# Questions From Civilians on Canadian Leopard C2 Tanks in Afghanistan



## Loaf (22 Sep 2006)

Hello all,

I am a slack and lazy civilian who is interested in military matters... I stumbled across these forums while reading about the Leopard deployment. The comments here are very interesting and enlightening to peruse in these dangerous times!

I am sticking my nose in with a couple of questions that I hoped somebody might care to comment on:

I have read a bit about the TUSK upgrade to the US Abrams tank... I assume the Leopard is like most MBTs and carries much of its armour protection up front. The TUSK upgrade includes slatted armour (like on the Stryker) to defeat RPGs fired at the rear and sides of the tank. Clearly Canadian Leopards are not going to get such an upgrade before deployment... So, here's my question: You often see pictures of WWII tanks with logs, sandbags, pieces of steel plate etc. that have been attached in the field to help protect the tank. Would any such "do-it-yourself" measures that could be deployed in the field add worthwhile protection against RPGs fired at the less-well-armoured parts of a Leopard? Obviously I am not expecting any "how to destroy a Leopard with an RPG" responses! But any general comments would be of interest...

Second, I am wondering if the 15 tanks being sent over would include any Taurus recovery vehicles? Or is that not counted as a tank? I am assuming that you need to send at least one recovery vehicle or risk abandoning any tank that becomes immobilized - would recovery vehicles be a standard part of any deployment and not get mentioned in press releases because it is so routine?

Good luck to the crews of those tanks... And to all of the Canucks in Afghanistan.

Cheers,
Loaf


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Sep 2006)

Loaf - We appreciate your interest and curiosity, but specific answers to your questions are probably a violation of OPSEC.

I will leave the thread open, as there are many serving soldiers on the board that can better determine whether or not to shed some light on your inquiry.


----------



## Loaf (22 Sep 2006)

Understood! Any shred of non-sensitive info would be appreciated tho...


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Sep 2006)

Loaf said:
			
		

> Second, I am wondering if the 15 tanks being sent over would include any Taurus recovery vehicles? Or is that not counted as a tank? I am assuming that you need to send at least one recovery vehicle or risk abandoning any tank that becomes immobilized - would recovery vehicles be a standard part of any deployment and not get mentioned in press releases because it is so routine?



Recovery vehs are going, but not the Taurus, IIRC. Not counted as part of the 15.


----------



## Loaf (22 Sep 2006)

So the army has recovery vehicles that can tow a Leopard other than the Taurus? I assumed that you would need the tank-based vehicle to do such a job...


----------



## couchcommander (22 Sep 2006)

Loaf said:
			
		

> I have read a bit about the TUSK upgrade to the US Abrams tank... I assume the Leopard is like most MBTs and carries much of its armour protection up front. The TUSK upgrade includes slatted armour (like on the Stryker) to defeat RPGs fired at the rear and sides of the tank. Clearly Canadian Leopards are not going to get such an upgrade before deployment... So, here's my question: You often see pictures of WWII tanks with logs, sandbags, pieces of steel plate etc. that have been attached in the field to help protect the tank. Would any such "do-it-yourself" measures that could be deployed in the field add worthwhile protection against RPGs fired at the less-well-armoured parts of a Leopard? Obviously I am not expecting any "how to destroy a Leopard with an RPG" responses! But any general comments would be of interest...



Additional armour was added to the Leopards in the form of the C2 upgrade including spall liners and add-on MEXAS panels, along with a bunch of other upgrades. This information is in the public domain.

Just in case any Timmy's are listening however, this makes them the most badass m***** f*****s that'll ruin your day, so just run away. Oh hey that rhymed.


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Sep 2006)

again, I'm not sure, but that's what I believe. The LEO is not in the same weight class as most MBT's.


----------



## Loaf (22 Sep 2006)

More dumb tank questions occur to me!

Regarding tank recovery: I guess a tank needs to be able to roll on its tracks in neutral to tow it? 

If the tank's running gear is damaged such that it cannot be repaired where it sits, can you drag it any distance or is that not feasible? If you can't I guess you would need a flatbed truck to move it?

Add in the possibility of people shooting at you and a broken-down tank sounds like a real headache!


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Sep 2006)

I'm not a tanker, but after almost a century of armoured warfare, I'm sure they have their SOP's sorted out.


----------



## BernDawg (22 Sep 2006)

"Out of fuel.  Become a pill-box"
From the Beast
Rent it it's awesome.


----------



## Shamrock (22 Sep 2006)

Non-Taurus vehicle capable of towing a tank and recovering it while under close contact with the en...

Why, a tank of course.  The Corps has contigencies among contigencies, plans and counter plans to deal with a variety of situations.  Including recovery of damaged vehicles under fire.  We've done it for years, we know what we're doing.

Couch commander: Big thumbs up on that.  Leo C2 is a much more capable tank than most people give it credit.  It has a much more profound ability to reach out and touch someone than an M1 and can do it with greater mobility and increased economy.


----------



## RoperAB (5 Dec 2006)

Are the Leapord tanks in Afghanistan 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation Leapords?


----------



## Mithras (5 Dec 2006)

Believe it is a second generation Leopard now after some upgrades, I am sure someone else will come by and give more info.  The Army also has a page about the Leopard located here: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_display.asp?product=55&more=55

You may also be able to find that info by using the search function.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2006)

The Leopard C2 is a "Canadianised" version of the Leopard 1.  I believe it is a modified Leopard 1A5.  So, Leopard "Generation" 5?


----------



## RoperAB (5 Dec 2006)

Thanks for the info.
Hey im just a concerned citizen so please have patients with my lack of knowledge. Are these tanks junk?
Im remembering stories about the Soviets tanks getting a pounding years ago in the mountains of Afghanistan. Is this going to happen again?
Im a big C Conservative from Alberta. Is there a good reason why Harper hasnt purchased new 3rd generation Leapord tanks? This summer I was talking to a tank crew at Spruce Meadows. They were under the impression that they were getting new Leapords. What happened? At Spruce Meadows believe it or not but they actually had a Sherman tank! They also had one of the old model Leapords.
Also are Leapord 3rd generation better than the Abrams? I heard they are because of fuel range and logistics of getting fuel to the battlefield. Also I guess the Abrams has problems with the sand?????
How vonruble are these CND Leapords to rockets and land mines?
You know as percentage of GDP I was under the impression that we were spending more on defence with Harpers last budjet than other countrys includeing the States.  How many years until we catch up?


----------



## RoperAB (5 Dec 2006)

By catching up I dont mean become a superpower. What I mean is how long until our service men have the latest and proper equipement.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2006)

OK, before going any farther, slow down.
There are many tanks out there called "Leopard".  The Leopard 1A1 is a tad different from the Leopard 1A5, the Leopard 2 series of tanks is a totally different tank.
Soviet tanks and German tanks have clashed in the past and they aren't in the same league.  I have no idea what or who "Spruce Meadows" is (or are), and I don't know why they would be "in the know" regarding purchases of tanks for Canada, so.....


In short, stay on target, avoid "shotgun" blast questions and there is NO WAY anyone here will answer questions like "how vulnerable are they to (x)"

reminds me of Gulf War (one) SNL skit.  They parodied a press conference:
Officer leading conference: "Yes, sir.  You in the back."
Man in turban and sunglasses:  "Yes, my name is Omar Abdullah from the Baghdad times.  How many troops do you have?  And can you take me to them so I can count them?"


----------



## RoperAB (5 Dec 2006)

Captain Scarlet said:
			
		

> OK, before going any farther, slow down.
> There are many tanks out there called "Leopard". The Leopard 1A1 is a tad different from the Leopard 1A5, the Leopard 2 series of tanks is a totally different tank.
> Soviet tanks and German tanks have clashed in the past and they aren't in the same league.  I have no idea what or who "Spruce Meadows" is (or are), and I don't know why they would be "in the know" regarding purchases of tanks for Canada, so.....
> 
> ...



Spruce Meadows is a world class equestrian facility SW of Calgary.They are know mainly for their international  show jumping competitions. The Army had a tank and recon vehicle display set up there last summer during the Masters.
I didnt mean to ask questions that could possible be used against our servicemen. I figured this was all common knowledge.
My interest is mainly because I want to know what could politically be done to give our servicemen the very best of equipment since it seems like we have a history of sending them into battle poorly equiped.


----------



## geo (5 Dec 2006)

Hmmm..Let's see if I can have a crack at the range of questions:
The Leopard 1C2 is to the germans = Leo 1A5 call it 1.5 (from the original Leo 1.0)
The germans are currently using  the Leo 2A6 (I believe)
However, the sights we currently have on our C2 makes it quite comparable to other "better" MBTs

On the international market, both Sweden & Germany are attempting to dispose of surplus, slightly used Leo 2A?s at fire sale prices (no russian hordes to counter)... no move to buy any of those at present.... speculation can be very frustrating when it isn't founded on fact.

Sherman tanks in Spruce meadows? - it was either a target, a monument mounted on a concrete slab OR someone's expensive toy.

defence spending as a % of GDP.... compared to what the US is presently spending? youhave got to be kidding!  Right?

For the rest, please start writing text in logical thought bytes and just maybe we'll try to provide you with some answers.........


----------



## RoperAB (5 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm..Let's see if I can have a crack at the range of questions:
> The Leopard 1C2 is to the germans = Leo 1A5 call it 1.5 (from the original Leo 1.0)
> The germans are currently using  the Leo 2A6 (I believe)
> However, the sights we currently have on our C2 makes it quite comparable to other "better" MBTs
> ...



It was Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry and honestly they had a real working WW2 vintage Sherman Tank at their display. I was in it.
Okay in laymens terms, is this CND version of the Leapord suitible for combat in Afghanistan? Would our men be safer in something else? Is Harper doing all he can do for our military?
What are your thoughts on the following article?




Canada's Prime Minister Harper Adds Military Muscle 
July 5th, 2006 



Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is quickly fulfilling campaign promises to rebuild the nation’s military by going on an unprecedented $15 billion peacetime spending spree on heavy transport planes, helicopters, ships and trucks. 

That plan will surely get the 46-year-old prime minister a hearty handshake when he meets with President George W. Bush at the White House on Thursday, which is, incidentally, the president’s 60th birthday. Harper will already have been accorded the rare honor of staying overnight Wednesday at Blair House, the official White House guest quarters. 

The $15 billion (Cdn.) procurement package is basically equivalent to the current annual budget of the Canadian military, which hovers around $15 billion but which the Harper government also plans to increase substantially year-by-year. 

To give dramatic effect to the planned purchases they were all announced in a single week by Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor. The procurement plans include: 

*$4 billion to buy and maintain four long-range, heavy-lift aircraft, likely the Boeing C-17 Globemaster. 

*$3.2 billion for 17 other transport aircraft to replace the decades-old Hercules fleet. 

*$2 billion for 16 medium-to-heavy lift helicopters. 

$2.1 billion for three new supply ships. 

*$1.2 billion to buy 2,300 military trucks to replace the rusted out contingent used to supply and transport the armed forces. 

For comparison of scale, it’s worth noting Canada’s population and economy are about the same size as that of California. The country’s population is 33 million, and a Canadian dollar is worth about 90-cents U.S. For simplicity’s sake, many observers simply multiply a Canadian statistic by 10 to get the U.S. equivalent. 

Canada’s fleet of 1960s’ era Hercules transport aircraft demonstrate, as do its 40-year-old Sea King search and rescue helicopters, the deteriorated state of much of the nation’s heavy military equipment. In any given day up to 20 of the 30 Hercules fleet are on the ground waiting to be repaired. The Sea Kings, now being replaced slowly by a fleet of 28 Cyclone helicopters, are notorious for crashing and spend far more time having maintenance work done to them than in the air operationally. 

The procurement announcements came just as former Canadian Ambassador to Washington, Frank McKenna, was urging his Liberal party to back the U.S. ballistic missile defense shield. McKenna, a former premier of New Brunswick, had been thought to be the heir apparent to outgoing Liberal leader and former prime minister Paul Martin. But surprising almost everyone, McKenna suddenly decided not to join the Liberal leadership race. 

While serving as Canada’s prime minister, Martin infuriated Bush and his administration by giving the impression his government would join the missile defense shield program and then backing out at the last moment. To add insult to injury, Martin didn’t even inform Bush himself of the decision, leaving it to one of his cabinet ministers. 

Harper, as opposition leader, basically sat on the fence during the missile defense shield debate — much to the annoyance of many in his party — but it was suggested he did not want to get on the wrong side of an issue with the electorate that might cost him votes and an election win. It is now fairly obvious that if, as is likely, Harper wins a majority mandate in the next election, his government would quickly move to join the defense shield program. 

With the new announcements, Harper declared his government was “correcting 13 years of Liberal neglect” of the armed forces. In the mid-1990s, under Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Martin, as finance minister, cut the military’s budget by 25% and its manpower level from 80,000 to 60,000 men and women in uniform. 

O’Connor, a former brigadier-general, wants to get the military personnel back up to the pre-Martin cut levels, and likely higher. Even at just 60,000 personnel, Canada only has about 20,000 combat ready troops available at any given time. Incidentally, O’Connor is the first Canadian defense minister in recent times to have actually served in uniform. 

The new defense spending plans are sure to further please the Bush administration, as are the Harper government’s moves to take the nation from a Liberal-Left tilt in foreign affairs to a stance more in line with that of the U.S. Canada’s new foreign affairs minister, Peter MacKay, has already forged a close friendship with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Harper and Bush chat frequently on the telephone, unlike Chretien and Martin who so upset Bush with their anti-American slurs they rarely got their telephone calls to the White House returned. 

Just as Harper and O’Connor were making the procurement announcements, and McKenna his defense shield comments, Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the Senate committee on national security and defense, released his committee’s latest report entitled ‘The Government’s No. 1 Job: Securing the Military Options it Needs to Protect Canadians’. In the June 303-page report, Kenny calls for a doubling of the current $15 billion (Cnd.) military budget to $30 billion or $35 billion (Cnd.). He welcomed the new announcements, but contended military spending plans by the Harper government still fall short. 

Paradoxically, Kenny was appointed to the Senate by the late Liberal-Left and anti-military prime minister, Pierre Trudeau. Kenny had been a longtime aide to Trudeau, but since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and taking over as chairman of the Senate committee on national security and defense he has seemingly turned into a ‘Liberal hawk’ as he criss-crosses the nation, probes the lack of security at Canadian airports and sea ports, and insists on sitting down with rank-and-file members of the armed forces as well as officers to get their views on what the military needs. Aside from a $30 billion to $35 billion budget, Kenny wants to see the military’s strength increased to 90,000 personnel. 

Incidentally, through the administrations of several Liberal prime ministers until Trudeau the country maintained a high military stance. From Second World War prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, to his 1950s successor, Louis St. Laurent and 1960s’ prime minister Lester Pearson the nation’s military force was fairly constant. That came to an end with Trudeau. 

Although Canadians generally knew Trudeau’s heroes included Communist dictators Fidel Castro and Mao Tse-tung, just weeks ago a new scholarly book shed sensational light on his philosophies long before entering federal politics. The book Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada 1919-1944 by Max and Monique Nemni, paints Trudeau as being both a Fascist sympathizer and anti-Semitic in the 1930s and early 1940s. 

Although it was well known Trudeau had avoided conscription during the Second World War, the Nemnis’ (both admirers of Trudeau) also revealed he blamed Britain for starting the war, claimed Canada was ruled by a “military clique”, and denounced Mackenzie King’s declaration of war against Nazi Germany in 1939. In his more youthful days he was also a Quebec separatist, declaring one day Quebec would be a sovereign independent state. Insightfully, the one issue even his harshest critics gave him credit for during his prime ministership was that Trudeau battled Quebec separatism all down the line. 

On his travels across the nation, Kenny has often walked into supposedly secure areas of airports and sea ports without being challenged. His findings of lapses of security and the possibility airports and sea ports have been infiltrated by criminal elements have shaken ‘thinking’ Canadians. 

Kenny has constantly tried to wake Canadians up against what he says is both complacency and a false sense of security. Chretien himself added to the attitude of many Canadians by insisting because Canada is a “multicultural” nation it is safe from terrorist attacks. That’s even though it is well known Canada is one of the targets on Osama bin Laden’s hit list. Just a month ago police and security forces arrested 17 individuals alleged to be “home grown Islamic terrorists” who planned to blow up several Canadian landmarks and even invade the House of Commons and capture and behead the prime minister. 

Kenny — who must appall the basic Liberal-Left structure of his own party as much as Zell Miller appalls the Liberal-Lefters in the Democratic party, has tried to demolish three myths Trudeau, Chretien and Martin perpetuated: 

Myth One: Canada is not a warlike nation. True, he says, but Canadians have a history of protecting themselves, and standing up for what is right when the crunch comes. He points to Canada’s participation in the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean War. Coincidentally, in the Second World War one-in-ten Canadians were in uniform, a rate said to be higher than its allies. At the end of the Second World War, with a population of around 11 million, Canada is thought to have had the fourth largest military in the world. 

Myth Two: There is no imminent threat to Canadians. Not so, he says. Canadians live in a shrunken world in which borders and even oceans offer limited buffers to disaster. He notes Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli testified before Kenny’s Senate committee in May that he expects a terrorist attack will occur on Canadian soil. Zaccardelli pointed out the U.S., Britain, Australia, Spain, Indonesia, Kenya, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia had already been attacked, as had Iraq. Commented Kenny, “Canada has an unenviable place on al-Qaida’s list of countries to be targeted.” 

Myth Three: The Americans will take care of Canada. Kenny’s assessments: The U.S. is a great friend of Canada. On a huge number of issues, the interests of both countries are complementary. But Americans look after their own interests first and foremost, and so should Canadians. The dependence of one nation depending on another nation for its survival is dangerous. In a nutshell, when it comes down to it, the U.S. will look after Canada in a crisis if it can, but it naturally will have to look after its own citizens first. That’s why Canada must become self-sufficient of its own security and defense. 

Kenny also notes, as have Conservative politicians, that Canada’s expenditures on defense as a percentage of its Gross National product (GNP) are abysmal. In 2005, the U.S spent $1,712 per capita, and Britain spent $903. Australia $648, and even The Netherlands spent $658. Yet Canada spent only $343 for each man, woman and child to defend the nation. All figures are in Canadian dollars, so add 10% to translate to U.S. dollars. 

Canada’s defense spending has often been as low as 1% of its GNP — 1996-97 to 1999-2000, for instance. In 2000-01 and 2001-02 it fell to 0.9% In 2005-06 it was just 6.8% of total federal government spending. 

Rounded out, Kenny says both Britain and France spend roughly 2% of their GNP for defense, and if Canada spent that much a $30 billion (Cnd. ) annual defense budget would be quite attainable and sustainable. 

Still to come from Harper’s government are details of Arctic military icebreaking vessels and other large military hardware. The U.S. disputes Canada’s sovereignty claims over the Northwest Passage, which could one day become a major all-weather sea international lane, but Washington has hinted it may accept the claim of Canadian sovereignty if Ottawa can guarantee security of the region. By having military icebreakers patrol the Arctic, Canada would not only be demonstrating military muscle, but it would ease Liberal-Left criticism the Harper government is in Washington’s pocket. 

Kenny’s all party committee, by the way, wants to see between $58 billion and $81 billion spent on big ticket military hardware over the next 20 years. 

Kenny has also criticized the idea that defense procurements should always have economic benefits for Canadian industry. He believes they should be based on getting the best equipment possible, at the best possible price, and in the shortest period of time. Rather than tying purchases to some form of ‘regional economic development’ programs for depressed areas, he wants to see the government have an “off the shelf” purchasing policy and obtain equipment compatible with that used by the Canada’s allies. 

Some analysts actually contend the Liberal senator’s reports and recommendations could simply be used by the Conservatives as their own blueprint for rebuilding the nation’s military and ensuring the security of its coasts and airspace. That’s not the view of Liberal MPs who this past week condemned Harper’s and O’Connor’s military spending plans. 

In response to Liberal attacks in the House of Commons, Harper said, 

“I do not care whether the party opposite does not support our military. This party does, and we will have a strong military for a strong country.” 

No one doubts the youthful prime minister’s resolve any more. 

Paul Jackson is a veteran and award-winning Canadian journalist who has spent four decades writing on politics, foreign affairs and defence for many of Canada’s major metropolitan daily newspapers. He is now Editor Emeritus of the Calgary Sun.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Sherman tanks in Spruce meadows? - it was either a target, a monument mounted on a concrete slab OR someone's expensive toy.



The Strathconas have (or had) a pretty decent collection of rolling museum pieces, most still under their own steam.


----------



## McG (5 Dec 2006)

Leopard C2 information - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Leopard_MBT

Threads:
LEOPARD TANK QUESTION
Leopards bite
Your thoughts on this: The Leapord C2 is not a Tank
Future uses of the Leopard


----------



## George Wallace (5 Dec 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The Strathconas have (or had) a pretty decent collection of rolling museum pieces, most still under their own steam.



The Strathconas have two working Shermans, amongst other 'Runners'.


----------



## acen (7 Dec 2006)

Not to offend or anything, but when I read the statement that you were under the impression that with Harper's injection of cash that we were spending more than the US on defence...i just about lost it. The US spends almost 1 billion dollars a day on defence, heck almost that in Iraq alone. US defence spending accounts for 40-45% of defence spending across the globe...and spends more than its nearest 5 competitors combined... Make what you will of their current operations, thats for everyone to decide for themselves, but they spend more money in 30 minutes at the pentagon than we do in a full calendar year. This is not to take away from our military whatsoever, we are a well trained and reasonably well equipped, just because we do not spend as much as other countries does not decide our efficacity in a given operation. 
My 2 cents worth...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Dec 2006)

There are several people up to date on the TUSK program at Tanknet (google is your friend)


----------



## geo (7 Dec 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The Strathconas have a pretty decent collection of rolling museum pieces, most still under their own steam.



yeah - someone's / a unit's expensive "toy"..... 
I know that 202 wkshops have a couple of old runners hanging around 
The mechanics and the operators find value in maintaning & driving some of the "classics"


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Dec 2006)

acen said:
			
		

> Not to offend or anything, but when I read the statement that you were under the impression that with Harper's injection of cash that we were spending more than the US on defence...i just about lost it. The US spends almost 1 billion dollars a day on defence, heck almost that in Iraq alone. US defence spending accounts for 40-45% of defence spending across the globe...and spends more than its nearest 5 competitors combined... Make what you will of their current operations, thats for everyone to decide for themselves, but they spend more money in 30 minutes at the pentagon than we do in a full calendar year. This is not to take away from our military whatsoever, we are a well trained and reasonably well equipped, just because we do not spend as much as other countries does not decide our efficacity in a given operation.
> My 2 cents worth...




I think they are trying to imply that defence spending compared to our GDP is higher than the US, but they are still full of it. Funny they forget that the US will sell Taiwan a Aegis destroyer at several Billion dollars and China will sell 500 million dollars worth of small arms to Sudan and yet the US is painted as the bad guy!!


----------



## SchmDG (5 Feb 2007)

Was reading about the TUSK upgrade and was wondering if our VEH still had the 'new' idea of a tank-infantry phone....  thought our older versions and even the cougars had that already.  Seems the Yanks are catching up to us again....


----------



## career_radio-checker (5 Feb 2007)

Uhh well I'm not a tanker but I do know OPSEC and this thread is dangerously close to speaking those kinds of words that just don't need to be said. You may justify it as being ok because it is on the web or in the public domain, but always presume that some twit probably has put more out than s/he should. It may be an "open source," but you don't need to help any potential enemy by pointing it out for him, nor sending him in the right direction.

'Loose lips sink ships,' remember that.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Feb 2007)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> Uhh well I'm not a tanker but I do know OPSEC and this thread is dangerously close to speaking those kinds of words that just don't need to be said. You may justify it as being ok because it is on the web or in the public domain, but always presume that some twit probably has put more out than s/he should. It may be an "open source," but you don't need to help any potential enemy by pointing it out for him, nor sending him in the right direction.
> 
> 'Loose lips sink ships,' remember that.



Read your comment so i decided to have a look......IMHO theres nothing that violates OPSEC here......YET !!!!


----------



## career_radio-checker (5 Feb 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Read your comment so i decided to have a look......IMHO theres nothing that violates OPSEC here......YET !!!!



Sure, the material being discussed can be argued as general information no doubt, but where I really see red flags is with the people asking all the questions. Two civilians who post briefly and then leave inexplicably, one asking 30 questions in a single post, the other claiming to have spoken to an armoured  regiment at some equestrian event and then lists off an infantry  regiment. When was the last time we ever recruited at horse show other than a rodeo?!!! Another gets banned for what ever reason... the list goes on. 

I might be overly cautious, but better to err on the side of caution.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2007)

CRC

See me later, and we'll talk, OK.


----------



## Teflon (5 Feb 2007)

CRC

Just to shed some light on the Spruce Meadows thing, it is an annual equestrian event just south of Calgary and on and off for years both the PPCLI and LDSH have had displays there, everything from honor guards to equipment displays so it is quite possible that the above individual did see the mentioned equipment there, talked to a member of the PPCLI and wrongly assumed that all the military pers there where of the same unit.

Sorry for the interuption, back to your discussion


----------



## PO2FinClk (5 Feb 2007)

Taurus did finally deploy to KAF after all, according to CASR that is.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard-afghan.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard-taurus-arv.htm


----------



## geo (6 Feb 2007)

Och.... aye, Taurus is there... but, the Badgers are worth their weight in gold.....
between the scrape & the bucket,  imagine having to do earthworks with a lousy shovel


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Feb 2007)

There is video somewhere on the Combat Camera site of them rolling around KAR Airfield. All 3 of them too IIRC


----------



## career_radio-checker (6 Feb 2007)

Somebody please tell this dunderhead (me) what "IIRC" means. Its really buggin the heck out of me and its preventing me from carrying on my day.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Feb 2007)

IIRC = If I recall correctly


----------



## George Wallace (6 Feb 2007)

And If I Recall Correctly.....all this dicussion has been covered in posts already.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Feb 2007)

Same here George. I think its in the Armoured Section


----------

