrains and suspensions,todays tanks can take a hit, and move quickly- but none can take hits in certain areas, and all will fall to a good missile- and with no room no manouever, no room to build up speed, no dirt to hide behind, and plenty of places for the bad guys to engage you from a close range, a tank is merely a sitting duck. No thanks.

General rule of thumb- Tanks lead the way in open ground, Infantry leads the way in close ground.

Built up areas are extremely close ground.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## Franko

A little TOO close for comforte   

Regards


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Garry,

Thanks for the "Lesson"  I must have forgotten/mentally blocked out when I was in Nasiriya last spring with 1st Marine Division as an LAV-25 gunner conducting ops in urban situations.  Our M1‘s lead the spearhead over the Rt. 7 Bridge into town, with 2nd Bn. 8th Marines on their butt providing close support.

In CIBUA/FIBUA/MOUT, whatever you want to call it, direct fire support from an armored platform is essential.  Tank/Infantry cooperation is key to seizing ground in the hellish chaos that is urban warfare. 

Franko:  In reference to the cage, if such a system were employed it would be on a hinged platform so that maintenance critical areas could be accessed.  Modification of the front torsion bars would be something that would need to be addressed, especially when you consider the additional weight of the MEXAS package for the Leopards, if it hasn‘t been already.


----------



## Franko

It hasn‘t and it won‘t. As for MEXAS, we won‘t employ that system seeing how we already bought an add-on/ up-armour package for the panzers.

Also, don‘t start belittling troops on this board with your personnal experiences when you didn‘t even have the courtesy of filling out your profile with your mil history...we can‘t read minds.   

Service in the CF? Mind filing us in?   

Regards


----------



## Colin Parkinson

> Originally posted by Recce41:
> [qb] George
> Colin
> The 105 is as good as the 120. Just because "Bigger is not always better". The old Sherman had a 37mm Ram, 17 pdr,75,76,90,and last a 105. The old 17 was the best out of the bunch. It was the same size as the 76 but hit harder. There is a big differnce between a tank 105 and a Arty 105. [/qb]


Recce
I do understand the difference between the L7 105mm tank gun and the 105mm howitzer, which if I remember correctly had a MV of only 1500 FPS for the C1 version. From rereading your post I take it that you are referring to the new smoothbore 105mm that was being developed by the Germans? I don't know if anyone has actually purchased them yet? Also GIAT produced a 105mm used on the AMX RC armoured car, which I think relies more on a HEAT/HESH round than a Kinetic energy round (Sabot). I do think the 105mm on our leo's is a good gun, but it and the ammunition for it is getting dated and would be hard pressed to up against the newest marks of T-80's, T-90's or Arguns. 

A minor oops, the RAM was equipped with the 2pdr (40mm) although the American M2 medium tank (Grandfather of the Sherman) was equipped with the American 37mm. Even though the 17 pdr was an excellent gun, it had a poor accuracy rate due to it's APDS and the lack of understanding at the time of how the petals affected the flight of penetrating rod. 

sorry for taking so long to post a reply. cheers


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Franko,

"As for MEXAS, we won‘t employ that system seeing how we already bought an add-on/ up-armour package for the panzers."

The MEXAS (Modular Expandable Armour System)by IBD Deisenroth Engineering of Germany was purchased and fitted for the both models of Leopards (Leopard A3 and A5 turrets) that the CF‘s have used.  This information was provided by Alan Bolster, Deputy Project Director, Mobile Gun System.  Due to the differences in turret shape, 2 different packages of MEXAS were produced.

In reference to the "belittling" I understand your point, however when someone on the forum presents their position in such a sarcastic way as "lesson time", they open themselves up for sarcasm in the response.

As far as service in the CF‘s:
1993-95 AVGP Driver with the BC Dragoons.
1995-99 Recce. Crewman with the BC Regiment.

2000-Present LAV Crewman with Delta Company, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, during which I served in Operation Iraqi Freedom from March 2003-October 2003.


----------



## Franko

> Originally posted by Matt_Fisher:
> [qb]  This information was provided by Alan Bolster, Deputy Project Director, Mobile Gun System.  Due to the differences in turret shape, 2 different packages of MEXAS were produced.
> [/qb]


MGS DPD right? These are the same guys who are trying to sell us the POS MGS Stryker, are they not?   

  I‘m not going to get into this can of worms. Everyone here I‘m sure know my POV on this topic and doesn‘t want to hear it again....

I‘ll pass it on to *George Wallace* for his input.

As for your docier...glad to hear you made it back.   

Regards


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Franko,

I agree with you in that the LAV III/Stryker MGS is not the ideal replacement for the Leopard.

By writing the article for CASR I wanted to create some thought on using a platform that the CF‘s already have in a very cost-efficient and effective manner.  Hence the proposal for modifying the Leopard for a CIBUA role, something that both you and I know the MGS is not suited for.  

We can argue the merits of Leopard II‘s vs. Challengers all day, but we both know that the CF‘s will not be replacing the Leopard with a newer MBT ie. M1/Challenger/Leclerc/LeopardII.  

What needs to be considered is an alternative that is feasible for the CF‘s other than the MGS.


----------



## Franko

There really isn‘t one at the present time. The biggest point that most of us serving in the Corps is that we are buying the MGS while we could buy the M1 or Leo 2 for a marked down price, which the Aussies already have agreed to with the US. They are battle proven, somewhat reliable, and getting parts would primarily be a snatch seeing how the US is right next door. As for Leo 2, we are already on line with the systems of an older model which would be nothing more than an expanded conversion course, primarily for the FCS/ Weap/ and maintainers. The crews would adapt quite quickly.

The MGS (I‘m sure we can all agree upon)is a stop gap measure...that will end up costing lives in future ops in the end.

The fact that the puchase has been put on hold could be construed as a sober second look...much to everyone‘s relief.

The CF will never go for such a rigg that you proposed...it‘s not economically feasable to modify panzers that were just recently upgraded. Besides think of the political fallout of such a proposal going through   

Regards


----------



## George Wallace

Ya had to mention my name...didn‘t ya?  Being an older guy, I am prone to talking to myself, and I‘ve been debating with myself on the Future of the Corps.  With recent half page letters to the Ottawa Citizen and such by our former CO, LGen R. Hillier, I have the feeling the Corps is DEAD.  He has greatly disappointed me in his favouring the purchase of the MGS and retiring of the Leopards (just after a major upgrade).

Canada is going to require a tank.  There is no way that we can reasonably maintain any form of an Army without one.  The removal of the tank from our inventory has not only killed the RCAC, but the whole Cbt Arms.  Too many ‘uninformed‘ people believed that Air Power alone was all we needed to end the violence in places like Kosovo and Macedonia.  Surgical Strikes.  Yeah sure.  It still takes the taking of ground by Cbt troops to end that paragraph of history.  Without tanks the Cbt Arms have lost an integeral part and have in essence been neutered.  Infantry still need heavy firepower to provide close support.  Artillery is not there in the direct fire role, so will not be able to effectively provide "timely" fire on an enemy.  Armour moves fast.  Infantry struggles to keep up.  No Armour.  The Advance slows.

If the Tank is a Cold War relic, what is the MGS?  It is a system, although greatly updated, that wasn‘t employed since WW II.  It was a system that was used as a Tank Destroyer or as an Assault Gun.  Neither proved close support to Infantry in the Assault, Advance, Defence, or withdrawl.  It is limited in the amount of ammo it carries.  Its whole gunnery system is problematic.  It has poor arcs of vision for both Gunner and Commander.  The US Army is larger than Canada‘s and can afford to create Heavy, Medium and Light Bdes (H#*#!, even Armies).  Canada does not have that luxury.

If we lose the tank, all our Armour skills will be lost, not only in the Corps, but in the whole Cbt Team.  It will take generations to relearn lessons that we will have lost, should somewhere in the future we be required to bring tanks back.

Franko...You know we already lost 30 people last fall, just because we lost our tanks.  These guys had joined to be Tankers, now they are civies.  The act had totally demoralized them and their faith in the CF.

I still haven‘t figured out how they seriously want to employ the MGS, but who am I?  I can do Recce, and so will the rest of us.  Perhaps the future of the Corps will be the replacement of the Coyote‘s with LAVs (Commonality of Parts) and we will be "Bus Drivers" for the Grunts?

Long enough for you?

GW


----------



## Franko

MORE I WANT MORE GEORGE!   

Regards


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Franko & George you guys warm my heart and I not even a tanker! 

People fail to mention that the turret for the MGS has been kicking around for a least a decade and no one has bought until the Styker family came along. 

For me the tank is the Canary in the mineshaft, if we can‘t afford or are incapable of operating tanks in the field, then there is something truly wrong in the whole structure of the forces. Your mention on the effect on morale is very good, people forget how all this crap kills people‘s spirits and makes it impossible to keep the good ones.

This whole lethal and light stuff makes me want to puke, it reminds me to much of a Budweiser ad, all fizz and no taste. Does anyone remember that it was â Å“light forcesâ ? that got their asses kicked in Somali, **** even the Brits in 1930's knew that Combined Armour/infantry was the way to go for dealing with the NorthWest Frontier.


----------



## Franko

Yep.....

Nothing make the enemy crap their pants and run for their lives like a squadron of panzers screaming across the battlefield...guns blazing...

What will they do when they see the MGS putting along and getting stuck?   

Regards


----------



## Kirkhill

You know, hearing all you armoured types constantly say that you don‘t want the MGS perhaps it should be handed over to the Arty along with the LAV-TUA.  They handle all the rest of the fire support tasks and up until you cavalry types were told to give over your horses for those dirty, grimy tanks they handled the direct fire support as well as indirect support.

Cheers all


----------



## Danjanou

> What will they do when they see the MGS putting along and getting stuck?


Die laughing (hopefully)


----------



## Franko

So give it to another bunch of troops who don‘t know Combat Team manouvers and ops so they can die a horrible death in a POS that has operating problems with the main gun?

Yeah...great idea   

The whole problem with the MGS is it‘s an idea that was thrown away in WW2 for it being a bad idea...why resurect it now? Sure it modern...I can smell the "new car scent" too.

Remember Kirkhill...this is to be a *REPLACEMENT* for the Leopard C2 main battle tank. 

The bloody thing takes up to 20min to reload the magazines, and they jam. There is NO protection for the crew against heavy fire (20mm and up), nevermind RPGs...and it‘s WHEELED! The crewcommander can‘t see jack, so there goes the hunter-killer capacity of the crew right there.

It‘s a great ADDITION to the US Army heavy divisions...they can afford to have it.

We, however,can‘t. 

It won‘t be able to provide direct fire and support capability nor the protection the way an MBT can...no matter how much money you throw at it.

If you think it can and will...your living in a dream world. I hope you statement was retorical.

Regards


----------



## Kirkhill

Franko, I understand your dedication to your regiment and your corps and appreciate it. I don‘t think that MBTs have gone the way of the dodo just yet and reckon they could be put to good use if available.  But I do think that you might have developed a degree of tunnel vision.

Soldiering is about more than motoring over us "crunchies". Cavalry is about more than shock action and sabre charges.

From the stand point of an ex-infanteer I would sooner have the support from an MGS in the field than the support from an MBT that wasn‘t available or may not even have been deployed.

As a complete aside I have noticed on this thread a tendency of late to slag Lt-Gen Hillier for failing to support the RCAC. He may or may not be deserving of that slagging for a variety of reasons but I saw the conference where Hillier and McCallum announced the MGS. At no time did Hillier say he wanted to get rid of the MBTs nor did he commit himself to getting rid of them.  It was McCallum that called the MGS an MBT replacement. It was McCallum that said that his desired number of tanks was zero.

Hillier left himself an out. All he said was that he wanted the MGSs as soon as possible.  

McCallum is gone. Nobody‘s got a clue on the future out there.

Regards, and keep safe

Airghardt.


----------



## George Wallace

> Originally posted by Kirkhill:
> [qb] As a complete aside I have noticed on this thread a tendency of late to slag Lt-Gen Hillier for failing to support the RCAC. He may or may not be deserving of that slagging for a variety of reasons but I saw the conference where Hillier and McCallum announced the MGS. At no time did Hillier say he wanted to get rid of the MBTs nor did he commit himself to getting rid of them.  It was McCallum that called the MGS an MBT replacement. It was McCallum that said that his desired number of tanks was zero.
> 
> Hillier left himself an out. All he said was that he wanted the MGSs as soon as possible.
> 
> [/qb]


This half page Byline by: Lt.-Gen. Rick J. Hillier, Source: Citizen Special 
Page: B7, Edition: Final 
The Ottawa Citizen - Sat, Jan 17, 2004 - 1001 words, says differently. 


"Our transformed army: A more nimble force best meets Canadian needs in a changed world, says the chief of the land staff. 

A recent Citizen article ("Tanks crucial in Iraq," Jan. 8) has used a widely acknowledged fact -- that tanks played a key role in the Coalition ground fight in Iraq -- to criticize the..."  

Slag!    Read this archived half page letter from Hillier and tell us again that he did what?

He let the Corps down.  There are others, wearing Black Berets in high places, who should never have worn a Black Beret, nor lead Armour troops, as they have no concept of Armour.  They are contributing to the Death of the Army also.  You seem to be an outsider, with a set of blinders on, who also has no concept of the Role of Armour and its‘ place in a Combat Team.  When you get a little older, you will not have had the oportunity to do a Quick Attack with real tanks (should be 25 to 45 minutes, as opposed to the Infantry 3 hrs.).  You will never have known the sound of diesel engines driving 50 tonnes of steel firing cannon and MG at an enemy as you advance beside it.  You will never experience that with a MGS.  It will not advance onto an enemy position with you.  It will have to fire through you to get at the enemy as opposed to advancing with you and firing from your side.  You‘re young and you‘ll learn (perhaps).


The Death of the Armour Corps is the Death of the Army.  The Combat Team is gone.  The four Cbt Arms are required to fight and win battles.  Lose one and the rest are neutralized.

IT IS A TEAM.

GW


  :soldier:


----------



## Kirkhill

Well George, many things I am, young I am not.  All the best to you and your pals on this site.
Enjoy yourselves.

Cheers.


----------



## Franko

Obviously someone who never knew the thrill of working with the tanks on combat team when he was in the reserves.   :crybaby:  

Smelled like a troll anyways...    

As for his point on having the MGS on deployment when he needed it, I agree...but a question must be added.

How would his beloved MGS get into theater, realistically ?

Not by C-130 that‘s for sure. By ship...the same way a tank would be transported, therefore negating any squabbles about it being too difficult to transport them into theater. If heavy firepower is required for an op, there is NO excuse for not employing our Leopards...even if it‘s to save opening the Liberals purse.

As for my supposed tunnel vision...    

I am not completly opposed to the CF procuring the MGS as an *ENHANCEMENT* to the combat team, not the master link or hinge pin. To do such a thing would put the entire army into a place, that on the battle field, where we could face disaster in future ops.

Anyone who worked with the panzers would agree...

Or am I wrong?

Sorry for the rant troops    

Regards  

BTW...as for the CLS leaving himself an out...not even going to touch that one.


----------



## Garry

Guys,

We‘re arguing apples and oranges here.

There is NO argument that in battle, a balanced, all-arms force is vital. Tanks are an absolutely crucial part of that force. No question, no excuses, no arguments.

Canada is planning on NOT having a combined arms, "total war" making Army any more. Period. We‘re out of the war making business. 

Is this right? Smart? A good idea? No.

Is it reality? Yes.

Our Government doesn‘t give a flying f*** about defending the Country. We‘ve ridden the American coattails for the last 25 years or so, and will continue to do so.

We are NO LONGER responsible for defending our country, the US is.

Our role is all it ever was, minus this one little (!!??!!) task.

Our Mission has shifted from Defense of Canada to our NATO/UN contributions. Are they valid? Dunno- I‘d guess the NATO commitment is, since "collective security" is how we stay free (yeah, right) but have less comfort with our UN taskings.

So, the question is, since we are no longer going to make all out war, but will do lots of force projection as a part of NATO or UN missions, what do we REALLY need to do the job?

I‘d guess that Artillery is on it‘s way out, the Corps will revert to Recce, and we may even lose our (Air Force) Fighter Force. Subs are brand new, so politically an embarrasment to lose, but their days are numbered as well.

Anyone want to bet we get lean and light? Lots of light Infantry, Armoured Recce/Fire Support, and a smaller Logistic train as well?

Moan and complain all you want. By your standards (and, I might add mine) you‘re right....but the MISSION has changed....deal with it.

Sucks, doesn‘t it?

Sigh.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## Gunnar

Ya know Garry, I‘d like to yell at you for your last post.  Really, I would.  I just don‘t have a good reason.

Yup, it sucks.


----------



## Franko

To quote John Lovitz ala SNL annoying man....

You need‘nt yell   

Regards


----------



## George Wallace

But Garry....If we had Schapp here, we could completely redesign the whole Leopard to fulfil multi-role missions......   

GW


----------



## Kirkhill

Gentlemen,

I don‘t know which comment finally caused me to return to the discussion but this Troll has become unwilling to walk away.

It seems that every time one of these discussions breaks out it is necessary to prove ones commitment to the cause.

I am not a candidate for flag rank.  My military experience is short, only four years with the reserves.  I flatter myself that my military knowledge is above that of the average citizen. I am a strong supporter of the military and I am a taxpayer that wants to see my dollars best applied in supplying you with wages and kit so that you can best secure my country for my kids.

Let me recite the military version of the Apostles‘ Creed.

I believe in a strong national security policy

I believe in the ability to project power within our borders, on our approaches and overseas.

I believe in Canadian Forces that can conduct security and stability operations domestically and internationally.

I believe in Canadian Forces that can operate in High Intensity Conflicts.

I would like to see the RCMP expanded with the RCMP able to commit forces abroad alongside the CF in stability and security operations.

I would like to see the Coast Guard expanded to handle surveillance of national approaches and territory as well as all SAR ops.

I want an air force and a navy that can remove threats from our approaches and support our land forces overseas.

I want an army of five regional commands each capable of supplying 2 regular medium/light battlegroups and 2-3 reserve light battlegroups for domestic and foreign security and stability operations.

I want an army with an air transportable capability of 2 small battalions.

I want an army with a high intensity capability based on a heavy armour battle group or a small brigade group that could be reinforced by regional battlegroups and reserve artillery.

I am willing to spend 2% of GDP on defence and 0.7% on foreign aid.

Does this buy me a ticket to the discussion?

Gulf War I proved that our side, the good guys, can win a high-intensity conflict by eliminating grid squares.  The enemy countered by declining to stand around in open fields waiting to be clubbed.  He now chooses to hide in crowds and use credit cards to hire young boys to detonate bombs, to buy our allies and to get his version of the story out on the media.  He has taken away our ability to use the club.

Even in high intensity conflict we have to pick our targets and ensure we only eliminate the desired target and leave his neighbours standing. This is behind the rebirth of the sniper/marksman and the resurgence of the large calibre rifle round. 

It is also behind the call by both the British Army and the US Marines to eliminate cluster munitions from the battlefield. They kill too many civilians and friendlies. They restrict own force manoeuvre room.  They are too hard to clear up and they give the opposition too many easy propaganda victories. 

It is behind the change in American Immediate Action drills such as spraying down everything within 500m after a mine-strike.

Discrimination and precision are the order of the day.

My "beloved MGS", crikey even my wife doesn‘t get called beloved, should be seen as a large calibre sniper rifle. I agree that it makes a lousy tank. I agree that it is probably too expensive.  I agree that it is technically-challenged (its new). 

But it has one major advantage over the tank.

It is not a tank.

The very qualities that you guys praise in tanks, summarized in the ability to put the fear of god into anybody contemplating becoming an crunchy, are the self-same reasons that they have not been deployed on security and stability operations.  Governments, citizens and the UN don‘t want to see tanks in the streets.  It doesn‘t make them feel very secure regardless of how it makes you black hats feel.

The MGS, regardless of how you feel, is more likely to be deployed than a tank because it is less threatening, and thus your infantry brethren will at least have fire support from a heavy direct fire rifle.

As to the protection issue.  The MGS will supply you with more protection than that afforded to the guys in green hats standing in front of you trying to keep crowds of hungry and angry civilians at bay.  All the while waiting for a rifle shot, an RPG round or an IED.

Further to the protection issue, since the CF started with this latest round of unpleasantness in 1992, when two battlegroups deployed from West Germany to Yugoslavia, how many CF members have been killed/wounded because the armour afforded by M113s/AVGPs/Bisons/LAVs had been penetrated.  To my knowledge, admittedly incomplete, the only significant case was the soldier in Yugoslavia killed by an RPG/ATGM attack while he was sticking out of an M113.  Most injuries appear to have been mine-strikes on unarmoured vehicles.  Light armour appears to have been adequate to defeat/deter most attacks.

Again, I think we should have an armoured club for high intensity warfare.  If we remove that club from our arsenal then the enemy will reverse flanks and attack us there again.  

I even think we should buy some of those Yankeee gas guzzlers they are giving away at fire sale prices.  The competition from Germans, Brits, Dutchment and the rest of NATO for barely used tanks is keeping the prices down.  When we do buy the tanks then we should buy adequate armoured tracked infantry and engineer carriers as well as transporters, bowsers, spares, mechanics and logistics vehicles to keep up with the wheeled forces on road moves.  This tends to push up the price of a few cheap tanks.

I don‘t think that armoured arty is as much a requirement these days as range and precision are increasing flexibility and effectiveness while reducing vulnerability and logistics.  Arty yes. Armoured arty no.

My anger with the position often expressed by members of the RCAC, that its tanks or nothing, is that by adhering to that position you will end up denying the army of a lot of other capabilities of which you are custodian.  These include but are not limited to tactical driving, gunnery, tactical command of vehicles and groups of vehicles, fire support, maintenance and support of vehicles in the field, vehicle based reconnaissance and combined arms operations.

It is more important that these skills be maintained than any fight over platform.

Chariots and elephants aren‘t in much demand these days.  Helicopters, OSVs and jeeps are useful.  Horses and mules seem to be making a limited comeback.  Tanks and LAVS have their place.  Regardless of platform the basic skills need to be maintained.

I agree tanks are good and necessary. Our government doesn‘t.  It is more important that the RCAC survive with the necessary skills than constantly fighting about tanks or being "bus-drivers" for the infantry. 

Squawk as much as you like.  Push to maintain the armoured capability.  But learn to play the hand dealt you, bad cards and all. 

Finally, on behalf of all tax-paying trolls everywhere, figure out how to convince more of us to support you in your goals.  You are not going to win any converts by keeping sympathizers out of the discussion.


TTFE


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Well, all I know is this armoured forum sure is a lot more interesting than mine. I eagerly anticipate the return volley from his overhead smash.  :warstory:   CHEERS


----------



## Garry

Kirkhill- welcome back.

Please feel free to stick around.

George is an old man, and kinda cranky...but a good friend, and a good fellow.

Franko wants to be George in a few years...  

Passion about the job is a good thing.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## devil39

Kirkhill,

I would agree with most of what you state.

However I would argue that the capability gap filled by the MGS is extremely narrow (almost non-existent) when you add the LAV III and the latest generation of "fire and forget" missiles into the equation.

LAV III and Javelin/Spike will both chew up bunkers rather nicely to a similar range as a 105 round.  Javelin/Spike will kill tanks at similar ranges as a 105 and beyond in some cases.

Tanks are useful because of their protection.  Their greatest strength is the ability they give a commander to employ them agressively, knowing that they have a decent chance of survival.  Exploitation, pursuit, cover on the withdrawal, rolling firebase and intimate support often rely on balancing risk and exposure with the protection and firepower provided by a tank.  If it is a "cowering" direct fire support platform that the armour corps brings to the battle, many infantrymen are likely not very interested.  We can accomplish most, if not all, of the MGS likely tasks by other means, and at a lesser cost.

I would argue that we would be better off skipping this evolutionary step (a very interim one I would suggest) and waiting for the Future Combat System (FCS) "hover tank" to make its appearance.  MGS makes sense in the US Army context when you do not have a 25 mm turret on your LAV.  They therefore lose the capability to bust bunkers and suppress objectives at longer ranges, not to mention kill APCs, IFVs, etc.  The US Interim Brigade Combat teams have only their anti armour missile systems.  

MGS is therefore a significant asset to an Interim Brigade Combat Team.  Its utility in the Canadian, LAVIII 25mm chain gun equipped Army is marginal by comparison, provided we buy a Javelin/Spike Gill fire and forget missile system. 

I would argue that the Armour Corps should keep their skills alive on the current platform.  FCS will likely be fielded in the US Army around the time that we receive MGS.  FCS will not suffer the fate of "Commanche" given the "Interim" nature of the IBCT.  The protection weakness inherent in the IBCT is one of the major improvements expected from FCS from my understanding. 

I can forsee a use for MGS, it is just extremely limited in the Canadian orbat from my point of view.  If I was in a US Army IBCT I would be quite grateful for my MGS.

Vehement disagreement likely to follow from MGS adherents.


----------



## Kirkhill

Hello again Devil

It won‘t be from me that you get any vehement argument on the MGS. I merely suggest that any craftsman make best use of the tools available to him.  

I take your point that if the Javelin/Spike is fielded then the MGS may indeed be surplus to requirement, especially if the bunker-busting TOW variant is also fielded.  On the other hand rate of fire may be beneficial although I accept that as a marginal gain. 

One scenario in which I could see the MGS as being useful is as fire support to a dismounted company on a light role deployment.  I think I might rather take up a couple of C130s transporting MGSs than a pair of LAVs to heavy up my line.

Looking at the Italian armoured cavalry platoon of 4 APCs and 2 Centauros, you can come to the same conclusion you do pertaining to the MGS in the American IBCT Orbat.  The Italian APCs only mount a 0.50 on a cupola mounted pintle.  The Centauro is their main base of fire.

Your comments on the FCS, when are you hearing that they will have the electric tank on line?  I thought it wasn‘t until about 2012 and that we were expecting the MGS in service by 2006.  Do you have any updates on the vehicle?

And Garry, thank you for the welcome back. I‘ll stop pouting now.

Cheers.


----------



## Franko

Kirkhill

...I‘m glad something I said urked you into staying in the conversaition, instead of you lulking away...*WELCOME BACK*.   

Garry...I want to be like George?

Thems‘ fightin‘ words   

The bigger question is should we be training for war or for peacekeeping?

The MGS is a peacekeeping vehicle...not a war fighting one.

At least a tank can be thrown into a peacekeeping role...such as the case in Kosovo. The Dutch, Brits and Yanks have ‘em here as well.

At 9 million a pop for one MGS and 4 million per M1...which would you go for?

I just can‘t get my head around the Liberals thinking on the way they can justify this spending. Buy the bloody tanks and spend the rest on transport for them I say.

If, however, we end up with the POS MGS...the corps will do like we‘ve been doing for years:

* Making do with what we are given*

Regards


----------



## devil39

> Originally posted by Kirkhill:
> [qb]
> I take your point that if the Javelin/Spike is fielded then the MGS may indeed be surplus to requirement, especially if the bunker-busting TOW variant is also fielded.  On the other hand rate of fire may be beneficial although I accept that as a marginal gain.
> 
> One scenario in which I could see the MGS as being useful is as fire support to a dismounted company on a light role deployment.  I think I might rather take up a couple of C130s transporting MGSs than a pair of LAVs to heavy up my line.[/qb]


I‘d rather the LAV IIIs.  I can move my troops around inside them if need be, and get direct fire support if required to the same range.  For target effects in support of Light Infantry 25mm will match 105 in most cases. Pintle mount a Javelin and we‘re pretty much covered.  I‘ll take the dual purpose platform any day.  



> Originally posted by Kirkhill:
> [qb]
> 
> Your comments on the FCS, when are you hearing that they will have the electric tank on line?  I thought it wasn‘t until about 2012 and that we were expecting the MGS in service by 2006.  Do you have any updates on the vehicle?
> 
> [/qb]


I read 2012 for FCS.  I don‘t know about MGS, but I can‘t believe we would see it 2 years from now.


----------



## Franko

It‘s a platform that is pretty much off the shelf Devil39...therefore easily procured, with exception to all the bugs they have to work out.

As for the FCS out in 2012...it may die the same way the Comanche did, cost over-runs and all.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace

So the Saturday morning crowd is at it...eh!

The MGS is bad for the Armour Corps if it is going to be used as a replacement for the tank.  In such a case it is a complete change of role and doctrine for the Armour Corps.  In WW II these vehicles used in the Assault Gun and Tank Destroyer roles were either Infantry or Artillery operated weapons, not Armour.  

If we were to use the MGS in the Support Sqn of an Armour Unit, then we have a different story.  There they would be used to compliment tanks.  That Support Sqn would also have Mortar and TOW assets.  

Kirkhill, Armour, as you said:  "Regardless of platform the basic skills need to be maintained."  To do so, a tank must be used.  You are old enough to remember the Cougar.  It did not fully fill that bill.  Skills were lost.  The MGS will further compond that lose.

Garry......who‘s blacker here....(are you the pot or the kettle?)

Franko.....what do you mean , you don‘t want to be me......

GW


----------



## George Wallace

Here is more discussion on the Stryker, mostly from the American point of view:

 http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum13/HTML/002723.html 

GW


----------



## Recce41

Hey George, Garry, Fellas
 Well here some info, I have from being at the School.
 1. The ADATs may be Armour soon?
 2. We are not getting rid of the Tanks fully. The MGS is a fill in, just like the Cougar was. We have to wait for the next Foreign Policy Paper. 
 3. Only the Armour Corp can give direct support. I have never seen a M109 or Field gun,Tow fire on the move. 
 4. The Armour Corp may crew the Lavs, as in the British, Ausie and US Armies.
 5. One of the Master Gunners here, received a letter from A US Master Gunner. He stated that the Cougar would be the best veh in Iraq. Due to its short barrel, high elev. of the gun, speed, etc. This is from a US Armour Master Gunner. He said tanks are useless. 

 Kirkman
 The problem is not the veh, its not tracked. I‘m a Recce fella, and tanks are there for a reason to support the Inf in the Assult and to protect the Inf when Tanks show up. I‘m one of the old timers here, like George and Garry. And have seen the Armour change.


----------



## Garry

We‘re getting there- keep reminding ourselves that our Army‘s mission is changing- no more all out warfare, peacekeeping, low intensity conflict.

On the Cougar- I agree, it may well have found it‘s niche in peacekeeping.

As for it‘s previous role, that of keeping Armoured skills alive- I was a Tanker most of my career. When I was finally posted, kicking and screaming, to a Cougar Sqn, I was told that it was a "Tank Trainer". That I understood.

Day one, Matawa Plains. Troop advance to contact. We left the start line, and I noticed we were moving painfully slowly. I asked my driver to speed up. He did, but only a little. I then told my driver to get us moving. We didn‘t speed up much. I also noticed that the turret was pointing in one direction only. Being day one, with a new, young crew, that while we weren‘t exactly as proficient at fire and movement as I liked, that was why we trained...and train we would. During the lull in overwatch as the rest of the Troop moved in, I briefed my Crew on how I expected our vehicle to move. Driver‘s instructions were "on the order to advance, you put your foot to the floor. I‘ll tell you when to take it off. Gunner, you traverse your arcs, whether on the move or not".....

Well, that Cougar took off like a scalded cat, made great time x-country....and even without the electric travers, my gun still moved from side to side. Gunner may never use his right arm again, but the aim was met.

Troop leader was concerned that we were finshed our "bound" while he was still jockeying....but then, troop leaders are still learning....

Speed and violence are not necessarily the Cougars strong point.   

Cheers-Garry

PS- George, you are SO older than me...  
PPS- Franko, see what you‘ve got to look forward to? Not pretty, is it?


----------



## George Wallace

> Originally posted by Garry:
> [qb] PS- George, you are SO older than me...
> [/qb]


Ah!...but I‘m still in the turret!

George


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Didn‘t realize they put a turret up in the Regimental Archives. Did they have to reinforce the floor for that?


----------



## Slim

Tanks...Tanks,tanks,tanks,tanks......tanks   

Mgs.....  :crybaby:  

Cheers Slim...A tanker


----------



## RCD

Right on Slim.(Tanks) the only way to go.


----------



## George Wallace

> Originally posted by recceguy:
> [qb] Didn‘t realize they put a turret up in the Regimental Archives. Did they have to reinforce the floor for that?     [/qb]


Like an Ossifer, That is my ‘Secondary Duty‘ eh!

Right now I am 21B.  Been OPFOR for both BG that have left here, and the 5 Bde BG down in Ft Drum.  Getting ready for Gun Camp and individual and Troop Btl Runs.  So, yes, Dave, I‘m in the turret again....   

GW


----------



## Kirkhill

OK, I get it. Tanks Tanks Tanks. They must select for single-mindedness in the RCAC.

On the off-chance that there is an alternative view out there I will labour onwards.

Devil39 laid out the FCS as an alternative to the MGS but Franko countered that the Yanks might end up doing a "Comanche" on it before it could be fielded.  Entirely possible the Americans have a recent tradition of grandiose weapons systems that never make to the field, and those that do often end up looking like camels, ie horses designed by committee.

The fact the current US Army Chief of Staff has basically said he is up to his backside in alligators just now and doesn‘t have much time for Future Systems doesn‘t give much encouragement as to FCS delivery.

One system that you might end up finding in the inventory in the near future could be this Swedish one.  

The Yanks seem to be coming more amenable to buying systems off shore, and I would be willing to bet that this one will be on the production line before the FCS. Its listed under new projects at this web site.

 http://www.alvishagglunds.se/default.asp 

Its a hybrid-electric vehicle with individually driven wheels.  It can be tracked or wheeled, do pivot turns in both versions, convert from wheels to tracks and be short-tracked in virtually any configuration.  Would that suit you Franko?

One thing the Swedes have going for them that the Yanks are short of is a lot of bright young mechanical engineers that also know what it is like to ride inside a black box while other people make loud noises outside.  Courtesy of their national service.  Note that the APC version is designed to carry 12 infanteers.  As for a gun - you could probably put a LRF 120 on an uprated platform.  Would that suit you better?

Still thats all Next Generation. What do we do with what we have?


Devil has got me convinced that the LAVIII/Javelin combination gives the infantry all the fire support/manoeuvre capability necessary for peacekeeping/peace support operations.

Recce 41 infos that the armour is likely to take over all the vehicle driving roles and that the ADATS will be reroled to the RCAC.

With that:

1 Would the RCAC accept RCR badged blackhats or would all the vehicles be held by the RCAC with vehicles/infanteers being cross attached/posted as necessary?

2 Would RCAC also handle light patrol/recce vehicles in the 1-5 tonne classe?

3 If you are driving LAV IIIs, LAV TUAs and LAV ADATS how might you allocate those resources when the infantry is equipped with CG84, Eryx and Javelin?

4 Given the strong ATGM capability backed with the 25mm capability is there a need for a defensive tank calibre rifle in the mix?

5 US Master Gunner says what he needs is speed and elevation. Presumably he would appreciate flexibility, weight of shot and speed of response. Wouldn‘t the AMOS 120mm twin-barrelled mortar fit his needs? It can also engage targets in direct fire mode.  That would be in line with the armament choice of the CIBUA Leopard.

6 Given the mix of vehicles that the RCAC will end up supporting and roles performed how would you feel about having all the existing regiments expanded but converted solely to wheels while the 8CH is stood up as a regular force regiment and made entirely responsible for all tracked/tank forces while based at Wainwright, Suffield or Shilo?  By my reckoning if the RCAC takes over all vehicle roles each regiment would have to find 2-3 recce squadrons, 3-5 infantry support/transport squadrons and 1-2 support squadrons before worrying about manning a tank squadron.

I kind of favour the Suffield option above.  The opportunity to cross-train with the Brits might fit into some plans I have heard rumoured. Namely forming some type of reaction force with the Brits and maybe the ANZACs.

7 Which is the better organization? Mixed vehicle squadrons/troops that are ready for immediate tactical employment or single vehicle squadrons/troops that are formed into tactical teams as the situation demands?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Cheers all


----------



## Kirkhill

OK, I get it. Tanks Tanks Tanks. They must select for single-mindedness in the RCAC.

On the off-chance that there is an alternative view out there I will labour onwards.

Devil39 laid out the FCS as an alternative to the MGS but Franko countered that the Yanks might end up doing a "Comanche" on it before it could be fielded.  Entirely possible the Americans have a recent tradition of grandiose weapons systems that never make to the field, and those that do often end up looking like camels, ie horses designed by committee.

The fact the current US Army Chief of Staff has basically said he is up to his backside in alligators just now and doesn‘t have much time for Future Systems doesn‘t give much encouragement as to FCS delivery.

One system that you might end up finding in the inventory in the near future could be this Swedish one.  

The Yanks seem to be coming more amenable to buying systems off shore, and I would be willing to bet that this one will be on the production line before the FCS. Its listed under new projects at this web site.

 http://www.alvishagglunds.se/default.asp 

Its a hybrid-electric vehicle with individually driven wheels.  It can be tracked or wheeled, do pivot turns in both versions, convert from wheels to tracks and be short-tracked in virtually any configuration.  Would that suit you Franko?

One thing the Swedes have going for them that the Yanks are short of is a lot of bright young mechanical engineers that also know what it is like to ride inside a black box while other people make loud noises outside.  Courtesy of their national service.  Note that the APC version is designed to carry 12 infanteers.  As for a gun - you could probably put a LRF 120 on an uprated platform.  Would that suit you better?

Still thats all Next Generation. What do we do with what we have?


Devil has got me convinced that the LAVIII/Javelin combination gives the infantry all the fire support/manoeuvre capability necessary for peacekeeping/peace support operations.

Recce 41 infos that the armour is likely to take over all the vehicle driving roles and that the ADATS will be reroled to the RCAC.

With that:

1 Would the RCAC accept RCR badged blackhats or would all the vehicles be held by the RCAC with vehicles/infanteers being cross attached/posted as necessary?

2 Would RCAC also handle light patrol/recce vehicles in the 1-5 tonne classe?

3 If you are driving LAV IIIs, LAV TUAs and LAV ADATS how might you allocate those resources when the infantry is equipped with CG84, Eryx and Javelin?

4 Given the strong ATGM capability backed with the 25mm capability is there a need for a defensive tank calibre rifle in the mix?

5 US Master Gunner says what he needs is speed and elevation. Presumably he would appreciate flexibility, weight of shot and speed of response. Wouldn‘t the AMOS 120mm twin-barrelled mortar fit his needs? It can also engage targets in direct fire mode.  That would be in line with the armament choice of the CIBUA Leopard.

6 Given the mix of vehicles that the RCAC will end up supporting and roles performed how would you feel about having all the existing regiments expanded but converted solely to wheels while the 8CH is stood up as a regular force regiment and made entirely responsible for all tracked/tank forces while based at Wainwright, Suffield or Shilo?  By my reckoning if the RCAC takes over all vehicle roles each regiment would have to find 2-3 recce squadrons, 3-5 infantry support/transport squadrons and 1-2 support squadrons before worrying about manning a tank squadron.

I kind of favour the Suffield option above.  The opportunity to cross-train with the Brits might fit into some plans I have heard rumoured. Namely forming some type of reaction force with the Brits and maybe the ANZACs.

7 Which is the better organization? Mixed vehicle squadrons/troops that are ready for immediate tactical employment or single vehicle squadrons/troops that are formed into tactical teams as the situation demands?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Cheers all


----------



## Kirkhill

By the way it seems that it is not just members of this site trying to come to grips with the situation.


www.canada.com/OwenSound/story.html?id=f528c609-a401-4878-bfc3-cd2874cd7f1b
Forces‘ new tank under fire

a journalist 
CanWest News Service 


Sunday, March 07, 2004
ADVERTISEMENT 



The Liberal government‘s much-vaunted plan to spend $660 million to replace the Leopard tank won‘t give the Canadian Forces any new capabilities and could saddle it with a soon to be outdated vehicle, warns an article to be published in the army‘s professional journal.

Generals and Defence Minister David Pratt have heralded the purchase of the Stryker Mobile Gun System, or MGS, as a sign the military is marching into a high-tech future. The proposed deal, highlighted in the government‘s throne speech, will also increase the army‘s ability to work with U.S. forces since the Stryker gun system is also being bought by the Pentagon, according to senior military leaders.

But an article in the upcoming issue of The Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin notes that the Stryker represents only a stop-gap measure for the U.S. before it starts fielding a more futuristic family of armored vehicles around 2015. Once that happens the American military, with its large budget, can either continue using the Strykers in other roles or simply get rid of them.

But the budget-conscious Canadian Forces doesn‘t have that option, according to the article by Lt.-Col. J.A. Summerfield. It will operate the Strykers for more than 20 years and after spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the vehicles it will not likely have the funds to then purchase the futuristic system the Americans plan to field, he argues.

"This is especially disturbing when the (mobile gun) system in question does not provide a marked improvement over existing systems," the article notes.

But Col. Mike Kampman, the army‘s director of strategic planning, said the army intends to install digitized equipment on board the Strykers, improving their ability to send and receive information.

And the Stryker‘s low profile turret allows the vehicle‘s crew to position themselves more safely inside the main body of the MGS, he said.

"That is new technology and it‘s a significant improvement in the protection of the crew," Kampman said.

of the turret.

Based on discussions with his U.S. Army counterparts, he believes that the Stryker will form a key part of the American military capability over the coming years. "They‘re intending to have MGS in their inventory for quite some time," Kampman added.

In addition, the Pentagon is already looking at improving the Stryker by possibly installing a larger gun on its chassis or a missile system, he added.

The Stryker, adds Summerfield, provides no improvement in firepower or protection over the Leopard tank it is to replace. He has suggested that the army consider buying a 120mm mortar system outfitted on an armored carrier. Such a system would be able to lay down an enormous amount of fire at long ranges to destroy armored vehicles and tanks.

But Col. Mike Kampman, the army‘s director of strategic planning, said the Strykers do represent an improvement in technology. The army intends to install digitized equipment on board the Strykers, improving their ability to transmit and receive information well beyond that available with the Leopards.

The Stryker‘s low profile turret allows the vehicle‘s crew to position themselves more safely inside the main body of the MGS. "That is new technology and it‘s a significant improvement in the protection of the crew," Kampman said of the turret.

Based on discussions with his U.S. Army counterparts, he believes that the Stryker will form a key part of the American military capability over the coming years. "They‘re intending to have MGS in their inventory for quite some time," Kampman added.

In addition, the Pentagon is already looking at improving the Stryker by possibly installing a larger gun on its chassis or a missile system, he added.

Kampman argues that it is too risky for the Canadian army to wait until the U.S. decides what its futuristic vehicle will look like. "The United States Army has not sorted out its mind on where they‘re going with the future combat system," he said.

He acknowledged, however, that Summerfield‘s article presented an interesting concept with the purchase of the large mortar system but added that any such acquisition would have to fit into the army‘s budget.

Canadian military leaders believe they are leading the way by switching from heavy forces outfitted with tanks to lighter and more versatile ones backed up by armored vehicles on wheels. But critics, inside and out of the army, see the purchase of the MGS as simply a move to save the government money and warn that doing away with tanks will put soldiers at risk.

Kampman, however, said that Canadian research is now underway to improve the armor on the MGS to provide additional protection for troops.

Few armies, so far, are following Canada‘s lead in switching from heavy tracked armored vehicles. The Australian military recently announced it would buy new tanks while a recent Canadian military analysis of the Iraq war credited U.S. tanks with providing much of the backbone for the invasion force.

Ottawa Citizen


----------



## Kirkhill

MY BAD.  Sorry for the double post. Accidental double-tap.


----------



## Recce41

As of right now, ALL Coyotes are coming over to the Armour. The Res Armour Regts will take up the Light Recce Role. All Assault Troops will remain but will be the CounterRecce Force. 
 No Kirkhill, no one will rebadge. The Armour Support Sqns were in the works back in 98. They would be all the Cougar Sqns. Rerolled to Cav Sqns. Just as the Aussies and US. In both of their Armies. Armour fellas crew the Lavs and Bradleys. 
 Canada requires a light tank, not a MBT. We have always been the Johnnie come late Army. If we loose the know how of fighting the Combat team fight we will loose it. 
 The new FIBUA course running in Sept will be the first of many what if courses. Personal will be the FIBUA, MONT, FICT experts. 
 The Aussie fought out the hard way about not having tanks. They are buying Leo2s. We could have bought new old ones. But we fixed the crap we had.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks Recce41

The Armour Support Squadrons from Cougar Squadrons.  Do you mean just the Reg Force Squadrons?  Weren‘t they converted to the DFSV variant of the Coyote? How many of those Squadrons are in the current Orbat? Would these Squadrons also man the TUAs and/or the ADATS?

Do others agree that our need is for a light tank?
Would something like the CV9030, CV90120 team fit the bill?  These vehicles fall into the 25 tonne class.

Kirkhill


----------



## RCD

Just to let you know Kirkhill. During the 76 Olympics we had an RCR 106-team attached to us& they had BLACK berets. B-sqn 8CH.


----------



## Kirkhill

That‘s curious.  Were they permanent attachments?


And Recce41 if the reserve take over the light recce role is there no regular force need for light recce troops?


----------



## Slim

Mr Kirkhill

Since I‘m done with the "Tanks" chant, I would like to pass on that when the LDSH(RC) deployed to Bosnia the first time they took the tow under armour crewed by armour types and had quite alot of success with it, augmenting their normal to&e.

Maybe not the best example but it is a real world one. The local militias screamed like babies when the TUA showed up because they had nothing that could touch it!

Slim


----------



## Franko

First things first...not going to touch Col Kampman‘s statements with a 10 ft pole...for obviouse reasons. George knows why   

As for Kirkhill‘s suggestion for the new AFV...I‘m hoping it was the CV90/120 and not the BV-206   

The entire debate here is consistantly this...

The MGS would be better off as an enhancement of the combat team...not the basis of the entire organization. Besides it‘s starting to sound as if the US came to the same conclusion.

The Coyote‘s coming over to the Corps is a good thing Recce 41...keeps the grunts from mucking up Div Recce..Recce by Death, eh?   

As for the ADATS coming to the Corps...thought they were being junked completly, costs and all being the big concern.

As for Kirkhill‘s suggestion No.6...that was proposed over 4 years ago...
*looking around...scratching his head*

Nope...don‘t see it. Good idea though.

No.7 is being worked on at a higher level...can‘t wait to see the mess   

*Kampman argues that it is too risky for the Canadian army to wait until the U.S. decides what its futuristic vehicle will look like. "The United States Army has not sorted out its mind on where they‘re going with the future combat system," he said.*

So I guess were are not taking the lead from the US now...it‘s about time.

Hate to do this at this time but I must....
*Franko stands on the soapbox..crowd groans*
 
Kirkhill...as for our single mindness, we work as a team...it‘s been beat into us from day one to do just that. I certainly hope you wouldn‘t want it any other way.

Remember...we might not agree with what you say, perhapse disagree entirly...

...but we will die to protect your right to your POV. Keep that in mind   

We just want to be able to fight the fight in a vehicle that will be able to do just that. Unfortunatly right now, we are about to be handed a lemon and asked to do our job in it. As our proud heritage in the CF has always been I must add...

Lemonaide anyone?

Let‘s keep this debate going troops, it‘s getting better by the day...

Speaking of which...21 days!   

Regards


----------



## Slim

Franko

Did I see a post that said 4 million for an M1A2 and 9 million for an MGS?!

Say it aint so!!

Slim


----------



## Franko

Slim...M1A1 not A2. Yes that‘s the pricing. The Aussies already have a deal for that price...

Here is ome more fuel for the fire....

*Controversy Surrounds Army‘s Stryker* 
Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2004 
The U.S. Army‘s newest armored vehicle, the Stryker, is plagued with problems and fraught with dangers for crewmen, say military watchdogs and other organizations who have examined the wheeled vehicle‘s performance record.
Also, critics and analysts have questioned the Defense Department‘s procurement of the vehicle as well as the Pentagon‘s decision to build it, adding the military has ignored warnings about the Stryker‘s perceived vulnerability and overall survivability in combat. 

According to an analysis by the Project On Government Oversight, or POGO, one of the Pentagon‘s own testing officials sent the defense agency a letter warning the $3 million-per-copy Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle wasn‘t ready for deployment in Iraq.

POGO says Tom Christie, the Pentagon‘s director of Operational Testing and Evaluation, recommended in a classified letter the Army refrain from sending the vehicles overseas because they could be susceptible to rocket-propelled grenade [RPG] fire or other explosions â â€œ a recommendation the Army rejected.

But, POGO analysts noted, "The Stryker has already failed to protect soldiers from one of these weapons." 

"A Stryker passed over an improvised explosive device planted in a road in Iraq" on Dec. 13, POGO noted in an assessment. "The device detonated, injuring a soldier who barely managed to escape as fire engulfed the engine compartment."

Maj. Gary Tallman, a Pentagon spokesman, told NewsMax the Strykers deployed in the Iraqi theater so far had achieved a 90 percent operational readiness. 

"Overall performance you can characterize as excellent," Tallman said. Regarding damage, "it has shown it‘s survivability â â€œ based on what it‘s encountered so far â â€œ has been high," he added.

Strykers from the 3rd Brigade, Second Infantry Division based in Fort Lewis, Wash., were sent to Iraq in December. The were outfitted with an extra layer of armor and a steel cage intended to offer more protection against insurgents armed with RPG‘s, which added another 5,000 pounds to their overall weight, making them less nimble, critics say.

In terms of damage and casualties, Tallman said those have been light so far. "There have been three known IED [improved explosive device] incidents," such as roadside bombs, involving Strykers, he said. 

In the first, "the vehicle was severely damaged, but the only injury to the crew was a broken leg," Tallman said. In the second, a wheel was blown off "but the vehicle continued under it‘s own power, which was part of its design." In the third, "there was moderate damage sustained, but the vehicle was recovered" with minor injuries to the crew.

He said he was not aware of any RPG strikes on any Strykers, adding the vehicles had been outfitted with slat armor since being deployed to Iraq.

*Good to Go?*

The Army says its first new fighting vehicle in 20 years is well-suited for its task and denies it is a problem child for the military. And, the Pentagon says it is a good replacement for the tracked M-113 armored personnel carrier, which was designed around the time of the Korean War.

In announcing his decision in 1999 to procure the Stryker, Shinseki, who questioned the soldiers who had driven it, repaired it and maneuvered it through miles of pine forest at Fort Polk, in west-central Louisiana, brushed aside concerns about its survivability on the battlefield.

"It‘s not a question of how much armor you can put on it," Shinseki said, adding Iraqi paramilitaries had destroyed two M1 tanks in the first Gulf war by firing at its more vulnerable rear. 

"The idea is to avoid taking a hit in the first place," said the four-star general, noting the Stryker‘s greatly increased mobility.

Jim Garamone, a reporter for the Armed Forces Press Service and a former M-113 driver, wrote approvingly of the Stryker following a test drive in October 2003 at Fort Lewis. He said "wheeled vehicles offer many advantages, and the Army is developing the Stryker to exploit them."

"The difference between a Stryker and an M-113 is like the difference between a Yugo and a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost," Garamone wrote. 

He also said the Stryker handled better than the M-113, was much faster (with a top speed of 60 m.p.h.), had better armor, and could carry more troops. "My only complaints," Garamone wrote, "There‘s no CD player in the dashboard and no place to hang my fuzzy dice."

In comments at Fort Lewis June 6, 2002 â â€œ the 58th anniversary of D-Day, the invasion of Europe in World War II â â€œ Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, praised the Stryker as a necessary weapon for the next generation of warfighters.

"This armor vehicle helps meet one of the important priorities I see for Pacific Command - that is, promoting change and improving our Asia-Pacific defense posture for the future," Fargo said. 

"Deployability, mobility, knowledge superiority â â€œ these are the kind of capabilities that make the joint force, a lethal force in the 21st century," he added. "The Stryker Brigade will bring these capabilities to Pacific Command ground forces, not just here, but eventually to ground forces in Alaska and Hawaii as well."

Stryker supporters say other armored vehicles like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the M1 Abrams, the U.S. military‘s main battle tank, still have some problems after two decades‘ worth of use. They say every vehicle has limitations, including tanks, and that soldiers should know these limitations. And they say despite advances in weapons and armor, soldiers and crewmen still get killed in armored vehicles.

Finally, they believe Stryker‘s new armor is better than the armor used in M-113s. And they like the speed advantage offered by the Stryker over the older tracked vehicle.

*Not Convinced*

Still, longtime weapons analysts and military pros remain unconvinced the Stryker will deliver its promised benefits once heavily engaged in battle.

Lonnie T. Shoultz, a Vietnam combat vet with the 101st Airborne Division, former Green Beret and fraud investigator for the U.S. Treasury Department, says among other problems, the Stryker fails to meet its original transport specifications. When top Defense Department brass figured that out, they simply changed the requirements, he said.

Initially, the Army called for its Stryker to be deployable by C-130 transport aircraft, and be ready to fight as soon as it was unloaded. But, Shoultz says in a lengthy analysis for MilitaryCorruption.com, a Web site that monitors defense-related issues, that requirement was changed in "mid-stream."

When the Army "learned that General Dynamics could not lighten the ‘Stryker‘ and make it meet its contracted weight, instead of leaning on the contractor to perform up to standard in the contract, Army liaison personnel approached all Congressional points of contact and convinced them that they never ‘really, actually meant‘ flying the Stryker in Air Force C-130s was required," he said.

"There is a reason that Congress mandated the Strykers use C-130s. If a Stryker brigade is to be deployed anywhere in 96 hours, as promised by Shinseki, the Air force would have to use all of its 500 c-130s to transport the 308 Stryker variants in a brigade.," Shoultz writes. "The Air Force only has a little less than 120 C-17s. They cannot allot all of them to the Army's Strykers ..."

Shoultz also said tracked vehicles are much more mobile in the long run than the eight-wheeled Stryker. He said during tests the latter would often become mired in thick, deep mud and sand, though the tracked M-113 could get through easily.

He also suggested the M-113s could have been re-outfitted with modern technology included in the Stryker, for a fraction of the cost, and were more easily deployed than Stryker.

*Cousins in Trouble*

Another early sign of trouble are problems being encountered by similar vehicles manufactured for the New Zealand army. Dubbed the LAV III, six of 15 brand-new vehicles delivered to the country‘s armed forces have been fraught with mechanical problems.

According to a Jan. 21 report in the New Zealand Herald, the problems include:


The breakdown of a turbo unit; 
A broken heater; 
A faulty auxiliary power unit; 
A broken axle; 
An oil leak; 
Transfer gear-case unserviceable.
New Zealand Defense Minister Mark Burton has defended the vehicles‘ reliability, saying the glitches were minor and even expected in a new vehicle.

But other officials, including lawmakers, say question its reliability, especially after learning of the defects.

New Zealand is buying 105 LAV IIIs, which are manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, to replace the army‘s fleet of aging M-113s. The first batch of 15 arrived in-country in November, but a month later, the Herald said, only six of the more than $6 million-per-copy vehicles were operational. 

The paper said the problem vehicles had travelled between 172 and 1,456 miles. 

"I would not accept it on a Toyota Landcruiser," said New Zealand First MP and former Army officer Ron Mark. "We should not accept it on an LAV III. Given their much-vaunted performance in the Canadian theatre, I‘m surprised we are having any of these problems.

"The public were told these vehicles were tried and tested around the world and we were not buying a prototype," he said. 

*So again...is this going to be what we are going to expect with the MGS purchase?*

We‘ll have to wait and see...   

Regards


----------



## Kirkhill

Slim and Franko

Thanks for taking the time to respond.  I appreciate the hearing and the info.

Also Franko, I do appreciate the opportunity to express my views here and ask questions. And I greatly appreciate you and your mates for the task that you have volunteered to do.

My crass comments about the RCAC come from  the short period of my misspent youth as junior subby of mud-munchers as well as being the son and grandson of infanteers. 

I wouldn‘t be wanting the CF to be doing without the RCAC.  You save lives.

Cheers, out.


----------



## Recce41

Kirkhill
 The concept of Cav Sqns were around in 98-99 with the Reg Cougar Sqns. It was to be 1 Sqn Cougars or a DFS veh and 1 Coy of Inf together in back. The concept would have worked if the vehs were there. But we all know there is no room in a Cougar. 
 The new Recce Sqns will/May have a 8 car Troop. 3 Scout Ptls of Coyotes and a HQ Ptl with the Micro UAV and Anti Armour TOW Det in LavIIIs.
 There are many light 20-30 ton, 105/120mm, track vehs that would fill the Tank role. And be Airtrans portable or Dropable. Remember the old Sheridan, with the 3/73 Armour 82AB. This will keep the knowledge of Tank War fair and could also be deployed as a light fighting force.
 The Aussie buying Tanks should tell the Goverment, keep a War Fighting force, light or not.


----------



## Kirkhill

Hi Recce41

Could that 8-vehicle recce troop be extended to the Cav Sqns now that the LAVIII is available?

Reason for the question is the mismatch I perceive between the 7 passenger capability of the LAVIII and the 8-man section (2x4 man dets) the infantry appears to be standardizing/have standardized on.  First off am I right on the LAVIII or could it comfortably carry a full 8-man section?

It seems to me that a 2-car patrol carrying a section between them (1 det/team each) might also be a workable concept. That would result in one platoon per troop and about 24-28 cars to the squadron. Is that the type of thing that‘bs on the cards? Platoon commanders/2ics and weapons dets could be distributed amongst the vehicles rather than being concentrated in one vehicle.

Also with respect to the LAV-TUA I suppose that the addition of the HE round to the HEAT rounds already carried reduces the need for the MGS ever to be brought into service.

As to light vehicles I take your point, there are a number on the market in the 20-25 tonne range.  

Do you have any potential candidates in mind?


----------



## Garry

My turn.

First off, I have NO intention of dying to protect anyone‘s right to freedom of speech- but I will happily give every opportunity for some other SOB to die for his country. (sorry, couldn‘t resist)

Second, any argument that includes the word "Sheridan" that doesn‘t refer to the General hinself has allready lost. Iwas a neat idea, but a terrible concept.

lastly, the missile/chain gun combination seems to be a good one. NOT as good as a tank, but at least has a chance of survival.

The Israelis seemed to do well with Infantry in the back, may be an idea- I‘ve always really liked the idea of a combat team, vice individual elements coming together- may be a great way around the problem...except that driving up to the objective has always seemed dumb...tactics would be tough to work out!

Next!

Cheers-Garry


----------



## Franko

I‘ll have to get back to you on that one Kirkhill...

I‘ve always thought MBT for HIC...

I‘ll do a bit of research   

Regards


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/lighttanks.htm 

Would this have been a better and more acceptable choice for our armoured regiments?


----------



## onecat

Yeah I think if M8 goes into production, it would be way better than the LAv-105/MGS.  BUt its tracked and it‘s a tank and that does work with the Liberals and people they apoint to make the dscission in the CF so it won‘t happen.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was looking at a M8 AGS prototype last week, complete except for the sight. It is quite comfortable for the crew, with good access, but the hull appeared to be quite thin. considering the MGS weighs in at around 52,000 lbs combat weight, this will give the designers some room to add new armour, also apparently the Hybrid drives are now smaller. Looking at old web sites I would say that the MGS turret is actually older than the AGS design.


----------



## Infanteer

This caught my eye.


> One such configuration could include a crew compartment for a 4-Soldier fire team akin to the IDF‘s Merkava heavy tank. With the Hybrid Electric Drive's flexibility, a better center of gravity and space utilization is realized. Weight reduction and related mission equipment stowage improvements are also gained. With such a propulsion and power management system, Soldiers will have a long range, extremely fast, and silent killer, with a reduced logistics tail.


A fusion of the IFV and the MBT?  Possible?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Yeah but don‘t they lose most of their main gun ammo when they embark infantry onboard? (the Merkava) I seem to remember reading and being taught something to that effect many many years ago.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yep, they lose most of their ammo storage except for their ready ammo, 12rds I think?

the same problem for the Centurio when they carry the dismounts.


----------



## 30 for 30

I think if a new MBT is out of the question then the M8 would be ideal. Has anyone heard of any significant problems associated with this platform? From what I‘ve read it walks all over MGS. I think bottom line is that if we‘re sending a wheeled LAV 111 battle group into combat it needs to be fronted by something with tracks, adequate armour (M8 already has fully-capable RPG protection available) and, of course, DFS capability. It would probably prove cheaper, too.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Can't remember who mentioned it, but the first thing a â Å“hover tankâ ? will do is find a ditch and stay it it! Trust me I spent 8 years working on a hovercraft and quite a few times we had to use an anchor and a come-along to get us unstuck, messy as it has to be on hover and it throws muck around like crazy. 

Future Combat System
If it appears in Popular Mechanics then it is doomed!!! The Styker interim vehicle will be around for a long time, at least 15 years, look how long the M113 has been in service.

Right now we can get M1's and Leo's 2 very cheaply, what fools we will be not to. This would guarantee us a combat viable MBT for the next 15 years, with a lot of part support and compatibility with our allies.

In regards to the Spike/Javelin concept, so how much does it cost per round? And just how many do you think our government will buy? I think they are good systems, but they will be countered and then you will need something right now. I would not hang my hat purely on one system. 

As to the role of the army, right now we do not have a direction and frankly the government is not dealing very well with the changes in the world, new events outstrip even our abilities to form yet another committee! Where are the next threats:
Balkans boiling over
Islamic hardliners in Egypt
Islamic hardliners in Pakistan
North Korea
China
Several of the â Å“Stan'sâ ?
Egypt vs numerous countries in East Africa (water related) or Yemen 
Russia (perhaps in 10 years to get it's act together)
Almost anywhere in Africa

The tougher nations will have anything from M1's, T80UD, T90's, T-72's to deal with.
Most of the others will have T-55's  and T72's (some with upgrades). 

If we want to play with the big boys, then we are going to have to carry our weight. A light force will be ok with Haiti, but outgunned anywhere else.


----------



## Kirkhill

On 2004-03-08, Recce41 wrote:



> The new Recce Sqns will/May have a 8 car Troop. 3 Scout Ptls of Coyotes and a HQ Ptl with the Micro UAV and Anti Armour TOW Det in LavIIIs.


Question to Recce41.  I see that DND has purchased the ACR Silver Fox and that reminded me of your post.  Your 8 car troop, did that include the HQ vehicles? You stated that the troop would include a TOW det, which I understand would usually be 2 vehicles. Or is the organization 6 Coyotes, 1 Coyote Command and 1 LAV-TUA?

Just wondering where they are going to find the space to carry a golfclub bag or two, a radio-link and a monitor (the apparent foot-print of the Silver Fox)? 

Also while I am at it, the Coyotes, will they be the mast-mounted version (I thought there were only about 32 of them) or the standard battle-group ground-mount versions?

(http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3629701.1081871598.QHwM7sOa9dUAAGWDMHQ&modele=jdc_34  http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0%2C2100%2C58173%2C00.html) 

Just intrigued.

I note from the articles that it seems that the Silver Fox might also be able to take over some Sea King patrol duties at sea.  Its original purpose was apparently Whale-Watching for the US Navy before the Marines got ahold of it!!!!


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Hmmm.  The new "Recce Sqn" is in fact called the Transitional Surveillance Squadron as of right now and is based on a 6/6/5 Mast/Remote/CP equipped Sqn.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thank you sir.


----------



## George Wallace

> Originally posted by G3 LFCA:
> [qb] Hmmm.  The new "Recce Sqn" is in fact called the Transitional Surveillance Squadron as of right now and is based on a 6/6/5 Mast/Remote/CP equipped Sqn. [/qb]


Being in one, could you explain your "6/6/5 Mast/Remote/CP" Statement.  Six Masts/Six Remotes I can figure out, but 5 CPs does not compute.  Four or five Command Variants and two CPs seems more likely.

GW


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Roger - I meant Command not CP.


----------



## George Wallace

This leaves the Recce Sqn one troop short.  With the forth troop becoming an Assault Troop several years back, an asset was added and one was lost.  Now both are gone.  

Money is the factor that is causing so many of the headaches for the Corps.  Thus, a new DFS vehicle is a cheap solution for the politicos, all to the detriment of the Corps.  Bandaid solutions detract from the continuation of the Training and Experience required to field an effective Field Force when the time requires us to do so.  Experienced Soldiers and Equipment can not be knit overnight.

GW


----------



## George Wallace

BTT

 http://www.cochraneinstitute.com/Reports/preventdeaths43a.pdf 

A link to news on Stryker performance in Iraq and fears of new RPG 7 variants.


----------



## Yard Ape

I think CV 90120 or CV 90105 before the M8 Thunderbolt.
We could even get the CV 90 IFV for a heavy Bde!

See the CV 90 here.


----------



## Infanteer

Whatever we would decide to buy, I think the idea of a common chassis is important.


----------



## 30 for 30

Very true, common chassis is a strong consideration. Perhaps MGS for our LAV BGs and M8 for an MTVL BG (divide the 66 DFS order into  1 x M8 Sqn and 2 x MGS Spn, plus training/replacement vehicles). I've read that M8 and MTVL have a lot of similarities in terms of parts and supply (??). I'm thinking speed and firepower will keep LAVs alive, and anything tracked in a LAV BG will affect the BG's speed.


----------



## bossi

I saw the Norwegian CV 90's in Kabul - they looked good.
But, as already pointed out ... there are politicians and bureaucrats who are more concerned with appearances (and road damages caused by tracks), as opposed to functionality or survivability.
One of the worst hazards of "peacetime" ...


----------



## 12alfa

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yep, they lose most of their ammo storage except for their ready ammo, 12rds I think?
> 
> the same problem for the Centurio when they carry the dismounts.



From what I have been told, they don't carry grunts to often. They do how ever carry extra ammo back there as well as extra water, both need in fightin.The inf carrying role is not required, they have there own heavy apc's for that task. Rember when the Merk's were on the planing board they did not have heavy APC's in service, there fore the dual role.

12Alfa


----------



## 12alfa

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yep, they lose most of their ammo storage except for their ready ammo, 12rds I think?
> 
> the same problem for the Centurio when they carry the dismounts.



The Merk holds 50 rds of 120mm 

12Alfa


----------



## tabernac

What would be more inteligent for the CF, the MGS or M8? Is the M8 C-130 transportable like the MGS?(needing to stop every couple hundread kms)


----------



## 30 for 30

Best for the CF? Hard to say. Similar weight and armament. The M8 is a better platform, with far fewer design/testing problems, tracks for cross-country mobility, and optional RPG armour already developed and available (still only 25 tons with full RPG protection...or about half the weight of a Leo). The problem is speed. It seems only the MGS can keep up with our LAV bns, and my understanding is that speed is a key advantage of LAVs, as speed is likely going to keep a LAV alive. A slow-moving LAV is probably a very vulnerable LAV, due to minimal armour protection compared to other, easily up-armoured vehicles.

I would like to see the MGS purchase include some M8s, as I think it's important for the CF to maintain one tracked battlegroup. We've committed to maintaining a mixed wheeled/tracked army already with the current comprehensive upgrade of around 300 M113s to A3/MTVL status (around half with Grizzly turrets installed), so it wouldn't be too difficult to maintain, say, a small inf bn (such as one of our light bns) with turreted, already modernized M113A3s and TUAs etc., an engineer sqn with MTVEs (already in use), an armoured contingent with M8s (included in the purchase of 66 DFS vehicles), and other units using our upgraded MTVLs in other capacities (M113 ADATS for air defence etc.). It's just a matter of maintaining and deploying these tracked units together, not mixed-in with wheeled battlegroups. 1 CMBG could be home to a tracked BG without too much complication. A tracked BG could be highly useful if we ever needed to deploy somewhere where roads either don't exist or are in very poor condition (think tropical monsoon seasons or temperate rainy/muddy/boggy terrain regions).

And the M8 is indeed C-130 transportable, apparently without the weight issues of MGS airtransport. In its lightest configuration, the M8 weighs around 17 tons, which I believe is around the maximum weight for C-130 long-distance transport. The M8 can also be parachuted, making it an ideal platform for 3-Dimensional   "Air-Mech" engagements.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The M8 is not a tank.  It was originally designed to be dropped from an airplane, so the Arborne would have some firepower.

Having said that, it is much more capable than the MGS, in terms of mobility and protection.  But the MGS is not a tank either.

A good replacement for the Leo would be another MBT.  M1A1, perhaps, equipped with the Europack?

Or the Leo 2?

We could debate having Brigades equipped differently.  I, for one, would advocate a totally different configuration for our army than the present one.  But that's not what this thread is about, right?


----------



## 30 for 30

We would all like new tanks, but the CF is set on medium-weight forces, which makes sense considering how tight we are for funds. Maintenance and deployment costs for a contingent of 70 ton M1A1 beasts would probably be enormous. They would likely spend the next twenty years sitting in Alberta, just like our Leos right now. Should the Torys gain a majority, mind you, a proper MBT replacement could be in the CF's future.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

We are not tight for funds.

DND receives enough funds for us to maintain a credible fighting force.

It's our NDHQ, that huge, bloated blight of a cancer that is killing us right now.

One third of our budget never leaves Ottawa, did you know that?

There are 12,000 personnel on strength at NDHQ, did you know that?

26% of our Armed Forces are commissioned officers, did you know that?

Finally, did you know that since we cut the number of Generals to 70 some-odd, that the numner of Colonels and Naval Captains has jumped to over 600?  Now, you tell me where we're employing over 600 Colonel & Captains (N) plus 70-some Generals!

Clean up NDHQ, and a lot of our so-called funding problems will disappear!


----------



## 12alfa

Well said!


----------



## ags281

Lance: Where did you find these numbers? I've been looking for a few good solid numbers on what resources are tied up at NDHQ as I also feel we need to clean up there, and was wondering how bad it actually is. If you could point me to some sources that would be great.


Regarding the concept of medium forces, regardless of whether it's the M8 or MGS, would it not make sense to have 2:1 or so of these to real actual MBT's? I'm a little wary of the Abrams as the logistical requirements (need for constant refuelling while trying to advance) are just silly, but we certainly need to maintain something heavy.

Not retaining at least some heavy armour capability doesn't make any sense to me. It would just mean that if any spot we were deployed to with our medium force started to really heat up we'd have to run away with our tail between our legs. I can't see a reputation as a nation of pussies that run at the first sign of danger and lack the ability to stand up for what we believe in doing credit to our past, nor would it succeed in retaining what international respect we have remaining. Just my opinion.

The best argument I've heard so far for getting rid of MBT's completely is that we haven't used them. Well, we haven't used them because we can't move them. We can't move them because we have no lift capability. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we planning on getting a lift capability in the next few years? Doesn't that mean that we actually CAN use them soon? Or are we planning on a lift platform that can't lift anything (wouldn't be surprised   :)

And they tell us that having everything centered at NDHQ is supposed to lead to coherent policy. Sounds to me like a person in Victoria not talking to a person in Halifax is no different than a person in Ottawa not talking to a person in Ottawa across the hall.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Actually, I had a very hard time coming up with concrete figures from NDHQ as well.  So, I went to the source, and asked a few friends in NDHQ to do some digging for me.  Actually, getting numbers for ranks is not that hard, if you're on the DND mail system.  Do a sort by rank thingy.  I'm not on the system, so I can't explain it, but there is a way to do it.

For the non-aware among us, since Hellyers days as MND, NDHQ is run as a dual system.  All military staff are mirrored by civilian staff.  For example, for every General with his staff, there is a civilian General equivalent (getting the same pay and perks) with his staff.  One problem is that when we cut the military Generals down to under 80, we didn't cut the civilian equivalents, so now there are over 200 Generals and equivalents, plus their staffs.  Now take that for the Colonels and their equivalents, and you can see how NDHQ has become so bloated.  The 12,000 figure is the number of civilians and military personnel on the parade strength of NDHQ.  BTW, the civilians get paid from the military budget, of course.

Think we should start another thread?

I seem to be hijacking this one.......


----------



## 30 for 30

Yes, "well said" perhaps, but I'm dealing with reality in my postings. I'm quite aware of the bloat at NDHQ and the excessive number of senior officers in the CF, and the millions this is costing DND. But the reality of the situation is that it is highly unlikely that in the coming years massive staff cuts are going to take place at NDHQ, and it is highly unlikely that a major reduction in the number of senior officers will occur anytime soon. Thus, with the status quo enduring, we ARE short of funds to create the ideal CF with all the super, perfect world kit everyone is wishing for.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

IF (I know, it's a big IF) the CPC party gets to form the next government, they have promised a "sweeping reform" of how NDHQ is manned.

For what it is worth, I actually received a promise on this.  Whether it is kept or not, we'll have to wait and see.

An independant study even indicated that over one billion dollars per year could be saved with a restructure of our upper end.  But, the study also said it would take about five years to implement.  Sigh.  

I really do hope that the CPC get elected.........


----------



## 30 for 30

True, I suppose there is hope. If they pull off a majority in the coming years some good could occur. Hard to imagine we have a whole brigade of chairborne commandos at NDHQ.


----------



## ags281

RNW said:
			
		

> True, I suppose there is hope. If they pull off a majority in the coming years some good could occur. Hard to imagine we have a whole brigade of chairborne commandos at NDHQ.



A minority/majority situation makes no difference for the restructure of NDHQ. Altering how a department organizes itself is a housekeeping matter and does not require legislation. As far as I knowl, the only real factor is the yea or nay of the new Defence Minister (who would, of course, do it only with the PM's approval). 

There is rarely ever a problem when ministries start saving money. It's spending it, on equipment for example, that causes problems. The only objection I can see any opposition party raising is that it might lose some public servants their cushy jobs, but anyone who brings this to the public spotlight is not thinking straight. It would just give the conservatives the perfect chance to score serious high profile points: "Our opponents accused that we would destroy the health care system. Today we prove them wrong, as we have just assigned a significant number of experienced government employees to assist the Health Minister in delivering the best possible care to Canadians." No, criticizing it could backfire horribly, so I don't think that would be a problem


----------



## RCD

what is require is a Minister of Defence. who has some knowledge of it's portfolio, & some backbone to make the necessary changes thats badly needed.
 As for tanks are concern the 
(Stingray-2) is another consideration


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The ideal tank for Canada I think, would be one that weighed about 25 tons, bare boned, but would have modular add-on armour, that would bring its weight up to about 40 tons.  I say 25 tons, because trying to make everything fit in to a Herc is just plain stupid.  We have never used our Hercs to carry LAVIII's cross Atlantic or anything, so why would someone think we would start now?  

Anyway, 25 tons, with a minimum of a 105mm, but ideally 120 mm, tracked, equipped with a modern FCS.

I'm not aware of any production vehicle out there that meets this.  Is there something?

Or something developed, waiting production?


----------



## 12alfa

CV120 = tons


----------



## Tebo

I sincerely hope that those in this community in a position to inform the new MND about NDHQ concerns will do so.   If I were a brand new minister on the scene I would be desperate for as much information from as many quarters as possible.   Make it happen.


Couple thoughts on the M8 / CV-90 type chassis
Tracked assests are essential for urban conflicts as wheeled vehicles are can be disabled by RPG hits to the wheels. 

Integration of armour and infantry should be promoted to give commanders greater capabilities and coordination.   The idea of more ammunition and supplies or four/eight soldiers for close in support are excellent options that have their places in different situations.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The CV 90 series of vehicles is quite interesting.  I had not realized that they had one made for a 120.  Thanks for the info!

This vehicle has the right concept, similar to Canada's concept of building everything on the LAV chassis.

Unfortunately, the chassis from the LAV II(Coyote); the LAV III, and MGS are all different, and have very little in common, complicating the supply/training chain.

The CV 90 seems to all be based on a common chassis, which, I suppose, was Canada's original intent, we just screwed up.

I can't find anything about modular armour upgrades for the CV 90, however.


----------



## Mortar guy

Tebo,

I agree with you about the need for a tracked direct fire vehicle but not for the reasons you state. An RPG could disable a tracked vehicle a lot easier than it could a wheeled vehicle. If you blow one or even two tires off of a LAV III, it would still be able to move. If you damage a track or the running gear of a tracked vehicle it is f***ed. You can't move the thing with any significant damage to the tracks. 

However, a LAV III/MGS has other, much more serious, disadvantages over tracks. Tracks can turn on a dime (literally) which is great for getting out of ambushes or even just getting through narrow streets. With a LAV you would have to do a 26 point turn if you wanted to turn around on a narrow street (a la Austin Powers in the golf cart). Also, tracks are much better able to get through debris and rubble that you would find in a urban combat scenario. An M113 can easily drive over rubble but a LAV, with its higher ground pressure, might have a hard time.

Anyway, all this to say that I agree with you!

Alex


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.alvishagglunds.se/default.asp

Lance and Mortar Guy, here is a site you might want to check out.   Look under the New Projects tab and check out the SEP project.

It is a 13.5 tonne modular system that can be fitted with a variety of modules (APC, Gun, Ambulance, Mor, CP etc) and can have additional amour mounted.

It apparently is intended to be supplied with sensors.

It is a low observable piece of kit and quiet.

It is a diesel electric hybrid with 2 engines.   Available both in tracked and wheeled versions (rubber band tracks).   All wheels independently driven with electric motors (including road wheels for the tracked version - bust a track and keep on going).   Both tracked and wheeled versions capable of pivot turns.





http://www.qinetiq.com/home/case_studies/defence/plastic_pank.html  - a plastic "tank" - actually a composite armoured APC (4 tonnes lighter than metal)



Silent watch/silent running when running off of electrical power only.

My personal favourite for future development.
 ;D


Also, with respect to the M113, I have seen this referred to in the Iraq situation as well, where people are suggesting that M113s should be issued in place of Hummers to offer better protection.   Some have even suggested the M113 is preferable to the Stryker with their boat shaped hulls.

If   you go back to Vietnam era videos and literature I believe you will find lots of pictures of Armored Cav guys riding around sitting ON TOP of their M113s.   Not down inside where they were protected.   As I recall this was because of two things, the flat bottom of the M113 offered no protection against mine strike, even with layers of full sandbags on the floor and also because the aluminum sides offered no protection against 7.62 AP let alone 12.7, 14.5 and RPGs.

At least that is what we were informed when I was in Gagetown some 20 years ago, (and the M113s were newer then ;D).

Cheers


----------



## Tebo

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> I agree with you about the need for a tracked direct fire vehicle but not for the reasons you state.



Sorry.   I was not detailed in my critique of wheels vs the RPG.   From Iraq there is a large instance of wheels catching fire from the RPG strike and cooking the crew inside unless the get out immediately.   But hey, it's not everyday someone can point out an erroneous claim and come out on the same side.   The knowledge is much appreciated.


----------



## cpl forrester

British tank or American tank both top of the line but the one u would take to the front is?                                                                     me personably is challenger 2 always go British more speed better armour bester fire control at better known to punch trough any armour on the field ( oh and the men that crew them British men spend twice as long training in them before being but on the line so all set aside who would u want covering ur six.....................


----------



## Infanteer

No use turning this into a pissing match Forrester.  Both the Challengers and the Abrams have their strengths and weeknesses, yet they are among the top of the pack when it comes to MBTs.  The quality of the crews is dependent on the training of their service, and Iraq has shown both the British and American zipperheads to be worldclass fighters.


----------



## 12alfa

cpl forrester said:
			
		

> British tank or American tank both top of the line but the one u would take to the front is?                                                                                                        me personably is challenger 2 always go British more speed better armour bester fire control at better known to punch trough any armour on the field ( oh and the men that crew them British men spend twice as long training in them before being but on the line so all set aside who would u want covering ur six.....................




A small note:

The fire control system does not punch through anything.  Its the sabot rod that does this, and the FCS points it in the correct deg/elevatin only.

Second the M1 is faster than the challenger, more so if the challey is uparmoured like in Iraq.

3rd the M1A1Ha is better protected than the challenger in the areas needed.

Another point against the Challey is the tube being of a design that requires their ammo only, not standard NATO 120mm.

Small points but your assuming the Challey is better, it's not.
12Alfa


----------



## childs56

The German Leapord  I would have to say would blow both the Challenger and Abrams out of the battle field. with equally matched crews. as for any piece of equipment you must have well trained crews in order to have them defeat the enemy. As for the Challenger and Abrams well I have seem what both tanks can do on a range and would say the Challenger seems to be the better tank. like I said depends on the crew. have a good night


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Man, the amount of time I have spent talking to the uninformed on modern tanks.

Here is a brief synopsis:

*Challenger:   * 

The latest CHARM 3  gun is the most powerful, most accurate, most flexible weapon mounted on any MBT.  Unfortunately, it is unique to the British, and they cannot afford further development.  Rumour has it that they are going to cease any further spending, and new builds and rebuilds would get a NATO standard 120mm.

The Challenger is the best protected non-DU MBT out there against frontal threats.  The STVR 122 is the best all-around protected non-DU MBT, while the M1A2 SEP is the best DU protected tank.

The Challenger has arguably the very best thermal system available.

*M1A2 SEP*

With the DU armour, is the best all around MBT for combination of mobility, protection, and firepower.

Has the second best hunter killer system (in my opinion, very narrowly losing out to the Leo2A5/6).

Requires a huge logistics train, as its engine is by far, the thirstiest engine out there.

Both the M1A2 SEP and the Challenger 2 use a made in Canada FCS, and both are very comparable in capabilities.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

CTD said:
			
		

> The German Leapord   I would have to say would blow both the Challenger and Abrams out of the battle field. with equally matched crews. as for any piece of equipment you must have well trained crews in order to have them defeat the enemy. As for the Challenger and Abrams well I have seem what both tanks can do on a range and would say the Challenger seems to be the better tank. like I said depends on the crew. have a good night



Is this from personal experience you are basing this on?


----------



## cpl forrester

o.k all valid points that i reluctantly have to except bare one point the up armour oh the challenger 2 is for extra protection and has not been widely used it is designed in mind for urban areas as we all know the tanks downfall.... having said that the challenger 1 needed the extra protection as it was cubbom 1 the new armour is cubbom 2 advanced ( all over not just the turret area as in the m1a2 ) no tank is invulnerable to Du Basra......challenger2 lite up by blue on blue (Du) also 2 m1a2's lite up by (Du) 127 Iraqi lite up by (Du) (in the two wars) but i would also like to make the point of a m1a2 being decomed as a result of two rpgs ( unconfirmed ) dirt monkey and zipperhead chat could be b*****ks but u can never be two sure after all who would admit two that a...............................so 2 surmise more power less fuel more clout and most of all the tank i would sit in on the field and fire me 120mm at some poor bas***d that really doesn't stand a chance......................................................on that note ..............have fun lol


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just as an FYI....I recently read an article indicating Britain was going to be downsizing
their Challenger 2 fleet.  If we had another party in power, we may have been able
to pick-up some good first line equipment for minimal dollars.



Matthew.  ???


----------



## cpl forrester

as far as I'm aware it has been down sized it used to b 1rtr 2 rtr 3 rtr now its just 1 and 2 some 1000 men down and there armour that was in the days of the chally1 when they brought out the royal ordnance factory challenger 2 thats when thy downsized so.................no challenger 2 4 u lol
........unless ur diplos want to pay big dollers 4 them..........lol


----------



## canuck101

The British are downsizing there army, air force and navy. They are reducing there tank numbers by 84 so there may be a few tanks for the taking.  We can only wish the Canadian government will be interested. ;D

The British military faces one of the most radical overhauls in its history following sweeping cuts announced by the Government yesterday.

In what he claimed were moves to finally bury the mentality of the Cold War and face up to the conflicts of the 21st century, the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, unveiled drastic reductions in the numbers of aircraft, warships, tanks and the infantry. Around 19,500 jobs will go  ­ 1,500 each from the Army and Navy, 7,500 from the RAF, and 10,000 MoD civil servants.

The number of the Army's infantry battalions will be cut from 40 to 36 and regiments will be merged, with some famous "cap badges", such as Black Watch and the Royal Scots disappearing. The number of the Army's main battle tanks, the Challenger 2, will be reduced by 84, and the AS90 artillery pieces by between 40 and 48.

Mr Hoon said the comparatively placid security situation in Northern Ireland had freed up troops for other duties.

The RAF, bearing the brunt of the cuts, will see its base at Coltishall in Norfolk closed, and 62 out of 309 operational strike aircraft  ­ 46 Jaguars and 16 F3 Tornados  ­ phased out. Adding warplanes no longer in service, but on emergency standby, raises the total to 134. A quarter of the fast jet crews, 69 out of 290, will also be axed.

The Royal Navy will lose 12 ships, including three Type 42 destroyers  ­ HMS Cardiff , Newcastle and Glasgow  ­ and three Type 23 frigates  ­ HMS Norfolk , Marlborough and Grafton . The number of nuclear attack submarines will drop from 11 to eight.

At the same time, Mr Hoon said, there will be investment in new technology including unmanned planes and surveillance equipment, as well as Special Forces  ­ the SAS and SBS  ­ needed to combat the new enemy, international terrorism and so-called rogue states.


----------



## Yard Ape

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Is this really a fair comparison between our new vehicle and this version? They are different vehicles with different capabilities.


It is basically the same hull, so comparisons of armour protection are fair.


----------



## cpl forrester

o.k have how asked and been advised by the power that be.yes the black watch r for the chop but and i say !but!they are to be emalgermated not disbanded it is so called streamlining of British armoured Colloms....i.e..........the style of armoured fighting has changed u no longer need a long line of tanks followed by a second line on the Eastern European front so......its now regarded that u will need and use less mbt's followed by tank killing light armour and anti infantry also to be backed up by the incressing amouts of wah-64(westland built) as a result yes there will be less armour but selling it im not sure on that and the powers that be above my head seem to think that they will be put into storage in case they r needed to be called apon i.e.if one or two are lossed in combat .replace rather than by new at four times the price...........the government may not see it that way but the top brass i think will dig there heals in over this one.........as we are called to do more and more ...............how can we do it with lack of the armour we need to acive the goals that they force apon use.............im sure every zipperhead dirtmonkey and dogsbody feels the sameway as i do ............lack of supply's armour and basic kit kills good boys of all nationality's agreed?


----------



## 12alfa

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Man, the amount of time I have spent talking to the uninformed on modern tanks.



And where would I fit in to your informed or uninformed group.


Ps:

As you would guess, I disagree with ya on the Charm3 being the most 
most flexible weapon mounted on any MBT".

its used on 1 MBT, it's ammo is tube reliant, and can't be used on other NATO tube, like the 120mm from the US and Germany to name a few?

I know it's a small point be still valid it think.
How can a tube and the ammo for that matter that is used on only one system be the most "flexible"?


----------



## 12alfa

cpl forrester said:
			
		

> o.k all valid points that i reluctantly have to except bare one point the up armour oh the challenger 2 is for extra protection and has not been widely used it is designed in mind for urban areas as we all know the tanks downfall.... having said that the challenger 1 needed the extra protection as it was cubbom 1 the new armour is cubbom 2 advanced ( all over not just the turret area as in the m1a2 ) no tank is invulnerable to Du Basra......challenger2 lite up by blue on blue (Du) also 2 m1a2's lite up by (Du) 127 Iraqi lite up by (Du) (in the two wars) but i would also like to make the point of a m1a2 being decomed as a result of two rpgs ( unconfirmed ) dirt monkey and zipperhead chat could be b*****ks but u can never be two sure after all who would admit two that a...............................so 2 surmise more power less fuel more clout and most of all the tank i would sit in on the field and fire me 120mm at some poor bas***d that really doesn't stand a chance......................................................on that note ..............have fun lol



1- what is DU Basra?
2. Challey KIA was due to a hesh round into the turret through a open hatch, No tank will not survive this.
3. No M1 has been pentrated by anything but 1 rpg through the side, or can you point us to the data?


----------



## 12alfa

12Alfa said:
			
		

> cpl forrester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o.k all valid points that i reluctantly have to except bare one point the up armour oh the challenger 2 is for extra protection and has not been widely used it is designed in mind for urban areas as we all know the tanks downfall.... having said that the challenger 1 needed the extra protection as it was cubbom 1 the new armour is cubbom 2 advanced ( all over not just the turret area as in the m1a2 ) no tank is invulnerable to Du Basra......challenger2 lite up by blue on blue (Du) also 2 m1a2's lite up by (Du) 127 Iraqi lite up by (Du) (in the two wars) but i would also like to make the point of a m1a2 being decomed as a result of two rpgs ( unconfirmed ) dirt monkey and zipperhead chat could be b*****ks but u can never be two sure after all who would admit two that a...............................so 2 surmise more power less fuel more clout and most of all the tank i would sit in on the field and fire me 120mm at some poor bas***d that really doesn't stand a chance......................................................on that note ..............have fun lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1- what is DU Basra?
> 2. Challey KIA was due to a hesh round into the turret through a open hatch, No tank will  survive this.
> 3. No M1 has been pentrated by anything but 1 rpg through the side, or can you point us to the data?
Click to expand...


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I meant flexible in terms of use.  A rifled cannon such as the Charm 3 can fire Hyper velocity KE projectiles, as well as HESH/HEP/HE aalong with various types of smoke rounds (both WP and BE).  The weak link is the HEAT round, which does not perform well when spinning.

The smoothbore barrel can also fire hyper velocity KE rounds, and can fire HEAT, but cannot adequately stabilise heavy slow rounds such as the other CE rounds I mentioned.  The are several reasons why many armies have gone to the smoothbore cannon.  Primarily among them is that the tanks were designed for WWIII in Europe, and were prmarily designed to destroy other armour.  Smoothbores are cheaper, easier to maintain, and last longer.  Rifled cannons can fire more types of ammunition, and are best for supporting infantry because they do have smoke, HE, and so on.  I remember well the arguments that everyone should have gone with the smoothbore, because the artillery can provide all of the infantry support required.

It is well acknowledged that the CHARM 3 gun on the latest versions of the Challenger 2 is the most powerful and most accurate tank gun on any modern MBT.  Oh, I must mention, because of the two piece ammo, it is also has a lot slower rate of fire.


----------



## AmmoTech90

HEAT is a heavy slow round, one of the two main rounds fired by 120 smoothbores.  Its also a CE round.  There are plenty of HE rounds available for 120 smoothbore, the French are developing one with a 5000m range.  About the only round that isn't really available for it is smoke, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to develop one.  The CHARM cannot fire MPAT, or STAFF/TERM (to be suceeded by MRAAS) so each system has its limitations.


----------



## ZipperHead

I don't want to be anal (but I will): Cpl Forrester, any point that you are trying to make is nearly rendered invalid by the incomprehensibility of what you are "writing". Take a pointer from Lance, 12A, Cdn Blackshirt, Canuck, et al: speak in coherent sentences. I got a headache trying to decipher what you were trying to get across, and finally ceded defeat. Making a few spelling errs is OK, but run on sentences and "cobbum" for what I assume to be "Chobham" made me think too hard......

Not all Army guys are dumb, so don't pander to that, please.

Al


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Spell check is there for a reason cpl forester whatever good points you are trying to make are lost from us trying to interpret your posts.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

HEAT rounds have a MV in excess of 1,000 m/sec.  Most HE type rounds designed for fragmentation are about 25% slower.  The reason is mass, HE, with its much heavier than HEAT projectile must have a lower MV to lessen chamber pressures.  Also, smoothbore ammunition is fin stabilised.  Anyone can develop a smoothbore HE round, even the French, but if 50% of its length is fin (think mortar) then there is less mass at the target end.  So, you can have a 45 pound explosive shell landing at the target end from a rifled barrel, or a 20 pound shell from a smoothbore.  

MPAT is simply a HEAT round with graze fusing, so it can use its puny 10 pound explosives as an fragmentation round.  A poor excuse for a true HE round as fired by rifled gun tanks, as well as artillery.


----------



## AmmoTech90

The French HE round has a MV of 1000 m/s.  The complete weight is 22.5kg with a filling weight is 3.2 kg of HE.  By way of comparision the filling wieght of a straight 105mm HE howitzer round is 2.1 kg with an overall total weight of 14-15kg.  So its comparative, 1 kilo of HE for every 7 kilos of projectile weight (approx).
There is no HE round for the CHARM.  The HESH round contains 4.2kg of HE filling with a 17kg projectile weight.  This reflects the fact that HESH rounds are by their nature thin walled projectiles that are nowhere near as efficient as a straight HE round in the APERS role.
Basically every type of gun has its advantages and disadvantages.  Most of these disadvantages can be overcome with technology.  So the most flexible gun in my opinion is that which has the most R&D money and people thinking up new uses for it.


----------



## cpl forrester

right off topic guys but thought this mite help u understand pre army i was a right little shit spent most of my time in young offenders and lock up schools (reason) i lost my mum and dad in a car crash when i was very young and was raised in kids homes so as u can guess not well schooled but when i was 19 had no job no life i made a life changing decision to change my life ..............since then i have learnt to read and wright and all the other things peps that for granted........and after collage i in listed and come on in leaps and bounds.........the army changed my life and I'm a better person for it ...........so before u go judging someone on there gram" ...........not everyone is lucky not everyone is perfect..............but I'm a bloody good at what i do...........what i lack in gram" i make up for in floorless military record..........................no excuse i know but just thought it mite make u all understand where I'm coming from..............


----------



## cpl forrester

and to point out i never said that the m1a2 was penetrated by a rpg i said that it was decommissioned because of rpg fire sent back to the mecs for a refit.....................and that it is (unconfirmed) zipperhead talk......... u hear on thing that turns out to mean sommit completely differant...................but also as a point a m1 was destroyed by and rpg when it was in transit.this is confirmed as it was a hit to the rear .i think that it must of hit and lite a fuel line or something........i meant Basra......the (Du) was a typing mistake from now on i will double check sorry about that.as for no m1 being destroyed by anything crock of she,,it. several have been zapped in combat well known fact even the top brass in the Pentagon confirm that m1's have been destroyed in combat in the gulf war 1 & 2. a good thing about it though no service personal have(reported) to have been killed as a result that i have heard of i mite be wrong if so plz correct me.and as for the charm.3 main gun.the British army decided that the gun must above deliver accurate fire with  good penetration (above addverage)as wars of the future would be hit them first to kill as apposed to rate of fire "if u lite them up they cant shot back"the charm.3 is the best kinetic round main gun to date ....................there was talk around that there mite be a development of a smooth bore for some of the tanks but only for the fire support roll.not sure about that but its something that keeps on being passed around!........hope this corrects some of my mistakes and some of yours


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The two concepts indeed do have their strengths and weaknesses.  Primarily in that the rifled gun was designed to fire both KE and CE rounds, with one of the CE rounds having an Infantry support capability.  HESH is great for forticications, buildings and so on, and the smoothbores lack this capability.

There is no denying that the smoothbore was designed to kill armour, and nothing else.  It is telling that 25 years after the weapon first appeared, the French, Germans, and Americans are still developing a round with HE capabilities.  The primary problem with all of them is stability and accuracy.  None of the rounds 120mm HE projectiles, including the French round, have met the minimum requirements for acceptance, despite being in development for years.

However, the argument is moot.  The excellent CHARM3, the most accurate and powerful 120mm tank gun out there, will soon beome a footnote in history.  And, someday, technology will develop a round that is almost as good as the HESH/HEP/HE rounds fired from rifled barrels for the smoothbore.  

There is one thing that makes me wonder about the US approach, though.  And that is there call for the various 105 mm rounds for the MGS.  Maybe they will use the 105 to support the Infantry, and give up on developing an HE round for the 120?


----------



## 12alfa

When the 120 sb have been is service and the same amount of upgrades to the ammo as the Charm/rifled tubes, will we say the charm is still the best?

The Charm system to a great degree was developed before the wall came down and deployed after a long r&d stage. If we wait for the same amount of time with the 120 sb I think we will see a greater improvement in its use and different ammo types.Also a rifled tube can't fire a ATGM , can it?

Can't argue that it;s a great tube slaved to one of the best FCS, but the ammo that is now in question, for them to switch the system because of supplier problems in my book is it's downfall. This is not going to happen to the smoothbores.

Is the spun Ke round less effective than a non-spun round, I mean it's more stable in flight and at point of impact is better/ more precise than a spun round?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The reason the Brits rejected smoothbore in the first place was their belief that tanks had a secondary task to support infantry complete their tasks.  It hasn't been cheap for them to keep developing the gun and ammunition as they have, with no hope of export orders.    Now, with their cutbacks, it has become impossible.  At least they are calling for the L55, and not the L44.  The problem there is that some of the ammo developed for the L55 is not compatable with the L44, so using some US ammunitions is out of the equation.

The KE round fired from both the rifled and smoothbore cannons are fin stabilised, and do not spin.  The APFSDS designed for rifled barrels has a slip ring, so the ring bites the lands and spins, while the projectile doesn't spin.  

Some of the reasons the Charm 3 is so powerful is that it uses new technology in the construction of the barrel, I'm not sure if the Brits will share this technology or not, but I think that if they license build the L55, you'll see some interesting developments from RO fairly shortly.  This new construction allows much greater chamber pressures, so the designers came up with a slip ring that really bites the lands, and provides greater obturation than was achievable before.  This results in a round with much higher KE than is achievable with smoothbores.  Smoothbores, inherent to their design, cannot quite achieve the obturation rifled barrells can.

I find it interesting that the UK, with its small industry, has achieved so much in tank design.  Highlights include the first truly stabilised main gun, spaced armour, Chobham armour, and now the as yet unfielded (?) electric armour.


----------



## Smoothbore

A Challenger 1 (armed with a 120 mm L11A5 rifled cannont) took the record for the longest range kill by a tank in the first Gulf War, destroying a T-55 at a range of about 5 km with a HESH round.
A remarkable distance considering scintillation of the near-surface air.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Are you sure it was a HESH round?   I haven't seen proof either way, but this web site claims it was an <a href=http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/apfsds.htm>APFSDS</a> round.

By the way, the link has a good explanation of APFSDS, while the parent site itself has some good, unclassified information.   http://www.army-technology.com/


----------



## Smoothbore

I would consider Army Technology a more reliable source compared to where I got my specs from. It was most likely the L27A1 CHARM round.

Now back to the original question:
Both tanks (I'm assuming we're talking about the SEP version of the M1A2) are world leaders by which other vehicles are assessed, both are equally matched in terms of optics and fire control including independent thermal viewers on both vehicles permitting hunter-killer capability. The M1A2 SEP has a slight advantage in armour protection which includes both Chobham- type composite layers and DU inserts that are 2,5x denser than high grade steel. Challengers used in Op Telic have better side protection which incorporate ERA panels. The Abrams outpaces the Chally in mobility tests. The gas turbine is also stealthy and emits no visible exhaust.


----------



## 12alfa

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Are you sure it was a HESH round?   I haven't seen proof either way, but this web site claims it was an <a href=http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/apfsds.htm>APFSDS</a> round.
> 
> By the way, the link has a good explanation of APFSDS, while the parent site itself has some good, unclassified information.   http://www.army-technology.com/



I read a report on the hit. Seems the gunner was "pestering" the c/c to let him take a shot, finnaly the commander decided to issue that famous FIRE order, the rest is now history. This is King of rifled systems, and fron the country who gave us the first Tank.And from them will come the 1st plastic AFV also.

Think I read it was hesh aslo, my mind is going ya know...


----------



## Lance Wiebe

So many advances from Great Britain in the field of armour.

The first true sabot round, spaced armour, composite armour, now "electric" armour

It's too bad that they couldn't develop a decent power pack for so long.  They led, and lead, the west in passive armour protection, and the 17 pounder, 20 pounder and 105 were far and away the best tank guns of their time.  But.......The Chieftan's power pack was a disgrace, and an embarrassment.  The latest one is not bad, but light years away from the German packs.


----------



## Yard Ape

Could a German power pack fit/function in a Brit tank?


----------



## 12alfa

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> The KE round fired from both the rifled and smoothbore cannons are fin stabilised, and do not spin.   The APFSDS designed for rifled barrels has a slip ring, so the ring bites the lands and spins, while the projectile doesn't spin.




Are   you saying that the round (sabot,penetrator, and slip ring) are not spining to a small degree while traveling down the tube in a rifled system?
I can't see a non-moving object in a rifled tube, even with slip rings, after the initial explosion keeping up to the spin that is generated by the rifing to keep the dart perfectly level, am I making a sence?

I agree that after the seperation of the sabots, the dart will in distance will start to fly without spin due to the fins. But from what I have read and seen in a Charm system firing , the sabots fly off in a matter that loks like they are spining after leaving the tube, unlike the effect of a sabot out of a sb as to falling off without and noticible spining effect.

Granted this spin is small, but is it still there?


----------



## Smoothbore

Agreed, the Brits have advanced steel machining technology, they first introduced electro-slag refined steel in the production of the L11 cannon for the Chieftain. They however lack sophistication in optics and FCS (Challenger 2 uses a French thermal imager from Sagem). And yes, both the Leyland 60 (Chieftain) and the Perkins CV12 TCA (Challenger) are not leading edge powerpacks, it all started with that damned Centurion.



			
				Yard Ape said:
			
		

> Could a German power pack fit/function in a Brit tank?



There was a prototype called the Vickers Mk 7 which mounted a turret similar to todays Challenger 2 with the chassis of a Leopard 2. It didn't sell though.
If you're asking whether it is possible to squeeze a foreign power-pack into the Challenger chassis I believe thats the whole point of the updated Challenger 2E export variant, which features a 1500 hp MTU 883 diesel engine.

It's all here:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/


----------



## TANKIE

Dont worry 2 much about it lads chally 2 proved itself in the Gulf and abrams tried 2 follow but couldnt.
RPG rounds were bouncing off chally 2 side and just making the paint while the abrams were getting taking out by a rpg in the side .

How many tanks were lost in the Gulf war ,1 chally 2 due to blue on blue , does anyone know how many abrams were knocked out ??????    :skull:


----------



## childs56

I thought that the fin stab sabot rd fired out of a rifled barrel did spin. The reason for the fins was to stabilize the penetrator rod to keep it form tumbling head over heals not to keep it from spinning. Spinnig as I recall has a more accurate affect on range due to its increase in stablity of the actual rod or rd itself. I might  be wrong about this.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

You are wrong.

APFSDS rounds do not spin, the slip ring negates the grooves in the barrel, and the round emerges with no spin.  

Spin is applied to rounds for stability reasons, but in the case of KE rounds, spin actually detracts from penetration performance, which is why the move to develop fin stabilized rounds developed in the late '70s.


----------



## childs56

I just re-read the info I had on penetrator rods and it states that early rods used by the Brits had a spin on them and that they were less effective then more modern ones(not as much range but more accuracy) and that the new rds fired from the rifled barrel does have some spin but it is negligible because of the slip rings. I found a site on the US ammunition site and it is quite informative except that you cant access it now because of security reasons.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Yes, the original APDS rounds achieved their stability by spinning, very much like a rifle bullet.  But the fin stabilised rounds fly more like an arrow, not a bullet, if you want a simple analogy.  While upon exiting the barrel, a APFSDS round may have some very slight spin, the spin is gone by the time the sabots are released.


----------



## 12alfa

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> While upon exiting the barrel, a APFSDS round may have some very slight spin, the spin is gone by the time the sabots are released.



I have a paper that says
"The
British 120mm APFSDS has its spin largely cancelled by the slip rings
on the sabot, but even so its still doing 1,200 rpm at the muzzle.
The
penetrator does spin, but very slowly, maybe 1 rps, just enough to smooth
out aerodynamic irregularities.   The development of fin-stabilized
long-rod penetrators is one of the things that has made smoothbore main
guns more fashionable than rifled main guns recently."


Is this wrong?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I can't imagine where they got 1200 rpm at the muzzle.  LFTEU has some really good high speed photography taken of APFSDS rounds exiting the barrel.  Great training aid!

Like I said earlier, spin degrades the performance of both HEAT and APFSDS rounds, (here I am talking terminal effects).  The reason that rifled barrels are kept by the British is that they can fire spin-stabilised rounds for Infantry support, such as HESH and smoke.  Smoothbores cannot fire HESH and smoke rounds.  Therefore, the APFSDS rounds fired from rifled barrels have quite a bit higher complexity (and cost) to negate the spin.

There is also some performance loss.  A rifled barrel, naturally, converts some of the energy of the propellant to spin.  There is a natural drag on the round to achieve this.  Even using teflon slip rings, there is some energy loss when compared to a smoothbore gun.  Increasing propellant to maintain velocity also has the disadvantage of increasing barrel wear, and causes greater consequences of fire.  And we all know the law of physics, where energy is greatly dependant on speed.  (energy=mass X velocity squared).

The British have resigned themselves to the smoothbore, which means that they are losing their Infantry support ammunition.  The cost of being the only users of rifled 120 finally became too much, in terms of R&D.

The 105 in also dead, in terms of development of new rounds.  Nobody is designing new tanks with rifled 105, so it is doubtful we'll see any changes to our ammunition, unless it is done by SNC.


----------



## 12alfa

Just trying to understand this spinning more. The paper is from  Robert F. McCoy's "Modern Exterior Ballistics" and what I'm trying to get a grip on is "precession".
As you know this has some effect on the rod at impact. Thus my post on the rifled tube having "spin". Now you say that it does not, you see why in a bit confused?

Most data I have or read ,reports some spin, on both in the barrel and as the rod moves downrange to impact. Given this rotation is small, but is there I believe to stabilise the rod from precession . 
My question is therefore , does the rod spin? Does not the fins have machining on them to produce this "spin", meaning the fins edges are not square. I don't know if i can explain this clearly enough to find a answer.

Afv's and ammo is a hobby of mine and obtaining info is a on going quest.

Is the 120 on the new India tank a rifled one, have seen post of it being so, this is a new tube and seems to point to more development in the rifled tube area.
Cheers.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Grrr.

I answered this in some detail, but when I hit "post", my whole computer froze up on me.  Stupid computers.  Can we get together and discuss this over a beer instead?

Now, you're going to get the condensed version.  

I am going to take a wild guess, and state that the book you have predates the latest long rod penetrators.  While precession was desirable in all rounds, except for HEAT, todays long rod penetrators (the ones approaching an L ratio of 20:1) have to defeat this once desirable trait.  The problem with these rounds is that they do not spin in a nice manner, instead, the nose yaws in a circle as it flies down range.  This is obviously less than desirable.  Huge amount of research time has fixed this in the older rounds, but the greater the L ratio, the worse the problem.  Experimental rounds with an L ratio of 40:1 have been fired, the only way possible to stalize them is to have no spin whatsover.  They cannot, therefore, be fired from rifled barrels, even with slip rings.

High speed photography displays the tendency of APFS rounds fired from rifled barrels to yaw to the right and down, the seperation of the sabot tends to help straighten the round, the fins do the rest.  The fins negate the spin of the round, so while a FS round hitting a target  at closer ranges may have some spin, it is negligable.

BTW, the yaw I was talking about earlier means that if we fire at a target closer than 400M with our current weapon/ammo combination, the round will not be effective, as it will not hit nose first.


----------



## 12alfa

Understand more of this now....
No the book talks about long rods and the r&d to up to 40;1 to find a no spun rod to hit sq on.

But if i understand this correctly, a rod moving at (est) 1600 mps, would  rotate around its axis 2 times to a target at 3600m.
So its not all that much, but still there. Sort of corkscrewing to the target is what they do to overcome aerodynamics and precession, and to aid in accuracy?

Smoothbores don't have (if i understand this) rifled induced spin to overcome, but rather it is applied to the round by the fins?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

You are most likely correct that not all of the spin would be negated, especially in the extremely short flight times we are talking about.

A note I found on the M1A1 FCS built by CDC has this comment 

"Since the projectile is not spin stabilized, rotational forces and lifting forces were not considered. These forces would need to be considered for any projectile that is spin stabilized. The computational expense of determining these forces would need to be determined on aiming systems for spin stabilized projectiles."

Which would lead one to believe that the FCS computer for smoothbores are simpler than the ones for rifled guns.  Which may be why the FCS on the Leo2A4 through to A6 is the EMES 15, while the Leo 1A5 (and ours) is the more complex EMES 18.  It would also indicate that the minor spin on the FS rounds is not worth calculating.


----------



## 12alfa

Now this is intersting.... 

You posted "The KE round fired from both the rifled and smoothbore cannons are fin stabilised, and do not spin.  The APFSDS designed for rifled barrels has a slip ring, so the ring bites the lands and spins, while the projectile doesn't spin.  "

And now you say it does "spin"

So what is it?

Sorry ...just pullin your chain, next to GW i'm have fun with you Lance,,,,,, I'll stop now. ;D


PS: tanks for some additional info/data in your posts.


----------



## TANKIE

Sorry to say this but the APFSDS does spin during flight due to it being produed by the rifling in the barrel and continues after leaving the barrel. :threat:


----------



## TANKIE

The two piece ammo on chally 2 is easy to load and it can be done in 2-3 seconds per round and thats fast loading for two piece ammo :skull:


----------



## Lance Wiebe

And on the barrels with no rifling?

And I have loaded a Challenger.  Sorry, nobody, not even superman can load a round that fast.

Even with the projectile in your hand, you have to open the gate, insert the projectile, open the propellant door, remove the propellent, close the door, feed the propellent into the chamber, close the breech, insert primer, and close the gate, then report "loaded".

A good Challenger crew can fire 6 rounds per minute.  For about one minute, then they slow down.  A really good M1 crew can get 8 out in the first minute with their one piece ammo.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Oh hey, 12 Alfa.

The offer of a beer is still open.


----------



## 12alfa

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Oh hey, 12 Alfa.
> 
> The offer of a beer is still open.



Stop teasing me!
You know the army does not let me drink anymore. LOL


----------



## DOOG

Lance..
12 Alpha doesn't drink beer. He drinks Bud.


----------



## 12alfa

They call it the "KING of beers" for a reason!

Did you get your moralota working yet?


----------



## TANKIE

A good challenger 2 crew can get 9 rounds off in a minute and thats been recoded on film and a crew can get 3 hesh rounds off in 12 seconds


----------



## cpl forrester

i agree thats at a push but if your a well trained gunner then yes you can and i would also like to add that its a part of the internal testing a commander will push you to c how much he can get out off you so he knows what you can do when the shit hits the fan

and also we do this all the time not just 5-20 times its like us steping into a Leo and banging out rounds like you do?

to differant layouts and gates and breaches 

sorry but its well known with in the tank units in the UK that it can be done

and to reply to tanker its about 7 m1's that have been knocked out of service "so much for being the best package"
more America propaganda  and we all keep falling for it ............

need proof go to the posting called proof   :sniper:


----------



## George Wallace

cpl forrester said:
			
		

> i
> need proof go to the posting called proof :sniper:



Thanks for clarifying that..... I was wondering what "proff" was supposed to mean.

If only you could use the Queen's English correctly I may have the chance to understand what you are trying to convey to us.

GW


----------



## G .Dundas

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Thanks for clarifying that..... I was wondering what "proff" was supposed to mean.
> 
> If only you could use the Queen's English correctly I may have the chance to understand what you are trying to convey to us.
> 
> GW


  Careful George ,he may be a thirteen year old and as we all know they know "EVERYTHING"! Did'nt you at his age?


----------



## cpl forrester

13 lol i love you guys no im 30  just because my gramer aint that good dont mean that i cant do my good


if i was giving you fire support would you make a joke about it then

NO ......so get your head out of your arse lol


----------



## Kirkhill

Cheers mate.

Your about on par with a Brummie cousin of mine.  He can't speak neither.

 ;D


----------



## Lance Wiebe

> i agree thats at a push but if your a well trained gunner then yes you can and i would also like to add that its a part of the internal testing a commander will push you to c how much he can get out off you so he knows what you can do when the crap hits the fan
> 
> and also we do this all the time not just 5-20 times its like us steping into a Leo and banging out rounds like you do?
> 
> to differant layouts and gates and breaches
> 
> sorry but its well known with in the tank units in the UK that it can be done
> 
> and to reply to tanker its about 7 m1's that have been knocked out of service "so much for being the best package"
> more America propaganda  and we all keep falling for it ............



Can somebody translate this?  I have no idea what point, if any, he is trying to make.


----------



## Kirkhill

I believe Lance that the good Corporal was addressing this post by Tankie wherein Tankie asserted that your suggestion that a Challenger crew could only get off 6 rounds per minute was suspect.



> A good challenger 2 crew can get 9 rounds off in a minute and thats been recoded on film and a crew can get 3 hesh rounds off in 12 seconds



In response Corporal Forrester offers these observations in support of Tankie's position.



> i agree thats at a push



Translation: I agree that that (9 Rds APFSDS per minute and 3 rds HESH in 12 seconds) requires a lot of effort



> but if your a well trained gunner then yes you can



Translation: but it is possible for a well trained gunner



> and i would also like to add that its a part of the internal testing a commander will push you to



Translation: and I would also like to add that its a part of the internal (presumably Regimental/Troop) testing a commander will drive you to



> c how much he can get out off you so he knows what you can do when the crap hits the fan



Translation: to see how much he can get out of you so he knows what you can do when the next roun of unpleasantries eventuates



> and also we do this all the time not just 5-20 times its like us steping into a Leo and banging out rounds like you do?



Translation: This is something we do on a regular basis, not just occasionally.  For us its our standard procedure and presumably much like the way that you punch out rounds on the Leo.



> to differant layouts and gates and breaches



Translation: presumably this refers to the layout of the ranges but it is beyond the ability of this ex-infantry civilian to speculate



> sorry but its well known with in the tank units in the UK that it can be done



Translation: apparently this standard of achievement is common knowledge in the Mother Country.



> and to reply to tanker its about 7 m1's that have been knocked out of service "so much for being the best package"
> more America propaganda  and we all keep falling for it ............



Translation: Apparently an assertion by tanker was incorrect, Cpl Forrester believes that 7 M1 Abrams have be knocked out/brewed up or rendered "hors de combat" and thus he questions the suggestion that the Abrams is the best vehicle, apparently suggesting that that statement is mere American marketing to which we all apparently succumb.

Translation ends.  Verification by Cpl Forrester requested. Over. ;D 

Cheers


----------



## cpl forrester

thanks lol do u translate for free lmao.

will be more carfull what i type lol because the British don't eat a thesaurus on a regular basis.

we believe in action.

that speaks louder than words.

so from now on i will post like this!

as to not confuse you all.

also i would like to say that the point my well schooled translator said.

on the American marketing!....

an American genrial of the army said.

no m1 a2 was destroyed in combat in the recent actions in the gulf .

this statement is wrong.!

thats what i meant.

 if an rpg hits a tank but the crew only have minnor injury's then it has done its job.
but if it lights up (catches on fire) then there clearly is a fault in its design

as the army's in the world swing to the idea that most wars will be rogue nations where insurgency will be the main factor.(men with rpgs and small arms/terrorists or small units of troops not well armed but with fundamental ideals)
then why is the "best" tank in the world not designed to deal with this

the fact that the American government is in sales talk with the Australian government over sales also most of the middle eastern
NATO/united nation contreys has no bearing on the statement "no m1a2 mbt was destroyed in combat"of course it has

the charm3 main gun means that with the rifled barrel this allows the gun to be used as an artilary piece (troop suppport) vital for the above said anti insergency roll as well as bunker and building clearance as it fires the hesh round giving it the edge in this roll above smooth bore main guns but also is more than capable of being used in the hunter killer roll this was the main factor in the design of the charm3

the British have worked on tactics for along time now and believe that in the tank hunter roles most fire will be to the front of
of the tank but also to the sides and now more so from above as most anti tank weapons employ the same type of technology as
the hellfire anti armour weapon "hit them from above" using the up-armour/passive/reinforced armour/plastic armour inserts in the effected areas
as keep them from being venerable from the likes of main gun ammo/rpg/guided missiles but then again every tank has a week spot-
the rear end but the advancement of new armours has helped this since the days of the challenger 1

the need for Du inserts has been raised, but seen as only develop if need as only NATO forces use these rounds i.e the united states.
the need is not there only if a rogue state employs the technology "not in the near future" 
the threat is from blue on blue but advancements in communication and vehicle recognition will eliminate this threat

the power plant of the challenger 2 
as we all know the power plant is the floor in all tanks the bigger the more power it provides 
but in return the size of the tank increases also
so to keep it in the size that British transports can handle it could not be as large as the m1a2 power plant
this maybe a downfall but the extended range of challenger 2 is a plus
as the need for fuel is more Conservative

as the gulf war proved resupply of fuel the m1 was at times very stretched
as it was for all NATO forces but because of the extended range the challenger 2 had the edge
as it could always wait (but still have reserves to counter any forseeable threats) or move closer to supply's
this gave it an edge in the field.
the m1 did not have this luxury

hope this post is better if not feel free to translate it   ;D


----------



## Genetk44

Haveing just read about our $9 billion surplus I am just curious as to how much of that money it would cost to replace all of our present Leopards with the newest,most modern model Leopards and logistics/spares for them?
Just idle curiosity on my part.
Cheers
Gene


----------



## Franko

Leo 2 fleet goes for about 2.5 billion for 250 tanks and all parts, training, and sims for gunnery....

so I hear

Regards

BTW....don't get your hopes up.....bloody Liberals won't spend a dime extra on good kit.


----------



## Genetk44

I checked the DND  Army website and it says we have 114 leopards in our inventory.
Oh...my hopes aren't up at all that the Gov't will spend any portion of that surplus on equipment......especially not tanks....  :'(


----------



## patt

Genetk44 said:
			
		

> I checked the DND   Army website and it says we have 114 leopards in our inventory.
> Oh...my hopes aren't up at all that the Gov't will spend any portion of that surplus on equipment......especially not tanks....   :'(



i think there still goiing along with the stryker program maybe we might get more than just 66 who knows...we will have to wait and see


----------



## Lance Wiebe

If memory serves, the Swedes picked up the Stvr 122 for somewhere around 12 million US each, which included parts for 10 years, simulators, a BMS and ammunition, initial training, and some other odds and sods.  The tanks alone cost a bit less than half of that.

The 122 is the model that convinced Germany to produce its own version, and call it the Leo2A6.  The Swedes are now taking delivery of the anti-tank mine protection system, which the Germans are also going to buy.  These models, which will not allow penetration by any known anti-tank mine, will have the "M" suffix, as in Leo2A6M.

Seems to me the M1A1HA costs about US 3 Million, but these are used tanks.  The M1A2SEP is somewhere around 8 million, which is a brand new turret on a rebuilt M1 Hull.  No new hulls are being built for the A2.

We turned down a good deal when the Germans left Shilo.  They offered to leave their Leo2A4 and Marders behind for our use, but we said no thanks.  Go figure.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

My take is it's a race between the Conservative Party trying to win the next election
and the Liberals trying to de-tank the Canadian Military.

Bottom Line:  If Harper doesn't win the next one, we'll be out of armour.



CB.  :'(


----------



## George Wallace

We're pretty well out of Armour now.  The new thing is WHEELS.  

We are no longer an Army, but an Armed Constabulary.  Praise Trudeau.

GW


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Well when we go up against someone that hands our asses to us then maybe they'll change their minds.


----------



## scm77

The've already put the surplus into paying the national debt.  Of course this causes controversy because a few months ago there was no new money for healthcare or military etc. and now theres once again a bigger then expected surplus.


----------



## WAFFEN_SS

Some ppl might think we dont need a battle tank, we are replacing our old Leopard ; shouldn't we invest in a new set of battle tanks? The challenger2, the M1 Abram, Leopard 2?? It doesn't make sense to me, to be without a main battle tank. Regardless of its present need, you can not replace a battle tank with a stryker or H2 or a John Deer.


----------



## 12alfa

cpl forrester said:
			
		

> thanks lol do u translate for free lmao.
> 
> will be more carfull what i type lol because the British don't eat a thesaurus on a regular basis.
> 
> we believe in action.
> 
> that speaks louder than words.
> 
> so from now on i will post like this!
> 
> as to not confuse you all.
> 
> also i would like to say that the point my well schooled translator said.
> 
> on the American marketing!....
> 
> an American genrial of the army said.
> 
> no m1 a2 was destroyed in combat in the recent actions in the gulf .
> 
> this statement is wrong.!
> 
> thats what i meant.
> 
> if an rpg hits a tank but the crew only have minnor injury's then it has done its job.
> but if it lights up (catches on fire) then there clearly is a fault in its design
> 
> 
> *What the helll.. a tank burning is a design fault? explain please (this should be good)*
> 
> as the army's in the world swing to the idea that most wars will be rogue nations where insurgency will be the main factor.(men with rpgs and small arms/terrorists or small units of troops not well armed but with fundamental ideals)
> then why is the "best" tank in the world not designed to deal with this
> 
> the fact that the American government is in sales talk with the Australian government over sales also most of the middle eastern
> NATO/united nation contreys has no bearing on the statement "no m1a2 mbt was destroyed in combat"of course it has
> 
> the charm3 main gun means that with the rifled barrel this allows the gun to be used as an artilary piece (troop suppport) vital for the above said anti insergency roll as well as bunker and building clearance as it fires the hesh round giving it the edge in this roll above smooth bore main guns but also is more than capable of being used in the hunter killer roll this was the main factor in the design of the charm3
> 
> *The smooth bore (120) has more in it's favor towards being a better hunter/killer system because of the sabot fired from a smoothbore is as we have talked about being a bit more accurate that a rifled sabot, and has a greater growth in development or newer ammo than the 120 charm
> That being said the wpn/tube is a very small part of the hunter/killer system, the fcs and computer/optics/thermal/ctiv has a greater effect on the system.*
> 
> *Also no need for h/k system for buildings/bunkers I would think*
> 
> the British have worked on tactics for along time now and believe that in the tank hunter roles most fire will be to the front of
> of the tank but also to the sides and now more so from above as most anti tank weapons employ the same type of technology as
> the hellfire anti armour weapon "hit them from above" using the up-armour/passive/reinforced armour/plastic armour inserts in the effected areas
> as keep them from being venerable from the likes of main gun ammo/rpg/guided missiles but then again every tank has a week spot-
> the rear end but the advancement of new armours has helped this since the days of the challenger 1
> 
> the need for Du inserts has been raised, but seen as only develop if need as only NATO forces use these rounds i.e the united states.
> the need is not there only if a rogue state employs the technology "not in the near future"
> the threat is from blue on blue but advancements in communication and vehicle recognition will eliminate this threat
> 
> *There is if you look, nations that have DU ammo, and there not the good old US of A*
> 
> the power plant of the challenger 2
> as we all know the power plant is the floor in all tanks the bigger the more power it provides
> but in return the size of the tank increases also
> so to keep it in the size that British transports can handle it could not be as large as the m1a2 power plant
> this maybe a downfall but the extended range of challenger 2 is a plus
> as the need for fuel is more Conservative
> 
> *I may be mistaken here (i'll look it up) but the AGT turbine in the M1 is smaller than the perkins Condor.*
> 
> as the gulf war proved resupply of fuel the m1 was at times very stretched
> as it was for all NATO forces but because of the extended range the challenger 2 had the edge
> 
> *M1+498km
> Challey2=400km
> these are est's but they are very close, these two MBT's can't claim better a "fuel range" I would think*
> 
> as it could always wait (but still have reserves to counter any forseeable threats) or move closer to supply's
> this gave it an edge in the field.
> the m1 did not have this luxury
> 
> hope this post is better if not feel free to translate it     ;D



*I think I just did .* ;D


----------



## cpl forrester

so what your saying then is scrap artilary because theres no need for it in this day and age. the bristish devoloped the callenger 2 with the charm3 not only as a h/k but also as an artilary gun there is still a need for tanks to employ the hesh/high explosive roll. basra was a testerment to that distrution of communication masts and reinforced buildings also deployment in the close artilary support as the alternertive would of been massive infantry casultys 
the british have come to relise that troop support is vital r u seriuosly tell me there is no need for this?

the british tank will always out gun any other tank and rpgs will continue to bonce of leaving only black marks on the side/and maybe a dent or two

and as for a tank bursting into flames a design fault = improper design of internall fire supprestion which i add the challenger 2 has you only 
read what you know how many of you train in this weapon platform how many of you have rolled this tank out in combat
how many of you have served along american tank units in side of a challenger 2 

even they have more confidance on the challer 2 performance than there own mbt's 

 paper is all and good

BUT when push comes to shove : i have  im talking about faults known at the ground level that holds more ground in any argument as they are aware of problems and the limits of the weapons platforms they operate not ppl who just read tec info that maybe incorect

or is it just because im a british service man i note that tankei got the same responce


----------



## Fishbone Jones

cpl forrester,

You took your time a couple of posts back to relax, form your sentences and make an intelligent, understandable post.

Now your back to your disjointed, hard to read posting format. 

I like what your saying, I just find you too hard to read. Sorry, but if you don't fix it, I won't be reading your responses anymore. A pity really, they seem to have some good discussion, somewhere, in them.


*"or is it just because im a british service man i note that tankei got the same responce"*

You're also above pouting and feeling dejected, I would hope.


----------



## 12alfa

cpl forrester said:
			
		

> so what your saying then is scrap artilary because theres no need for it in this day and age.
> 
> *No, I did not say that, re-read my post please.*
> 
> the bristish devoloped the callenger 2 with the charm3 not only as a h/k but also as an artilary gun there is still a need for tanks to employ the hesh/high explosive roll. basra was a testerment to that distrution of communication masts and reinforced buildings also deployment in the close artilary support as the alternertive would of been massive infantry casultys
> the british have come to relise that troop support is vital r u seriuosly tell me there is no need for this?
> 
> *No , again I did not say that. The hunter/killer system is for other AFV's mainly. Your grunt with his RPG (as you have pointed out) will have very little effect on mission kill on any modern MBT.*
> 
> the british tank will always out gun any other tank and rpgs will continue to bonce of leaving only black marks on the side/and maybe a dent or two
> 
> and as for a tank bursting into flames a design fault = improper design of internall fire supprestion which i add the challenger 2 has you only
> read what you know
> 
> *Well I've trained on AFV's with fire supression systems, generally they are all the same. Is the Challenger fire supression system different than all modern MBT's that would give it a better advantage in this department?*
> 
> how many of you train in this weapon platform how many of you have rolled this tank out in combat
> how many of you have served along american tank units in side of a challenger 2
> 
> 
> *I for one have not, could you tell us here what the system has that gives it a better fire fiting system over the rest of our MBT's? Reaction time, chemical's used,maintaince times, etc?*
> 
> even they have more confidance on the challer 2 performance than there own mbt's
> 
> *Who is, and where can I read this?*
> 
> paper is all and good
> 
> BUT when push comes to shove : i have   im talking about faults known at the ground level that holds more ground in any argument as they are aware of problems and the limits of the weapons platforms they operate not ppl who just read tec info that maybe incorect
> 
> or is it just because im a british service man i note that tankei got the same responce
> 
> *No I don't think thats the reason. Most people, myself included need to see some hard data. A link is also usefull.
> I have read most of the info on Vickers site as well as the DOD for the british army, and I can't see how the Challey is better than most modern MBT's.
> 
> I would put it in the top 5 in the world, the merkava 3 and 4 would be 1st, then the STRV122(Leo2A5) and then the Challenger2.
> With it's ammo that is non-standard and it weight/mobility facts/data, it can't compete with the Merkava3-4.
> The Merk4 is simply way out in front, better FCS,ammo, armour(being modular) and it mobility across ground that will stop most MBT/s of simular weight is why it is the standard for tank design. Now some may argue this (and probly will), but carefull fact/data searching will show them why the Merkava is at the top.
> 
> My 2 cents,,,,,hey wait, the dollaris up!.. My 3 cents....LOL*


----------



## cpl forrester

most of my info is from serving with in the tank its self

so i maybe bias in my thinking

but i will say that i complete conferdance in the challenger 2

i know its limits and some not all of the technical infomation is not strictly true

although the fcs is the same as most European tanks there has been some advances in the system new curcit boards and alike
"i know this i was there during fitting" to help gather the connect technical infomation on targeting. although this has 
no direct effect on the system it self it makes it more reliable in extreme temperatures(less prone to over heating)
also better thermal shielding of most of the on-board computer hardware i.e development of the so called vapor chill(this system is basically the same as the basic fridge takes the heat away and vents it from the radiator) this in return means faster processing of infomation without the worries of burning out.
its a very simple idea that works! 

also new commander infer red and night sights have a better field of view the so called 360%.
although in real terms this means 280%.

also the hydraulic commander hatch is being modified to fix the problems faced in the latest conflict sights are to be added to the 7.62 gpmg (gimppy) to allow complete "fire by wire" keeping the commander from having to man the hatch (manually oppperate the gpmg) 
although the technology is currently employed but with not outstanding effect.

i do not see the specialist ammo as a fault in the gun yes resupply maybe harder but also means the ammo is useless to anyone else.

remember this the challenger 2 is so they say only just of the press but expect to see radically changes over the next 2-4 years.

the m1 has had over 20+ years to advance its technology.
and still fails in certain areas 

there are certain things that you can do with a chally that other tanks struggle with the above said close artillery support.
keeping the main gun on your target at all times (providing theses line of sight) no matter the tarrain you are tackling.

most of the info on the challenger2 is some 6 months behind the times as to keep with in the official secrets act.

as we are all aware there is a need for this act.

getting such info on hard copy is harder than a rock.

but time will show the challenger 2 has allot of tricks up its sleeve this tank is still young and is growing into new boots almost every day
the big one will be the advancement in the armour with the advancement in the plastic armours.
test programs are still running on this and will be directly influencing the design of the challenger 2's next line 

you may see plastic armour on the challenger before you see the first plastic afv.

also electric armour now I'm not to sure on how this will work so this is the word!

if the metal on a tank is charged( don't ask me the specs no one knows them yet ) then the result would be this as a metal object
comes close to the field a static/electric would be discharged at the object the objects course would change or an explosive charge would be detonated way before impact.

how much of that is fact i do not know and do not claim to know.just some thing i heard !

but it do's raise my brow a bit, sitting on it maybe a bit tricky?

most of these advancement will not be available on the export model.

the MOD are directly in charge of this project so don't expect this info to be freely available for some time!


----------



## Kirkhill

Corporal Forrester,  I just wish that our "System" could give our Forces as much confidence in their kit as you have in yours.

Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Corporal Forrester, I just wish that our "System" could give our Forces as much confidence in their kit as you have in yours.
> 
> Cheers.



I don't think that is the problem.  We have as much confidence in our kit and abilities, if not more than Corporal Forrester......unfortunately it is becoming more of a problem of "No Kit" than anything else.  Any of us who have been on a tank have confidence in our abilities to use that piece of kit, as does all those who laboured on Cougars, and now Coyotes, as well as the Gunners on the M109's and the Infanteers in their LAVs.  It is not a question of 'confidence', but of lack of kit.

GW


----------



## cpl forrester

i agree kit is major issue in all forces .............

lack of body armour

lack of clothing

lack of basic things that we all take for granted

lack of side arm or small arms munitions

as the armed forces live in the world of cut backs

its an old argument really

but one that we will always complain about!

there is no immediate solution to this

my comments on this are simple

they want us to do more of the so called peace keeping

they embark men every day to keep the Peace all over the globe

but money is allways an issue 

maybe we should thing in terms of civvies

yea i want to be safe 
yea i want to be defended
yea i want world peace

what you mean i have to pay for that?

governments need votes to be in power and the one thing that voters want is

better health care.
better schools..
better law enforcement.
better public serves.

the fact that if we are not supplied with the correct kit

they will loss it all if we cant defend them!!!!!!


----------



## Kirkhill

I think on those points you would find a lot of agreement here Cpl.

Cheers.


----------



## GunfighterSB

WEAPON said:
			
		

> Some ppl might think we dont need a battle tank, we are replacing our old Leopard ; shouldn't we invest in a new set of battle tanks? The challenger2, the M1 Abram, Leopard 2?? It doesn't make sense to me, to be without a main battle tank. Regardless of its present need, you can not replace a battle tank with a stryker or H2 or a John Deer.



Dear Moderator,

I am reporting that this User: WEAPON is deliberately trying to provoke me and many of our brethren into another hopeless debate with our current government and their <insert an insult here> policies. 

Sarcasm_ON 

We have discussed this topic over and over already with the varying results of recommended action (I will list in order of Magnitude)
         1) Hang Every Liberal MP or Ex MP from Trudeau's Time to Present.
         2) Force those very same MPs to drive their little Armoured Winnebago's(LAV105) in the face of danger.
         3) Go Toe to Toe with those MPs in a Winnebago. Us in a Leo2, T-90, Challenger2, M1A1 or even a LeoC2.
         4) Actually vote for the Conservatives in the next election instead of whining and crying doing nothing....

Sarcasm_OFF

In summary, please convey to USER: WEAPON that his initial thoughts are correct that we cannot replace a MBT with an Armoured Jeep/Panel Van/Camper/Lawn Mower/Combine Harvester or any other lame brained excuse for not funding the soldiers properly.

Gunfighter


----------



## REZTEEN

i agree u need a tank. whats a modern army with out a battle tank. u know what it is its nothing, its just not an army, like c'mon FRANCE has a main battle tank so Canada should have one


----------



## canuck101

I was just wondering if we are not keeping the Leopard 1 in service what about a lighter tank.  The Spanish have a tracked armoured fighting vehicle that can be a light tank to. What do you think of it.  Here is the URL:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ascod/


----------



## Lance Wiebe

This is certainly the way to go, a common chassis with many versions.  It is, I think, what we started out to do, but we screwed up.  Originally, our eight wheel chassis was going to be the common chassis with about a dozen variants.

Unfortunately, the Bison, Coyote, LAV III and MGS will have very few parts common to each other.  The Coyote and LAV III share the turret, and that's it for commonality.  The MGS shares nothing except a few minor things, such as batteries.

Sigh.  "A" for planning, "D-" for preparation, and "F" for execution.


----------



## 12alfa

Does our army think ahead?

What do they see as the veh that will come after the AGS, I mean this was I think looked at in the 80's, we are just now seeing the goverement saying yes. So have they looked past this family of AFV's?

I see the Brits developing plastic AFV's, and with modulsr amour added to them for certian missions. This i think is what the FCS is for the US's next generation of AFV's. We could jump onto this as well, but nah, we would screw that up as well....what was i thinking?

The British I think will feild the next generation of AFV's, as they should, after all they gave us the Tank.

It looks very good, protypes have been made/tested, me thinks this will work, and work well for the "deployment" people in goverments.
Seems that is all they are looking at theses days..............(insert profanity).


----------



## ArmyRick

Maybe we could do like the aussies and replace Leo 1 with a new tank and (to be realistic) reduce the replacement (like 3 squadrons of 14 = 44 or so + 8 for training = 52)


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Maybe we could do like the aussies and replace Leo 1 with a new tank and (to be realistic) reduce the replacement (like 3 squadrons of 14 = 44 or so + 8 for training = 52)



Why do that?  We have been halving our purchases since 1953.  Let's just end all this nonsense and go straight to Zero.

66 POS to replace 128 Leo I and auxiliary equip, which replaced over 350 Centurions, which replaced over 1000 Shermans........When will the madness stop?

GW


----------



## bossi

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 66 POS to replace 128 Leo I and auxiliary equip, which replaced over 350 Centurions, which replaced over 1000 Shermans........When will the madness stop?



Well, to paraphrase "Papa Doc Crouton" ... 


> ... We don'ts needs no stinkin' Cadillacs for da Farces ... me, I likes da Chevrolet ...


----------



## ArmyRick

Why did I suggest only X number of M8s? We either compromise or get nothing. As far whining about the numbers halfing as time goes on ? Finicial restraint is a REALITY in the CF. We all know that.
When will the madness stop ? Answer your own question. Roll with the punches or take 'em head on, we aint gettin new TANKS any time soon...


----------



## canuck101

That is a fact Jack! :'(


----------



## RCD

A light tank would do.


----------



## G .Dundas

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why do that?   We have been halving our purchases since 1953.   Let's just end all this nonsense and go straight to Zero.
> 
> 66 POS to replace 128 Leo I and auxiliary equip, which replaced over 350 Centurions, which replaced over 1000 Shermans........When will the madness stop?
> 
> GW



   As I recall the we were orginally were supposed to buy the M-48 but it was'nt ready and wanted nothing to do with the M-47. So we purchased the Centurions instead.And furthermore the number at one point was supposed to be 850 Centurions. We have a real long history of this! :


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The government of the day wanted all US kit, from boots to planes.  We actually started it, too, ordering the deuce, and the three quad.  But, when we started shopping for a tank, the Americans wanted to sell us the M-46, we wanted the M-47, but the US wouldn't give us the M-47.  They wanted all production for their own use.  Only after all the US Forces were equipeed was any exporting to be allowed.  The Brits offered us the Centurion for a very good price, so we bought it.  Thank goodness, it was far superior to the M46/M47/M48 POS that the Americans had to use.


----------



## a_majoor

OK, I am King for this forum, and decree the RCAC shall be equipped with real tanks. After careful consideration of the various models on the market, I am dissatisfied, and ask my royal advisors to get me something which is fast, hard hitting, well protected yet does not have a monsterous logistics footprint and is also somewhat lighter for better operational and tactical mobility.

The quick thinking Armoured advisor pulls a copy of ARMOR magazine from the royal library and shows me the January February 2001 edition. In the article "Modern German Tank Development, 1956-2000", there is a concept based on a modified Leopard 2 chassis. A low volume "Wegmann" turret is installed, which is about 30% lower than the issue turret, and a "Euro-Power Pack" is installed, allowing the hull to be shortened by almost a metre. http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/jf01/1bundeswehr01.pdf

A "top of the head" calculation suggests the resulting beast (Leopard 2 A7 ?) would weigh in at about 50,000 kg, yet still have the virtues of the parent, being fast, hard hitting (120mm smoothbore) and well protected. In fact the weight reduction would improve the cross country mobility , and the lowered shillouette will increase the protection factor, while the lighter weight should also result in better fuel economy.

The sad part is these were real concepts using current technology, and since the Leo 2 is still in production, it wouldn't cost that much for the Leopard 2 A7 (Canadian) to be a reality...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

OK. Next time I see you, you'll have to share whatever it is your smokin'. ;D Like the concept though.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

OK, King of this forum, I like this idea.   I'm not sure that we would shave off nearly 20,000Kg from the "M" versions of the Leo2A6 or Stvr 122, but even shaving 10,000 Kg is a huge saving, in terms of initial cost, maintenance, operating cost, shipping cost, and so on.

Of course, to carry on this theme would mean that we would have to purchase a suitable MICV to accompany it.   Of course, it would have to be tracked, reasonably mobile, protected, and have some more firepower than the weenie 25mm.   I kind of like the CV90.

We would need enough equipment for a heavy Brigade, or UA, or whatever we want to call it, plus a reserve, plus training vehicles, what say about 114 tanks, and 300 MICV?

Hey, maybe the Germans would cut us a deal on the PZH2000 for the artillery?   And maybe some helicopters..........you know, this thread could really expand!

oops.   Sorry, you're the King.   Your call.


----------



## a_majoor

That's why I have royal advisors!

The weight reduction is admittedly a guess, but I am also thinking of the "knock down" effect of shaving 30% off the turret hight and a metre off the hull: smaller engine and transmission (already factored), lighter suspension parts and so on. 10,000kg would probably be the bottom end, while 20,000kg would be the top end of the diet plan.

If we really want to have a UA heavy, then why not go all out? Let's take the Leo 2 hull, put the Euro-Power pack in the front and open up the rear hull space for the other members of the UA heavy combat team. We now get an assault carrier, engineer vehicle, SP Howitzer (capable of DF tasks), ATGM carrier and so on. This would be a "hammer" formation for smashing deep defensive positions, cracking open urban combat zones or lurking in the background as the countermove force.


----------



## birdgunnnersrule

Sorry to deflate the king's dream, but I do believe that the future tank is the MMEV/ADATS/TUA/MGS...just kidding.  I believe that we are making a mistake not having a MBT and like the concept.   Just need some heavy lift so we can get it overseas.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

If I'm going to engage in wishful thinking I would go with the M1 (the Abrams Standard is combat proven) and the CV9030 for the Infantry. 

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Leo 2 hull with the engine in front, eh?  Sounds almost like the PZH 2000.  Of course, the hull height could be lowered from the PZH, but the example does live!

It is certainly do-able!

And while the M1 is combat proven, it is extremely expensive to maintain and operate.  And, if you consider the M1A1HA or the M1A2, they are also very heavy, closing in on 70 tons.


----------



## Infanteer

Ok, if I can maybe post some thoughts.

I think A Majoor struck on a very valid point - a common chassis.  If anything, this idea shows that there is an alternative to a massive, 70 ton MBT if we desire to maintain a tracked, heavy-hitting capability.  Is there a possibility of us doing the same thing as the Swedes (If the Swedes can do it, we can to) and designing a Common Chassis, Tracked (CCT) - The LAV Chassis would become the Common Chassis Wheeled (CCW).  Like the CV series, we could produce an entire series of chassis which only feature different turrets (if they have one).  They don't have to be tiny-chassis either - look what the Germans are doing with the Leopard Chassis (Gepard comes to mind).

Is this workable, or do you Panzer-types feel that a MBT chassis is simply overkill for an IFV, an anti-aircraft platform, an ambulance, etc, etc.  A Common Chassis would do wonders in streamlining the fleet and reducing the logistical footprint of mechanized units.  As well, swapping crewmen from vehicle to vehicle wouldn't be too difficult.  However, I think there is a line to be cautious of, lest a vehicle be chosen that is a jack-of-all-trades and yet a master-of-none.

PS.  I also think it is worthwhile establishing the desirability of a Light Chassis Tracked (LCT) along the lines of a Weasel and a Light Chassis Wheeled (LCW) along the lines of the HMMVW.


----------



## a_majoor

The court jester speaks well: a common chassis is a desirable thing to achieve.

A fleet based on the Leo 2 chassis, even with the drastic modifications suggested, will be quite big in terms of logistics footprint. The vehicles would weigh in from about 40,000kg for Infantry assault carriers to 60,000kg for the 2A7 tank version. (For maximum protection without paying a huge weight penalty, I would suggest the assault carrier not have a turret at all, but rather several banks of grenade dischargers on the roof to shower the bad guys with gifts of WP and Frag). This will call for pretty impressive sea lift capabilities, lots of heavy duty tank transporters, a big fleet of fuelers when you hit the road and so on. The main reason to contemplate getting this fleet would be if there is a perceived need to crack hard targets, or swing Thor's hammer for the countermove. 

Fallujia and the West Bank would indicate heavy armour still has a role to play, since even the threat of being able to go in with relative impunity seems to put a damper on the bad guys. In the two examples above, the leadership tended to flee, leaving the rank and file uncoordinated and probably demoralized. An all Cavalry formation such as suggested in the Armoured Cavalry thread will have lots of uses, but not be as threatening to insurgents holed up in an urban environment. The leaders might be tempted to hunker down, making the dismounted assault much more difficult against a confident and organized foe. Waiting for an allied heavy force to arrive may be impractical for many reasons, and the pause will give the bad guys more time to organize, and defiantly hand them the initiative. At least one battlegroup in Canada should be kitted out in the heavy role for this reason alone.

A CCW-M based on the LAV should be a product improved LAV III (LAV 3.5)

If we want to get into the CCT-L, I would suggest a product improved BV 206.

The HMMVW chassis is a good starting point for a CCW-L, since it is not only a 5/4 ton utility truck, but has served as the basis for lots of Armoured Recce vehicles, such as the MOWAG EAGLE.


----------



## Infanteer

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The court jester speaks well: a common chassis is a desirable thing to achieve.



Well, I always knew I had a calling in life.... :warstory:



> A fleet based on the Leo 2 chassis, even with the drastic modifications suggested, will be quite big in terms of logistics footprint. The vehicles would weigh in from about 40,000kg for Infantry assault carriers to 60,000kg for the 2A7 tank version.



Is 40,000 - 60,000 kg a good weight range for ensuring maneuverability and sustainability without inhibiting survivability or lethality?



> (For maximum protection without paying a huge weight penalty, I would suggest the assault carrier not have a turret at all, but rather several banks of grenade dischargers on the roof to shower the bad guys with gifts of WP and Frag).



How about the Weapons Station that the American Stryker (ICV) uses?  Do we have to get rid of the turret?  The German Lynx suggests that the turret is still useful on an Infantry vehicle.



> This will call for pretty impressive sea lift capabilities, lots of heavy duty tank transporters, a big fleet of fuelers when you hit the road and so on. The main reason to contemplate getting this fleet would be if there is a perceived need to crack hard targets, or swing Thor's hammer for the countermove.
> 
> Fallujia and the West Bank would indicate heavy armour still has a role to play, since even the threat of being able to go in with relative impunity seems to put a damper on the bad guys. In the two examples above, the leadership tended to flee, leaving the rank and file uncoordinated and probably demoralized. An all Cavalry formation such as suggested in the Armoured Cavalry thread will have lots of uses, but not be as threatening to insurgents holed up in an urban environment. The leaders might be tempted to hunker down, making the dismounted assault much more difficult against a confident and organized foe. Waiting for an allied heavy force to arrive may be impractical for many reasons, and the pause will give the bad guys more time to organize, and defiantly hand them the initiative. At least one battlegroup in Canada should be kitted out in the heavy role for this reason alone.



Agree 100%.  Although it may be costly to deploy and sustain, this should be Canada's "Ace-in-the-Hole" - it would be the perfect companion to the Cavalry Group.  Infact this is a model similar to that suggested by Douglas MacGregor in his Transformation Under Fire.  A mobile expeditionary force like the USMC maintains tracked MBT capabilities, so why shouldn't we?


----------



## a_majoor

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How about the Weapons Station that the American Stryker (ICV) uses? Do we have to get rid of the turret? The German Lynx suggests that the turret is still useful on an Infantry vehicle.



A MG mount for close protection maybe, but not a big turret with a chain gun or 40mm cannon. That is why the UA Heavy has tanks attached. As for the weight issue, the ACHZARIT weighs in at @ 45,000kg, and I don't think too many people think they are being shorted on protection in one of those. My concern is the law of diminishing returns. A tank weighing 80,000kg will probably have even more protection than a 60.000kg Leo 2 or a 50,000kg "Ideal" tank, but it is much harder to transport, has less tactical and operational mobility, will be tied to a fleet of fueling vehicles etc. I would even suggest the "ideal" tank is at the edge of acceptibility at 50,000kg, and agressive signature management, engineering development and some very startling out of the box thinking is needed to get an effective fighting vehicle in the 30,000kg range that still has the speed, protection and punch of the "ideal" tank.


----------



## 12alfa

Ouuuu. I love to jump in on this. 


Most likely spent the most time in a M1HA and Leo2A4,5 and Leo1A4 than most (sim time that is), recce41 knows how much that time counts, heheheh.

But I'll keep my views to my self, as I tend to wind people up here.

But The M1. Leo would not make the cut in my View.


----------



## Chimera

a_majoor said:
			
		

> A MG mount for close protection maybe, but not a big turret with a chain gun or 40mm cannon. That is why the UA Heavy has tanks attached. As for the weight issue, the ACHZARIT weighs in at @ 45,000kg, and I don't think too many people think they are being shorted on protection in one of those. My concern is the law of diminishing returns. A tank weighing 80,000kg will probably have even more protection than a 60.000kg Leo 2 or a 50,000kg "Ideal" tank, but it is much harder to transport, has less tactical and operational mobility, will be tied to a fleet of fueling vehicles etc. I would even suggest the "ideal" tank is at the edge of acceptibility at 50,000kg, and agressive signature management, engineering development and some very startling out of the box thinking is needed to get an effective fighting vehicle in the 30,000kg range that still has the speed, protection and punch of the "ideal" tank.



How about a RWS with a .50 and Javelin as the armaament on your IFV?  Covering fire and anti-tank in one little bundle.

http://www.gdlscanada.com/products.asp?ID=36


----------



## a_majoor

I see you've read some of my ADTB articles. That is another option more suited for a general purpose infantry fighting vehicle, but I am thinking of this as a special purpose vehicle, able to advance rapidly under fire while getting support fire from the tanks and SP cannons, then trigger a mass volley of grenades on the enemy position as the troops dismount. I am sure even the most motivated enemy will be going for cover at that moment, giving our guys the magic minute to shake out and advance.


----------



## AZA-02

the word which you cant see is the term used after inserting your mag, to then _ _ _ _ it, to allow a bullet into the chamber...

i should spell check it,but 2 lazee...


----------



## Infanteer

I asked you nicely the first time and then I had to go around erasing frivolous posts that disrupted a thread in the Infantry forum.   Are you not getting enough attention at school or something?

This is a warning.   Quit spamming threads with silly posts that use up space or else you will be on your way out of here.


----------



## Bomber

I think Norway is looking for someone to buy  a regiments worth of Pzh 2000's, as they have finished a defence review and deemed them surplus.  All 8 rounds hitting the ground at within one second of the first one, out to 24 km;s away, what a piece of kit, and only about 5 years old.  Maybe have a little bit of factory powertrain warranty left.  Sorry, I don't know how long comprehensive is on new self propelled howitzers.  Again, I have to look away from all this heavy armour, Maybe one single regiment at the most of these big tanks, but man look to the CV90 family, I hope the next one along has wings, cause those vehicles do everything else under the sun.  Or maybe just get 1000 of those little Weasels, 1 and 2, and then make a wall of super small tank killing two man wrecking machines.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Leopard? :boring:
What about the CV90 family in all its glory.They have a 120mm version and all the odds and sods to make your combat team a reality,. Oh visionless one. ;D
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgu...=126&start=2&prev=/images?q=CV90120&hl=en&lr=


----------



## Lance Wiebe

If we want a light, tracked, common chassis, then I agree, the CV90 family is excellent.  It may be the very best M113 replacement out there.

But if you want a Brigade's worth of  vehicles that can fight in a high intensity conflict, then a real tank is needed, not an MGS, whether based on a LAV III or CV90 chassis.  The problem is, what to use as a common chassis?  The SPZ 2000 uses a lot of Leo 2 bits and pieces, which is a good thing.  The same as the Leo 1 and the Marder shared some parts.  We now know that the Leo 2 can be made with a front mounted engine.  But can it be made with a much lower hull than the SPZ 2000 uses?  Maybe using the Europack, the entire chassis can be lowered too such an extent that a front engined tank, with a lowered turret, can weigh in at 50,000 Kg.  Not much more than our current Leo with its add-on armour package, which closes in on 45,000Kg.  Would the Germans be even willing to design such a vehicle?  Would export orders make it worthwhile?  Would many countries be willing to buy a 50 ton tank, with a 35 to 40 ton IFV?  I know if I was dictator of Canada, It would interest me!  However, I would keep 3 wheeled Brigades, and form one heavy brigade.  The "mailed fist" to backup the wheeled guys.  I'm afraid we can't always count on our allies to have the same priorities as us with the use of heavy armour.


----------



## Shec

I know if I was dictator of Canada, It would interest me!  

Lance, if you were dictator of Canada,  it would interest me   ;D ;D


----------



## a_majoor

How can you be Dictator if I am the King?

The "cut down" Leopard concept is a way to think about rebuilding the Armoured fist in the "here and now" without getting into impossibly long time lines. Since we are already in the "impossible" time line era (i.e. even a comitment to rebuild the CF will require from 5-10 years just to get the core skills back), then maybe we should look farther ahead. These concepts are from the July-August 1997 edition of Armor Magazine, representing a Future Combat System with distinctly "tank like" qualities. 

Of interest is the rear compartment which can hold a vertical launch missile cell, or be swapped out for a compartment for a team of dismounted scouts. The main weapon system is an electromagnetic "railgun", launching very small projectiles at astonishing velocities, and a laser weapon is also mounted (although I wonder if it will be technologicly feasable even then). If we empty the mid section, which houses the weapons mount and the associated energy storage systems, then we have the space for a conventional Infantry Fighting Vehicle, or other members of the Combat team.


----------



## Bomber

I was watching extreme machines about 3 years ago and they were showing concept US tanks.  There was one that was hybrid drive, and mounted a triangular rather than round barrel, it was 140mm.  The entire vehicle was about 4 maybe 4.5 feet tall, cause they showed the guys mounting it and when they were next to it they were about a foot taller.  The turret was only big enough to hold the breech and some loading equipment.  The vehicle was very angular, but the neatest thing was the hull down position, it would drop its suspension until it was only an inch off the ground.  making it 4 feet high, but when under way cross country it would rise up and stay a the elevated position.  It used band tracks and the suspension raised an lowered itself according to the vehicles speed.  I will start googling like mad to back up my "out there vehicle description"


----------



## gunner56

Having served for a short time in the KO CALG R, I can remember salivating over pix of the Leo's. I still haven't seen a real one outside of the display at the Calgary Stampede, but I still think Canada should replace them with M1A2's. Last I heard,they're still the best in the world.
Don't our troops deserve the best??


----------



## Necro99

Sorry if i sound smart-assed, i don't mean to step on any of you, since some of you have been in the Armor, but im just stating my opinion.

The M1A2 has in fact a very poor record. As what i've heard, it's unreliable in desert and artic (HI!) climates. It also weights around 70 tons. Also, it requires alot of  servicing , it drinks gas like no tomorrow and is EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. Not just that, it's armor is weak too. I know this sounds rediculous, but hear this.
It puts all of it's armor weight on the front turret plate, and almost nothing on the flanks, top and back. It can be disabled by a single RPG-7 (50ies vintage, BTW) in one of those "sweet spots". Even the Leo C1 has better armor! Oh sure, chobham. But it's all on the front plate! 

Also, it has one BIG problem. It is GIGANTIC! Forget concealability, silhouette and easy transportation! It dwarves even the Leopard 2 in size. Let's compare it to the Russian T-90.

T-90:
Length 9.53 meters (w/ Gun)
Width   3.78 meters 
Height 2.225 meters 
clearance   0.47 meters   

M1A1:
Length 9.83 meters 
Width   3.66 meters 
Height 2.44 meters 
clearance   0.48 meters   

As you can see, T-90 is wider (better ground pressure and weight distribution), lower (smaller silhouette) and less long (less cumbersome)
Also, the T-90 is better armed. It's 125mm can penetrate the M1A1's front armor using modern ammo (*IRAQI 125mm AMMO WAS 60IES, BEFORE T-72 WAS MADE!*). Also, it dosen't even need shells! It can shoot Guided Missiles throught it's cannon. The AT-11 Sniper, wich isin't the latest gun-launched ATGM, can penetrate 700mm of RHAe at a range of 4km.

The T-90 is also better protected!
It has the Shtora-1 Optronic Protection systems wich disperses smokescreens and flares when it detects incoming ATGMs. Also, it's equipped with the ARENA.
It's a system that detects incoming ATGMs and Tank rounds, then fires a projectile to destroy it, leaving only a rain of harmless sharpnel to hit against the tank. As for the Armor, the T-90 has an evenly distributed armor all around the tank. And when it's not enought, it has the Kontakt-5 Explosive Reactive Armor wich is effective against multi-staged HEAT and APFSDS. I've heard the Kaktus ERA is even better.

That was just my 0.2$...


----------



## George Wallace

Some good points comparing the M1 with the T90.  The next question is powerpack reliability.  How do former Warsaw Pact powerpacks rate against Western Powerpacks in reliability and servicing.  This is where I tend to lean towards German tanks.  They are designed with more concern towards the Maintenance side of Armour Crewman's life than any other nations.  Leopards are very simple to maintain compared to British and American MBTs and AFVs.  If your tank is a gas guzzler or spends more time broken down than on the battlefield, it may not be all that great a choice.

GW


----------



## Reccesoldier

Necro, the width of the vehicle doesn't matter for ground pressure, it is the width and length of the tracks (which in and of itself is constrained by two simple formulae less than 1:5 ratio track width to length = an unstable vehicle more than 1:8 makes the vehicle impossible to turn) and weight of the vehicle which will determine the ground pressure. 

As for your comments on the armour protection of the M1 or any other tank for that matter most (if not all) tanks are designed around the Whittaker DPV which states that 1/3 of all attacks occur within the front 45degrees of arc and 45% of attacks occur within the front 60 degrees of arc. To protect the sides rear and top of a tank as well as that front arc would create significant changes in the rest of the vehicle.

More armour = more weight = larger powerpack =  higher silhouette 
                                        = more fuel = larger logistical tail
                  =more ground pressure =  less mobility                                                              

As you can see a lot of things go into the design loop of a tank and each affects the other. You said that the T90 is a lower silhouette that means that they have had to give up a certain amount of main gun depression which will affect the employment of the vehicle ie. Our tactics in the defence is to shoot down into the low ground whenever possible, a reduced depression of the main gun will limit this ability. 
Also a larger gun = a larger turret ring which means something else has been constrained to accommodate it (smaller powerpack? or less crew space? or Ammunition storage). A larger gun also means larger ammunition which means less rounds carried.


----------



## Grom_PL

Since you guys always manage to find a fault in every MBT ever mentioned in this thread. We should make our OWN tank, using the design of a successful MBT, making all the adjustments needed to make a PERFECT tank with no faults. Canadians then would be known as the best tanks builders in the world and our soldiers would get the best. For a second, i think this is why the liberals haven't bought any tanks yet, every tank has problems and it would cost 2 much 2 have a MBT program here, so the Liberals plainly say we don't need MBT's and gets LAV's thinking that they can take out MBT no prob, and also thinking that Leopard will stand a change against a Modern MBT. Instead I think we should sell all our Leo's, buy a MBT or make a different variant of MBT that fits our needs, and use it for our reserves and our regulars. Where will the $ come from u ask?, Give back the subs to the Brits, 900 milllion, sell our old tanks 100$, stop buying alot of Lav's 50 million, getting rid of the Liberals.......... priceless, if it wasn't for them we wouldn't we in this mess and we would be billion dollars richer.

Thats my 0.2 cents


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Necro99

While I hesitate about entering an equipment debate, I must disagree with you that the M1A2 has a poor record.  I have not been in a T90, but I have been in an M1 and have some time on the Leopard C1 and C2.  While no tank in invulnerable, the M1A2 has shown that it can withstand hits from 120mm DU at close range, never mind the Russian ammo.  The M1 can be disabled but the crew will usually survive.  RPGs can get it if they hit the right spot, but there are recorded engagements of the M1 withstanding multiple RPG 7 hits from several angles and staying in the fight.  I have met a US tanker whose M1 was hit by two 120mm sabot and a TOW through the rear armour.  He was wounded and his tank knocked out but the crew compartment stayed intact.  The M1 is very fast and actually has a fairly low silhouette (it is lower than the Bradley).  The gun is extremely accurate and destructive.

The Russian tanks in Grozny did not fare so well.  Single RPG hits caused catastrophic secondary explosions that blew the turrets off and killed the whole crew.  At this time I would take the M1A2 over any tank, although I would rate it with the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2.  The latest Merkava looks attractive as does the Leclerc but I do not know enough about them.  I would place the latest Russian armour at least one rung below the latest generation of Western MBTs.

You are right about the high fuel consumption of the M1 but that is the price that is paid to move that much armour at that speed.  It does break down but so do all other tanks (even the German stuff).  It can be knocked out but I would argue that only the latest Leo 2, Challenger IIs and Merkavas could take the same punishment.  It is heavy (I do not think that it can be made any heavier) but again that is the price of protection.  I do not trust the high tech active armour defences we read about.  I would put my faith in DU and Chobham armour.  The M1 is not perfect but it is the dominant land system for the foreseeable future.  The US Future Combat System will not be on line any time soon (if ever). 

This does not mean that the M1 can work alone on the battlefield.  It needs infantry to winkle out RPGs on the flanks, artillery to suppress the ATGMs, engineers to breach obstacles scouts to find the enemy and all the other supporting arms.

Bottom line, while I do not pick equipment I would take the M1A2 for our army in a heartbeat.  It is combat proven and is readily available.  I believe, however, that that ship has sailed.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## 12alfa

Necro99 said:
			
		

> Sorry if I sound smart-assed, i don't mean to step on any of you, since some of you have been in the Armor, but im just stating my opinion.
> 
> The M1A2 has in fact a very poor record. As what i've heard,



*Data shows that it has the best record vs. RPG's. For mission kills vs. Rpg's fired at it. It has proven it can withstand 99% of all RPG's thus fired at it. What is your source?*



			
				Necro99 said:
			
		

> It's unreliable in desert and artic (HI!) climates.



*Could you post your source, seems strange that they operate in Iraq and Egyptian areas with very little climate problems not know of.*



			
				Necro99 said:
			
		

> Even the Leo C1 has better armor! Oh sure, chobham.



*The LeoC1 does not have Chobham armour, only Challenger's have, the Leo2A4/5/6, and M1 and it's models have a type of Armour developed at Burlington usually called chobham.*



			
				Necro99 said:
			
		

> But it's all on the front plate!



*Wrong*



			
				Necro99 said:
			
		

> As you can see, T-90 is wider (better ground pressure and weight distribution), lower (smaller silhouette) and less long (less cumbersome)
> Also, the T-90 is better armed. It's 125mm can penetrate the M1A1's front armor using modern ammo



* I   see   that   at combat ranges (125mm BM-42M APFSDS (1998) 60-65cm@0km), this does not overmatch the armour on the A2 to a great degree that one could boast that it can penetrate the M1A2 every time   if any I would think..*

 (*IRAQI 125mm AMMO WAS 60IES, BEFORE T-72 WAS MADE!*). 


*Why would one make ammo before the wpn to shoot it, this does not make any sence! And the T-72 was developed in the 60"s.*




			
				Necro99 said:
			
		

> Also, it dosen't even need shells! It can shoot Guided Missiles throught it's cannon. The AT-11 Sniper, wich isin't the latest gun-launched ATGM, can penetrate 700mm of RHAe at a range of 4km.



*It carries a small amount of ATGM, that can be defeated.*



			
				Necro99 said:
			
		

> The T-90 is also better protected!
> It has the Shtora-1 Optronic Protection systems wich disperses smokescreens and flares when it detects incoming ATGMs.



*This would have very little effect on most western ATGM's*



			
				Necro99 said:
			
		

> Also, it's equipped with the ARENA.
> It's a system that detects incoming ATGMs and Tank rounds, then fires a projectile to destroy it, leaving only a rain of harmless sharpnel to hit against the tank.



*This is no good against Ke wpns, the main wpn for killing MBT's. Arena is for atgm's, and rpg's.*



			
				Necro99 said:
			
		

> As for the Armor, the T-90 has an evenly distributed armor all around the tank.it has weak spots like all other MBT's tracks, sides, engine ect.
> 
> And when it's not enought, it has the Kontakt-5 Explosive Reactive Armor wich is effective against multi-staged HEAT and APFSDS. I've heard the Kaktus ERA is even better.




*For your info.........

M1A1HC/M1A1HA+/M1A2	
Ke wpn-Turret: 880-900 
                  Glacis:560-590
Lower front hull:580-650

Ce wpn-Turret: 1310-1620 
                 Glacis:510-1050	
                 front hull:800-970

T-90 
Ke wpn-Turret: 700-740      
                 Glacis: 670-710
              Lower front hull: 240	
Ce wpn-Turret: 1040-1120   
                 Glacis: 990-1070
Lower front hull: 380

These figures include Kontakt-5 second-generation ERA. Estimates without ERA are 560mm vs KE and 720mm vs CE.


Do you still think the T90 is better? These are just est's, but I think you can see the differances.*



*The short story is..............

The T-90 CAN penetrate the M1A2 over the frontal arc up to 2000m, But the M1A2 can engage far beyond this
if the figures for BM-42M (670mm RHA pen/2000m) and BM-32 DPU are Correct. However, the M1A2 with M-829A2 can do 740mm at 2km, so there is no real problem in each tank killing the other? Although the M1 has better optics and will find the T90 first*.



			
				Necro99 said:
			
		

> That was just my 0.2$...



I can provide ammo data as well, but I think you get the point, you will live longer in a M1 my friend.


[Modified to so readers can see what is quote & what is poster's comment]


----------



## a_majoor

I'm not sure where this guy has gotten his info, but Russian tanks do not dominate the world market because they are good, but because they are cheap. In addition to the various weakness pointed out in previous posts, Russian tanks have always been built around a philosophy that calls for overwhelming the enemy with mass artillery and breaking through with hordes of tanks. This means build lots and build quickly.

The reliability of Russian tanks is notoriously low, the crew ergonomics is non existant and they have to carry their fuel in large external drum tanks (hardly where you want your fuel to be in a battle). The Russians didn't care because they considered regiments, brigades and even divisions to be "fire and forget", just pass the next one up through the burning wreakage. As a BTW, I have tried this in various board and computer wargames, and it works often enough, you as the commander simply have to be extremely ruthless and cold blooded......


----------



## STONEY

Not to change the subject or anything but i noticed that when the Australian Army announced their decision to buy new MBT'S they made several good points.

Aftering studing all the options and looking at the worlds best armys lit is clear that combined arms is the only option.
The MBT is the cornerstone for combined arms.  It would be criminaly negligent to send soldiers into combat without
MBTS in the combined arms team. We do not see ourselves doing massed tank charges but they will support our infantry.
Simply put they save lives. We will find a way to deploy them overseas with our troops if necessary.

Amazing how our great military minds at NDHQ think  so far outside the box with futuristic ideas.
Imagine the antequated idea of saving lives and having a thought of the infantry.

toodles  Stoney


----------



## Blue Max

These are clippings from the overall article that can be found at:  http://www.iraq.net/displayarticle5830.html

*How Technology Failed in Iraq*

_In theory, the size of the Iraqi attack should have been clear well in advance. U.S. troops were supported by unprecedented technology deployment. During the war, hundreds of aircraft- and satellite-mounted motion sensors, heat detectors, and image and communications eavesdroppers hovered above Iraq. The four armed services coordinated their actions as never before. U.S. commanders in Qatar and Kuwait enjoyed 42 times the bandwidth available to their counterparts in the first Gulf War. High-bandwidth links were set up for intelligence units in the field. A new vehicle-tracking system marked the location of key U.S. fighting units and even allowed text e-mails to reach front-line tanks. This digital firepower convinced many in the Pentagon that the war could be fought with a far smaller force than the one it expected to encounter.

Yet at Objective Peach, Lt. Col. Ernest â Å“Rockâ ? Marcone, a battalion commander with the 69th Armor of the Third Infantry Division, was almost devoid of information about Iraqi strength or position. â Å“I would argue that I was the intelligence-gathering device for my higher headquarters,â ? Marcone says. His unit was at the very tip of the U.S. Army's final lunge north toward Baghdad; the marines advanced on a parallel front. Objective Peach offered a direct approach to the Saddam International Airport (since rechristened Baghdad International Airport). â Å“Next to the fall of Baghdad,â ? says Marcone, â Å“that bridge was the most important piece of terrain in the theater, and no one can tell me what's defending it. Not how many troops, what units, what tanks, anything. There is zero information getting to me. Someone may have known above me, but the information didn't get to me on the ground.â ? Marcone's men were ambushed repeatedly on the approach to the bridge. But the scale of the intelligence deficit was clear after Marcone took the bridge on April 2.

As night fell, the situation grew threatening. Marcone arrayed his battalion in a defensive position on the far side of the bridge and awaited the arrival of bogged-down reinforcements. One communications intercept did reach him: a single Iraqi brigade was moving south from the airport. But Marcone says no sensors, no network, conveyed the far more dangerous reality, which confronted him at 3:00 a.m. April 3. He faced not one brigade but three: between 25 and 30 tanks, plus 70 to 80 armored personnel carriers, artillery, and between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi soldiers coming from three directions. This mass of firepower and soldiers attacked a U.S. force of 1,000 soldiers supported by just 30 tanks and 14 Bradley fighting vehicles. The Iraqi deployment was just the kind of conventional, massed force that's easiest to detect. Yet â Å“We got nothing until they slammed into us,â ? Marcone recalls.

In this grand vision, information isn't merely power. It's armor, too. Tanks weighing 64 metric tons could be largely phased out, giving way to lightly armored vehiclesâ â€at first, the new 17-metric-ton Stryker troop carrierâ â€that can avoid heavy enemy fire if need be. These lighter vehicles could ride to war inside cargo planes; today, transporting large numbers of the heaviest tanks requires weeks of transport via land and sea. â Å“The basic notion behind military transformation is that information technologies allow you to substitute information for mass. If you buy into that, the whole force structure changes,â ? says Stuart Johnson, a research professor at the Center for Technology and National Security Policy at National Defense University in Washington, DC. â Å“But the vision of all this is totally dependent on information technologies and the network. If that part of the equation breaks down, what you have are small, less capable battle platforms that are more vulnerable.â ?

The welter of postmortems from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars tell many stories. But one thing is clear: Marcone never knew what was coming at Objective Peach. Advanced sensors and communicationsâ â€elements of future networked warfare designed for difficult, unconventional battlesâ â€failed to tell him about a very conventional massed attack. â Å“It is my belief that the Iraqi Republican Guard did nothing special to conceal their intentions or their movements. They attacked en masse using tactics that are more recognizable with the Soviet army of World War II,â ? Marcone says.

And so at a critical juncture in space (a key Euphrates bridge) and time (the morning of the day U.S. forces captured the Baghdad airport), Marcone only learned what he was facing when the shooting began. In the early-morning hours of April 3, it was old-fashioned training, better firepower, superior equipment, air support, and enemy incompetence that led to a lopsided victory for the U.S. troops. â Å“When the sun came up that morning, the sight of the cost in human life the Iraqis paid for that assault, and burning vehicles, was something I will never forget,â ? Marcone says. â Å“It was a gruesome sight. You look down the road that led to Baghdad, for a mile, mile and a half, you couldn't walk without stepping on a body part.â ?

Yet just eight U.S. soldiers were wounded, none seriously, during the bridge fighting. Whereas U.S. tanks could withstand a direct hit from Iraqi shells, Iraqi vehicles would â Å“go up like a Roman candleâ ? when struck by U.S. shells, Marcone says. Sitting in an office at Rand, Gordon puts things bluntly: â Å“If the army had had Strykers at the front of the column, lots of guys would have been killed.â ? At Objective Peach, what protected Marcone's men wasn't information armor, but armor itself._

This seems to be a very clear example of why you need combined arms with heavy MBT contingent and not upgunned Strykers, aka MGS.

MHO


----------



## a_majoor

True, but.....

The question should really be resolved by our doctrine, since every type of tank has its own particular advantages and disadvantages. When the focus was on defeating the USSR on the plains of Germany, MBTs needed more and more protection and firepower. Generation Two tanks like the Leopard 1 or AMX-30 had to be uparmoured from their 30 tonne design weights, while Generation Three vehicles like the M-1, Leopard 2 or Challenger tipped the scales at 60 tonnes or more. The proposed Block III tank program launched under President Reagan was looking to replace the M-1 with a totally new vehicle which was projected to be almost 80 tonnes in weight!

If our focus is to be an expeditionary force, then monsters like the Block III are clearly unfeasable unless there is a giant commitment to the supporting transport and logistics infrastructure as well. The next thing to consider is what sort of work the expeditionary force is supposed to do. A "Cavalry" force designed for screening and flanking tasks could probably do with light tanks or FSVs derived from APC and IFV hulls, since the focus is not shock action or direct battles with the enemy. Our force, as defined in the "White Paper", is supposed to ba a general purpose force, *so by doctrine and government mandate, we would need a medium tank in the 30-50 tonne range * armed with a high velocity 120mm cannon, advanced fire control system and a range of active and passive offensive and defensive measures. 

Issues raised in How Technology Failed in Iraq fall under doctrine and organization, i.e. how information is used and distributed, rather than  any particular issues with the tanks themselves. Well designed and built tanks in any weight range will be more survivable than crappy ones, well deployed tanks with well trained crews will always do better than poorly deployed tanks with unmotivated crews. (German tanks were generally inferior to French tanks in 1940, but superior doctrine and morale negated the potential advantages of the French).


----------



## Swin435

Alright, I've a read a whole bunch of the opinions and theories, not all of them but most.  Here's what I know ( by the way don't let the airforce symbol stop you, I'm an ex Fort Garry Horse and Strathcona).

Canada is in the market to eventually replace the Leopard C2.  Which is something they should do.  The C2 turret is actually on older hull's than our last tanks.  At least the ones that were delivered to the Strat's were that way.  I was watching CSPAN and I actually caught the minister talking about the LAV 105.  He wanted to purchase 66 immediately so the country could save money by tagging onto the US order.  The main problems of the LAV 105 as I can see it are these.  It's a 105.  Unless Canada changes it's mind on depleted uranium rounds, a 105 will only piss off anything we might shoot at.  Second, for those of you who logged any time in a cougar will remember shoots on the range.  You can't shoot over the side or you tip, get out of the 45 degree zone and you are SOL.

In my opinion, until we have a government who is willing to put us in harms way, Canada does not require a MBT any more.  I say that with reservation because I truly believe it would be stupid for us to not have that capability.  If we were to replace the tank, I would throw my hat in on the Leopard 2 or if the Germans can ever find a buyer to trial it, the Leopard 3.  It would make sense to buy this.  The supplier for parts is the same, thus cutting down logistics.  It is not as wide as the M1 or Challengers, which would make useful all over the world.  I like the Markavva, however I don't see Canada buying it.  The M1 although close to us and that is nice, has the problem with the US government never allowing us to have the same one as them, we would always be 2 or 3 steps behind them. 

Someone mentioned the T-90.  Last I heard it never went into production.  There are specs for it and probably a few prototypes, however it is an unproven weapon.

Well that's all I've got to say about that.  Just one man's opinion.

Oh ya..Congrats to LGen Hillier on his next promotion to CDS (once the red tape is done).  It's nice to see a zipperhead in charge.


----------



## Zipper

Hear hear on the zipperhead in charge. About bloody time and we may just see a new MBT because of it.

As for going into harms way.   

What do you call most of the missions? Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Somalia, Afganistan. Yes, only Kosova involved US sending MBT's, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have in other areas.

The Leo II would be my choice. Its been offered to us cheap by the Germans on several occasions, and will be again I'm sure. Conversion wouldn't take all that much and there is a ready supply of spare parts. As well, something the CAF has always been proud of over the Americans. The fact that our armoured crewmen can repair their own vehicles to a point in the field in comparrison to the yanks who have to wait till their rear elements come up. Something the diesel Leo II has over the M1's.

And please don't limit us to "light and medium" just beacuse that is the lion share of missions we go on. That self defeating attitude is much the same as them asking why we should have a military in the first place? You cannot train peacekeepers for war as easily as training warriors for peacekeeping. Same thing applies to training for low to medium intensity conflicts in a possible high situation. Train for High intensity, be prepared, and you will be able to handle anything.

Sorry, but this idea that keeps popping up that there will never be another large conflict is just plain nieve. Read history. If the human race can kill each other in large numbers, they will do so. Its not nice, it won't happen soon, but to say it won't happen is scary.


----------



## Swin435

As for going into harms way.     

What do you call most of the missions? Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Somalia, AfAfghanistanYes, only Kosova involved US sending MBT's, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have in other areas.

Alright I'll coconceden the wording of my statement.  I should have not said "in harms way".  I agree that all those tour have put people in harms way, one way or another.  With that said, I have done Bosnia ( SFOR 1 '97) and Afghanistan (OP APOLLO, Kandahar) both with Recce Sqn LdSH(RC).  I have know guys who have done Croatia and Somalia.  Bosnia, by the time I got there was quickly turning into Cyprus without the view.  So in my opinion Bosnia wasn't as dangerous as other tours.  

In regards to sending tanks to Kosovo, it was my previous Regt that sent the tanks to Kosovo.  Speaking with guys from the troop that went first hand, they did nothing.  The tanks were there for presence.  However how much presence is there in a 4 tanks and a spare.

I will restate my opinion on this matter with slight changes.  I don't mean Canada should scrap what we have until it can replace them.  But until we do replace them, do not buy the LAV 105 to help us out.  They will sit in Canada and rust ( no matter how much care our guys put into them).  I believe Canada will not send any kind of heavy armour to anyplace soon.  Kosovo was an exception to the rule.  

We could have used TANKS in Afghanistan.  Clearing routes in a coyote was not my idea of fun.  Even our little Leo would have put a little scare into the locals with the T-64's.


Zipper, I will whole heartedly agree with you on the capability of soldiers.  I do not believe my comments were of a self defeating attitude.  However until we have a government that is willing to spend the money on us and someone to convince the general public we will usually be on the short end of the stick.  I also agree with you on tank of choice though, as you probably read in my post.

That's all I've got to say about that.  Happy hunting and lets hope for a good budget for the army.


----------



## Zipper

I bow to your wise words Swin.

Did anyone here read in the paper (forgot which one) about the Army being made into the main focus of the military? And how the Air Force and Navy will be support only? Wow.

And does it mean more money for the Army to get the equipment (tanks) that it needs?


----------



## ArmyRick

Zipper, sorry buddy. No maple leafs painted on the side of the Leo2A5. Love to see it happen though.

Our Govt doesn't want tanks so we will lose 'em.


----------



## Zipper

Hey! I can go on dreaming can't I? A miracle could fly out of the collective Canadian butt? 

Yeah, I thought so...

Anyway, I was looking at the British Army website, and was rather impressed at the array of light armour that they have all based off the same chassis. And all tracked too.

I would love to get a hold of the wanker who thought up this whole wheeled thing in the first place. Grrrrrr... :threat:

Thanks


----------



## Kirkhill

Zipper, the Brits are going wheeled for their Medium forces as well.  In fact the Brits have always had a strong wheeled component in their arsenal.

Most recently it was the Saxon APC / Fox Recce Vehicle / Land Rover.   Before that, in the sixties, when they were still doing the imperial policeman thing, it was the Saladin/Saracen/Stalwart series of 6x6s.  The Saladin was the original platform for the 76mm gun on the Cougar.  The Saracen was an armoured APC and the Stalwart was and amphibious logistics ATV.

They Brits only got rid of them when they ditched the "East of Suez" taskings and focused on BAOR on the North German plain.  No need to go running very far.  The war was going to come to them while they were in garrison.  Tracks were fine.

Now they are looking at Global Deployments again and back come the Medium Weight Wheeled Units into the Order of Battle.

Wheeled Units also contributed strongly in WW2 in the North African, Italian and NW Europe Campaigns as Light Cavalry / Recce and in the Interwar Years, again on policing duties.

Tanks have their place, as do heavy APCs.  I am a fan of both. And we should have a few around to supply support in "penny-packets" - that should be deployable. But thundering hordes on Luneburge Heide are not likely to be seen any time soon.

Policing is the name of the game.  It is the name of the game for all armies..... Brits and Yanks included.

Now what happens when two Police Forces end up facing off against each other when trying to police the same piece of ground - as almost happened at Pristina when the Russians got to the airport first and US General Wesley Clark ordered UK General Mike Jackson to move the Russians out - that's another matter.  (Jackson, currently head of the British Army politely told Clark to get stuffed, he wasn't starting WW3 just because Clark's mates in the US forces couldn't get off the line of departure in time and held up the exercise).

Having a few heavies around at that time would no doubt be useful.

Cheers.


----------



## Zipper

Bah...       ...lets just buy the whole damn farm then. Or at least some decent wheeled vehicles. I don't know why, but I don't have much faith in the LAV's. Maybe because their GM products? I don't know.

Ah, the pristina affair. I'd forgotten about that. I laughed my ass off when I heard about that.

No argument on the use of wheels in WWII. My regiment was Divisional recce at the time (5CAD). I'm just a big fan of track. Yes they both have their place and uses, but to lose one for the other...


----------



## a_majoor

Although the "sub" thing may have made people allergic to the idea of buying used, herte is an inexpensive alternative to the Leo 2A6 or M-i family: the IDF Magach 7.

Based on the M-60, the Magach 7, has a new suite of armour, up to date fire control, and is reasonably mobile (It is a Generation 2 tank, not one of the all powerful Generation 3 machines with 1500hp on tap and an advanced suspension system to handle the power). It is also available, since Isreal is currently converting some of their 1000+ M-60s to that standard, or we could buy surplus M-60s from the US and have them converted in a factory here. Turkey was offered an up-gunned version called Sabra, with a 120mm cannon.

Like any tank, the Magach requires more money on support infrastructure, fuel, tank transporters etc. , but if the CF is willing to divert resources to support that call, then we will have a fairly potent fighting machine for the CF.


----------



## Zipper

Nice looking piece of equipment. I haven't heard of it before? Hmmm...        ...I'll have to look around and see what the stats are on it.

Not that it is likely ever to happen, but do you think it is wise to buy another gen 2 tank as opposed to going to a gen 3? And I'll also say NO to the M-60. Upgrading the Leo 1 circa 1970's is bad enough. But to upgrade a circa early 60's tank? Sheesh.


----------



## a_majoor

Lots of armies upgrade T-55s, a late 1950s era tank, so the idea is not invalid on its own. 

The key here is to exploit an inexpensive and available system, which has the benifit of being both combat proven and upgraded with some of the latest "lessons learned" incorporated in the design. The M-60 itself was a decent machine, large and reliable with lots of room inside for ammo and equipment.


----------



## Zipper

Your right on all points. However, I think it would be politically embarrassing for Canada as a G-8 nation to be buying refurbished late 50's tanks. However it is incredible what the Israeli's have done to the M-60 over the years. To turn it into a totally different tank is amazing. For myself, I would almost love to see us in any tank. Heck, even an M-60 would be nice. But the fact remains that countries like Greece can buy into the most advanced equipment, while Italy can develop its own is rather ridiculous. 

But then again, priorities.


----------



## a_majoor

Tanks are needed to manoeuvre under contact, but in an urban operations situation, maybe a "tank" isn't what we need. AFVs will be "gunfighters" to provide observation and fire support to the dismounted Infantry and Engineers.

If we are limited to the LAV family of vehicles, then situational awareness improvements like the "fisheye" lenses to provide 3600 observation while buttoned up will have a big payoff, followed by improved passive defenses like the "cage". 

Starting from the ground up, Infantry "Urban Gunfighters" will probably resemble the ACHZARIT with multiple OWS stations to cover each quarter, since even with the best possible SA, the vehicle and crew could still be caught in a 3600 gunfight. High or hypervelocity missiles like shrunken LOSATs are probably a "must" when dealing with hard targets at short range. A built in dozer blade will also be a big plus in urban ops. Perhaps these could be cheaply converted from surplus tank hulls, or maybe a more modern vehicle like the CV-90 or SEV can be adapted to this task.


----------



## Zipper

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Starting from the ground up, Infantry "Urban Gunfighters" will probably resemble the ACHZARIT with multiple OWS stations to cover each quarter, since even with the best possible SA, the vehicle and crew could still be caught in a 3600 gunfight.



Why does it sound like the old idea of the castle is going to come back? Except it is portable and can be set up in a urban enviroment.


----------



## yanivb86

i think canada should get the best tank in the wrold (what would be the point if they wouldn't?), so i suggest getting the Merkava 4 or the Merkava 3.

i myself drive on Merkava 2 but it's rather old.

7 - Ã—?Ã—Âª Ã—â€Ã—â€”Ã—ËœÃ—â„¢Ã—'Ã—â€


----------



## George Wallace

Zipper said:
			
		

> Why does it sound like the old idea of the castle is going to come back? Except it is portable and can be set up in a urban enviroment.



Isn't that called a mobile PILLBOX.......or a Tank?


----------



## Zipper

Yaniv - Sigh, if only we could convince our government of the need to spend the money and it would fit with our operational outlook. Otherwise it is a fine set of vehicles that you guys have created.

GW - I would guess your right in many cases. But I interpreted Majoor's OWS stations to be something that is "set up" and capable of holding that ground with something like a squad to platoon inside. It is only mobile if you break it apart and transport it to another site. Kind of like those modular fire bases in the movie Starship Troopers.

Or, its almost like we are talking of coming up with something out of a science fiction novel (movie) where you have a moving pillbox with automated gun turrets on all quarters and capable of going "through" buildings while still being able to carry an infantry support unit. Sheesh, what a sight that would be. Kind of a larger tank with guns all around (360 simultaneous fire arc).

Someone put a call into the galatic empire will ya?


----------



## a_majoor

The "Urban Gunfighter" is an idea for an escort vehicle which has armoured mobility and protection, and firepower to support dismounted infantry in complex terrain, such as urban ops.

It needs to cover a 3600 arc, as well as be able to shoot up into the rooftops and down at basement windows, but the illustration of an Achzarit shows the broad outline of the vehicle. This Achzarit is hatches up, the front weapons station is an OWS with a 7.62mm GPMG, and there are two pintle mounted GPMGs on either side. If these were replaced by OWS, then the crew could fight while protected by armour, and cover multiple arcs and multiple engagements. Heavier weapons like an HMG or AGL are probably required for this role, and OWS mounts with wide vertical arcs are also needed.

"New" doctrine suggests armoured vehicles should act as cut offs, which the gunfighter could do, but the armour would also allow it to provide intimate support, and it could be used in a defensive position as well. The second picture shows an Achzarit operating in urban terrain; there would not be much time or space to fend off an attack, hence the armour protection.


----------



## Zipper

This conversation is probably better suited to your new thread on future armoured vehicles Majoor. But I see your point. However the vehicle in the pictures seems to me to NOT have any of the requirements such as 360 fire arc and ability to fire high and/or low?

I guess it has yet to be produced yet. 

Also, this idea of having urban specific vehicles sounds great. But it seems to me that there are few countries in the world (US, Britain (barely), China, etc.) that could support such specific formations, and even the idea of forming Urban Divisions with which to use them. We sure as hell could not.


----------



## McG

Zipper said:
			
		

> This conversation is probably better suited to your new thread on future armoured vehicles Majoor.


There are Heavy APC threads: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28040.0.html


----------



## baboon6

Now this is what I call a wheeled fire support vehicle
www.army-technology.com/projects/rooikat


----------



## Tanky

12Alfa - Sorry but you have been playing too many computer games - the ones where 4 Abrams defeat over 200 enemy tanks in about 11 minutes.

Please state your sources to back up your preposterous claims.  I had to laugh at the way you granted victory to the Abrams over ATGMs and then went on to claim that the Russian ECM is easily 'defeated' 'by western systems'.  The Arbams' optimal range is 1500 metres, by which time it could have easily been blown away since the T-90/T-80 series of tanks can target it and destory it with ATGMs aimed at the top of the turret etc.

Tyr to live in reality and not in a world of computer game induced hubris.

regards,

Alex


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

The Scorpian (like the German metal band it was named after) is a somewhat cool if old design.   That being said, it did fill the role of light tank rather well.   It could be transported by air or sea with greater ease than larger vehicles, had some firepower and could go just about anywhere.   I understand that they did quite well in the Falklands.   

I would certainly be interested in a modern incarnation of the Scorpian idea, but not necessarily the Scorpian with the 90mm that was kicking around.   A small, light tank with tracks and a gun capable of firing HESH/HE.   Modern FCS (including TI) with perhaps a 90mm firing HESH and you have a decent bunker/building buster.   You wouldn't count on it to battle T72s, but rather to support light forces against dismounted opponents in faraway places where the bad guys are not expecting to face tanks.   It would be vulnerable to RPGs, but so will any other vehicle light enough to be rapidly deployable with light forces.

Cheers,

2B

p.s. If you are reading this and wondering why it looks out of context it is because it was moved from another thread (that had been talking about Scorpians and Cougars).

Tanky,

Against better judgement I will ask where you got your 1,500m range for the M1?


----------



## Strathcona_Recce

Personally, having very little Tank time, I think that Tanks are a good thing to have, but the way the Canadian Army is going, with the public being the way it is, we will not have any heavy assets for quite sometime! I agree with the need for a wheeled medium asset, and honestly I don't think Canada will ever require a tank, as most of the "battles" we will be doing is going to be on harpacked roads in built up areas and you will need a very mobile gun system!
The MGS is still awaiting the American stamp of approval before we will sign off on it! We in the west are supposed to be getting it, and it is meeting alot of resistance from the troops. (most joined to be on tanks) It could be a good thing, if the higher ups and the older folks don't think of it as a Tank replacement, unfortunately thats what most people think of it as!


----------



## TCBF

Here is my prediction (You read it here, first!):  The MGS will NOT be onstream for the first DFS Sqn tours, and the Army will pull twenty-odd COUGARS out of the rust pile to equip the DFS Sqn. Why not?  Light.  Portable.  Proven.  Good gun in Canadian hands.  Lots of parts.  Made in Canada (unlike the MGS).  Besides, the MGS is just a $6,000,000 Super-Cougar anyway, right?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Oh...my...God!  Someone in Ottawa is all too likely to read this idea and say, "Brilliant!  A perfect lead-in trainer for the MGS!"  

"Super-Cougar"   ;D

It wouldn't do much good.  To my hazy recollection, Alvis ceased making most of the turret parts ages ago.  Besides, I'm not sure you could scrounge 20 vehicles that didn't have turret ring cracks or similar "issues"...


----------



## George Wallace

Strathcona_Recce said:
			
		

> Personally, having very little Tank time, I think that Tanks are a good thing to have, but the way the Canadian Army is going, with the public being the way it is, we will not have any heavy assets for quite sometime! I agree with the need for a wheeled medium asset, and honestly I don't think Canada will ever require a tank, as most of the "battles" we will be doing is going to be on harpacked roads in built up areas and you will need a very mobile gun system!
> The MGS is still awaiting the American stamp of approval before we will sign off on it! We in the west are supposed to be getting it, and it is meeting alot of resistance from the troops. (most joined to be on tanks) It could be a good thing, if the higher ups and the older folks don't think of it as a Tank replacement, unfortunately thats what most people think of it as!



There was hard standing at Casino and in Ortona.   Have you seen the pictures?   There were marvelous road networks in all the major European cities - did you see any of the pictures after they were bombed.   Roads, Railroads, Airstrips; all cratered.   Anyone who thinks that we can go to War and expect to stay on roads and hard standing is ROTL.   I persopersonallydn't want to be 'Road   Bound' as that would make the enemies arcs sooooo much smaller and more likely to ambush me - heck just make the right side of any road your Right of Arc and the left side, your Left of Arc - Traverse you Arcs!  Those silly Canadians, it is like a shooting gallery, so easy to kill them!


----------



## Zipper

But GW! We're never going to fight a in a REAL war again. There will never be bombed out cities with all the smart weapons around. The idea of the other side using mines when there against international law is ludicrous. C'mon, all that cold war doom saying is a thing of the past. 

We fight only limited wars now with complete air cover and lots of rear area support nearby. We only go where we're invited to go and play nicey nicey with the local populations. 

We're the good guys remember?

 :

And if you didn't get the sarcasm... :-*


----------



## 12alfa

Tanky said:
			
		

> 12Alfa - Sorry but you have been playing too many computer games - the ones where 4 Abrams defeat over 200 enemy tanks in about 11 minutes.
> 
> I *only play 1 pc sim.*
> 
> Please state your sources to back up your preposterous claims.
> 
> *Look up your own info and facts to prove me wrong, or go to the Janes site or other mil sites.*
> 
> I had to laugh at the way you granted victory to the Abrams over ATGMs
> 
> *Please state where a M1 has been destroyed by a ATGM (non American) if you can*
> 
> and then went on to claim that the Russian ECM is easily 'defeated' 'by western systems'.
> 
> *This has been known for some time now, just like Serb defeated Nato Int systems in that war by simple spoof systems, this too can be found on the net.ECM systems are by large controled by computers, and thous have some limitations, these have been seen to be defeated by counter ECM methods, some simple, some not, but still they can be defeated.*
> 
> The Arbams' optimal range is 1500 metres,
> 
> *Maybe the co-ax, but the 120mm cannon can reach out further than the 125mm, but really its not the cannon, but rather the FCS and the ammo to penerate the armour at great ranges, simply the 125mm ammo dosen't cut it in that department comparied to western ammo, thous the reason for the missle, it can reach the needed ranges and has the power to do the job*.
> 
> by which time it could have easily been blown away since the T-90/T-80 series of tanks can target it and destory it with ATGMs aimed at the top of the turret etc.
> 
> Tyr to live in reality and not in a world of computer game induced hubris.
> 
> *Alex, you seem bitter, why?*
> 
> regards,
> 
> Alex


----------



## Zipper

> Maybe the co-ax, but the 120mm cannon can reach out further than the 125mm, but really its not the cannon, but rather the FCS and the ammo to penetrate the armour at great ranges, simply the 125mm ammo doesn't cut it in that department compared to western ammo, thous the reason for the missile, it can reach the needed ranges and has the power to do the job.



To further qualify that, it is the western ammo of the depleted uranium variety that fills that claim. Not all NATO countries allow the use such ammo (such as ourselves).


----------



## TCBF

"Not all NATO countries allow the use such ammo (such as ourselves)."

- Don't our sailors use 25mm DU on the CIWS?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Actually, you're right - or at least we did.  See the link (noting in passing the typical CBC spin on the story):

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/1999/09/22/navy990922


----------



## TCBF

Ya gotta love that 'Low-level radiation in the food chain' thing.  Wait until they read up on the flouridation of our water.

"Ice cream, Mandrake, even children's ice cream!" - Gen 'Buck' Turgeson (the Wing Commander who launched "Wing Assault Plan R" in stanley Kubrick's brilliant "Dr. Strangelove", 1964).

Tom


----------



## a_majoor

The DU penetrators and armour inserts on the M1A2 explains why American tankers are so good:

The third eye and extra pair of arms gives them advantages we just can't match ;D


----------



## Zipper

Hmmm...       ...our Navy uses it? Ok. Did not know that. I only know that we were not allowed to use it in the Armoured Corp.

Maybe they tried it. Don't know. All I know is that it packs a hell of a bigger punch.


----------



## TCBF

It gives about a ten to fifteen per-cent advantage in penetration, which means a much greater range for equivalent penetration.  In effect, the increased effective range has a greater battle influence than the increased penetration.  Most of the targets they knock out with DU could also be knocked out with Tungsten Alloy, just not at as great a range.

Tom


----------



## Lance Wiebe

For those not in the know, DU has three major advantages over Tungsten carbide.  It is "self-sharpening" for one thing, this alone increases the penetration by about 5-10%.  It's phosphuric nature results in nice after-penetration fires.  And, it is far cheaper to both acquire and machine than tungsten.


----------



## 12alfa

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> For those not in the know, DU has three major advantages over Tungsten carbide.   It is "self-sharpening" for one thing, this alone increases the penetration by about 5-10%.   It's phosphuric nature results in nice after-penetration fires.   And, it is far cheaper to both acquire and machine than tungsten.



Agreed regarding tungsten  vs DU, but modern tungsten 
penetrators (for tank guns anyway, don't know about smaller 
calibers) have long ago moved from WC to various metal alloys 
like W-Ni-Fe. The W alloys are heavier and consdireably more 
ductile than fragile WC which was useful for only steel-sheathed 
rounds, and looking at the penetration figures they don't seem to 
be in any sort of serious disadvantage compared to contemporary 
DU ammo. They do lack the DU's pyrophoric effects though, but with 
numerous red-hot supersonic fragments flying inside the tank, I'm 
not sure if that's really a critical difference. Currently there 
are more advanced and heavier W alloys with some degree of 
DU-like self-sharpening effect are being developed, these might 
even surpass the DU in penetration power
 A liquid tungsten penetrator, and its already been 
tested and exhibites a 10-20% improvement over existing WHA penetrators. 
This is a Tungsten matrix with glass grains and only weights 17 g/cm ³ .
.Another is tungsten monocrystals that 
exhibit the density and penetration of DU but are horribly expensive. 
For the record , all other things being equal, DU out penetrates WHA by 
10-13%
From the periodic chart of elements (from the "Research & Education Association"), Uranium 
has a density of 19.07 and Tungsten has a density of 19.35 g/cc. 
This is confirmed in the Metal's Handbook, Desk Edition, 
2nd edition, pg692 (Special-Purpose Metals, Table 1): 
Density of Uranium: 19.1 (g/cm^3) 
Density of Tungsten: 19.3 

So if at a given striking velocity WHA penetrates the lenght of the 
penetrator rod , then DU while penetrate 1.1 to 1.13 times the rod 
lenght.The new Tungsten glass penetrators will penetrate 1.1-1.2 times 
its rod lenght. Tungsten has the advantage in this case.

On being cheaper, well its really how one looks at it. By cost yes, but factor in the safety regs required to machine, store, handle and the coating of the Du rounds, can it be cheaper to make than a standard Tu round with none of the special requirments. I will agree that the base price for Du is lower, but the process is higer.
But i degress......................


----------



## Lance Wiebe

There are indeed, great strides being done by the various non-DU projectile research teams.  However, these rounds are not available today, and several will most likely not pan out at all.

Huge amounts of research is being conducted in Germany, I would expect that sometime within the next decade we will see a very capable tungsten warhead indeed.

Good research, by the way!


----------



## 12alfa

tanks,
 i like to stay informed on the ammo vs armour fight.
I think that so called rail guns will surpass ammo soon though.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Hey, rail guns need ammunition too, ya know! ;D

That's one of the reasons I think so much effort and research is going in to tungsten.  Can you imagine the stresses that would be placed on a projectile flying at 7,000 or more metres per second striking armour?

Railguns need huge amounts of power, despite literally decades of research and billions of dollars, they are still not feasable.  Maybe in a couple more decades.

I saw the Canadian version of the rail gun at DREV in 1984.  Quite impressive, and quite the opposite of being even remotely portable!


----------



## Acorn

12Alfa said:
			
		

> On being cheaper, well its really how one looks at it. By cost yes, but factor in the safety regs required to machine, store, handle and the coating of the Du rounds, can it be cheaper to make than a standard Tu round with none of the special requirments. I will agree that the base price for Du is lower, but the process is higer.
> But i degress......................



From it's production as a byproduct of the nuclear energy industry, to it's finding itself in the ammo bin of an M1A2 DU is cheaper than tungsten by a good deal. It is also machined as counterweights for the aviation industry, and as armour, as well as a variety of other applications. 

The CF hasn't used DU in any weapon since the mid-'90s (last used in the CWIS on the Navy's ships). It is still in use in the CF in some aircraft applications (I believe it is used as counter-weights in the Aurora aircraft - one of the Observers who posts here may be able to confirm).

Acorn


----------



## 12alfa

Acorn said:
			
		

> From it's production as a byproduct of the nuclear energy industry, to it's finding itself in the ammo bin of an M1A2 DU is cheaper than tungsten by a good deal.
> 
> Acorn



From waht Iv'e read in many pubs, thats not true. tungsten does not require any special production procedures. DU does, and it will catch on fire if heated in the machining process, unlike Tungsten. DU requires air filters, masks, gloves, as the process can cause bad things to us humans as you know.
Tell me, would you like to work in a shop milling DU darts without the saftey procedures in place rather than in a shop milling tungsten.

Companys charge more per round for DU as stated by them. We use it for the reason of it is simply the best for killing tanks, and the vast stockpile of DU in the USA. The DU is cheap, the production is where is cost is, unlike tungsten which is $$ to start with.


----------



## Acorn

While tungsten won't catch fire during te milling process, it's still a heavy metal, and would require similar safety equipment to prevent it's inhalation or contact with open wounds. Heavy metals are poisonous, but usually only when ingested. That also applies to DU - it must be taken into the body to cause problems. It's not significantly radioactive. Tungsten dust, if inhaled, would cause major health problems as well.

I'm not aware that companies charge more per round for DU. I was under the impression that the price per unit was more for tungsten (certainly was the case 15 years ago). Got any refs?

Acorn


----------



## 12alfa

Found data on AP rounds but still checking my data for the others...

M829 cost around $1500
120mm APFSDS round $4,000 

From http://american-apex.com/americanapex/comparisons.asp

Ammunition Cost Comparison

Ammunition Cost per Round 
120mm HEAT M831A1 $654.69 
120mm SABOT M865 $607.22 
105mm TPDS-T *$265.00 
105mm TP HEAT *$235.00 
cal .50 APIT M20 $2.50 
cal .50 SLAP-T M962 $12.50 

From:
Appropriation/Budget Activity/Serial No. P-1 Line Item Nomenclature: Weapon System Type: Date:
Procurement of Ammunition, Army / 1 / Ammunition Ctg, 120mm APFSDS M829A3 (E78013)

AMMO ID  FY 05 
AMMUNITION HARDWARE (Ctg, 120mm APFSDS M829A3)
Complete Round-(UnitCost) x 1000)=$5001

PRODUCTION SUPPORT COSTS
Production Engineering=$2914
Acceptance Testing=$947
SubTotal Production Support=$3861


----------



## Steel Badger

MGS or ROOIKAT?

Apparently the 105 'Kat is fully functional......and tested.....


Would it cover the role of a DFSV / Hvy Recce veh?


----------



## a_majoor

The Rooikat would make an excellent Cavalry vehicle, being fast, fairly hard hitting and so on. The turret gives good SA, and I am sure there are more than 18 rounds carried within.

The Rooikat has the same limitations as the MGS; having limited off road mobility and armour, and as a rear engined vehicle, the hull is not as adaptable as the LAV or Centurio series. For any wheeled vehicle to be a serious contender, it needs to have a very low ground pressure. The lower hull would have to be redesigned for very wide wheels (and probably fixed wheels using differential steering), and end up looking a bit like an ARGO all terrain vehicle, or the CASR alternative MGS study http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-mgs.htm.


----------



## Expat

Some Russian stuff does look good. 

MBT Chiorny Oriol (Black Eagle)  Looks interesting. Rumors of 155mm gun.

Also the T95 Proposal looks really interesting. Low profile, 2 tanker crew and un-maned turret.

Oh well the MBT is going with the way of the DODO in the CF.


----------



## Blue Max

Interesting that another member of NATO that had recently held a very expensive Olympics, feels compeled to live up to their NATO agreements, and still finds MBT's relevant. 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446530/posts

_ATHENS (AFP) - Greece will purchase 30 F-16/Block 52 fighter aircraft in a direct deal with the United States government for about 1.1 billion euros (1.32 billion dollars), Greek Defense Minister Spilios Spiliotopoulos said. 

Athens will also sign an option to obtain 10 more aircraft of the same type for operational needs as part of a four-year arms programme extending to 2010, the minister said following a meeting of the Greek state council of foreign affairs and defense (KYSEA). 

The final cost of the contract will depend on the offer tendered by the US government, Spiliotopoulos said. 

The Greek defense ministry will request the provision of maintenance support for the F-16 planes as part of the offset deal, he added. 

In April, the government said it would reexamine a deal sealed by its socialist predecessors for the purchase of 60 Eurofighter aircraft from European consortium EADS at an estimated cost of 1.7 billion euros. 

The state council will decide at a later meeting whether to buy a further 30 fighter planes, with an option for another 10, the minister said. 

The F-16/Block 52 is the latest generation of the popular fighter, which first appeared in the 1980's. 

Spiliotopoulos and Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis both visited the United States earlier this year, respectively in April and May. At the time, the Greek press had reported that the government was examining proposals for F-16 planes. 

The minister also announced on Tuesday the approval of a contract with the German government for 333 Leopard tanks. 

Originally scheduled to order 170 Leopard 2A5-class tanks from Germany's Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), the Greek government modified the deal to include 183 Leopard 2A4's and 150 Leopard 1A5's for an additional 325 million euros (392 million dollars). 

The renegotiated deal is to be signed soon, a defense ministry source told AFP._


----------



## Kirkhill

Reprinted from another website.  Perhaps one of the folks that can read Chinese can let me know from which source the article originated.

This was prompted by the mention of F16s and M1A1s in the same article about the Greeks.




> Operating Costs
> http://taiwantp.com/cgi/TWforum.pl?board_id=1&type=show_post&post=23
> 
> 
> flak Ã£  Ã¦-Â¼Ã£  2003/10/17 00:58
> 
> Reominate Maneuver! èÂ£Âçâ€Â²éÆ’Â¨éÅ¡Å èÂ¼â€¢éâ€¡ÂÃ¥Å’-[èÅ’Â¶éÂ¤Â¨Ã¦Å½Â¨è-Â¦]
> 
> éâ€º-çâ€žÂ¶é â„¢çÂ¨®ç®â€”Ã¦Â³â€¢Ã¦Å“â€°éÂ»Å¾éÂ­â€éÂâ€œïÂ¼Å’Ã¤Â½â€ è ÂÃ¦ËœÂ¯Ã¥-Å“Ã¦Â­Â¡èÂªÂªÃ¦Ë†Â°èÂ»Å Ã¦â€œÂÃ¤Â½Å“Ã¦Ë†ÂÃ¦Å“Â¬Ã¥Â¾Ë†Ã¤Â¾Â¿Ã¥®Å“çÅ¡â€žÃ¤ÂºÂºÃ¥ÂÂ¯Ã¤Â»Â¥Ã¦Æ’Â³Ã¤Â¸ Ã¦Æ’Â³Ã£ â€š
> September 15, 2003: Its more expensive to operate an M-1 tank than an F-16 fighter. Dont be surprised, as modern armored vehicles are very expensive to run, with an M-1 tank costing about $300 per kilometer travelled to operate, and an M-2 Bradley, some $100 per kilometer. This does not include ammunition used. In peace time, one of the biggest expense is the tracks. For a Bradley armored vehicle, it costs $18 per kilometer for the wear and tear on the tracks. A set of tracks only last about 1300 kilometers, after which they have to replaced with a new set costing $23,000. Normally, the tracks are only replaced once a year, giving the troops a budget of about a hundred kilometers a month for training on each vehicle. But in the advance on Baghdad, many Bradleys racked up over a thousand kilometers. Since then, the Bradleys have been used for patrolling, covering hundreds of kilometers a week.
> There are a lot of components on these armored vehicles that wear out when used, especially the engines, air conditioning and electronics. Its for this reason that many armys have long used heavy tractor trailers to haul tanks and other armored vehicles to the battle zone. This was a lot cheaper than letting the vehicles rumble along on their own.
> Aircraft are even more expensive to operate, although their unit of measure is the hour. Most warplanes cost $3,000-$5,000 an hour to run. But given the high speed they operate at, their cost per kilometer traveled is only $5-$10. Helicopters are a different story, as they will spend some time just hovering. But they are expensive as well, with it costing about $3,200 an hour to keep an AH-64 Apache gunship in the air, and about half that for an UH-60 Black Hawk transport. A tank, if moving most of the time, is only going to average about twenty kilometers an hour, giving it an hourly operating cost of $6,000. So, in effect, its more expensive to operate an M-1 tank than an F-16 fighter.
> To keep the costs down, very realistic vehicle simulators are being used. These cost $3-5 an hour to operate and are becoming increasingly popular. But the need to operate so many armored vehicles every day in Iraq is one of the things driving the cost up.



These numbers contribute to the bases on which decisions are made.

Cheers.


----------



## Blue Max

Kirkhill, is this simply information that you are posting (is it accurate?) or do you hold the view that Canada doesn't need MBT's due to their high operational cost? 

I questioned the articles accuracy because you yourself questioned the source.


----------



## Kirkhill

I am posting information to add to the debate.

I posted this particular article because it contained a fairly vivid summary of costs.  While the source of the information is not known to me (ie the author and publisher) the numbers contained therein jibe with numbers that I have seen in other articles,  including articles on wear and tear on tracked vehicles in Iraq, published in National Defense Magazine.  The 1300 km and $23,000 struck a chord with me as being in tune an NDM article that I posted here.

As to NEEDING due to Cost.  -  Bit of a Mug's game that.

There is a high operational cost.  The high operational cost contributes to deciding whether or not the budget will sustain them.  

Whether they are NEEDED will depend on the missions we undertake and what the enemy decides to do.  As long as we have a choice in where we wish to fight, where to send our troops then we can choose to send our troops to places where tanks can't go - Hans Island, The Whaleback, Muskeg of Northern Ontario, streets of the Old Town in Basra.  

The government and staff have decided conjointly that tanks are not on the horizon.  As long as they keep picking battlefields that are either unfriendly to tanks or otherwise inaccessible then everything will probably work out OK.  

When they get it wrong, other technologies, like PGMs, will get them out of another bunch of tight spots.

And occasionally they will get it totally wrong and enter into an operation where they needed tanks but didn't have them.

Just like other countries have occasionally needed infanteers instead of tanks and didn't have them.

Now ask me if I would prefer to see a 70 tonne APC instead of a 70 tonne Tank.

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

PS http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030918.asp

I found the original article - James Dunnigan

And there is this.



> Lately, workers have had to discard more shoes than usual. Under normal wear, Bradley tracks are changed once a year, after 1,000 miles of wear. Today they are reaching the 1,000-mile mark in two or three months. As a result, the Red River production facility, the Army's only in-house source of Bradley tracks (Goodyear does some limited work), has gone from producing 5,000 to 6,000 shoes a month (enough to outfit about 30 Bradleys) to as many as 18,000 a month (enough for about 107 Bradleys). This year, the facility has ramped up from three shifts, five days a week, to three shifts - including one that's 12 hours long - seven days a week. The number of federal workers at the rubber plant has increased from 78 to 128 and more contractors have been brought on under short-term contracts to help cover the added shifts.


http://www.govexec.com/features/1203/1203s4.htm

Cheers 

PS I can't seem to relocate the NDM article that I posted on this board some months ago detailing track wear.


----------



## Blue Max

I believe that Canadian politicians have been fortunate in the last 50yrs in that they have had the luxury of being able to pick and choose the battles that our armed forces have been sent to fight.

Having said that and keeping In mind that old oxymoron joke about military intelligence, I do not recall reading in any militaries list of equipment a crystal ball to see the future, I think it is more analogist to drawing a line between the dots, except they don't always make an outline of a pirate ship.

In all seriousness, while the present instabilities that attract the attention of our DND are able to be handled by our light forces, there is no one weapon system that can do all defense/offense jobs for all situations. Hence I find it confusing that our DND does not do a better job of educating politicians/public as to why there are so many tools necessary for a military force to do the unforeseen jobs that they will be called upon to accomplish with a reasonable chance of success.

If the govt and DND can assure us that we will not need MBT's in the future then I will be sure to ask them If I really need to buy house insurance for the next 10yrs.  :

Sorry for the sarcasm, returning to our regular programming now. ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover

One of the things that perplexes me about the retention of any MBT is the well worn and never addressed problem of how to transport it to theatre in a CF platform such as a ship or aircraft. Unless the USA or Anatov transports it, we are SOL. Even the JSS will not transport an MBT like the Leo- the maximum Ro-Ro weight is set out at 30T in the SOR for that ship. We will likely not acquire a LCU with the guts to take an MBT from an LPD to the shore. 

The JSS could transport the MGS and maybe a heavier engineering vehicle, but for now sealifting the MBT is not an option that is readily apparent in the current literature on the subject.   It would appear that <30T is the weight of any proposed MBT for future Canadian purposes where mass transport to theatre will be required in a CF ship. 

Note that the large civi Ro-Ro for transport into a safe harbour with a functional pier will remain an option for offloading MBT, but I think we are moving away from civi txpt for advance forces. We would probably still use them for vanguard purposes if the harbour is guaranteed to be secure.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

I think we would be further ahead to see the JSS relieved of the responsibility of transporting any portion of the army task force - vehicles, command, support or personnel.   Leave the JSS as an AOR with some accomodation and a hangar and focus on acquiring a dedicated platform or two that will transport and support a task force at 25 to 30 kts.   

Its cheap to buy an empty hull to transport lots of weight and volume quickly or even just to act as a floating, repositionable warehouse.   The more capabilities you cram in, the more expensive it becomes. The closer you want it to get to the enemy the more expensive it becomes. 

Not much difference in cost between a vessel with a 100 tonne ramp and a 40 tonne ramp I wouldn't think.

The real problem for the tank is the need for a transporter, fuel tankers, truck for the spare tracks and engine, and a heavy recovery vehicle, not to mention all the bodies necessary to man those vehicles.


----------



## a_majoor

Flogging that well known horse, the CV 90 family fits inside that weight boundary, and engineering stronger decks for ships is a lot eisier than increasing the "lift" weight of an aircraft.

After the CV 90 family, a family of vehicles could be developed off the 30+ tonne PUMA IFV chassis, and farther in the future, the US FCS family of vehicles will come on line with weights between 20-30 tonnes. Setting an arbitrary weight limit on a ship is irresponsible, it restricts the future uses of the ship quite apart from limiting the type and size of Army equipment. Build in flexibility, don't factor it out.


----------



## Kirkhill

One aspect of this lightness business that seems to continually be overlooked is that once an engineering problem is solved, creating a wider envelope, then that envelope will be exploited.

For example IMI working with Oto Melara developed the 60 mm HVMS round in the 80s to bring the 60 mm gun, which could be carried by an M113 up to the same lethality as the standard 105s of the day.  They succeeded.  An M113 with a 60 mm HVMS could outrange a T55.  IMI then went on to apply what they had learned on the 60 mm to their 90, 105 and 120 mm rounds making them more lethal and once again an M113 with a 60 mm HVMS was exceptionally vulnerable.

Likewise, as people develop lighter, more effective armours allowing for 20 to 30 tonne vehicles to be introduced, and let's stipulate that some magic wand is waved and they achieve the protection levels of the current M1A2 TUSK, some bright spark is going to suggest applying 60 tonnes of that stuff to the M1A2 running gear so that it is invulnerable to an even greater range of threats (promptly to be countered by someone with a man-portable chemically powered laser or some such).

The US and everybody else knows how to get 60 tonne vehicles into theater and support them there.  It is only going to get easier in the future (snap on armour, hybrid engines, chemically powered electro-magnetic rail guns etc.)  If it can be done, it will be done.  It may take three aircraft (vehicle, armour and crew with ammunition and supplies), or it may be done by prepositioning or by airship or high speed ships.  I dunno.  

But it can be done, therefore it will be done.

The only question is how much is it going to cost the enemy to defeat a 20 tonne, 30 tonne, 40 tonne or 60 tonne tank and how big a launcher do they have to bring up to destroy the vehicle.  The more expensive the weapon, the fewer you are likely to encounter.  The bigger the weapon the easier it will be to find and to counter.

I'm with a_majoor on this one, to an extent (there is still a place for classifying forces according to deployability of the platforms and designing accordingly), but given that it is relatively easy to transport extremely massive systems by sea it only makes sense that if sea-lift is to be supplied it should be as flexible as possible.

PS flexibility is not enhanced by grafting on entirely unrelated functions - such as supporting a land force (which requires a vessel to stay in place) vs supporting a naval force (which requires a vessel to move).


----------



## Infanteer

We got our Leopards to Kosovo (getting them back was an issue).  LAV's and tanks are both big and bulky, and the general impression I get is that transporting either is a major pain in the arse.  Movement by sea (or dirigible!  ) seems to be the only way to get them off of Canada's shores in any meaningful number.


----------



## Kirkhill

Someone's got a new toy.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

What about that:

-Start with the Leo 2A7 concept (with minimum armor).
-Place the engine in the front, fit an electrically operated revolving magazine so the loader can select semi-automatically the ammo type enabling super fast loading that no autoloader is going to be able to match.
-Up-armor it just like the 5 Leo SFOR (also add a mine protecting plate).
-The gun would be the L55, the commander sight and weapon would be LEMUR SW with a 25 mm gun ( http:www.boforsdefence.com/pdf/LEMUR.pdf ).
-Add GALIX with a laser detector and a missile approach warner.

I think this would be the best tank in the world...Abrams armor, Leclerc defence suite, Type 90 mobility, Leo 2A6 weapon and Merkava rate of fire. It would probably make my day for one year if we could have such a tank.

Watch out Black Eagle!!! The Canadians are coming!!!
                                                                                                                        Clément


----------



## TCBF

"or dirigible!"

'Know what?  I am actually amazed we don't use these more.  The only downside is hanger space.  

Tom


----------



## CanadianBoy92

I say we scrap the MGS and get a deal with the US for some Abrams.  Why spend more money when we can get good reliable tanks that we know work well in battle conditions. I dot understand the command. There always talking about saving money, but yet they want to take a more expensive path ???.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

CanadianBoy92,

Before you get yourself into more trouble, go to the Armoured forum and spend a day or two reading all about the stuff you really know nothing about. Then perhaps you could, possibly, espouse a somewhat coherent and intellectual stance. Your wearing out your welcome fast. Stay in your lane, or you'll be gone.


----------



## CanadianBoy92

What don't i know.  I actually do no something about this topic.  So why is everyone saying i don't, I'm basically writting what just about everyone is writting.  I just want to know why all of you guys pick on me.


----------



## big bad john

"CanadianBoy92,

Before you get yourself into more trouble, go to the Armoured forum and spend a day or two reading all about the stuff you really know nothing about. Then perhaps you could, possibly, espouse a somewhat coherent and intellectual stance. Your wearing out your welcome fast. Stay in your lane, or you'll be gone."



			
				CanadianBoy92 said:
			
		

> What don't i know.   I actually do no something about this topic.   So why is everyone saying i don't, I'm basically writting what just about everyone is writting.   I just want to know why all of you guys pick on me.



Try using the search function first, then use the spell check before you post.  Other wise I would follow the advice you were given closely.


----------



## CanadianBoy92

I do use the search.  I always for some reason get a bad remark or get in trouble just for posting something.  No one else gets in trouble for that.  I think everyone should share the right to post just like everyone else.  But enough of this i wouldn't want this topic to be locked for going off topic. I just wanted to let people no how there not showing a great welcome to me.


----------



## Koenigsegg

Possibly, the achilles heel (right figure of speach?) of the Abrams is fuel consumption, it sucks fuel like nobodies business.   In at least the first gulf war, that same problem was what stopped the blitzkrieg type advance by the Americans, they ran out of fuel for the tanks at the front, and had to wait for the logistics vehicles to catch up.   If you want to save money, why purchase a bunch of expensive uber gas guzzlers?   When we could take the hit upfront and maybe get a little repreive once the vehicles are in service?
Also, ever heard of the Gulf War Syndrome?   A lot (not most, so dont nail me to the wall) of cases were, and are due to the Depleted Uranium shells, and armour (when hit).   And yes, more cases are still ocurring in Iraq as they are still in country.
I am neither for, nor against the MGS, as I do not know enough about the proposal, or the vehicles.   So I will not talk about them.

Terribly sorry if my comment contributed in no way as well, I saw an opportunity to express my opinion.   Apologizing now, so I dont have to say anything later.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

CanadianBoy92 said:
			
		

> What don't i know.   I actually do no something about this topic.   So why is everyone saying i don't, I'm basically writting what just about everyone is writting.   I just want to know why all of you guys pick on me.



Well then, perhaps you would like to enlighten us with a factual narrative, discussing the pros & cons of the two vehicles. Maybe you could toss in how you would solve the transport problem, amongst other things.

See, posting something simplistic, along the lines of "get rid of this and get that" really doesn't add to your credibility. Given that that's been the timbre of most of your posts, you may be able to begin to fathom why we can't be bothered taking you seriously. You have refused to listen to the Staff which resulted in a "Verbal" and you continue to abuse the guidelines with your spelling and grammar. Your best advice at the moment, is just to sit back and read for a while until you get comfortable with the way we do things around here. Trust me, with only five posts, your riding a rocket.


----------



## CanadianBoy92

So if i talk with more sense, and talk about pros and cons I will do well here.  Also if I compare the vehicles and transportation pros and cons it wont be a problem if I post.. Thanks for the advice thats what I wanted to know.  I will talk with more mature and sophistacted grammer.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

So long as you know of what you speak, and don't just yank stuff out of your ass, you'll probably get some discussion. Unfortunately, most here speak from experience. Cutting and pasting something you read does not count as knowledge. Questions work, unsubstantiated statements don't. That should get you started. Try stay within those parameters for now. Out.


----------



## TCBF

"Also, ever heard of the Gulf War Syndrome?  A lot (not most, so dont nail me to the wall) of cases were, and are due to the Depleted Uranium shells, and armour (when hit).  And yes, more cases are still ocurring in Iraq as they are still in country."

- I would lean towards the Anthrax cocktail injections as being more of a factor than the DU.  The French were exposed to a lot of the DU sites as well - no GWS for them, and they did not receive Anthrax vaccines.

Tom


----------



## Eland

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> What about that:
> 
> -Start with the Leo 2A7 concept (with minimum armor).
> -Place the engine in the front, fit an electrically operated revolving magazine so the loader can select semi-automatically the ammo type enabling super fast loading that no autoloader is going to be able to match.
> -Up-armor it just like the 5 Leo SFOR (also add a mine protecting plate).
> -The gun would be the L55, the commander sight and weapon would be LEMUR SW with a 25 mm gun ( http:www.boforsdefence.com/pdf/LEMUR.pdf ).
> -Add GALIX with a laser detector and a missile approach warner.
> 
> I think this would be the best tank in the world...Abrams armor, Leclerc defence suite, Type 90 mobility, Leo 2A6 weapon and Merkava rate of fire. It would probably make my day for one year if we could have such a tank.
> 
> Watch out Black Eagle!!! The Canadians are coming!!!
> Clément



What you are describing isn't too far off from the Swedish-pattern Leopard 2A6. If I recall correctly, the Swedish 2A6's use the Galix smoke-dischargers (so do the Dutch-issue Leopard 2A5's). The Swedish tanks also use a STN Atlas Elektronik fire-control and command suite, just as the Germans do.

It's pretty sad, though, when a country like Spain, which doesn't have a Gross Domestic Product as large as Canada, can afford to buy the Leopard 2E, which has even greater armour protection than a 2A6. Then again, it's not the case that Canada cannot afford to buy top-line
main battle tanks. It simply chooses not to afford them, or to find intellectually dishonest reasons for not buying them, in an effort to satisfy a pre-determined political agenda.


----------



## ChopperHead

I really dont think the Abrams is that good. I would much rather see if we were going to stick with tanks the Leopard 2 in whatever the latest version is (A6 EX) . why? we are already familiar with the leopard vehicle, there are already supply lines etc set up with manufacturers in Germany, we could probably be able to negotiate a decent deal as we are repeat customers, proven vehicle, Better fuel economy then M1, Leo has the same main gun as the M1, the M1 uses a JET engine which burns massive amounts of fuel. it takes 5 gallons just to start it up and then you have the super heated jet exhaust to deal with. you cannot operate it in a closed area because you could roast people just by driving and is also a mayjor tafget for heat seeking missles. 

oh and the show "the Greatest ever" says the Leo2 is the best tank in the world ever.   ;D


----------



## Slim

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> I really dont think the Abrams is that good.



How many have you driven/gunned/CC's?

When I drove the Abrams I was quite impressed.

Also spares for that tank are just across a border and, in some cases, already here as Canada makes quite a few components for that machine.

Slim


----------



## Gunnerlove

In reality it is powered by a Gas turbine. 

Kind of like the difference between a motor and an engine. 

I know little details.


----------



## ChopperHead

Slim said:
			
		

> How many have you driven/gunned/CC's?
> 
> When I drove the Abrams I was quite impressed.
> 
> Also spares for that tank are just across a border and, in some cases, already here as Canada makes quite a few components for that machine.
> 
> Slim



Well as you more then likely relise I have never driven one. I was just saying that everyone seems to say the Abrams this and Abrams that but IMO better tanks are out there that would be a better fit for Canadian needs. I wasnt saying the M1 sucks or anything if thats what you took it as I was just saying there is better stuff out there.


----------



## 48Highlander

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> Well as you more then likely relise I have never driven one. I was just saying that everyone seems to say the Abrams this and Abrams that but IMO better tanks are out there that would be a better fit for Canadian needs. I wasnt saying the M1 sucks or anything if thats what you took it as I was just saying there is better stuff out there.



Based on.....what?

maybe you're basing your opinion on this:



			
				ChopperHead said:
			
		

> oh and the show "the Greatest ever" says the Leo2 is the best tank in the world ever.   ;D




If so, I hope you realize that those shows are pretty much completely arbitrary.  After all, they ranked martial arts as the greatest weapon of all time, and the spitfire as the greatest plane.


----------



## ChopperHead

i relise that. I through that in to the post as a sorta joke. but anyway I tried to give some reasons why I thought the Leo2 was better in my first post. I weighed some pros and cons of the 2. while i may not have ever driven either of them I doubt most people posting in this thread have ever crewed an M1 either so I dont see how that matters. Just because i disagree I have to have years of experience driving tanks and whatever else. But someone who also has no experince what so ever can say the M1 is great and we should buy those and nodoby says anything. 

Im just a tank enthusiast at the moment but Im applying to become reg Armour this summer.


----------



## NL_engineer

There was a show on Discovery Chanel yesterday that showed the top 10 tanks in the world. On there list the M1A2 was #2, and the Leo 2 #1.


----------



## Slim

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> There was a show on Discovery Chanel yesterday that showed the top 10 tanks in the world. On there list the M1A2 was #2, and the Leo 2 #1.



Best and best for Canada may be two different things. There is more to it than just buying a bunch of tanks and turning them loose on the troops. You have to consider spares, crew training and a whole host of other issues.

The Abrams supply chain is right across the border and far more accessable than the Leo line of tanks.


----------



## big bad john

Slim said:
			
		

> Best and best for Canada may be two different things. There is more to it than just buying a bunch of tanks and turning them loose on the troops. You have to consider spares, crew training and a whole host of other issues.
> 
> The Abrams supply chain is right across the border and far more accessable than the Leo line of tanks.


Though never having served in an armoured unit IMHO the Challenger 2 is the best MBT in the world today (excuse me while I dust off the flag and play another round of God Save The Queen).  But I would never recommend it to best serve Canadian needs.  The last line in "Slims' " quote says it best, and gives the best reason for recommending the Abrams over the Leopard 2 or the Challenger 2.


----------



## ChopperHead

Slim said:
			
		

> Best and best for Canada may be two different things. There is more to it than just buying a bunch of tanks and turning them loose on the troops. You have to consider spares, crew training and a whole host of other issues.
> 
> The Abrams supply chain is right across the border and far more accessable than the Leo line of tanks.



ya but we already know how to use the Leo's and are familiar with them.
 we already have  the supply routes for them. Our technitians already are familiar with the design etc etc.

they are also alot less expensive to operate then the Abrams and for a country with a defense budget the way it is I doubt we could afford to operate Abrams abroad due to massive amount of fuel consumption  then add on general maientance (bad spelling I know) combat damage, break downs etc. 
 either way it is most likely that if we were to purchase any of tank the parts would end up being manufactured in canada so I dont think It matters much how far away they are.


----------



## Slim

Best and best for Canada may be two different things. There is more to it than just buying a bunch of tanks and turning them loose on the troops. You have to consider spares, crew training and a whole host of other issues.

The Abrams supply chain is right across the border and far more accessable than the Leo line of tanks.





> ya but we already know how to use the Leo's and are familiar with them.



The Abrams is a very easy tank to learn and once you've driven/gunned/CC'd one you can pick up others without too much in the way of time taken up. Plus the simulators that are avail for the M1 are very abundant and top notch. As well our army spends allot of time with the US army and plenty of exchanges are constantly going on. Agreements for cross training also already exist. Lots of hurdles cleared away for adopting the M1.




> we already have to the supply routes for them




Not nearly as easy as getting parts for the Abrams. Also we cannot manufacture Krause-Moffie parts without a lic here in Canada.




> they are also alot less expensive to operate then the Abrams and for a country with a defense budget the way it is I doubt we could afford to operate Abrams abroad due to massive amount of fuel consumption



The Abrams can be equiped with a deisil engine. The current one is not strictly AvGas but multifuel.





> then add on general maientance (bad spelling I know) combat damage, break downs etc.



Every tank breaks down!


----------



## NL_engineer

Our guys are trained on the Leo's (I guessing that the newer ones are similar to ours) plus the fuel economy is better on the Leo's. From a cost point of view, our guys (Armored, and EME) are familiar wit the Leo, so that requires less money training wise compared to train them all again for the Abrams. Also the Leo system is built in peaces so you can replace instead of fix.

just my 2 cents


----------



## George Wallace

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Our guys are trained on the Leo's (I guessing that the newer ones are similar to ours) plus the fuel economy is better on the Leo's. From a cost point of view, our guys (Armored, and EME) are familiar wit the Leo, so that requires less money training wise compared to train them all again for the Abrams. Also the Leo system is built in peaces so you can replace instead of fix.



Excuse Me?


----------



## NL_engineer

we are currently using the the Leopard C2 aren't we (which is made from the Leopard one right)? I know we have them phased out, but the select few people are qualified on them.


----------



## ChopperHead

why did you delete my post Slim? 

I know every tank breaks down I was just saying massive fuel consumtion plus everything else that goes with it etc adds up.

Just so we are clear here Im not saying the abrams is not good. I just happen to like the Leo better. Im sure either one would work flawlessly for us if we ever manage to get a government to buy them. There are pro's and cons for each. I just like Leo better and was just pointing out some reason I think it would be better for Canada. You like the Abrams thats fine man Im not the thought police but i do dissagree and last time I checked I dont live in China, so I can disagree if i want to. you dont have to get so anal,
people can have opions you know.


----------



## George Wallace

It would not be a good idea to buy more Leo 1s.  They are a great 'Light' Tank now, but their parts are probably becoming hard to find.  

If we were to buy Leo 2's, there would be no advantage, in doing so over M1s.  In this case the Armd Corps and RCEME (Don't say it....they will always be RCEME to me) will still have to train on a new vehicle.

Only advantage to getting Leo 2's may be the Deal that could be struck to take some off the hands of a European Power.  

If only the Cdn Gov't wasn't presured by the Liberal Lefties and Greens back in the 1980's to not build a Kraus Maffi plant in Sydney NS.


----------



## ChopperHead

I agree but I still like the Leo better. I dont know about the M1 but Kampfpanzer has many varients of it and could work with us on modifing one to better suit our needs. I think the M1 comes just as is but I could be wrong. 

I seriously hope they cancel the MGS or at least relise the flaw in replasing tanks with these "things" and either scrap the project completly or use them for what the are which is to support and fill a niche in an armoured regiment not to "be" the armour regiment.

M1,Leo2,Challager2,Leclerc anything will do nicely and I would not make a single complaint. Hell id rather see us buy some T-80's then this "thing" and we could get those for next to nothing.


----------



## ArmyRick

Chopperhead, if we are going to go MBT again, I seriously think abrams would be our best bet. Two of our close allies use it (US and soon australia). There a billion other reasons, do your research and you will find them


----------



## Slim

why did you delete my post Slim?

I sent an e-mail saying sorry and that it was a mistake.

In the CF I was a tanker, along with several of the others you've been arguing with.

If you want to be respected on these forums you will have to learn that experience goes quite a ways here. 

In an above poist I set out a number of factual reasons why the M1 is a better chioce for Canada.

You completely disregarded everything I said (or perhaps didn't read it maybe?) and just repeated your origional thoughts worded differently.

What factual evidence do you have to support your statement?


----------



## Infanteer

WTF OVER?



			
				ChopperHead said:
			
		

> but IMO better tanks are out there that would be a better fit for Canadian needs.



What are Canadian needs?  What qualitative and quantitative measurements are you basing your opinion on?



> I wasnt saying the M1 sucks or anything if thats what you took it as I was just saying there is better stuff out there.



...well, considering you just said it "isn't that good", you'll have to forgive us for thinking you did.  Anyways, I'm curious to know how you know there is better stuff out there.  Did you go over the models in your bedroom with a magnifying glass?

I think you need to do a little less posting and a little more reading.  Here is a homework project for you - think about when a deployed Canadian force is most likely to use a MBT.  Consider this in both tactical and strategic terms.  You should probably factor in the recent Aussie purchase of new MBTs since the scenarios faced by our militaries are similar in size, scope and probability.  Considering the above, I want to see a 500 word essay for which you will support a logical conclusion on what the "best off" for Canada is.  Until we see this (submit it to Slim and George Wallace), spare us and quit posting your "expertise"....


----------



## big bad john

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Considering the above, I want to see a 500 word essay for which you will support a logical conclusion on what the "best off" for Canada is.  Until we see this (submit it to Slim and George Wallace), spare us and quit posting your "expertise"....


This is something IMHO that should be done much more often. Thanks for doing it!


----------



## ChopperHead

I never said I had any expertise, in fact I said I have no experince. I just happen to like the Leo better thats all. like George said both are eqully matched. I tried to give a few reasons why I happen to like the Leo better thats all it's just my opinoin. Im sure you have an opinion on certain things that you have no experience with, that doesnt make you and idiot.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Strictly as a personal opinion, I like the Leo 2 better than the M1.  

Again, personally, I am more comfortable in the Leo.  Perhaps its because the C2 and the Leo2 share the same gunner's FCS (the commander independent system, is of course, completely new...), or perhaps it's just German engineering, but I find the ergonomics better (in all positions, with the possible exception of the driver) in the Leo than the Abrams.

Now, trying to put personal feelings aside, and looking at matters as objectively as I can....both tanks are relatively easy to train on, both being designed with a conscript army in mind.  Both tanks have an excellent FCS, although other sources give a very slight edge to the Leo's FCS.  The turbine is a logistical nightmare, requiring very expensive rebuilds more often than the MTU diesel, plus it devours much more fuel.  The logistical spare parts tail, as was previously pointed out, is much shorter (and possibly much cheaper) with the M1.  

The Americans successfully trialled a M1A1 with the Leo's diesel engine.  That it was not part of the M1's A2 upgrade was simply because the diesel is not American.  

Perhaps the best trade off for Canada, assuming a MBT buy, would be buying surplus M1A1, rebuilt with the MTU power pack?


----------



## ChopperHead

I wrote that essay someone told me to write and there is alittle bit moe then 500 words  

 Slim if you want to give me your email adress i'll send it to you.


----------



## Infanteer

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> The Americans successfully trialled a M1A1 with the Leo's diesel engine.  That it was not part of the M1's A2 upgrade was simply because the diesel is not American.
> 
> Perhaps the best trade off for Canada, assuming a MBT buy, would be buying surplus M1A1, rebuilt with the MTU power pack?



Like the Aussies, we could maintain a small MBT capability in case we need to pull an Thunder Run.  The Aussies realize that they are most likely going to be fighting a bush war in the jungle, but they are smart enough to realize that this doesn't mean that you throw out the baby with the bathwater - we need to do the same.

Seeing how our fleet is mostly diesel now (is the G-Wagon?), I think that just makes a refurbished M1C1 even more appealing.

Lance Wiebe for MND!


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> ya but we already know how to use the Leo's and are familiar with them.



We may be familiar with how to "operate" the Leopard, but as to "knowing how to use" them, I'd say we will never know whether or not we ever knew how to use them.  We never had to use them, and theoretical doctrine is just that...theoretical.  You can test your theories in exercises, but real combat is better.  Even so, when was the last time Canadian tanks exercised at a formation level?


----------



## TCBF

Fallex 91, maybe.  But Fallex 88 was best, over 100,000 people on it.  V Corps versus VII Corps freeplay ex.  That was one crazy manouevre box.

Tom


----------



## Michael Dorosh

TCBF said:
			
		

> Fallex 91, maybe.  But Fallex 88 was best, over 100,000 people on it.  V Corps versus VII Corps freeplay ex.  That was one crazy manouevre box.
> 
> Tom



That's a long time; we were fighting against Soviet doctrine in that one I take it?  How did the Leopards do?


----------



## George Wallace

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> We may be familiar with how to "operate" the Leopard, but as to "knowing how to use" them, I'd say we will never know whether or not we ever knew how to use them.  We never had to use them, and theoretical doctrine is just that...theoretical.  You can test your theories in exercises, but real combat is better.  Even so, when was the last time Canadian tanks exercised at a formation level?


A bit of a Highjack, and a bit outside your lanes.

The Armour Corps is very familiar with how to operate the Leopard and they *do know how to use them*.  Your comments on theoretical doctrine is elitist gobblie goop.  If you used some real life experience or decent research, you wouldn't have these questions.  

Where do you ask have we used the Leo C1 and Leo C2 recently?  We have used them in Bosnia and Kosovo.  In fact they were of great use in Kosovo, being able to go places the the larger M1, Leo 2 and Challengers, as well as the Italian Centaro, could not go.  They really proved their worth there, but many of our Senior Staff and Politicians fail to acknowledge that.  

The Canadians are still using Leo C2 in Wainwright today, as witnessed daily by TCBF.  On BTE 2003 we employed two Sqns of Leo C2 in the RCD with 2 CMBG.  

Testing on Exercise with Miles Equipment is far cheaper than testing in battle.  More lessons learned, without death, to hopefully prevent death when the time comes.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A bit of a Highjack, and a bit outside your lanes.
> 
> The Armour Corps is very familiar with how to operate the Leopard and they *do know how to use them*.  Your comments on theoretical doctrine is elitist gobblie goop.  If you used some real life experience or decent research, you wouldn't have these questions.
> 
> Where do you ask have we used the Leo C1 and Leo C2 recently?  We have used them in Bosnia and Kosovo.  In fact they were of great use in Kosovo, being able to go places the the larger M1, Leo 2 and Challengers, as well as the Italian Centaro, could not go.  They really proved their worth there, but many of our Senior Staff and Politicians fail to acknowledge that.
> 
> The Canadians are still using Leo C2 in Wainwright today, as witnessed daily by TCBF.  On BTE 2003 we employed two Sqns of Leo C2 in the RCD with 2 CMBG.
> 
> Testing on Exercise with Miles Equipment is far cheaper than testing in battle.  More lessons learned, without death, to hopefully prevent death when the time comes.



How many MBTs did Leopards engage in Kosovo?

They haven't been proven in a major battle, which is what they were designed for, right?  Canadians fighting other Canadians with laser simulators is great; how do we know how they would have fared vs. Soviet all-arms teams?  Or for that matter, how they would do against a Chinese battlegroup in, say, Korea?

Everyone thought the Sherman would be the cat's ass, too, until they actually had to use them against the Germans.

Given a hypothetical major war against a first world enemy, you can plan all you like and maybe have an idea how the first weeks or months of hostilities go, but if the war lasts long enough your enemy is going to find he has lots of money to burn on new weapons projects he couldn't afford in peacetime and I think all bets are off.

Did the Stryker have those birdcage contraptions on them before the Iraq War started, or was that a level of protection they found they needed after hostilities started?

Why did Fireflies carry German tank tread and sandbag armour in 1945?

Do we really have cause to believe the Leopard was the perfect weapon to stand up to Soviet T-80s?

These are the kinds of issues I'm referring to.  American units modified their doctrine/role after engaging in real combat in Iraq, are you suggesting we wouldn't have had to after going into an actual combat situation where tanks were fighting?


----------



## Infanteer

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> We may be familiar with how to "operate" the Leopard, but as to "knowing how to use" them, I'd say we will never know whether or not we ever knew how to use them.  We never had to use them, and theoretical doctrine is just that...theoretical.



Nice try, but if you read the posts, the argument for a Leo2 based on familiarity is in crewmanship; you don't need to be in a warfighting situation to learn how to drive a vehicle or run a targetting system.  This crew proficiency, which would be maintained with a familiar vehicle, is what the thread was looking at, so drop the hijack of commanding armoured sub-units, units and formations.

Methinks someone else may need a 500 page homework project too....


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Nice try, but if you read the posts, the argument for a Leo2 based on familiarity is in crewmanship; you don't need to be in a warfighting situation to learn how to drive a vehicle or run a targetting system.  This crew proficiency, which would be maintained with a familiar vehicle, is what the thread was looking at, so drop the hijack of commanding armoured sub-units, units and formations.
> 
> Methinks someone else may need a 500 page homework project too....



No hijack intended, I haven't read the whole thread, I just noticed Slim singled out that one sentence for a response, and so I did the same as I thought the point was salient and an angle Slim had overlooked.

Feel free to split it off if George wants his wisdom to remain on the board, otherwise feel free to delete this if you really feel it ungermaine.

I will be happy to do a 500 page homework project on how doctrine and equipment go hand in hand, however, and relate how the deficiencies of the Sherman in 1944 and the Stryker in 2004 caused ad hoc changes in armour protection and long term changes in weapons design...

But, if this thread is "only" about crew training, I have nothing to say on that matter.   I would be interested, though, in another thread if necessary, to know if George really feels that fighting pretend battles in Wainwright is really going to be proof that the Leopard can stand up in actual combat conditions.  I won't argue that they were used well in exercises in Germany, Wainwright, Shilo, or on peace/stability/whatever the buzzword is now missions in the Balkans.  Are we really arguing that we need to keep the Leopard/replace the Leopard with the MGS because of what it can do in the Balkans?

I thought the argument was that we need to keep a tracked MBT capability, and for that I would presume we need it for warfighting.  And if that is the case, I still say the Leopard hasn't been "proven" in that arena beyond the theoretical.  I'm not saying it wouldn't stand up, I'm not saying it would, I'm saying it would be foolhardy to think we have all the answers we need. And I say that based on the changes we've seen to US doctrine and equipment in Iraq.


----------



## George Wallace

Eland said:
			
		

> In its dying days, the Mulroney government had the chance to get 300 M1's (armed with 105's) plus parts and spares for a song. If they had gone ahead with the purchase, rebuilding and diesel-izing the fleet and even up-gunning them could have been done very cheaply.



I don't think you have your facts correct.  In 1989-90 there was an opportunity to pick up 300 US tanks, in exchange for our 128 Leo C1s.  The deal was not for M1s, but for M60s, an older tank than what we already had.

The Liberals passed up a better deal, when the Germans were pulling out of Shilo and due to the disarmanent Treaty, they were going to leave all their Leo 2s that were in Shilo to the CF.  Cretin nixed it.


----------



## Eland

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't think you have your facts correct.  In 1989-90 there was an opportunity to pick up 300 US tanks, in exchange for our 128 Leo C1s.  The deal was not for M1s, but for M60s, an older tank than what we already had.
> 
> The Liberals passed up a better deal, when the Germans were pulling out of Shilo and due to the disarmanent Treaty, they were going to leave all their Leo 2s that were in Shilo to the CF.  Cretin nixed it.



OK, I stand corrected. My information came from news reports I remember reading many years ago. I'm curious as to why the US would have wanted to take our Leopard 1's in exchange. What use would they have had for them? The M60 wouldn't have been too bad, provided it was the A3 version. The Israelis still have uparmoured versions of these still in service - admittedly in reserve roles. But then again, given this country's outright negligence in defending itself, even three hundred third-line tanks would be a step up.

Trust Cretin (or any Liberal) to nix a deal like the one the Germans offered us. Good tanks, practically for free (although I do realize that in return, the Germans might have wanted a rebate of the fees they paid to use Shilo  > ).


----------



## TCBF

"That's a long time; we were fighting against Soviet doctrine in that one I take it?  How did the Leopards do?"

- Excellent.  At the end of day 1, having withstood - from a superbly sited battle position - the piecemeal attacks of 6 to 9 opposing armoured bns, the 8 CH BG had only five tanks left.  "4 Cdn Mech Speed Bump Bde."

What else did anyone expect?

Tom


----------



## Michael Dorosh

TCBF said:
			
		

> "That's a long time; we were fighting against Soviet doctrine in that one I take it?  How did the Leopards do?"
> 
> - Excellent.  At the end of day 1, having withstood - from a superbly sited battle position - the piecemeal attacks of 6 to 9 opposing armoured bns, the 8 CH BG had only five tanks left.  "4 Cdn Mech Speed Bump Bde."
> 
> What else did anyone expect?
> 
> Tom



Well, that depends.  How were kills assessed?  Computer simulation of actual ballistics, extrapolated from tests of Russian tank guns on actual Leopard hulls?  Was angle of penetration taken into account, glancing blows on external stowage, hits on vision ports, gun sights, etc. modelled?

Was it one hit=one kill?

Did an umpire simply decide what felt right?  

Did a staff officer look up data on ballistics tables back at brigade HQ and then roll a zocchihedron onto a musty copy of SPI's TANK or RED STAR/WHITE STAR?

In short, how much could ANYONE have expected?  And even if the weapons were simulated down to a T, would those simulations hold true after a couple of weeks of soldiers in the field - on both sides - improving their kit with field expedients, or their tactics, or the unlikely event a European war stretched out long enough for weapons developers to come up with new kit?

George wants me to stay in my lane.  So I'll ask Infanteer - in your years in the reserves, how much time did you spend pepperpotting and how directly relevant was that to a) the work you actually did on your peacekeeping tour and b) what you've been watching the Canadians and Americans doing on TV in SE Asia and the middleeast?

Slim was the one who singled out a particular sentence for a reply, I chose to reply to the same sentence, and I think it is relevant to the whole MGS debate.  We don't know what we need to field because we don't know who our next enemy will be.  Those who feel that the Leopard should have not been phased out may be right, but I don't think they can safely assert that they were "proven" to be more or less effective than the MGS, since they were never fought against other armour (at least not by us).  Short of the sublime and the ridiculous (if our next war is against ray-gun toting aliens from the Confederation of Martian States, all bets truly are off), I don't doubt that weapons procurement and testing proceeds along very scientific lines, and that soldiers in the field are very diligent about testing that stuff to the best of their abilities.  I don't happen to believe that - based on historical experience - that kind of testing will ever really approximate the necessary conditions to give an accurate read.  Have we ever, in our history, guessed correctly what the next war would be like?

Incidentally, see General Eisenhower's response to General Bradley when the latter reported, sometime around COBRA, that the US 76mm gun was incapable of penetrating frontal armour on German PzKpfw V and VI tanks.  

Don't read too much into this; these aren't failings on the part of Canadian scientists and soldiers, I just look at Sam Hughes, who would assert that the Ross was the finest battlefield rifle in the world, which it was - on the range at Valcartier - and wonder if perhaps the Leopard isn't the finest battetank in the world - when deployed against other Leopards on the computer range at Wainwright...


----------



## TCBF

"SPI's TANK or RED STAR/WHITE STAR?"

- Wow.  Those are almost as old as my Avalon Hill "Blitzkrieg" game.  Do you have "Wurzburg" and "Chinese Farm" as well?

The assessment solution lies with niether the technology or good judgement, but both.  The stuff we are getting at CMTC has flaws that have to be mitigated by intelligent Observer/Controller play, but even then it is difficult to predict exactly how a piece of kit will do under ALL circumstances.  Look how well the superior French tanks did in 1940.

Tom


----------



## Michael Dorosh

TCBF said:
			
		

> "SPI's TANK or RED STAR/WHITE STAR?"
> 
> - Wow.  Those are almost as old as my Avalon Hill "Blitzkrieg" game.  Do you have "Wurzburg" and "Chinese Farm" as well?
> 
> The assessment solution lies with niether the technology or good judgement, but both.  The stuff we are getting at CMTC has flaws that have to be mitigated by intelligent Observer/Controller play, but even then it is difficult to predict exactly how a piece of kit will do under ALL circumstances.  Look how well the superior French tanks did in 1940.
> 
> Tom



I don't have Wurzburg or Chinese Farm, but I have Mechwar 77 and Patrol.  I know as much about playing wargames as I do about running a Leopard tank; but its a bit irrelevant because mostly I just collect old titles for historical value.  Having said that,  if you're up for a game of Sniper! via VASSAL sometime and don't mind winning all the time....

I think you see my point; the problem of predicting how enemy kit will do is exacerbated by the secrecy with which governments tend to treat their stuff (but from the 60s onwards with the two major superpowers selling their stuff to anyone in the world that wanted it, it got a lot easier to acquire samples for testing, I think).

Add to that not knowing what conditions you will be using it in.  The idea of an MBT is great if you know you're going to use it in suitable terrain.  And if you know what suitable terrain is.  Were the Americans not surprised at the performance of the M1 tank in urban terrain in Iraq, and was that experience borne out of necessity rather than a desire to try the concept out?  We may have to fight our next "big" war in places wheels can go and tracks can't.  Or maybe we will get to fight with tracked vehicles on the North German Plain, who knows.  But I'd be loathe to think that we have 100 percent certainty that any weapon or vehicle system we have will perform exactly as we anticipate, given all these unquantifiable facets of the equation.

Anyway, if I've well and truly dragged this off topic or simply repeated what's been discussed in the other MGS threads, my apologies, I don't really keep up on the several hundred active threads running every day.  Just saw something I wanted to respond to, and so did.

In any event, I was at a briefing for the CMTC (at the PPCLI reunion, actually) and it looks like a ton of stuff that was never simulated in exercises before will be part of the new generation of sims.  I think that's terrific.  But in the end, one has to ensure that the simulations are sound, reasonable facsimiles of the real thing.  Pepperpotting over open ground in 1917-style assaults on Soviet trench systems without artillery, armour or air power even remotely considered seem to be a thing of the past.  Good.  But if the ability to understand how modern weapons and vehicles really interact on the battlefield with potential threats is as good as George seems to think, why so many "lessons learned" coming out of a shooting war like Iraq?


----------



## TCBF

Because "lessons learned" always come out of shooting wars.  Generally speaking, the kit is a lot more predictable than the people using it.  

Tom


----------



## George Wallace

A couple of things for you Michael D.  First off, there is that statement of fighting the next war in places where wheels will go and tracks will not.  You have been around long enough to know better than that.  You got it completely backwards, so it really caught me by surprise to see it come from you.  In the event, you honestly believe what you posted, I would like to correct you on it; Tracks are more maneuverable and capable than wheeled vehicles in all terrains.  

I really don't think you are being fair in your half look at simulations.  You go on and question the scientific aspects of Tank or wpns fire on Armour Vehicles and call them suspect.  I am sure that you probably hold the same suspicions on the effectiveness of simulated small arms fire on the infanteer.  I suppose you would like us to use live ammunitions to actually test the effectiveness of fire on our Armour vehicles in the same light as you would like us to actually use live ammunitions to shoot at our dismounted troops.  

Michael.....get real.

Simunitions and Simulators will do just fine for me.  As for Lessons Learned; we are continually learning.  Although we sometimes have the habit of 'reinventing the wheel', we are hopefully avoiding that practice by using the Lessons Learned systems that have been developed.


----------



## Infanteer

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> George wants me to stay in my lane.  So I'll ask Infanteer - in your years in the reserves, how much time did you spend pepperpotting and how directly relevant was that to a) the work you actually did on your peacekeeping tour and b) what you've been watching the Canadians and Americans doing on TV in SE Asia and the middleeast?
> 
> Slim was the one who singled out a particular sentence for a reply, I chose to reply to the same sentence, and I think it is relevant to the whole MGS debate.



We were not talking about tank tactics or tank command, so your point on "pepperpotting" is irrelevant.  However, I was taught how to properly use and maintain a C7 and operate a PLGR.  This is individual proficiency and skill with equipment, which is what Slim was talking about with his mention of "knowing" the Leo2.  Using the C7 family of rifles is a certain skill, one where practicing on the parade square always helps you down the road.  If I was to have an AK dumped into my hands, a rifle but from a different family, I'd have to spend some time familiarizing myself with a new operating system.  Apply the same principle to a tank and the individual and team skills required to operate one and you'll understand what Slim was referring to.

You're mention of tactics for tanks is fine and relevent (infact, there is another thread on the Armoured forum dealing with it at the moment) but it has nothing to do with what Slim or anyone else was talking about.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I'm coming in to this one late, but here goes.

On the issue of whether we'd be better off with M1A2s vs Leopard 2s, I'd pick the M1A2s.  The M1 is "combat proven" and used by our friends down south.  That being said, the Leopard 2 (any mark) is an excellent tank and if Santa had left a regiment worth in the vehicle park (including parts and ammo) I wouldn't have been upset.

Whether Canada needs an MBT is a tricky issue.  If we do not have one (current generation), then Canada needs to manage its expectations as to what our Army can do on operations.  The Australians have opted for M1s based on their study of modern combat (their own in Vietnam included).  For us, I venture that it is not about the money.

On both these issues (M1s vs Leos and does Canada need an MBT) I've spilled many electrons and killed bandwidth on this and other sites and the point is rather moot.

Regarding the issue of whether we knew how to employ our Leopards, we certainly trained hard and studied our doctrine and TTPs. 

Much of our doctrine was based on searing WW II experience, but there was also influence from the study of Arab-Israeli fights (especially 1973) and sharing information with allies.  In this we were not far off from most other nations in the Cold War.  We also maintained links with allied armoured corps to benefit from their experience.  Our doctrine and TTPs were never really "validated", in that we did not see how they fared on the two way range.  That being said, our low-level TTPs are quite similar to US ones that did well in both Gulf Wars (there are differences, the biggest one to me being an acceptance on the US part of travelling overwatch).

Our training was certainly rigorous.  Our individual gunnery courses were top-notch and invested time, ammo and seasoned instructors.  Our crew commanding courses (junior officers and NCMs) were field oriented and very challenging.  Failure to observe basic principles would lead to failure on the course.  Our collective training was also high quality, although MILES gear would have helped.  The last tank squadron that I was in (02 to 03) had a very full training year and was good to go from my perspective, which was admittedly biased.   In my estimation we could have converted to M1A2s in about six weeks of hard training (both individual and collective).  More time would be better to truly master the little things, but as a Squadron we did know our tanking business and we could have transferred it to other tanks.

As to our equipment, the Leopard (C1 and C2) both had good firepower and mobility but had made compromises in protection.  The base design had been made in the days when it was figured that ATGMs could kill anything so evasion was the best bet.  If 4 CMBG had gone to war they probably would have killed a lot of Soviet tanks but would have also suffered heavy losses (perhaps like the Israelis in 73 on the Golan).  If we'd gone to either Gulf War I figure that we would have suffered higher losses than an M1 equipped unit (stating the obvious, I know).  Its all guesswork, but we can try to make informed guesses.  

I'm currently in the "Lessons Learned Community", and it is somewhat difficult to learn lessons in peacetime.  Individuals and units can certainly "learn" lessons with regards to mastering existing doctrine, but new doctrine and TTPs are little trickier.  Even instrumented exercises do not show the whole picture and I am a little skeptical of new doctrine developed out of peacetime exercises.  Instrumented exercises have biases built into them by the designers, although observer/controllers can help mitigate this (although they have their own biases as well).  I figure that instrumented exercises are excellent at "confirming" if a given unit has learned and applied current doctrine.  They are somewhat less capable, in my mind, of "validating" training and doctrine.  That is best done on operations.  That being said, you go with what you have.  If you don't have a war going on then you make the best replica you can and keep practicing.  Stay flexible, in the meantime, and expect some suprises (both good and bad) if you do go to war.  

CMTC will, I believe, improve the quality of our training and allow us to have our "first battles" without losing people.

"You, staring at your sword to find it brittle,
Suprised at the suprise that was your plan,
Who, shaking and breaking barriers not a little,
Find never more the death door of Sedan"  G.K. Chesterton regarding the French in 1870

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Michael Dorosh

2Bravo said:
			
		

> I'm currently in the "Lessons Learned Community", and *it is somewhat difficult to learn lessons in peacetime.*  Individuals and units can certainly "learn" lessons with regards to mastering existing doctrine, but new doctrine and TTPs are little trickier.  Even instrumented exercises do not show the whole picture and*I am a little skeptical of new doctrine developed out of peacetime exercises.*  Instrumented exercises have biases built into them by the designers, although observer/controllers can help mitigate this (although they have their own biases as well).  I figure that instrumented exercises are excellent at "confirming" if a given unit has learned and applied current doctrine.  They are somewhat less capable, in my mind, of "validating" training and doctrine.  That is best done on operations.  That being said, you go with what you have.  If you don't have a war going on then you make the best replica you can and keep practicing.  Stay flexible, in the meantime, and expect some suprises (both good and bad) if you do go to war.



Your entire post is well stated 2Bravo, so thanks for that.  I especially agree with this, obviously.  Perhaps I was stating it in ways George wasn't able to understand.  Hopefully this clears it up for him.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A couple of things for you Michael D.  First off, there is that statement of fighting the next war in places where wheels will go and tracks will not.  You have been around long enough to know better than that.  You got it completely backwards, so it really caught me by surprise to see it come from you.  In the event, you honestly believe what you posted, I would like to correct you on it; Tracks are more maneuverable and capable than wheeled vehicles in all terrains.



It was an example, George, of not being able to predict what kind of war or terrain we would fight in.  Probably a bad one.  2Bravo has I think encapsulated what I was trying to say in better language.



> I really don't think you are being fair in your half look at simulations.  You go on and question the scientific aspects of Tank or wpns fire on Armour Vehicles and call them suspect.  I am sure that you probably hold the same suspicions on the effectiveness of simulated small arms fire on the infanteer.  I suppose you would like us to use live ammunitions to actually test the effectiveness of fire on our Armour vehicles in the same light as you would like us to actually use live ammunitions to shoot at our dismounted troops.
> 
> Michael.....get real.



I have no idea what you're on about here, but it little matters - the others seem to have grasped it fine.  If you really want to discuss it further, I'd suggest doing it here would be a waste of everyone else's time.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

TCBF said:
			
		

> Because "lessons learned" always come out of shooting wars.  Generally speaking, the kit is a lot more predictable than the people using it.
> 
> Tom



That's an interesting comment.  I suppose you could also include the people shooting at it, too, no?


----------



## George Wallace

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> It was an example, George, of not being able to predict what kind of war or terrain we would fight in.  Probably a bad one.  2Bravo has I think encapsulated what I was trying to say in better language.
> 
> I have no idea what you're on about here, but it little matters - the others seem to have grasped it fine.  If you really want to discuss it further, I'd suggest doing it here would be a waste of everyone else's time.





			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Your entire post is well stated 2Bravo, so thanks for that.  I especially agree with this, obviously.  Perhaps I was stating it in ways George wasn't able to understand.  Hopefully this clears it up for him.


Right.....You are not at all familiar with what you are posting in this thread so I consider your comments to be those of an ignorant egotist, intent on nothing else but trolling.  

Michael, you know the rules of the forums and the site.


----------



## muskrat89

> You will not troll the boards or feed the trolls. This is making posts that intentionally create hostile arguments, or responding to such posts in the same hostile tone.



MD - I know that you are an expert on the Forum Guidelines. You will know, of course, that the above is taken from the posted guidelines. The above guideline, in my mind, is subjective in nature. Since it is subjective, and you insist in walking along the edge of said guidelines there is always a chance you are taking a risk in getting further warnings. I hope you are confident in your ability to plead your case with Mike Bobbitt, should you receive the next step in the warning system, from a Moderator who doesn't see everything in black and white as you do.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't think you have your facts correct.  In 1989-90 there was an opportunity to pick up 300 US tanks, in exchange for our 128 Leo C1s.  The deal was not for M1s, but for M60s, an older tank than what we already had.


How would those have been if we later upgraded to M60-2000 standard?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m60-2000.htm



			
				Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> The Americans successfully trialled a M1A1 with the Leo's diesel engine.  That it was not part of the M1's A2 upgrade was simply because the diesel is not American.
> 
> Perhaps the best trade off for Canada, assuming a MBT buy, would be buying surplus M1A1, rebuilt with the MTU power pack?


And it sounds like there will be a few new surplus M1A1 when the US implements its fleet managment plan.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38080.0.html


----------



## Armymedic

Back to topic:

As both tanks are MBT's, I would have to say we need niether. The day and age where Canada's contribution to its allies is to provide a fully functional armoured force of brigade level or higher are over. Lets leave the A list countries run MBTs. We do not have the troops or the money to get back into the MBT game, nor are we going to jump in right beside our NATO allies and fight on the frontline with them in a high intesity conflict with a technically equivelent enemy. 

Once we find our role in the world, then lets get what is best suited for that role.


----------



## George Wallace

Armymedic said:
			
		

> As both tanks are MBT's, I would have to say we need niether. The day and age where Canada's contribution to its allies is to provide a fully functional armoured force of brigade level or higher are over. Lets leave the A list countries run MBTs. We do not have the troops or the money to get back into the MBT game, nor are we going to jump in right beside our NATO allies and fight on the frontline with them in a high intesity conflict with a technically equivelent enemy.



Unfortunately, it is the Skill Sets that we will be loosing that is the major problem.  Just as the Navy needs submarines to maintain it Skill Sets and expertise in that area of operations, the Army needs to maintain, at least a minimum, of Skill Sets and expertise in operating Tanks and Cbt Teams.  Tanks are a vital part of the All Arms Team.  Without them, we are loosing valuable experience and training for future Combined Arms operations.  If a Canadian Infantry Unit gets attached to a larger NATO Army and have to operate in conjunction with tanks, Combat is not the time to learn.  

During the First Gulf War the US offered Canada the loan of M1 Tanks so we could participate.  All we had to do is crew them.  We sent a Field Hospital and a Protection Force of Infanteers.

The tank has proven itself over and over again.  Tracked vehicles are more maneuverable on a Battlefield than wheeled.  Their survivability rates are also higher.  The M1 has proven itself in combat over and over again.  The Leopard 2 has seen limited action in the Balkins, but has being field tested and has the same or better ratings as the M1.

I am not a Techie, nor an armour developer, but I do know that every Tank put into production has had ballistic trials done on its armour.  Anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is naive.  

The German designs have been well thought out to the minutest detail.  They are easy to maintain.  They are easy to replace parts and Power Packs.  The American designs are good, but not as good as the Germans.  We won't even get into British engineering and the plumbers nightmares their equipment are plagued with in the maintenance side of the house.

I would side with the Leopard 2 in its latest variant.


----------



## ZipperHead

I will take sides on this one and say the Leo2, mainly for sentimental reasons (as already noted by others) because of time spent on the C1 and C2, and for what I consider to be superior German engineering (so says the owner of a VW Golf, and former owner of a Jetta  ;D ..... and WHEN I win the 6/49, I'll be getting a BMW, so there!!). I liked what I saw of it in Bosnia (with the Dutch). 

I will have to admit my exposure to the M1A2 is more limited, other than seeing it/playing the simulated version in SteelBeast2 Pro (demo version, baby!!!) and on BattleField2 (which I'm kind of ashamed to even admit to as "experience", but man can I kick some ass with it). The supply line issue is valid, but I don't know how far that can be pushed. Having to beg from our Allies is almost an SOP now for the CF, but I don't know if that is something you want to get into the habit of (assuming you are talking about bumming off of them come wartime). If you are talking "normal" peacetime supply lines, ships work pretty good at getting BMW's and VW's over here , so I'm guessing they would work at getting Krauss Maffei parts here as well (sorry for the sarcasm). And in that vein, if we are overseas when we need these parts, Germany is a lot closer than the US, no?!?! 

It seems Ashley and I are agreeing a little too often lately (the Apocalypse must be approaching), but I am also of the opinion, when push comes to shove, we aren't going to be duking it out alongside the big boys (US, UK, Germany, gulp, France) in their MBT's. If the Army's of the world were a motorcycle gang, Canada would likely show up with a tricycle (I stole that from somebody). I am going to hop on the M8 Thunderbolt bandwagon instead. From what I have read/seen (which is admittedly little, but who has time for these things.... other than everybody else at Army.ca) I like. But that is another thread, as this is Leo2 vs M1 for Canada, which I'm sure is kind of a moot point anyways, and I'm surprised at the hostility that people are showing (well, not really surprised). It's kind of like the the arguments over who is hotter (on Gilligan's Island): Mary Ann or Ginger???

Al


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Canadian soldiers have always made the best of sub-rated kit. Give us T-72's and we'll kick ass till we're all dead. As per norm, we'll do our best with what we have, garner a few praises two generations on, and shine only in our son's and daughter's eyes. It's why we joined and all we can hope for.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Discovery Channel had the top 10 tanks on recently and the Lep 2 was number 1.


----------



## TCBF

.... and Ginger (Tina Louise,  38-23-37) WAS hotter than Mary-Ann.



Glad to read I have a few converts to the M8.  The last five years have been a bit lonely.

Tom


----------



## a_majoor

This is such an "It depends" sort of argument. Unless a lot of other factors are considered (where we are going, who we are working with, how we plan to get there, what we are supposed to do), then there really is no particular reason to suggest the M-1, Leopard 2, LeClerc, M-8, CV 90120, FCS or anything else.

Practical considerations would suggest something small and light enough to transport, considering we are half a world away from most trouble spots, while tactical considerations suggest something with heavy armour that can withstand close range attacks is needed. Given that transporting equipment in "ones and twoes" by air over strategic distances is rather pointless, we need to get enough transport ships to carry a battlegroup and support them in theater. Once we have that squared away, then we can argue over what to put into them.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Good point, Art.

I'm just going to add one minor point to the Michael/ 2Bravo/George debate about "lessons learned".

Simulation and computer projections are excellent, and a lot is learned from them.  Where things go for hell in a hand basket is when we start using vehicles for purposes other than there original design purpose.  Using Michaels Sherman example, it was known that the Sherman could not fight other tanks.  It was not designed for that, the tactics of the day used tank destroyers to kill tanks, and the Sherman to kill everything else.  It was a flawed philosophy, but it was the flavour of the day.  The Sherman was used outside of its design role, and suffered for it, because no one practised (simulated) for the way it was eventually used.

Hence the lessons learned.  The Stryker was never designed for fighting in cities, when it was used there, the "lessons learned" resulted in adding the bird cage.  Same for the M1, it was never designed for fighting any closer than 1000 meters from the enemy, when it was used in cities, the "lessons learned" resulted in a cannister round being developed.

It's virtually impossible to simulate every possible role for every piece of equipment in every terrain it may be used in.  We can't have a piece of kit for every possible scenario, so we use kit outside of its designers original role.


----------



## ASLT TPR

It doesn't seem like Canada really knows what it wants to do with the armoured corps. One minute we are scrapping the tanks then we get a turret upgrade then they are getting mothballed. Then in Gagetown we shipped all but 8 out west now we are hearing rumours that we are getting them back. But its funny no matter how much you curse them things, you sure do miss them when there gone. Who knows whats going to happen next. I really don't think they do. I remember the big rumor of the Striker. But that fell through but no matter what they do money will dictate. And it doesn't have to be the best piece of kit either look at the LSVW for instance. ENOUGH SAID  LOL


----------



## youravatar

I Read an article in the Citizen. The British have or are currently developing a certain armour that can disrupt incoming RPGs. Like a force field. Apparently to be fielded on their new light armour in a decade or so.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I think that we're having a big'ol chat about it here.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38169.0.html

Cheers,

2B


----------



## big bad john

youravatar said:
			
		

> I Read an article in the Citizen. The British have or are currently developing a certain armour that can disrupt incoming RPGs. Like a force field. Apparently to be fielded on their new light armour in a decade or so.


http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38169.0.html


----------



## STONEY

I recently read a report about a series of interviews that was done after the major fighting in the last gulf war. They talked to US Army, US Marines, British Army & Marine Commando's in various types of units and there was one common thread.  Anytime they ran into  any opposition the first cry that went out was "where are the tanks", where are the tanks", "WHERE ARE THE TANKS" . Seems nobody could get enough of them.  So if your going to go in harms way ?  Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.


----------



## a_majoor

While a Tank is an excellent general purpose weapons system, the need for large numbers of tanks for close support tasks suggests perhaps we should be talking about reviving the idea of a WWII era "assault gun" for infantry formations. In WW II, they were usually built on cut down tank chassis, and mounted large calibre cannons to blast any hard targets which presented themselves (enemy bunkers, machinegun nests or other strong points were the primary target for this type of vehicle, although they could shoot at enemy tanks in a pinch.)

This isn't to say that the WW II era vehicle layout is ideal, in today's environment it would be woefully inadequate in a complex terrain environment. The old CASR site had a presentation of re-rolling a Leopard tank into an urban assault gun, replacing the 105mm cannon with a breach loading 120mm mortar and a multiplicity of secondary weapons (co ax and mounted on OWS stations). Stand off armour and a dozer blade were also part of the package. Matt_Fisher was the author of this idea, and should perhaps comment in more depth.

Redoing the Leopard would be ideal in theory, since we already have them, and lots of NATO nations have stockpiles of Leopard I's in reserve or awaiting disposal. In my mind, the best place to place these "Storm Leopards" would be as support elements in an Infantry battalion (what's so strange about that? ADATS and TOW are now incorporated in the LdSH(RC)). Of course this goes against the prevailing wisdom of stripping support elements away from units, so plan "B" might be to have a "Support Battalion" which can mix'n'match platoon and company sized elements out to task forces as required.


----------



## Fabius

I agree that as a close support system WW II assault guns were effective. However we would be wrong to follow the WW II German example of developing assault guns with out traversing turrets, which proved a limiting factor in combat, the Germans acknowledged that assault guns were inferior to tanks in this regard but that for them it was a necessary trade off in that they needed to produce armaments as quickly and as matireally efficient as possible, conditions which the assault guns meet. The idea of Storm Leopards seems like a good solution to the identified need for close armoured support in complex urban terrain. Such a system equipped with stand off armour, dozer blade and secondary remote operated weapons mounts would incorporate the  lessons learned by the Israelis in 2002 during the Battle of Jenin in which D9 armoured bulldozers proved highly useful for breaching and the British and American lessons learned in Iraq especially in the Battles of Basra and Fallujah in which the invulnerability and integral firepower of tanks proved highly relevent in a suppression role


----------



## Pallas Athena

a_majoor said:


"... CASR site had [an article on modifying] a Leopard tank into an urban assault gun, replacing the 105mm cannon with a breach loading 120mm mortar and a multiplicity of secondary weapons (coax and mounted on OWS stations). Stand off armour and a dozer blade were also part of the package. Matt_Fisher was the author of this idea, and should perhaps comment in more depth."

The full CASR site is up and running. Matt Fisher's article can be seen at:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-leo.htm

PA


----------



## Armymatters

The issue is the sheer age of the hulls of the Leopard C2's we have. We need new hulls in order do something similar. You can't keep running 40+ year old hulls forever, no matter how much you take care of them. Plus, those hulls have taken a beating over the years; I bet most of them aren't in good shape. I would prefer that we get new tanks, preferably the Leopard 2. I think the Germans still have some Leopard 2A4's in reserve stock; all are under 20 years of age, while the newest is around 14 years old. And apparantly, the Germans are motivated to get these tanks off their hands, so a good discount can probally be had for those tanks. What we can do is take enough A4's to replace our Leopard C2's, and have the Germans refurbish the tanks to a like-new state. Of course, we won't benefit from the latest improvements to the Leopard 2 series, such as the A6's redesigned turret, the new 120mm L55 gun, the auxiliary engine, and other various minor improvements. Otherwise, buying brand new A6's won't hurt; the Leopard 2 is a virtual NATO standard tank, with so many of our NATO allies adopting the tank as their primary MBT. Now, we just need a way of hauling them around to our deployments and back home...


----------



## Slim

Armymatters said:
			
		

> The issue is the sheer age of the hulls of the Leopard C2's we have. We need new hulls in order do something similar. You can't keep running 40+ year old hulls forever, no matter how much you take care of them. Plus, those hulls have taken a beating over the years; I bet most of them aren't in good shape.



Not that I dissagree with you but I think that you'll find that the Leo hulls aren't nearly as old as you seem to think thaey are...


----------



## Bzzliteyr

They are mid 70's hulls.


----------



## Slim

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> They are mid 70's hulls.



PM inbound


----------



## Armymatters

Ok, 30 year old hulls. But the design dates back to the 1960's, and by the time we got them, they were already outdated by further advancements, and the introduction of newer Soviet tanks.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

The big costs these days are for the electronic bits and pieces (thermal sights, fire control computers, etc). The turret does cost money, but I don't think that money is the issue.

If we are going to have a vehicle that goes around blasting things at close range then it needs protection.  That means it needs to be heavy.  Might as well make it a tank.  M1s have done suprisingly well in urban operations and they also do well in wide open spaces.  

Cheers,

2B

p.s. And I promised myself I wouldn't post about tanks anymore...


----------



## George Wallace

Armymatters said:
			
		

> OK, 30 year old hulls. But the design dates back to the 1960's, and by the time we got them, they were already outdated by further advancements, and the introduction of newer Soviet tanks.


Ref your statement on thirty year old hulls and 1960's design, a couple of points.  First some designs last a lot longer than that.  Look at the 1911 Browning High Power, and it is still around doing a lot of service in many militaries.  Modern Tanks are obsolete, as soon as they come off the drawing board.  The Leopard II and the M 1 are both 1970's designs, so don't get too hung up on how old a tank or tank design is.  Just think of how old our aircraft and ships are.  Military Hardware is 'old' and meant to last a long time.

As for the introduction of newer Soviet tanks......well that isn't really that serious a problem.  The Soviets have produced a large number of T-54/55 and exported them to so many countries, that they are still one of the more prominent tanks to be found on the battlefields of the world.  T-64 and T-72 models come next.  If you want to start looking at their later models, the T-80 and T-90, they are in limited production, compared to before the end of the Cold War, as the Soviets can't afford to produce them and haven't that many markets for them.

So, even if we kept the Leo 1 C2, it would still be a credible tank, as it still would be able to take on the large numbers of T-54 and T-55 that are out there.


----------



## George Wallace

2Bravo said:
			
		

> p.s. And I promised myself I wouldn't post about tanks anymore...


Come on......we all know that that is one New Year's Resolution that you would never have been able to keep.      ;D


----------



## Slim

George

Tell them about the new hulls and turrets. No one listens to me about that stuff.


----------



## TCBF

"Look at the 1911 Browning High Power, and it is still around doing a lot of service in many militaries"

- The M1911/M1911A1 is the .45 ACP  powered "Ol' slab sides herself".  Not the 9mm M1935 FN Browning Hi-Power, which came out in 1935, some 6 years after the death of John Moses Browning, the designer of them both. The Cdn Army adopted the Hi-Power in 1944.  Ours were made by the John Inglis washing machine company in Toronto, Ontario.  They also made Bren Guns.

If you carry a Canadian Browning today, it will say JI on the magazine bottom plates, and Inglis on the gun itself.

"Not that I dissagree with you but I think that you'll find that the Leo hulls aren't nearly as old as you seem to think thaey are..."

-It ain't the age, but the usage.  The Germans and other euro-types absolutely freaked when they found out how high mileage our tanks were in the Eighties.  In the nineties, we had final drive issues which originated in the hull speading out at the bottom.  How?  Easy, it was cracked.  How?  Easy, the natural ground up rock/mud combo lining most tank trails in trg areas is mother natures own sandpaper.  Ever see a set of tank tracks on a trail and at the top of a hump in the trail is a smooth piece of rock hard packed mud?  That smooth piece was compressed and formed by the bottom of the tank, which, as a result, became shiny enough to almost shave in (go ahead, take a look at one) and a little bit thinner (due to the ground up rock in the mud).  So, after a LOT of km of this, the plate gets so thin, it can no longer support the increadible torques it has to absorb from the drive sprockets/final drives and the weight of the tank - so it splits.  When that happens, the final drives and power pack come out of alignment and things break.  Early fixes involved bolting a plate to the bottom of the hull.  Of course, a power pack flexing on it's motor mounts might just bottom out on the bolts, and when the SST lights come on as a result...

How do we find out how much wear there is?  We ultrasounded them, using the same gear and goo the doc used on our pregnant wives.

So, don't cry when you see a Leo hull as a 'GateGuard' outside the shacks or in front of an armoury, the hull may be toast.

When we got the old PzAufKlaBns Heavy SpahTruppe Leo1A5 s, why did we not get the low-use German hulls as well?  Good question.  Rumour at the time had it that the LCMM types recommended staying with the Cdn hulls because of some mods we had done to them.  I cannot confirm this.  Any ideas?

Tom


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I know for a (almost) fact that the Canadian hulls are the only ones in the world with the wiper mod, so if you see a hull that doesn't have the mod then maybe it is a "upgrade" hull.  I work at the school and was in the K-lines when we put all the tanks through here on their way to the regiments and I never saw any "sans-wiper" tanks.  I will ask Lance Wiebe today as I believe he was involved with KMW for the upgades.  I am not sure how much trouble we would have gone through to modify any snuck in "new" hulls that we may have purchased as "spare parts" but I doubt it was done.. More to follow once I have the info.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Roger that on the thin hull issue.  I believe that we took some powerpacks from the "thermal sight with a tank attached to it" program, but that we indeed kept our original hulls.  In addition to the mods issue, someone explained to me that since the "new" tanks had been sitting around for several years before we bought them there were concerns about them.

I have also been told that the program that gave us the C2 started as an attempt to give us a thermal sight for the C1.  Apparently it was cheaper to buy the complete Leo 1A5 from the Germans rather than retrofit a sight through a seperate program.  As a bonus we got a great fire control system to boot.  A good little project (ingenius really) to upgrade our capabilities without too much fuss up top.  FCS techs and FCS spare parts suddenly became things that Generals talked about during exercises!    

The C2 had (has) excellent firepower with great accuracy both static and on the move.  We can argue the hitting power part of the 105mm vs 120mm, but with the right ammo the 105mm can certainly get the job done against threat armour.  The thermal sight was (is) a tremendous piece of kit.  I was amazed at how much more we were picking up with it (infantry in tree lines etc).  Mobility was good, but of course protection was not so good.  We had excellent training in 2002/03 (RAMBLING BEAR, ROYAL FIST, RESOLUTE WARRIOR) and I would have gone on operations with confidence.  M1s would have been better but see my signature block.  Nightfighting against would have helped with the C2/LAV III team, but you don't always get to pick your time.  In a Cavalry role with a Coyote Sqn thrown in as well it would have been a good package.

Darn.  I did it again.


----------



## a_majoor

We seem to have wandered off a bit here, I thought the original thought was: "Hey, we need vast numbers of tanks to support close assaults in complex terrain". Tanks are just great, but also due to expense etc. are not easily available in the numbers we would like. Tanks do have some disadvantages in complex terrain, since the size makes it difficult to move around, and the long gun barrel limits traverse, and short sight lines negate the advantage of a complex FCS. Matt Fisher's proposed mods to the Leopard C-1/C-2 were a way of kicking the thought process into gear, I am not stuck on that particular design, although it has lots of advantages from a Canadian perspective.

WRT hulls and wear and tear issues, this should not be considered a show stopper. Lots of armies rebuild/upgrade old tanks. If you look at Jane's, there are lots of rebuilds and rebuild "kits" for armies using T-55s, and Israel has made this sort of thing an art form. M-60's have been rebuilt to the Magach 7 configuration with vastly upgraded armour, drive trains etc., and the Centurion still soldiers on as the basis for all kinds of engineering vehicles in Israeli service, and the T-55 became the basis for the Ti-67 gun tank and the Achzarit HAPC. We have the Leopard hulls still, and can get more if we really want to, or we can move to a different platform.

An urban support vehicle can be built from a clean sheet of paper design, but as a practical matter, we want something quick and cheap. We want something well protected, has lots of short range hitting power and mobility. A tank hull provides 3/4 of what we want, and a turret with a breach loading mortar and basic fire control system provides the rest.


----------



## George Wallace

2B

I told you.

I believe the C2 turrets arrived on hulls.  Whether or not we used some of these hulls to replace worn out hulls, such as those from C Sqn RCD/A Sqn 8 CH in Gagetown that had hulls so worn in the mid '80s that you could see daylight through them or poke a broom handle through them, is another question.  2B will acknowledge that there were German hulls next to the C1 Turrets, awaiting their day out on the Ranges, being stored by the Airfield in Petawawa.  It would have made sense to have swapped low milage hulls for heavy milage hulls at that time.  The solution may have only been the Reduction in the Fleet and the creation of the  'Gate Guards'.

As for the Wiper argument, we always had wipers and when I was a driver, I had never heard anything saying that we were the only ones to have them.  That was a long time ago, and it only made sense to have wipers, no matter how much they really sucked in operation.  It sure beat having to pop you hatch all the time to wipe the episcopes off.......although there were times that you still had to, especially in Gagetown........and that usually involved getting out a shovel or two.   ;D


----------



## George Wallace

Andrew

The M 60 A2 was such a tank.  It saw limited production and landed up becoming more or less an Engineer Tank.  Its' Main Gun was the 152 mm gun/launcher.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Those hulls and turrets at the abandoned airfield were a depressing sight.

As a young troop leader attending a PD session in 1999 we received a briefing about the C2 program and the intentions WRT hulls and powerpacks.  What the actual outcome was I cannnot confirm and I was away from the Regt when the swap occured.  I was intimately familiar with the maintenance status of twenty-odd Leopards for their last year at the Regiment, but I was more concerned with the "here and now" of their maintenance status and I never thought to check on the history of the hull's in question.  New ORLs had all been started as the "new" tanks arrived at the Regiment. 

The RCD tanks were all left in Wainwright, and I believe that some were pulled out of service due to hull thickness.  

Going back to the concept of a fire support tank, I doubt that we'd see something quick and cheap.  All AFVs are expensive now, especially if we want optics, FCS and protection against RPGs etc.  If we are indeed intending on fighting battles in urban or complex terrain then we might as well get MBTs.  We don't necessarily need a lot of them.


----------



## Armymatters

I was told the issue with the German hulls that came with our turrets was the fact that the entire lot we got from the Germans had at least 3 different torsion bars, and various other differences that made any attempt to make them common expensive. And the Leopard 1A5 was basicially a Leopard 1A1 series tank, and that series had a total of 3 different subtypes, under the Leopard 1A1A1, 1A1A2, and 1A1A3 subtypes, on top of the basic Leopard 1A1. Differences range from track differences to armor thickness to even suspension differences.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I spoke with Lance today.. and he says he will be coming in to help clear up the matter.  We bought 114 LEOPARD COMPLETE he told me.  That includes hulls, the issue was the fact (as Armymatters suggested) that the hulls were of many different types A1, A3, etc... We ended up using 3 hulls to fix some of our thin ones and the rest were stripped for parts.  He will elaborate more I am sure.

I can't remember where I read it, but I am sure it is just Us and maybe Denmark that have the wipers.


----------



## Slim

Well, Lance is the guy who would know...


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Just for clarification.....when the Germans decided to install the Leo 2A4 FCS in to the Leo 1 family, this created quite a bit of work.  It may be hard for some to believe, but the flight characteristics of a rifled round makes it more difficult for a computer to calculate the aim point, as compared to a smooth bore round.  German engineers spent about five years developing the EMES 18 FCS as is used in the Leo1A5.  During these five years, a number of improvements were added to the FCS, the end result was a FCS superior to the Leo2A4, and in fact, superior to, or at least the equal of any FCS you care to name.

The problem was, when the Germans upgraded their fleet of Leo 1's, they upgraded the original Leo1, the Leo1A1, and the Leo1A2.  They all shared the same turret design, after all.  But all of them had hull changes, and, for example, the support arms were not interchangeable, amongst a slew of other things the Germans upgraded throughout the build life of the Leo 1 family.

Anyway, when the Canadians initiated the Leo Thermal Sight Upgrade Program, it came with a fixed, finite amount of dollars.  The Danes had just finished upgrading their Leo1A3 to the A5 standard, while keeping the Leo1A3 turret, like we wanted to do.  The problem there was that there was exactly zero companies in Canada with the required capability.  The Germans, around this time (~1998) decided on a fleet rationalization plan, which would see the Leo1 removed from service, except for specific specialized roles, such as the FOO vehicle.  All of a sudden, there were literally a thousand Leo1A5 FCS systems available.  All used, to be sure, but a very capable system, at a price we could afford.

I was lucky enough to be involved in the program, and managed to get a few trips in to Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, and Israel....

After a bunch of negotiations, Germany agreed to sell us 114 tanks.  They would not just sell us the turrets, or just the FCS, because they wanted to get rid of the whole shooting match.  So, 114 tanks were parked at Wegmann, in Kassel, just for us.  A deal was struck (with Wegmann, not the German government) for the turrets to be repaired and rebuilt as necessary, so that the FCS systems were in a "like new" standard.  We found a few, not many, Leo1A2 hulls in the batch, which we could buy, as they matched our hull.  (The difference between the Leo1A2 and the Leo1A3 was turret, not hull)  We brought something like 20 hulls to Canada, I think it was seven were used to replace worn out hulls, the remainder were stripped to fill the parts bins.  We sold the remaining Leo 1 hulls to Wegmann.


----------



## TCBF

"German engineers spent about five years developing the EMES 18 FCS as is used in the Leo1A5.  During these five years, a number of improvements were added to the FCS, the end result was a FCS superior to the Leo2A4, and in fact, superior to, or at least the equal of any FCS you care to name.'

- Yes. In 1992, the PzAufklaBtl s that Recce Sqn 8CH(PL) trained with were transitioning from the 1A5 Ttanks used in the 'Heavy Recce Patrols' (A heavy patrol was three Leo 1A5s, a light patrol was two Spahpanzer Luchs) to a cascaded variant of the 2.  They did not like the fact that the optics on the Leo 2 were poorer, or that they could no longer drive slowly over MLC 16 (Yes! SIXTEEN!) bridges as they once did.

- Pretty cool, when you consider we ever so briefly doubled the gun-tank strength of thr Canadian Forces.  I imagine the CFE (Conventional Forces in Europe) types were not going to let us get away with THAT for very long - not to mention our own home-crowd cheering section of Canadian Commies.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Armymatters

Back on topic (thanks Lance for the clarification about the German Leopards we got!), I have done some digging and have got a number on purchasing new Leopard 2's. In 1998, the Spanish agreeded to buy 219 tanks of the Leopard 2E line (which is a derivative of the 2A6 line with heavier armor), 16 Leopard 2 recovery tanks and 4 training tanks. The Spanish had a budget of around 2 billion Euros (2.8 billion Canadian today), and that includes integrated logistical support, training courses for crew instructors and maintenance engineers and driving, tower, maintenance, aiming and shooting simulators. In total, that works about to around 9.1 million Euros (12.8 million Canadian) each tank, excluding the recovery and training tanks. Stryker MGS costs around 9.1 million dollars each vehicle. For around 3 million dollars more, we can have Leopard 2E's.  ???


----------



## a_majoor

You forgot to add the billion or so for each transport ship, a milloon or two or three to update the ranges to accomodate the (far) more powerful guns, new hangers, extra walls in the messes for the pictures etc.

We've got to look at the big picture, people!


----------



## Armymatters

a_majoor said:
			
		

> You forgot to add the billion or so for each transport ship, a milloon or two or three to update the ranges to accomodate the (far) more powerful guns, new hangers, extra walls in the messes for the pictures etc.
> 
> We've got to look at the big picture, people!



Shouldn't be much of a problem; the Spanish before they ordered the Leopard 2's were operating around 150 M60 Patton tanks in 1998. They were also leasing 108 Leopard 2A4's for 5 years until they got their Leopard 2E's. 
The Spanish spend around $10 billion dollars US (11.5 billion Canadian) for all of their forces, including the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Civil Guard, and the Coastal Civil Guard. 
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/e-1569.htm

The Spanish Army itself has 118,000 personnel. Compared to Canada, we spend around $10 billion dollars for the entire CF, and we have around 62,000 personnel, split in all three forces.

With our respective air forces, Canada operates 115 CF-18's, while Spain operates 96 F-18's, and have ordered 87 Eurofighter Typhoons. Compare the two airforces equipment:
Spain:
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/spain/spanaf4.htm
Canada:
115 McDonnell-Douglas CF-18A/B tactical fighter bombers
18 Lockheed CP-140 'Aurora' /3 CP-140A 'Arcturus' long-range patrol aircraft
28 Sikorsky CH-124 'Sea King' maritime helicopters
15 CH-149 AgustaWestland 'Cormorant' search and rescue helicopters
86 CH-146 Bell 'Griffon' tactical transport helicopters
32 CC-130 Lockheed 'Hercules' combat transports
5 CC-150 'Polaris' Airbus A310 long range transports
6 CC-115 Dehavilland 'Buffalo' short range transports
6 CC-144 Canadair 'Challenger' jet transports (4 VIP/2 utility)
4 CC-138 Dehavilland 'Twin Otter' short range transports
22 CT-114 Canadair 'Tutor' jet trainers
24 CT-156 Raytheon 'Harvard II' trainers
21 CT-155 BAE 'Hawk' jet trainer
CT-142 Dehavilland Dash 8
4 CT-133 'Silver Star'
Source: DND

The Spanish Navy has around 47,300 personnel. The Marines have a strength of around 11,500 personnel. The Spanish Navy has a VSTOL aircraft carrier (Principe de Asturias), and construction is underway to build a new VSTOL carrier/amphibious assault ship, due for delivery in 2008. They also operate 4 F-100 Alvaro de Bazán class frigates, 6 Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, and a pair of Knox class frigates. For the submarine force, the Spanish operate or plan to operate 4 S-80 class submarines, 4 Agosta class coastal submarines, and have 4 Daphne class submarines (due to be retired upon delivery of the S-80). The Spanish Navy also operate 2 Galicia class LPD's, 40 patrol craft (of 1000 tons and less), 7 minehunters, and 3 AOR's. On top of that, 2 vehicle cargo ship's are also present with the Spanish Navy. 
Compared to Canada, we have 3 destroyers, 12 frigates, 4 submarines, 12 minehunters/patrol/training ships, and 2 AOR's.

In short, I am seeing that one nation is getting shafted defense wise, and the other is pretty well off, in terms of equipment. Guess which one? And that nation can fix that by spending some money on its forces, especially for a proper tank.


----------



## Kirkhill

Personnel costs in Spain are lower.

Quote taken from a draft of a project I am working on:

"Tanks also suffer from the amount of logistics support that they need on deployment.  Their first need is transportation.  Once the tank gets off the ship or aircraft it may still have to travel hundreds, of kilometres to get to the area of operations. If they deploy on their tracks they may have to replace them once they get there.  As well, with their 67 km / h top speed, they can’t get where they are going very fast and the tracks are likely to damage the highways and trails they use making it harder for the wheeled vehicles carrying their supplies to follow.

To counter these problems tanks require the services of specialized trucks called tank transporters.  The Oshkosh HET (Heavy Equipment Transporter) spreads the load of the 62 tonne Abrams out over 9 axles. This saves tracks and highways but it doesn’t do much for speed of deployment.  The top speed of the HET is still only 72 km/h or roughly the same as the tank it is transporting.  Together with the tractor and trailer the entire combination weighs up to 105 tonnes or more than 6 LAVIIIs.

A tank also requires trucks to carry spare track, road wheels and sprockets as well as spare engines all of which are considerably more weighty than the counterpart needs of the LAVIIIs. All the necessary support vehicles, from wreckers to MRTs all have to be heavier.

Another serious consideration in deploying tanks is fuel consumption. An Abrams consumes 400 l of fuel for every 100 km moved while a LAVIII consumes 45 l over the same distance.  The M978 tanker carries 2500 USG of fuel or 9462 l.  One tanker will keep one tank going for 2300 km, or roughly one track change.  The same tanker of fuel will keep 8 to 9 LAVIIIs supplied over the same distance.  The actual distance that the tank can travel on that tank could be further reduced by the fuel necessary for the tank transporter which is not required by the LAVIIIs. 

All of these requirements together make it difficult and expensive to deploy tanks.  The costs of training with tanks are similarly higher than training with LAVIIIs.  A final cost saving resulting from the use of LAVIIIs over the Abrams is the elimination of one crew member although there are tanks that also only require a crew of three."

Having said that, and before I get flamed, I do believe there is a role for tanks and I would like to see them in the order of battle.  But lets not kid ourselves. Tanks are expensive to operate.  Just because the budget will support new LAVIIIs at similar capital costs to reconditioned tanks doesn't mean that they are both equally affordable.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Tanks are expensive, Tanks are slower to get in action, OK. LAVs may get there faster, but they also get destroyed faster. LAVs cost less money, but a 12-years-old kid armed with a RPG can destroy a LAV and kill its occupants. Personally I think it is more intelligent to pay with money than with human lives, especially that I might be one of these.


----------



## a_majoor

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Tanks are expensive, Tanks are slower to get in action, OK. LAVs may get there faster, but they also get destroyed faster. LAVs cost less money, but a 12-years-old kid armed with a RPG can destroy a LAV and kill its occupants. Personally I think it is more intelligent to pay with money than with human lives, especially that I might be one of these.



USMC LAV 25's and US Army "Strykers" have served to good effect in Iraq, in the initial OIF and ever since in the low-medium intensity phase of the conflict. Similarly, Canadian troops have used Cougars in former Yugoslavia (where they could expect to meet M-84 tanks, a licenced copy of the T-72), Illtis in Yugoslavia, Somalia and Afghanistan, and so on and so on.

Every piece of kit has strengths and weakness, and intelligent planning and use can allow soldiers to use the tools issues to very good effect. On the other hand, the French had more and better tanks than the Germans in 1940, and while the T-34 came as a huge and unpleasant shock to the Germans in 1941, they still drove to the gates of Moscow; so technology isn't everything.

Kirkhill pointed out that just having tanks isn't enough, logistical considerations actually trump almost everything else. Since we will have to contemplate sending our troops and equipment to far distant shores, there are arguments that something smaller and lighter than a 70 tonne MBT is easier to transport and support. There are also counter arguments that only a 70 tonne MBT can survive the modern combat environment. Finally, there are lots of possible scenarios, so we really need lots of tools in the toolbag. A heavy combat team with M-1 or Leopard 2 tanks and IFV's would have little utility in Afghanistan, for example.

If I were to decide the issue, I would choose the CV-90120 (and associated CV-90 IFV) as the compromise between transportability, logistical support, firepower and kinetic effects, and protection. Like vehicles derived from the LAV, the designers made a concious choice to trade off passive protection for operational and strategic mobility, which seems aligned with our needs today. A force armed with CV 90120s could also give a good account of itself if fighting the PLA, so covers the full spectrum of operations.


----------



## Armymatters

a_majoor said:
			
		

> USMC LAV 25's and US Army "Strykers" have served to good effect in Iraq, in the initial OIF and ever since in the low-medium intensity phase of the conflict. Similarly, Canadian troops have used Cougars in former Yugoslavia (where they could expect to meet M-84 tanks, a licenced copy of the T-72), Illtis in Yugoslavia, Somalia and Afghanistan, and so on and so on.
> 
> Every piece of kit has strengths and weakness, and intelligent planning and use can allow soldiers to use the tools issues to very good effect. On the other hand, the French had more and better tanks than the Germans in 1940, and while the T-34 came as a huge and unpleasant shock to the Germans in 1941, they still drove to the gates of Moscow; so technology isn't everything.
> 
> Kirkhill pointed out that just having tanks isn't enough, logistical considerations actually trump almost everything else. Since we will have to contemplate sending our troops and equipment to far distant shores, there are arguments that something smaller and lighter than a 70 tonne MBT is easier to transport and support. There are also counter arguments that only a 70 tonne MBT can survive the modern combat environment. Finally, there are lots of possible scenarios, so we really need lots of tools in the toolbag. A heavy combat team with M-1 or Leopard 2 tanks and IFV's would have little utility in Afghanistan, for example.
> 
> If I were to decide the issue, I would choose the CV-90120 (and associated CV-90 IFV) as the compromise between transportability, logistical support, firepower and kinetic effects, and protection. Like vehicles derived from the LAV, the designers made a concious choice to trade off passive protection for operational and strategic mobility, which seems aligned with our needs today. A force armed with CV 90120s could also give a good account of itself if fighting the PLA, so covers the full spectrum of operations.



1. Sure, the LAV's are doing a fine service in Iraq, but when push comes to shove, in a heavy assault situation, you want a tank for that job. And the Cougar's 76mm gun ain't much of use against a tank... it only fires a HESH round against armored targets. I think we sent the M113A2 TUA out to the Balkans to provide a creditable punch against Yugoslav armor.
2. Having the right plan can create success, but there is one rule that dominates on the battlefield: No plan survives first contact with the enemy in one piece. Having the right tools on hand just when you need them is also of equal importance. You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. Having a proper tank corps is important for a war fighting capability. You can back your light armor with heavy armor if the situation looks like it might turn ugly.
3. The PLA is fielding some very advanced tanks; they are now replacing their older tanks in service with the Type 96 (fielded to most tank battalions), and the more advanced Type 98G/99 tank (fielded to advanced divisions within the PLA). All of these tanks are equipped with high performance 125mm guns, and gun-launched missiles, both are equipped with a computerized fire control system, laser range finders, ballistic computers, thermal imaging sights, and GPS and infrared jamming/disturbing systems. On top of that, the Type 98G/99 features an laser rangefinder/warning/self-defence device. Unlike the Russian active tank self-defence systems such as Drozd, Drozd-2, and Arena, which launch projectiles to disable or "shoot-down" incoming anti-tank missiles and projectiles, the Chinese system apparently uses a high-powered laser to directly attack the enemy weapon's optics and gunner, destroying them. These tanks are more than mere threats to current Western MBT's; some analysts predict that both tanks are equal to the American M1A2 Abrams tanks in firepower, and overall performance. A enemy faced with such advanced armor won't stand a chance without a proper MBT; if the gun cannot reach the target with these Chinese tanks, the gun-launched missiles will.


----------



## a_majoor

WRT point 1, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you desire.

WRT point 2, The Chinese have the same problems almost everyone else has; they can't transport a signifigent number of tanks (and associated logistical support) _anywhere_. Since we share that boat, we either need to invest tens of billions to get the transport resources to go with a heavy force; or think of other ways to do things.

As commanders have known since the beginning of history, speed can substitute for mass. A light or medium force which gets in location first counts for a lot, and since that is what Canadian soldiers will _have_ to do, then the equipment must be tailored to support that. CV-90120s have high velocity 120mm cannon which can also fire through tube missiles, are easily transportable and would work as part of a Western, network centric, all arms team, so can bring capabilities to the table that are applicable to all ends of the full spectrum of operations.


----------



## Armymatters

1. China has adapted to the fact that there are difficulties in moving heavy armor around; they have introduced rapid reaction forces that have priority in training, equipment, and transport. Such rapid reaction forces will be the intial force that any war with China will face off with. The total personnel strength of the PLA’s rapid reaction units (RRU) is estimated to be about 258,000. These units generally receive better equipment and training than other units, and are ready to mobilise in 24 to 48 hours. The known RRU's are as follows:
PLA Air Force 15th Airborne Corps, Guangzhou MR, comprising three airborne divisions (43rd, 44th, 45th)
PLA 38th Group Army, Beijing MR, comprising an armoured division, three mechanised infantry divisions (112th, 113th, 114th)
PLA 39th Group Army, Shenyang MR, comprising an armoured division and three mechanised infantry divisions (115th, 116th, 190th)
PLA 127th Mechanised Infantry Division, 54th GA, Jinan MR
PLA 149th Mechanised Infantry Division, 13th GA, Chengdu MR
Seven special operations forces (SOF) groups, one in each military region
PLA Navy 1st Marine Brigade, South Sea Fleet

15th Airborne Corps is said to be capable of deploying to any location within China by air, but China’s limited air transport capability can only support the deployment of one airborne division. The rest of RRUs are normally deployed by road or trail. While the RRU's response to a situation, a group army can be mobilised and deployed within a few weeks time.

Also, the PLA is known for its ability to create and stick to a schedule. The tanks, planes, helicopters, artillery in many exercises are all at the right place at the right time. Translating this to the battlefield means that any opposition can expect the PLA to be able to move substantial (keyword: substantial) forces into place before battle. The enemy can also expect the PLA units to attack on time.

The current PLA doctrine has changed to War Zone Campaign (WZC) in which war will take place in a “local war under high tech conditions.” Under the WZC, the PLA will continue their tradition of active defense and taking the fight to the border in a rapid manner during a national emergency before a political settlement can be reached. The Chinese have taken great strides to mechanize and provide the support to their forces. PLA ground forces are also categorised according to their readiness and manning levels. Class-A units are at or near full manpower (over 80% of personnel and equipment) and capable of deploying without significant argumentation and training. Class-B units are maintained at 60~80% manning level, lack some organic units, and require more training and more time to deploy than Class-A units. Previously there were also Class-C units, most of which were disbanded, became reserve units or taken over by PAP. This classification mainly applies to divisions and brigades. Sometimes entire group armies may also be categorised as Class-A or –B, though the difference between two class of GAs are much less evident. What the Chinese are really lacking is the ability to project power from their borders. They require systems that can project power beyond their borders, such as advanced, long range fighters, advanced submarines and destroyers, and other systems that can cover their forces at range. Getting the equipment and the troops to a location isn't a matter for the Chinese; it is supporting the troops with firepower and cover that becomes a issue with the PLA, one that the PLA is anxious to correct.

2. A light or medium force may be good at getting into a location, but if the opponent is capable of a highly netcentric warfare (like the PLA), you need to back up the force that you inserted, or risk being thrown out or having that force destroyed. Like I said earlier, the Chinese are fielding highly advanced tanks that are on par with the best of Western designed tanks. A IFV mounting a tank gun isn't going to cut it against such advanced threats. It may be good against a rag-tag army fielding T-54/55's or even some low end T-72's, but against a well equipped and trained army? Nope.


----------



## ArmyRick

Armymatters, would you please fill out your profile so we know from what expiriences you come from? Otherwise most of us here will just regard you as a huge theory monster that over looks the "murphy" factor of well thought out plans and tactics.

"No plan survives first contact"


----------



## Rory

> Tanks are expensive, Tanks are slower to get in action, OK. LAVs may get there faster, but they also get destroyed faster. LAVs cost less money, but a 12-years-old kid armed with a RPG can destroy a LAV and kill its occupants. Personally I think it is more intelligent to pay with money than with human lives, especially that I might be one of these.



Not that I am particularily oriented in the mighty metal that is armoured but I do have a comment to pipe up. (forgive me if I missed it in my reading)

Why does everyone assume that all armoured transports going through a city are just by themselves. Have you nay sayers ever thought a section of infantry would be or easily could be assigned to help prevent these "Terrorist Tikes" from apparently making us cry bloody murder as they destroy a column of LAV's, or better yet an actual tank? In scenarios where rpg threats are highest (this is my little guess) would be within a city, we know the reasons for this, and thats why I can see any army with half a brain assigning a section or two to go on foot along side the armoured column to help dispatch these rpg threats.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

a_majoor said:
			
		

> we either need to invest tens of billions to get the transport resources to go with a heavy force



about 2 B is enough


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

a_majoor said:
			
		

> USMC LAV 25's and US Army "Strykers" have served to good effect in Iraq, in the initial OIF and ever since in the low-medium intensity phase of the conflict.



USMC LAVs are baked-up by Abrams, US Army Strykers have cage armor (this cage armor saved a lot of lifes in Irak, but also ruins the aleredy poor mobility of the vehicule).


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Since we will have to contemplate sending our troops and equipment to far distant shores, there are arguments that something smaller and lighter than a 70 tonne MBT is easier to transport and support.



True. I say that something in the 50 tons range would be a good compromise.


----------



## Armymatters

To retain heavy armoured capabilities within the CF, I see the following needs to be address within the CF:
1. Purchasing new tanks. As we saw with the Spanish deal, new Leopard 2's are only slightly more expensive than MGS. Spend the 3 billion dollars Canadian on the latest Leopard 2E's, plus 16 Leopard 2 recovery tanks and 4 training tanks. Sure, we are getting more tanks than we need, but we can park half of them and rotate the equipment between what is parked and what is in active service so we aren't wearing out our equipment so fast. A common problem within the CF is the issue of too many hours on too few frames of equipment, leading to early retirement of equipment as we have worn out the equipment long before it becomes obsolete.
2. Heavy road transporters will have to be assessed within the CF. Are the current HLWV transporters capable of carrying the 62 ton Leopard 2, as they currently carry our Leopard C2? But one must note that before we got the HLWV's, we never had the ability to drag our tanks around. If we find that our current transporters are good enough, fine. Otherwise, upgrading them is a priority.
3. CF engineer bridges will have to be looked at again as the tanks now are now at military loading class 60 or above. If we need new bridges, the appropriate equipment should be acquired. The Germans have developed a new vehicle launched bridge on the Leopard 2 chassis known as Panzerschnellbrücke 2. Perhaps reducing the order from 219 to 200 to pay for the Panzerschnellbrücke 2 is an option. Otherwise, with our other bridges, upgrading and replacing the bridges for more capable bridges should be looked at for NATO commonality, as our NATO allies are now operating tanks and other heavy equipment that require bridges that can take a load from a vehicle of military loading class 60 or above.
4. Training our crews to the new platform requires some innovative thinking. A small side project to upgrade our ranges is important, and crews can be rotated off for military exchange and training in Germany with German crews so the Canadian crews can take advantage of German facilities until Canadian facilities are available. Remember that the Spanish when they ordered their Leopard 2's also included in the order training courses for crew instructors and maintenance engineers, plus some driving, tower, maintenance, aiming and shooting simulators. By the time the tanks arrive off the production line and end up in Canada, we will have crews ready to man the tanks. 
5. Moving our equipment overseas is a issue that has been identified within the CF and plans are in place to address them. The CF ALSC Project is one of those projects, but there are doubts about the planned ship's ability to do everything it asks for. As the Americans have found, a Roll On, Roll Off platform is more essential than a LPD. Priority should therefore go to a proper RO/RO ship than a LPD. Three ships are more than sufficient in the 20,000 gross ton range. Such ships can be acquired from civilian sources, as these ships do not need to be military spec vessels as they are meant to work behind the front lines. A example of such a ship is the Kyokuyo Shipyards A-5767 RO/RO vessel.
http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/pdfs/a5767.pdf
The ship has a service speed of 20 knots, and the design is capable of carrying 15 8 ton vehicles, 76 40 ton vehicles, and 176 1.5 ton vehicles. We can modify the load so that a smaller amount of vehicles are carried as we want to transport tanks plus a entire battalion's equipment. Heavier equipment such as our tanks can be carried on "D" deck, and our jeeps and other vehicles can be carried in the decks above the tanks. The layout as shown on the PDF from the shipyard is extremely flexible in terms of the various sort of equipment it can carry. Such ships will be excellent additions to the Forces as they will add valuable sealift capabilities to the CF without the need to design and build a ship, as commerical interests have designed and built the ship for us.
6. There is no need for the CF to be able to airlift heavy tanks to our deployments. Past deployments of tanks by the Americans and by other NATO forces have used sealift as the primary way of lifting such heavy equipment. Airlifting tanks may be great, but you will never have enough airlifters to airlift that many tanks to a hotspot. Sending them by ship is the easiest way to do so. However, with our light armour, the ability to move them quickly to a hotspot is important. Therefore, purchasing more capable airlifters over the current C-130 fleet is important. I advocate we purchase either a westernized IL-76 or the Airbus A400M. Both are capable of taking our light armour to a hotspot quickly. In the event that we have to build up forces in a region, airlifting our light armour battalions to the region will take priority to hold down the situation until the heavy armour arrives via ship. We have seen the massive issues with chartering airlift and ships when there is a world crisis; take the 2004 tsunami as a example of issues with airlift. DART was stuck in Canada for lack of available airlifters to take all of our equipment, and with sealift, remember the GTS Katie incident with our tanks returning from deployment.

I think I covered all the bases, but if I missed anything, feel free to add it in.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

One of the great deterrents to up-gunning to 120 is the fact that we would most likely have to buy our ammunition off shore.  While this would not necessarily be a bad thing, in terms of cost, it is a bad thing in terms of having our own source of ammunition.

Currently, SNC-Lavelin produces all of our 105 ammunition with the exception of service sabot and WP.  I don't believe that they would get the rights to produce all natures of 120mm ammunition.  Mind you, we pay a hefty premium for our ammunition to be made here, most of our ammunition is costing us 200-300% more than if we bought it from outside sources.

Just another tidbit to chew on....

We could have upgraded our Leo C2's to 120mm, this was a no-go on the political front.


----------



## plattypuss

I had read a book - I think it was something like "King of the Killing Zone" where they talked about the trials for the gun with which they would arm the Abrams.  I thought that during the trials the 105mm had done well, if not bested the 120 (albeit I think it was uranium depleted).  At that time I thought that the decision to go 120mm was more political (the Russians had gone 120mm) than based on effectiveness.  Is the 105 still just as effective or have advancements in technology made the 120mm much more effective these days?


----------



## George Wallace

I think the step to 120 has been the fact that we have pretty well maxed out on the capabilities of 105.  The 120 still offers some room for advancing in its capabilities and abilities to be effective against new developments in armour protection.  The 105 doesn't have the 'punch' in most cases to take on some of the new developments and the abilities to increase that 'punch' have pretty well peaked.  The 120 gives us more options in warhead design and munitions ('Standard' tank ammo and Missiles).


----------



## Armymatters

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think the step to 120 has been the fact that we have pretty well maxed out on the capabilities of 105.  The 120 still offers some room for advancing in its capabilities and abilities to be effective against new developments in armour protection.  The 105 doesn't have the 'punch' in most cases to take on some of the new developments and the abilities to increase that 'punch' have pretty well peaked.  The 120 gives us more options in warhead design and munitions ('Standard' tank ammo and Missiles).



The Germans are also working on improvements to the 120mm gun. The original gun had a L44 barrel, and now, the Germans developed the L55 tube, which offers better velocity, range, and penetration of current ammunition. The Germans have already equipped the Leopard 2 with the L55 barrel (in the Leopard 2A6 variant), and the French use a L52 barrel in the Leclerc tank. In theory, every tank with the L44 barrel can be re-equipped with the new L55 barrel for better performance, and that includes earlier Leopard 2 tanks and the M1 Abrams. The 120mm gun has plenty of life in it left, and won't be replaced in the near future. 

With the issue of manufacturing ammunition, I suppose we can buy it off the Americans until licensing can be acquired from the Germans or the Americans. However, the fact that the American M829 series sabot now uses depleted uranium, that would be quite a turn off for everyday Canadians, so the German DM63 sabot using tungsten is perhaps more politically palatable...

From the literature I have read, upgrading the Leopard 1 to the 120mm gun was tried in the Leopard 1A6, but that project was ended in 1987, as by then, the Leopard 2 was in widespread service and the 1A5 (new turret plus imaging systems and fire control systems) provided a viable upgrade path at a fraction of the costs of re-gunning the Leopard 1. Doing our own thing with re-gunning the Leopard C2 can be done (the Germans actually produced a prototype of the Leopard 1A6) techincally, but the costs would probally be prohibitive in my view. So probally a mix of politics and costs killed that project for us.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Armymatters said:
			
		

> The Germans are also working on improvements to the 120mm gun. The original gun had a L44 barrel, and now, the Germans developed the L55 tube, which offers better velocity, range, and penetration of current ammunition. The Germans have already equipped the Leopard 2 with the L55 barrel (in the Leopard 2A6 variant), and the French use a L52 barrel in the Leclerc tank. In theory, every tank with the L44 barrel can be re-equipped with the new L55 barrel for better performance, and that includes earlier Leopard 2 tanks and the M1 Abrams.



There are many options availeble. From Germany:
L51 105mm smooth-bore = 1700 m/s with new specificaly designed KE ammo
L44 = 1670 m/s with DM 53
L47 = 1690 m/s with DM 53
L55 = 1750 m/s with DM 53
From Belgium:
CV 53 caliber 105mm rifled = 1620 m/s with specificaly designed KE ammo
From Switzerland:
L50 (equips CV 90-120) = 1710 m/s with DM 53
From France:
F1 52 caliber = 1790 m/s with OFL 120

I think the best gun if we want a light mbt is the L50 because it is almost as light as the L7. If we would use it with the OFL 120 round it would have an initial speed of 1770 m/s.


----------



## Armymatters

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> There are many options availeble. From Germany:
> L51 105mm smooth-bore = 1700 m/s with new specificaly designed KE ammo
> L44 = 1670 m/s with DM 53
> L47 = 1690 m/s with DM 53
> L55 = 1750 m/s with DM 53
> From Belgium:
> CV 53 caliber 105mm rifled = 1620 m/s with specificaly designed KE ammo
> From Switzerland:
> L50 (equips CV 90-120) = 1710 m/s with DM 53
> From France:
> F1 52 caliber = 1790 m/s with OFL 120
> 
> I think the best gun if we want a light mbt is the L50 because it is almost as light as the L7. If we would use it with the OFL 120 round it would have an initial speed of 1770 m/s.



Thanks for that info, but playing the devil's advocate, I think we should adopt what our major NATO allies are adopting, namely sticking with either the L44 barrel or the L55 barrel that is becoming standard. Since the L55 barrel is newer, and is being fitted to the Leopard 2, and being considered for upgrading the US M1 Abrams, perhaps a system using the L55 barrel for commonality sake. Perhaps we should watch what our other NATO allies are doing, as they are considering upgrading to the L55 gun, and follow the trend. I have heard that the Brits are going to change over to a smoothbore cannon as they are currently using a rifled 120mm gun on their Challenger 2 tanks just so they can take advantage of the plentiful 120mm smoothbore rounds in NATO stocks.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Yes, the British are adopting the smoothbore.  Not by choice, but as a matter of economics.  Being the only developer, user, tester and so on has proven to be too expensive.  The British gun is, in my opinion, a better gun than the German gun, but it is also much more expensive to produce, aside from ammunition costs.

The Leo1A6 did indeed exist, complete with an independent commanders sight.  I was in it, and played with it for a bit.  Their were only two real additional costs (the cost of the 120 gun wasn't that expensive), and they were the independent commanders sight, and the cost of ammunition.  Someone determined that getting rid of all of our stocks of 105, and replacing all of it with 120, would cost in excess of 50 million bux.  Of course, that cost including destroying, not firing, the 105 ammo, transportation, licensing fees, training, and on and on.  So the 120 turned in to a non-issue.  It was also, of course, slightly out of the mandate of the thermal sight upgrade project......

I really wish we could have afforded the TED though.  (turret electric drive)  Magic!


----------



## a_majoor

The main reason to go for the longer gun barrel is to increase the muzzle velocity and thus the kinetic energy of the round. Unfortunately in today's environment, a long gun barrel will give the tank commander some mobility headaches in complex terrain (think Falujiah), and the current "it" ammunition is MPAT (Multi Purpose Anti Tank) which is good against troops, bunkers, "technicals", light armour and tanks up to T-55 and probably T-72's without ERA or the "Dolly Parton" upgraded armour. I am pretty sure this sort of ammunition will ring the bells of any tank crew in a more modern tank on the receiving end as well.

As well, much of the development in tank ammunition over the past two decades is towards "Smart" rounds like TERM (Tank Extended Range Munitions) or STAFF (Smart Target Acquisition, Fire & Forget). Advocating L-55 barrels needs to be considered in the context of how and where the tank might be used, as well as some crystal ball gazing. If the staff makes a case the major enemy will have lots of tanks, then the use of extended barrels and hyperkinetic rounds makes sense. If the case isn't as clear, or you want to preserve as many options as possible, then a more "general purpose" weapon and range of ammunition may be the way to go. (Don't forget your combat team will be working in a network centric environment, it might be easier to utilize other assets to deal with any enemy tanks which show themselves).

Lance has some excellent points. Independent sights, electric turret drive for more reliability and smooth response etc. would enhance any AFV regardless of the weapon mounted. Too bad we are so penny wise but pound foolish.....


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> I really wish we could have afforded the TED though.  (turret electric drive)  Magic!



Didn't we? I was sure that our tanks had TED.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Didn't we? I was sure that our tanks had TED.



No, I couldn't convince them....it would have cost less than $200K per tank to install, and we proved (with Norwegian help) that the cost would have been more than made up in two years.  Our current hydraulic system is very expensive to keep operational!


----------



## TCBF

"that the cost would have been more than made up in two years.  Our current hydraulic system is very expensive to keep operational!"

And I found it a VERY unpleasent experience - in the C1 - when the pump block or whatever blows and sprays boiling hot 'Cherry Juice' all over the turret crew.

Tom


----------



## Armymatters

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> No, I couldn't convince them....it would have cost less than $200K per tank to install, and we proved (with Norwegian help) that the cost would have been more than made up in two years.  Our current hydraulic system is very expensive to keep operational!



Typical of the federal government: Spend less now, spend more later fixing the problem plus the various headaches from the problem!


----------



## TCBF

"Typical of the federal government: Spend less now, spend more later fixing the problem plus the various headaches from the problem!"

- Gotta look at the big picture here.  Maybe the TED would have been serviced in Germany, and the Hydraulics in Canada.

Tom


----------



## Armymatters

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Typical of the federal government: Spend less now, spend more later fixing the problem plus the various headaches from the problem!"
> 
> - Gotta look at the big picture here.  Maybe the TED would have been serviced in Germany, and the Hydraulics in Canada.
> 
> Tom



I don't know, electric drives are fundamentally more reliable and easier to fix than hydraulics. I have fixed systems using hydraulics and electric systems in the past (I have some training in engineering and repairs), and have found electric systems to be easier to fix when damaged, and easier to service.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Armymatters said:
			
		

> In short, I am seeing that one nation is getting shafted defense wise, and the other is pretty well off, in terms of equipment. Guess which one? And that nation can fix that by spending some money on its forces, especially for a proper tank.



Instead of buying them brand new, we should buy them used and upgrade them. Switzerland is offering for sale 150 leo 2A4s (enough to equip 4 regiments) and upgrading the rest of their fleet like that:
-A state-of-the-art command and control system integrated 
-The electrical turret drive
- By retrofitting the existing commander's periscope, night vision is optimised. 
-The new self-contained observation and weapon station (ABWS) on the roof of the tank and the upgradeable, modular protection concept with roof protection, front and side protection together with the mine protection assures the adaptability of the Leopard 2 to the changing demands.

I you want to see some pics: http://www.ruag.com/ruag/juice?pageID=87532 

I think we sould use the Swiss upgrade as a model for our upgrade:
-Fit the L50 light gun (mabie they could make us a small deal)
-Complete up-armor (by the same Canadian company that uparmoured our 5 SFOR Leos)
-Fit the KBCM defensive aid suite (including GALIX)
-Replace the existing commander sight with the LEMUR SW armoured commander sight (includes thermal and day sight and laser range finder) fitted with a 25 mm cannon (to allow the tank to engage enemy targets in a 3D environement)
-Replace the existing engine with the Euro Pwr Pack 1500 hp engine so more fuel can be carried.
-Fit TED, new suspension and new tracks.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Armymatters said:
			
		

> 5. Moving our equipment overseas is a issue that has been identified within the CF and plans are in place to address them. The CF ALSC Project is one of those projects, but there are doubts about the planned ship's ability to do everything it asks for. As the Americans have found, a Roll On, Roll Off platform is more essential than a LPD. Priority should therefore go to a proper RO/RO ship than a LPD. Three ships are more than sufficient in the 20,000 gross ton range. Such ships can be acquired from civilian sources, as these ships do not need to be military spec vessels as they are meant to work behind the front lines. A example of such a ship is the Kyokuyo Shipyards A-5767 RO/RO vessel.



Need 3 RO/RO vessels? Buy the Pacificats: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc3.htm


----------



## Armymatters

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Need 3 RO/RO vessels? Buy the Pacificats: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc3.htm



Those ships are no longer aviable. The current owners are currently planning to use them for a ferry service out on the West Coast. Also, the ships are highly undesirable due to their design. Design faults in service with BC Ferries are as follows:

- High fuel consumption. The four 8,375 brake horsepower (6.2 MW) engines driving waterjets required an inordinate amount of diesel fuel and to be used at 90% power for cruise speed thus prone to break down. This is largely due to BC Ferries' insistance on using diesel engines rather than the more efficient gas turbines that were originally planned.
- Due to an unusually wet and windy winter, there was a higher than normal amount of flotsam in the waters along the route, some of which was sucked into impellers for the ferries' engines causing breakdowns, and sailing cancellations.
- When operated at full speed, the Pacificat fleet created a wake which was reported to have damaged waterfront wharves and property in coastal areas near the 2 terminals. This required that the ferries reduce speed in certain areas, and alter course in others. Thus the speed advantage was reduced.
- International fast ferry standards do not permit anybody to stay on the car deck. This meant all passengers had to move up to the passenger deck. This was a change for some local residents who were used to sleeping away the 95 minute voyage in their cars.
- The air on vehicle decks became uncomfortably warm, either from the heat of the vessel engines or lack of air circulation. This made some people wary of bringing pets aboard the Fastcats, however, the ferries had kennels at the bow and stern of the vehicle decks which increased air circulation thus providing a cooler environment.
- There was little outside deck space for passengers. The existing ferries had large decks and it was common for passengers to spend the entire sailing circling the decks of the ship, or sunbathing on the lifejacket containers.
- The design of the ferry did not allow trucks or other heavy vehicles to be loaded on the ship. Only two buses were allowed to be on the ferries at a time.
- The ships had a more modern, European style interior which was perceived by the locals as being cramped compared to the existing ferries.
- Loading took longer than the older ferries due to balancing issues. This further negated the ships superior speed.
- The design of the ferries prevent the ship from sailing in extremely rough weather. The ships are too narrow to be stable on the open oceans during rough weather.

Of those issues, fuel consumption, stability and load restrictions are the key thing. The ferries are unsuitable for a military transport.  That is why I recommend ordering the Kyokuyo Shipyards A-5767 RO/RO vessel. It's a bigger, ocean-going ship that can do more than the Fastcats, and do it better. The service speed of 20 knots is plenty fast enough, especially when tanks and other heavy equipment can be carried.
http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/pdfs/a5767.pdf


Edit: And can the moderators split the parts regarding sealift into another thread? It is taking over this thread on tanks, and sealift warrants a entirely different thread to debate about.


----------



## Armymatters

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Instead of buying them brand new, we should buy them used and upgrade them. Switzerland is offering for sale 150 leo 2A4s (enough to equip 4 regiments) and upgrading the rest of their fleet like that:
> -A state-of-the-art command and control system integrated
> -The electrical turret drive
> - By retrofitting the existing commander's periscope, night vision is optimised.
> -The new self-contained observation and weapon station (ABWS) on the roof of the tank and the upgradeable, modular protection concept with roof protection, front and side protection together with the mine protection assures the adaptability of the Leopard 2 to the changing demands.
> 
> I you want to see some pics: http://www.ruag.com/ruag/juice?pageID=87532
> 
> I think we sould use the Swiss upgrade as a model for our upgrade:
> -Fit the L50 light gun (mabie they could make us a small deal)
> -Complete up-armor (by the same Canadian company that uparmoured our 5 SFOR Leos)
> -Fit the KBCM defensive aid suite (including GALIX)
> -Replace the existing commander sight with the LEMUR SW armoured commander sight (includes thermal and day sight and laser range finder) fitted with a 25 mm cannon (to allow the tank to engage enemy targets in a 3D environement)
> -Replace the existing engine with the Euro Pwr Pack 1500 hp engine so more fuel can be carried.
> -Fit TED, new suspension and new tracks.



I suppose we can buy the hulls (most Leopard 2 hulls after batch 4 are the same), and buy new turrets of the A5 or A6 standard. The A5 standard introduced a new turret that had thicker armour, and was more ballistically shaped (from flat slabs to wedge-shaped). Changes also include the vehicle commander's sight was moved to new position behind his hatch, and turret control went all-electric. Future upgradeability provisions were also made to the tank, so it can now take a 140mm gun among other things. The A6 mainly offered an upgraded gun (to L55 gun). But that is a radical change, and perhaps the Germans can sell us some of their A5's instead. 
http://www.armyvehicles.dk/leopard2a5.htm
http://www.armyvehicles.dk/leopard2a4.htm


----------



## George Wallace

I imagine the people who are doing the "Cost Accounting" in Supply and Services would have a "Field Day" with you.


----------



## TCBF

"http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/pdfs/a5767.pdf

Edit:  Got it now.  Thanks.  Interesting.

Tom


----------



## Armymatters

TCBF said:
			
		

> "http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/pdfs/a5767.pdf
> Windows Media Player cannot play the file. The file is either corrupt or the Player does not support the format you are trying to play."
> 
> Tom



Adobe PDF file...
Or the link that links to the PDF:
http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/en/06vsls/roro.html


----------



## a_majoor

As was noted, the issue of how these things are supposed to get where they are going looms very large in the big picture. Any ship will have the loading and balancing issues the Pacificats did, on a greater or lesser scale. Since the Leopard 2 comes in at about 70,000 kg in its latest (2A5 or 2A6) variations, you need a very well engineered ship to deal with these issues. Each time one trundles aboard or disembarks, you have 70 tonnes mass shifting around in the ship. (since they will come with tank transporters, HEMMET type fuel tankers, MRT's etc., plus the rest of the combat team, you can start to see the scale of the problem).

Simply making the ship REAL LARGE to minimize the ratio between the cargo mass to the ship mass misses the point; the ship becomes a huge logistical burden in its own right, a giant target near enemy shores and will be difficult to dock or whatever, especially in unimproved harbours if we are considering a "robust" PSO, and very much so against an enemy who is actively opposing us. Smaller ships need active measures to deal with weight and balance issues, ballast tanks, pumps and valves, external stabilizers etc., all which add to the cost of the ship.

While nothing is impossible, given the smaller funding and resource envelope we will be working with under almost any imaginable condition it would be wise to carefully consider how these factors interlink. A LAV based combat team or battlegroup is relatively easy to move, has a small logistics tail and can move quickly in theater under its own power. It doesn't have the muscle for direct assaults, but the smart commander tries to avoid this anyway (read your Sun Tsu). A medium combat team/battlegroup based on CV 90 or equivalent vehicles has a bigger logistics train and trades some strategic and operational mobility for enhanced firepower and protection. A heavy force in Generation three tanks and IFVs is the inverse of the LAV based team, heavy, relatively immobile without supplementary transportation but packing incredible firepower and protection.

Finding or building ships and planes to transport the team/battlegroup becomes easier if you are using light vehicles with small logistics slices, and progressively more difficult/expensive as you work your way up the chain. Calculations based on the notional “11Canadian Infantry Brigade” (11 CIB) use a daily consumption figure of 106 kilograms per man . At this rate of consumption, a 1200 man battle group would need 127 tonnes of consumables a day, requiring a fleet of at least 12 heavy cargo trucks to support it.  Bigger and heavier vehicles drive this figure up rapidly (and all those trucks need fuel as well....).

Trading all these factors in my own mind has led to the conclusion that we really need to evolve towards the CV-90120 based combat team or equivalent solution. This provides a reasonable balance between mobility, protection and firepower, give us strategic and operational mobility and provides the commander with a rapier to wield in battle, rather than a stiletto (LAV combat team) or a two handed broadsword (heavy combat team).


----------



## Armymatters

a_majoor said:
			
		

> As was noted, the issue of how these things are supposed to get where they are going looms very large in the big picture. Any ship will have the loading and balancing issues the Pacificats did, on a greater or lesser scale. Since the Leopard 2 comes in at about 70,000 kg in its latest (2A5 or 2A6) variations, you need a very well engineered ship to deal with these issues. Each time one trundles aboard or disembarks, you have 70 tonnes mass shifting around in the ship. (since they will come with tank transporters, HEMMET type fuel tankers, MRT's etc., plus the rest of the combat team, you can start to see the scale of the problem).
> 
> Simply making the ship REAL LARGE to minimize the ratio between the cargo mass to the ship mass misses the point; the ship becomes a huge logistical burden in its own right, a giant target near enemy shores and will be difficult to dock or whatever, especially in unimproved harbours if we are considering a "robust" PSO, and very much so against an enemy who is actively opposing us. Smaller ships need active measures to deal with weight and balance issues, ballast tanks, pumps and valves, external stabilizers etc., all which add to the cost of the ship.
> 
> While nothing is impossible, given the smaller funding and resource envelope we will be working with under almost any imaginable condition it would be wise to carefully consider how these factors interlink. A LAV based combat team or battlegroup is relatively easy to move, has a small logistics tail and can move quickly in theater under its own power. It doesn't have the muscle for direct assaults, but the smart commander tries to avoid this anyway (read your Sun Tsu). A medium combat team/battlegroup based on CV 90 or equivalent vehicles has a bigger logistics train and trades some strategic and operational mobility for enhanced firepower and protection. A heavy force in Generation three tanks and IFVs is the inverse of the LAV based team, heavy, relatively immobile without supplementary transportation but packing incredible firepower and protection.
> 
> Finding or building ships and planes to transport the team/battlegroup becomes easier if you are using light vehicles with small logistics slices, and progressively more difficult/expensive as you work your way up the chain. Calculations based on the notional “11Canadian Infantry Brigade” (11 CIB) use a daily consumption figure of 106 kilograms per man . At this rate of consumption, a 1200 man battle group would need 127 tonnes of consumables a day, requiring a fleet of at least 12 heavy cargo trucks to support it.  Bigger and heavier vehicles drive this figure up rapidly (and all those trucks need fuel as well....).
> 
> Trading all these factors in my own mind has led to the conclusion that we really need to evolve towards the CV-90120 based combat team or equivalent solution. This provides a reasonable balance between mobility, protection and firepower, give us strategic and operational mobility and provides the commander with a rapier to wield in battle, rather than a stiletto (LAV combat team) or a two handed broadsword (heavy combat team).



Perhaps the Norsky class RO/RO carrier can do the trick?
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/norsky/


> Norsky has been designed to provide flexibility and maximum freight capacity, both for its current operator and any future deployment. Reflecting this, the vessel has exceptionally high deckroom on the main deck level, enabling P&O North Sea Ferries to optimise its double-stack ro-ro container transportation method. Clearance on the main deck is 7m.
> 
> Deck scantlings and the vessel’s general sturdiness reflect the provisions made for a lifetime of transporting industrial exports in Northern Europe. The vessel has also been built to Finnish-Swedish 1A ice class requirements, and has received the relevant notation from classification society Lloyd's Register.
> 
> Norsky contains the equivalent of 2,630 linear metres on three decks, corresponding to a full load of 210 trailers. Norsky features a split stern ramp and has dispensed with the mezzanine deck sections seen in earlier ships. Cargo access is provided by a MacGregor designed system based on twin, 16m long axial stern ramp/doors at main deck level. The wider starboard ramp caters for traffic to the main and tanktop levels, while the narrower port ramp feeds freight to a fixed ramp leading up to the weather deck. Transfers to the lower hold are by way of a ramp leading down from the aft part of the main deck.
> 
> Norsky has a deck load rating for *120t on 40ft mafi-type trailers at main deck level, and has the ability to transport 100t loads in the lower hold, with a headroom of 5m.*
> 
> Access to the upper deck level via the 7% gradient ramp on the port side imposes a 5m headroom limitation. On the upper deck, maximum load is limited to 55t for trailers, but the design of the area is also conducive to lo-lo working of container stacks up to 60t. Freight stowed on the weatherdeck gains a large measure of protection from the seas by way of the forward superstructure and also the raised bulwarks. The latter meet the height requirements of the chemical industry.
> 
> The vessel has a fully Dutch crew of 14 and, in addition to crew quarters, has six two-berth cabins for commercial drivers. Given the shortness of her current trading pattern, these are not likely to be used often under the current charter.



It's a ferry yes, but it is a big North Sea ferry. And the North Sea is known to be one of the roughest seas in the world, besides the Atlantic Ocean. Definetely seaworthy, and big enough to boot.


----------



## HDE

I believe the Israeli Merkava has some capability to carry a few at the back, although I'm not sure of the number.


----------



## big bad john

The Merkava Mk4 can carry 8 Troops.


----------



## Armymatters

big bad john said:
			
		

> The Merkava Mk4 can carry 8 Troops.



However, that requires that some ammunition racks be removed to make room for them. The rear door of the Merkava is normally used for the crew to escape in a emergency.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

a_majoor said:
			
		

> the Leopard 2 comes in at about 70,000 kg in its latest (2A5 or 2A6) variant



The Leo 2 comes in at about 60 000 kg in its latest variants

A mixed fleet of LAVs and Leo 2 mbt/other variants would not be such a big logistical problem.
The French are doing like that with VAB/VBCI and Leclerc. The USMC is an expeditionary fighting force and they operate 70 T mbts and LAVs.


----------



## evil drunken-fool

I have been reading a bit on here and some people have been saying that Stephen Harper did not have anything direct concerning new tanks.
I found this on CTV's website and thought some of you might be interested by it.



> The larger plan is to recruit another 15,000 soldiers and buy new tanks and helicopter-carrying warships.l



Maybe it is just wishful election talk though!


----------



## a_majoor

For the short term, Prime Minister Harper needs to concentrate on the structural deficits in government accountability, finances, law enforcement and tax structures. So I will make a confident prediction; no tanks or programs for the next three years. (I could be wrong and hope so, but ....).

Given the long lead times for government to get around to this and then the actual procurement process; we might start thinking along the lines of "Future Armour" http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961.0.html. The US Army will be into adopting the FCS by that point in time, and dinosaur like 60-70 tonne tanks will be out of favor to support strategic and operational mobility. (The arguments FOR these tanks will be overbalanced by the arguments for a lighter and mor nimble force IMO).

For my money (and given the discussion in this and other threads) I would look carefully at a CV 90120 derivative, probably with a low profile Wegmann turret, autoloader and the FCS and electronics required to fire both "dumb" and "smart" rounds.


----------



## Armymatters

I just got word that the Brits are continuing to downsizing their Challenger 2 squadrons. They are apparently reducing their number of tanks by 100 or so tanks. Perhaps we can pick up those tanks that the Brits are planning to retire to storage. This may be a good decent opportunity to get tanks on the cheap.


----------



## George Wallace

Having worked on Centurians, as have a few others on this site, I would not go with a secondhand British Tank.  I wouldn't even entertain the idea of a brand spanking new British Tank.


----------



## Armymatters

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Having worked on Centurians, as have a few others on this site, I would not go with a secondhand British Tank.  I wouldn't even entertain the idea of a brand spanking new British Tank.



Can you explain why? Thanks.


----------



## TCBF

There was once a high speed jet interceptor called the Lightning.  It was built by a company called English Electric.  That company is now called BAC.  Why?  Because one should NEVER use the words "English" and "Electric" in the same grid square.

Tom


----------



## Armymatters

TCBF said:
			
		

> There was once a high speed jet interceptor called the Lightning.  It was built by a company called English Electric.  That company is now called BAC.  Why?  Because one should NEVER use the words "English" and "Electric" in the same grid square.
> 
> Tom



I get the message now. Crappy electrics, eh?


----------



## Kirkhill

I love "Lucas".  ;D


----------



## a_majoor

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I get the message now. Crappy electrics, eh?



Unique and non NATO standard main cannon and ammunition;

Logistical incompatability between CF fleet or rest of NATO fleets, nor available in large enough numbers to exploit economies of scale WRT supply contracts for support and spare parts;

Huge size and weight makes strategic, operational and even (in some cases) tactical mobility difficult;

British tanks have been traditionally poor in mobility (the comment on the Cheiftan series was you wanted to break down in a good fire position). This has been resolved to some extent with the Challengers, but they are still slow compared to the M-1 or Leopard 2 series.

Buying tanks in isolation is rather pointless; supporting vehicles like ARVs and AVBLs, infantry IFVs and so on need to be factored in as well.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The Centurion was the best tank of its day.  We, being Canadian, simply didn't rebuild them often enough, and ran them right in to the ground.  Which is the history of most of our kit.....

Having said that, the Challenger, even with the smoothbore, would be a poor choice, for all of the reasons Mr Majoor brought out.  This despite the fact that the Challenger is arguably the best armoured tank in the world, with an extremely capable gun.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Having said that, the Challenger, even with the smoothbore, would be a poor choice, for all of the reasons Mr Majoor brought out.  This despite the fact that the Challenger is arguably the best armoured tank in the world, with an extremely capable gun.


A very capable gun that is being replaced by a rifled 120mm.  Same design as Leopard2/M1 but not sure on calibre length.  The project is going ahead, just a bit slowly.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I love "Lucas".  ;D



Lucas, the Prince of Darkness.


----------



## 3rd Herd

Armymatters said:
			
		

> However, that requires that some ammunition racks be removed to make room for them. The rear door of the Merkava is normally used for the crew to escape in a emergency.



It seems the builders of the Merkva and the authors of your books are an impass for through some diligent resourcing "part of the ammunition load to be restored in the turret. "  In the MK 1 yes some ammunition had to be unloaded.  And many of the MK 1 have been relegated to support roles such as an armoured ambulance. "The tank( Mark 4) is capable of carrying eight infantry soldiers, a Command Group or three litter patients (stretcher casualties) in addition to the tank crew of commander, loader, gunner and driver." and that " Merkava tanks are equipped with a window and firing hatch in the rear door, enabling snipers to guard the rear section of the tank."

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk4.html
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-06/urban-il-4.htm
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk1.html


----------



## Kirkhill

Seems like a reasonable approximation of an Assault vehicle 3rd Herd.

Good stuff 

And with a 10 round, selectable, revolver mag as well.


----------



## a_majoor

I suspect the evolution of the Merkava is bypassing many information sources. The Mk 1 was not designed with troop carrying as a prioraty, and statements about the rear hatch being for the crew to bail out under fire and so on are correct for when it was introduced. As the design evolved, tankers worked out new and exciting uses for the rear compartment, developed TTPs and passed lessons learned to the design team, which incorporated them in subsequent models. One can only imagine what the Merkava Mk V will be like.....If only our equipment was being put through the cycle that quickly.

The idea of using a Merkava Mk 1 as a heavy IFV is interesting, each platoon would actually be a pocket combat team with the addition of an Achzarit for the FOO/MFC and (as a minimum) another dozer equipped Achzarit or Puma carrying a section of Engineers/Pioneers. Each Merkava carries its own 60mm mortar, as do the Achzarits and Pumas, in addition to the cannons and machine guns.


----------



## 3rd Herd

a_Major/Kirkhill
you are correct in guessing that certain information is by passing many public information sources. Most of what I have been able to ascertain is the result of personal contacts and then being pointed in the right direction in the public domain. Afterall the military is still some what of a "exclusive old boys club" and then there is the connect the dots scenario. Thanks to the somewhat ambiguous posts of another site member I got out the old "black book of phone numbers" and made a few calls. 

Okay disclaimer on information sources over and done with. With both the Merkava and the Ollifant series of development there is a striking difference in the way in development and production is accomplished vis via the way we do things. It seems that in both the aforementioned vehicle series experience on the battle field was immediately transfered back into the research and development phase and then immediately implemented into the production phase. Similar to Kelly Johnston's turn around of Lockhead Martin in that "the engineers and product users are in control not the accountants." In both countires tank crews themselves have been recognized as a resource that is not unlimited and shows in their design improvements, compartmental ammunition storage, CCTV, improved armor in the floor and front mounted engine etc. This coupled with the willingness on the part of the respective governments to recognize this facet and also to recognize changing trends in combat itself. Additionally, both countires have had to a certain extent become self reliant in regard to their own armaments development. A perfect example of this particularly in the SA case would be the SA SP Rhino. I surmise that it also helps that the military in both has the "ear" of the government when needed rather than layers of bureaucracy to deal with. As to the Merkava Mk 4 from what I have been able to ascertain yes it does have a nice little niche as exemplified by the the Israeli's refusal to export them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would have thought that the IDF would allow certain countries to obtain the Merk IV in order to keep the quite expensive production lines open, I can see for Opsec reason why they might not want to sell them to Turkey despite the close working arrangments they have on the M60 upgrade.

We could of course send our Leo's through a similar upgrade process, if the will and money was there, but the money would be better spent buying Leo II's that can be had a good price.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin:

I am not sure that we could, cost effectively send our Leo's through a similar upgrade - at least insofar as transporting troops. I think with the Leo's engine at the rear that would pretty much preclude that.  In the Achzarit variant of the T55 it seems like the troops have to exit by squeezing out past the engine in the back.


----------



## ChopperHead

While the M1A2 is the best tank performance wise it is also the most expensive. the Leo2 A5 is right up there with it and more then capable but almost half the price, lighter, and more fuel effeciant. not sure about the how much the A6 will cost but presumably still alot less then the Abrams.

I think that for Canada the leo2 is the best choice with the most bang for the buck.


----------



## Armymatters

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> While the M1A2 is the best tank performance wise it is also the most expensive. the Leo2 A5 is right up there with it and more then capable but almost half the price, lighter, and more fuel effeciant. not sure about the how much the A6 will cost but presumably still alot less then the Abrams.
> 
> I think that for Canada the leo2 is the best choice with the most bang for the buck.



For the price of the Leopard 2 A6, the Spanish purchased 219 of the Leopard 2E (a advanced variant of the Leopard 2 A6 with more advanced armour and computers, plus other refinements), plus 16 Leopard 2 recovery tanks and 4 training tanks, for about 2 billion Euros in 1998. That also includes integrated logistical support, training courses for crew instructors and maintenance engineers and driving, tower, maintenance, aiming and shooting simulators. In total, that works about to around 9.1 million Euros (12.8 million Canadian) each tank, excluding the recovery and training tanks. I mentioned this earlier in the thread. However, the Spanish elected to op for co manufacture between Spain and Germany, so I am thinking that drove up unit costs.

In comparison, MGS costs around 9.1 million dollars each vehicle, as I mentioned before.


----------



## ChopperHead

Greece just bought 183 Leo2 A4's and 150 A5's doesnt say how much they cost but if Greece can afford to swing a deal like this i think we can swing a deal for some A5/A6's

they also have a contract for 170 A6's by 2009


----------



## Eland

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I love "Lucas".  ;D



Positive ground and alla that, too.  >  If you think anything electric in the UK is bad, think about what a dog's breakfast their 
telephone system was - before digital telephone technology became widespread.


----------



## Eland

a_majoor said:
			
		

> For the short term, Prime Minister Harper needs to concentrate on the structural deficits in government accountability, finances, law enforcement and tax structures. So I will make a confident prediction; no tanks or programs for the next three years. (I could be wrong and hope so, but ....).
> 
> Given the long lead times for government to get around to this and then the actual procurement process; we might start thinking along the lines of "Future Armour" http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961.0.html. The US Army will be into adopting the FCS by that point in time, and dinosaur like 60-70 tonne tanks will be out of favor to support strategic and operational mobility. (The arguments FOR these tanks will be overbalanced by the arguments for a lighter and mor nimble force IMO).
> 
> For my money (and given the discussion in this and other threads) I would look carefully at a CV 90120 derivative, probably with a low profile Wegmann turret, autoloader and the FCS and electronics required to fire both "dumb" and "smart" rounds.



As for your prediction, "no tanks... for the next three years" you might be right. Still, I like what I'm seeing in Harper when it comes to defence matters. He really seems to care about the military and its welfare, so even if he has other priorities, I could see him at least getting a start on laying the groundwork for a new tank buy.

A "light and more nimble force"? Uh, wasn't that the issue the LAV was to deal with? The FCS is all very well and good, but isn't a working prototype (and a doctrine which fits its capabilities) is many years away? That, of course, assumes that funding for the FCS is sustained.
Until then, I'd stick with what works and what's available.

I like the idea of a CV90120 hull with a low-profile turret. Something like that would be a much better choice than the MGS. Still, a lightly-armoured vehicle like you propose will not have the survivability that a full-fledged tank will. On the other hand, high mobility, good firepower and excellent sensor systems should help offset the risks somewhat.


----------



## Kirkhill

> If you think anything electric in the UK is bad, think about what a dog's breakfast their
> telephone system was - before digital telephone technology became widespread.



Careful - My cousin worked for the GPO telephone service ;D


----------



## a_majoor

Eland said:
			
		

> A "light and more nimble force"? Uh, wasn't that the issue the LAV was to deal with? The FCS is all very well and good, but isn't a working prototype (and a doctrine which fits its capabilities) is many years away? That, of course, assumes that funding for the FCS is sustained.
> Until then, I'd stick with what works and what's available.
> 
> I like the idea of a CV90120 hull with a low-profile turret. Something like that would be a much better choice than the MGS. Still, a lightly-armoured vehicle like you propose will not have the survivability that a full-fledged tank will. On the other hand, high mobility, good firepower and excellent sensor systems should help offset the risks somewhat.



I am not saying what is desirable, but trying to predict what is possible given our realities. Yes LAV is lighter and more nimble, but they will need upgrading soon, and then more modern technology or a different threat will arise making them obsolete. The FCS is simply the biggest and most hyped system coming on stream in that time period, S_Baker can comment on the program but I have attended briefings which indicate the Americans have a well founded understanding of what they want to achieve out of the system (what will actually happen is a debate for a different thread). From what I understand, several prototypes are ready to be put through their paces as soon as next year....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Colin:
> 
> I am not sure that we could, cost effectively send our Leo's through a similar upgrade - at least insofar as transporting troops. I think with the Leo's engine at the rear that would pretty much preclude that.  In the Achzarit variant of the T55 it seems like the troops have to exit by squeezing out past the engine in the back.



I was thinking more of their upgrade programs for the M60's (Shaba or something) than the HAPC versions


----------



## TCBF

It's a new world, financially, compared to ten years ago.

Why?

Because we are slated to buy MGS for a price comparable to that of an M1A2.

Conclusion: We are not getting out of the tank business because of the cost!

Tom


----------



## Eland

TCBF said:
			
		

> It's a new world, financially, compared to ten years ago.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because we are slated to buy MGS for a price comparable to that of an M1A2.
> 
> Conclusion: We are not getting out of the tank business because of the cost!
> 
> Tom



Well said. When I looked at the per-unit cost of the MGS, I was flabbergasted. But I wasn't surprised, because Canada has a long and well-developed history of buying overpriced, deficient kit which is obsolete by the time it actually gets issued. The recent G-Wagen and RG-31 purchases are anomalies, probably driven by a government clinging desperately to power with an election looming.

I have always maintained that the real reason why we're getting out of the tank business is an irrational and purely ideological opposition to tanks. 

Canada is unique for being the only country in the world whose armed forces are abandoning its tanks in favour of something with less capability in support of a largely theoretical war-fighting construct. That construct assumes that from here on in, all we'll ever need to worry about is low-intensity conflict in mostly urban theatres.


----------



## George Wallace

Eland said:
			
		

> I have always maintained that the real reason why we're getting out of the tank business is an irrational and purely ideological opposition to tanks.



Why yes.  Tanks are too aggressive looking and warlike for an Armed Force such as Canada to have.  We will NEVER be involved in a World Conflict such as that of World War II or World War I ever again.  No use maintaining obsolete ancient technologies and tactical doctrine.   We are reconstructing our Armed Forces along more modern ideas.  We are entering the Technology Age of Armed Conflict.  

That is why we are stepping back and developing a weapons System of Systems that was discarded years before the Cold War started.   ;D

The Tank proved its superiority over the Assault Gun and the Tank Destroyer, before the end of WW II.  Funny how many say that those who believe in Tanks are "Dinosaurs".


----------



## ZipperHead

I know it's been said before, but I think that given an unlimited budget, Canada would have both tanks and wheeled platforms. But seeing as how we have caviar tastes and a Kraft Dinner budget, we have to go with what we can afford, and what we would use. Tanks HAVE been used overseas (by Canada), but in such a limited role (for political and practical reasons), that a wheeled system has to be used. No point in having tanks in Canada that would likely never be deployed on operations (due to political will, logistical reasons, infrastructure of "host" country).

We used to fight the last war, but now it looks like we are casting our lot on what we GUESS will be the next war. I don't know which is more right (or precisely, wrong), but my feeling is that we are pursuing the right approach, with perhaps the wrong platform (MGS). As everyone here has asserted, they have their preferences, but it will be decision by someone is Ottawa (hopefully in CADPAT and not a wool suit) that decides our fate. And then we will be stuck with that decision for a good 20-30 years, and who knows where we will be by then, or who/what we will be fighting against.

Just for the record, I would love to see the latest incarnation of the Leo2 darkening our hangar lines (if we won the International Lottery sometime soon).

Al


----------



## George Wallace

Gee Allan, I am so glad you said "wool suit" as I would have been even more enraged had you said "silk suit".  Now, you have also given DND a good idea......use the Defence Budget to buy "POWER BALL" Tickets.....if we won it would in essence triple our existing Budget.   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's a thought on pricing kit:

It served the previous Government's interests and philosophy to over-price any purchases.

A) The NGP (Natural Governing Party) was averse to military intervention.
B) The NGP believed strongly in the controlled distribution of funds domestically to generate both economic and political advantage.

Solution:

1. Maintain such budget as there was for defence at the lowest possible level commensurate with keeping international allies happy.
2. Include within the budget as many non-operational line items as possible thereby reducing the available funds for operational needs, which in turn restricts operational capability.
3. Inflate the price of equipment reducing the amount of equipment available and at the same time increase the amount of economic benefit flowing into the economy and at the same time making   political friends.
4. Slow down the procurement process and render it as inefficient as possible so that the Government can't respond in a timely fashion to military need.

Result:

1. A military with limited capability that ties the Government's hands when requested to intervene internationally
2. Political friends domestically that keep the NGP in power.

Counter: 

Rewrite the rules and regulations (Orders in Council - not Acts of Parliament) so that the process moves faster and the inflated costs resulting from Industrial Benefits and Offsets are reduced.

Thus instead of  3 MCAD MGS and 500 MCAD Icebreakers 10 years from now, 1MCAD M1A1s and 100 MCAD Icebreakers 2 years from now.


----------



## TCBF

A certain person known to some of us as one of the best tank commanders in the Army (No names, but
it's J_m C_t__r__l) wrote "People have been predicting the demise of the tank for 100 years now, and will eventually be proven right in another twenty to fifty years, after which they will say "See? We told you so!"

Truly a prophetic man.

Tom


----------



## Armymatters

I would have to agree with Kirkhill. Who's fault is it if tanks are not used on our deployments? Simple: the government. Even when our allies deploy tanks to a peacekeeping mission to give the peacekeeping force some extra teeth, we refuse to send the tanks on the deployment. It is not because tank's aren't useful in our deployments, it is a lack of political _will_ to deploy tanks on the part of us. Hopefully, with the new government, they may have more political will to send heavy armour and troops to our peacekeeping missions.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I worked in the Base Commander's Office in Petawawa from 94-96.  I remember all too well the preparations for several deployments to Bosnia.  2 CMBG HQ would do the Estimate of the Situation.  Tanks would show up in the COAs everytime.  The Government would say NO everytime...

The Government line was "this is peace keeping... we don't want to look too aggressive".  Finally, on one of the KFOR (?) deployments, they let us send 4 or so over.

Much the same thing happened with ADATS on at least one occasion that I can recall, but they were never sent.

My take is that we are out of the tank business because our political leaders want us to be out of the tank business.  Not for any particular military reason...


----------



## George Wallace

I agree with SeaKing Tacco.  It is not a military decision, per say, but a politically driven one.  That "Kinder, Gentler Army" that the Lieberals have touted since Trudeau, and perpetuated by Chretien and Martin.  It is evident in other purchases also, where we have gone with the "Chevy" instead of the "Cadillac".  The "Chevy" is cheaper initially, but being of poorer quality, is more prone to break down, and more expensive in the long run to maintain.  

The costs of becoming a 'Totally Wheeled Force', are going to come back and bite us.  Not only are we going to be without the use of manoeuvrable and effective Armoured support, but also much of our Heavy Engineer support.


----------



## Eland

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I agree with SeaKing Tacco.  It is not a military decision, per say, but a politically driven one.  That "Kinder, Gentler Army" that the Lieberals have touted since Trudeau, and perpetuated by Chretien and Martin.  It is evident in other purchases also, where we have gone with the "Chevy" instead of the "Cadillac".  The "Chevy" is cheaper initially, but being of poorer quality, is more prone to break down, and more expensive in the long run to maintain.
> 
> The costs of becoming a 'Totally Wheeled Force', are going to come back and bite us.  Not only are we going to be without the use of manoeuvrable and effective Armoured support, but also much of our Heavy Engineer support.



A friend of mine started his career as an officer in the Armoured Corps and then remustered into Logistics. One day, we were debating the utility of the MilCOTS truck purchase for the PRes. He insisted that it was cheaper in the long run to buy a vehicle and keep repairing it until it could no longer be repaired. Even if the vehicle in question had limited tactical utility. I've always thought that it made more sense to buy kit that is robust, lasts long, requires relatively infrequent maintenance, and most important, does the job you want it to with few compromises or limitations. As things stand now, the MilCOTS is being employed in a way it was not designed to be employed

I recognize that we can't afford to buy top-drawer kit in every instance for the Reserves. Or for the Regular Force. However, as you point out, it's this nickel-and-dime, lowest-bidder mentality that gets people killed, or renders you unable to properly do the job you set out to do. Freedom isn't free, yet Canadian military planners routinely fail to realize this in their quest to maintain a military without spending any real money.

What many fail to realize about the 'total wheeled force' is that at its root, it's comprised of what are basically armoured cars, with all their limitations in terms of survivability and mobility, to say nothing of firepower. I am not, as a matter of principle, against the use of armoured cars. They can be quite useful - when employed as liaison, recce, CP, and general support vehicles on reasonable roads. They can be used as APC's, in environments where you need to get infantry deployed quickly, and where the threat profile is low to moderate.

Even the Soviets, when they were planning for a hypothetical assault on NATO troops positioned in the Fulda Gap, recognized the limitations of the hordes of wheeled BTR-60s, BTR-70s and BTR-90 APC's they were planning to throw into battle. That recognition led them to decide to employ the vehicles as platforms that would carry follow-on troops for mop-up operations after the shock armies with their BMP1s, BMP2s and T72 tanks had done their work. 

However, to hear current Canadian military planners talk, you'd think that they seriously believe that wheeled vehicles like the LAV and MGS can be deployed in a full-bore advance to contact against enemy troops in well-prepared defensive positions, armed to the teeth with all manner of anti-tank weapons. If they don't believe that, then they're committing a sin of omission by not telling Canadians that the only realistic roles the "Total Wheeled Force" (TWF) can fulfil are:

- rear-echelon and flank screening tasks for a larger, better-armed force
- security taskings in urban environments that have been pacified but in which a small risk of a recrudescence of violence exists
- follow-on formations supporting heavy brigades equipped with tanks, tracked IFV's and self-propelled howitzers

In other words, supporting roles within the confines of a US or UK-led coalition force. Given the Canadian Army's lack of organic transport assets, and currently established deployment time-frames (eg. typically D+90 or D+120), this almost necessarily means being relegated to a peripheral role. Sadly, that willingness to accept a peripheral role when Canada can do more, seems to operate in service of the fiction that Canada is first, foremost and always a peacekeeping nation, even when peacekeeping in the current strategic environment is no longer a realistic option.


----------



## Kirkhill

UK tanks until 2035.

West continually rebuilding old tanks (Leopards, Challengers, Abrams)
Very few western new builds (expensive, unproven and unnecesssary due to existing numbers of "upgradeable" tanks thus poor sales on LeClerc, Ariete, Karan, Merkava as well as new Leos, Challengers and Abrams)
Increasing sales in low end tanks like Pakistani Al-Khalid, Chinese Type 98 and Russian T-90.




> Main Battle Tank Rolls On as a Dominant Battlefield and Market Force
> 
> 
> (Source: Forecast International; issued March 1, 2006)
> 
> 
> NEWTOWN, Conn. --- Despite the transformational nature of modern armed forces, the Forecast International Weapons Group is confident the main battle tank will remain an integral part of modern force structures throughout the coming 10-year forecast period. In its annual analysis “The World Market for Tanks,” the Forecast International Weapons Group projects that the international market will produce nearly 7,800 main battle tanks, worth in excess of $31.6 billion, through 2015.
> 
> This year’s analysis notes the increasing, and largely hidden, impact of modernization and retrofit work on the market. According to Dean Lockwood, Forecast International Weapons Systems Analyst, “While generally transparent to this analysis of new-production tanks, increased modernization and retrofit is becoming a significant force on the international market.”
> 
> Through its Challenger Lethality Improvement program (CLIP), the British Army now intends to maintain its Challenger 2 tanks in first-line service through 2035. In 2004, U.S. Department of Defense contract awards for the maintenance, RESET (repair of field/battle damage), and upgrade of the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps M1 Abrams inventories were equivalent to 32.6 percent of the total value of all new-production main battle tanks rolling out that year onto the international market. In 2005, U.S. DoD contract awards supporting existing M1 Abrams tanks were equivalent to 21.3 percent of the total value of all new-production main battle tanks that year.
> 
> The international market for main battle tanks continues to exhibit two distinct product tiers. The upper tier consists of the state-of-the-art designs with correspondingly high price tags (over $5 million). The expense associated with the modernization and retrofit of these high-end main battle tanks pales in comparison with the prospect of new tank procurement. Thus, new production of high-end tanks (AMX Leclerc, Ariete 2, Challenger 2, Karan, Leopard 2, M1A1 Abrams, and Merkava Mark 4) continues to decline, accounting for less than 13 percent of all production and worth about 17 percent of the market through the forecast period.
> 
> The lower tier features cheaper, more widely available tanks (mostly designs of the former Soviet Union). In terms of sheer numbers, Lockwood believes that Pakistan’s Al-Khalid, the Type 98 of the People’s Republic of China, and the Russian Federation’s T-90 will account for nearly 45 percent of all new tanks rolling out worldwide, worth about 40 percent of the market, through 2015.
> 
> On the international market for main battle tanks, the days of U.S. and European domination over new production appear to be long gone. Nevertheless, the international market for main battle tanks remains a vibrant, dynamic environment. According to Lockwood, “As threat scenarios and force structures continue to evolve, the main battle tank rolls on as a significant force multiplier and the quintessential symbol of modern mobile warfare.”
> 
> 
> Forecast International, Inc. is a leading provider of Market Intelligence and Analysis in the areas of aerospace, defense, power systems and military electronics. Based in Newtown, Conn., USA, Forecast International specializes in long-range industry forecasts and market assessments utilized by strategic planners, marketing professionals, military organizations, and governments worldwide.
> 
> -ends-



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/mbt-2000.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/type-98.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-90.htm


----------



## a_majoor

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> West continually rebuilding old tanks (Leopards, Challengers, Abrams)
> Very few western new builds (expensive, unproven and unnecesssary due to existing numbers of "upgradeable" tanks thus poor sales on LeClerc, Ariete, Karan, Merkava as well as new Leos, Challengers and Abrams)
> Increasing sales in low end tanks like Pakistani Al-Khalid, Chinese Type 98 and Russian T-90.



Given the escalating prices of Generation 3.5 tanks, it is no surprise armies chose to husband their budgets by rebuilding already existing Generation 3 tanks like the Leopard 2, M-1 or Challenger. For third world armies looking to get into the mechanized warfare business in a big way, there is no possible source of modern Western Generation 3 or 3.5 tanks, certainly not in the numbers they would like (a thousand M-1A2 with the full digital suite? They will be ready for pick up in 2015....), so getting simple and inexpensive ex Soviet designs is the way to go.

Of course, I am still waiting for the CV 90120 as the CF tank...anyone.....anyone....Bueller?


----------



## AmmoTech90

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> A very capable gun that is being replaced by a rifled 120mm.  Same design as Leopard2/M1 but not sure on calibre length.  The project is going ahead, just a bit slowly.



Just looking at my old posts and spotted a brain fart...
The rifle gun on the Chally is being replaced by a smoothbore...sometime...eventually...maybe, not the other way around.

D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

When you consider how cheap we could have bought Leo’s 2 for and how many times we could of, it makes you cry. Funny everyone says the tank is dead! Yet the US Infantry in Iraq love having them around.

The LAV’s are great, but they are no “Uberweapon” A mixed forces gives you far greater options than one designed to fight one type of war in one type of environment. The majority of the army can go light, but keep a nucleus of a heavy armoured force, with tracked Arty & Engineers and IFV’s 

The CV-90’s are doing well in Africa


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Colin,

   Did we not have the Leo2 in our country a few years ago so we could switch out the turret and send the hull on to another lucky country because we could not get the libs to buy them for free.

  My info tells me the Leos are back to stay and the MGS is out and we will be back into tanks real soon. Tracks are always cheaper to run if you run them right....kill the wheels, light bastards die. ;D


----------



## ArmyRick

3rd Horseman, please validate your source. new MBT are not even on the defence procurement horizon.


----------



## tomahawk6

Colin P said:
			
		

> When you consider how cheap we could have bought Leo’s 2 for and how many times we could of, it makes you cry. Funny everyone says the tank is dead! Yet the US Infantry in Iraq love having them around.
> 
> The LAV’s are great, but they are no “Uberweapon” A mixed forces gives you far greater options than one designed to fight one type of war in one type of environment. The majority of the army can go light, but keep a nucleus of a heavy armoured force, with tracked Arty & Engineers and IFV’s
> 
> The CV-90’s are doing well in Africa



Didnt know there were Leo's in Iraq. I DO know that the infantry love the Abram's.


----------



## Armymatters

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Didnt know there were Leo's in Iraq. I DO know that the infantry love the Abram's.



Australia operates the Leopard 1 in an engineering config, similar to Canada's Badger vehicle. Also, the Royal Marines operate the Hippo, which is based on Leopard 1 chassis.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Army Rick,

  Id love to validate it but it was just info I got from what I would call a very reliable source. Next time I eat dinner with him I will ask him again for more details. The casual conversation was about the Leo being refitted and brought back in full as it was supposed to be a few years ago. The source was political so I would assume he got it from the military.

 Edit: Has anyone heard rumblings of this on the inside of the Armour halls?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> Did we not have the Leo2 in our country a few years ago so we could switch out the turret and send the hull on to another lucky country because we could not get the libs to buy them for free.



This is not correct.  Our Leopard C1s (a version of the Leopard 1A4) were refitted with German surplus Leopard 1A2 (upgraded to A5) turrets to become the C2.  The A2 turrets are cast and date from the 1960s; however they have the full A5 sight and computer package and additional turret armour.  Some hulls with thin bottoms were removed from service.  The Leopard 2 is a different tank entirely and is not compatible with the Leopard 1.  Urban legend has us turning down surplus Leopard 2s (or "new Leopard 1A5s) offered by Germany some time ago, but I'm not sure how far that really went - and I was on the Army Equipment Board at the time.



> Id love to validate it but it was just info I got from what I would call a very reliable source. Next time I eat dinner with him I will ask him again for more details. The casual conversation was about the Leo being refitted and brought back in full as it was sopposed to be a few years ago. The source was political so I would assume he got it from the military.



I'm not sure what you mean here.  The Leopard 1 upgrade proceeded (basically) as originally designed after new tanks were shot down (Baril hated tanks).  There's very little more - save addition of the "Kosovo" armour package that was abandoned - that could be done to the current vehicles.  You might be referring to the Leopard 2 urban legend mentioned above.   I am told that all direct fire systems procurement is "under review", so you can take that for what it's worth...

I do hope you're right, though!


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting if true, but at this point in time it would probably make far more sense (there's that word again!) to move ahead with a new project.

My picks, in order of ability/plausibility are as follows:

1. Pick up and refurbish Generation 3 tanks being cast off from other nations (i.e. Leopard 2, Challenger etc.) Plus side; they can be had quickly and are interoperable with our NATO allies. Minus side, they are not logistically compatible with anything else we have.

2. CV90120. Plus side; a very nice piece of kit, modern firepower and FSC suite, light weight and relatively easy to transport. Minus side; light weight also equals less protection, and should be purchased with a whole slew of other CV90 family vehicles for logistical support and interoperability issues inside the battlegroup.

3. Generation 3.5 tanks. This would include the Le Clerc, latest version of the M-1,  Merkava Mk-4 and the "Black Eagle" (very outside possibility, mentioned for completeness). These are the most modern machines out there and will last into the 2030's and beyond. There should be little on the modern battlefield they cannot deal with. Minus side; They are huge machines, come with an astronomical price tag and are not usually in series production so delivery will take a lot of time.

4. Do it yourself. Creating a Generation 4 machine either through massive revising of existing machines (CV90120++ or the German Puma) or building something from scratch. Plus side, there is no question of getting the machine YOU want. Minus side; Canadian industry is probably not able to do this in a timely or cost effective manner. The Indian ARJUN MK I is a sad story, the tank has taken over 26 years to develop and may never be fielded, a warning of what could go wrong if we try this.


----------



## TCBF

I imagine the fact that the MND was the 37th Commanding Officer of The Royal Canadian Dragoons and the CDS was their 43rd CO  is bound to encourage rumours of an inevitable  "Armoured Mafia"  ready to turn all of the MFRCs into Tank versus Tank Simulation Centers,  but the truth is less dramatic and it's business as usual.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

If we're going heavy, I agree getting cast-off stuff from NATO allies certainly fits into our budget well.

If we're going light, I'd really like to see trials of the M-8 AGS before another dollar is spent on the MGS.


Matthew.


----------



## Armymatters

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> If we're going heavy, I agree getting cast-off stuff from NATO allies certainly fits into our budget well.
> 
> If we're going light, I'd really like to see trials of the M-8 AGS before another dollar is spent on the MGS.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



If I remember correctly, the M8 AGS was canned.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Armymatters said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, the M8 AGS was canned.



I read over on Tank-Net.org earlier this week there was an update from BAE on its development....somebody cited Janes.


Matthew.


----------



## TCBF

"If we're going light, I'd really like to see trials of the M-8 AGS before another dollar is spent on the MGS."

- Has the M8 AGS kept pace with the MGS?  Are all of the 'golly wow' technologies developed with the MGS transferable to the AGS?  A lot has happenned in two years.  Is it a moot point?  We may have crossed the Rubicon on this already.


----------



## a_majoor

I failed to mention the M-8, but as it is not in series production (and may never be) I will leave it on the shelf for now. The other reason for not mentioning it is it packs a 105mm cannon, while virtually everything out there on tracks will be firing a 120mm or 125mm smoothbore (Unless you decide to fight the British, who will hammer you with a 120mm rifle). Since we will be operating alongside NATO and Anglosphere allies who tend to use 120mm smoothbores, the sensible thing to do would be adopt a system carrying the same weapon.

This argument is mooted somewhat if we envision a large Canadian Cavalry Corps with some sort of 105mm armed LAV III, but even then, I would say the argument for tanks to be interoperable with other tanks is stronger than having two different vehicles with very similar capabilities.


----------



## Mortar guy

Arthur,

There is a 120mm version of the M8. It's called the Thunderplug or Thundermonkey or something like that. (Sorry, I'm short on time).

MG


----------



## muskrat89

The Thunderbolt     http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/lighttanks.htm


----------



## Mortar guy

Ahhhh, Thunderbolt! I was close.

Anyway, the M8 with a 120mm seems much more suitable to me than the MGS. However, as I have stated before, the biggest problem with the MGS isn't its specs (although they aren't jaw-dropping), it's the way our Army wants to use them. The MGS would make a decent assault gun but is a very weak direct fire anti-armour weapon. The problem is that our Armoured Corps has essentially said that the MGS will never be used in intimate support of the infantry (as an assault gun, if you will) as the US is doing, but rather, will be part of a system of systems designed to engage hard targets from long ranges in open terrain. You have to be fairly delusional to think that we are going to be engaging massed armoured formations at long range any time soon. And besides, even if that was our principal threat, wouldn't a tank make more sense!?

Morsermensch


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Arthur,
> 
> There is a 120mm version of the M8. It's called the Thunderplug or Thundermonkey or something like that. (Sorry, I'm short on time).
> 
> MG



Beware the "Thundermonkey".... 


Matthew.   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Ahhhh, Thunderbolt! I was close.
> 
> Anyway, the M8 with a 120mm seems much more suitable to me than the MGS. However, as I have stated before, the biggest problem with the MGS isn't its specs (although they aren't jaw-dropping), it's the way our Army wants to use them. The MGS would make a decent assault gun but is a very weak direct fire anti-armour weapon. The problem is that our Armoured Corps has essentially said that the MGS will never be used in intimate support of the infantry (as an assault gun, if you will) as the US is doing, but rather, will be part of a system of systems designed to engage hard targets from long ranges in open terrain. You have to be fairly delusional to think that we are going to be engaging massed armoured formations at long range any time soon. And besides, even if that was our principal threat, wouldn't a tank make more sense!?
> 
> Morsermensch



I find it fascinating how language twists reality.

Assault Guns are useful for many things, except Assaulting.  For the Assault, the close with the enemy bit, Armour is a decided advantage.  Therefore heavily armoured Tanks are suitable Assault vehicles, lightly Armoured Assault guns are not.  Assault Guns are however useful as Self Propelled Anti-Tank or ANTI-Assault weapons capable of defeating enemy forces from prepared positions.

At the same time, if Tanks are Assault vehicles that close with the enemy the fact that they have a long-range cannon/rifle is less important than the fact that the rifle/cannon can deliver a massive amount of energy against armoured and fortified targets with a high rate of fire and rapid sighting.

Apropos of little..... ;D


----------



## Mortar guy

Tomato, tomah-to. I think you get my point. The MGS was designed (by the US Army) to be a gun that provides intimate support to assaulting dismounted infantry (a "gun for assaults", if you will    ). We, in our boundless wisdom, have decided this vehicle is best suited to take on T-72Ms and BMPs in open terrain. I bet the US Army wishes they were as smart as us...

MG


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

By the way, I just want to throw this out there to bend the model a little bit....

Has anyone done any brainstorming or wargaming with a LAV-III chassis with let's say (3) PWS as opposed to a single larger gun?

I'm just visualizing such a vehicle with multiple independent weapons and sighting systems (let's say 2-0.50 calibre HMG's and 1-small ATGM launcher or 40mm grenade launcher).  My thought is that with three sets of eyes dedicated to enemy identification in multiple directions as opposed to 1, you would be much better at keeping situational awareness in particular in built-up urban areas.  I guess my bottom line hypothesis is having many eyes and identifying and engaging an enemy before they can launch their attack could perhaps be more important than getting hit due to a lack of situational awareness and then returning fire with a more damaging gun (in particular since a 0.50-caliber should be able to shred through any mud-brick hiding place that appear to be our enemies' favourite domain at the moment).

Thoughts?


Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Tomato, tomah-to.



Potatos or Tatties.  

Sorry Matthew, back to the thread....


----------



## a_majoor

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> By the way, I just want to throw this out there to bend the model a little bit....
> 
> Has anyone done any brainstorming or wargaming with a LAV-III chassis with let's say (3) PWS as opposed to a single larger gun?
> 
> I'm just visualizing such a vehicle with multiple independent weapons and sighting systems (let's say 2-0.50 calibre HMG's and 1-small ATGM launcher or 40mm grenade launcher).  My thought is that with three sets of eyes dedicated to enemy identification in multiple directions as opposed to 1, you would be much better at keeping situational awareness in particular in built-up urban areas.  I guess my bottom line hypothesis is having many eyes and identifying and engaging an enemy before they can launch their attack could perhaps be more important than getting hit due to a lack of situational awareness and then returning fire with a more damaging gun (in particular since a 0.50-caliber should be able to shred through any mud-brick hiding place that appear to be our enemies' favourite domain at the moment).
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> Matthew.



I thought about it, but didn't come up with a LAV: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961/post-195665.html#msg195665


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Tomato, tomah-to. I think you get my point. The MGS was designed (by the US Army) to be a gun that provides intimate support to assaulting dismounted infantry (a "gun for assaults", if you will    ). We, in our boundless wisdom, have decided this vehicle is best suited to take on T-72Ms and BMPs in open terrain. I bet the US Army wishes they were as smart as us...
> 
> MG



Where do you get this?  I just read over the SOR and it says no such thing.  The "Armour Corps" knows full well - probably better than anyone - how limiting the MGS is and certainly did not concoct the "system of systems" cunning plan on its own.  The fact that the SOR calls for a gun capable of defeating a T-72M is hardly indicative of what roles are planned for the vehicle.  Indeed:



> It is important to understand that the MGS is not a replacement or substitute for a main battle tank...





> The MGS is not expected to fight alone, particularly one on one, against later generation main battle tanks.



Nowhere in the SOR does it even mention a role as a tank destroyer nor does it describe AT as the MGS' primary mission.  Indeed, the SOR talks extensively (too much?) about insurgents, irregular forces, terrorists and the like as the probable threat.  Just because the main gun is to be capable of defeating a T-72M does not necessarily mean that this is the vehicle's designed role - or the one envisioned by the Corps.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Nowhere in the SOR does it even mention a role as a tank destroyer nor does it describe AT as the MGS' primary mission.  Indeed, the SOR talks extensively (too much?) about insurgents, irregular forces, terrorists and the like as the probable threat.  Just because the main gun is to be capable of defeating a T-72M does not necessarily mean that this is the vehicle's designed role - or the one envisioned by the Corps.



Teddy, in your opinion, does that mean in your opinion that multiple PWS's (one with an ATGM) may fulfill the designated role better than the 105mm?


Matthew.   ???


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Matthew:  actually, just the opposite.

(all IMHO, of course)

The problem with all the shiny PGWs, ATGMs, etc. is that they're support intensive and, in some cases, rely on very new technology.  The point I've made for the touted MMEV, for example, is that we're looking at firing extremely expensive missiles at bunkers - why?

I like guns.  The rounds are fairly cheap, you can correct quickly if you miss (as you will), the time of flight for the projectile is very short and the range is quite decent.  Moreover, you can quickly switch between types of rounds depending on the target you're engaging.

Take the 105mm, for instance.  It will soundly defeat anything but the latest tanks, will make a mess of a bunker at 2000 metres and (if you buy it) comes with a very nasty canister round to engage troops in open and the like.  My issues with MGS aren't so much the cannon, but the vehicle itself (with the very limited turret) and the "system of systems" concept, as I've ranted about on the MGS and MMEV threads.

If it were me, we'd be looking at a lighter tracked vehicle with a 105mm (or higher) calibre gun as an interim Leopard replacement, while investigating a longer-term "high tech" solution.  I'm a big fan of the CV-90 family - they made a huge impact with the Norwegians in Kabul - but there are a lot of vehicles out there.

FWIW,

Teddy


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Just before the Iraq invasion, the US army tried to buy back the M8 AGS that were in private hands, no one would sell them back. I had the chance to sit inside one, interesting vehicle, lots of space inside, but some components were missing, likely a Sabot dart would zip right through it. Would make a good tank trainer and has better SA than the MGS.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Matthew:  actually, just the opposite.
> 
> (all IMHO, of course)
> 
> The problem with all the shiny PGWs, ATGMs, etc. is that they're support intensive and, in some cases, rely on very new technology.  The point I've made for the touted MMEV, for example, is that we're looking at firing extremely expensive missiles at bunkers - why?
> 
> I like guns.  The rounds are fairly cheap, you can correct quickly if you miss (as you will), the time of flight for the projectile is very short and the range is quite decent.  Moreover, you can quickly switch between types of rounds depending on the target you're engaging.
> 
> Take the 105mm, for instance.  It will soundly defeat anything but the latest tanks, will make a mess of a bunker at 2000 metres and (if you buy it) comes with a very nasty canister round to engage troops in open and the like.  My issues with MGS aren't so much the cannon, but the vehicle itself (with the very limited turret) and the "system of systems" concept, as I've ranted about on the MGS and MMEV threads.
> 
> If it were me, we'd be looking at a lighter tracked vehicle with a 105mm (or higher) calibre gun as an interim Leopard replacement, while investigating a longer-term "high tech" solution.  I'm a big fan of the CV-90 family - they made a huge impact with the Norwegians in Kabul - but there are a lot of vehicles out there.
> 
> FWIW,
> 
> Teddy



Without breaking OPSEC, what percentage of attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming from that 2,000 metre range as opposed to from 50m or less (I keep thinking of the Somalia Blackhawk Down scenario with the enemy with RPG's as the worst-case which we should be planning for)?

....because in my civvie hypothetical model it would seem that creating 90%+ awareness in all directions with 3 small turrets moving in various directions with the ability to kill anything within 500m (estimate) with .50 caliber HMG's and outward from there with an ATGM system seems superior to 30% awareness only in the direction the turret is facing at the time with the ability to kill everything with extreme prejudice from 50m out to 2000m as you describe with the 105mm main gun.

In short, I keep envisioning some little prick with an RPG on a rooftop or in an alley where the one set of main 105mm turret sensors may not catch him, but the three sets of eyes on the individuals RWS's 'might' have a better ability to identify him and kill him before he can fire.

Thanks again Teddy....


Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor

The crews of Merkava tanks usually ride hatches up (although the hatch is designed in such a way to provide overhead cover to the crew) to keep their situational awareness, with the gunner looking through the FCS and the commander and operator covering arcs with pintle mounted GPMG's. There is usually an Achzarit nearby with a section of seven Infantry who are there to deal with party crashers as well. This combination worked out very well in the battles inside congested West Bank cities and towns, using very large vehicles which were not designed specifically for Urban OPs.

By analogy, American units would operate in a similar fashion with their M-1 and M-2 AFV's, and the British would do the same with their Challengers and Warriors. This is an interesting example of "evolution in action" since this is about the same way "we" would have operated doing a combat team attack against a Soviet defensive position (substitute Leopard and M-113 for the vehicles listed above), and indeed any western army has similar TTPs for assaulting trenches and fortified positions.

On the Future Armour thread, I speculated on a "gunfighter" support vehicle with multiple RWS for the very purpose you proposed, but given the threat would be at very close range and the crew would have almost 0 reaction time, a well protected platform was a real "must have" for this idea to work. Something like this would probably go into the Combat support company (fire support platoon) of an Infantry Battalion, given its specialized nature, and given the small size and manning base of our Army, perhaps it does not pay to be too specialized.


----------



## Mortar guy

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Where do you get this?  I just read over the SOR and it says no such thing.  The "Armour Corps" knows full well - probably better than anyone - how limiting the MGS is and certainly did not concoct the "system of systems" cunning plan on its own.  The fact that the SOR calls for a gun capable of defeating a T-72M is hardly indicative of what roles are planned for the vehicle.  Indeed:
> 
> Nowhere in the SOR does it even mention a role as a tank destroyer nor does it describe AT as the MGS' primary mission.  Indeed, the SOR talks extensively (too much?) about insurgents, irregular forces, terrorists and the like as the probable threat.  Just because the main gun is to be capable of defeating a T-72M does not necessarily mean that this is the vehicle's designed role - or the one envisioned by the Corps.



Really? We must have different versions of the SOR. Mine is from April 2005 so I'm pretty impressed that they have re-written the SOR (after announcing a sole-source contract) to better reflect the COE. Section 2.4 (Concept of Ops) of my SOR makes no mention of insurgents, terrorists or COIN operations. In fact, it is heavily biased towards conventional, linear operations with a clear emphasis on armoured targets and 'traditional' Armoured Corps tasks (i.e. when we had tanks). I'd love to get my hands on the updated SOR if you could tell me where it is.

The big problem with us lies not in our SOR (whichever version) but in two other documents. Firstly, the US Army's ORD for their MGS describes a vehicle that provides intimate support to dismounted infantry. Their target set includes bunkers, infantry in the open, soft skinned vehicles and lightly armoured vehicles. However, the big difference lies in their doctrinal employment of MGS as integral direct fire support within infantry companies rather than as part of some direct fire system optimized for the anti-armour fight.

The second document is the PXR from Ex INITIAL STRIKE where several senior Canadian officers (some with black hats) stated emphatically that the MGS (along with the rest of the DFSofS) would almost never be used for intimate support of the infantry. They (and those in DLR/DAD who think about these things) seem to envision the DFSofS engaging armoured targets at long ranges in open terrain. You can hardly blame them: who would want to take those extremely expensive vehicles into close terrain and who would want to waste those extremely expensive missiles on anything but tanks!

This is where I see the intellectual flaw of our approach. We keep saying the MGS and the DFSofS are not replacements for the tank but then we keep trying to shoehorn those POS vehicles into a similar role.

However, if as you say they have re-written the MGS SOR to reflect the reality of the modern battlefield, then great. I have always said that the MGS, while not ideal, could play a very useful role in places like Afghanistan, Haiti, etc. That role is not going head to head with tanks and BMPs but rather providing intimate support to the infantry.

Cheers.

MG


----------



## Kirkhill

> Their target set includes bunkers, infantry in the open, soft skinned vehicles and lightly armoured vehicles.


 As per MG

How about renaming the MGS as the SPVVLRSS = Self-Propelled Very Very Long Range Sniper System?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Without breaking OPSEC, what percentage of attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming from that 2,000 metre range as opposed to from 50m or less (I keep thinking of the Somalia Blackhawk Down scenario with the enemy with RPG's as the worst-case which we should be planning for)?
> 
> ....because in my civvie hypothetical model it would seem that creating 90%+ awareness in all directions with 3 small turrets moving in various directions with the ability to kill anything within 500m (estimate) with .50 caliber HMG's and outward from there with an ATGM system seems superior to 30% awareness only in the direction the turret is facing at the time with the ability to kill everything with extreme prejudice from 50m out to 2000m as you describe with the 105mm main gun.
> 
> In short, I keep envisioning some little prick with an RPG on a rooftop or in an alley where the one set of main 105mm turret sensors may not catch him, but the three sets of eyes on the individuals RWS's 'might' have a better ability to identify him and kill him before he can fire.
> 
> Thanks again Teddy....
> 
> Matthew.



Two points.  Tanks never - never - operate alone.  As a minimum, you'll have another callsign watching your back as you move and prepared to hose you off should the infantry start crawling over you.  In built-up areas, tanks will have attached infantry (or, more properly, will be operating in support of the infantry), whose job it is to engage close in threats.  It's good doctrine, why throw it out?

Secondly, a tank typically has more than main gun available.  The coax and pintle MGs provide the bulk of additional close-in firepower, as can the smoke dischargers (if equipped with the right round).  While a 2000m engagement range with main gun is possible, it certainly isn't the norm.  Moreover, as I indicated, a canister round does a great deal of damage at much closer ranges (think of it as a big shotgun shell)...

MG:  Not that it matters much which version of the SOR we're dealing with (I have my copy at home, so will have to check which version I was quoting from from there) - you're quite right.  While the vehicle was touted as a new capability, it was a _de facto_ Leopard replacement, with all that comes with it.  The whole system of systems concept was a boondoggle to start with and didn't make much sense operationally, as I've posted on both the MGS and MMEV threads...  FWIW.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Here's a new packaging of our favorite Leopard!

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: http://eurosatory.janes.com/docs/eurosatory2006/sections/daily/day2/leopard-strikes-for-peace.shtml

    Gosh, can we have tanks again? Now that Rheinmetal has designed an actual Peacekeeping tank! 
In all seriousness, this is a nice design for urban low intensity operations.  The dozerblade, variable anti-personnel turrets, and 120mm airburst round, all controlled from fully armoured positions, is a very nice addition to the arsenal, and makes the Leopard look a lot more like a MMEV than that Frankenstein creation that was our proposed MMEV.  The all around armour also addresses the reality of urban armour; the first shot will not come on the frontal armour, and will be a surprise.


----------



## a_majoor

Wow, a Leopard 2A6b. 

To tell the truth, this looks pretty much like the Strv 122 (Swedish Leopard 2) with ALL the accessory packages lined up (including the armoured cup holder). Not a bad idea, over all, but considering the Strv 122 is the heaviest of all the Leopard varients, we might start wondering what trade offs will have to be made to deal with the extra weight (operational and strategic mobility and logistical considerations come to mind). 

A small saving could be made by specifying the shorter 44 calibre gun, which also reduces the chances of being hung up while traversing, and it may be possible to trade weight for cost by replacing steel armour with ceramic or advanced composite materials wherever we can. Please don't think I am against Leopard 2's (of any model), but smaller and lighter is the trend these days, so we need to use that to guide our thinking.


----------



## Jantor

Is the Hagglunds 32 tonne CV-90120 something to consider? If, and I mean if thoughts on acquiring tracked vehicles makes a comeback.

http://www.baesystems.se/Hagglunds/stdpage.asp?Pid=4&id=16


Edited for spelling and to add link


----------



## GK .Dundas

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> The Thunderbolt     http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/lighttanks.htm


 I might take it more seriously if it had'nt come from one of Mike Sparks 's sites.There is a man in need of serious medication.


----------



## Kirkhill

Jantor:

The CV90120 is indeed something to consider - and if you go back and read all FortyBleep pages of this thread you will find that it has been considered by many posters, many times.  

The good news is that many people agree with you.

Cheers.


----------



## Jantor

Kirkhill: Thanks for your reply. I realize that the CV-90 family has been discussed before but I was just trying to provide a little feedback for what some of recent posters were discussing. Maybe provoke a little more fresh insight and opinion from the crowd.


----------



## Kirkhill

Fair enuff Jantor


----------



## -dikweed-

I seem to  recall the Tories stating once (last year I think?) that they would buy a true MBT rather than the MGS.  Is this true or did I smoke too much crack this morning?


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Torie big ticket spending for this term is for logistic items, specifically new transport and supply ships, heavy strategic airlift (C-17), medium airlift (C-130J), and tactical airlift (helicopter).  While these items do little to add to the hitting power of the battle groups on paper, their ability to add to our force projection quite outweights that of new MBTs.  As has often been said, amateurs study tactics, and professionals study logistics.


----------



## Eland

Jantor said:
			
		

> Is the Hagglunds 32 tonne CV-90120 something to consider? If, and I mean if thoughts on acquiring tracked vehicles makes a comeback.




Looking at the specs of the CV90120, I'd say this would be the almost-perfect replacement for our Leopards. The key features of the 90120 which make this so are the light weight (max 35t), ability to add on armour, capacity to handle all standard NATO ammo, storage capacity for as many rounds as a Leopard I carries (ca. 45 rounds) - AND - the ability to be transported on one of the C17's the government is proposing to buy. If you had just the basic version of the vehicle, you might even be able to carry two of them on a C17, and the add-on armour, crews, ammo and other stores for both tanks in another C17.

With its relatively low profile and very high mobility, it would be superior to the MGS in overall effectiveness, to say nothing of cheaper.


(Edited by Moderator to separate quoted text from new post text.)


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.baesystems.com/newsroom/2006/jun/120606news6.htm

Further to Eland's post re CV90120 - interestingly there is a Canadian connection as BAE has an association with a Canadian company building bandtracks for vehicles like the CV90/SEP/Bv206.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Is the Leopard making a comeback?

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*Army to keep aging tanks*
Asks to cancel purchase of new, light-armoured replacements
David ********, Canada.com, 8 Jul 06
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0a9b5efa-4d55-4084-a1f5-cdb772194175&k=24613

In an abrupt about-face, Canada's army has put a halt to the disposal of its Leopard tanks and is now asking for permission to cancel the acquisition of two types of lighter armoured vehicles that were to be bought as replacements.  The Defence Department has blown up, sold or given away a little less than half of the army's fleet of tanks, but further disposal has been put on hold and the army requested last month that the Defence Department cancel the service's Mobile Gun System and the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle programs.  Army officials refuse to discuss the reasons for the change of heart, but it is believed some senior officers raised concerns that future war zones would require better protection than that offered by the MGS and MMEV vehicles......


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> Lobbyists for the Quebec-based firm Oerlikon Contraves, which was to build the MMEV, are working to ensure that program continues.
> 
> "We don't think that (the cancellation) is a good decision for Canada and not for Quebec certainly," said Oerlikon spokesperson Therese Menard.
> 
> "All the research was done for MMEV, all the work is done,'' she said. ``The military wanted to have the MMEV."



 :rage:

Typical.  Oerlikon can get stuffed.  MMEV has finally been recognized for what it was - a brainless idea involving a colossal waste of money.


----------



## ArmyRick

I think what Oerlikon is saying that their cash cow will disappear if the MMEV project dies.... Tough.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Colin,
> 
> 
> My info tells me the Leos are back to stay and the MGS is out and we will be back into tanks real soon. Tracks are always cheaper to run if you run them right....kill the wheels, light bastards die. ;D




Armyrick you wanted a detailed source as I didnt have one that I could reveal at the time, I guess the source was correct.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Some of us knew quite some time ago...the press has taken over a month to figure things out...

Here's the thread on the cancellation - after the cat was let out of the back (no Leopard puns intended!)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45192/post-395651.html#msg395651


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> :rage:
> 
> Typical.  Oerlikon can get stuffed.  MMEV has finally been recognized for what it was - a brainless idea involving a colossal waste of money.



I expect "RocketMan" to give you a good talking to shortly....


Matthew.    ;D


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

He only posted once, didn't he?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

By the way, this is definitely out of my lane, but I thought the armour spec's for the CV90-120 were 12.7mm all-around with only 30mm protection at the front.  If we're going to use it "as a tank", don't we need something that's significanly better protected than that?  I'm just thinking of how the Americans and British used their M1's and Challenger 2's in Iraq as mobile pillboxes to control key intersections and I would be very concerned about trying that tactic with any CV90.  In short, it maybe better than MGS in many ways....but it still seems deficient if you're going to use it in the ways that disqualified the MGS.

I'll now await opinions of people who know much more than me....

As always, thanks in advance gentlemen.


Matthew.


----------



## George Wallace

The discussion here, is exactly that, (on the CV90120-T):

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=16825&st=0


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The CV90-120 might be a replacement for the Leo's but certain is not a replacement for a Chally or Abrams. I would like to see a mix of Leo 2 with some CV90-120 and the rest of the CV family filling the IFV, SP Arty roles.

I think they have an engineering version also.


----------



## George Wallace

The CV90 is not a MBT, being not much more than any other IFV.  You do not replace a MBT with an IFV/APC.


----------



## Kirkhill

As I was trying to say on another thread - the defining characteristic of the Armoured Corps is Armour - the ability to take a punch and keep on moving.  What it carries to punch back - big guns, little guns, high angle or low angle, or even troops, seems to be secondary to the primary advantage that Armour offers - to be able to move in the face of enemy fire.

Or putting it another way, permitting own forces to "close with and destroy" even when the enemy is shooting back and there is no cover.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

The wars we have been fighting in the last while have been against featherweights.  Our tech advantage has been so high that we have been able to avoid the terrible punishment of advancing against a foe without a total command of the air and electronic battleground.  In contested space, to advance requires armour sufficient to survive.  If we abandon heavy armour, or incorporate light armour gun systems to replace heavy tanks, then the next generation of armoured troops to fight on even terms are going to die in job lots when their "future Cougar" plays tank where Leopard 2A5's should roam.  No, I don't see who we'd be fighting, but in 1920 nobody saw Tiger's in our dance card either.


----------



## a_majoor

Forcasting the future is a very difficult art, and most people who try are usually wrong. I believe we may be equating armour=Armour in some of these arguments. A fast moving weapons system which can pack a punch is "Armour", so a CV-90120 is indeed an Armoured weapon, and so would a LAV III with a CV_CT turret.

A Leopard 2A6 is also an Armoured weapon, but its virtue of armour protection (along with any generation 3 or 3.5 tank) is actually best exploited in the current environment as an infantry assault gun, as was demonstrated in Iraq or Merkavas in the West Bank and Gaza strip.

This argument is also developing in the "Is the MGS/MMEV dead yet?" thread. I will say that the mobility and ability to shape the battle makes the "Armoured" part of the equation. General Patton was able to envelop large German formations, even when they were equipped with Tiger and Panther tanks, not because his troops had Sherman tanks and half tracks (all which were only equal to German Mk IV tanks and German half tracks, and far inferior to the Tigers and Panthers), but because he employed his troops effectively, avoided slug fests when he could, and employed operational manoeuvre to outflank the enemy, drive into the rear and collapse their morale.

The protection argument "may" go out the window as well. At a presentation I was at last year, an American general said the fundimental reason for the FCS program was extrapolation; a current 120mm cannon can deliver 12 megajoules of energy on target (which can "just" be stopped by the armour array of a 70 tonne M-1), but extrapolating future trends weapons systems in 2020 would be able to deliver 42 megajoules of energy on target. Hand held weapons were projected to have similar improvements, rendering passive protection somewhat moot.

While we don't have to believe this, we should certainly consider it in our thinking, before we are surprised by the introduction of hand held railguns or some equally exotic threat. This won't be the end of tanks or Armoured units, after all, Cavalry soldiers shed all their armour during the 1600's but remained Cavalrymen, with virtually the same roles and missions as before. An "Armoured Regiment" with CV-90120 tanks may not have the ability to go toe to toe with an "Armored Cavalry Regiment" packing M-1's, but they will organize and fight differently to exploit the mobility and firepower of their mounts.


----------



## George Wallace

The CV-90 may be a good IFV, but I would not want to see us use it as a replacement for the Tank.  It is too lightly armoured.  If it is rated as being armoured against 30 mm and less, it would still be a relatively light target to be taken out by RPGs and possible IED threats, which are our greatest threats today.  It would require serious add on armour, which kinda defeats any benefit of buying it over a tank.....


----------



## Mortar guy

I just don't get some people's infatuation with the CV90. I understand it looks good in Jane's Armour and Artillery and I am certain it is a decent vehicle but it is not a panacea for our Army. The LAVIII is, IMHO, vastly superior to the CV90 when it comes to ICVs - especially when you consider what we use our ICVs for. The amount of driving done by our LAV IIIs down South would be much more difficult to sustain with a tracked vehicle (much more maintenance). Also, the CV90 is friggin _tiny_ inside. It makes a BMP look spacious. I for one would much rather live out of a LAV III for weeks on end (as is done down South) rather than try to squeeze a bunch of big Canadian lads, their ammo, water, fuel and snivel kit into a CV90. 

As for the CV90120 again I think it's just a variation on a theme. It's too lightly armoured to be considered a tank and it's tracks might make it less than ideally suited to accompany the LAV III. If we want a tank we should buy a tank (Leo 2A6 or M1A2 TUSK have my vote). If we want an assault gun to support infantry in LIC we should get a vehicle on the LAV chassis that can keep up on roads (LAV III chassis with CV-CT turret, for example). Just my 1 Afghani.

MG


----------



## Colin Parkinson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The CV90 is not a MBT, being not much more than any other IFV.  You do not replace a MBT with an IFV/APC.



Agreed, but how good is our Leo for Urban warfare, my understanding is that most of the armour is very light? I see the CV90 as similar to the TAM, it is a lightweight system with a good gun. Working with real tanks I think it gives you some flexibility in how you array your forces and the vehicle family offers up a lot of choices.

Mortar guy, I have been inside a BMP 2 and only seen video of the inside of the CV, the BMP would seem to be far worse, not to mention the double doors. 

The LAV is a great vehicle for what we are doing presently, but if we have to fight someone like the Serbs or such, the LAV will be in trouble. Like it or not we are going to need a tracked element alongside the wheeled. Plus if we are not going to buy a heavier MBT, then we need an intemin vehicle to help reduce the strain on the LEO's as they wear out.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin, why is it a given that we need a tracked element alongside the wheeled?

If it is just to cover a greater variety of terrain then the Bv206/Bv206S/BvS10 family of vehicles are tracked vehicles that can likely cover the terrain better than the TAM/CV90/Puma, not to mention any of the MBTs.

Or is it that we need the weight of armour to create a well-defended vehicle and the only way we can distribute that weight on the ground is by using tracks?

Or is it that we need a vehicle with a really big gun and the only way to effectively counter the massive recoil forces is to have a really heavy vehicle and again we need to use tracks to distribute the weight?

When you state that we need tracks alongside wheels I am trying to understand what it is you want the tracks to accomplish.


----------



## a_majoor

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The CV-90 may be a good IFV, but I would not want to see us use it as a replacement for the Tank.  It is too lightly armoured.  If it is rated as being armoured against 30 mm and less, it would still be a relatively light target to be taken out by RPGs and possible IED threats, which are our greatest threats today.  It would require serious add on armour, which kinda defeats any benefit of buying it over a tank.....



This is really the armour vs Armour argument. While it would be ideal to have Leopard 2A6 for the armour, Armour is about mobility and shock action. Just like Cavalry shed armour protection in the 1600's once it became far too obvious that there was no practical protection against firearms, we may have to adjust our thinking to moving faster and hitting harder, rather than being able to shrug off the effect of enemy weapons. 

This argument actually occurred after WW II, when there was a short lived mania for super heavy tanks capable of defeating anti tank cannons and guns of 100+ mm in size. The British Conqueror, American T-90 and "Tortoise" tank destroyer were examples of this sort of thinking, and in the 1980's the United States embarked on the "Block III" program which postulated tanks and AFV's of 80 tonnes (or more) which could shrug off Soviet guns and ATGM's. You can imagine the logistical issues revolving around that. Unless there is a practical way to absorb, deflect or avoid the effects of a 42 megajoule strike against your vehicle without sacrificing mobility, I would guess that the current set of  Generation 3 and 3.5 tanks are the pinnacle of current tank design, and a serious rethink is needed for Generation 4.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill

There is potential for a major conflict within the next 20 years, while the LAV’s are excellent for the type of fighting we are doing now, you also have to prepare for the next war also, throwing away tracks in favour of an all wheeled force, may be akin to using anti-Warsaw Pact tactic in Afghanistan.

Due to our political affiliations, geography and such, it is very difficult to determine which battlefield Canada will next be involved in. Had I told people in 1999 that Canada would be fielding a 2,000+ combat force in offensive operation in Afghanistan, likely I would have been laughed out of the room.

If a major war evolves, we will likely have 6 months to year to prepare and preposition. You cannot train or equip troops properly with medium-heavy armour in that timeframe. We need to keep a portion of the military ready for the heavy stuff, the question is how?

Do we rebuild our current stock of Leopards? Which give us a relatively decent vehicle with a gun that is on the edge of being obsolete, do we get heavier Leo 2’s which puts us in the heavyweight class and accept the tactical limitations that gives us or do we go for a mix of lighter/medium/heavy with a vehicle that has an excellent gun, decent mobility, but marginal to adequate armour?

By the way I am also a fan of the Bv206/Bv206S/BvS10 family, but see their role more for the arctic, with more limited uses elsewhere.


----------



## George Wallace

Here's an old thought.  Why not cascade the current Leo 1's down to the Recce Sqns, and equip the Sabre Sqns with Leo 2's.  The Leo 1/Coyote mix in the Recce Sqns would give a Light to Medium level of Deployable troops.  For the Heavy Stuff, you'd have the Leo 2's.  This gives a wide range of skill sets and flexibility to Commanders.  

With the Tanks more widely spread out through the Army, there would be a better chance of lower level Commanders, being familiar with how Cbt Teams operate and what capabilities they offer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Here's an old thought.  Why not cascade the current Leo 1's down to the Recce Sqns, and equip the Sabre Sqns with Leo 2's.  The Leo 1/Coyote mix in the Recce Sqns would give a Light to Medium level of Deployable troops.  For the Heavy Stuff, you'd have the Leo 2's.  This gives a wide range of skill sets and flexibility to Commanders.
> 
> With the Tanks more widely spread out through the Army, there would be a better chance of lower level Commanders, being familiar with how Cbt Teams operate and what capabilities they offer.



Good Lord, then commanders might be asking for tanks all the time, can't be having them proved useful or anything like that can we!


----------



## CanadaPhil

Not that I am an expert, but has anyone noticed this trend.....

I believe we fielded 500 Centurions back in the day, which were replaced by our current 100 odd Leo 1's.

Apparently the Liberals wanted to entirely phase MBT's altogether and replace them with 66 MGS's??? and pretend that the MGS could stand toe to toe with heavy battle tank in a slug fest. 

From 500 to 100 to 66???

Now that the CF will hopefully soon have heavy lift capability, would it not make more sense to upgrade all the working Leopards we have to extend their useful lives? Does anyone have a rough idea on how much cost to upgrade our Leopards with the add on armour and gun sight upgrades? I believe the deal for the 66 MGS's is over $650 million!!

If the government decides we should still acquire the MGS, well then fine. But why should we get rid our MBT's? Shouldn't we at least hang to some of them for a heavy direct fire support role??

Here is a thought for an upgraded Leo for a urban fire support role...... In addition to the armour upgrade pkg.,  how about the shorter version of the 105mm gun to allow for easier use in tighter European style city streets along with add on slat armour(ala US Strykers in Iraq) for increased RPG protection. It may not win any beauty contests, but it would at least have 10 times the survivability of an MGS.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## George Wallace

CanadaPhil

With 44 pages on this subject in this topic alone, you should have read all that.  

By the way, what is with a short barrel to handle tighter European style city streets?  That is where this tank came from.  It, and larger tanks, have managed very well in European style streets for the past seventy years.  Am I missing something here?


----------



## CanadaPhil

I have to confess that I didn't get through all 44 pages. 

There were some very interesting write ups on this very issue that I came across while looking for info on heavy lift aircraft and landing ships. However, part of the sight (unfortunately the part with a ton on info on land forces) is now down for the summer while it gets revamped). It will probably be up in another month or so.

There was a proposal for a Leopard 1 "upgrade" as described. It would better be described as an engineering or bunker clearing vehicle than a main battle tank.The idea behind a shortened 105mm (cant remember the specific designation of this gun) was to allow for full turret rotation in very tight urban quarters without the danger of being impeded (literally) by building walls, telephone poles, etc. Slat armour was added all around for increased rpg protection. I believe there was also a protected weapons station with 40mm grenade launcher. 

You can still check out some other topics there if you like at:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-0intro.htm


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-0intro.htm



Oh no...  :


----------



## Kirkhill

The point I was getting at Colin, at risk of being pedantic but in the interest of trying to put cart and horse in order, was that it isn't tracks that make a Tank.  A Tank is a Tank, IMHO, because it is heavily armoured and can therefore directly assault an enemy position in the face of enemy fire with the greatest chance of survival.  Tracks generally seem to allow a heavier weight of vehicle to move across more types of terrain than wheels.  

I know "tracks" as opposed to wheels is often shorthand for Tanks  but that tends to lead to the discussion as to whether or not a vehicle like the CV90/Puma/TAM, which is not much more heavily armoured than a LAV/Warrior/Bradley/Stryker class of vehicle is a Tank.

I don't think a Tank is a Tank until it can absorb punishment and while all Tanks may have tracks in order to carry the greatest mass of "passive defensive material" possible not all Tracks are Tanks.

On a related note I don't think that the size of the main armament on a Tank matters nearly as much as its Armour.  Personally I would be more inclined to regard a heavily armoured APC that can deliver troops directly on to the enemy position but has only MGs and 25mms as more of a Tank than a lightly armoured CV90 with a 120mm gun that can't close on the objective.  If it can't close with the enemy then it can only offer Fire Support (at a low angle) and therefore is a Direct Fire Support Vehicle, regardless of whether it has wheels or tracks, and is not a Tank.

The fact that a Tank has an enormous mass because of all that defensive material necessary to protect its human cargo means that it can absorb the recoil forces from a very large calibre gun.  The Tank makes the Big Gun possible.  The Big Gun doesn't make the Tank.

This may seem like picking fly-shyte from pepper to you and some other folks but the way I see it Wheeled Light Armoured Vehicles, Tracked Light Armour Vehicles, Tracked Heavy Armour Vehicles and Specialty Tracked Vehicles (like the Bv206) are four complementary systems that are designed to fight four separate battles, or maybe it is just three.  

Wheels give Arthur his mobile cavalry element covering large distances of "good going" in a short time.  Their greatest protection is a good pair of binoculars so that they can find the enemy before they are found and generally keep their distance.  If they are going to do any killing it should be done at long range.  The best use of these vehicles seems to be in areas with roads, or at least tracks, and hard packed ground.

Heavy Tracks are specialist vehicles designed for the close assault.  They are not designed for the covering ground - I don't see how their proponents can argue otherwise when track changes, engine changes and even complete "reset" requirements are measured in 100's of kilometers and not 10s of thousands of kilometers.  They are needed at FEBA but they need a massive amount of infrastructure to get them there and keep them there.  

The Specialty Track Vehicles, much like the Wheeled LAVs can also be seen as "Cavalry" vehicles.  They extend the variety of terrains over which troops can patrol denying that ground to the enemy.  Without them a small amount of enemy on foot in poor ground could dominate the terrain - tying down a very large number of own forces if they were restricted to foot-borne movement.  Helicopters in conjunction with the staying power of Specialty Tracks seems to make a good operational combination from my understanding.  They also increase the weight of weaponry that can be brought to to the fight against a foe limited to what can be back-packed or mule-trained.  As well they permit own forces to permit enemy positions from unexpected directions over ground that might otherwise be thought impassable.

The Light Tracks seem to be something and nothing much of the time.  If they were truly intended to allow the infantry to keep up with the tanks then they would be built along the lines of the Elgins WWII Rams and Defrocked Priests or the Israeli Achzarits.  They seem to have been built of ligther armour not for tactical purposes but for cost purposes.  Early doctrine to defeat the Combined Arms attack was, IIRC, to strip off the BMPs at long range, destroying as much infantry as possible and forcing them to debus.  This made them easy targets for the machine guns and artillery and ensured that the survivors were dead beat by the time they reached the objective and in no position to support the tanks.  The tanks, now isolated and on the defensive position were now at greater risk of being defeated by man-portable weapons at close range.

In landscapes with wet fields then Light Tracks can do the jobs the LAVs and Strykers are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan but over much shorter distances.  They are every bit as vulnerable, it seems to me anyway.  They also have a role in support of the Specialist Tracks in that they may be more able to deploy into similar terrain, terrain you can't get a Heavy Track into, and thus beef up the support available.  But is that support necessary or can it be handled by other means, for example the helicopters mentioned before?

If I was looking at fielding a balanced force I might be inclined to offer something like:

LAV Force - all wheels:  60% of the Vehicles and Manpower and about 50% of the Budget
Heavy Force - Gun Tanks and APC Tanks: 15% of the Vehicles and Manpower and 25% of the Budget
Lt Force - Bv206s and Helicopters: 25% of the Vehicles and Manpower and 25% of the Budget.

The Light Force and LAV Force are manpower heavy in Combat Arms but the Heavy Force is Manpower intensive in the Support Arms - 10 PYs in the Infantry are likely to be allocated to a Rifle Section.  In the Armoured Corps 10 PYs probably equals something like 4 Tank crewmen, 2 Tank Transporter Crewmen, 2 POL Crewmen and 2 Resupply Crewmen, not to mention the Mechanics.  15% of the Manpower would probably mean only 40% of the PYs were available to actually man Tanks or about 1/10th of the number of LAV vehicles that could be manned with 60% of the total manning.  Conversely 10% of the number of vehicles although smaller would consume a much larger portion of both the capital and operating budget in this case about five times as much to field a Tank with support as to field a LAV (pure guess work but ....)

The Light Force like the LAV Force can also deploy a high proportion of its man-power tactically, and vehicles like the Bv206 are relatively cheap and cheap to run but the supporting helicopter force ( and fixed wing support) is very expensive even if the heli-support is limited to CH47s and a force of ARHs (Bell 407s) rather than "proper" Attack Helicopters like the Apache.

That would result in a LAV force of something like 6 Battle Groups, a large Heavy Battle Group and 3 Light Battle Groups.  Cross attach at will.

Returning to armchair.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill, we aren’t all that far off of each other. I think the CV-90/120 is a decent vehicle, I know it’s not a tank, but I have concerns about the state of our current fleet and their ability to survive till 2015 (assuming that the next few governments will replace them)

I see our options are:

Hold on and repair what we have and hope for the best.

Replace them with a MBT, Abrams or Leo 2 are the 2 likely contenders

Replace/supplement them with an interim light AFV, hence the CV-90/120 until a full replacement is decided (Merk 5???)  ;D

I personally like Georges idea of a mix of LeoC2 and Leo 2’s

The main reason to choose the CV/90 is that it comes as a family of vehicle built be a country that suffers winters like ours. It also has limited combat/service in Africa. The other 2 existing choices for an IFV are the Brad and Warrior, neither offer an extensive family of vehicles and then creating a wider mix of vehicles if purchased.

This family would include SP arty, IFV’s, AGS and possibly engineer support, meaning that the heavy element would be made up of 2 basic types of vehicles.

Neither of us are talking about replacing the LAV with APC/IFV’s but as you put it having a heavy and light brigades.


----------



## ArmyRick

here are my views on this discussion (Open fire or praise as U see fit)

Heavy MBT (Leo 2, Abrams, Leclerc, etc, etc)
Advantages-Mobility over difficult terrain, heavy protection, truly are mobile fortress
Disadvantages-Consume POL at a very high rate, wear and tear, costly, difficult to move

Lighter fighting vehicles (CV90-120) Faster, less protection but same fire power as MBT

What do we do. If majoor is correct and future weapon systems are as deadly as planned, we need to rethink things through.

If the US is successful with MGV family (part of FCS), maybe that would be our ideal replacement for Leo in say 2010. 

People are screaming to purchase leo 2A6 or Abrams. Or as one person suggested, an interim vehicle. Keep in mind these vehicles have been around for 20-25 years and I think there service lives in the next ten years will come to an end. Interim vehicle, in the CF, no such thing. If we get an interim vehicle, be prepared for thirty years of temporary service.

Predicting the future is a dangerous gamble. Keeping a heavy Battle group, maybe 3-4 LAV (medium) battlle groups and 3 light (lots of helicopters) battle groups seems ideal.

I am also a beleiver that we should get in on the US FCS program.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Even if the Uber-weapons were created today, they would only be in frontline service of a handful of Western countries in the next 10 years, highly unlikely that Serbia, NK, Pakistan, Uganda will have them anytime soon.

Possible China would be the next country following the West to equip with them.

MBT's will be around until this month's recruits are RSM's


----------



## Red 6

You placed the Leclerc in the same category as the M1 in regard to being a heavy MBT. I believe the weighs about 15 tons less than the M1A2, which strains the pavement at around 70 tons. The Leclerc is a complex tank, and there are pros and cons to the autoloader. The digital bus in the Leclerc is world class, probably every bit as capable as the M1A2.


----------



## a_majoor

I would class the Le Clerc as a Generation 3.5 tank.

Colin. you are correct there will be a time lag between "uber weapons" being developed and being widely fielded, but it might not be as long as we hope. The laws of supply and demand work in the military field, and if (say) a practical hand held or shoulder fired rail gun was developed, every army and paramilitary on Earth would want it.

Even if the United States was the developer, the presence of a successful example and a certain knowledge of the laws of physics would allow advanced nations like France, Israel and China to reverse engineer them in short order, and the next string (Singapore, North Korea, Belgium) would be cranking out knock off copies soon after. All these nations have customers and clients, and the United States also has many military clients who would be able to access these weapons.

We in the West could hope to develop counter weapons and techniques to defeat these engines of destruction, but historical examples tell us that arms races like this reach diminishing returns very fast, and there is either a drastic rethinking of how the affected arm is used. The loss of armour by Cavalry soldiers during the 1600's is a pretty clear example, there was no practical method of protecting the soldier against fire arms, even heavy plate armour proof against longbows, cross bows and most polearms could be defeated by a lowly infantryman firing a matchlock, but Cavalry survived into the 20th century on horseback, and exists today mounted on AFVs and Helicopters. Armour will survive, but adapted to the new circumstances.


----------



## George Wallace

Red 6 said:
			
		

> You placed the Leclerc in the same category as the M1 in regard to being a heavy MBT. I believe the weighs about 15 tons less than the M1A2, which strains the pavement at around 70 tons. The Leclerc is a complex tank, and there are pros and cons to the autoloader. The digital bus in the Leclerc is world class, probably every bit as capable as the M1A2.



I think that the Leclerc is considered in most circles as being in the same class as the M1 and Leo 2, although at the bottom end weight wise, because it is still over that 50 ton line.  

Actually there really wasn't much distinction between Heavy, Medium and Light tanks after WW II.  Most looked at the M47, M48, M60, T54, T62, T64, T72, Leo 1, AMX 30, Centurian, Chieftan, Challenger 1, etc as just being MBTs.  Yes there were light tanks like the AMX 13, but they still weren't segregated that much from the pack.  When we got into the Chieftan/Challenger, M1, Leo 2 families, we have started to go Heavy again, but still didn't really start calling them "Heavy" rather than MBTs.  

Have we maxed out on weight?  Good question.  We are very concerned lately with portability, and weight has been the main concern.  Iraq has proven the requirement for Armour and the M1 has proven itself there and the need for MBTs in a modern army.  But how do we cut down the Weight Factor without cutting down on the Protection Factor?  We have seen some advances in armour protection in the 70's with Chobham Armour and improved ceramics, which have cut down the weights of tanks drastically, but they are still weighing in at over 55 and 60 tons and breaking the 70 ton mark.  

Will Light Armour be the solution?  Only in Peacetime.  Even in Vietnam, the M113 was found to be lacking in armour protection, and it was reinforced at times with sandbags, extra armour plates, extra track stowed on the sides, Gun Shields, etc.  If we have to buy packages today to 'uparmour' our vehicles, isn't that sort of defeating any cost savings or weight savings that we have initially decided on?  I do agree that we should be looking at Tracks, as they are better suited suspension wise for any 'add on' armour or other accessories that may be required in future needs.  Tracks beat out Wheels in this case.

I'd say...go with the armour protection to begin with.  'Add ons' only cause more problems with engines, transmissions and suspensions.  Buy the 'full deal package' and save on the wear and tear that would be caused by any 'add ons'.  Take Tracks over Wheeled for the same reasons.  Although the LAV III is a great vehicle, I am sure that if we start adding more weigh in uparmouring it, we will see all it's advantages negated, as it's engine, transmission and suspension loose their abilities to keep this a fast, mobile piece of kit.  I won't even get into the amount of 'protection' is having to be dropped on the MGS to get it to meet the 'Requirements' set - protection that will have to be added on later, causing more stress on the mechanics of the vehicle.

Go Heavy.  MBT.


----------



## Red 6

You raise some good points, George. It really is a trade off, isn't it? To slug it out on a conventional battlefield, tanks need that armor protection. But, if they weigh so much that they can't cross bridges, then they lose some of their mobility. I recall on quite a few occasions in Europe trying to figure out the weight class for bridges to figure out whether or not they could take the weight of our M1's. 

In some ways, the issue isn't so much weight as it is size. Look at the smaller group of tanks. (Russian, French, Chinese, etc) They all mount guns that are comparable with the M1, Challenger, etc, but they present much smaller silhouettes. The trade-off is that they either use an auto loader, or the crew compartment is so cramped, it's like riding inside a cement mixer, or both. When the Army did the design for the M1 back in the 70's, among the many requirements was crew comfort. People may think this is odd, but not if you ever spent a month living in the turret. 

In the case of Canada, you have a long history with the Leo. I say, if you want to stay in the tank business, buy the latest version of that tank. I'll confess my ignorance at what the nomenclature is. Since I retired, stuff like that isn't nearly as important as it once was to me. 

This is for all you tankers and scouts out there. These were from gunnery at Graf in April 88. The top picture is an M1 from E 2/11 ACR firing at range 117. I was on the ammo pad when I took this. The bottom picture, my LT took. This is me and my crew (old E-35) at range 307 on our table-VIII night run.


----------



## a_majoor

Red-6 and George are making good points, and I certainly agree there is a need for a powerful, well armed and protected fighting machine in the inventory. My question is are large, well armed and protected vehicles the sole province of the Armoured (or Armored for Red-6  ) Corps?

In the current security environment, fast moving and hard hitting units and formations are required to do patrols, sweep areas, shape the battlefield and so on; traditional Cavalry roles. Equally obvious, getting it on in complex or urban terrain requires lots of dismounted Infantry and Engineers, backed by well armed and protected AFV's. 

The Armoured units doing patrols or setting up cordons around the built up areas they just chased the enemy into are not likely to encounter tanks or anything heavier than a Toyota Land Cruiser mounting a russian 14.5mm HMG or an RPG team. The troops moving into the urban areas will encounter fierce resistance with enemy forces firing from all angles and directions from improvised cover and concealment. In this environment what we think of as a tank (i.e. an M-1 or Merkava for real life examples of the scenario) is best used as an assault gun to support the dismounted soldiers. This is where I pulled out my thought experiment of inverting the CF's TO&E and placing the Leopards in a "Fire Support Company" of an Infantry battalion, not nessesarily the best or only way to do thigs, but a different way of looking at matching the tools to the job at hand.

The "Armoured" role can be played by a wide range of AFV's in this scenario, with a definite bias towards wheels, while in the Urban fight we need "armour", with a definite bias towards tracks. This situation will not stay with us forever, but there are very real limiting factors of terrain and logistics which will keep us from adding layers of passive protection to our AFVs when upgrading AFV's or designing new ones.

In a way we are starting to drift into the "Future Armour" thread. The role of the Armoured will remain substancially the same, but the Corps will have to adapt to changing circumstances to carry out the role.

As a BTW, while the LeClerc is a "nice" generation 3.5 tank, there are lots of complex features like the "Hyperbar" engine that I wonder about. I would stick with the well proven Leopard II as the premier AFV, and the Puma IFV as it's partner vehicle for going into urban and complex terrain, with the "all Canadian" mods being to replace heavy parts with lighter ones using advanced material science.


----------



## Kirkhill

"Will Light Armour be the solution?  Only in Peacetime"

A quibble George.  Might it not be better to say when the enemy is not or is engaged, rather than peacetime/wartime?

Suppose I suggest that peacetime is defined as being that occasion when one of three circumstances apply:

1 - there is no enemy
2 - the enemy is dispersed and ineffective (militarily*)
3 - the enemy is concentrated and inactive.

This falls from the notion that lack of activity does not mean lack of enemy.

Patrolling determines the shape of the enemy in time and space.  It confines. It deters. It provokes. It discovers.  In peacetime and in wartime patrolling is still required.

The difference as I see it is that in peacetime you don't know if you don't have an enemy, or if they are just inactive, or are dispersed.  You have to cover a lot of ground to determine the situation. That requires dispersal of your own troops to discover not just the enemy but the lack of the enemy and also to discourage people from taking up arms and becoming the enemy.  The more ground that an individual team of soldiers can cover in a day the fewer soldiers you need to invest in that patrolling. 

That suggests that a vehicle capable of a good speed over ground and long range is the order of the day.  Armour can be discarded for fuel because, frankly, there aren't many bullets flying and those bullets that are flying are not the large, effective ones that need the treasury of a state to acquire.  The risk of a soldier dying are low because the chance of being seen by an enemy, being shot at, being hit and being hit effectively, combined are low.  Survival in a LAV type, or other light vehicle, is high. 

Once the enemy concentrates and declares itself by becoming militarily effective then the calculation changes.  The driving force is not confinement, deterrence and discovery. It certainly isn't provocation.  It is elimination of the threat.  That means "closing and destroying" and that, I fully agree with you, means the heaviest weight of armour possible.  And that means tracks and tanks.  Anything less and the chance of soldier-survival is not what it might be.

Having said that however, in peacetime small, relatively ineffective enemy concentrations need to be assaulted to prevent them becoming bigger and effective. That may not require tanks but it is probably best done with tanks to keep the risks to the soldiers to a minimum.  Even in peacetime tanks should be available although not necessarily in large numbers.

In wartime, however, once the enemy is concentrated, there is still a need for wide-ranging patrolling to confine, deter, provoke and discover. That wasn't as true in north europe where the distances and numbers involved made it physically possible to create an unbroken front of hundreds of kilometers with flanks well anchored on the sea and the mountains.  But now, with the ranges of weapons involved effective concentrations of forces can be more widely dispersed making them both harder to discover and making it less necessary for them to create a continuous line.  The battle maps of the future, IMHO, are going to look as if they have got a very bad case of both blue and red measles with enemy and own forces intermeshed and overlapping.  

It is this combination of the 360 battlefield, long-range weapons, smaller concentrations being more effective and thus more able to escape confinement that gives me to think that the LAV/Strykers of this world will still have a place in wartime.  This becomes even more true if the enemy continues to disregard the Geneva Conventions and Marquis of Queensbury rules and fight as a civilian within the civilian population while simultaneously conducting conventional, high intensity operations in the field.

I do agree with the need for weight of armour when engaging the enemy but I disagree somewhat with your prescription to buy vehicles with 70 tonnes of metal permanently attached.  I agree that 20 tonne drive trains should not be loaded with 40 tonnes of armour but isn't a better solution to buy a 70 tonne drive train and only load it to its maximum capacity when needed?  Why not buy a 20 tonne vehicle with a 70 tonne drive train and add the extra 50 tonnes as and when it is needed?  Wouldn't that keep training and operating costs down and increase the longevity of the equipment?

I am not arguing against the need for tanks.  Nor am I arguing that LAVs don't have their weaknesses. I am just suggesting that it is a matter of "horses for courses" and in peacetime and wartime both will have a role.


- I see Arthur beat me to it as I was preparing this but here's my .02 anyway


* militarily effective is something of a problem for me because it suggests that war is about killing soldiers and therefore that the only effective engagement is one where soldiers (or at least their kit) are killed.  However war is not about killing soldiers, nor is it about killing civilians.  It is about convincing civilians - every war is first and foremost a "hearts and minds campaign".  If that wasn't true before WW2 then Goebels and the Ministries of Propaganda of all parties certainly demonstrated it to be true for then and ever after.  Our current enemies are trading on the Vietnamese success in demonstrating that you don't have to be miltarily effective to win the war.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What I have noticed is that most countries do not have the road infrastructure that we are used to here, 100 ton and up bridges are common as dirt here, but a rarity elsewhere, 70 tons is about the max that you can go for a expeditionary force, as anything heavier puts a strain on the entire infrastructure, including ships, loading ramps, docks, rail, roads and bridges.

The same technology advances will also benefit AFV’s as well as anti-armour weapons.

a-majoor

Currently most of the weapons being encountered overseas are on average 20 years old technologies and not even present state of the art. If our adversaries could deploy Javelins or similar right now it would cause us and the US a lot of problems. So I say that we are relatively safe from that threat for the time being.


----------



## George Wallace

Collin

You will have to remember that in the cases of Bridge Classes, you will sometimes find bridges that tracked vehicles can safely cross, but wheeled vehicles can't.  Remember that Tracks spread out the Ground Pressure exerted by the vehicle much better than Tires.

As for road infrastructure.  Well, with any large volume of Heavy vehicles, it really doesn't matter if it is Tracked or Wheeled vehicles, those roads will not last long.  That is why Hitler started building the Autobahns out of concrete.  In most Third World countries, that infrastructure may never have existed to any great extent in the first place.  Tracked vehicles would provide more mobility.  Amphibious Tracked vehicles would provide more.   ;D

I have seen numerous variants of Tracked Bridgelayers.  Not too many Wheeled Bridgelayers.  I don't include the Bridges (or Rafts) found in Bridging units, in the same way that I would with the AVBLs, although they are out there and with time can do as much or more.


----------



## Shamrock

George, what are you talking about?  The ground pressure of a vehicle won't matter when the entire vehicle is on the bridge -- it will still have the same amount of mass exerting the same pressure along the same supports and on the shores.  Bridge class is based on mass and volume not footpad.

As for wheeled-chassis based VLB's, there's plenty.  The entire KMM and TMM family, the French PTA.  Even the Leguan comes available on 6- or 8-wheeled chassis, some of which are even armoured.  

Self-correction:
MILIFAX 
Canadian Army Vehicle Markings 1939-1945 
 Bridging Class Markings Part 2

8.        It is important to note that these classification numbers are not necessarily the tonnage 
    weights of the vehs , although in the case of tracked vehs they do closely approximate it.  They 
    are arrived at from consideration of axle loading, distances between axles and impact factor. 
    The class of veh should looked upon merely as ref numbers to permit the comparing of br 
    and veh classes and thus provide a simple method of determining what brs particular vehs 
    can safely pass over them.


----------



## George Wallace

Callsign Kenny said:
			
		

> George, what are you talking about?  The ground pressure of a vehicle won't matter when the entire vehicle is on the bridge -- it will still have the same amount of mass exerting the same pressure along the same supports and on the shores.  Bridge class is based on mass and volume not footpad.



Not always true.  In some cases, the total mass and volume is not the problem, but the concentration of that mass.  On some Bridges you may find that a heavier tracked vehicle is allowed than a wheeled vehicle.  The wheeled vehicle concentrating its' mass on a smaller footprint.  Numbers or Stringers, Deck type, etc. are also factors in these equations.

Now I have to go looking for examples of Bridge Class signs to demonstrate that it is sometimes the fact.  Wait Out.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/5-170/appb.htm#s1


----------



## a_majoor

What happens when you go too crazy in the size/protection department:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz7.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-28_Super_Heavy_Tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_%28tank%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conqueror_tank

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1997/5fcs97.pdf (some discussion of the Block III tank program)

While we have developed the engine and suspension technology to the point we can have 60-70 Tonne AFVs with impressive mobility, the 1500 + hp engines are "gas guzzlers" and the problem of size and weight of the vehicles leads to the same problems which derailed most of the vehicles listed above.

Finally, an article from "Jane's Defence Weekly" which summarizes some of this debate. A powerful weapon like the tank will be in play for many years to come, but what role it will play is a different story.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/518308/posts


----------



## Red 6

I think the US Army tends to push heavier elements forward in the reconnaissance battle than do most armies. In the heavy armored cavalry regiment, each line troop has 2 platoons of Bradleys and 2 tank platoons. There are three troops in a squadron along with a tank company and an organic FA battery. The regiment has three ground cavalry squadrons, and an air cavalry squadron. That's a lot of combat power in the corps screen, plus normally, the regiment fights with a DS battery of MLRS, and other slice elements. The regiment would typically set up a screen line in the defense and advance in a zone recon in the attack.

Heavy division cavalry squadrons also have the same mix of tanks and Bradleys in each troop. This came about as a result of lessons learned in Desert Storm, when almost every divisional cav squadron wound up with tanks op-conned. 

In terms of mobility on the modern battlefield, if tanks are needed somewhere, they'll make it to the fight. There have been, for instance, some outstanding books written about employment of armor in Vietnam. I read somewhere that a 1965 study predicted that 80% of the Vietnam battle areas were NO-GO areas for tanks and other tracked vehicles. But once armored units began deploying into theater, they pioneered jungle movement. I had a platoon sergeant in the mid-80s who served in the Blackhorse during the Cambodian operations. He told us how they would bust jungle thru terrain that was unbelievable with helicopters from the air cav guiding the way. 

To me, if you need a tank, there isn't a substitute. Armored gun platforms on wheels or light tracked chassis are, for all intents and purposes, like the tank destroyers of World War II. They may have the firepower to knock out an enemy tank, but in a tank-to-tank slugging match, the TD, whatever its nomenclature, is going to get wasted, unless they get a first round kill. Even then, the enemy wingman tank will probably spot the muzzle signature and do the job. Tanks, on the other hand, are very versatile and can operate in just about every battlefield scenario. I really like the way Kirkhill summed this up.

The other issue is mission creep. If things are driving around that look like tanks, shoot like tanks and sound like tanks, it's almost inevitable that they're going to get employed like tanks, even if they aren't. Now, if it's a peacekeeping, or even a peace enforcement mission, that may not be a problem. But we always learn and implement lessons based on the last real-world operation. You guys know how deadly that can be if the lessons aren't the correct ones for the next war.

That has to be tough for a small armored force like Canada's. You guys cannot afford to get it wrong, since every asset is precious. 

(PS - Ya'll are a squared away bunch and I won't hold it against anybody that you spell "armored" wrong...


----------



## Michael OLeary

Red 6 said:
			
		

> (PS - Ya'll are a squared away bunch and I won't hold it against anybody that you spell "armored" wrong...



that is very kind of u


----------



## Red 6

No problem, Michael  

PS: Seriously, this is the most intelligent debate on this topic I've ever read. Usually, it degenerates into a pissing match over who has the better what. My hat's off to you, fellas.


----------



## TCBF

Red 6,

Were you in 11 ACR during FALLEX 1988?


----------



## Red 6

Roger, in 2nd Squadron. I sure was in Reforger that year. At one point, we were operating around Rothenburg and the Canadian Battle Group was in sector. (Apologies in advance if I got their nomenclature wrong.)


----------



## TCBF

4CMBG - 4 Canadian Mecanized Brigade Group - no longer existant, sad to say.

I was a Troop Warrant in the Bde Recce Sqn.  Seven Lynx in a Troop, three Troops in the Sqn.  Amazing exercise.  The scale was staggering.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

I think the purchase of new tanks may hinge around how well the Leapord's perform in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not tank country, the soviets found that out the hard way. 

 Even Hilliar being a tank guy, had reservations about sending the Leo's over.

 If Canada wants to go the wheeled route, LAV etc, they should look no further than to the South African military as a perfect example of a wheeled, armoured balance. The "*Rooikat*" comes to mind, its a medium wheeled tank, 28 tons ,8 wheeled and has a decent armour package and a 105 MGS and goes almost anywhere.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Rooikat,,00.html


----------



## George Wallace

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> I think the purchase of new tanks may hinge around how well the Leopard's perform in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not tank country, the soviets found that out the hard way.
> 
> Even Hilliar being a tank guy, had reservations about sending the Leo's over.
> 
> If Canada wants to go the wheeled route, LAV etc, they should look no further than to the South African military as a perfect example of a wheeled, armoured balance. The "*Rooikat*" comes to mind, its a medium wheeled tank, 28 tons ,8 wheeled and has a decent armour package and a 105 MGS and goes almost anywhere.
> 
> http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Rooikat,,00.html



Funny!

You sound like another character on this site.

Who says Afghanistan isn't 'Tank Country'?  What experience do they have?  Are you looking at beautiful pictures of mountains and ignoring the wide open plains?  LAV's don't work so well in the mountains either.  Have you seen the BTR 80 being blown up in the mountain pass on video that circulated around the Net several years ago?  Perhaps you are comparing conscripts in T54 to our guys in Leopards?   How about BTR 80's and LAV's?  Sure the Russians were defeated.   

Why don't you at the same time say Canada isn't 'Tank Country'?  We have the Rocky mountains.   :

Why doe we put up with this crap?

You have been defeated by the propaganda of the al Quada machine and will bring about our defeat.  The Americans didn't loose any battles that they fought in Vietnam, but they lost the propaganda war at home, which brought about their defeat.  This is what is happening here, with your posts, those of the NDP and the CPA.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> If Canada wants to go the wheeled route, LAV etc, they should look no further than to the South African military as a perfect example of a wheeled, armoured balance. The "*Rooikat*" comes to mind, its a medium wheeled tank, 28 tons ,8 wheeled and has a decent armour package and a 105 MGS and goes almost anywhere.


----------



## Red 6

Thanks very much for the outstanding intel on the Rooikat. The armored car/tank issue is somewhat like the debate about tank destroyers and tanks took took place in the US Army during World War II. TDs were lighter, cheaper to build and were mounted with heavy guns that could destroy anything out there. The idea was, TD forces could quickly maneuver out to the flanks of an enemy armored force and tear them to pieces from the sides. Armored force guys resisted the push for TDs, arguing that if there was a need for a "tank-like" vehicle, the role should be filled with a tank, not something that looked like a tank, but couldn't stand up to the heavy force battlefield.

Inevitably, TDs were forced into a role that they were never designed or intended to do— operating as tanks in tank vs. tank combat. Many TDs were knocked out in these battles. In my opinion, the debate over tanks vs wheels is analogous to the WW2 debate over TDs and tanks. The issue (in my mind) isn't about having treads or wheels. It's about armor protection and survivability.

I would argue that there are very few places in the world where armor "can't" operate. Even in the highest country, valleys, trails, and roads are available for armor. The great thing about tanks is their versatility. They perform a variety of roles better than practically any other vehicle. Infantry support, convoy escort, economy of force, recon, etc. And the nice thing about having a good tank us that, when the enemy shows up with armor, you have something that can kill his tanks.

The problem in peactime is that no one dies from enemy fire. The important things to bean counters are fuel economy, operational readiness rates, interchangability of parts and stuff like that. A heeled fleet is much nicer because tires are cheaper than tracks to replace, they aren't nearly as destructive to the ground as treads, and so forth. The only problem is, when the next war happens, none of it means anything.

People who don't want you to send tanks to Afghanistan will find reasons to oppose it no matter what. They'll look at the OR rate and say, "See, we told you do." When the first tank is knocked out in combat, "they'll rub their hands together and say, "Yep, we told you it wasn't a suitable place for armor." But, those folks, entitled to their opinions as they are, weren't the ones who asked for tanks in the first place. The commander on the ground did.


----------



## solidarnosc

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> I think the purchase of new tanks may hinge around how well the Leapord's perform in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not tank country, the soviets found that out the hard way.
> 
> Even Hilliar being a tank guy, had reservations about sending the Leo's over.
> 
> If Canada wants to go the wheeled route, LAV etc, they should look no further than to the South African military as a perfect example of a wheeled, armoured balance. The "*Rooikat*" comes to mind, its a medium wheeled tank, 28 tons ,8 wheeled and has a decent armour package and a 105 MGS and goes almost anywhere.
> 
> http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Rooikat,,00.html



You could save yourselves some money








Or even more if one bought 90MM. I think GM Canada (--GDLS) has bought 130 90M MK8's for Saudi-Arabia so there is some experience in Canada. And the MK8 is COTS and exported to several countries. Ok 90MM is not good against modern tanks and upgraded older ones but a wheeled vehicle of 25 ton is not good against heavy armour anyway in my opinion so instead of putting a heavy gun on a light vehicle so it is no good anymore for anything one can put a medium gun on a light vehicle for fire support and recce. Buy second-hand upgraded Leo II's/M1's for heavy duty.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

There's nothing like examining something up close and personal, books and fact sheets just don't cut it.  

IF, and that may be a big IF, we buy an armoured car, perhaps the best bet would be the CT-CV, which is available with the excellent Cockerill 105mm cannon, fully compatible with NATO standard tank ammunition.  As has been noted, we would have to carefully state the purpose of a new beast, (which of course, we will ignore and use the vehicle for everything from a recce vehicle to a tank)  Sigh


I wonder if SA is considering selling any Oliphants?   Might come in handy..........


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

What are the price comparisons between the new armoured car designs with their inadequate armour, non-tank destroying gun and lamentable ammunition capacity and the price of the newly available surplus Leopard II A5 that are being shopped around Europe?  I know Canada likes to bring a jacknife to a swordfight to save a nickel, but when they are beating the swords into plowshares, you can sometimes get as good a price on an actual sword as the jacknife you had settled on.  If the numbers are even half close, then why would we buy a "not tank, not very good SP gun"  when we can get a full up main battle tank that can do the SP gun for infantry support, tank destroy current generation MBT (not just 1970's retreads), survive the sorts of IED and RPG that are so much fun for our friends in the sandpit, and be outfitted with enough handy-dandy attachments to use them for any task from mine clearing to civil defence disaster response?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Speaking strictly for myself, there is a use for armoured cars, over and above the requirement for tanks.  I would never advocate replacing tanks with armoured cars, but rather use them to supplement tanks.  They are handy for such things as convoy escort, rear are security, flank protection and as a DFSV.

That said, in a small army such as ours, I doubt that we have the resources, especially in manpower, to have an Armour Corps equipped with tanks, armoured cars as well as recce vehicles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Recce = VBL + Coyote  
Infantry = LAV 25 and new Bison type with remote turret+ a 76-105mm gunned AC (Pirranha 10x10 with GIAT 105mm turret?
Armour supported with Mech infantry in CV90 type IFV's


----------



## ArmyRick

The two big advantages I see wheeled DFSV have is speed and fuel economy. However tanks (MBT) have armor protection, cross country mobility and can shoot better on the move.  After watching some of the videos of the LAV III doing OK in combat (I noticed it had to tackle a steep ditch at a slow speed and i beleive the leo would probably have plowed through that faster). 


Who knows, maybe the US FCS MGV will address both issues. I know the MGV series is tracked and i beleive they are aiming for 80 KM/H speed with a top weight of 30 tonnes.  That there might be the compromise needed between a current MBT and the wheeled DFSV kicking around out there.


----------



## a_majoor

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24311/post-478518.html#msg478518 Illustrates the CV_CT turret mounting the 90mm cannon, but it is capable of mounting a 105mm cannon as well.

The arguments for tanks vs armoured cars is sound, but the reality is we are building a force around a wheeled fleet for now, and so should look at the best possible piece of equipment to compliment that idea. A LAV CV_CT/105 provides an armoured car which is logistically compatible with the rest of the LAV fleet, has similar strategic, operational and tactical mobility, and provides the sort of hitting power a 25mm chain gun does not. All the minus points of an armoured car are noted.

Organizationally, there is room for this sort of vehicle, recce squadrons need a troop of DFSV's to protect Coyotes or "mud recce" vehicles and Infantry companies could use a platoon for intimate fire support (SBCT model). We could buy and operate enough to have economy of scale and a large enough experience pool to experiment and evolve TTPs and lessons learned.

To my mind, a light tank would need a tracked APC/IFV as a compliment, and a MBT would need a heavy IFV as it's "team partner". Having parts of the combat team that are unable to stay together due to different speeds, cross country mobility etc. leads to having them vulnerable to being separated and defeated in detail.


----------



## sandyson

From a military geographical point of view, all of the armoured vehicles mentioned, are soft on top and underneath. While the Taliban may not now have top attack munitions, we should not procure additional armour based upon the Afghan mission.  The small sqn of Leopard's should suffice for that bn gp.

We need amour for the next threat, which may be very near and much more serious to Canada, its allies, and our trade, if/when IRAQ falls.  I would prefer a substantial increase in new armour development leading to one new alliance main battle tank. The existing NATO inventory is too vulnerable.  Using new armour and other existing technologies, should present any enemy with a formidable tank opponent.  However, first and foremost to putting our infantry on top with the fewest casualties is the need for effective armour that can take a pounding from all directions.


----------



## solidarnosc

a_majoor said:
			
		

> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24311/post-478518.html#msg478518 Illustrates the CV_CT turret mounting the 90mm cannon, but it is capable of mounting a 105mm cannon as well.



I think that's the 105MM. The CT stands for the tower and CV for the cannon. So CT-CV is tower/gun. 

http://www.cmigroupe.com/vpage.php?id=142


http://www.cmigroupe.com/files/movies/montagever23.mpg 

Old brochure 90MM with pics of turret/cannon on Piranha II platform (that was made I think by GDLS Canada) for the Saudis

http://www.cmigroupe.com/files/files/defence/lcts90.pdf

New brochure CT-CV

http://www.cmigroupe.com/files/files/defence/BATdefense-ctcv.pdf

http://www.cmigroupe.com/files/files/defence/cmi-defense-newsletter09-05-nocut.pdf


----------



## Colin Parkinson

sandyson said:
			
		

> We need amour for the next threat, which may be very near and much more serious to Canada, its allies, and our trade, if/when IRAQ falls.  I would prefer a substantial increase in new armour development leading to one new alliance main battle tank. The existing NATO inventory is too vulnerable.  Using new armour and other existing technologies, should present any enemy with a formidable tank opponent.  However, first and foremost to putting our infantry on top with the fewest casualties is the need for effective armour that can take a pounding from all directions.



Shades of MBT 70, Shudder!!!!


----------



## a_majoor

What is old is new again. I came across some web pages describing a light tank design from the early 1980's for the American Rapid Deployment Force (RDF). Many of the same arguments now trotted out for things like the Stryker and MGS were touted then; lightweight, hard hitting, air deployable etc. http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/tankita2.html (There is a lot of "stuff" surrounding the section on the RDF tank concept, read it for its own value)

Of interest is a version mounting both the 75mm ARES rapid fire cannon and two pods with anti aircraft missiles. The RDF was conceived to fight was a Soviet invasion of the Middle East, and the force needed to be able to fight against a much larger mechanized force which had aircraft and attack helicopters at its disposal. The high angle of elevation is useful for our purposes since the vehicle can engage in a 3D environment and deal with enemy snipers/RPG teams firing from the rooftops. You could picture some sort of TUAV being stored and launched from a pod as opposed to a SAM.

Could such a vehicle be made today? There is no doubt that it could, the original hull was made from M-113 parts if I understand correctly and we could go that route or perhaps a somewhat heavier/stronger one made from a M-2 hull. The 75mm ARES is a bit problematic, but a 105mm cannon would serve most of the needs of an expeditionary force in a much smaller and lighter package than a Leopard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I got tho crawl around one of the AGS prototypes at Littlefields, the armour is quite thin, likely enough to top small arms, but nothing else.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

sandyson said:
			
		

> From a military geographical point of view, all of the armoured vehicles mentioned, are soft on top and underneath. While the Taliban may not now have top attack munitions, we should not procure additional armour based upon the Afghan mission.  The small sqn of Leopard's should suffice for that bn gp.
> 
> We need amour for the next threat, which may be very near and much more serious to Canada, its allies, and our trade, if/when IRAQ falls.  I would prefer a substantial increase in new armour development leading to one new alliance main battle tank. The existing NATO inventory is too vulnerable.  Using new armour and other existing technologies, should present any enemy with a formidable tank opponent.  However, first and foremost to putting our infantry on top with the fewest casualties is the need for effective armour that can take a pounding from all directions.



One problem if you try to take a pounding from all directions is that you might end up not being able to take a hit from any direction.  If making your turret roof invulnerable to top-attack ATGMs or your hull floor immune to triple-stack AT mines means that your front can not withstand RPG or tank cannon hits then I'm not sure its a good thing.  That being said I realize that we need to tweak our vehicles protection to face projected/anticipated/existing threats and we may have access to emerging technologies to help us.  

Stepping back a bit, I tend to favour protection over the other main factors (firepower and mobility) but I also think that it can be taken too far.  Heavier tanks have recovery difficulties, meaning that damaged tanks may have to be destroyed because they can't be moved.  I figure that we focus on crew survivability as opposed to vehicular invulnerability.  Tanks can be replaced.  I would still favour the frontal arc over the other aspects.  Combine that with a gun that can kill other vehicles and soft targets.  I'm not too worried about high speed, although reliability is critical as is being somewhat insensitive to terrain. 

I'm not optimistic about a NATO tank.  There are too many competing ideas and interests.  Look how hard it is to get a project across the LD in one army alone.  When it comes to tanks buy American and let the rest do what they may.  Ammo and fuel commonality, however, would be good things to strive for.  

What is the threat you are worried about?  Are you concerned about a country or alliance of countries fighting us conventionally?  Complacency kills and we can't ignore the "symetrical" threat, but I think that Western armies are configured pretty well at the present for heavy-metal clashes against those who wish to play that game.  I find myself worrying about Afghanistan more these days, since it is where we are fighting.  I know its short-sighted, but I am trying to deal with the alligator closest to the boat so to speak.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We could solve the problem by arming each armoured unit with different tanks, M1, Merk 4 & either the Leo2 or Leclerc. Just send the unit with the right tanks for each type of fight. 

(in jest, dream big or go home)


----------



## GK .Dundas

a_majoor said:
			
		

> What is old is new again. I came across some web pages describing a light tank design from the early 1980's for the American Rapid Deployment Force (RDF). Many of the same arguments now trotted out for things like the Stryker and MGS were touted then; lightweight, hard hitting, air deployable etc. http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/tankita2.html (There is a lot of "stuff" surrounding the section on the RDF tank concept, read it for its own value)
> 
> Of interest is a version mounting both the 75mm ARES rapid fire cannon and two pods with anti aircraft missiles. The RDF was conceived to fight was a Soviet invasion of the Middle East, and the force needed to be able to fight against a much larger mechanized force which had aircraft and attack helicopters at its disposal. The high angle of elevation is useful for our purposes since the vehicle can engage in a 3D environment and deal with enemy snipers/RPG teams firing from the rooftops. You could picture some sort of TUAV being stored and launched from a pod as opposed to a SAM.
> 
> Could such a vehicle be made today? There is no doubt that it could, the original hull was made from M-113 parts if I understand correctly and we could go that route or perhaps a somewhat heavier/stronger one made from a M-2 hull. The 75mm ARES is a bit problematic, but a 105mm cannon would serve most of the needs of an expeditionary force in a much smaller and lighter package than a Leopard.


 I have always loved the AAI RDF 75 it always struck me as an effective  highly mobile( in every sense of the word) high fire power solution to deploying armour in an expeditionary force.
 The only thing that bothers me is that the "Sparkites" have taken it up as cudgel in their neverending battle to make us deluded and corrupt infidels see the light viz. the Gavin ( all praise it's holy name!!)I suspect that is why very few will ever take it seriously or anyone sings it's praises.


----------



## a_majoor

About the only way to protect a tank fully is to either go for a motorized fortress (British tanks since the Cheiftan and the Merkava follow this principle, and the M1 and Leopard 2 are not far behind), try not to be hit (light tanks like the AMX-13 or CV 90120 would need to do this), apply some techno magic (Chobahm, Blazer reactive armour, Drozd or Arena active systems, electric armour) or go for exotic designs (S tank).

Every approach has some advantages and some disadvantages, and there are lots of threads on this forum which discuss them. The point that I am making is that we need to know what it is we want to do with the Forces before we can decide on an approach to the tank/DFSV/assault gun or whatever. If our forces are configured to fight a conventional battle, then all out MBT's are the way to go. If we are looking at a primarily "first responder" expeditionary force, then light tanks are the way to go. If we are seduced by the siren's song of a "transformational force", then techno magic needs to be applied.

In the real world, trade offs and compromises are needed since many of these factors and others are in play; we may "want" MBT's but have no practical way of deploying them or supporting them in the field. From a forcasting point of view, I will still stake out a position for a smaller, lighter tank to satisfy logistical and mobility issues for a deployed force, and note that clever design, such as placing the crew in an armoured "pod" or surrounding them with vehicle mass such as the engine block and fuel tanks provides a great deal of protection without increasing the overall mass of the vehicle to unreasonable levels. A developed version of the CV 90120 would be in the 30-40 ton range, while something developed from the Puma IFV would be in the 40-50 ton range, which should satisfy the logistics and mobility issues. (A LeClerc is in the low 50 ton range, but cannot be spun off into a family of vehicles like the CV-90 or Puma. If we are willing to accept that limitation, it represents the "upper boundary" that I would set for our future tank).

Since we are dealing with an uncertain environment, and know that technological change will be constant through the lifespan of any future vehicle, we should also look at making it as versatile as possible, so high angle gun mounts, the potential to fire smart munitions, high bandwidth communications and sensor systems should all be considered as desirable for any new design.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I don't know if we'll be a first responder to anything but a humanitarian disaster, but then its hard to predict the future.  I'm not a proponent of light tanks.  If it takes three weeks to get big tanks to theatre then I guess it takes three weeks. 

When it comes to tonnage, are two thirty-ton vehicles superior to one seventy-ton vehicle?  I guess it depends.  I'm not talking about a cage match between one M1 and two CV90120Ts, as fun as that would be, but rather the shipping opportunity cost.  If you were commanding a deployed task force, would you rather have a troop of M1A2s or a half-sqn of CV90120Ts?

As a diversion I've been reading about the Japanese campaigns in 1941/42 (the benefits of working in the same building as the Fort Frontenac Library).  The Japanese employed "light" tanks in Malaya and the Philippines to good effect.  Their tanks were pretty much obsolete in western terms and faired quite badly against the Soviets in 1939 and then again in 1945.  In late 1941 and early 1942, however, they posed a huge threat to the British in Malaya who had no tanks and rather limited AT capabilities.  Japanese tanks scored many successes, although some ambushes and determined stands by seasoned troops certainly took a toll.  The Japanese had kept their tanks light (ten to fifteen tons) for a variety of reasons, with deployability being one.  It should be noted that they were certainly not alone in having light tanks in the 30s.  They paid for it later in the war, especially in Manchuria, but there were some other issues there as well.

Malaya demonstrates again that the employment of tanks in a place that they are not expected (the jungle across the sea in this case) can pay dividends.  The best tank country is usually the one with the least anti-tank weapons.  The Japanese armour experience in Malaya, however, does run counter to my beliefs about light vs heavy.  If something does not fit your theory then I guess you have to change the theory.  Back to the lab.  

If you are willing to take risks (or gamble) then I suppose that lighter vehicles can work for you.  I don't know if we (western forces) want to take those risks.  Perhaps one thirty ton tank is better than no 70 ton tank.  Our own recent experience in Afghanistan has shown that twenty ton AFVs can have a decisive effect against the right enemy.


----------



## a_majoor

Red_Five said:
			
		

> If you are willing to take risks (or gamble) then I suppose that lighter vehicles can work for you.  I don't know if we (western forces) want to take those risks.  Perhaps one thirty ton tank is better than no 70 ton tank.  Our own recent experience in Afghanistan has shown that twenty ton AFVs can have a decisive effect against the right enemy.



My argument summarized, quite nicely, thank you.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Historically the British used a small number of light tanks (5-12tons) and armoured cars to control the NWF, a good read is by John Masters. Mind you the Pastun tribes didn’t have access to IED’s or RPG’s at the time so were more or less defenseless against they vehicles.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Art,

You're welcome!  Bear in mind that I had the word "Perhaps" in my phrase, and I'm not sure that the choice is as stark as that.    

When it comes to light tanks, I suppose it could be said that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.  Something is usually better than nothing (Scorpians in the Falklands, Japanese tanks in Malaya), but you may have some choice about the something.  In addition, you may also have some choice about how you got into the mess.  If you can't do something right, maybe don't do it.  It may be better to liberate a country deliberately after an invasion with a heavy force rather than try to send a light force as a show of force.  I think that having the initiative is a good thing.  

Colin,

I think that you have captured a key aspect of the issue.


----------



## STONEY

Dec. 11- Singapore announced the purchase of 66 (familar number) refurbushed Leo 2A4's + 25 more to be used as spares from German surplus. If this great military power can afford them ????

cheers


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile Singapore is buying 60 Leo2's   

Their tankers will be happy, going from the AMX-13 to the Leo 2!!!!


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> Meanwhile Singapore is buying 60 Leo2's
> 
> Their tankers will be happy, going from the AMX-13 to the Leo 2!!!!



I am convince that this is what we can expect from Taliban Jack's ilk:


----------



## daftandbarmy

On a semi-related tangent, those CV 90 drivers are so polite...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okly05HmKEA&eurl=


----------



## Red 6

I clicked on the link to watch that CV 90 video and ended up wasting an hour watching all those CV 90 videos. That vehicle is pretty darned impressive. I especially liked the one where the Bradley was stuck in the snow and the CV 90 motored past like it was driving down the street.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You have to admit the Fench really know how to build armoured cars


----------



## Red 6

Thanks sir. I wonder how they wedged that 120 in the CV90? The low recoil mount must be something! Thanks for the intel.


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> You have to admit the Fench really know how to build armoured cars



Collin

There is an old saying: "Looks good from afar, but far from good!"  That is the case with many French vehicles.  Have you ever had a close up look at some of their kit?  The AMX is a 'rattle trap', a very distinctive sound from afar, sounding like the whole tank is going to vibrate apart.  The AMX 13 has such a large open space between the turret and the mantlet that you can almost use it as an emergency escape hatch.  Pictures are nicely posed in 'advertisements' but closer inspection may not be so appealing.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Ah, French armour, the way that German armour amassed its reputation for deadliness.  The French excel at selling weapons, and have always commanded a fair share of the African market, and thus designed for low intensity conflict with low expectation of facing modern anti-armour weapons.  The French do many things extremely well, but I would not put armour as either their manufacturing or their fighting specialty.


----------



## Nieghorn

This thread is so long, I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but don't the South Africans make a good, light, wheeled tank?  A friend of mine is a former SDF officer and has nothing but praise for the ability of their vehicles to stand up to landmines.  We've already bought Nayalas from them, right?


----------



## George Wallace

Yes.  The Rooikat has been discused here, and in other topics, and some bad points have also been brough up on that family of vehicles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

George
Comparing the AMX-13 to modern tanks is not exactly fair, it was one of the first tanks (really a recce vehicle) the French were able to produce after WWII. I have crawled around the AML-90, amazing they were able to get that gun onto that vehicle. Their Armoured Cars have likely seen more action than any others. Even the AMX-10RC is at least 15-20 years old. A modern version would be quite interesting.


----------



## a_majoor

The AMX-13 was designed and built in the 1950's, so you have to look at it in that light. Despite everything, it seems to have been well liked and adopted by many armies, the IDF used it in war and it has soldiered on right into the new millenium. I can't think of too many other AFV's which can say that. Obviously, if you were given the operational requirments for the AMX-13 today, you would be able to come up with something quite different!

Within the CF, we need to define what it is we want from our Armoured force (as part of the overall CF package), and use that to define the kit we give them. The caveat of "as part of the overall CF package" is actually quite constraining, since if our overall mission is to launch expeditionary forces at short notice out of existing and projected air foce capabilities, then a great many options are removed. Indeed, any definition will put some options to the forefront and others to the back (even a "general purpose army" definition won't help, since you would then have to define "general purpose").


----------



## Shamrock

We use a 24-Volt 8 battery system in series-parallel.  I *think* (read speculate at best) the Rooikat has a 6 battery series 24-Volt system.

Just thought I'd drop you a line (and assuming I'm correct about anything) so you can change it before some asshat mentions it (unneccesarily) on the public forum


----------



## George Wallace

A few points I found elsewhere on the Rooikat:

A number of upgrades/changes were made to later Mks, mostly to running gear after first period in use and problems were experienced with steering arms bending when doing cross-country at the speeds Rooikat is capable of.  

In a 6 x 6 vehicle, a vehicle where the wheels are evenly spaced, unlike the Rooikat where the front pair has a larger distance to the second axle, it is found that it puts less stress on the remaining front wheel if one is blown off.  That larger gap between the front running gear and the next set, on the Rooikat, can disable and immobilize the vehicle in this case.


----------



## solidarnosc

http://www.armada.ch/06-6/article-full.cfm

A new article written in Armada about guns on "light" vehicles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely it was 32volt. This is comman on old fish boats and many of the old electronics were made for that voltage. I drove an old boat with 12,24,32 and 110 volt all on board, what a mess that was!  :crybaby:


----------



## RCD

The South Koreans are producing one almost the exactly as the Leopard 2.


----------



## Malcycee

Hi all
I am an Brit Ex Tankie sorry - Tanker of 15years experience.
I've been reading this thread with interest as over here we have a Website called the Army Rumour Service (ARRSE) which is very similar to you guys on here.
Strangely enough, a similar thread to this happened a little while ago. I left the colours in 1990 having served as an MBT Commander on Chieftain and a very short stint on Challenger 1. But through friends still serving I've kept very much in touch with Chally 2's progress.
I'm pleased to see that there's some very positive feedback on Chally2 on here. It is an outstanding MBT and having had to pick up rapidly from the messy start Chally 1 made :skull: - it's proved it's worth.
It's interesting to see the rational in your forum - MBT or not MBT?
It's important to note that nations build Tanks for what they need or, what they feel they need and how they arrange, Firepower,Protection and Mobility. If I may be so bold here's my thesis:
Germany - Leo 2 - outstanding (had a cabby in BAOR) Mobility always comes first they see it as a form of protection in it's own right. Not too sure myself - Gun Control Equipment these days can compensate for most things.
Firepower - Rheinmetall produce a superb smoothbore (UK have been trialling) 120mm - so good firepower.
Protection - Krauss Maffei simply call it 'composite armour' implying 'Chobham' but of course it ain't. Both the US and Germany left the failed MBT80 project and promptly thought of composite armour but, there is only one chobham.
German tactical doctrine during the 'Cold war' was that if 3million screaming Mongolian tribesmen screamed, one early morning, across the IGB, the foremost units of Leo would be 'at the gates of Moscow' the following morning! Very frustrating when you're exercising with German units. Therefore Germany has Leo, it suits them perfectly!
USA - M1Abrams - Seems an outstanding MBT though I've not had many dealings with it. The US want an all round good egg but, it is very much set up for the American market! It's fairly light, so protection and the composite question springs to light again! It has sufficient punch in the form of the 120mm smoothbore again but, automotively would I fit the gas guzzling turbine unit? I certainly wouldn't want that heat signature today with the sophisticated thermal Observation systems available. But, they do seem to be able to pretty much be able to take it pretty much anywhere, mind you, with their logistical powers, I'd be surprised if they couldn't!!!

Both Leo and M1 suit their nations so what of 'Rule Britannia'?
The UK have invented Tanks and then continually struggled to reach the heaven of power to weight ratios.
We Brits since WW2 have always placed Protection first, Firepower second and then some bodged powerpack mobility last!
Challenger Armour is......without doubt the best in the world - to date, there are no penetrations in any theatre of war.
the firepower - The 120mm rifled bore has, for many years been the ultimate main armament but, only because we insisted on the Chemical energy round HESH which requires rifling for long range engagement accuracy. Challenger2E has been trialling smoothbore technology.
As a commander I was taught max European engagement distances of no more than 2400metres. So why HESH? It enables engagements of upto 8000mtrs?(another argument!). Either way, the existing 120mm combined with the fire control system (TOGS), is more than adequate.
Mobility - The CV12 RR/Perkins pack is superb - remember it can transmit enough power to move 64tons+ at respectable speeds around 40-45mph. Unless on a particularly smooth cross country area, I doubt if anyone would want to engage targetry at that kind of speed even though some nations say they can!! :blotto:
The UK has always wanted an MBT that could sit and slug it out, take and give punishment with ease and then get in and out of hotspots smoothly. CR2 does all of the above - smoothly,

So to round up my lengthy diatribe - the one thing that stands up in all this is - don't forget the crews - Brit crews are fully trained in basic mechanics and problem solving - all maintenance is down to the crew. My experience in Germany of the M1 or Leo 2 was - ooops it's broke, call a mech!!!!!
Canadian crews are, I'm sure (once met some on the Suffield Prairie with Grizzly and Cougar - had a cabby most impressed) every bit as professional and their opinions should be heard by the MOD as to what MBT is best for Canada!! 
And, oh yes, ALL nations need MBT's, it's an Offensive weapons system and, sometime, we all need an offensive weapon.
Sorry if I've rambled on but, well, I thought it might be nice for someone from 'over the pond' to stick his head over the parapet - just don't take my head off.
Don't forget 'From the mud, through the blood to the green fields beyond' began 90 years ago this coming November.
Armour - We are all members of the brotherhood.


----------



## TCBF

Falling in love with HESH has really kept them in the dark ages.  Time to move on.  There are new natures out there that can be shot from a tube.


----------



## a_majoor

In one sense I like the rifle, since it adds a different challenge to potential enemy forces when they design their tanks. When facing NATO, the former USSR needed to take into account HEAT warheads from tanks and ATGMs; "Long Rod" KE penetrators from APDSFS; HESH from British rifles and Canadian Leopards and "Short" penetrators from rifled APDS rounds. 

Each type of round has a different mechanism of attack, hence wildly different uparmour kits like "Dolly Parton" turret upgrades, Blazer active armour and various sorts of composite armour "fillers" used by the USSR, not to mention lead foil coatings to limit the crews radiation exposure vs neutron bombs..... 

On the other hand, the actual number of British and Canadian tanks was so small that it was more of a theoretical threat than anything else, and the imperatives of standardization and interoperability will see the 120 rifle pass into history (alas). Ammunition technology has advanced considerably in the last 20 years as well, with projects like through tube missiles, TERM (Tank Extended Range Munitions) and STAFF (Smart Target Activated Fire and Forget) showing the way for the future.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I remeber seeing a presentation at Shrivenham in the 80s on rail guns and the possibility of them, one day, being mounted in AFVs. Anyone heard of this possibility?

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_RailGuns,,00.html


----------



## eerickso

The Navy will likely be the first to get them. They require very large storage devices (capacitors).


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I remeber seeing a presentation at Shrivenham in the 80s on rail guns and the possibility of them, one day, being mounted in AFVs. Anyone heard of this possibility?
> 
> http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_RailGuns,,00.html



With a little SEARCH you will find that this idea has been bantered about in several of the Armour Forum Topics:

Future Armour;

Armour‘s Future on the Battle Field;

CV 90 Fan page;

Role of Armour on the new front [/url;

[url=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23894/post-138008.html#msg138008]Ammunition developments; and 

I see a Role for MGS.

So you can see that Armour guys are not a bunch of atypical "Muscleheads"; they can be very thoughtful, creative, insightful, and quite capable of intelligent thought. 

Even the Artillery guys on this site can be capable of foresight and creativity:

Electro Magnetic Rail Gun; as can others

 Particle beam weapons SCI FI or reality in the coming decades?;

Ammunition Developments;

MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle); and many more.

This is quite a collection of thoughtful people, who have a great deal of forward thinking and imagination.  They are so forward thinking, they even critique BSG.   ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thanks for the steer George. Now I remember why I lost interest back then: No bayonet attachment...


----------



## TCBF

The muddy trail in the photo reminds me of Soltau.


----------



## Malcycee

TCBF said:
			
		

> The muddy trail in the photo reminds me of Soltau.



I take it you mean my Avatar? It certainly was Soltau mid 80's - Me commanding Callsign 42 C Squadron 3RTR - Up the 'rickety Rackety road' from 5 ways crossing towards Strip wood!!!! Ah............pure diesel in my blood!!!!! Assuming I can post photos on here simply I can put plenty more on if people would like? ???


----------



## Malcycee

Okay Let's have a look? Sorry the time lag between lands is so large!!!

Disembarking at Esbjerg Denmark - 1978 for EX Bold Guard - 1st Tonka off - 10 mins - next was nearly 2 hours thanks to some nifty parking problems incurred by Hong Kong marshalls when loading at Southampton - Ship = RFA Sir Lancelot.







Closer to home - C Squadron 3RTR - Chieftain Dozer 1979 BATUS Suffield.






This too was BATUS when my Panzer broke before we left BATUS- Got a visit from (I think) the SALH - Most impressed by Cougar and Grizzly.






I even got to have a cabby - unfortunately no pics of them driving my Chieftain.






Hope you enjoyed? I have more - probably too many more - Strangely.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ha, the Sir Lancelot & Sir Galahad used to tie up in Vancouver and we would go down and drink Red Lion on them.  It was the Galahad that was sunk in the Falklands correct?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ha, the Sir Lancelot & Sir Galahad used to tie up in Vancouver and we would go down and drink Red Lion on them.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Double post  ???


----------



## Babbling Brooks

Heads-up, gents!  This thread may have become instantly relevant:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/59522/post-552151.html#msg552151

What sort of MBT replacement can you buy on short notice with over $600M?


----------



## Malcycee

Colin P said:
			
		

> Ha, the Sir Lancelot & Sir Galahad used to tie up in Vancouver and we would go down and drink Red Lion on them.  It was the Galahad that was sunk in the Falklands correct?



My only experience was the photo occasion when it took 3 days to get from Southampton to Denmark because...................we damn well broke down in the middle of an extremely choppy North sea!!!!!! Combined with us only being allowed 2 beers per man - totally miserable time between chundering over the side and not being able to walk in a straight line across the ship's beam - when still sober!!!!!
Sir Galahad did indeed go down in the Falklands, there was/is a third LSL - Sir Bedevere, all of them being the only ship not to come under the Navy but, the Army!!!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thanks, I have been having problems posting with the site hanging for 10 minutes at a time.


----------



## Malcycee

Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
			
		

> Malcycee,
> 
> Ref your photos - "I love this crap!"



CSA 105
Never had em reffered to as crap before!? i'll take it as some sort of compliment?
My photos aren't exactly reference to which is the best new MBT for you chaps - perhaps I should start another thread for those of you who want to beat up on an old fashioned Brit Tankie? Incidently, I have a hobby doing artwork of AFVs etc for my pals, anyone interested in seeing some examples? I could post them up too!

Either way, i would certainly say, from reports from Iraq that, we Brits are supremely confident about Chally 2 - to date no penetrations! Of the tank either! I've just been getting involved in a debate over here between an American and a Non Tankie Brit over various design differences between MIA2 and CR2 all to do with ammo stowage protection and a 'trade off' on power/weight ratios!! Don't think so. Any one any ideas for me to clarify on Brit design concepts?

One last pic on this thread -
Plastic CR1 ie: Training tank only - not real chobham armour - taken at the seat of all 'Goonery' gods - Lulworth Ranges 1987!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Welcome aboard and great pictures.  I love the disembarking tank photo.  Who says you can't get tanks where you want em?

Speaking of plastic tanks,

Sorry, since they took my Leopard away this is what I'm reduced to.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Malcycee said:
			
		

> CSA 105
> Never had em reffered to as crap before!? i'll take it as some sort of compliment?
> My photos aren't exactly reference to which is the best new MBT for you chaps - perhaps I should start another thread for those of you who want to beat up on an old fashioned Brit Tankie? Incidently, I have a hobby doing artwork of AFVs etc for my pals, anyone interested in seeing some examples? I could post them up too!
> 
> Either way, i would certainly say, from reports from Iraq that, we Brits are supremely confident about Chally 2 - to date no penetrations! Of the tank either! I've just been getting involved in a debate over here between an American and a Non Tankie Brit over various design differences between MIA2 and CR2 all to do with ammo stowage protection and a 'trade off' on power/weight ratios!! Don't think so. Any one any ideas for me to clarify on Brit design concepts?
> 
> One last pic on this thread -
> Plastic CR1 ie: Training tank only - not real chobham armour - taken at the seat of all 'Goonery' gods - Lulworth Ranges 1987!




Interesting drivers hatch. Right below the main gun.


----------



## Malcycee

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> Interesting drivers hatch. Right below the main gun.



UK after Centurion went central for the driver in Chieftain. The principle was adopted partly to lower the overall height of the tank by allowing the driver to fully recline when closed down, it also allows great sloped armour on the glacis plate. It is very comfortable!!! And allows for good spare ammo stowage utilisation with the driver being able to pass it directly behind him into the turret from either each side of him or slightly behind. This principle was carried over onto CR 1 and 2. There is very little danger of the MA 'fouling' the drivers head there was......(not now with TIS), more danger of the gunner's TLS fouling his head giving him a neat 'capbadge' imprint in the front of his skull.
Ammo stowage has always been a controversial issue with the UK having opted for split proj and charge ammo. This has allowed the profile to be kept low(See earlier pic of Grizzly/Cougar alongside Chieftain MBT allows good comparison CR is same overall height as Chieftain roughly) as you don't have to accomodate tall pieces of ammo, more importantly you don't have to worry about spent cases, the only residue post firing is the spent Vent tube - about the size of a shotgun cartridge.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Gee, and I thought the driver was below the main gun so the TC could bonk him on the head with it when he was being an idiot.  ;D


----------



## Malcycee

Colin P said:
			
		

> Gee, and I thought the driver was below the main gun so the TC could bonk him on the head with it when he was being an idiot.  ;D



Now there's a concept!! On Chieftain it was possible for the MA to depress onto the Dvr's head if he wasn't sat low enough - CR the Glacis armour is higher so the gun kit limit switches are set so the dvrs 'bonce' can't cop for it!!!! Half the time on FTX in the German countryside, we TC's were too busy chalking up scores against how many roadsigns we could 'joust' down with the MA. AAAAAHHHHH those were the days.
 :warstory:Mind, when I was a TC, One night on a very long road march - my driver Tommo was continually whistling into the Live Microphone on his crew helmet over the IC. After many times, telling him to stop to no avail  :threat: my patience wore thin and, having climbed out of my hatch, I ran straight down the front of the turret and swung my right boot smartly into his head...........the whistling stopped. And yes, luckily his helmet stopped us swerving violently off the road.


----------



## TCBF

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> Heads-up, gents!  This thread may have become instantly relevant:
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/59522/post-552151.html#msg552151
> 
> What sort of MBT replacement can you buy on short notice with over $600M?



- Short notice? Depends on your definition of short notice!

A few people may have been waiting for the public announcement so they could finally start to talk about it!


----------



## Malcycee

Okay guys 

Bringing us upto date, I notice Infanteer has asked the question about Tanks with Infantry carrying abilities. 'I have a friend' who works for a military defence contractor - he is shortly to become heavily involved in the UK's FRES programme. The concept is to make a medium armoured vehicle with multiple capabilities? I've seen this before when 'Warrior' came about as a MICV - the truth is that the 30mm Rarden is an excellent weapon but, not able to compete with modern MBT capabilities in both defence and offence!! Even now, the automotive duties of driving and maintaining the damn things are being trained over to Tankies so you will end up with Tankies acting as chauffeurs for the infantry in effect. Anyway, here's an article/review on where the UK is with FRES.

A Crisis in the making
The centrepiece of secretary of state for defence Geoff Hoon's strategic defence review, announced recently, was a new military system about which very few people know anything. The system is the "Future Rapid Effects Systems" (FRES) and, on the basis of its introduction, Hoon is confident that he can dispense with 19 mainly Shire infantry regiments.

Before discussing FRES in detail, however, it is necessary to set a political framework into which this system fits, and this is best illustrated by recent comments from Javier Solana, the EU's "foreign minister, talking to a meeting of Italian Ambassadors. He told that that "the US must treat the European Union as a full partner in an effective and balanced partnership", and "The European Union has to show the US that it is worthy of that title."
These comments were important because they illustrate a mindset in the EU which, despite the inherent anti-Americanism, displays an intense jealousy of the US. The outward manifestation is an almost child-like determination to prove that "Europe" is at least as good as, if not better than, the US, in every possible way.
It is that ethos, as much as anything, that has driven the EU to commit £3 billion or more to the Galileo satellite navigation and positioning system - despite the provision by the US of their "free-to-all" GPS system. Much the same thinking drives the determination of the EU to maintain its own space programme, and to fund Airbus with such generous subsidies.
But this thinking is also driving the EU military procurement programme, to the extent that anything the US has, the EU must have too. This is most obvious in the pursuit of the A400M large military transport aircraft, despite the availability of proven US designs, which are undoubtedly cheaper and in many respects better.
However, this drive to match the US now seems to be pushing the EU - and the UK in particular - into making another blunder in military procurement, of Eurofighter proportions in expenditure terms, and drive UK defence up a cul-de-sac from which it may never recover. That "blunder" is FRES.
Nevertheless, despite it having formed the centrepiece of defence minister Geoff Hoon's recently announced Strategic Defence Review, very few people know anything about FRES. All we know is that Hoon is relying on it as the technological fix that will enable him to cut back on human resources - like soldiers. That so few people are aware of what FRES actually is can hardly be surprising. Two years ago, Gregory Fetter, a senior land-warfare analyst at Forecast International/DMS, observed that it was "too early to try to figure out what FRES will look like ...It's like trying to grab a cloud of smoke."
And, as late as March of this year, Nicholas Soames, shadow defence secretary - in a debate in the Commons on defence policy - noted that defence contractors had been "anxiously awaiting a decision from the Government on the future rapid effects system battlefield vehicle that the Chief of the General Staff requires to be in service by 2009, but for which there is not yet even a drawing".
Small wonder that, in the report of the defence select committee published recently, the committee expressed concern that the proposed in-service date of 2009 "will not be met".

So what is FRES?
The quote from Soames actually give some clue. He calls it a "battlefield vehicle", but it is more than that. It is a whole family of vehicles that are intended for the Army of the 21st Century, equipping it for its role as a rapid reaction force. It will enable it to deal quickly and effectively with trouble spots around the world, with maximum efficiency and the minimum expenditure of manpower. At least, that is how the propaganda goes.
For that, the government is preparing to sink around £6 billion into buying 900 vehicles, with an estimated budget for the total costs of ownership over the expected 30-year service life of almost £50 billion. That is a staggering £6.7 million average cost to buy each vehicle and an unbelievable life-time cost per vehicle - yes, each vehicle - of £55.5 million. To say that it would be cheaper to drive our troops into battle in a fleet of top-of-the-range Rolls-Royces hardly begins to illustrate the extravagance.
Whatever the merits of the vehicles - and these will be discussed shortly - the point is that FRES is not a British, or even European idea. It is copied from a US military programme known as FCS, or "Future Combat System". This is an armoured vehicle family designed as a "system of systems", operating in a network, fully equipped with the latest in electronics, combat systems and weapons, all inter-linked through satellite communications. And because the Americans are having it, "Europe" must have it as well.
Furthermore, although Hoon is highlighting it in his own defence review, FRES has very much become a "European" project. Such are the vast development costs that no single European nation can afford them, so it has become another of those joint programmes of which the Eurofighter project is the model.
Already, the European skills at designing just what is needed are coming to the fore. A fore-runner of FRES was the tri-nation programme to develop what was known as the MRAV - the " multi-role armoured vehicle", funded by the UK, German and Dutch governments and managed by the European armaments agency, OCCAR (Organization for Joint Armament Cooperation).
In a mirror image of the Eurofighter project, the French were also originally involved, but they pulled out to produce their own vehicle called the VBCI. Perhaps this was just as well for, after the expenditure of untold millions, the tri-nation consortium produced a prototype which they named the Boxer, only to find that at 33 tons, it was too heavy for airborne rapid deployment.
But the European involvement has not yet ended - not by any means. Despite honeyed words from the DoD to UK manufacturers, the leading contender for building FRES is a German firm, Rheinmetall DeTec. Should its designs be accepted, the outcome will undoubtedly be the formation of another European consortium to build it, as national sensibilities would not allow British forces to be equipped with German-built machines. And, with costs already escalating, we have another Eurofighter in the making.

I apologise for it being somewhat long winded chaps but, it gives a fair insight as to the 'European dilemna'. You can have the damn things, they can be flexible and transportable but, do you have the air capability to transport them? If not how much does it cost. You guys have had Leo 1 and, by all accounts you'll get Leo 2 and a fine beast it is even if a 'used car lot'. Let's also not forget, when the Bundewehr got Leo 2, what did they do? They decided that Leo 1 could be used in a Medium Recce role and set it up as so. Spahpanzer 'luchs' suddenly found itself almost superseded. So where does the modern world go?


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.brugesgroup.com/news.live?article=227&keywordhte=1

Hello Malcycee - I believe this is the link to the article you cited - produced by the Bruges Group in 2002 when Geoff Hoon produced his new chapter for Robertson's 1998 Strategic Defence Review.

Have you heard if the FRES is still on track?

Cheers.


----------



## TCBF

"...They decided that Leo 1 could be used in a Medium Recce role and set it up as so. Spahpanzer 'luchs' suddenly found itself almost superseded. ..."

- They Modified early Leo 1A1/1A2 to Leo 1A5 for the heavy companies of their ten PzAufklaBns.  Each heavy company was made up of  heavy recce patrols of three Leo 1A5 tanks each.  The light patrols in the other companies consisted of patrols made up of two Spahpanzer Luchs each.  The ten German Armoured Recce Bns thus operated Luchs and Leo 1A5 concurrently.  

- During the work-ups for the Boeselager Competition in 1992, the heavy patrols began converting from Leo 1A5 to Leo 2, which were cascaded down from re-roled tank bns.  They appreciated the additional firepower and armour of the Leo 2, but it had  an inferior thermal system and a much greater size and weight compared to the Leo 1A5.  The 1A5 tanks were kept in storage until Canada FINALLY made up her mind to use the turrets for the Leo C2.


----------



## Malcycee

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://www.brugesgroup.com/news.live?article=227&keywordhte=1
> 
> Hello Malcycee - I believe this is the link to the article you cited - produced by the Bruges Group in 2002 when Geoff Hoon produced his new chapter for Robertson's 1998 Strategic Defence Review.
> 
> Have you heard if the FRES is still on track?
> 
> Cheers.



Hi Kirkhill
You sir, are indeed correct as to source.
My chum being on the FRES sales and info team for a very LARGE defence contractor says it is still on track but, within the MOD people are still arguing about what exactly they want which, for all the contractors, is making life difficult.
With Tankers retraining to crew Warrior and transport the Infantry, it seems like the MOD are thinking ahead to FRES - BUT, what really worries me is, another chum who's a Squadron Leader in the RTR is quite vehement about poor recruiting levels into the RAC and the Army in general. At times it is pushed to put fully crewed MBT's into the field at home due to everyone getting swapped to make up numbers in the 'foreign theatres'. This means that, as the government continues to stretch our Armoured forces, they are going to find it extremely difficult to fulfill all the roles envisaged. If, as claimed in the Bruges article, the Government expect to SAVE and REDUCE manpower through FRES...they're gonna have to think again, the manpower is already 'not there' to be saved on.
When they announced to a pleased public how 3000 troops would be extracted from Iraq soonest this year, we awaited the announcement of extra troops to Afghanistan, we gave it 2 weeks before they'd brave it and, I think it took less than a week before the Afghanistan solution came!!!!!
Either way, I am heavy armour through and through and really don't see a 'Non MBT' world ahead of us. It simply gives us that 'extra punch' with the ability to sit and 'slog it out'.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Malcycee 
Didn't get a chance to read the links, but the Russians were playing with a T-64 or 80 that could carry 4 dismounts and still have a main gun turret, having seen the pictures, cocoon, cubby hole and coffin all leap to mind. The troops each had a hatch behind the turret.

The Merk is likely the most successful adaption of this idea and gives a flexibility to their tank force and the rear door is useful for other stuff. Also it would appear that the IDF is the clear leader in HAPC's and any design should incorporate their lessons. I wonder if the Brits still have any Chally 1 hulls lying around that could be used. The Germans have access to both older Leos and T-72's that could be converted and the US has early M1 that could be used.


----------



## Malcycee

Colin P said:
			
		

> Malcycee
> Didn't get a chance to read the links, but the Russians were playing with a T-64 or 80 that could carry 4 dismounts and still have a main gun turret, having seen the pictures, cocoon, cubby hole and coffin all leap to mind. The troops each had a hatch behind the turret.
> 
> The Merk is likely the most successful adaption of this idea and gives a flexibility to their tank force and the rear door is useful for other stuff. Also it would appear that the IDF is the clear leader in HAPC's and any design should incorporate their lessons. I wonder if the Brits still have any Chally 1 hulls lying around that could be used. The Germans have access to both older Leos and T-72's that could be converted and the US has early M1 that could be used.



Hi Colin
Given, during the coldwar according to intel from Brixmis, Russian crewmen were recruited at a max height of 5'3" - I dread to think what, as infanteers they were planning on putting in the back - possibly Hobbits?
Agreed on the Merk - outstanding panzer but, we never really seem to get to the root of what the rear compartment is for - The wounded, a small section of infantry or just extra room for huge C Ration storage - Ha Ha. 
I've a book (humorous) due out in June about the life of a tankie (me) for 15 years in the RTR, I've taken the history of the Tank and put it into my terms (I'll edit the swearing) in one chapter to break up the personal anecdotes. I suppose it may bring a little light entertainment to all you trusty Armour guys it may take us off thread for a little while (and make my post too long, but hopefully you'll forgive me so, I'll paste it in and hopefully you may enjoy?? Apologies in advance if it's not the Canadian sense of humour but, Tankers are Tankers and all love a bit of a lark.

Chapter 31

Design what?

While in Paderborn I used to vent my interest in our Regimental history by, helping out occasionally in the small Regimental museum. This was contained in a room in RHQ. It wasn’t a grand affair but held a lot of information on the men and machines of the Regiment through the years. I had, even as a child, a great interest in Tanks. Over the years I’ve spent many hours at the wonderful Tank Museum in Bovington, pondering and investigating Tank development. I said earlier in the book, I’d like to write about this subject, so here we go! These observations are seen from my soldier’s perspective, based on fact but seen through my eyes. 

Okay so everyone knows that with WW1 came the advent of trench warfare and the machine gun, that efficient killer of men. This had the boffins at the War office scratching their heads in dismay. The trick of soldiers standing up and walking slowly towards the enemy didn’t work. Why? Well because that was exactly what the Hun expected them to do! “Bugger!” Said one boffin to another, “We’d better try something else!” Dismally that failed too, after all, just because the men now stood up and ran quickly at the Hun, didn’t make an iota of difference. The German machine guns were a hell of a lot quicker than the Infantry. “B*llocks!” Exclaimed the boffin; “we’re in trouble if we don’t think of something new, and quick!” he said as he scratched his oversized bald head. His colleague, who had been thinking to himself, resignedly muttered, “ I wish I was as clever as that old twat Leonardo Da Vinci!” The first boffin looked up and suddenly shouted; “ Bloody bugger! Of course! Didn’t he draw some sort of land machine to protect its crew?” They now scoured their reference library, eventually finding the design they sought. “Sh*t, we can’t build that, it looks so stupid that we’ll be laughed off the battlefield!” Said one to the other. His colleagues reply came; “I never said we’d build that,” he laughed, “all I want to do is steal the idea, modify the design to modernise it, and then when it’s finished tell the sceptics it was us, and ask who the f*ck was Leonardo da whatsisname any way?”

Having thought carefully about their problem they threw down their pencils in disgust. “Jesus” said one, “how the hell are we going to do this? These flippers we’ve drawn will be as much use as tits on a fish for a land vehicle! We may as well take one of those new fangled American agricultural tractors designed by that fellow.. Holt, with its thingies, oh you know... tracks, that’s them, and use that!” He laughed. “Hey, that’s not such a bad bloody idea,” said his partner scribbling furiously with his pencil. “We’ll cover it in iron or steel plate which we’ll call armour, but what do we call the vehicle?” He intoned as the pair now stood at the urinals. His pal, glancing down nosily at his neighbours appendage laughed; “what you’ve got there is a little Willy!” “Bloody good name that!” retorted the other boffin thoughtfully. “The Boche would never guess what the f*ck it is from that name!” And the first prototype Tank, ‘Little Willy’ was born. 


When the trials were finished and the Admiralty had accepted the concept of a ‘Little Willy’, they decided that a machine named after a scientist’s penis was a little distasteful. So after due consideration and their knowledge being mainly to do with water, they hit on the name ‘Tank’, after all that’s what it looked like, a huge water tank! So it was, that in due course, the first Mark 1 ‘Mother’ Tanks rolled from the production line onto the French and Belgian battlefields, scaring the sh*t out of the Germans on the way.

Since the Tanks inception, British ‘men in white coats’ seem to have struggled with the design of Tanks. Okay, we invented it and we built it! The ‘others’ have always ‘copied’ it. So why then, have we continually ‘bodged’ it? Well, we know what the three main characteristics of the Tank are, after all we thought of them! There’s firepower, protection and mobility, when all three are correctly balanced this leads to the ultimate battlefield characteristic of flexibility. To look at some of the fledgling designs that we’ve come up with, you could be forgiven for thinking that we didn’t have a clue!

After the ‘Mother’ had taken to the field, it was quickly modified to increase its trench crossing and steering capabilities by, putting a huge pair of wheels on the back! This only met with limited success, after all, the ferocity of German artillery barrages that met the appearance of Tanks in an attack, soon ripped the wheels off! The boffins drew, modified and thought up all manner of things. Tanks suddenly became ‘Male’ or ‘Female’, the difference being that ‘Males’ had larger pieces of field artillery fitted, ‘Females’ on the other hand were armed with machine guns. Later in the war newer designs were built, the rhomboidal shape of the Tanks was lengthened by adding a ‘Tadpole tail’ which did, successfully increase the Tanks trench crossing ability. Tanks appeared one day, lumbering slowly forward, their ungainly shapes carrying, perched on top, huge bundles of wood. These were known as ‘Fascines’ and when a Tank approached a deep trench, the fascine would be rolled into the trench, and the Tank could drive safely across it. This was, the fore runner of the modern Royal Engineers AVRE with its demolition gun or ‘dustbin chucker’. 

The newspaper articles of the time hailed the Tank as ‘The War Winning’ machine! I, as a Tankie, do believe this even though the sceptics say that it was not. Let’s face it, imagine you are a German foot soldier in your trench. The continual barrage one morning lifts and, there before you trundles a huge metal box, heading straight for you spitting fire and lead in every direction, smoke belching from its exhaust. Crap yourself? I should think so! The Tanks may not have been much faster than walking pace but, unlike the Infantry, they couldn’t be stopped by machine gun fire. Then they are on your position, travelling up and down your trench line raking your previously safe haven with, thousands of unstoppable machine gun bullets. Behind them come the enemy Infantry, and there are thousands of them, they’ve come safely through your defences, and having now emerged from behind the cover of the advancing Tanks, they can’t wait to stick their bayonets right up your arrse! 

Now, while this mayhem was happening all along the front line, where were the Cavalry? Well, with the advent of WW1 they had, in the face of artillery and MG fire, found themselves literally blown from the battlefield. Certainly in many Tank actions, the reason for eventual failure of the attack was, that the cavalry were so sceptical about ‘breakthrough and exploitation’ that, they simply chose to remain undercover. The cavalry officers deemed Tanks as a ‘flash in the pan’, sat as they were, behind a wood out of sight, their officers were heard to say; “Let the Tanks cock this one up, we’ll rest a while, Rupert pass me another glass of port, there’s a good chap!” The Tanks speed did not match its ‘shock action’. The mechanical technology that existed at the time could not exploit the effect that Tanks could have on the enemy. Not to matter, the boffins were working on the ‘cavalry solution’.

Once more the boffins were stood at the urinals.
“Did you read in the Times, that the bally cavalry were sat on their arrses again at the Somme?” asked one of the other, “ Oh yeah, they’re lazy barstards all right!” Replied the other guy buttoning up his fly. “What do you say we come up with something that’ll really f*ck up the cavalry’s brains?” queried the first guy wiping his hands on his trousers. “Like what for example, a fast Tank?” Asked his chum. “God, but you are full of absolutely fantastic bloody ideas!” Enthused the first guy. Off they went and started to beaver away at their drawing tables. In due course one stood up from his work. He grabbed the other fellow by the arm pointing at his drawing and said; “Here James, take a look a look at this!” James, confused at the question said, “Oh all right, if I must, whip it out then!” The colleague, also confused now exploded, “WHIPPET! F*ck me how do you think up these names? It’s perfect for this Tank… fast as a Whippet!” He slapped his pal, who was hurriedly re-buttoning up his fly, hard on the back. “You are great!” He continued, “B*llocks, thought my luck was in!” Was James’ only mumbled comment.

So the Medium A. ‘Whippet’ was born, armed with three machine guns and a top speed faster than a man could run, it was soon seen running ‘rampant’ around the battlefields. The advent of these Tanks created something of a race. The different nations involved in this conflict, not to be outdone by either friend or foe, were busy concocting their own designs. The French came up with vehicles such as the St. Chamond and the Schneider. The Germans spent most of the time repainting captured British Tanks and throwing them back into the fray. But eventually they too came up with an example of Teutonic might in the shape of the A7V. This was a monster of a vehicle, cramming every available inch of space with a huge crew of eighteen men, it sallied forth into the maelstrom. Its future did not bode well, its huge bulk and slow speed made it vulnerable and unreliable. In fact an infantryman with body armour and a peashooter would have achieved more success. Looking at this machine, nobody could have possibly foreseen the massive impact that Germany would, in the future, have on Tank design and tactics! During the latter stages even the Americans, ‘never one to be out done’ had a crack at designing and building Tanks. They mainly copied our designs but, they were bigger of course! The war ended in 1918 with a bit of a fizzle, with it the Tank race petered out too. As I’ve already explained, the Cavalry were now to be found at the War Office plotting the demise of, “ Those f*cking upstarts in the Tank Corps!” even though the King intervened, the huge financial burden levied on the nation meant that our two friendly boffins were, ‘put on the backburner’. 


What of Germany? Well, the German army felt that they had been stabbed in the back by their politicians. “Ready to stop fighting the stinking Tommies?” Said a General one evening. “I should think not!” He continued while topping up his and his companions schnapps glasses. His companion, a disenchanted government official said; “What were we doing? The barstards had the Panzers, und we sat with unser thumbs up unser arsches! I will never let this happen again!” 
The General responded with; “F*ck the world, we will schau them! What we need now ist a complete sh*t to lead uns to world domination!” Listening outside the door stood a diminutive greasy looking fellow, his hair a black oily slick swept over one eye, his moustache, now smaller in size since the shaving accident, a toothbrush sized bush under his nose. His name? Oh do come on! Adolph Hitler of course! He sneered; “Oh yes, we will show the world what a tw*t I can be!” In that instant the world’s future was being re-written.

Now, under the terms of the Versailles treaty the allies had sought to ensure that Germany, would never be able to muster enough military might to once more become a threat. In theory this was great, in reality it had holes in it big enough to, strangely enough, drive a Tank through! Hitler’s rise to stardom brought with it money for armaments. His ‘build agricultural tractors’ in Sweden policy should have had us screaming in the stalls! After all, we got the damn ideas from tractors! But did it ring alarm bells? Did it hell. War? Unthinkable in the average British mind of the late 20’s and 30’s. Our men were back home, what was left of them! So, who wanted another war? Not the stupid Hun, we’d right royally whipped their arrses in 1918, they wouldn’t be stupid enough to start another one, would they?



It was this totally ignorant and blasé attitude in Britain that ruled the roost. Oh yes everyone acknowledged what an important part the Tanks had played ‘except the cavalry’ of course. But now was a time for singing and dancing and long may it continue. If only it had, who knows what the modern world would now be like? British Tank designers and builders such as Vickers were scratching their heads. James and Frederick, our two WW1 designers were now working for Vickers, their time at the W.O had come to an end. One morning while in the toilet James turned to Fred and said, “I’ve come up with a whizzo idea for a new Tank, it’s got one turret and two engines giving it a top speed of forty mph!” “How big’s the gun?” Enquired Fred. “It’s a 20inch supplemented by two MG’s!” Replied James. “Well, you can forget that as a f*cking idea then, can’t you, the bosses these days are only looking at designs which have a minimum of three turrets, a peashooter being in each one as a gun, an engine driving the Tank at 15mph maximum and NO f*cking machine guns!” Came the response from Fred. Having finished at the urinals they stood facing each other pondering, eventually Fred said; “James, put your f*cking dick away!” James did as asked and they left. “B*llocks!” Mumbled James.. “Thought my luck was in!”

So it was that between the wars we as a nation fell behind in the race which was continuing, unchecked, behind the scenes. We even fell behind in the tactical race, even though our great minds such as Swinton were advocating the shape of things to come. As usual the Germans, in the shape of Generals such as Guderian, were stealing our ideas and seeing how they could fit in with their plans. We were playing on Salisbury plain with great ideas such as radio communication and inter-arm co-operation. The Germans on the other hand, were taking these same ideas and fully integrating them at an alarming speed. We were churning out a bewildering array of different Tank types. We had everything from small two man, Carden ‘Tankettes’ through light and medium Tanks to heavy and even heavier Tanks.

But all were a combination of moderately protected, poorly powered and dreadfully armed vehicles. Our design principles said that the size of the gun is governed by the size of the turret. But we were reluctant to build bigger Tanks to facilitate the larger weapons required for effective shooting of other Tanks. We seemed to concentrate on ‘Infantry support’ Tanks, forgetting the possibility of ‘Tank versus Tank’ combat. Anyway, nobody had anything ‘that we knew about’ to beat us. Of course as the German military build up became blindingly obvious, peoples ideas changed somewhat. Suddenly Fred and James’ life became quite frantic. One morning at the urinals, Fred said to James; “Hells a poppin’, I’ve been told to build something that works! What shall I do?” James instantly replied; “Me too, I’ve come up with the idea of armour plating an Austin seven sticking a 2 pounder out the front and calling it a ‘matilda’!” he said. “F*cking good idea James, and you’re so full of them too!”responded Fred. “I think I love you!” Crooned James to Fred, but it was too late, the toilet’s swing door was already settling into the doorjamb. 

‘Matilda’ was born as a Tank, but it certainly wasn’t based on an Austin Seven, it was a thickly armoured Infantry type Tank. It was impervious to all but the biggest German guns. The Germans actually quite admired it when eventually they came up against it. But as usual, its design was not conceived with Tank combat in mind. When Britain declared war on Germany in 1939, it found itself faced with some stark truths. Firstly our Tank force was woefully under strength for the task ahead. Secondly, our Tanks themselves, with a couple of exceptions were, very inadequate for their allotted jobs. Our tactics were fairly well practised but, not as modern or effective as the German ‘Blitzkrieg’ doctrine. So here we were with our inadequate armour being hurriedly shipped abroad as part of the BEF, to France and to face the advancing, well equipped German army. The history books do say that the German army was possibly not as well equipped as the common belief says. I know it relied still, on large quantities of horse drawn power but, the spearhead, which after all counted most, was mechanised. The British army was deposited into a nearly hopeless attempt to halt the German flow.

3RTR was thrown across the channel at short notice with its Tanks but with very little or, no ammo. Once our Regiment found its way out into the open countryside, due to confusion in the BEF command structure, it found itself isolated and unsure of what was happening. Never the less, once the decision was taken to evacuate the BEF, 3RTR distinguished itself by stemming the German advance, at great sacrifice to itself, and protecting Calais to allow evacuation. The remnants of the Regiment managed to just escape capture leaving its broken Tanks and equipment strewn across the French countryside. 

Throughout WW2 the design leaders remained, the Germans with their vast industrial might. The Russians though, had surprised the Germans when, the Blitzkrieg had run into the outstanding Soviet T34 Tank. This was designed to incorporate all the best features of the Tank. It was fast, well armoured and packed a sufficiently potent punch to be able to stop the average German Panzer in its tracks. What’s more, it was simple to build and operate, cheap to build and very reliable. When one considers the vast logistical problems involved with the size of Russia, the Tank was ideal. The Germans quickly realised that they now faced a problem large enough to make them think again. The answer? Capture a T34, ship it to Germany and let the boffins take a look. One day at the Krupps factory, stood two scientists, Jan and Friederich, at a urinal. “ Sh*t, but ze T34 ve haf ist damn goot!” Exclaimed Jan. “Ja, but ve vill make somethink tvice as gut!” retorted Friedrich. He continued; “It cannot be so very difficult as, ze T34 vas built by stupid communistisch scum!” “But, it can be crewed by ze vomen!” explained Jan. “Ha, who needs ze f*cking vomen!” Sneered Friedrich as he did up his trousers. Jan immediately said; “Ja, I agree, who needs ze f*cking vomen, Friedrich I zink I luf you!” But as he turned it was too late, Friedrich had left, the toilets swinging door already settling in the doorjamb. “Shiiiit!” Was Jan’s only comment.

But in due course the Germans produced the ‘Panther’ and its big brother ‘King Tiger’ to beat the crap out of anything that got in the way, thereby joining the already successful ‘Tiger 1’. Industrial attrition would eventually bring Germany to its knees. It was great having the best Tanks in the world but, you need steel and an economy to build them, and oil, fuel and ammunition to run them. So even though they were the best Tanks of their era, hammering forth and conquering all, there were, in the end, simply not enough of them to alter the course of the war. This was also combined with the Germans knack of ‘over engineering’ everything they touched. They had missed the fact that the T34 was simplicity itself. Consequently both the Panther and King Tiger were slow and expensive to build. I would argue that without doubt, Panther was the outstanding Tank of WW2. Had it been built alone and without a confused Hitler prevaricating about also building King Tiger, it could possibly have turned the war around, if produced in large enough quantities! But it was not to be, and the war’s outcome is confined to the history books. And thank god it ended in our favour!

Britain during the war, had frantically been trying to redress the balance. Relying on the lend-lease Tanks, such as the Sherman, from America, it was desperate to prove it could build a successful Tank. The odds however were not in our favour. The war thus far had taken its toll on our great nation. Some designs in the ‘Cruiser’ class had met with limited success but, also with their share of disaster. Later in the war having learnt lessons against the German Afrika Korps in the desert struggle. We seemed to pull back a little, but still a big failing was our lack of sufficient firepower. Not until we retro fitted the Sherman Tank with a larger gun, renaming it ‘The firefly’, could we attempt to take on the ‘Tiger’ threat with any chance of winning! By the end of the war we had designed some fairly successful Tanks, the ‘Cromwell’ and ‘Comet’ being two noteworthy examples. The Comet actually served into, I believe the early 80’s with the Irish army. 

By 1945 Britain, having got its act together, had laid down plans for what was to be Centurion. This Tank would prove to be the mainstay of our Royal Armoured Corps until the early to mid sixties. Its reliability and effectiveness becoming the benchmark for the other nations of the world. Too late for service in WW2 it was to prove itself in Korea and conflicts around the world, especially as it was bought by many nations, Israel having been a particular fan. Building on its reputation, Britain in due course decided to modernise and commissioned Chieftain which, even though it was dogged with many problems. The concept of a Main Battle Tank came about as, even during Centurions era, we had experimented with heavy tank technology in the form of Conqueror, which was not a great success. So it was simple, one main Tank with other tasks being carried out by ‘specific to task’ vehicles. 

I have during the course of this book, highlighted some of Chieftains problems. But I don’t wish to be unfair to what was essentially, ‘not a bad old bus’. Its problems really only concerned its ability to move from A to B in a military fashion i.e. without breaking down. It always seemed unfair to us that, so much emphasis had been placed on its various systems but not enough on it’s mobility. Fine I understand that our doctrine was based more on ‘stay and fight’. But to stay we first had to get to where we were meant to be staying! Once there the fire control system was superb and, we were led to believe that our protection was second to none. But a chilling thought was that when boffins talk about ‘survivability’ they mean the weapons platform and not the crew inside. We knew we could sit and hit targets at ranges way in excess of our potential Soviet foes maximum range.

We knew also that Russian Tank crewmen were recruited, at a maximum height of 5’ 3’’. We also knew that Russian vehicles that were fitted with Auto-Loaders were unreliable as the machinery couldn’t differentiate between the ammunition and the commanders forearm! Of course, the other thing we knew was that the Soviets had a lot of Tanks, so many in fact that we would have to kill four of theirs before we ourselves were killed. On the bright side we had also learnt that Russian Tank crews had a propensity for drinking their vehicles’ anti-freeze which was alcohol based!

So in the 1970’s the world’s status quo in the Tank stakes was fairly even. Britain’s Chieftain with its technical advances was mechanically, less than reliable but, fantastic at all the other arts of Tank virtue, it’s gun could hit a gnat at 3500 metres using its computerised fire control equipment, its armour was deemed impervious to all known types of ammunition and it’s crews were the best in the world. Germany’s Leopard 1 was adequate in protection, punchy in its firepower(the tried and tested British 105mm gun) and supremely efficient in its mobility, but only because it was the lightest tank of its type. American Tanks came in a vast array of types and sizes but, their mainstay Tank, the M60 was mechanically questionable and the Tank in general was undergoing massive refits to modernise its technology.
Israel with all its experience of relatively modern Tank warfare in the middle east had been very busy. I feel that it is easy to forget the Israeli’s and their contribution to tank warfare. At this time they were operating British Centurions but, decided to fit more efficient diesel powered units. They had modified the American Sherman into what became the ‘Super Sherman’. They also used the Americans M60 and older M48. So as can be seen, Israel was invaluable in testing various designs from different countries and through battlefield experience, modifying the vehicles to optimise their salient features.

But, in a urinal somewhere in Israel, stood two boffins. The first looked at his colleague and said; “David I’m a bit p*ssed off with sorting out the cock ups of the other countries tank designers!” David replied, “Samuel, I know exactly what you mean, but what can we do? Design our own?” “Sh*t, David! Of course we could, We’ll nick all the best bits off the ones we have and combine them in ours’!” Samuel excitedly replied and then continued; “we’ll change bits round so they don’t guess what we’ve done, like, putting the engine in the front instead of the back. Then in the back we’ll put a compartment for carrying Infantry or wounded”. David now chirped; “but what’ll we call it, all the good names and numbers have been used already!” Samuel now pondered and then; “I know! we’ll call it Merkava, the thick Westerners won’t know it simply means Chariot!” David turned and said “Samuel, do you know how much I’ve always loved you?” It was too late, as the toilet door had already shut as Samuel rushed down the corridor, pencil in hand. “Bugger!” Was David’s only comment. Thus the concept of Israel’s MBT was born, and a very successful tank it is too!

The seventies passed, the eighties dropped onto the Tank world like.. a big... dropping thing! Bang! The Tank race took off again. It was started by NATO’s German, British and American members joining together to develop a joint Tank project. However the project was unsuccessful, apparently everybody concerned felt their own bits were best. The project broke up, each country taking their technology with them. Britain then cruised for awhile until; the Germans launched Leopard 2, shortly followed by the Americans with their M1 Abrams. 

At the MOD alarm bells rang. Boffins were seen running in every direction, buttoning their flies and departing hurriedly from the toilets, cries of “Bugger!” screaming through the air. As a throng gathered in the meeting room someone said; “What the f*ck is going on?” The reply came loud and clear, “The f*cking Yanks and Krauts have got the drop on us, brought out new Tanks haven’t they, the barstards!” “B*llocks!” chorused the gathered crowd. “What will we f*cking do now?” Asked a guy with fifteen pencils balanced behind one of his ears. Another studious looking chap had been rubbing his chin in thought, then he looked up and said; “Well, we could be sneaky! Iran is, as we know a f*ck up! But before the Shah was kicked out he paid us to develop that.. what’s its name.... ah yes... the Shir Tank. I know there’s a job lot of them laying around somewhere!” “Yes! In Leeds!” Interjected someone else. The government ‘think tank’ now buzzed with excitement, many suggestions flying around the room. Eventually one chap jumped up on the table top and calling for silence, made a statement; “We’ll take the Shir and put Chieftain's gun kit in the turret, change the number plates, make a few other modifications, paint it green and black and give it a name! What name though? Anyone need a p*ss?” When the crowd returned from the urinals, a name had been chosen, after much toilet debate and unheard declarations of love for each other. The name? Oh yes, Challenger of course!

Challenger is without doubt the best British Tank ever. It has achieved (not without problems), the nearest balance of characteristics in any British Tank to date (I can’t comment on Challenger 2). The Chieftains, steel being replaced by Chobham composite armour, Horstman suspension being superseded by Hydrogas suspension units and the BL L60 at last in the bin, the engine now being a thoroughbred Rolls Royce CV12 Turbo charged power pack. Of course as I mentioned, the gun control equipment came from Chieftain in which, it had been great. But it had been designed for an MBT that on roads, was pushing it to get to 30mph. The guns stabiliser had only to cope with around 20mph during travel ‘cross country’. Now it sat like a malignant growth in a ‘new generation’ MBT which could achieve around 30mph over bumpy terrain! The result was a mismatch of technology which I’m glad to say has been rectified. The engine and gearbox could now be replaced in well under an hour in battlefield conditions. This is a far cry from Chieftains cumbersome procedures for repairs. But, Chieftain was not yet dead! There was not enough money nor Challengers to replace the Chieftains in service! So back in the MOD toilets, someone came up with the cracking idea of retro fitting the remaining Chieftains with ‘Stillbrew’ supplementary armour. The first time I saw this I laughed. The front of the turret looked as if a YouthTrainingScheme welding team had spot welded a huge metal bulge to the front of the turret. Oh dear, not the best of ideas!

Both Challenger and the ‘Stillbrew’ Chieftains were fitted with TOGS (Thermal Observation Gunnery System), now the commander and gunner had TV monitors through which to view the world and its targets. The Thermal sight head was able to read the ambient temperatures of its surroundings building a perfect black and white effect picture in the monitors! This system is impervious to all weathers, darkness, smoke and in some instances the terrain. A vehicle or persons, heat glows like a neon light on the screen. The accuracy of the picture enabling the crew to recognise a comrades or enemies face in the dark at immense distances. Warfare now is no longer dawn to dusk in a Tank, it is literally 24/7 (as the modern terminology expresses it!). This places more strain on the already exhausted men who man our tanks.

The future? Its now 2056, a shout goes out in the halls of the Department of Earth Defence, Whitehall, London; “Bloody f*ck, the Saturnians have got a new Tank!” the reply echoes in the corridor; “Anyone need a p*ss?” Running footsteps are heard on the polished floor!


__________________


----------



## 3rd Herd

"The notion of armour, as I believe in it, is encapsulated in the following statement which is often quoted in armour magazines: "Armour is a concept it is not a tank or a specific weapons system but rather a state of mind, an approach to combat that stresses firepower, mobility and shock effect."

I believe one could also add `versatility' to this definition, even if this were to supplant the traditional shock effect; our experience in deploying armoured cars has reinforced our belief in their practicality and versatility.

I believe in Clausewitz's dictum that "war is the continuation of state policies by other means". Among other things, this places the armed forces of a nation safely in the hands of the politicians! If the political view or perception of the threat changes, so will the relative role and stature of the military. The army is part and parcel of the military, and the armoured corps is part of the army. We must be under no illusion that to be employed or not employed is above all else a political decision and that the defence budget in a democracy in peacetime is nearly always under pressure." (Maj-Gen W G Lombard, Chief of Army Staff Intelligence Published in Monograph No 2: Mailed Fist, March 1996)


----------



## 3rd Herd

Colin P said:
			
		

> Malcycee
> Didn't get a chance to read the links, but the Russians were playing with a T-64 or 80 that could carry 4 dismounts and still have a main gun turret, having seen the pictures, cocoon, cubby hole and coffin all leap to mind. The troops each had a hatch behind the turret.



Colin,

"The BMT-72 is based on the T-72 MBT and is actually a comprehensive upgrade of the latter. The unique compact design of the Ukrainian-developed tank diesel engines made it possible not only to considerably increase the power capabilities of the vehicle, but also to introduce into the vehicle design a new compartment, viz. troop compartment. The troop compartment is located between the fighting compartment and the power pack compartment. In the troop compartment roof there are hatches that allow the troops to get in or dismount the vehicle." 

Source: Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau: BMT-72 Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle (T-72 MBT Upgrade Version)http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/bmt72.php?menu=def2.php

Edit to add:

"Taking into account the need for increased protection of tracked armoured infantry fighting vehicles whose armour has fallen well behind that of the tanks with which they are expected to co-operate, the KMDB has developed a heavy infantry fighting vehicle under the designation BTMP-84. The BTMP-84 is intended to carry out all types of tactical operations in interaction with battle tanks. The vehicle provides the mechanised infantry units with the mobility, protection and firepower equal to those of tank units. The BTMP-84 is based on the chassis of the T-84 main battle tank. This retains the two-person turret armed with a 125mm gun fed by an automatic loader. The specific feature of the vehicle design is that there is a troop compartment for five infantry soldiers. A door at the rear of the vehicle opens to the left, steps fold downwards and the hatch above this is raised to allow the troops to rapidly leave the vehicle. A firing port is provided in either side of the troop compartment, as are roof hatches." 

Source: Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/btmp.php?menu=m1.php


----------



## Malcycee

The Russian concept that 3rd Herd very ably describes.............HHmmmmmm it raises a couple of questions in my mind. Having served so long on MBT I am more than aware of the effects of noise and vibration on the human body and senses. To place Infanteers in such close confines to the powerpack sounds, conceptually, fine but. Cramped, very hot (due to powerpack proximity)confined conditions may, leave the Infanteers with less than a 100% will to fight.
Okay, no-one is suggesting that they will be in the compartment for a prolonged time but, by the nature of armoured warfare, they COULD find themselves in there for some time!!
The addition of 'Versatility' is very apt indeed. At the Armour school in Bovington, now sadly closed, when I did my MBT AFV Commanders course, we were told firmly about the carachteristics of 'Tanks'. Firepower, Protection and Mobility when correctly combined will give ultimate 'flexibility' leading to Shock Action.
We tried, on Salisbury plain in the late 70's - Infantry Armour co-operation A La Russian - ie - troops riding on the tank etc. Gave the commander a nightmare - couldn't see whether we were going to traverse and injure our Paratroop passengers etc, etc!! Then..................it rained and, they were so ensconced on our engine decks keeping warm we could hardly get them off into the assault!!!!

I feel strongly that Armour/Infantry co-operation should be in seperate vehicles - Tanks are offensive - not defensive weapons. I should think that, once debussed, any Infantry would become a burden on the mobility of armour having to 'stay and protect' their charges. There went your key of flexibility! Better that the Infanteers remain a cohesive force in their own right, no matter how powerful the Infanteers arsenal - it is not truly compact enough to fit with them into an MBT compartment allowing the Tank freedom once debussed without badly compromising the Infanteer. 
We Brits gave the Infantry 'Warrior' to deliver them safely on objective with a sufficient punch to enable their own flexibility. This allowed Tanks to assume their natural role of 'Queen of the Battlefield' roaming free and allowing exploitation. As I understand it FRES is not to supercede the MBT but, to complment it.

Armour School were adamant that the MBT would remain in the future - the new concept would be a hull with a telescopic arm with nothing more than the main armament showing above a ridge. 'Turret down' engagements via TV screen being the way forward!! Who knows?


----------



## a_majoor

The Ukranian design is one of many throughout the world looking to provide either maximum protection to the Infantry during the assault or close protection of the Armour in close terrain.

Tha Achzarit is the premier "HAPC" design, while the Merkava "can" carry a section or a litter casualty if the rear ammunition racks are removed (not really a great idea, over all). The Italian Centurio can also hold a four man "close protection section" if the rear ammunition racks are removed, so the idea isn't confined to tanks alone. The BMP-3 crams a huge amount of weaponry into a small vehicle (don't stand near when it brews up), while the UAE is considerring placing the BMP-3 turret on a Finnish 8X8 platform somewhat bigger than a LAV III that can carry a section of troops.

In certain circumstances the ability to carry troops would be beneficial, and if you look at the UAE or Centurio as a "Cavalry" vehicle there is a place for that kind of thinking. Still, if you are going to carry troops, their needs have to be considered during the design phase, and not just slipped in any spare spaces you happen to find! As noted, the effects of noise, heat and vibration will reduce the ability of the troops to do their jobs once they dismount.


----------



## geo

3rd... I tend to agree with Malcycee
Having troops next to an engine all of the time OR even better yet, right behind the main gun when it fires would / should rattle some cages... 
Was looking at the Israeli solution with their merkvah MBT(sp?) where the engine is up front - pulling the vehicle along, adding steel to the frontal armour and reducing the noise and mayhem that a large diesel power pack would produce with the infantry riding in back... also permits for a rear door that would enable the infantry to dismount without exposing / injuring themselves


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Little Willy kind of reminds me of the M113, To bad they didn’t modify the design to be a WW1 APC to go with the tanks.


----------



## Malcycee

Colin P said:
			
		

> Little Willy kind of reminds me of the M113, To bad they didn’t modify the design to be a WW1 APC to go with the tanks.



1977/78 I remember seeing your guys in Cancon UNFICYP/Nicosia - Ledra? Palace hotel in your (might be wrong) M114's. A cracking good bunch of lads.

There was an APC conversion during WW1 - This was it - The MK 9 or - no pun intended - Big Willie!! albeit I believe too late to be of any real value in combat!! The infantry in this sucker would have been sat on or around the engine!






As Geo mentions - not a problem with Merkava having a 'passenger/utility' compartment in the back. Good thought process behind frontal automotive adding armour. But, historically APC's such as the M113/FV432 and MICVs such as Marder, Bradley, Warrior are also front engined so, what does that make Merkava - a BIG MICV?
Heavy armour rules - I prefer engine up back why? Well, it's the last thing to get shot up, so you would at least be able to motor back for repairs to the weapons systems etc. 

Once more, while at the armour school, we had a lecture from the Israeli General (sorry name escapes me) who was quite vocal about Israeli design principles.
His tips on Armoured combat such as 'Leaving the Cmdrs hatch slightly ajar to minimise 'vacuum damage' to the human frame in the event of a KE round hit etc was quite enlightening. After all this guy had become Israel's best authority on Armoured combat through the Golan etc. But, he maintained that most Israeli combat would involve the MBT being used in well prepared 'dug in' emplacements motoring only between positions and battles. Therefore you have to ask yourself this, today it makes great press to see clips of Merkava 'shooting on the move' but, in reality the Merkava is ideal for the Israeli concept of war where the Tank pulls into a position and dispatches 'local defence' team to support it in what is conceived mainly as a 'let's keep the suckers out of Israel' defensive strategy. the up front engine then becomes immaterial - it is absolutely the top dog for what they need in an MBT.
In NATO could we, seriously, today with shrinking defence budgets expect to procure enough MBTs with this Infanteer capability built in to be able to put down enough of our erstwhile buddies to 'hold the ground' that the tanks have exploited? Just think how many MBTs would be required to carry that out - unless you were to build MBTs large enough....ie....damn huge!!! then you have to balance the fact that they are already the largest target on the battlefield............it's taken 90 years of development to get them from lumbering dinosaurs into a more cohesive, compact and still potent form. If you now propose building them bigger to accomodate passengers - in proper section strength - when yo get knocked out - so do the poor infantry? I may be playing devils advocate here but, they are seldom the questions which get asked during someone's wise idea session.
On a lighter note.....I just mentioned 90 years of development.............here's a signed limited edition print (my first foray into such things) I've done to commemorate the 90th Anniversary of the Battle of Cambrai 20th November 1917................it shows a MkIV Male with 5 of it's crew pondering the following day's battle to come. I did it for enjoyment but pressure of requests made me do a print, anyone want's one PM me for details. Remember the Battle of Cambrai solidified the burgeoning Tank Corps and without it, none of us would have been able to say "I was" or "I am a tanker" and proud of it!! Don't know if Canada is going to celebrate it anywhere? Hope so, you were a vital part in the Wars and lost huge amounts of men as did all!!


----------



## 3rd Herd

Geo/Malcyee,
I posted the Ukrainian/Russian as another perspective on the subject at hand. I believe we were discussing this issue several months ago with the Israeli solution as the key optimum fix. As to the BMT series as a fix it is generally well known that creature comforts for military members places second to the military tactical considerations. The earlier series of Soviet APC's were exactly as described "close quarters, loud noise, the smell of diesel etc" which I surmise led to the ineffectiveness of troops. Most of the either Russian or Soviet(and including satellites such as Cuba)experiences in the latter half of the last century alluded to this. Aside from the strictly vehicle role they also changed their infantry section composition and tactics based on operational results or the lack of. Again something unheard of as the norm was this is the way we are doing it, do it. This in itself showed a massive change in the thought process of the Russian/Soviet mind set.

There were also several experiments ala "Salisbury plain" in the late 70s and early 80's here too. Both in the realm of tank carrying infantry and inter arms cooperation( I believe RV81 was the first, follwed by exercises with the 17/21st in Suffield the following year and then RV83 after that). Needless to say it was an interesting time. As to the main gun being fired and the noise inside, try the noise outside while trying to direct fire through the "infantry phone" or keeping up with the sudden movement of your "phone" as it makes the next tactical bound. I will not disagree with the doctrine that envision separate vehicles however the lessons in the past that saw Canada as one of the premier forces in this aspect were shelved in view of the changing whims of government.

As to the use of the older Abrams for this role :

"It also has to be pointed out that the tanks Australia will buy are pre-loved. They have been "remanufactured", and in theory at least they are as good as new.

However the Defence Minister admits, he hasn't checked the exact age of the tanks. 

ROBERT HILL: I don't know how old the hulls are. The US has over 3000 M1-A1 tanks, and it has a program to refurbish some of them up to this standard, and basically we will become part of that refurbishment program."(Govt to buy Abrams tanks STORY, The World Today - Wednesday, 10 March , 2004  12:42:00 Reporter: Nick Grimm, http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1062969.htm)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the Merk is about the best and as about the far as we can go with a combined infantry carrier/MBT with current armour and weapon technologies. Going any bigger means a larger internal volume to protect and all the issues that entails. 
If you need infantry that close to your tanks, either use a HAPC or a medium IFV. The IFV offers the advantage of QF gun to take out non-MBT targets, plus most are armed with ATGM, giving the force more flexibility to fight with, plus far better SA for the troops and better comfort and supply carrying ability.

Thanks for the pictures of the WWI APC, I had seen it before, but forgotten about it.


----------



## Malcycee

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Geo/Malcyee,
> I posted the Ukrainian/Russian as another perspective on the subject at hand. I believe we were discussing this issue several months ago with the Israeli solution as the key optimum fix. As to the BMT series as a fix it is generally well known that creature comforts for military members places second to the military tactical considerations. The earlier series of Soviet APC's were exactly as described "close quarters, loud noise, the smell of diesel etc" which I surmise led to the ineffectiveness of troops. Most of the either Russian or Soviet(and including satellites such as Cuba)experiences in the latter half of the last century alluded to this. Aside from the strictly vehicle role they also changed their infantry section composition and tactics based on operational results or the lack of. Again something unheard of as the norm was this is the way we are doing it, do it. This in itself showed a massive change in the thought process of the Russian/Soviet mind set.
> 
> There were also several experiments ala "Salisbury plain" in the late 70s and early 80's here too. Both in the realm of tank carrying infantry and inter arms cooperation( I believe RV81 was the first, follwed by exercises with the 17/21st in Suffield the following year and then RV83 after that). Needless to say it was an interesting time. As to the main gun being fired and the noise inside, try the noise outside while trying to direct fire through the "infantry phone" or keeping up with the sudden movement of your "phone" as it makes the next tactical bound. I will not disagree with the doctrine that envision separate vehicles however the lessons in the past that saw Canada as one of the premier forces in this aspect were shelved in view of the changing whims of government.
> 
> As to the use of the older Abrams for this role :
> 
> "It also has to be pointed out that the tanks Australia will buy are pre-loved. They have been "remanufactured", and in theory at least they are as good as new.
> 
> However the Defence Minister admits, he hasn't checked the exact age of the tanks.
> 
> ROBERT HILL: I don't know how old the hulls are. The US has over 3000 M1-A1 tanks, and it has a program to refurbish some of them up to this standard, and basically we will become part of that refurbishment program."(Govt to buy Abrams tanks STORY, The World Today - Wednesday, 10 March , 2004  12:42:00 Reporter: Nick Grimm, http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1062969.htm)



3rd Herd 'mi honoured and learned colleague',
I feel, as an ex Tankie (are we really ever that?) that your observations are valid and accurate. This is a stimulating subject and different perspectives are refreshing to all. At the end of the day we were/are all soldiers and not politicians. To quote Edmund Blackadder...."As private parts to the Gods are we, they play with us at their leisure!"

ColinP-- Hear Hear!!


“I remember shouting to the Infantry;” Come on you blokes, can’t expect to live forever!” and away we went”.
British Tank Commander, Cambrai 1917.

“They come steadily forward and are not bound to road and track, with horror we see our wire entanglements crushed down and that fences and even garden walls do not stop them.”
German Infanteer, Cambrai 1917.


----------



## 3rd Herd

"If what is really desired is a tank that carries a few dismounts, don’t make the future infantry vehicle another undergunned, underarmored, light tank — make it a lethal, survivable, combined arms tank. On the other hand, if what is wanted is a vehicle that permits and promotes effective mounted combat by the infantry, then develop a close assault vehicle that has the weapons and armor that will enable the infantrymen of the future to win the mounted fight, and live."(Crist, Stanley C. "Designing the Future Infantry Vehicle Do We Want a Tank with Dismounts? Or a Close Assault Vehicle for Mounted Infantry?". ARMOR — November-December 1999. pgs 36-39) http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/nd99/6crist99.pdf

Edit to add:

"According to the "father of the Merkava," retired Major General Israel Tal, who, for over 30 years, has been the driving power of this revolutionary tank design concept, "The Merkava Mk 4 being a fourth generation combat-proven vehicle, represents a quantum leap forward in modern tank design in all its parameters, protection, firepower, mobility, and combat control."(Eshel, David. "The Merkava Mk 4—Israel's newest MBT enters service" Armor,  Jan-Feb, 2003)http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Mekava.htm

"While the Merkava was not designed expressly to be an infantry-carrying tank, it has been pressed into service in that role during some of the fiercest battles in Lebanon. Some Merkavas have taken multiple hits from antiarmor weapons, but because the shaped charge warheads were unable to penetrate to the interior of the vehicles, in most cases the tank crews (and any onboard infantrymen) were uninjured and able to complete their assigned tasks. In one instance, a Merkava Mk3 survived an astounding 20 hits from antitank guided missiles (ATGMs), with the sole casualty being one crewman who had his head outside the turret! It takes little imagination to envision what would happen to a Bradley — and the soldiers inside — if struck by even half that many ATGMs."(Eshel David LTC., “Armored Anti-Guerrilla Combat In South Lebanon,” ARMOR, Jul-Aug
1997, p. 29.")


----------



## old medic

52 pages, but the original question has now been officially answered.
short answer: Leo 2


----------



## Kirkhill

old medic said:
			
		

> 52 pages, but the original question has now been officially answered.
> short answer: Leo 2



And the choir says: Amen.

Further to the HAPC discussion



> "If what is really desired is a tank that carries a few dismounts, don’t make the future infantry vehicle another undergunned, underarmored, light tank — make it a lethal, survivable, combined arms tank. *On the other hand, if what is wanted is a vehicle that permits and promotes effective mounted combat by the infantry, then develop a close assault vehicle that has the weapons and armor that will enable the infantrymen of the future to win the mounted fight, and live."(*Crist, Stanley C. "Designing the Future Infantry Vehicle Do We Want a Tank with Dismounts? Or a Close Assault Vehicle for Mounted Infantry?". ARMOR — November-December 1999. pgs 36-39) http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/nd99/6crist99.pdf



But if you want to fight a mounted battle why would you want to cram a driver, a commander and 8 gunners with rifles into one thin-skinned vehicle?  Why not buy another tank with fewer crew members, a better weapons mix and more remote weapons systems?  If you want troops to keep up with the tanks and have the same mechanicals then trade all the weapons for volume and armour plate and have the Panzergrenadiers learn to operate with the Panzers and learn to trust that they will get them onto the objective.


----------



## TCBF

old medic said:
			
		

> 52 pages, but the original question has now been officially answered.
> short answer: Leo 2



- It was answered long before this - we just had to wait for the anouncement!


----------



## old medic

True enough !

 I watched this a few months ago, It's like reading the sales brochure.  

 MBT Leopard 2 KMW video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86syxIAIKfY

2A5 KMW video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JxuUbcaQHQ


----------



## a_majoor

Now we need the complimentary thread: *New IFV (PUMA, CV-90, Warrior or Bradley), HAPC (Achzarit), or new LAV?*

I will be hiding in the corner!  ;D


----------



## McG

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Tha Achzarit is the premier "HAPC" design


Not any more.  Google Namera


----------



## geo

Re Namera....
I see the same "problem" as with the Merkevah (?sp) 
rear door appears to be relatively narrow... though I am happy to see that it is a ramp and not a door.... Ohh the times I would come out of the narrow door of a grizzly/cougar and get tangled up OR crash into someone ahead of me who got tangled up..... Grr..... Thank god the Bison & LAV went back to the M113 ramp system.


----------



## McG

This is an interesting concept, from the University of Tel Aviv, for next generation MBTs.  Note where the 3 man crew is.


----------



## geo

Heh.... I notice they have a fuel cell right at the front... interesting


----------



## Malcycee

MCG said:
			
		

> This is an interesting concept, from the University of Tel Aviv, for next generation MBTs.  Note where the 3 man crew is.



It doesn't seem to matter which army we serve or have served in..............the same questions are echoed the world over....which is best? Which would we have? There was a time prior to Chally 1 where, the UK actually thought about 'Never building another MBT'. "Let's buy one in!" came the shout. At which point we were all shouting Leo 2 will do very nicely please!!! Much to our disgust, the only MBT ever mentioned from higher Echelons was M1. You guys are I think, getting the better of the 2 options considered even though your Leo's will be of the 'much loved and tended for' variety'.
Now.........as for the Israeli MBT concept......................OH DEAR!!!!!!!! ;D


----------



## Shamrock

geo said:
			
		

> Heh.... I notice they have a fuel cell right at the front... interesting



It's not uncommon.  Some vehicles have conveniently located the fuel inside the fighting compartment beneath the turret.  Seperate fuel tanks like that can be an incredible pain to refuel, especially if the vehicle draws from all three at once.

Anyone able to tell me the advantages of a split track like that?  Seems like a power waster.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It looks cool and different, however the Russian played with this idea in 1950's , Object ### it was called now on display at Kurbink

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/p1.html


Object 279 (1957) Troyanov super- heavy tank with double treads.


----------



## Kirkhill

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Anyone able to tell me the advantages of a split track like that?  Seems like a power waster.



You could be right on the extra power requirement but I am going to guess that the trade-offs are an increased ability to tackle vertical obstacles (as demonstrated by the PackBot series of Tracked UGVs http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=109 ) and a greater opportunity to drag the vehicle out of danger when one of the tracks is blown off - reduced risk of a mobility kill.  The split track means that the front tracks can independently pivot to high angles of attack retaining contact and traction while keeping the centre of mass low - less risk of tipping as well.

As to the power question - power management and transmission, even with the duplication of drives, is still likely to be at least as good as that on the Leo 2 if only because of the advances in technology for the last 20 years.

Having said that......the crew behind the gun and inside the hull?  Why not go whole hog and put them in a separate vehicle?  They would have at least the same situational awareness and be safer.  They might even be able to handle two remote gun vehicles.


----------



## ironduke57

Colin P said:
			
		

> It looks cool and different, however the Russian played with this idea in 1950's , Object ### it was called now on display at Kurbink
> 
> http://www.tankmuseum.ru/
> 
> http://www.tankmuseum.ru/p1.html
> 
> 
> Object 279 (1957) Troyanov super- heavy tank with double treads.



But first the double track design of the Object 279, was to rise the groundcontact area to an point that it wouldn´t flip over if a nuke goes of in the relative near.

This desgin from the US (see Attachment) from Hunnicutts "Abrams - A History of the American Main Battle Tank Vol.2" fit´s better for an comparison.
(If it is to small to read, I can also provide an larger version.)



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> Having said that......the crew behind the gun and inside the hull?  Why not go whole hog and put them in a separate vehicle?  They would have at least the same situational awareness and be safer.  They might even be able to handle two remote gun vehicles.



That was tried in the swedish UDES-20 test vehicle:
See second attachment.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## a_majoor

I see crew hatches in the front half of the UDXX 20 vehicle, but that's just a moot point.

Shouldn't we be taking these discussions into "Future Armour" instead?


----------



## ironduke57

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I see crew hatches in the front half of the UDXX 20 vehicle, but that's just a moot point.
> ...



You need the possibility to have access for maintenance. Why not use the same hatches for part commonality. Also it was only a test vehicle.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## EX COELIS

Challenger 2 - no way - too heavy (try an find a bridge that it'll take its weight) - cramped - speed slower - slower engagement times due to bag charges for the rifled 120mm (remember CAT competitions) - expensive - and British (think submarines, the bastards)

Leo 2 - good tank, however it's reached its potential regarding further upgrades, service life, production line etc - overseas re-supply

Anything with wheels is not even a contender.  Track man all the way.

Hate to say it, but the Abrams would win hands down - battle proven - latest technology - factory infrastructure ready to pound out as many as the need requires - close proximity for spare parts and potential upgrades (don't have to ship the parts from overseas) - crew safety (blow out panels) - spacious - a good combination of speed (Turbine engine potentially dual fuelled, logistical plus) – protection (well sloped Chobum Armour) – fire power 120 mm smooth bore and sight system (if you see it, it can kill it) – wide range of different types of ammunition available - ease of use (lets face it, if the Americans can operate the thing, anybody can, even the French, the overseas ones)

Down side – expense (though the Americans, have at different times, offered Canada whole regiments, if we would play into their political quagmires (perfect example, '91 Gulf War) – not made in Quebec - makes to much sense for our brainless politicans - reliant on Americans (they have enough influence on us already)

If we did, we'd have to make some common sense Canadian mods (ditch the turbine and put in diesel engine) to make it even better (example their M16A2, into our C-7)

Rebuttals?


----------



## a_majoor

Since we now have the Leo 2A6, we should be concentrating on making it more effective through to at least 2020 with a program of weight loss, automotive improvements, upgraded FCS, comms, SA and adopting upgraded ammunition (including "smart rounds" or through tube missiles).

WRT tank vs tank comparisons, there is really only a few percentage points of difference between Generation 3 tanks, and even the LeClerc as a Generation 3.5 is more of a refinement than anything "new". If armies with Gen 3 tanks ever fought each other, the battlefield would be littered with destroyed vehicles and surviving crews would be fighting as Infantry.


----------



## Malcycee

Oh dear
Have we no friends out in the big wide world?!?

CAT cup?? Challenger 1? Problems with:
a: Inexperienced Cav crews not RTR - it was a fix up!! (The competition in general always was!!!)
b: IFCS - not improved from Chieftain....simply slung into CR1 - Total mismatch.

Split case ammo? Slow? My days of loading on Chieftain are long gone - currently same technique - will change when CR2 gets it's new smoothbore. But, I could achieve HESH 2 in the air and 1 up engaging at approx 2300 metres. Flight time just over 630mps. it's not the tank....it's the crew. Chieftain's average 'spot to shot' was not allowed to exceed 12 seconds.

Chobham armour?? Only CR2 has the real stuff - all else is known as 'composite'. Remember the subs? We ain't gonna give away ALL our secrets that quick. LMAO!

The other contenders?

Leo2 - Outstanding vehicle....had a cabby in Germany......most impressive. very user friendly...it had to be - given the German Conscripts abilities at the time. Not convinced about it's lack of remaining potential...........Leo 1 hung on for years with much retrofitting of this and that, you in Canada probably know that better than most. Leo 2 will probably do the same.....especially as they appear on the 'Used car' lots these days.

M1 - In my memories two things stand out.............."Ooops it's broke.......can't fix...call the mechanics and the ultimate crime............no turret boiling vessel!!!!!
Combined with fuel consumption equalling a combat jet and the American's propensity to write slogans on the back like.....'Whispering Death', never inspired me to have much faith in the vehicle but, once more it was not the vehicle..............................just the crews.

No matter what anyone ever extolls as being the 'best tank' at the end of the day it all comes down to 'The best crews' and how they're trained. I'm confident that Canadian crews will make Leo 2 the best solution to Canada's Armoured response.

Asked which tank I'd rather be sat in in the Middle East or wherever right now?? It may be heavy but, it's still unpenetrated by conventional weapons so
CHALLENGER 2 - got to be!! If you haven't.....you need to............hear the roar of that CV12 guys....it's heaven...........on tracks!!!


----------



## Red 6

From the standpoint of the fire control system and first round hit probability, the Challenger 2, M1A2 and the Leo 2 are all very close to parity. I will admit the M1 is a gas hog and there's no doubt about that. I wonder if the Army will re-engineer it for a diesel engine since it will be serving a lot longer than was intended originally? Also, on the issue of deadlines, there is a whole list of deadlines that make the tank NMC for peacetime that can be circle-x'd for combat operations. From the perspective of crew survivability, I would argue that the M1-series is among the best. It was specifically designed to provide the crew with maximum survivability in a catastrophic kill situation and was exhaustively destruction tested in the 80s and the combat experience of US armored forces only confirmed this. Heck, we had an M1 in my battalion that was hit by an Iraqi 125mm sabot round on the turret face in Desert Storm and it didn't even knock off their zero. The other thing that makes the M1 effective in combat is the maintenance crews, who can do amazing things with BDAR.


----------



## ironduke57

EX COELIS said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Leo 2 - good tank, however it's reached its potential regarding further upgrades, Not more or less as the M1. service life, Irrelevant for new build tanks. production line ? etc - overseas re-supply
> 
> ...
> 
> Hate to say it, but the Abrams would win hands down - battle proven - latest technology - factory infrastructure ready to pound out as many as the need requires This also true for the Leo2. - close proximity for spare parts and potential upgrades (don't have to ship the parts from overseas) Just a question if you want to build your own production facility.- crew safety (blow out panels) Has the Leo2,too.- spacious - a good combination of speed (Turbine engine potentially dual fuelled, Leo2 engine is also multi-fuel. logistical plus) – protection (well sloped Chobum Armour) Well Leo2 armor isn´t that sloped but. if the enemy has modern round´s that is irrelevant. – fire power 120 mm smooth bore Which is basically the Leo2 weapon. and sight system Doesn´t the M1 just have an monocular commander peri.? (if you see it, it can kill it) – wide range of different types of ammunition available Ammo which work´s in the M1 works also in the Leo2.  - ease of use (lets face it, if the Americans can operate the thing, anybody can, even the French, the overseas ones)
> 
> ...
> 
> If we did, we'd have to make some common sense Canadian mods (ditch the turbine and put in diesel engine) There was already an M1 test vehicle with Europowerpack and an Renk gearbox. and  to make it even better (example their M16A2, into our C-7)
> 
> Rebuttals?


See red text.
--------------------------------------------


			
				Malcycee said:
			
		

> ...
> Asked which tank I'd rather be sat in in the Middle East or wherever right now?? It may be heavy but, it's still unpenetrated by conventional weapons so
> CHALLENGER 2 - got to be!! If you haven't.....you need to............hear the roar of that CV12 guys....it's heaven...........on tracks!!!



So an RPG-29 isnt´an conventional weapon for you? 
----------------------------------------------
[quote author=Red6]crew survivability ... M1[/quote]

What me personally disturb´s about this is that the driver has no emergency exit and IIRC he can only use the turret as an exit if the turret is in two or three position´s. So if he has bad luck he can´t escape his burning tank.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Shamrock

EX COELIS said:
			
		

> Hate to say it, but the Abrams would win hands down - battle proven - latest technology - factory infrastructure ready to pound out as many as the need requires - close proximity for spare parts and potential upgrades (don't have to ship the parts from overseas) - crew safety (blow out panels) - spacious - a good combination of speed (Turbine engine potentially dual fuelled, logistical plus) – protection (well sloped Chobum Armour) – fire power 120 mm smooth bore and sight system (if you see it, it can kill it) – wide range of different types of ammunition available - ease of use (lets face it, if the Americans can operate the thing, anybody can, even the French, the overseas ones)
> ...
> Rebuttals?



Plenty.

One of the few things I'll willing to publicly debate your statement is the logistical economy of the M1 vs. Leo 2.  Yes, it can be easier for us to ship parts from the U.S. to Canada, but you're forgetting one very important thing about the Leo 2: compatibility with the Leo 1.  This means we already have several parts in the system that will fit the Leo 2.  

Next is multi-fuel.  Yes, the Abrams can operate on diesel.  However, it will not run as well on diesel as a Leo 2 will, and this takes us back to logistical compatibility.

I'll address Ironduke's bit about the driver's escape hatch.  The driver can get out regardless of what position the turret or gun are in (unless maybe max depress at the 12).   In the case of a complete roll-over, the turret crew would traverse the hull and escape through the driver's hatch; the hull weighs less than the turret.


----------



## [phil5]

the m1a1 can be upgraded to m1a2 and they are currently upgrading some m1a2 to m1a3


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Down side – expense (though the Americans, have at different times, offered Canada whole regiments, if we would play into their political quagmires (perfect example, '91 Gulf War) – not made in Quebec - makes to much sense for our brainless politicans - reliant on Americans (they have enough influence on us already)



You know all my military career, I have been hearing how the US offered us this or offered that, but where is a link/documentation etc that proves this?


----------



## aesop081

EX COELIS said:
			
		

> - and British (think submarines, the bastards)



The problems with our subs are in no way related to them being built by the british.  They sat for years and our government was too cheap to buy new stuff.  Stick to armour, naval stuff obviously aint your lane.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Just a couple of points, using my own opinion.

The CH2, Leo2A6 and M1A2 all weigh roughly the same.  Sights and FCS are comparable, although I personally think that the M1 thermal is not quite as good as either the CH2 or the Leo2A5/A6.

Perhaps the best protected tank is the M1A2 with the DU armour, with the CH2 coming in second, and the Leo last.  However, any round that can knock out one will knock out any of the three.  Remember, penetration is not a requirement to knock out a tank!

Both the M1 and the Leo are designed for conscript soldiers, with ease of operation being one of the prime design criteria.  The British and Canadian soldiers get much more time getting trained on maintenance, and rely less on the fitters and mechanics than the Germans of the Americans.  Having said that, the American mechanics are among the best in the world, their track record on keeping tanks on the road is astounding!

Logistically, as the Swedes proved during their tank trials, the M1 requires almost twice as much logistical support as the Leo2 requires.  The CH2 is not as good as the Leo, but no where near as bad as the M1!

Ex-Dragoon; during Gulf War 1, we in the Regiment were told that if the government decided to send us over, that we would crew American M1 tanks.  We were never told that we would get to keep them after it was all over, though!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Ex-Dragoon; during Gulf War 1, we in the Regiment were told that if the government decided to send us over, that we would crew American M1 tanks.  We were never told that we would get to keep them after it was all over, though!


As a young Trooper at the time I remember being told that but since then I have never seen anything to document that offer. In the Navy we have been supposedly offered Spruance class destroyers and Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates but its always been something passed verbally, never any headlines in a paper, a new report etc.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Well, that's what the CO passed on, and I had no reason to doubt him.  I never saw anything in writing, and I'm pretty sure that my O Group book from that era is long gone, so no luck there.

I was cursing the lieberals when they decided that too many of us would get killed for their approval ratings, and I was cursing NDHQ for producing those remarkably out to lunch figures.......if memory serves they said as high as 5% casualty rate.


----------



## EX COELIS

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Since we now have the Leo 2A6, we should be concentrating on making it more effective through to at least 2020 with a program of weight loss, automotive improvements, upgraded FCS, comms, SA and adopting upgraded ammunition (including "smart rounds" or through tube missiles).
> 
> No Argument.  Though with the M1A2 allot of upgrades are top of line that have already been done that will take us to 2020 and then some. (We didn't do much to our first batch of Leo 1A3's until, what 1999-2000?) We wouldn't have to spend a great deal of uprading til much, much later.  And also eliminate the logistal cost and pain of oversea's source of replacement parts etc.  We're not in Germany anymore with the factories just down the road.  On another note did you know the American's are experimenting with putting a 140mm gun on the thing?
> 
> WRT tank vs tank comparisons, there is really only a few percentage points of difference between Generation 3 tanks, and even the LeClerc as a Generation 3.5 is more of a refinement than anything "new". If armies with Gen 3 tanks ever fought each other, the battlefield would be littered with destroyed vehicles and surviving crews would be fighting as Infantry.
> 
> Yep!


----------



## Red 6

Listen guys, it's real easy to overexaggerate the so-called maintenance problems with the M1. I don't know where Lance has the idea that M1s were designed for draftees, since we don't any have in the US Army and all our tankers are volunteers. I served in several heavy armored units during my career and I'll grant the M1 has its share of headaches and hiccups, but I remember a lot more of them running vs. broke down on the hard stand. In our weekly maintenance meetings in every Army unit, every deadlined vehicle was discussed by the bn/sqdn CO and what was getting done to fix it. Maybe it's because the US Army is used to the M1-series, but it never seemed like a huge pain in the neck issue, at least not anymore than the rest of everything :tank:

In terms of fixing broke stuff and repair, the M1 was designed so components can be pulled out and replaced quickly to get the tank back intot he fight. The days of crewmen fixing things on modern tanks with their tool bags are pretty much over anyway. If your fire control system or your TIS is down, the crew isn't fixing it, regardless of what tank they're on. They're calling the wrenches. Yeah, the crew does first echelon maintenance and basic replacement of broken parts, but anything beyond that needs to go to the mechanics.

In all honesty, most of this boils down to what people like and what they've worked with. The Canadian Army has an outstanding tank in the Leo 2 and I'm glad you guys are on our side.  Or maybe I'm glad we're on _your_ side?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Red, I was referring to way, way back when, in the late sixties and early seventies when the design specs for the M1 first came out.  Ease of conscript training was one of the criteria, believe it or not.  Now, I know, comparing an M1 to a M1A2 (turret wise) is like comparing a late sixties VW bug to a Taureg!  However, both the M1 and the Leo 2 were initially designed for conscript armies.

Edited to make the comment that it was Mulroney in power then, not the lieberals, sorry.


----------



## TCBF

The great thing about a conscript army is you get to put square pegs in square holes and round pegs in round holes: an HR dream.  Also, you get full spectrum recruiting - not just the dolts who walk in the door.

Considering the number of battles in which a conscript army (well led by seasoned professional officers and long-service NCOs) has handed us our butts on a plate in the past, one would think this "Superiority of the Volunteer" propaganda would die a natural death.


----------



## Malcycee

I find it highly amusing how this thread keeps bimbling along. Great stuff!! 
Okay, I think there are a few points need highlighting from a British perspective!!

Multi-fuel capability?? Oh yeah that'll really work, Chieftain's L60 - <Hawk.Spit> was promised to be multifuel - "you only need to change the injector pack and it'll run on anything from Gnat's pi*s to scotch" came the claim from British Leyland (who struggled to even make a decent car!!!) for the next 20 odd years it failed to even run coherently on derv!!!! So, let's not talk about multi fuel capability.....it's tish and pish!!!! Unrealistic and impractical in reality. As far as I know all the contenders have easy pack change facilities........Chieftain was about a 31/2 hour job - CR1 was under 3o minutes I assume CR2 is also the same or faster, it helps when the whole kit and kaboodle can come out in one heave.

Guns - they all do the same job - kill and wreak destruction....just what we tankies want!!! : CR2's TOGS system used the first one on CR1 - is the Dog's bollox!!! It truly is like working in daylight! Maint heavy but worth the effort.

Armour - Irregardless of brandname, it's there for one thing - survivability.....make no mistake....of the weapons platform NOT the crew. The crew is quite simply what makes armour the queen of the battlefield. 

The crew.....the claim when CR1 was brought in (on the sales film)was 'It only takes a few hours for the average driver to become proficient' well, that's true enough but, it takes a lot of experience for a driver to become truly a driver, terrain planning and awareness are not things taught in a classroom. His job has become easier with the hydrogas suspension units fitted on CR - The best system available anywhere - so if we want to rant about M1 and Leo's new technology shall we talk about torsion bar suspension? I think not. > Also don't go on about interchangeability in NATO - MBT70 proved that would never happen evryone running off and abandoning the project stealing each other's ideas (or so they thought) but it broke up because evryone thought their own ideas were best?!?!? There you have it, every nation has developed and built their Armour for what they deem to be the right reasons in their tactical doctrine, they all believe theirs to be the best. You lucky guys in Canada are in the fortunate position of having had a choice....it was Leo2 and I sincerely hope it will be as successful for you as Leo1 obviously was. I have a German son who completed his 18month conscription in a Tank Battalion recently - he loved Leo2 but, said, "It had it's faults....only niggly ones but......faults!!"

So, to round off, what are we debating??? Which is best???? There is truly no real competition we are all Tankies together and on the same side..........I'd fight with a Canadian by my side any day!!! 2 Years ago on holiday in the Bahamas an American (looked like a bodybuilder) approached me at the pool bar and enquired........."Buddy, I saw you admiring my 'tat', you in the Corps" I looked at the tattoo he was now displaying on his shoulder which was a USMC emblem......"Na" I replied " I did 15 years but, not in your forces" "Oh, yer a limey!" He said , crushed his beer can in his paw and beggared off somewhere towards women!!Need I say more?!?!?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Ah yes, the TOGS.  Absolutely magical, in its day by far the best thermal out there.  I'm not sure if there have been any upgrades to it, I would assume so.  I've never been on the CR2, only the CR1.

Multi-fuel in the case of the Leo 1 meant a choice of kerosene, jet fuel, or diesel.  No other choices.  The M1 had the same choices, but while we prefer diesel, they prefer jet fuel.

The poor old Chieftan, totally let down by the powerpack.  The later models were good tanks, but the engine was absolute crap.


----------



## Red 6

Lance, you made a good point about when the M1 was designed and the US Army still at the time being in draftee mode. Thanks. 

TCBF– I wasn't commenting on whether or not a draftee army is better or worse than a volunteer. Each has strengths and weaknesses and in American history, draftee armies have performed have performed amazing feats in our wars.


----------



## TCBF

Right.  Sorry, I got off on another tangent - my old age showing?

Now back to our regular programing...


----------



## Trooper Hale

After reading through just about every page of this thread i've got to ask myself....
Why the hell arent i in Tanks instead of Cav!
Keep up the great work fellers, this is one of my favourite threads and your knowledge and observations are great.


----------



## a_majoor

> No Argument.  Though with the M1A2 allot of upgrades are top of line that have already been done that will take us to 2020 and then some. (We didn't do much to our first batch of Leo 1A3's until, what 1999-2000?) We wouldn't have to spend a great deal of uprading til much, much later.  And also eliminate the logistal cost and pain of oversea's source of replacement parts etc.  We're not in Germany anymore with the factories just down the road.  On another note did you know the American's are experimenting with putting a 140mm gun on the thing?



As technology changes even the M-1 will be receiving new "bits" between now and 2020. Where these "bits" come from is somewhat irrelevant, back in the days of the Cold War the Cdn Navy still had vacuum tube components in many of their electronics which could only be serviced with parts supplied by Poland. Considering that was the other side of the Iron Curtain at the time, it makes you stop and think. On a more day to day level, international shipping is now so commonplace and inexpensive that many of the fresh cut flowers you see in the supermarket have been flown in that very day from Columbia or Kenya, extreme use of jet transport for a mundane product. Go to any Wal Mart or Canadian Tire and observe how many different products come from China.

As for the 140mm cannon, the work was started in the 1980's for the short lived "Block 3" M-1 replacement program. At that time it was considered a 140mm cannon mounted on an 80,000 kg armoured platform would be needed to deal with prospective Soviet armour like the hypothetical "T-80" (not the real one, as it turns out). How the wheel has turned! Consider the design specs for the FCS, which also is designed to replace the M-1......

In real life, there have been some experiments to mount a 140mm cannon on Leopard A2's as well (the Swiss seem to have done the most work, for some reason), but most armies seem to believe guns are reaching a point of diminishing returns, hence the current fascination with smart rounds and through tube missiles, and the longer term research into electrothermal cannons and weapons powered by electricity such as railguns.

As other posters have pointed out, the argument seems to have been settled already, and this thread is splitting into a popularity contest; a historical examination of the M-1, Challenger 2 and Leopard A2's design genesis, and bleeding into Future Armour


----------



## Franko

a_majoor said:
			
		

> As other posters have pointed out, the argument seems to have been settled already, and this thread is splitting into a popularity contest; a historical examination of the M-1, Challenger 2 and Leopard A2's design genesis, and bleeding into Future Armour



That just about summed it up in a nut shell.

Regards


----------



## Malcycee

Before I disappear to warmer climes to get married, I just couldn't resist this fellas................................Canada...friends.........you know you really shoulda oughta have bought this beast!!! In a sort of typically understated British way?!?!? Hope you enjoy!!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=08a_1182944093


----------



## Canadian Mind

yea, sorry, no way in hell... too slow. 

Now, if we were to go out looking for more tanks, I'd hope we would buy some more Leo 2's from Europe, or rip apart a few of our own and reverse engineer the damn things... least thats what I hope we would do anyways, I'm not to fond of anything else.

I've heard other people say this, so I will repeat it, as I believe it to be true: Speed and firepower are more important that Armour. what good is an expensive, stationary mobile firing platform? If you can dodge and hide from most shots, you really don't need as much armour.

Then again, we are getting to the point where even with 60 tonnes of armour, speeds are governed to only 70 kilometers an hour... maybe the next step is to redesign the tracks and drive train to allow a tank to go much faster on smooth surfaces.


----------



## a_majoor

Canadian Mind said:
			
		

> yea, sorry, no way in hell... too slow.



The IDF's Merkava is not very swift either, but is generally considered to be the equal to any Generation 3 tank design from other nations.



> I've heard other people say this, so I will repeat it, as I believe it to be true: Speed and firepower are more important that Armour. what good is an expensive, stationary mobile firing platform? If you can dodge and hide from most shots, you really don't need as much armour.



Generation 2 tanks like the Leopard 1 or AMX 30 were built around that design philosophy. Since the Germans and French have moved away from that idea, and other nations like Japan and India are designing and building their own "Generation 3" analogues, maybe they know something you don't?



> Then again, we are getting to the point where even with 60 tonnes of armour, speeds are governed to only 70 kilometers an hour... maybe the next step is to redesign the tracks and drive train to allow a tank to go much faster on smooth surfaces.



Most of the world isn't smooth


----------



## Kirkhill

"Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed."

Newton #1

As CSA 105 was saying Geo, you also have to stop the things.

A Hovertank could get up an impressive head of speed even with a small power pack - assuming a "frictionless" surface and continuous acceleration over a long time.   Bringing it back to rest might be another matter.    Forward pointing rockets for crash action stops? Or perhaps throwing out an anchor might be more appropriate?  ;D  

Cheers


----------



## geo

Heh... 
(possibly you missed the sarcasm hat I was wearing)
 :


----------



## Canadian Mind

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> And you would be basing your opinion on your many years of tank time, I suppose?
> 
> Do you actually know what it's like to go 70 km/h in a tracked vehicle that weighs 50+ tons?  How about trying to stop?  Or track targets?  Or keep a grip on the stab as you move around streets and near obstacles?  What part of the track would you redesign to speed up the tank and what do you mean by "much" faster?  I'm intrigued.  Of course, as Mr. Majoor has pointed out, there are not a lot of places where you can actually get up to 70km/h without endangering yourself and others.  But don't let that little detail cloud your plan.
> 
> One thing that you haven't mentioned with a view to improving our fleet, based on all your tank expertise, of course, is communications.  Our tanks have a wonderful feature in their comms system called "listening silence".  This function, when enabled, permits the crew to listen to transmissions over the radio but prevents anyone in the crew from transmitting.  It is an excellent function when operating in periods where emissions are reduced for security reasons.
> 
> It also prevents inexperienced crew members from keying on the net and making foolish transmissions when unsupervised.  Perhaps you should enable your own "listening silence" on this means.



With regards to your last statement, maybe I should. As I said, I was only basing my opinion on the opinion of others, that, and the fact that it made sense to me.

As for the rest of my statement, I was half expecting contadiction, best way to learn a lesson is to make a mistake. Didn't expect to get pounced. 

Regardless, I'll keep the trap shut in here.


----------



## geo

Canadian Mind said:
			
		

> With regards to your last statement, maybe I should. As I said, I was only basing my opinion on the opinion of others, that, and the fact that it made sense to me.
> As for the rest of my statement, I was half expecting contadiction, best way to learn a lesson is to make a mistake. Didn't expect to get pounced.
> Regardless, I'll keep the trap shut in here.



CM,
Welcome to the forum.
So long as you make your posts intelligent, you will not get pounced / trounced.
Lot of people don't necessarily agree with my own opinions / views AND bent sense of humour

By all means, jump in and have your say - your informed views would be welcome


----------



## GAP

geo said:
			
		

> CM,
> Welcome to the forum.
> So long as you make your posts intelligent, you will not get pounced / trounced.
> Lot of people don't necessarily agree with my own opinions / views AND bent sense of humour
> 
> By all means, jump in and have your say - your informed views would be welcome



To add to this: if it is rumor that makes sense to you...state that. If it simply opinion, state that. Everyone enjoys the discussion, but when someone is outside their lane and makes statements that come across as a poser, they can expect to get trounced.... Welcome  ;D


----------



## Canadian Mind

Thanks for the tips.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ah yes hovertanks, no friction, no stopping, no directional control, equal opposite reaction firing the gun and overly fond of ditches as all things that hover slightly over the earth are very slope sensitive. Ask me how I know!


----------



## Kirkhill

Geo - sarcasm noted.  My comments should have been more properly directed at our fresh young mind.

CM - you will get pounced on when you screw up.  Points on this forum are gained by how well you take your trouncing.    Cheers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Now if you had brought up a concern about being stuck with a main gun that no one else may be using shortly, then you would have started a possibly interesting discussion. Anyone know what the brits plans are regarding replacing the gun with a smoothbore? Wonder if they might be looking at a 140mm gun to replace, although either change will likely require a major modification to the ammo stowage and possibly the whole turret. Not sure if they are still using the Clansman radios, I hear they take up a lot of space for very little capability.


----------



## Canadian Mind

I was looking at the rifled barrel. I just thought that as it was an older video, they had an older gun mounted on the turret.

What's the benefit of a 140 over a 120, and how would ammunition conversion work? Could a person use a 120mm Heat round in a 140 barrel?


----------



## geo

120mm in a 140mm tube?

Come on CM.... think a little.
(pull out a ruler - the 120 and 140 are the diameters - what do you really think?)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

140mm seems to be the next big thing in tank main guns, although I couldn't tell what the exact benifits would be. The brits like their HESH rounds quite a bit and would like to retain them from what I have read. If I remember correctly the Challengers FCS system is better than the current M1's, not sure how it compares to the Leo2A6.


Seems this link answers my Clansman question

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/

Well Geo, I am sure someone would offer to fit the ammo with larger driving bands, stranger things have been done by defence departments to "save" some money!!! Of course that would only work if they retained the two part ammo system, which might have to happen with the larger ammo.


----------



## geo

Colin,
while some people might try it.... it remains that you are dealing with an tube shaped object 120mm wide being fit into a tube 140mm wide.  No matter the inserts or driving bands, we're still dealing with fitting a square peg into a round hole.


----------



## Franko

Colin P said:
			
		

> Ah yes hovertanks, no friction, no stopping, no directional control, equal opposite reaction firing the gun and overly fond of ditches as all things that hover slightly over the earth are very slope sensitive. Ask me how I know!



Is it like a fleet of Gavins?      ;D

Regards


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Only if it is a MERK-Gavin armed with 12 106mm autoloading RR's!!!  :threat:

Geo
HESH would be a problem, but it is after all the driving band that is in contact with the barrel. With the lower pressures used with the HESH round the raised bands could likely withstand the pressure. The sabot rounds might be altered or at least the darts reused with new petals as training ammo. I have no doubt the bean counters would look at the stocks of ammo and the cost of refitting the ammo. I not sure if anyone else is using the gun or any other gun (Chieftain and Jordain Challengers perhaps) that would buy the ammo if they switch.

Seems the 120mm smooth bore has already been trailed, I notice they don't talk about ammo storage.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm


----------



## geo

check... you're the SME on guns


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Remember when we were being told and telling each other that the tanks were gone and we would have to figure out how to do a combat team attack without them?  Heck, I was even trying to argue for a place in Afghanistan for the MGS just to get the firepower.     Its funny how assumptions we take for granted can suddenly disappear and that "never" is a long time...

As for the future who knows.  I would argue in our case that protection and multi-purpose firepower should have the right of way, although mobility can't be ignored.  A whiz-bang anti-tank gun with limited capabilities against infantry and structures would, in my opinion, be a poor choice.   A modern Brumbar would probably be too far in the anti-structure department, although it would be kind of fun.  A large gun with a variety of ammunition choices on a turret would still seem to be the way to go.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Colin P said:
			
		

> Only if it is a MERK-Gavin armed with 12 106mm autoloading RR's!!!  :threat:
> 
> Geo
> HESH would be a problem, but it is after all the driving band that is in contact with the barrel. With the lower pressures used with the HESH round the raised bands could likely withstand the pressure. The sabot rounds might be altered or at least the darts reused with new petals as training ammo. I have no doubt the bean counters would look at the stocks of ammo and the cost of refitting the ammo. I not sure if anyone else is using the gun or any other gun (Chieftain and Jordain Challengers perhaps) that would buy the ammo if they switch.



If anybody upgrades their tank to a 140, much cheaper and easier solution to getting rid of the 120 ammunition is to designate it training ammunition.  Swap barrels to the 120 for ranges, swap back to 140 after the ranges are done.

That's exactly what we did when the Centurion was upgraded from the 20 pounder to the 105.  Go to ranges, swap barrels, inserts in the ammo storage bins, fire all the old stock away, and then carry on.  

Modifying ammunition would be prohibitively expensive, I think.


----------



## TCBF

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> That's exactly what we did when the Centurion was upgraded from the 20 pounder to the 105.  Go to ranges, swap barrels, inserts in the ammo storage bins, fire all the old stock away, and then carry on.



- How about: Start upgrade to 105mm, Snowball for the Cuban missle crisis, get told BAOR does not yet have enough 105mm to constitute a Warstock, change back to 20 Pdr while under cam nets in the middle of a German farm village... 

... Was it like that in '62 George?

 ;D


----------



## a_majoor

I suspect the 140mm cannon is one of those "good ideas" which will never see the light of day; armies have been playing around with this idea since the 1980's but in the end the size/weight/space issues probably outweigh any gains in firepower. At a minimum, I don't see any tank using a 140 unless there is an autoloader included or two piece ammunition.

As a historical comparison, the Germans figured that if an 88 was great in a Tiger, then a 128mm would be even better in a "Jagdtiger", but the end result was so big and heavy that it was practically immobile, carried fewer rounds and took longer to get into action. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz12.htm

The presumptive 140mm armed "Block 3" tank would have weighed in at over 80,000 Kg, so the point of diminishing returns has almost certainly been reached with conventional cannons.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Absolutely agree, that the upper useful limit of main guns have been reached, reading elsewhere a debate about the 120 smoothbore vs rifled, the Brits had stopped making ammo for it and the factory was closed, the cost of restarting is very high. Apparently Jordan is using the smoothbore on their homemade turret, but Oman is using the rifled gun. Considering the threats aren't likely to change much for the next 10 years, they will suffice nicely if ammo is continued to be made and gradually improved.

Swapping a barrel from a single piece ammo to a 2 piece and back again seems like a real pain. More likely is one unit based only in the UK will keep the rifled guns until the stock is depleted, while the rest of them change over. It would be nice if they could make a stable HESH round for the smooth bore. The only possible advantage to the 140mm would be making tube launched missiles slightly easier to squeeze into the dimensions allowed.

Despite some of the material out there, I don't see EM guns on tanks for the next 15 years. I suspect we will see them on the next generation of warships and them self propelled guns.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> Wonder if they might be looking at a 140mm gun to replace,


I know of several nations that were looking at 140 mm years ago.  None appear to be moving forward with it, and I know it has stopped an progression in the US.  The gun is too big for what militaries are looking for.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I am sure someone would offer to fit the ammo with larger driving bands, stranger things have been done by defence departments to "save" some money!!!


to fire 120 mm ammo through a 140 mm tube, designing a sabot carrier would be a better idea.  Giant driving bands would hurt the ballistic performance of the projectile.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Not sure if they are still using the Clansman radios


The UK recently (couple of years back) switched to Bowman, which is an evolution of our TCCCS.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> It would be nice if they could make a stable HESH round for the smooth bore.


Same way it is done for HEAT:  add a tail & fins.


----------



## Malcycee

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> And you would be basing your opinion on your many years of tank time, I suppose?
> 
> Do you actually know what it's like to go 70 km/h in a tracked vehicle that weighs 50+ tons?  How about trying to stop?  Or track targets?  Or keep a grip on the stab as you move around streets and near obstacles?  What part of the track would you redesign to speed up the tank and what do you mean by "much" faster?  I'm intrigued.  Of course, as Mr. Majoor has pointed out, there are not a lot of places where you can actually get up to 70km/h without endangering yourself and others.  But don't let that little detail cloud your plan.
> 
> One thing that you haven't mentioned with a view to improving our fleet, based on all your tank expertise, of course, is communications.  Our tanks have a wonderful feature in their comms system called "listening silence".  This function, when enabled, permits the crew to listen to transmissions over the radio but prevents anyone in the crew from transmitting.  It is an excellent function when operating in periods where emissions are reduced for security reasons.
> 
> It also prevents inexperienced crew members from keying on the net and making foolish transmissions when unsupervised.  Perhaps you should enable your own "listening silence" on this means.



Hear Hear CSA 105.
It would of course be great to have an MBT weighing 70tons plus at around 70mph able to knock off a gnats testicle at 2500metres but, as you rightly point out this would be near on impossible by today's technology.
Let us not forget, a Tank is a 'Weapons platform' and therefore must be able to 'fight'. I remember so well seeing the M1 and Leo2 sales films in the 80's. MBT's seemingly 'flying' all over the place banging off shot in all directions Leo's indexed reload facility hammering the gun up in the air after each shot. My only question was....."Have they hit anything?"  I would find it unrealistic no matter how clever at editing target hits into the film. CR 2 films are always realistic, as an MBT Commander I was always taught and practised 'Shooting on the move'. I even had to carry out engagements with the MA over the back decks, that in itself was a feat. All MBTs have limit switches for the gun kit. IF the MA should be in danger of fouling the hull during traverse, wham, the switches throw the gun into 'Auto elevate', given terrain and speed this would be a common occurence even at slower speeds and gun front but, at 70mph no FC computer could calculate for the speed with which the vehicle would encounter the terrain!!
A question about your comms systems, as I was an RAC Sigs School instructor or 'Bleep' to his mates. Do you use the same throat mic system as the Germans....you know the one? yes, the one that makes everyone using it sound like a Wookie off Star Wars?? I take it you've all heard of Britain's Bowman Knee top satnav/radio system??
I'm off now, you'll be relieved to hear, to Mauritius for a third attempt at wedlock. I look forward to 'Tanking' with you all when I return!!!!  :skull:
Shouting down to the Infanteers "Come on you chaps, you can't expect to live forever" And away they went.
British Tank Commander, Cambrai 1917.


----------



## GK .Dundas

As I recall from Jane's overpriced rag ,the Jordanians are use a Swiss 120 MM smoothbore.I suspect barring the deployment of startrek type force fields.120 has a fairly long time before it exceeds it's best before date. 
.Come to think of it 105 had a longer life then a lot of people thought it would.


----------



## a_majoor

Just a little side note about going _real fast_ in a fighting vehicle: we can do that already.

It's called an attack helicopter.


----------



## GK .Dundas

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Just a little side note about going _real fast_ in a fighting vehicle: we can do that already.
> 
> It's called an attack helicopter.


And it hurts less too! ;D


----------



## Red 6

Top speed in an armored vehicle is in my opinion basically meaningless. Horsepower-to-weight ratio is a much more meaningful expression of a tank's cross country mobility. When you think about it, vehicles in combat formations are never going at top speed since they have to maneuver together and maintain formation. In the defense, dash speed is important in displacing to alternate and supplementary position but still tanks hardly ever reach top speed. I knew some of the Soldiers back in the 80s who crewed the tanks the Army used for its commercial of "the flying M1". They broke a bunch of torsion bars before they got just the right shots for the commercial, among other parts both mechanical and human. :tank:


----------



## TCBF

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Your Flying M1 story sounds like the Flying Leopard story from a firepower demo one year at our Combat Training Centre - we have  a shot that's been copied, reproduced, put on T-shirts, emailed around forever, made into screensavers, everything.  Good advertisement for the speed and violence aspect of the Corps.  Too bad the vehicle was pretty much N/S once it landed.  I think Lance W was there for that one - Hey Lance, did that one have to be A-framed back?



- Lance was certainly at the Armour School, and because of an NCO shortage, I was loading and the US Army exchange SFC was crew-commanding.  This would be the spring of 1994 or 1995.  Or both.

- The tank did fine, but my hand got a bit sore when the CO-AX bin sprung from the turret wall and landed on the HESH round my hand was resting on.   I did have a videocam gun-taped to the top of a 524 set, and the resulting footage was cool: When the tank landed I disappeared from the frame and the breech went up and down like crazy.

-Edit: Changed dates above to 1994, 1995.


----------



## Franko

That particular shot was on Staunch Gladiator 2000. The first time it was attempted did exactly what CSA said....blew torsion bars.

Regards


----------



## TCBF

Well, if it was a Leo C1, it was an earlier SG shot (1990s) - a Leo C2, a later shot.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I did the jump in 93 and 94, Tom, you and Steve must have been 95 or 96.  Same jump every year, and we never broke any torsion bars.

Still think it was one of the stupidest things ever done.......


----------



## George Wallace

Remember Guys.......Torsion Bars are strange animals.  They will break whenever they want to.  I have walked into an empty hangar and heard a large bang like a gunshot and all it was was a torsion bar on a tank that decided it was time to snap.  They break even when the vehicle is parked.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

No doubt you were blamed as you were the nearest!!


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Of course, jumping tanks full of ammo just to show off never weakened the torsion bars...... :

I've seen them go as well after the tank sat for a week.  Strange things indeed.  Mind you, they're always under tension, even sitting.  Actually, more tension when they are stationary!


----------



## TCBF

Especially when the sun comes up and hits the tank after a frosty night.  Sitting on the turret with a steaming canteen cup of coffee in one hand and two hard boiled eggs in another and SPLANG!

WTF?  "Rats" says the driver.  "Oh well, at least we" SPLANG! "Oh No!" says the driver.  "If that last one was in the wrong place, we are grounded!"

...and we were.


----------



## Canadian Mind

Forgive me for my ignorance, but what is a torsion bar, and what purpose does it serve the tank if the damn thing breaks so easily?

I'm no mechanic, but i'm pretty sure it has to do with the drive system... after that i don't have a clue.


----------



## Red 6

The road wheels on the hull are what support the weight of a tracked vehicle and they ride on trailing arms that are attached to torsion bars, which are big steel bars that bear the weight of the vehicle. A drive sprocket is linked to the transmission and actually turns the tracks. An idler wheel on the other end of the hull helps keeps track tension constant and most armored vehicles have return rollers on top to support the weight of the treads.


----------



## a_majoor

http://www.innerauto.com/Automotive_Definitions/Torsion_Bars/



> Torsion Bars
> Torsion bar suspension uses the flexibility of a steel bar or tube, twisting lengthwise to provide spring action. Instead of the flexing action of a leaf spring, or the compressing-and-extending action of a coil spring, the torsion bar twists to exert resistance against up-and-down movement. Two rods of spring steel are used in this type of suspension. One end of the bar is fixed solidly to a part of the frame behind the wheel; the other is attached to the lower control arm. As the arm rises and falls with wheel movement, the bar twists and absorbs more of the road shocks before they can reach the body of the car. The bar untwists when the pressure is released, just like a spring rebounding after being compressed.
> 
> Adjusting the torsion bars controls the height of the front end of the vehicle. The adjusting bolts are located at the torsion bar anchors in the front crossmember. The inner ends of the lower control arms are bolted to the crossmember and pivot through a bushing.


----------



## TCBF

;D

1. Stick a thumbtac through the center of a paper plate.
2. Lay the paper plate on the floor, thumbtac pointing up.
3. Ensuring your (insert relationship here) is wearing rubber soled shoes or boots, have her stand on the plate so the tac embeds in the ball of her shoe, close to the toes.
4. Have her then lie on the bed, face down, with her paper plated foot hanging down over the end of the bed at a natural angle.
5. The paper plate is a roadwheel set, her foot is the support arm and her leg is the torsion bar.
6. Push her foot gently away from it's natural dangle - moving the plate up higher from the floor.  
7. Release the foot, notice the muscles in her leg (the tortion bar) which resisted the pressure you applied to her foot, now move the foot back to it's natural position.  
8. That is how a tortion bar absorbs shock then returns to it's 'tuned' position.
9. If she had seven legs, you could do a whole side of a Leopard or Abrams tank.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Now that was a truly a tragic story . :crybaby:


----------



## ironduke57

Just found something regarding speedy tank´s:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ94g6nDNo8

TV report from an BW Leo2 training session.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## solidarnosc

Some recent pics of the Pandur II being tested in Austria with CT-CV system. Portugal is interested in buying 33 of them. 












CT-CV on AMV recently tested in Finland
















And ofcourse an older pic on Piranha III tested in UK.


----------



## Rayman

I know this is about the LAV III and what not but what about the other assault gun the US Army was planning to use before the project got cancelled-the M8 Buford. Everywhere I go on the web sites say it would be pretty good in its role. Anyone know anything about this piece of machinery? Is it garbage or what cause im sure if it was all that and a bag of chips theyd be out there right now.


----------



## TCBF

The M8 was to be the replacement for the M551 Sheridan in the 82d Abn Div.  It was an amazing piece of kit that was tracked, could fit on a Herc complete with it's up-armour package and had a power pack that could slide out on rails like a high quality kitchen drawer.

Unfortunately, it was a victim of the 'tracks versus wheels' debate that saw the US build Stryker Brigades instead.  I think only six M8s were built. Theory being that a tracked light tank was a threat to the Abrams fleet.

A civilian academic writing in a Canadian defence journal in the 1990s recommended Canada buy 300 M8s for our Army and reserves and scrap the Leopard C1.  Unfortunately, we were in the process of justifying the Leo C1/C2 turret swap, and the very idea of getting out of the REAL tank business seemed prepostorous.

Little did we know...


----------



## Lance Wiebe

While the M8 seemed to be a super piece of kit, it did have its drawbacks.  To keep its base weight at 19.3 tons (mandated by the US Air Force), it was super thinly armoured.  Less than the LAV....and did not provide protection from anything except splinters.  The base vehicle was made of aluminum.  The add on armour package weighed in at slightly over three tons, bringing its weight up to 22.5 tons.  And it was not a small vehicle, it was just about as tall as our Leo 1's.

It was powered by the same engine as the Coyote, a Detroit Diesel, and was considered under powered, but that was fine.  It was supposed to give Airborne forces some punch, and did not have to have a lot of tactical mobility.

The biggest drawback, I think, was its price.  Projected cost was over 5 million per copy.  To buy a hundred or so of what was, essentially, a niche vehicle, was considered to be a tad to expensive.  Especially when it was seen at the time that the light brigades equipped with the Striker family of vehicles would be deployed on overseas taskings, and the US Army at the time could not envision a scenario where the Airborne would be dropped without support and would require 105 mm punch.

A lot of people in the US are crying that the US should have bought the M8 instead of the Striker, but they seem to forget that it was designed solely for the Airborne.  To give it the armour protection that it would require for general army use, I dare say it's weight would be now around 30 tons, and the hull, suspension and drive train were not designed for anything more than 25 tons.

Having said all that, it would be far better received in the airborne than the TOW equipped Humvees they ended up with instead of a gun platform!


----------



## George Wallace

Tom and Lance

Are we confusing some of the facts here?  I was under the impression it was the LAV/Stryker MGS that had numerous armour and design cuts required to be made in order to have it fit into the Air Transportable parameters.  

I am not sure the M8 filled the Herc transport criteria when it was full Cbt Loaded.


----------



## Rayman

George, Ive heard some people say that up armour had to be removed as well others saying it could have its "Level 3" armour on and still be transportable by C-130's. 

A post off wikipedia SUGGESTS:



> The Level I (basic) armor package is designed for the rapid deployment role and can be airdropped from a C-130 Hercules and protects the vehicle against small-arms fire and shell splinters. The Level II armor package can still be carried by C-130, but must be airlanded and is designed for use by light forces in a more serious threat environment, while level III armor is designed for contingency operations and is supposed to provide protection against light handheld anti-tank weapons. Level III armor cannot be carried by C-130. All versions are air-transportable by C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III (five and three respectively).



Some people though suggest that it can be carried by Herc with all its armour on. Im not sure the capacity of the Herc but apparently with Level 3 armour on it weighs just under 25 tons, though combat loaded weights 25.5 tons. 

They also made a variant of the Buford I saw mentioned here the Thunderbolt, that had a hybrid diesel-electric engine, and the space made in the back was made into a small roughly 4 person troop compartment. As well it carried a 120mm gun. Murdoc online seems to be eccentric about this piece of machinery.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Tom and Lance
> 
> Are we confusing some of the facts here?  I was under the impression it was the LAV/Stryker MGS that had numerous armour and design cuts required to be made in order to have it fit into the Air Transportable parameters.
> 
> I am not sure the M8 filled the Herc transport criteria when it was full Cbt Loaded.



No, no confusion at all, George.  Same facts for both pieces of kit.  The Air Force wanted the M8 to be under 19.5 tons.  Which seems to be the magical number for Hercs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> While the M8 seemed to be a super piece of kit, it did have its drawbacks.  To keep its base weight at 19.3 tons (mandated by the US Air Force), it was super thinly armoured.  Less than the LAV....and did not provide protection from anything except splinters.  The base vehicle was made of aluminum.  The add on armour package weighed in at slightly over three tons, bringing its weight up to 22.5 tons.  And it was not a small vehicle, it was just about as tall as our Leo 1's.
> 
> It was powered by the same engine as the Coyote, a Detroit Diesel, and was considered under powered, but that was fine.  It was supposed to give Airborne forces some punch, and did not have to have a lot of tactical mobility.
> 
> The biggest drawback, I think, was its price.  Projected cost was over 5 million per copy.  To buy a hundred or so of what was, essentially, a niche vehicle, was considered to be a tad to expensive.  Especially when it was seen at the time that the light brigades equipped with the Striker family of vehicles would be deployed on overseas taskings, and the US Army at the time could not envision a scenario where the Airborne would be dropped without support and would require 105 mm punch.
> 
> A lot of people in the US are crying that the US should have bought the M8 instead of the Striker, but they seem to forget that it was designed solely for the Airborne.  To give it the armour protection that it would require for general army use, I dare say it's weight would be now around 30 tons, and the hull, suspension and drive train were not designed for anything more than 25 tons.
> 
> Having said all that, it would be far better received in the airborne than the TOW equipped Humvees they ended up with instead of a gun platform!



I got to crawl around the AGS at Littlefields, thin armour was understatement. Apparently the US army wanted it back before war but Littlefield said no. They would do alright supporting Airborne troops, holding an airfield, but would be very vulnerable to mines and RPG's.


----------



## geo

soo... guess everyone is saying that the M8 had about as much armour as the M109 ?
good enough to stop 5.56mm & shell splinters but not much more


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well it's been a long time since I crawled around an M109 but my gut feeling is the armour is thicker on a M109, however the material may be different.


----------



## Rayman

I read that back when the MGS competition was on going in the US the AGS makers entered it and it was the only tracked entry....guess it lost for the reason of the armour on my Saturn being thicker.


----------



## TCBF

Rayman said:
			
		

> I read that back when the MGS competition was on going in the US the AGS makers entered it and it was the only tracked entry....guess it lost for the reason of the armour on my Saturn being thicker.



- All decisions have to be seen through the eyes of Larry Lunchbox and Susie Sewingkit - the voters.  If the M8 looks like a tank and the Abrams looks like a tank and there is a funding crunch between the AFVs that look like tanks, which tank will the peasants listening to AM talk radio pick?

- Why give them a chance to make a mistake?

- The M8 died to save the Abrams upgrades.  That's part of my theory - the other part being the 1990s was a bad time to be a tracked vehicle.


----------



## Rayman

TCBF said:
			
		

> - All decisions have to be seen through the eyes of Larry Lunchbox and Susie Sewingkit - the voters.  If the M8 looks like a tank and the Abrams looks like a tank and there is a funding crunch between the AFVs that look like tanks, which tank will the peasants listening to AM talk radio pick?
> 
> - Why give them a chance to make a mistake?
> 
> - The M8 died to save the Abrams upgrades.  That's part of my theory - the other part being the 1990s was a bad time to be a tracked vehicle.



Hmm obviously the M1. For better or for worse though. As well to add to your point about the 1990s being a bad time to be tracked wasn't the Cretchein Liberal government for going to all wheeled forces for us too?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Colin P said:
			
		

> I got to crawl around the AGS at Littlefields, thin armour was understatement. Apparently the US army wanted it back before war but Littlefield said no. They would do alright supporting Airborne troops, holding an airfield, but would be very vulnerable to mines and RPG's.



I got some feedback from my friend who has open access to the Littlefields collection, here is what he had to say:



> The Littlefield CCVL had separate bolt on boxes which one could insert different armor packages into them. IIRC very thin outer skin and about 8 inches thick across the depth of the boxes. These boxes were mounted on the turret. the hull was about 3/4 inch thick aluminum. I ruffled the feathers of an FMC engineer when I told him his "Armored" boxes were useless. He tried to explain the advantages of mix and match armor packages that could be inserted into the boxes. I asked him why such an elaborate system was only held on the turret sides by 1/2" bolts?


----------



## a_majoor

This argument is somewhat moot anyway, the FCS tank variant will have a similar size/weight as the M-8 (or the earlier RDF "light tank" concepts), so _if_ it gets into production, then it will probably show up in light and medium UA's to provide the armoured "punch".

In terms of protection, it is probably better than the RDF light tank or M-8, but only marginally better, and certainly not in the same class as even a CV90120, much less the 3rd generation MBTs like the Challenger, Leopard 2 or M-1.


----------



## ArmyRick

The current NLOS C model that is supposed to begin production is 23 tonnes. The NLOS C is in the same family of vehicles (MGV) as the Mounted Combat System (The "FCS tank variant") will probably be 21-22 tonnes (my guess).


----------



## Kirkhill

This from the UK House of Commons Defence Committee  - calling into question the ability of the Mythical A400M to lift the FRES.

FRES started at under 20 tonnes and the A400M started at 37 tonnes.  Now (as of November last year at least) the FRES is creeping up through 25 tonnes to 32 tonnes and the A400M is slipping in range terms - at 25 tonnes the A400M will have a range of 2000 miles 



> 83. The Government Response to our Report, published on 11 May 2007, said that:
> 
> The decision to remove the requirement for C-130 Hercules deployability reflects the anticipated change in the balance of the air transport fleet in favour of A400M. It also reflects the increased protection levels required for FRES which cannot be accommodated within the C-130 load limit. Transportability by A400M is recognised as a risk to the programme but is being carefully managed.[123]
> 
> 84. The memorandum from the Royal Aeronautical Society stated that the A400M will be able to carry FRES "as currently defined (a 37 tonnes payload)", but points out that "vehicular weight, airborne or ground based, tends to creep upwards during design, as well as once in service—20% growth is not unusual. Clearly it would be sensible to ensure that the FRES specification is consistent with A400M performance".[124]
> 
> 85. AVM Leeson acknowledged that there had been a trend for armoured vehicles to become heavier to provide improved protection. He said that, given the security situation currently faced by UK Service personnel, it was a "considerable worry that with each threat change there is an inexorable rise in the weight of armour or protection that our various vehicles are carrying". As a consequence "it will constantly stress the ability to lift these vehicles around". AVM Leeson considered that, so far, the design of the A400M was "living up to the FRES demands". However, he recognised that, if the threat situation changed further, this issue would have to be looked at very carefully.[125]
> 
> 86. We asked whether the A400M aircraft could cope with the increasing weight of FRES. Mr Rowntree said that the floor strength of the A400M had been recently strengthened. He said that the A400M was at a more advanced stage of development compared with FRES. FRES was "working to around a 25 tonne total size" which would enable A400M to transport it about 2,000 miles which "would be a very useful lift capability". However, if the weight crept up to 32 tonnes, this would reduce the distance that an A400M could transport FRES.[126]
> 
> 87. Mr Rowntree emphasised that the FRES and A400M teams were in very close dialogue and the FRES team knew where "the bounds are" for the A400M.[127] The MoD did not know to what extent the A400M could be upgraded through life. However, if FRES weight increased through life it would "create problems".[128] Mr Thompson said that the floor reinforcements and the ramp reinforcement for the A400M was a "UK-unique configuration".[129] He added that it was more difficult to retrofit aircraft than incorporate a change while it was being built. He thought that with the A400M "we have probably reached the end of the easy modifications".[130]
> 
> 88. We asked about the implications if the weight of FRES went above 32 tonnes. General Figgures told us that as threats changed, the protection for FRES would have to be adjusted, and would have to be tuned to a particular threat. This could mean that there would be different mixtures of armour for different threats which could be taken on and off the vehicle. He considered that if FRES went above 32 tonnes, the MoD would be "able to fly the base vehicle with a base level of protection and then we would increase that protection once we got into theatre".[131] We asked whether this would mean that more aircraft would be required to transport the same number of FRES vehicles. General Figgures said that would be the case if the MoD deployed all its FRES vehicles by air:
> 
> but the proposition would be that we would fly FRES, if necessary, for say a small scale focused intervention where speed of reaction was important, and we would have sufficient air fleet to be able to air land the appropriate sub-unit and framework of the battlegroup that was going to be deployed.
> 
> He added that for a small scale focused deployment "we require that rapidity. For a more deliberate intervention….the Strategic Lift could well be provided by sea".[132]
> 
> 89. It has recently been reported in the media that the MoD had asked Airbus whether a FRES vehicle weighing 36 tonnes could be transported on A400M aircraft and that, while the company considered this achievable, it was not within the current price and schedule terms of the UK's A400M contract.[133]
> 
> 90. It is intended that the MoD's Future Rapid Effect System (FRES), a family of medium-weight armoured vehicles, are to be transportable to operational theatres by A400M aircraft. However, the increased weight of FRES could lead to it becoming too heavy to be transported by A400M or could substantially reduce the distance that the vehicles could be transported. The weight of FRES must be carefully monitored and managed, both during development and when in-service, to avoid a situation where the UK Armed Forces will have a new generation of armoured fighting vehicles which cannot be deployed rapidly overseas.



According to AirForce Technology  these WERE the specs for the A400M:



> ....
> Maximum Payload 37t
> ....
> Performance
> ....
> Range at Maximum Payload 1,800nm
> 30t Payload Range  2,600nm
> 20t Payload Range 3,750nm



Now they are down to 2000 miles at 25t.   According to the above profile the range should have been somewhere around 3000 nm (between 2600nm and 3750nm).

Nor are the FRES people lily white on this one.  A classic case of expanding to fit the space available - much like work (which expands to fit the time available).


----------



## tomahawk6

If  FRES were canceled that may actually be a good thing as far as the Army/defense budget is concerned.


----------



## ArmyRick

I just thought of a wacky idea. What about a troop of LEO 2 or LEO 1 at each area trg center. You assign a small cadre of maintainers and instructors and for reservist you simply run continious tank driver and gunner courses throughout the year. Keeping a small, small fleet of tanks centralized (minimize deployment cost or flatbedding them) would be cheaper and it would give the armoured reserves a base level of skills in ACTUAL armoured warfare. 

Now guys that deploy in Tank crews would have to get a refresher on tanks but at least they would have the base skills.

Thinking back on it, its too bad we didn't simply assign a platoon of cougars to each inf coy equipped with grizzly AVGP as a DFS platoon. We could have made it similar to another PCF course like mortars and TOW. Oh well, hind sight is 50/50.

I did happen to read some old armoured school bulletins and I beleive there was a plan at one time to have our army buy a whole bunch of scorpion recce vehicles and replace all the armoured (Tank) regts as armoured recce. George, where you around for that? Obviously it didn't happen. Some years later we end up with the Cougar.

The way I see it, Tanks fight tanks the best and should be crewed by 011s. The *CF has limited capabilities and its in our best interest to stick with MBT*. BUT if we ever did get MGS (Look out maybe Liberals will change everything if they ever win another election, yikes!) then maybe assigning them as organic DFS fire power to LAVIII equipped companies would be the way to go. If grunts can leanr and handle LAVIII gunnery, I am sure they would handle MGS gunnery too.


----------



## ArmyRick

Another thought to go with CF sticking with tanks is that we should get on board with the newer 120mm rounds out there. Yes there is APFSDS and HEAT, but also add in new HE/HEP rounds, canister, smoke and gun launched missiles in 120mm tank (yes all these rounds are out thwere and exist).  

This would make the MBT a more versatile vehicle for operations these days.


----------



## George Wallace

Yes and no.  The philosophy of "armour protection" in the AVGP family, was the "Swiss cheese" philosophy: a lightly armoured vehicle for Aid to Civil Power type of Ops, that would stop small arms up to 7.62 mm and allow larger calibre rounds to penetrate and pass right through, as opposed to penetrate and ricoche around inside.  

I do believe that Tracks are more mobile and we need a fully Tracked Mech Force, but the LAV fleet also has its role.  Unfortuanately, unlike many of our Allies, we have a small Armed Forces and do not have the luxury, manpower, nor budget to maintain both types of fleets and Unit formations.

This has been the topic of discussion in other threads, so I will leave it at that.


----------



## Franko

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I just thought of a wacky idea. What about a troop of LEO 2 or LEO 1 at each area trg center. You assign a small cadre of maintainers and instructors and for reservist you simply run continious tank driver and gunner courses throughout the year. Keeping a small, small fleet of tanks centralized (minimize deployment cost or flatbedding them) would be cheaper and it would give the armoured reserves a base level of skills in ACTUAL armoured warfare.
> 
> Now guys that deploy in Tank crews would have to get a refresher on tanks but at least they would have the base skills.



That was done and it failed miserably. 

Tanks broke down at an even faster rate and the "cadre" who had to go and maintain them, from another area, didn't have any pride of ownership at all.



> The way I see it, Tanks fight tanks the best and should be crewed by 011s. The *CF has limited capabilities and its in our best interest to stick with MBT*. BUT if we ever did get MGS (Look out maybe Liberals will change everything if they ever win another election, yikes!) then maybe assigning them as organic DFS fire power to LAVIII equipped companies would be the way to go. If grunts can leanr and handle LAVIII gunnery, I am sure they would handle MGS gunnery too.



Leo2 deal is done. MGS is dead. 

There are ideas that have been, or possibly still are, to have 011 crew all LAV turrets so all 031 can concentrate on closing with and destroying the enemy.

Army Rick...pm inbound.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace

*120mm Ammunition * 


M829A1 APFSDS-T
M830A1 HEAT 
M831A1 TP-T
M865     TPCSDS-T
XM943  STAFF
XM1007 ERM/TERM - Tank Extended Range Munition
X-ROD
Advanced Tungsten KE Cartridge


----------



## Old Sweat

Since the subject of the Cougar has come up, let me offer what I recall after having watched the program bloom from the sidelines. First, by 1970 the plan was to get out of the tank business completely. In Germany what was called 4th Canadian Mechanized Battle Group was first going to be airmobile as Centag reserve and then I think was going to be a reconnaissance force after somebody decided that the helicopters to lift the formation would be too expensive. A deal to purchase the British Scorpion with the 76mm turret cam very close to fruition, but foundered when the Brits would not licence Canada to manufacture the ammunition. So the Centurion survived in Europe and Gagetown on for a few years more.

However the rest of the corps was stuck between a rock and a hard place. What was the role - recce, light armour or what? When the plan to lease Leopards and then purchase others was developed, the RCAC realized it was still in the tank business. What to do as the government was dead against tanks in Canada? (A few years earlier PM Trudeau had stated that there was no place for tanks in Canada, for whatever reason and I suspect it was emotion, and not reason, that drove the decision, contrary to his family motto.)

And so the Cougar was born from a mutation of the Mowag chassis and the Scorpion turret. It was dubbed a tank trainer and some very exalted personages went on record saying that it would never be used operationally. The CDS was in the process of setting up the SSF at the time, but I don't know what was in his mind. What I do know is that ten years or so earlier the army had looked at 'armoured cars' for low intensity operations and he was commanding the "light brigade" at the time. So were these pronouncements  designed to keep the government happy or to keep the troops quiet or what? I got a very stern talking to for suggesting that the armoured corps would end up using the Cougars in an operation somewhere, because there would be nothing else available.

Circa 1978 the armoured school was told to be prepared to teach the Cougar as a recce vehicle. The CO caught a ton of crap for suggesting that a school bus would be equally useful, which proves that it is not only gunners who don't know when to keep their mouths shut.

And then came the RV exercises with the Cougars employed as tank trainers, and then the Balkans and Somalia. And the rest, as they say, is history.


----------



## Franko

George Wallace said:
			
		

> *120mm Ammunition *
> 
> 
> M829A1 APFSDS-T
> M830A1 HEAT
> M831A1 TP-T
> M865     TPCSDS-T
> XM943  STAFF
> XM1007 ERM/TERM - Tank Extended Range Munition
> X-ROD
> Advanced Tungsten KE Cartridge



You missed one George.        

Regards


----------



## George Wallace

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> You missed one George.
> 
> Regards



It was a quick post.   ;D


----------



## oorrah_pobieda

im quite happy with the Leopards that are being used in afganistan. Even though they're only being leased to us i quite like the leopard family. But I do think we should get a couple hundred, maybe 400? But 100 is a good start :cdnsalute:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

For someone who is a M/Cpl with the jump company is Pet...ooops now your a Cpl? What gives who are you....? Why don't you come clean because we doubt you are who you say you are.


----------



## oorrah_pobieda

i am a 22 year old over confident crpl who uses the internet to his advantage...i mean no disrespect to anyone who finds it to be, i just don't like posting imformation about myself...the only real thing is my age and now...my rank


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

So as an overconfident cpl where are we going to get the manpower to crew 400 Leopards? If anyone should know of the manpower shortages in the combat arms units its someone that is _supposedly_ already in such a unit....


----------



## oorrah_pobieda

Its more of a statement than anything...this may sound stupid but we need to show that we are a force to be reconed with...i'm not saying send the tanks to battle, its more of a keep them in case...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

You do know that the tanks we have in Afghanistan have been involved in combat operations right? As for your force to be reckoned with? Why? Are not the members of the Cf lauded by other nations already for their professionalism and training? Do we plan on embarking on a mission of conquest? Thats probably one of the dumbest things I have read in this forum this weekend! :


----------



## oorrah_pobieda

Just a personal opinion. Yes I do know that they are in afghanistan.  I just like Tanks...the more the better in my book, even if its politicly/financialy/logicly stupid...thats what i think. But I do thank you for what you're trying to say. And i do get im just a bit to gun happy


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

And in case you forgot here are the Guidelines for you to look at again.


----------



## oorrah_pobieda

alright i get ur drift. My account will be true. Iwill speak of canada in the highest regards and make the CF proud


----------



## Blakey

oorrah_pobieda, I would quit while your behind and just fess up....


----------



## ArmyRick

oorrah_pobieda, I am now dumber for having read your post  :-\


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Has the Leopard deal progressed enough to prevent the unholy Alliance from killing it?


----------



## TCBF

- Short answer: No.

- Long answer: Even if they were in service right now across Canada, they could be mothballed at the stroke of a pen.  It would be a great way to fund our buy-out packages.


----------



## geo

Colin P said:
			
		

> Has the Leopard deal progressed enough to prevent the unholy Alliance from killing it?


Given that Mr Dion & the Liberals supported Canada's stay in Afghanistan (till 2011), it would certainly be bad politics to withhold essential equipment from the troops we/they sent into harms way.


----------



## TCBF

geo said:
			
		

> Given that Mr Dion & the Liberals supported Canada's stay in Afghanistan (till 2011), it would certainly be bad politics to withhold essential equipment from the troops we/they sent into harms way.



- Yeah, like cancelling the EH-101 and forcing us to keep the Sea Kings in the sky.  THAT sort of bad politics got them THREE majority gummints...


----------



## McG

geo said:
			
		

> Given that Mr Dion & the Liberals supported Canada's stay in Afghanistan (till 2011), it would certainly be bad politics to withhold essential equipment from the troops we/they sent into harms way.


The rented Leopards are required for Afghanistan.  The purchase is not.  The purchase is only required for whatever mission comes after Afghanistan ... and that is assuming that we have gotten the purchase right.


----------



## dinicthus

I know it's an old thread, I found it using a search on the Leopard. What ARE we doing about MBT's?

Leaving the Leopards we rented somewhere else, or what?

Is it like we have far too much capability, re: armour?

I don't know, and I've searched, but, figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. I read last year that the Leo2's were being sold at fire-sale prices around 325k$. Is that not a good price for a tank of that capability?

I understand we would need the capability to transport and maintain them, also, but it isn't like our military involvement in world affairs is vanishing.

Reminds me of an Iraqi general who commented on his armour surviving months of embargoes, weeks of aerial bombardment, but only 15 minutes of M1 tanks.

Am I off in thinking the Leopard 2's are cost-effective?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

dinicthus said:
			
		

> I know it's an old thread, I found it using a search on the Leopard. What ARE we doing about MBT's?
> 
> Leaving the Leopards we rented somewhere else, or what?
> 
> Is it like we have far too much capability, re: armour?
> 
> I don't know, and I've searched, but, figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. I read last year that the Leo2's were being sold at fire-sale prices around 325k$. Is that not a good price for a tank of that capability?
> 
> I understand we would need the capability to transport and maintain them, also, but it isn't like our military involvement in world affairs is vanishing.
> 
> Reminds me of an Iraqi general who commented on his armour surviving months of embargoes, weeks of aerial bombardment, but only 15 minutes of M1 tanks.
> 
> Am I off in thinking the Leopard 2's are cost-effective?



Ummm we already bought over 100 Leopard 2s a couple of years ago..... :


----------



## dinicthus

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Ummm we already bought over 100 Leopard 2s a couple of years ago..... :



Great! I didn't find that as I searched through the old threads, which I have been chastised and de-mil-pointed for DARING to open up with a new comment, anyway.

Apologies in advance for any other gross and traitorous failure to find every single bit of information that is deemed to be patently obvious, but I didn't think people would get so offended, angry, or hostile  : for someone asking questions. 

I mean, this is a place to discuss. People will actually be here that don't know, or haven't found through searching, though they might try, all the latest or oldest information that has ever existed.

Just discourages dialog when we always have to be on the defensive that we didn't find that tidbit that OMG any idiot could have found, like, like OMG!

If I knew, I wouldn't ask. I searched, didn't find, so I asked. Not here to make this an unpleasant and horrible experience, but, really, do you guys do that every time you are in a conversation out in the real world when someone asks a question? Snap "Go look it up. There are encyclopedias and newspaper articles!" when it's easier to just say "Yeah."  at whoever?

I do make an effort, but, really, is it THAT big of a deal to just answer? If the information is in a fifteen-year old thread, do we comb through fifteen years of threads to make sure no one gets mad at something we ask?

New conversation will often bring up old information. It's just the way conversations go.


----------



## McG

dinicthus said:
			
		

> Great! I didn't find that as I searched through the old threads, ...


The thread title might have given it away:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52673.0.html


----------



## dinicthus

Fair enough, must have missed it. But, I did search leopard, leo II, and didn't notice that one, so it was just a mistake, not a heinous and malicious flouting of the Rules.


----------

