# Combat vehicles on list



## Spartan (29 Oct 2003)

Combat vehicles on list
Announcement today: sources
By CP

OTTAWA -- Canada is buying 60 new combat vehicles to provide the battlefield gunfire once delivered by tanks, even though the army concluded five years ago that the armoured Stryker was a bad choice. Defence Minister John McCallum will announce the multi-million-dollar purchase today, sources said. 

The Stryker is an eight-wheeled, 18-tonne, lightly armoured vehicle equipped with a 105-mm cannon. The United States is buying 2,100 of them in various variants from GM Defence in London, Ont., and General Dynamics Land Systems in Michigan. 

The Americans named the vehicle after two of their Medal of Honour winners. It‘s not clear what the Canadian army will call it. 

In 2000, the army essentially declared their Leopard I tanks to be obsolete, suggesting the day of the tank was over, for Canada, at least. The tank was to be replaced by a "modern. mobile, armoured, direct-fire support vehicle." 

Hence the Stryker. 

But a 1998 study by the Directorate of Operational Research used computer games to put an armoured combat vehicle like the Stryker through battle simulations. It was a disaster and the authors said it would be "morally and ethically" wrong to substitute it for a tank. 

"The ACV (armoured combat vehicle) was unable to manoeuvre in the face of the enemy," the study said. "When it did so, it was destroyed." 

The study recommended flatly that the vehicle not be used to replace tanks. 

McCallum has promised to save money by getting rid of "Cold War relics," which most analysts take to mean tanks. He‘s said to be enthusiastic about the Stryker, said David Rudd of the Institute for Strategic Studies. 

"Does the minister know that the vehicle‘s a turkey?" Rudd asked. 

He said a study done for an American congressman found the Stryker had many problems. The recoil of the gun was too much for the chassis and it was underarmoured, among other things. 

Rudd said the Canadian army hasn‘t thought things through. 

"The thing is too heavily armed for peace support operations, but the army has put it through the computer simulations and found this thing will get killed in the first five minutes of any real combat." 

---
My only question is this: Why do we insist on buying garbage?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Oct 2003)

Perhaps someone should put a bug in the ear of the defence critic in the oppostion party.


----------



## SNoseworthy (29 Oct 2003)

There‘s been no commitment to the Stryker by DND. All that has been announced today is the start of the procurement process for a mobile gun system. This means that any one of the eventual contenders in the procurement process could win the contract. The Stryker is not a necessary winner.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Oct 2003)

Its my understanding that the name Stryker denotes a group of vehicles, not any one in particular.  From watching the announcement on CBC today I got the distinct impression that the gov‘t will be buying whatever mobile gun GM diseal puts out.  there was somthing about going in with the American armies purchase which would help offset some of the cost.


----------



## X_1NSH-NG (29 Oct 2003)

These things should work well in the Gagetown training area in spring.  Give the recovery vehicles a lot to do.  13tonne Bisons get stuck all the time in the soft ground.  A 38tonne wheeled vehicle!     Guess things have changed.


----------



## mattoigta (29 Oct 2003)

its 18 not 38 tonnes


----------



## Recce41 (29 Oct 2003)

The veh does weight in at 38 tons. 18 tons is just the **** hull. Not the FCS, AMMO, CREW,KIT. This thing is crap. It cannot fire cross country.
More junk.  :evil:    :tank:


----------



## MG34 (29 Oct 2003)

"It cannot fire across country?"

What the heck are you talking about??Of course it can.What do you mean Junk,so how long have you served with them?? Thought not...
  The MGS is intended as a direct Fire Support vehicle not a tank I‘ll say it agin for the slow ones out there IT IS NOT A TANK,it is not meant to replace the tank..Tanks are gone.
 I wish you armour types would shut the ****  up and get on with it enough bitching already.Deal with it.


----------



## xFusilier (29 Oct 2003)

The Austrailians have pretty much transitioned to an all infantry army.  I have heard that they were looking at doing the same thing as us, getting rid of the tank.  Supposedly they did a study in regards to operations in which they would half to force entry to an objective.  What they found is that when they included tanks, even being used in a roll similar to the infantry tank of the 1940‘s that they took a significantly smaller number of casulties with tank support than if they used any other method of providing direct fire support.  Has anyone heard of or seen this study, as I‘ve only heard of it ancedotally.


----------



## X_1NSH-NG (29 Oct 2003)

Oops, 38,000 pounds according to GDLS


----------



## Garry (29 Oct 2003)

Not to be nasty here, but as a Bud of mine once commented "Army vehicles ride on tracks, period".

I agree.

I also know that we will, as always, do the best with what we get, and will (as usual) do better with what we have than anyone else can. 

One of the few good things about a professional, long term standing Army.

Cross country mobility? Wheels cannot do it. Sorry, but tracks go places wheels cannot. Can you do the job with a wheeled vehicle? Of course. Do tracks offer the crew commander more choices in tactical movement? Of course.

Will a direct fire vehicle with rotten armour and poor cross country mobility incur casualities? You bet.

The Battle Group survives solely because it is balanced. Tactics make up for uneven numbers on either side of the battle, the ground, and the weapons systems employed. 

Our Leaders will develop tactics to deal with the shortcomings...but it won‘t be easy.

Y‘all be safe out there.

garry


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Oct 2003)

The sad thing is that these decisions are made with ZERO consideration regarding tactics, doctrine, or long term planning. They are made for patronage, or to placate the few individuals that are pro-defense spending, and actually get heard, now and then. Maybe to try and save what little credibility the Canadian Government has with its Allies, these days. Like Garry said, you guys (not me anymore) will manage to make another silk purse (relatively speaking) out of yet another sow‘s ear. It‘s shameful. Canadian politicians are shameful, and have been as long as I‘ve been old enough to pay attention. They take some of the finest people in the country, and place them in a system fraught (sp?) with decay, attrition, and neglect. Then the troops take all that, and still end up as some of the best in the world... go figure. Maybe we just need to build a tank factory in a Liberal riding, then we‘ll be "in like Flint"


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Oct 2003)

MG34, that wouldn‘t be sour grapes on your part, would it?  I mean, coming from a former mech infantryman now in a light infantry role because we ran out of IFVs and APCs?


----------



## Recce41 (30 Oct 2003)

MG
 Your a grunt, you fellas don‘t have a smick about vehs. The LAV 105 is not a tank yes. But it will not stay on target cross country. I saw it fire in Gagetown in 01. And we send troops, to train on it also  at Ft Drum. It cannot fire going cross country. It cannot be loaded in a Herc with full kit,it took 3 HERCs to land one LAV. Look at it ,its the LAV hull. The Aussie lost 12 in IRAQ. They were the same but with the turreted 90mm.
 We will remember its, not a Tank on an Assault, against tanks. IT is only a LAV with a 105. Look at every other country, They have Tanks. Maybe we should take away your taxis LAVIIIs. And make you guys walk. They could have bought the CD 2000. A light tracked TANK. That can be loaded into a Herc. The US has canceled 3 Bges worth, from the 7 ordered. BECAUSE THEY FAILED. The Armour corp is the CFE on Tanks, not the INF, not the ENGs, not the ARTY. Hiller a good friend of mine, upset most of us. He backed the buy. General Ross quit for that reason. It is just like in 93, the corp was told to buy a tank. It didn‘t fit the purpose so no tank was bought. The goverment was to buy M1s at one point, but the Libs got in. Once we buy this there is no DFS for the INF. Remember the Cougar, how that worked on a assault. Tanks take on tanks, DFV take on DFVs ie BRDM1s, AMX 90s, AMX 10 RCs. I have 24 yrs in the corp so I have been in the Ferret, Lynx, Cougar, Leo, Coyote. Each was designed for a purpose. NOT multi purpose. 
 So Shut the **** up and stick the what you do best walk.   :evil:      :tank:


----------



## onecat (30 Oct 2003)

I have to agree with Recce41 on this one.  This is not a tank, and should not be replacing the Leo‘s.  Look at how fast the Liberals can get this bought and paid for, when it reduces the ablity of CF to fight; but when it come it replacing the Sea King.. it can‘t make it‘s mind.

They will hurt the CF armoured corps.  They don‘t want the Leo deployed, because its a tank.  This dicission is all political Bs.  Jean wanted it done before it leaves office. He doesn‘t like the Military and has done everything in his power in the last 10 years short of disbanding it.

Mr Martin, if you or supporters read this forum...cancel this deal!!!!


----------



## MG34 (30 Oct 2003)

First off the Aussies use the Auslav which are a series of vehicles based on the Bison and LAV 25,there is no 90mm varient,the only 90mm armed vehicle the Aussies have used in recent years were the M113 FSV which were fitted with a saladin turret and a 90mm cannon.I have seen no reports of AUSLAVs being destroyed please quote your source.
 As for the LAV 105 if you are so opposed why not get busy comming up with doctrine for it instead of pissing and moaning about it.
 The infantry doesn‘t know squat about vehicles eh,seems to me our LAVIIIs are doing just fie both here at home and overseas on several missions.The armoured corps is in danger of being phased out which is too bad as tanks are a good asset to have but by all means they are not the be all end all on the battlefield,speaking of which when was the last battlefield our Leopards were deployed to?? Oh yeah never, with the current political scene in Canada our Army will never be involved in a shooting war so to the idiots in office it makes sense to scrap the tanks,heck the Leopard couldn‘t hold it‘s own anymore any way.With a new government maybe the whole program will be scrapped  and we will get some real MBTs but until that happens the armoured Corps had best be able to make due with what it has or be pushed aside.
  :rocket:    :tank:    :evil:


----------



## Garry (30 Oct 2003)

History time boys and girls...

In the mid to late ‘70‘s, Canada had (iirc) four Armoured Regiments. They all had Centurion Tanks, and they were falling apart. (ask me how I know   ..)New tanks were desperatley neede, and when Trudeau was asked for a decision, he said to heck with tanks. After all things (chiefly NATO) were taken into consideration, an interim plan was adopted, that being buying a Regiment‘s worth of Leopards for deployment to Germany (NATO), and buying the Mowag Pirhana variant (now the Cougar) as a "Tank trainer" for the rest of the Corps. The Cougar was to have had no battle role, merely a means of maintaining crew skill until such time as an MBT could be procured for the rest of the Corps.

Go figure, the country went into a few years of recession, and new tanks were rarely mentioned.

After several years, the "tank trainer" was given a batle role as a "fire support vehicle" (gee, thanks). It was tried as a Recce vehicle, but failed miserably, primarily due to a lack of cross country mobility.

Years pass, and defence budgets shrink considerably as social programs flourish. "Peace dividends" from winning the cold war, I guess. Maintaining large standing army‘s is a costly business, and war seems a thing of the past as the lines delineating world ideologies become fuzzy. 

Peacekeeping becomes the main occupation of Warriors, and with it a new requirement for force projection...or lack thereof. Speed and ease of maintenance become more important than armour protection and firepower. Even the world‘s last superpower is leaning towards a lighter, rapidly deployed force, and equips it‘s soldiers in that role.

We need direction from our Political masters. Really important here that we don‘t discuss policy in any way other than as taxpayers, as we do not make policy: we enforce it. If we keep trying to make sense of a situation that‘s untenable, we‘re going to divide and isolate ourselves. That way lies ruin.

I was a Tanker. I‘ve done Recce, been a fire suport guy, Tac Hel Observer, and done most anything else I had to do- but I was a Tanker. I was friends with, and deployed with Infanteers, Artillerymen, and all manner of support personnel (heck, I even made a few Air Force friends)...and we all worked well together as we had a common aim. 

It hurts to see the Tank go. Heck, it hurt to see us lose 4 CMBG, let alone draw down to only 60,000 pers.

Change is inevitable, go with the flow.

Cheers- Garry Ex RCD


----------



## Recce41 (30 Oct 2003)

MG
 The Aussie do have the LAV 90. It was one of the options that we looked at. It is part of their CAV Regts. Which are made up of a mixed Lav 25/Bison/Lav90s. The Armour corp will never fade. The Armour School is the CFE for mounted ops. As for doctrine. I at the Armour School which writes the doctrine. The Lav 105 has failed. As I said the US has concelled 3 BGES! The soldiers that went to Drum, saw it fail. The crew commander has to get out, to clear any miss fires, jams, or reload the coax. The old Leos could hold its own in a way. As a assault tank. It is faster than a M1, can cross most bridges the M1 cannot. 
 I have seen you grunts in action with the Lav. it is a laugh. I have seen more Lavs bumblin around. Why do the Lavs follow tanks. Because any faster than a walk a grunt gets lost. Why do Lavs go to a Zulu harbour during an attack? Because the IC gets out of the **** turret. You were given a turret to fight the **** thing. 
 Any monkey can carry a weapon. it must tell you something when every one does grunt **** on a JNC course. So think about it. Every country has tanks.


----------



## McInnes (30 Oct 2003)

Please refrain from bashing the Infantry.


----------



## Danjanou (30 Oct 2003)

Is it just me or did anyone else catch the Liberal math involved in this one. We‘re replacing 100 plus Tanks with only 66 new vehicles.

Allowing for a couple tasked as spares and training vehicles what‘s that come out to, about 3 Sabre Squadrons or 1 Regiment tops.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (30 Oct 2003)

I think you fuk‘d up there tanker.
Infantry stalk and kill targets. We don‘t really walk or stroll anywhere.
Some Infantry silently approach from the clouds, kill the target and stalk back out. Pathfinding is best done on foot and by those with the balls to go in hot. Tough to do in a MBT or LAV.
Sometimes we need a ride, sometimes not. Just wanted to clear that up. Stalking and walkin‘ beats driving around in a crispy pizza oven any day.

This is not a MBT but if I have a 105mm anywhere on my team, I don‘t give a **** if it mounted on a bicycle.

How are we going to move them? Feather wings strapped to Bloggins and flappin‘ like ****in mad?
They will be out of date by the time we buy them anyway as procurment here takes a century. Can you say Seaking replacement? ****ing Liberals.


----------



## Garry (30 Oct 2003)

Old School,

Tank design considers three things: Firepower, Mobility, and Armoured protection. The first two generations of Tanks (of wich Leopard C1 is a member) had a tradeoff between Mobility and Armoured protection. The heavier the vehicle was, the slower it moved, whereas a light tank moved more quickly. Slow tanks are going to get hit, fast ones may not. Leopard was THE fastest tank that I has ever heard of when it was new, due partly to it‘s high horsepower to weight ratio, and especially due to it‘s amazing suspension.

The third generation of tanks (Leo II, M-1) solved the weight/armour tradeoffs, and we now have speedy, nimble tanks that can take a hit.

Why should you care? Well, primarily because your chances of staying alive are greatly enhanced by having tanks in your battle group. Not a particular gun, but a weapons system that can fight.  The cross country mobility of the Stryker is so poor that not only would it take me a lot longer to get somewhere, but may not be able to take the most "tactically sound" route.

All of this boils down to your ***  on the line.

Now, you can argue that you really don‘t need any other elemnts to do your job, and you wouldn‘t be wrong. All of us are there to support that 19 yr old trooper with the muddy boots and a bayonet, and to try and keep him not only mission successful, but alive. I can guarentee that you stand a better chance of staying alive with a Squadron of Main Battle Tanks in your team than with a Squadron of Fire Support Vehicles.

Come to think of it, "our" chances are better too.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## Garry (30 Oct 2003)

[No message]


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Oct 2003)

This new vehicle will not to well off road and thats a fact.  Look at 2RCR and the amount of times they get those things stuck in Gagetown.  The last time tanks of ours were deployed was in the Kosovo crisis (according to the news) in 1995.  The fact is there needs to be a direct fire vehicle in our inventory that is uesed overseas not kept back at home.  I‘m just not sure that this is the best option.  Perhaps the big boss with the hot sauce should focus on air lift capaibilites for a while.
P.S.  LAV‘s aren‘t pizza ovens, they have A/C.


----------



## MG34 (30 Oct 2003)

Recce41: man you are an idiot,you have no idea of what the ****  you are talking about,the Armour School does not dictate what happens with LAV Doctrine,they may think so but we write our own material,the Infantry tactics are something best left to those who can understand them,if you have questions ask .For one the LAV does not go to a Zulu Harbour on the assault but stays with the Section providing support onto and beyond the obj.
 I have seen more than my fair share of F‘ed up tankers so don‘t even go there on that one laddie.
 The future of the Armoured Corps is assured by the LAV 105 and recce roles like I said earlier no tanks with the current bunch in Ottawa. I you wish to keep with your nostalgic views go to Wainwright and try and keep the Leo‘s running (good luck on that).

 ASSAULT TANK!!!  ROTFLMAO!!! You are not serious ..are you??? If so get your head examined the LEO C2 wouldn‘t last 5 mins in a real shooting war,it cannot slug it out with the T-72/80,etc regardless of what TACOPs says    .

 Lastly I do get a kick out of you lack of knowledge of the Infantry and how we operate so if you have no idea of what you are talking about..shut the ****  up.


----------



## MG34 (30 Oct 2003)

Oh yeah one more thing where is the source on these 12 LAV 90 that the Aussies lost in Iraq??


----------



## Spr.Earl (30 Oct 2003)

What about our fellow Comrade‘s in Arm‘s?
Should they not have the best weapon‘s and protection,as I an Engineer a can have?
To me it‘s a let down for our Armoured Corp.
Or will it be our Artillary Corp.

 The Stryker can not replace a Tank never mind if it‘s a heavy,medium or a light tank!
Tank‘s have the capibilty to move over all kind‘s of terrain and support the Infantry,Engineer‘s et.al. and Tank‘a are a "A 1" psychological weapon against ground troop‘s!

It‘s a waste of money!!


----------



## MG34 (30 Oct 2003)

It seems the Aussies don‘t have any LAV 90 their ASLAV family is made up of the following:

ASLAV [DTT] - Driver training version with added ‘greenhouse‘.
ASLAV-25 - Fire support/recce version with 25mm cannon.
ASLAV-A - Ambulance version.
ASLAV-C - Command version with multiple radios.
ASLAV-F - Repair version with hydrailic crane.
ASLAV-M - Fire support version with turreted 120mm mortar.
ASLAV-PC - Personnel carrier version.
ASLAV-R - Recovery version with winch and earth anchors.
ASLAV-S - Surveillance version with RASIT GSR and additional observation equipment.


The LAV 105 is being tested but no mention of the LAV 90,it seems the only ones who bought that vehicle were the Saudis.I would like to see your info to the contarary if you would care to produce it. Thanks


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (30 Oct 2003)

Garry,
My point is that there will be no tank$ in the future with the state of the military. I think it is unfortunate but a reality. SOMETHING that runs (new) with a 105 punch is a nice toy. Useful? In some situations yes. How are we going to move them around quickly anyway? We can‘t even move troops around. Would I rather you be in a MBT? Yes, no ****, but it won‘t happen. Don‘t worry about saving my *** , one can do wonders with a laser des. and the U.S airforce.   

CFL,
Crispy pizza oven as in when it gets smoked by some infantryman walking around. Not a/c. A/c won‘t help you cool off from that one. 

This is a waste of money that we don‘t have but what use are the Leopards? Target practice? Fill ‘em with sand boys and line up!


----------



## MG34 (31 Oct 2003)

Speaking of targets,we happen to have some Leo C1 turrets(about a dozen or so) waiting to be put out for us to blow the ****  out of with LAV and various AT weapons...hmm will be good to actually shoot at something other than sheets of wood and fibreglass for a change.


----------



## onecat (31 Oct 2003)

MG34, what‘s your beef with armoured guys.  They are complaining about poor decission and poor kits choices... just the infantry do. LAV 105 is even more dead when it runs into MTB.  And given that CF doesn‘t really much lift transport... these will even up getting stuck here too.

Yes the LAV-105 is newer, but it sure isn‘t better than the C2.  If you just fire support then the C2‘s 105 can do that as well.  Most likely uses just as much gas, and after the 66 are driven around will be just as over used as the C2‘s and spend just as much time in the shop.


----------



## Recce41 (31 Oct 2003)

MG
 I will find it. It was on a web site. As well as it was passed around at the Armour School. One of the WO from the RCD sent it. When he was in Aussie and NZ last march selling the Coyote surv gear. It like the 4 M1s that were lost in the first couple days for Bagdad. The press never hear about that until, someone spilled the beans.


----------



## Bomberman (31 Oct 2003)

All right people. Remember we are all on the same side here! I agree that the LAV 105 may not be the answer to replacing the Leopards. I think that with all the upgrades that have gone into the Leopards in the last couple of years, that they won‘t need replacing in a while (I am not an armoured SME, so correct me if I am wrong!) However, in a peacekeeping scenario, I think it would be a good idea to have a few LAV 105‘s for extra fire support, as they would be a little more mobile in urban areas than leopards. I think that they could be a valuable addition IF THE BUGS ARE WORKED OUT BEFORE WE BUY THEM, but in a conventional war-fighting scenario (ie: assaulting an enemy objective across country with LAV III‘s, engineers, armoured, etc) I would definately prefer to be following an up-armoured Leopard as opposed to a LAV 105. Being a former grunt, any time I have direct fire support on my side I am a happy man! If we buy the LAV 105‘s, it should be to supplement, not replace the Leopards. 

Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do and/or die. Pro Patria


----------



## MG34 (31 Oct 2003)

My beef is the fact that the Leopard C2 is not a good tank,hasn‘t been since the mid 80‘s it is under armoured and under gunned.It is not able to survive any more than the LAV 105 would in a shooting war,no way no how.The LeoC2 is not some wonderful piece of equipment that we should wail about losing it is decades past it‘s useful life as an MBT.Slapping an new/old turret on the thing with new FCS and optics doesn‘t do a **** thing for the worn out chasis or lack of parts to run the thing.
 The LAV 105 is not a tank it is a Direct Fire Support Vehicle,or an Assault Gun if you wish ,the sooner folks get their heads wrapped around that the better.  Who knows the vehicle may not even be bought but if it is there had best be some though put into it‘s role.
 ****  if the tankers don‘t want them give them to the Infantry where they will be appreciated.


----------



## Garry (31 Oct 2003)

May be time to put this thread to bed.

Nite all.

Garry


----------

