# Mechanical Breaching (From: Canada's purchase of the Leopard 2 MBT)



## SeanNewman (12 Sep 2010)

Sidebar, but for you tank experts what was the downfall of the flail?  Did the roller just prove to do the same thing without having to replace the chains?

My outsider hypothesis would be that in WW2 tanks weren't that powerful so a flail was easier than pushing a roller that was so heavy, but now that tanks are so powerful it became easier (?)


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Sep 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, if the German engineers do breaches, does that mean the German artillery handles indirect fire like, oh ,mortars?  >


Not quite, no.  Integral fire support is still an infantry task.    >

But, interestingly, I recall that at one point the Germans were criticised for having an MICV that could not swim. Their response was that since their tanks don't swim, then why should the MICVs?  After all, to cross a river properly, you need the engineers, right?


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Sidebar, but for you tank experts what was the downfall of the flail?  Did the roller just prove to do the same thing without having to replace the chains?
> 
> My outsider hypothesis would be that in WW2 tanks weren't that powerful so a flail was easier than pushing a roller that was so heavy, but now that tanks are so powerful it became easier (?)




Mine Rollers and Mine Plows are simple attachments.  Mine Flails are more complicated, requiring some additional mechanism to drive the flails.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Sep 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Mine Rollers and Mine Plows are simple attachments.  Mine Flails are more complicated, requiring some additional mechanism to drive the flails.


Further to what George said, the Flails were grouped in specialized regiments and farmed out for operations as required. For an explanation of their use take a look at my book No Holding Back, Operation Totalize Normandy 1944. (Better yet, buy everybody you know a copy! Just kidding.)

Trust the Brits to over complicate the task.


----------



## observor 69 (12 Sep 2010)

Available at your favorite on-line bookstore.  ;D

http://www.amazon.ca/No-Holding-Back-Operation-Totalize/dp/0811705846/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284324000&sr=8-9


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Sep 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Not quite, no.  Integral fire support is still an infantry task.    >
> 
> But, interestingly, I recall that at one point the Germans were criticised for having an MICV that could not swim. Their response was that since their tanks don't swim, then why should the MICVs?  After all, to cross a river properly, you need the engineers, right?



That depends.  Do you want an AEV to deep ford across and prepare the far bank for a decent exit, or an AVLB to take the 4 mins required to launch a 22m long bridge,  or would you rather go charging across in your boats and run the risk of maybe 3 getting out before the exit is churned into liquid poo that even the indefatigable LAV can't negotiate?


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Sep 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> That depends.  Do you want an AEV to deep ford across and prepare the far bank for a decent exit, or an AVLB to take the 4 mins required to launch a 22m long bridge,  or would you rather go charging across in your boats and run the risk of maybe 3 getting out before the exit is churned into liquid poo that even the indefatigable LAV can't negotiate?


I'm not sure, I'd probably want to do a proper crossing.  I'll take the engineer's advice 


(Good enough cop-out for you?) ;D


----------



## ArmyRick (13 Sep 2010)

I could have sworn I saw a picture of a Leopard from country in South America with a plow attachment. Anybody seen this one before?


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (13 Sep 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I could have sworn I saw a picture of a Leopard from country in South America with a plow attachment. Anybody seen this one before?



A Google search for "Chilean Leopard 2" got me to this site.

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/442/

Which has this picture.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Sep 2010)

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

>



Looks more like the blade from the Leo2 ARV than a mine plow.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (13 Sep 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Looks more like the blade from the Leo2 ARV than a mine plow.



 :-[ Yes your you're right, I must have forgotten the tread topic and question when I was looking at the search results.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Sep 2010)

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> :-[ Yes your you're right, I must have forgotten the tread topic and question when I was looking at the search results.



Still shows it is possible to have a breaching/digging blade mounted on the front of a Leo 2A4M.


----------



## ironduke57 (15 Sep 2010)

Well there is the MCC 2000 from Rheinmetall, but it only work against above surface laid mines:





Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2010)

A bit late, but DRDC was looking into mechanical plows a few years ago:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/78408.0.html
I haven't seen any research results published in open sources yet.


----------



## dogger1936 (7 Oct 2010)

A flail would take way more time to employ as well as setting off mines which would effect the system and slow down a breach. Compared to the two impliments it would be much more moving parts that will break at the worst time. 

The mineplow simply pushes the mines out of the way into the poils on the sides. The roller following behind is there to go boom if anything gets missed or slides back into the track from the spoil. A third set of rollers is on standby to follow behind if the front roller blows up and has to move into the firelanes created.

It's been a long time since I did a conventional breach, however I have breached 21 km strait with a mine plow on one occasion; and it works well. While the mine plow was a write off afterwards as the teeth were worn down so bad, it did it's job.Both motors were blown as well, and using the chain it was no problem to get back into the travel mode.

During our tour we had the badger attached to my C/S everytime we rolled. Myself and the badger worked as a breach team which worked really well. We had a great working relation/rapport and they were like part of our troop. While a bridge layer would have come in real handy in some occasions we made due with a AHSVS with culverts and the badger. Like the tank troops there were some good "operators" and some poor. The ones always attached to our troop were awesome.

Those other troops who had problems with their tanks and the rollers/plows didnt time any torsion bars and looked at you weird when you mentioned it. then they were wondering why our troop was doing 55km/hr with a roller and they couldnt. Or why they were blowing track every turn. Hence the rapport we built with the infantry. :nod:

I also had a few chances to use the dozer blade (26!) in operations a couple times. I made great fire positios with it as well and improving breached routes and causing "manouver damage" as part of my own private physops program ;D

As far as I'm concerned make the brackets to fit the old gear. It all works great. They have adopted the roller bracket from what I've seen, lets look at a solution to mount the old impliments which work great.

I love breaching. It's by far the best job ever...and you get first dibs at targets! Win Win!


edit to add: Our c2 plows were the new version with the extra tooth put on to be the width of the leo 2. Having a very poor memory nowadays I gorgot about that!


----------



## wildman0101 (7 Oct 2010)

Flail(think mace) type weopon.
imagine a paper tube with 
flail (mace) attachment's ,
2 large arm's with tube,
arm's are chain driven turning
tube,,, flailing(beating the 
ground) 50-60ish mace's flail-
ing the ground attempting to 
set off I.E.D.'s.
So as far as i know they are 
still being used around the world
in some way, shape, or form. But 
in so close a proximity of said tank
or vehical using it, not today.
Just my thought's 
Cheer's,
Scoty B


----------



## dogger1936 (7 Oct 2010)

Roger that Scotty. I remember seeing them used in Yugo as the civilian contractors were using a robotic flail to clear a conventional minefield.


----------



## wildman0101 (7 Oct 2010)

Or the old fasion
way, the probe,, sharp pointy stick. Or older yet,, bayonet.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jan 2011)

This from MERX:


> The purpose of this draft Statement of Work (SOW) is to communicate the Canadian Forces' requirement and solicit pricing information as well as feedback from the industry regarding the possible supply of items, design and implementation of a solution to meet the Leopard 2 Tactical Mobility Implements (TMIs) requirement. The information is essential to support the Government of Canada's decision-making process such as finalizing its requirement, determining its procurement strategy and obtaining substantive pricing for Government approval to proceed with the Project ....



The implements listed in the Draft Statement of Work (PDF viewable or downloadable here) include:
- Dozer blade,
- Track Width Mine Plough, and 
- Mine Clearing Roller System.

Call for pricing information closes 2011-02-22 02:00 PM Eastern Standard Time EST


----------



## Franko (6 Jan 2011)

The stuff we have works well and is easy to repair in the field. Why tender to get something that hasn't been trialed or proven under fire?

Sigh.


----------



## REDinstaller (9 Jan 2011)

Maybe some company in a province that shall remain nameless has the perfect solution for a problem that doesn't exsist, except for the lack of their own funds.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jan 2011)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Maybe some company in a province that shall remain nameless has the perfect solution for a problem that doesn't exsist, except for the lack of their own funds.



Why does that seem to  make sense?    :-\


----------



## REDinstaller (9 Jan 2011)

Because its probably true, then after their pockets are heavily lined, they will go out of business, and we will be left with scrap metal instead of what we need for tank implements.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jan 2011)

And it is not like we haven't seen this happen so many times before.

I often wonder why DND/CF/Dept of Supply and Services/TB/Gov't of Canada, et al, haven't put these guys on a "Do NOT Hire List".  I have seen this so often: Company low bids, gets contract, declares bankruptcy just before end of contract, CE has to go in and fix Company's mistakes, next year new Company (same owners) bids low, gets contract, declares bankruptcy just before end of contract, CE has to go in and fix Company's mistakes, next year new Company (same owners) bids low, gets contract, ...........   All the time coming from the same province, a province that does not permit outside contractors from bidding or working on any projects within provincial boundaries.  Funny that this is permitted to continue.


----------



## REDinstaller (9 Jan 2011)

As long as we keep bowing to their childish behaviour in regards to nearly everything, then the stupidity will continue.


----------



## dinicthus (15 May 2011)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Because its probably true, then after their pockets are heavily lined, they will go out of business, and we will be left with scrap metal instead of what we need for tank implements.



That doesn't qualify as treason?


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Jul 2011)

Latest from MERX:


> .... The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for the development and integration of a common solution to mount Tactical Mobility Implement (TMIs) (dozer blade, track width mine plough and mine clearing roller system) on the Canadian Leopoard 2 Main Battle Tanks (MBT) fleet. This also includes the procurement of up to 18 dozer blades, associated documentations and drawings and, integrated logistics support activities, and the procurement of the intellectual property (right of use) related to the modifications to the TMIs and the MBTs. To complete the requirement, the Contractor has to possess the intellectual property rights for the purpose of Canada for the inner structure of the chassis for the Leopard 2 A4/A4M/A6M.
> 
> Krauss-Maffei Wegmann holds the Intellectual Property rights for the Leopard 2 A6M and Leopard 2 A4M, thus making them the only company capable of performing the proposed contract ....


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Dec 2012)

Bump with the latest - the CF appears to have chosen a roller mechanism....


> .... The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for the integration of a Mine Clearing Roller System (MCRS) on the Canadian Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank (MBT) fleet. This includes acquiring 16 MCRSs, associated documentation, drawings, spare parts (two year supply), tooling, training, and other logistics support, and the right of use for Canada's purposes only related to the MCRS. To complete the requirement, the Contractor must have an MCRS that has been tested and proven to operate on a Leopard 2 MBT.
> 
> Furthermore, Canada has developed new roller wheels (and associated hardware) to increase mine-kill effectiveness of the MCRS. Each roller bank consists of 14 new steel wheels approximately 900 mm in diameter, totalling approximately 5000 kg per bank. These roller wheels were developed to fit in the dimensional envelope of NSN 2590-01-499-3783 (roller bank assembly - excluding the standard roller wheels). Therefore, to complete the requirement, the Contractor must also possess the intellectual property rights for the roller bank assembly, NSN 2590-01-499-3783 (excluding the roller wheels).
> 
> ...



More on the company's mine roller system here (4 page PDF)


----------



## Franko (28 Dec 2012)

Same rollers as we have now.


----------



## REDinstaller (30 Dec 2012)

Except the disks are a lot bigger in diameter and heavier too. We did the trials on Ex Steele Sabre 11.


----------

