# Extreme heat in army tanks endangers troops; forces use tank blanket to keep troops from baking



## GAP

Extreme heat in army tanks endangers troops
TORONTO
Article Link

Canadian Press — The Canadian government is urgently seeking a cooling system for Leopard tanks stationed in Afghanistan to protect troops from the sweltering heat, CBC's The National reported Monday.

Summer temperatures can reach 50 C, and inside the tanks, which have no air conditioning, they can reach 65 C.

Government documents warn that the summer heat could not only cook the tanks and the soldiers, but also cause electronic and hydraulic failure.

“Without a cooling system, it will endanger the crew,” said Maj. Trevor Cadieu. “And I'm confident the leadership right now are looking at a solution to that. I think they've identified that as one of the critical requirements.”
More on link


----------



## old medic

> Extreme heat in army tanks puts endangers troops



Gooder Engrish  ???


----------



## GAP

Good catch, I never noticed that....mine was a cut and paste, so I will fix it up for the CBC.


----------



## George Wallace

Someone already caught it:



> Rain SCM from Canada writes: Maybe I'm going to read a publication that ensures headlines are grammatically correct. Thanks for promoting illiteracy on the web G&M.
> Posted 30/01/07 at 12:49 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment


----------



## Trooper Hale

I've said it before kids, footy shorts (like soccer shorts but shorter) are the only thing to wear while your closed down! Oh and seeing as this is an armoured vehicles thing why havent the "endangered crew" got an esky of cold drinks on hand? I say they've got no one but themselves to blame.

Seriously though, closed down in the drivers hole i've been so hot i've thought i'd die, having a camel back and my shirt undone has saved my arse more then once. Its not unusual for temps to get to the high 50's and 60's down here in the vehicles. Its not fun but you've got to tolerate it and make yourself comfortable. Have water near by, undo the shirt and unblouse the pants. Hell, you could even roll your pants up a bit if your really keen.
Its pretty obvious that things get hot in Afghanistan, thus being in a big 60ton hulk of metal would make those inside more then a little bit sweaty.

Story is a bit of a non issue i reckon.
Same paper should print "Bullets endanger people fired at".


----------



## GAP

I think what surprised most people was that this had not been thought of prior to shipping the Leo's over. They knew about the tempature ranges and had dealt with the extremes in other vehicles, but forgot this one?

What about the engines overheating at 50 C?


----------



## Meridian

I watched this on the National last night, and this article is a bit more sensational than the actual interview with the Major was.  He was a bit more emphatic that the troops were really appreciating having the LEO there than the article lets on (what a surprise!)

He (the Major being interviewed next to the veh) made it pretty clear though that it would be "too dangerous" to have the guys down in the holes in mid-summer Afghanistan... so where is the breaking point?  Some of it must be suck it up - I'm sure its no picnic for the infantry guys up in the mountains either,  but is there a temperature where it is realistic to assume major mistakes will be made/physical injury will occur? (honest question)


----------



## George Wallace

This story was covered quite well on CBC news late last night.  Tenders are out for a solution, and it is to be a hurried project with submissions due before the end of Feb.  

Engine problems shouldn't be too much of a problem, as long as they keep their Air Filters cleaned (probably three or four times daily).  

There were projects in the past for an airconditioned/cooled crewsuit for tankers as well as changes to the NBC system to provide forced air to the crew for cooling.  The problem is that the crews are wearing body armour, which I don't think was a factor in past proposals or musings in the Corps.  It was rather interesting to see the Driver squeezing into his hole, wearing body armour and contorting to get between the add-on armour and the hatch cover.

The news report went on to be sidetracked by the move to cover "Track Pads".  The Afghan terrain is ripping the Rubber off of Track Pads at a phenomenal rate.   :  Duh!  I am wondering why that would even be a major concern, if they are not on well paved roads.


----------



## GAP

The rubber pads, I assume, were designed and installed to accomodate the Canadian roads to reduce damage. Why are they using them over there? Does it make any sense?


----------



## karl28

It must horrible for our tank crews if there is no airconditioning  in the Leo or is it all tanks I don't know any thing about armour .     I know there is a certain amount of suck it up attitude in the military but heat exhaustion can be deadly if not looked after right .     What I don't understand is that  you  would think this should of been looked at before they sent them over . The Gov knows how hot it is over there and they had lots of time to learn from other armies experience we have been there our selves sense 2002 correct me if I am wrong because I am no expert on this at all  .  Its great there addressing this now but I personally feel this should of been one the first things they considered before sending crews over just my two cents worth


----------



## GO!!!

Temps in Kandahar can reach 60C in the shade - no veh required.

Strangely enough, dismounted/light infantry have been climbing up and down mountains with rucksacks, helmets and body armour since 2002 in this same heat, with great success so I'd hardly class this as a "critical requirement", considering that armour crews can carry an unlimited amount of water and are seated most of the time.

Additionally, not all US armoured vehicles are air conditioned, and daytime temps in Iraq can be similar to Afghanistan, so I don't really see what the big deal is. I've patrolled in midday around Kandahar in an up-armoured humvee with no a/c and the windows up. It's not pleasant, but it is do-able with plenty of water.

I don't think that this is the show stopping issue that the tankers over there are presenting it as.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The problem was identified and was talked about before they went over. I was on course with some guys from out west before the Leos deployed. They already had people in to look at the problem and some ideas had already been put forward. R&D takes time. Even in dire circumstances. It's going to have to be right the first time, no putting it in and out, modifying mounts and outputs. You can't take and keep the tanks off line while you try sort out manufacturing problems There's no COTS solution to this.


----------



## FredDaHead

I'm stepping way outside my lanes, but there's something I don't quite "get" in this.

Why are the crew wearing body armour? Isn't it safe enough to be buttoned up inside a tank? Or do they just spend most of their time with the hatches open like we tend to see on TV?


----------



## armyvern

Well outside my lanes too, but I'm wagering that if they (God forbid) hit an IED etc, and need to exit quick,  they'd not want to be coming out without the body armour on.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Plus wearing body armor feels like a big hug...


I can sympathize with the tankers.

Just driving around in the G wagon with  broken AC was a killer, same with the RG31. Surrounded by glasss like that it's like being in a big aquarium out in the sun.


----------



## Inch

Here's a crazy idea, lets use something that's already been used before. When the ships are in the Gulf with a Sea King embarked and temperatures start climbing, the crews started wearing cooling vests or shirts. It's a shirt you put on with little plastic tubes running all over it like a radiator, it's plugged into a cooler with ice water and a pump that pumps the ice water through the tubing. It's been used by Sea King crews for years in hot climates and due to the popularity of it, even NASCAR is starting to use them too.

http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=8363

Guess the Americans aren't just sucking it up, they're trialling cooling vests too.


----------



## GINge!

I thought ADATS crews had been using micro-climate vests for years? Though IIRC they were filled with a glycol coolent?


----------



## Big Red

Would something like the cooling system that racecar drivers have in their fireproof suits be feasable?


----------



## 1feral1

From my experience in AFVs here in Iraq when it was hot (and it was, and will be soon again), Inside our AFVs it was hot beyond a joke. On a 50C day in the sun, it was upwards of 70C or more.

So on top of that heat, there is your uniform, your CVC helmet, your flash hood, your nomex gloves and your body armour. One is literally swimming in his own sweat, and it pumps out of you like there is no tomorrow. It was a shocker, let me tell you. Top all that off with the dust, and worse if you are exposed, you have the wind which acts like a blow furnace.

The secret I believe before a mission is to every hour or so (at 4 hrs before going out), force at least a litre into you regardless if you want it or not, then have more water on standby inside your AFV (about 20L in 1L bottles for all), plus your camelbak filled too, and suck on that baby as much as you can when you are moving.

The dry hot weather really sucks the life out of you, and if you are not careful, you'll find yourself a casualty and a liability to your crew.

EDIT: About cooling vests and the like, we thought of that too, but operationally they do not work. Why? Because their contents are toxic, and should one take shrapnel or a bullet, this material can be forced into you at velocity, with the chemicals being toxic, killing you quickly.

Fine in peacetime training, but in war, its a no go. However proir to a mission, crews can wear the vests to keep cool before hand, the take them off before going outside the wire.

As for vehicles shyting themselves, the key is maintenance maintenance maintenance, and following the TMs for hot weather ops, plus any lesson learned from the lads, ensuring this info is passed on to the next roto. We've never really had too much of a problem with breakdowns, so we've been lucky there.

Regards from a warm winter's day here in Baghdad (17C and sunny),


Wes


----------



## tank recce

Wesley (Over There) said:
			
		

> About cooling vests and the like, we thought of that too, but operationally they do not work. Why? Because their contents are toxic, and should one take shrapnel or a bullet, this material can be forced into you at velocity, with the chemicals being toxic, killing you quickly.



(Sound of Mech.Eng. scratching head) Speaking as a GP motorcycle racer who uses nothing but distilled water in his engine (and a cap of Water Wetter  ), since we're not talking engine-level heat transfer rates, I daresay potable water would work just spiffy as the transfer fluid. First pass SWAG, no calcs or research, YMMV, warranty void if operated in war zone. The vest systems would likely need to be cleaned on a regular basis to prevent mineral deposits & mung (flush out with bleach & descaler, rinse until clear. What - an hour a week per c/s?), but I can't see that being a big obstacle. In the event of a leak, top up with ditch water; the system would just need more frequent cleaning.

Distilled water would really stretch out your cleaning cycle, but that's probably not readily available in the FOBs.

(Edit for Tpyo)


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

Fred and others,

AFV crews wear their body armour in case they have to bail in a hurry (IED strike, mobility kill in a hot area, etc) - it only makes good tactical sense not to be fumbling around with your body armour while you are trying to exit.  In addition, it is another layer of protection - if your veh gets hit your body armour will mitigate injuries caused by interior spalling (Google it on open source).  Anything that will protect you better is a good thing.  Finally, in case of a rollover,  serious accident, collision or hitting a hidden ditch at speed, the body armour can save crew members from cracked ribs and vertebrae. 

As far as hatches open or closed, too close to OPSEC, don't want to give away their SOP on open source.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I was thinking that if you were to hunt down some veterans of the North African theatre they might have some tips that have been lost to institutional memory; but, of course, they had the luxury of stripping down to skivvies for the type of war they were fighting.  We have the tech; I hope someone expedites whatever is necessary.


----------



## Inch

Wes,

The cooling vests that were worn by Aircrew in the Persian Gulf had plain old water cycled through them with some ice in a cooler. No glycol or anything like that. Believe me, anything we use on an aircraft has been through the ringer for flight safety, including disconnects for egressing. If it's safe enough for us, it's safe enough for a tanker IMHO.


----------



## sgtdixon

Inch said:
			
		

> Wes,
> 
> The cooling vests that were worn by Aircrew in the Persian Gulf had plain old water cycled through them with some ice in a cooler. No glycol or anything like that. Believe me, anything we use on an aircraft has been through the ringer for flight safety, including disconnects for egressing. If it's safe enough for us, it's safe enough for a tanker IMHO.




Me and Some of the boys in Adm Tp were wondering if they could run gravy through it... then we'd have it fresh and hot on hand.


----------



## Franko

Must be a Strat thing....

Regards


----------



## Kat Stevens

Crewing the AEV in Bosnia in summer of 97, it got hot, not desert hot, but still damn hot.  We would take the hoses from the personal NBC blowers and stick them in our shirts.  Flick on the blower, et voila, A/C (sorta).


----------



## Shamrock

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I've patrolled in midday around Kandahar in an up-armoured humvee with no a/c and the windows up.



Engine size and heat dissipation vary greatly between those two vehicles.

The concern isn't with the operators' comfort, it's with the equipment on board.


----------



## vigillis

As other have said, the cooling suit might be an option, I have no idea of the space restrictions inside of a tank but, it is in the system already and we probably have an open contract with the supplier.

For those curious enough to waste 5 secs of their life, here is the link  

http://www.med-eng.com/images/img_eod8_body_cool(1).jpg


----------



## tank recce

Interesting! Small, self-contained...

When I was paper-napkin-ing out something for the Cougar during a summer ex in Mudford, I was always concerned about the system volume, especially for the turret crew. (The driver has enough room for an ice cooler that would last him an entire 2-week Milcon - now if THAT ain't dating myself...  ;D)

 If the mechanism is really that small, surely a slightly larger, refillable icecooler could be arranged. I'm not sure about the internal arrangement of a Leo (I've sat in once exactly ONCE!  ) - any Full-timers out there able to comment if it would fit under the various crew seats in the turret?

What's the power supply? 24vdc would probably be easiest to splice into the various power systems.


----------



## Scants

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Strangely enough, dismounted/light infantry have been climbing up and down mountains with rucksacks, helmets and body armour since 2002 in this same heat, with great success so I'd hardly class this as a "critical requirement", considering that armour crews can carry an unlimited amount of water and are *seated most of the time*.
> 
> Additionally, not all US armoured vehicles are air conditioned, and daytime temps in Iraq can be similar to Afghanistan, so I don't really see what the big deal is. *I've patrolled in midday around Kandahar in an up-armoured humvee with no a/c and the windows up*. It's not pleasant, but it is do-able with plenty of water.
> 
> I don't think that this is the show stopping issue that the tankers over there are presenting it as.




1. Based on the logic of "being seated most of the time" one could say that humping the mountains would be no real problem because, after all, you are just walking. There is a bit more to humping the mountains than walking and there is a bit more to crewing a tank than sitting.

2. Sit in the same up-armoured humvee with no a/c and windows rolled but mount a hydraulic pump that is on the fritz right between your legs.


----------



## geo

well.... if the US & the Brits & the Aussies have looked at A/C for their AFVs and have come up NADA, good luck to our tech boys trying to find a solution.... 

Some old 8th Army "parachute" shorts might be the best concession for those hot days.

After that, as Wes has pointed out, it's water, water & more water.....


----------



## Franko

Scants said:
			
		

> 1. Based on the logic of "being seated most of the time" one could say that humping the mountains would be no real problem because, after all, you are just walking. There is a bit more to humping the mountains than walking and there is a bit more to crewing a tank than sitting.
> 
> 2. Sit in the same up-armoured humvee with no a/c and windows rolled but mount a hydraulic pump that is on the fritz right between your legs.



Good point Scants....the damn turret gets hot enough as is back here in Canuckistan never mind Afghanistan.

Put yourself in this scenario....you are the gunner in the Leo.

Picture on a good hot day, say nothing out of the ordinary 32C and you have a hydraulic pump between your legs that normally runs and give off heat in the range of 50C or more, depending if it's working properly and not on the fritz.

There is no breeze inside of the turret, no fans to speak of....getting the picture? Most gunners have already stripped down by this point to their gitch. 

Temps in the turret have gone as high as 65C just back here during training during the summer.

Now put the same tank in Kandahar with the temps that exist there in summer....we've all experienced them.

After 3 or 4 hours of baking in there you're given a fire order on multiple targets finally, now you have blast, heat, and cordite to contend with.

It's not an easy go inside a tank, forget the tales you've been told from a friend of a friend of a friend.

I've seen good crews become incapacitated from the fumes and heat alone after only an hour of firing.

Give the crews the benefit of the doubt before you go out of your lane troops.

Regards


----------



## Shamrock

Add to that the hotfoot the goddamn gunner insists on giving the commander because the driver gave him one earlier.


----------



## Trooper Hale

Dealing with the heat ends up being a personal thing. I've seen little fans installed, i've told RBD all about my clothing of choice when closed down (lets just say "Free and breezy"), and although it was a bit of joke, i tend to keep a cooler (or esky as they'r known) nice and close which is also a brilliant way to earn money off grunts.
But then thats for peacetime, i'm pretty sure that my PT shorts wouldnt be making an appearance if theres a chance i might have to bail out of a burning vehicle (Although i'm sure it'd be a great propaganda win if the bad guys saw my masculine and manly legs, "With legs like that theres no chance we can win! I'm going back to Iran").
Like i said earlier, the article that started this reflects a slow news day or a civvie talking about things they dont know. Do what Wes said and anyone in their right mind would do, smash down water, hope for a vertical wind and keep looking after your mates.


----------



## vonGarvin

Here's a part of the possible solution: electric drive turrets 

Also, for whomever said that "it's not an issue", have you ever been in a car in the parking lot on a summer day in Canada?  With the windows rolled up?  With the engine running and no AC on?  That's how people die, and over here, 30+ is a hot day.  In the box, in Kabul, I saw 45+ in the shade.

So, imagine yourself in a big heat magnet, with a massive engine rumbling, hydraulics circulating around you, wearing armour, even though "seated" with no fresh air.  Yummy.


----------



## FredDaHead

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> Here's a part of the possible solution: electric drive turrets



We have fully-electric cars, (Tesla Roadster, anyone?) and soon (hopefully) hydrogen fullcell cars.. why not fully electric tanks? ;D

Seriously though, although the Leos are obviously not an option for that, couldn't there be some type of "hybrid" tank? Say, a diesel engine (or turbine, or whatever kind of fossil-fuel burning device) for the tracks and recharging batteries, and batteries for less power-demanding duties, like moving the turret, gun, etc. I know, it's a far cry, but it could probably extend the tank's endurance, as well as be cooler (providing slightly more comfort for the crew and perhaps better survivability, thanks to a smaller IR signature?), and reduce the logistical demands. Not feasible right now, I'd assume, but a possiblity for R&D for the next generation of tanks?

Guess there is a reason I'm an artsman and not an engineer...


----------



## geo

It's that or declare a theatre wide standdown
everyone put their weapons down & find some shade & water............

Nope, that won't work

Suck up that water & soldier on (I guess)


----------



## vonGarvin

The turret on the LAV III is electric drive.  The turret on some Leopards are indeed electric drive:

"The Norwegian Leopard A5NO and A5NO2 were fitted with an all-electric turret control system with no hydraulic parts."

(from http://www.haaland.info/leopard1/versions/index.html)


----------



## Shamrock

Fred, go back to hippystan.  The logistical demand your proposal would produce would be a nightmare.  That'd be hundreds of kilometres of extension cords _per tank_.  

Besides, what's wrong with running a tank on biodiesel?


----------



## chanman

geo said:
			
		

> well.... if the US & the Brits & the Aussies have looked at A/C for their AFVs and have come up NADA, good luck to our tech boys trying to find a solution....
> 
> Some old 8th Army "parachute" shorts might be the best concession for those hot days.
> 
> After that, as Wes has pointed out, it's water, water & more water.....



Don't the tanks and IFVs sold to ME countries (Brit, US, French) usually receive AC as part of the 'desert' package?


----------



## FredDaHead

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Fred, go back to hippystan.  The logistical demand your proposal would produce would be a nightmare.  That'd be hundreds of kilometres of extension cords _per tank_.
> 
> Besides, what's wrong with running a tank on biodiesel?



But the peaceful Hippystanians told me to go back to the Evil Hawkish Empire!

Maybe we can make _nuclear_ tanks then? We already have tiny nuclear reactors (we have one at RMC!), why not just stuff it in a tank's engine bay and run electrical engines off it? Just imagine how awesome that would be: unlimited range of motion, the ability to run all kinds of cool electronic stuff... Heck, we can just stick lasers on the tanks and remove any kind of logistical problem--except for water and food for the crew.

And doesn't biodiesel smell like donuts when it's burned? That would be pretty bad for morale... be stuck around a big piece of metal that smells like donuts, while in the middle of the sandbox.


----------



## geo

not sure, haven't had the pleasure of finding an AFV that was A/Cd more than driving fast with the hatches wide open..... and that isn't all that healthy while in Ops.


----------



## Shamrock

Frederik G said:
			
		

> And doesn't biodiesel smell like donuts when it's burned? That would be pretty bad for morale... be stuck around a big piece of metal that smells like donuts, while in the middle of the sandbox.



*cough*

Yhea... it's the fuel that makes the tank smell like freshly baked doughnuts.


----------



## FredDaHead

Shamrock said:
			
		

> *cough*
> 
> Yhea... it's the fuel that makes the tank smell like freshly baked doughnuts.



You mean the crews get freshly baked doughnuts?

...I ought to VOR to Armoured, then.


----------



## aesop081

canadian company providing cooling solutions:

http://www.med-eng.com/sub.asp?id=23



			
				Frederik G said:
			
		

> ...I ought to VOR to Armoured, then.



You mean VOT right..........Voluntary Ocupational Transfer ?


----------



## FredDaHead

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> http://www.med-eng.com/sub.asp?id=23
> 
> You meann VOT right..........Voluntary Ocupational Transfer ?



Yes, or whatever it's called this week. Although, I prefer a nice, warm bed to fresh doughnuts, so I'll stick with the Navy.


----------



## aesop081

Here's the suit Med-Eng came to show us in Edmonton a few years ago......

http://www.med-eng.com/sub.asp?id=103


----------



## geo

Oooo.... yeah - the cooling system for the mine suit!!!

bulky - though on an AFV, guess the weight or size is less consequential.


----------



## armyvern

Tank....track....tank = track.

Back on track please!!


----------



## aesop081

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Tank....track....tank = track.
> 
> Back on track please!!



correct me if i am wrong but i think we are on track......talking about cooling systems.....


----------



## George Wallace

A couple of problems I can see with the suits, and that would be the already cramped quarters inside the turret for the hoses and machinery which would also be a problem with fouling the turret while traversing.  These suits would also be problematic in the constant mounting and dismounting of the vehicle, and wear on the hose couplings.  Once disconnected from their 'coolers' these suits would also become rather hot; no longer being cooled and becoming basically what a dive suit would be on a hot summer day.  (Just my guess.)

Electric turrets exist, but there must be batteries to power them.  Batteries hold a charge for a short time while the turret is fully operational and the engine is not running.  If the Gunnery runs the batteries down too far, the engine will not be able to be restarted.  

Any dreams of a Hybred Engine for a 40 - 60 ton tracked vehicle are rather limited at this date.  Currently there is no electic engine that can move a vehicle of those weights across country for any reasonable length of time.  

These are all things that would have to be put into a Tank, while it is still on the 'Drafting Table', not after it has been put into production.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Tank....track....tank = track.
> 
> Back on track please!!



Ok here you go Vern

 :tank:


----------



## geo

Vern............ cute saying (but I really thought we were on "track")

Discussing possible solutions for AFV crews - if we can't put in an A/C system for the vehicle - is there something that can be done for the crewmembers (except provide em with vent holes c/o the Taliban)


----------



## armyvern

All right Geo,

Back to talking about the donuts again I guess!!  ;D


----------



## Rifleman62

If anyone is interested in a Aide Memoire,  Leaders' Risk Management, which includes a section on Heat Injuries, fluid replacement guidelines, heat injury prevention IPE, work/rest heat stress guide etc, PM me and I will send it to you. It is 1.20 MB, too big to post.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

x


----------



## geo

(too late to cry over spilt milk... though we should keep in mind for the next time we go shopping for an MBT.

Read in the papers yesterday that the MMEV & MGS are both officially dead... whew!

Hmm.... do the M1 and the Leo2 have the same hydraulic pump between the gunner's legs ?


----------



## George Wallace

Good points.  Hydraulics can be a Tankers worse nightmare in combat.  A crew may survive the penetration of their tank by an antitank round, but not survive the affects of the scalding hot hydraulic fluids that may be released by shattered housings and hoses.  Electric turrets would be a lot safer.  

In the 80's, we did some trials with a 'Hunter Killer' sight on the C1s in Gagetown.  It was a sort of hybrid system in the way it was linked to the Gun.  The electrical components greatly increased the speeds that the gun reacted with the sight.  

Geo

Our version of the Leo was built for Temperate conditions.  There are other versions (Not only Leo, but Leclerc and M1) that are specifically designed for Desert Warfare and do incorporate cooling systems in their design.  Our problem is to find a way to safely modify our 'Temperate version' to a 'Desert version'.  What kind of redesign may be involved in moving electronic and gunner boxes is a question.  Will equipment/electronics have to be completely redesigned with cooling elements?  Will each 'station' in the vehicle need an individual 'personal cooling unit' for the crew?  How big and where can that unit be placed?  Will it restrict or impede the movement of the crew or turret?  Even the simple placement of a fan, may be problematic.


----------



## GAP

Some of those Leo's for sale in Germany must have been tropical versions. Why would we not buy some of those already changed ones and simply ship them over. It's close, it's cheaper than retrofitting, and it makes sense......ooops. sorry.


----------



## chanman

GAP said:
			
		

> Some of those Leo's for sale in Germany must have been tropical versions. Why would we not buy some of those already changed ones and simply ship them over. It's close, it's cheaper than retrofitting, and it makes sense......ooops. sorry.



Are there tropical Leos? I can't recall any Leo users in the desert or tropics, unlike the Abrams, Chally 2, and LeClerc.


----------



## George Wallace

chanman said:
			
		

> Are there tropical Leos? I can't recall any Leo users in the desert or tropics, unlike the Abrams, Chally 2, and LeClerc.



Because you don't recall any Leo users in the desert or tropics like the others, doesn't mean that they were not produced.  There were some built and put into competition with the others, for sale to many nations in that region.  In the business of selling arms to that region, other tanks were chosen for various reasons and incentives.


----------



## JackD

Australia mst have done something with their Leos - aren't they stationed in the north?


----------



## Kirkhill

Jack - Trooper Hale of the Aussie tanker brotherhood has already offered his suggestions on how to handle a Leo at 50.



> I've said it before kids, footy shorts (like soccer shorts but shorter) are the only thing to wear while your closed down! Oh and seeing as this is an armoured vehicles thing why havent the "endangered crew" got an esky of cold drinks on hand? I say they've got no one but themselves to blame.
> 
> Seriously though, closed down in the drivers hole i've been so hot i've thought i'd die, having a camel back and my shirt undone has saved my arse more then once. Its not unusual for temps to get to the high 50's and 60's down here in the vehicles. Its not fun but you've got to tolerate it and make yourself comfortable. Have water near by, undo the shirt and unblouse the pants. Hell, you could even roll your pants up a bit if your really keen.
> Its pretty obvious that things get hot in Afghanistan, thus being in a big 60ton hulk of metal would make those inside more then a little bit sweaty.
> 
> Story is a bit of a non issue i reckon.
> Same paper should print "Bullets endanger people fired at".
> 
> « Last Edit: January 30, 2007, 06:03:40 by Hale »



Only questions I have for the good trooper

How do you go hatches-down with a Bush Hat?
Is the Bush Hat Black?
How much cold beer does a Leo hold?


----------



## Franko

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Jack - Trooper Hale of the Aussie tanker brotherhood has already offered his suggestions on how to handle a Leo at 50.
> 
> Only questions I have for the good trooper
> 
> How do you go hatches-down with a Bush Hat?
> Is the Bush Hat Black?
> How much cold beer does a Leo hold?



Not to slam Hale (He was attatched to my Sqn this past summer) but he's referencing his driving M113s and not Leos.

However, he should have access to some info on the adaptations the Aussies have done to their Leo 1 fleet.

Regards


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for squaring me away RBD 

My curiousity WRT the other questions leaves me still looking for answers.


----------



## Shamrock

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> How do you go hatches-down with a Bush Hat?
> Is the Bush Hat Black?
> How much cold beer does a Leo hold?



1.  Helmet.
2.  Cadpat.
3.  Not enough to share.


----------



## George Wallace

36 cans will fit in the 36 Round bin......but they don't stay cool for long.........and in Afghanistan 250 7.62 rounds are more often the case.   ;D


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

x


----------



## Trooper Hale

I am the man known as Trooper Hale, but unfortunately, as RBD pointed out, i'm referencing my knowledge of M113 as opposed to the big brother. Even more unfortunate is that at this very moment i've no idea what, if any, mod's have been carried out on our Leopard's for the hot weather. 
I'll look into it though so should have a response in a little bit for you all. My tankie co-worker is on leave but when's he's back i'll give some goss.

And about the bush hat (or "slouch hat" as its actually called) i couldnt tell you whether or not you could go closed down with it on, i leave wearing that sucker to my infantry breathen while i float around with my outragiously sexual black beret with silver badge. When i do wear a slouchy i do it with a emu feather sticking out, and i'd risk sticking my head out just to see the looks as the feather flails in the wind.


----------



## geo

Hale.... showoff!


----------



## Kirkhill

Hale said:
			
		

> .......
> 
> And about the bush hat (or "slouch hat" as its actually called) i couldnt tell you whether or not you could go closed down with it on, i leave wearing that sucker to my infantry breathen while i float around with my outragiously sexual black beret with silver badge. When i do wear a slouchy i do it with a emu feather sticking out, and i'd risk sticking my head out just to see the looks as the feather flails in the wind.



Shades of the flaming Light Horsemen....and I'd forgotten about the Aussie tendency to slouch along.  >


----------



## Trooper Hale

The Tank Regiment down here is based in Darwin, one of the hottest places in this country. I'm sure they've got a couple of tricks i can tell you about. I'll find out about it.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Just a couple of points.  As CSA-105 points out, TED drive was available, but at $160,000 per tank, was deemed to expensive.  Not by me, BTW!

The TED drive was actually easier on the batteries than the hydraulics.  The hydraulic pump in the tank draws 30 amps, and very quickly wears down the batteries.  The modified Leo1A3 that we had in Gagetown to trial the EMES 18 was indeed equipped with the TED, those of us on the project loved it.  A mod that would have been done would have moved the traverse gearbox from beside the commander to up beside the coax.

Rubber track pads are used primarily to stop the wear on the metal track.  The rubber wears out quickly, but it is still much cheaper than replacing the entire worn out track!


----------



## Trooper Hale

Now heres two snaps for you all to have a glance at, i think they show not only the Evolutionary changes that have designed each Corp, but also why an Armoured Corp digger would never go closed down while wearing a slouch hat.
The first, an Infantryman is noticable by not only his issued expression (also attached is the voice recording, "Kill, Kill, Kill" and "me sleep on dirt now") but his lack of Plume.
The next is an Armoured Warrior, noticable by not only is Natural pose and good looks but the swarm of ladies that surround him.
I think we can easily tell the superiour Corp now...

http://6038272.slide.com/p/3/Infantry-1698467349
Sorry about the link but its the only way i can think of to show Bitmap images.


----------



## geo

(Ayup, the sapper is still at work while everyone else is posturing)


----------



## Franko

Back on topic troops.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I believe that the need for air conditioning for the enclosed crewmen of AFVs for the Afghan summer is genuine.  It is based on operational effectiveness.  As I scored 51% in Grade 11 Electronics, however, I will leave the "how" to others.

To add to some other comments, please wear your PPE to include ballistic glasses even when you are closed-down.

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace

I am sure that the simple installation of a number of small fans would be of an immediate help.  They wouldn't really have an affect in cooling down the temperature, but would at least provide some air circulation, which in turn helps the body cool.  They would not be the final solution, but would still be a small help.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

There is a small system used on Danish Leo 1's.  It is a combined generator/air conditioner/heater, which the Danes have mounted in the coffin bin on the Leo1A3 turret.  It's not much of a generator, because it is limited to charging the batteries through the RBJ, but it does provide something like a 15 amp charge.  They cut a hole in the rear right side of the turret to allow for the heated/cooled air to enter the turret, behind the commander.  It has it's own fuel tank....because it's kind of hard to get fuel up there from the main tanks.

I bet that the current bins on the C2's would work as well.

Now that the Danes are in the process of parking all of their Leo 1', I wonder if these systems are available?

We have a great rapport with the Danes, I'm sure that they wouldn't mind helping us out!


----------



## fireman1867

Hello there just stumbled on this thread from MP.net



> Quote:
> Kanada will deutsche Panzer für Afghanistan
> 10. Feb 12:50
> 
> 
> Bald sollen deutsche «Leopard 2»-Kampfpanzer in den Kriegsgebieten Afghanistans an die Front - allerdings mit kanadischer Besatzung. Die Bundesregierung ist bereit, dem Deal zuzustimmen.
> 
> Kanada will für den Kampf gegen die Taliban in Afghanistan deutsche «Leopard 2»-Kampfpanzer einsetzen. Ein Sprecher des Verteidigungsministeriums bestätigte am Samstag einen Bericht des Nachrichtenmagazins «Der Spiegel» über eine entsprechende Anfrage der Regierung aus Ottawa. Die Panzer sollen mit kanadischer Besatzung zum Einsatz kommen.
> 
> Die kanadischen Streitkräfte benutzen bereits die ältere Version, den «Leo 1». Aber für den Kampf gegen die Taliban hätten die Kanadier gern das neuste auf dem Markt. Wie das Verteidigungsministerium mitteilte, haben die Kandaier daher angefragt, ob Deutschland etwa 20 «Leopard» in der neuen Version mit einem speziellen Schutz gegen Minen (A6M) bereitstellen könnte.
> Vorteil: Höhere Feuerkraft
> Weil der Hersteller Krauss-Maffei Wegmann diese nicht sofort liefern könne, will Kanada die Panzer aus deutschen Beständen für zwei Jahre leasen. Der Leo 2 besitzt dank einer leistungsstärkeren Munition eine höhere Feuerkraft als der Leo 1, ist mit einer 120 Millimeter-Kanone ausgerüstete, kann Ziele bis zu vier Kilometer Entfernung bekämpfen. Er hat einen 1200 KW-Motor und bringt es damit auf eine Höchstgeschwindigkeit von 70 Stundenkilometer, was für ein 60 Tonnen-Fahrzeug beachtlich ist.
> Die Bundeswehr hat etwa 40 Stück vom Typ A6M. Weitere 80 «Leopard 2»-Panzer einer älteren Version will Kanada kaufen.
> 
> Exportrichtline umgehen
> 
> Das Verteidigungsministerium steht dem Sprecher zufolge diesem Anliegen grundsätzlich positiv gegenüber. Eine abschließende Entscheidung sei aber noch nicht gefallen. Vermutlich auch deshalb, weil bisher für alle Bundesregierungen galt, keine Rüstungsgüter in Spannungsgebiete zu exportieren. Der Bundessicherheitsrat - ein streng geheim tagender Unterausschuss des Kabinetts - hat über jeden Ausfuhrantrag zu befinden. In ihm sitzen die Kanzlerin, die Minister für Verteidigung, des Äußeren, Inneren, der Wirtschaft und Finanzen sowie der Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr.
> 
> Politische Beobachter gehen indessen davon aus, dass sich der Bund der Anfrage aus Kanada auf keinen Fall verweigern möchte und deshalb nach Möglichkeiten sucht, die restriktive Exportrichtline zu umgehen. Ein Leasing-Geschäft käme Berlin daher sehr entgegen, da das Leasen deutscher Panzer streng genommen kein Exportgeschäft wäre. (nz)
> 
> netzeitung.de
> 
> Well Im not able to find english sources so I will some up the major points
> 
> -Canada is interested to use Leo 2 in AFG
> -Spokesman from German MOD confirmend to the spiegel that Ottawa hast asked for Leo2 for AFG
> -Canadians asked for 20 Leo 2A6 with Mine Protection
> -It seems that they want to lease them from German Army until KMWEG is able to prduce new ones for Canada
> -Canada also plans to get 80 older German Leo 2
> -Leasing of the 20 Leo2A6 M for 2 Years
> 
> Nice step Canada so when German Politicians are not willing to fight so at least our Stealbeasts get their chance.
> 
> Navor
> 
> END QUOTE


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Interesting. I wonder if any Canadian media are picking up on this yet. I'm going to do some searching.


----------



## JackD

gawd, plse don't let the idiots know!


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

JackD said:
			
		

> gawd, plse don't let the idiots know!



Couldn't find anything anyway...hehehehe


----------



## kato

Not gonna happen,the money has been earmarked for a second Timmies in Kandahar instead.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thanks for the head's up and highlights, Fireman.  Good catch - I only managed to find the original article link in German.

Wait for it, IHS and JackD, wait for it....  In fact, let's see how long it takes for MSM to catch this.

For the record - first sighting on Army.ca posted by fireman1867 at 101157EST Feb 07

Now, we wait.....


----------



## fireman1867

I think the German's are trying to make something happen here, the leo2 has yet to see combat, and they want to prove their product is worth buying. 

I am sure the Canadian media will be all over this story in the next few days...


----------



## vonGarvin

Hauptmann Translation Services at your, well, service 

Quote:
Canada wants German tanks for Afghanistan
10. Feb 12:50

Allegedely, German "Leopard 2" tanks will soon be in service in Afghanistan on the front - of all things with Canadian crews.  The federal government (of Germany  Note: "Bundesregierung" literally means "Federal Government", but usually refers to that of Germany when no national adjective is used, such as here)is ready to agree to the deal.

Canada wishes to use German "Leopard 2" tanks in Afghanistan in its battle with the Taliban.  On Saturday, a spokesman of the Ministry of Defence (German) confirmed a report from the news magazine "Der Spiegel" of request from the government in Ottawa.  The tanks will allegedely go in action with Canadian crews.

The Canadian Forces currently use the older version, the "Leo 1".  But for the battle against the Taliban the Canadians wish to have the latest available equipment from the market.  As the Ministry of Defence (German) reported, the Canadians are to have asked Germany if some 20 "Leopards" of the latest variant, The "A6M" with special anti-mine protection, were available.

Advantage: More firepower.

Because the producer, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann cannot supply these right away, Canada wishes to lease the tanks from German stocks for 2 years.  Thanks to an increase in strength of ammunition, the Leo 2 has more firepower than the Leo 1, is armed with a 120 mm Cannon and can engage targets out to 4 kilometres.  It has a 1200 horsepower engine and can reach a high speed of 70 kilometres per hour, which is impressive for a 60 ton vehicle.

The Federal Armed Forces have some 40 of the A6M.  Canada wishes to purchase a further 80 older version "Leopard 2"s.


Getting around the export "rules":

The Ministry of Defense is treating this request positively, according to the spokesman. A binding decision has not yet been made, however.  This may be due to a ban on exports of armaments into areas of "tension".   The federal security council - a top secret meeting sub-committee of the cabinet - has to preside over each such export request. In it sit the Federal Chancellor, the Ministers for defense, the exterior, interior, the economy and finances as well as the inspector general of the Federal Armed Forces.


(Edit: just fixed a word I mistranslated: it's "Spokesman" not "Speaker" in the final paragraph)


----------



## frist one

That's Good News. We need Then Now.


----------



## ArmyRick

Cool. 

Canadian Menu for Taliban Terrorist.

Apetizer
25mm Chain Gun Whoop Ass

Main Course
120mm HESH with a side of 7.62mm 4B1T

Desert
155mm M777 Launched HE


----------



## karl28

Wow this is exciting news hope that it is true


----------



## vonGarvin

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Cool.
> 
> Canadian Menu for Taliban Terrorist.
> 
> Apetizer
> 25mm Chain Gun Whoop Ass
> 
> Main Course
> 120mm HESH with a side of 7.62mm 4B1T
> 
> Desert
> 155mm M777 Launched HE


First of all, HESH does not come in the 120mm smoothbore variety.  HEAT maybe?
Second of all, I'm sure that by "Desert" you meant "dessert" 


Whether or not this will be true, this is currently rumour, so treat it as such.  After all, the MSM is usually so reliable, right?


----------



## Justacivvy

A bit of a dumb question here  ??? Assuming the Leo 2s do hit the ground...what are we going to do with the existing Leo C2 that are already there?

This new is every exciting indeed...if it gets approved.  

I'm still hitting myself in the head for not being able to go on tours.


----------



## eurowing

Rental tanks are not without precedent.  I watched the RCD's take the CAT (Canadian Army Trophy?) in the late 70's.  They were rental or leased Leopards and if IIRC the boys said at the time they used optical sights as they had not had the time to train on the new system.  

I hope is is true as well.  Nice to put away the line.... "being a zipperhead is a tankless job"


----------



## The Bread Guy

First English language media spotting:  101615EST Feb (Army.ca plus ~4 hours) - sounds like AFP actually called the Ministry (German) for confirmation, as opposed to just "scabbing" the story from Spiegel and attributing it to them.  Shared with usual disclaimer...

*Canada to buy German tanks for Afghanistan duty*
Agence France Presse, 10 Feb 07
Article Link

BERLIN - Berlin Saturday confirmed reports that Canada is to buy German Leopard tanks to equip its forces serving with the NATO multinational force in Afghanistan.

The defence ministry said it was examining a request to that effect from Ottawa, confirming a report in the magazine Der Spiegel due to appear Monday which says that 80 A4 tanks could be bought from the German army reserve.

*‘The ministry is in principle favourable to this request,’ a spokesman told AFP.*

Spiegel says the Canadians also want 20 Leopards of the latest A6M type which are mine-resistant, of which the German Bundeswehr regular army has 40.

But as the German manufacturer Krauss-Maffei Wegmann cannot deliver them at once, Canada wants to lease them from the German army, according to the magazine.

Canada has 2,500 troops deployed against the Taleban in the south of Afghanistan, while Germany has a force of 2,950 serving with the NATO International Secuirty Assistance Force in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan.


_
Edited to fix typo, add time_


----------



## vonGarvin

Sounds like my translation wasn't that far off.  I should work for a media outlet, translating German press stories for our media

*hint hint* anyone?  Bueller?  Hello?


ha ha


----------



## Franko

In principle.....

Remember troops, don't believe it until you see them coming off the C17 in KAF.

All is rumour and speculation at best until it's ever announced.

I can see the headlines now.....        :

"Army.ca members confirm rumours of Leo 2 purchase"

Regards


----------



## The Bread Guy

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> Sounds like my translation wasn't that far off.  I should work for a media outlet, translating German press stories for our media
> 
> *hint hint* anyone?  Bueller?  Hello?
> 
> ha ha



Far too committed to the truth and context, I think, to fit in well in the milleu....  ;D


----------



## 3rd Herd

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> I can see the headlines now.....        :
> 
> "Army.ca members confirm rumours of Leo 2 purchase"
> 
> Regards



It is true we ARE the best source of reliable rumors. We now have our own in house translation service that puts us in the big leagues.


----------



## vonGarvin

The first few are free.  Once you're hooked, then you'll have to pay  >

Still, the point is well made: this is RUMOUR only!!!!!!


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> The first few are free.  Once you're hooked, then you'll have to pay  >
> 
> Still, the point is well made: this is RUMOUR only!!!!!!



and then Jack Layton will come after you to get the Government to pass a bill banning Hauptmann Scharlocahrot user fees!! ;D


----------



## vonGarvin

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> and then Jack Layton will come after you to get the Government to pass a bill banning Hauptmann Scharlachrot user fees!! ;D



:rofl:

Yes, Prime Minister Layton (and GG Olivia Chow) will ensure that I am rightly villified for even considering charging for my services.  


Still, IF (note that it's a big "if") we were to get Leo 2's, PSO or whatever variant (20) and then 80, I highly doubt that it would add to 100 (lease 20 now, take delivery of the 80, return those 20, or whatever remain of them).  Given that the Leo C2 is still a healthy cat, albeit long in the tooth, I shudder to think that we would shelve them.

Again, IF we were to find ourselves with 66 Leo C1 and 80 C2, the question would be: can we man them all?  The construct of the 19 tank squadron may resurface (medium and heavy), for a total of 2 medium (Leo C2) and 3 heavy (Leo 2A6).  Whither the remainder?  Training institutions (technical and tactical training).

Again, this is a "big, honking" IF


----------



## GAP

Are these the ones everyone a month or so ago were saying they were going for $350,000? or are they spiffy new ones right out of the factory with warranty tag, inspector tag and large price tag?


----------



## Meridian

Question regarding the language "request".

Could this not just be DND "inquiring" as to the "possibility", rather than physically starting an acquisition process?
Maybe O'Connor just approved a communique over to Germany to see about an alternative to leaving the MBT off of the purchasing block as per the Canada First initiative.

Lots of people window-browse, some even ask the sales people questions, and some even push to speak to a sales manager, all without ever actually being ready to buy....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meridian said:
			
		

> Question regarding the language "request".  Could this not just be DND "inquiring" as to the "possibility", rather than physically starting an acquisition process?  Maybe O'Connor just approved a communique over to Germany to see about an alternative to leaving the MBT off of the purchasing block as per the Canada First initiative.  Lots of people window-browse, some even ask the sales people questions, and some even push to speak to a sales manager, all without ever actually being ready to buy....



Good point, and not unreasonable as hunting/searching for options is ongoing for most organizations - I'd bet a loonie that this will be the messaging coming out of DND before Monday.

Foggy head moment:  Wasn't there a similar story, in fact, not too long ago, where the first headlines were, "CF Getting Gizmo x", and the military ended up saying, "We're looking at Gizmo x as one of several options to fill our needs" in the past two-three months?  This could be more of the same.


----------



## 3rd Herd

Jumping out of my normally secure lane. Could this be done the same way as the recent new toys for the airforce? But someone raised a good point even if the new kit arrivies post haste-who is going to crew them ?, what training has to be done to make them operational and how long ? Next what about the story that was flying around in the media about the Lav's wearing out and their replacements, allegedly the 113s were going to cover that but again there are no crews and most of us that trained on them are know out. Slay away


----------



## Cloud Cover

TLAV [M113] are on the ground right now in Afg.  There are even pictures of them in the MSM.

As for training on the L2, no idea but if any army can make it happen, ours will.


----------



## McG

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> First of all, HESH does not come in the 120mm smoothbore variety.  HEAT maybe?


HEAT is great for punching holes in armour.  Against grape-huts we really need something with a good blast that will get the guys inside (and maybe even throw the walls on top of the occupants).  I've never heard of a 120 mm smooth-bore HESH either, but we want something like it.  Maybe 120 mm smooth-bore thermobaric (this would be even better)?



			
				3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Next what about the story that was flying around in the media about the Lav's wearing out and their replacements, allegedly the 113s were going to cover that but again there are no crews and most of us that trained on them are know out.


I've not heard this rumour.  However, M113A3 are going for *some* roles.  It is a vehicle that Armd & Engr use back here in Canada (so there is experience) and it is a whole new beast from the M113 that used to inhabit the infantry battalions (so even if the old track drivers were still around they would need to re-learn the new vehicle).


----------



## geo

Well... there have been a number of threads on this subject for the last year.... slightly used Leo2s being offered by germans & Danes at bargain basement prices.

..... guess we're getting ready for our second course of big cats.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The M113's are used by the tankers right now for admin stuff.  Mostly their CQ equivilant and maintence pers are using them.  I can't remember if I saw any used by the Engineers though.  The M113 as mentioned has had a lot changed as well they won't be used for the troops.  The one's that are here are in a specific role and we sold most of ours that weren't converted.


----------



## JackD

Ohh and please don't forget how useful a Leo2 would be in giving little kiddies lifts to school on snowy days, or that you can hook a plough to them and fix up 40 ha in no time at all - not to mention the fact that these magnificent contraptions are so useful in making roads - oh I forgot, they are big enough to hold lots of icecream to give out to the little kiddies on the street - oh and, the wonderful 120mm cannnon is a grand way of delivering express mail - a natural priority post delivery service - oh yes  and sabot rounds are so useful in hanging pictures onto walls - one shot and there you go, no need to make lots of noise banging in tiny little nails and disturbing the neighbours - and you can do it from 2 km away. Now as for the M777 - what a marvelous tool for digging holes to plant trees... and for fertilizing the ground - adding those necessary micronutrients -Fe, Mn and the like... Come on you guys - remember you have to sell this to the NDP....


----------



## The Bread Guy

And here it is in CAN media - still not definite, but we now know the CF is looking at it.

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Military eyes lease deal with Germany for new tanks*
20 state-of-the-art vehicles could be in field by spring
CanWest News Service, via the Ottawa Citizen, 11 Feb 07, p. A4.

As it prepares to deal with another spring offensive by insurgents in Afghanistan, Canada is trying to lease
state-of-the-art Leopard tanks from Germany.

Defence sources told the Citizen yesterday that Canada *wants to lease* 20 Leopard A6M tanks from the German army.

The tanks, which have improved protection against landmines and other enemy weapons, *could be shipped* to Afghanistan as early as the spring if the deal is approved, sources said.

The German newsmagazine, Der Spiegel, will also report tomorrow that Canada wants to buy 80 Leopard 2 tanks from Germany as well as lease the other 20 Leopards.

According to another European news agency, Agence France-Presse, the German government is looking at approving the Canadian request.

*"The ministry is in principle favourable to this request,"* a German defence department spokesman told Agence France-Presse.  In November, the Citizen broke the story of Canada's interest in buying at least 50 German Leopard 2 tanks.  But at the time Defence Department officials denied the report, claiming the Canadian Forces had no interest in purchasing modern Leopards.

The Canadian military has already shipped a small number of Leopard C2s to Afghanistan. But the Canadian Forces has concerns about the level of protection those tanks can provide for their crews. In
addition, there are concerns about whether there will be enough spare parts for the older Canadian tanks, according to sources.

The proposed German deal would also include an ample supply of parts for the armoured vehicles.

A defence source said Canada's proposal to the German government, if accepted, could shave years off acquiring a more modern tank for use in Afghanistan. If Canada were to upgrade its existing Leopards it would take about two years, the source said.

A Defence Department official said yesterday that only limited information about the Canada-German Leopard proposal was available.

*"No decision has been taken, but the Canadian Forces are constantly assessing their requirements for operations,"* said Tanya Barnes, a Canadian Defence Department spokeswoman.

In the fall, Canadian military officials sent out feelers to different countries who might have used Leopard 2s for sale.  Included among those were the Netherlands and Germany. In addition, Canada wanted details about the availability of spare parts for the tanks.

Over the last year there has been a major about-face in the Canadian military's view of the usefulness of tanks.

Last fall, after originally denying that it was going to send Leopards to Afghanistan, the military confirmed the vehicles were indeed headed for that South Asia war zone.

"Tanks produce a certain amount of shock action," army commander Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie said at the press conference confirming the deployment of the Leopards. "They can be extraordinarily intimidating."

In the late 1990s, the Canadian Forces spent $145 million to equip the tanks with new computers and heat-sensing equipment to improve their fighting capability.

But three years ago, Gen. Rick Hillier, then army commander, labelled the Leopards as a "millstone" around the neck of the service. Several months later Gen. Hillier wrote an article for the Citizen criticizing retired officers who wanted to keep the Leopard tanks in the army's inventory.

"Tanks are a perfect example of extremely expensive systems that sit in Canada because they are inappropriate to the operations we conduct daily around the world," Gen. Hillier wrote at the time. The general is currently the chief of the defence staff.  

But as they came to grips with the war in Afghanistan, senior military leaders changed their minds and turned to the tank to provide increased firepower and protection. Last year, the army put on hold a plan to dispose of many of its tanks. However, by that point, the Defence Department had blown up, sold or given away a little less than half of the army's fleet of 114 Leopards.

At the same time the army leadership requested the Conservative government cancel a proposed plan to spend at least $700 million on the purchase of a wheeled vehicle called the Mobile Gun System. That system was being billed as a replacement for Canada's Leopards. 

A copy of the government's proposed Canada First Defence Strategy, obtained by the Citizen, confirms that the Mobile Gun System will indeed be cancelled and tanks will remain in the army until at least
2016.


----------



## observor 69

More Leopard 2 info.

Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank, Germany
The Leopard 2 is a main battle tank developed by Krauss-Maffei AG, now Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), of Munchen, Germany. The Leopard 2 is a successor to the successful Leopard 1.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/

And it comes with Air Conditioning !!


----------



## vonGarvin

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> More Leopard 2 info.
> 
> Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank, Germany
> The Leopard 2 is a main battle tank developed by Krauss-Maffei AG, now Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), of Munchen, Germany. The Leopard 2 is a successor to the successful Leopard 1.
> 
> http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/
> 
> And it comes with Air Conditioning !!



Of course, by "Munchen" you mean Munich, right?

Or do you mean München?

Anyway, for those not in the know, the Leo 2 was a by-product of the failed MBT 70 project, which saw the US and Germany attempt to collaborate on a new heavy tank design.  The teams split, and the results were the Leo 2 (which always had a 120mm smoothbore) and the M1 (which originally had a 105mm gun).

Through several evolutions, the armour protection of the Leo 2 has increased dramatically, as has its firepower: the 120 mm smoothbore was at one time 44 calibre lengths (most still are), whereas the A6 variant has a 55 calibre length gun (which means much higher muzzle velocity).


----------



## observor 69

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> Of course, by "Munchen" you mean Munich, right?
> 
> Or do you mean München?



Hey "dude"  when I 'm out of my lane I just cut and paste.  ;D See link.


----------



## 3rd Herd

MCG said:
			
		

> Against grape-huts  we really need something with a good blast that will get the guys inside (and maybe even throw the walls on top of the occupants).  I've never heard of a 120 mm smooth-bore HESH either, but we want something like it.  Maybe 120 mm smooth-bore thermobaric (this would be even better)?



This problem with the grape huts is not new. The Soviets had the same problems. If I remember correctly there are several examples in some of Grau's works such as The Soviet Afgan War: How a Super Power Fought and Lost.  Given that Grau has written extensively about this prior conflict both in small papers and full on text it surprises myself that this problem was not sand tabled before it became a real problem. As to the themobarbic I believe that is one of the solutions used. I can hunt down the exact source material at some point today. but relying on memoray alone I think it was used by direct fire self propelled artillery units. Tanks were used in a stand off over watch role.


----------



## Cloud Cover

That army-technology lists something called the "mobile comouflage system".  What exactly is that system?  It looks like a bunch of blankets and netting to me.


----------



## scottishcanuck

Why would they buy 80 A4s, instead of the A6. They are the newest and most protected. I know the germans dont even have that number but they could build them. Or even buy the A5 if the A6s cant be built.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/leopard2.html

confirming a report in the magazine Der Spiegel due to appear Monday which says that 80 A4 tanks could be bought from the German army reserve.

BTW would they be leaseing this Version of the A6

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/leopard14.html


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

IF this should come to pass, I hope like hell someone has the foresight to fly them into Afghanistan in American or British C-17's as sort of a show & tell demonstration for politicians and media.

To fly them into Afghanistan in leased Antonov's would be beyond stupid from an optics standpoint....



Matthew.


----------



## vonGarvin

For the 20, I "think" they meant this variant of the A6:

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

As for the A4, well, I dunno about us getting them or even if the rumours (in German) referred to the A5, A6 or what.  I believe that they just called them "older" versions.  Since the PSO is the latest, then any other variant would be "older"


----------



## scottishcanuck

I think then they should but 80 of the PSO, as it would sell to the public better as it says PEACE support operations. Also it states its good in urban warfare situations, and its the latest version. And if not then buy the A6 or A5.


----------



## Koenigsegg

In the article that you translated, it referred to the twenty tanks that we may be leasing (may...who knows) as an "A6M" variant.  At least one other article posted in this thread also referred to them by that designation.

However, perhaps this "A6M" is the production version of the PSO which was a demonstrator?  I personally would not know nearly as much as several of the members on this site.
Perhaps it may be the proper title for the A6EX?

I'm just saying that in the articles, they DID say specifically what tanks are in question.

Edit:  according to...wikipedia...it seems like the A6M gets the "M" just because of the mine protection it employs.   So it would make sense that if we are looking at getting Leo2s with more mine protection, that we go straight for the "M" model.


----------



## vonGarvin

Hi
Thanks for that 
I believe that the A6M may indeed be the production model of the A6, "M" for "Minen" or "Mines".

If one thing I've found when translating, is that I focus so much on translating, that I miss those details


----------



## ironduke57

Hi. 

My first post here. I hope my english is understandable.

If they really lease 20 A6M from the BW then they will be the standard Version. There are only one or two Leo PSO demonstrators for show´s and possible buyer´s( The same for the A6 EX).  And BTW the Leopard PSO demonstrator has "only" the 44cal cannon. It is much more practical for MOUT operations for which the PSO is designed for.

Regarding the A6M equipment. I know from german tanker´s that at least some of the normal A6 are not equipped with AC´s and APU´s.

And regarding the 80 A4´s. You can still upgrade them later to every variant you want and they are now much cheaper then new tank´s.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## scottishcanuck

Does the PSO one have a 120mm gun?


----------



## ironduke57

scottishcanuck said:
			
		

> Does the PSO one have a 120mm gun?



At least the demonstrator has a 44cal 120mm cannon.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## scottishcanuck

Thanks, BTW could it be upgraded to 55cal?


----------



## Koenigsegg

No worries, "Captain Scarlet".  (sweet name by the way  ;D)

ironduke, it was perfectly understandable to me.  Good points.  At least to me.
Does anyone know the approximate cost for an A4?  and perhaps (slim chance) the fee for upgrading them to a more modern A-whatever?
I'm just curious to know whether down the road IF (if, if, if...) we get these and later decide to ugrade them it will cost us less, or more than than it would have, had we purchased the more modern ones in the first place.

Sorry for the highjack...carry on.


----------



## ironduke57

> Thanks, BTW could it be upgraded to 55cal?



Sure, but IMO it isn´t a good idea and would be against it´s design goal. The 55cal is around 130cm longer then the 44cal and that is troublesome in urban area´s.

@Koenigsegg The cost for an used A4 is normally around 350.000-400.000 euro. An new A6 can cost up to 6.000.000 euro. (I am not at home ATM and so I haven´t all my information at hand.)

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Koenigsegg

Oh my...

So it seems to me (a youngster civilian) like we could be getting a, uh... pretty good deal here.
(compared to what we currently have.  which have served us well, and treated us right.  But are about 75 years old, when they should have retired and moved to florida at 65.)


----------



## vonGarvin

The price is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.  Agreed that while the L55 is awesome in terms of firepower, the L44 is nothing to sneeze at either!
In terms of protection, the A5 or A6 are both far superior to the venerable Leo 1.

In terms of mobility, the A5 or any variant of the Leo 2 is outstanding.  Quite the tank.  

Having said all this, this is just a rumour, and as stated by the PAFFO in the article quoted earlier, DND is always looking and checking on "stuff".  It amounts to nothing that they look for "stuff".  It only counts when government says "launch" on whatever they decide for us to have.


----------



## TN2IC

Hijack Alert...

For our budget... 

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Motorized-German-Leopard-11-Tank-MODEL-KIT_W0QQitemZ320080898934QQihZ011QQcategoryZ774QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


Some glue... and ta da.


Or even this...

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Dinky-Toys-Leopard-Tank-That-Fires_W0QQitemZ170079246461QQihZ007QQcategoryZ56333QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## blacktriangle

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Hijack Alert...
> 
> For our budget...
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.ca/Motorized-German-Leopard-11-Tank-MODEL-KIT_W0QQitemZ320080898934QQihZ011QQcategoryZ774QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
> 
> 
> Some glue... and ta da.
> 
> 
> Or even this...
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.ca/Dinky-Toys-Leopard-Tank-That-Fires_W0QQitemZ170079246461QQihZ007QQcategoryZ56333QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem



The NDP probably won't look favourably on such a grand expenditure...  ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

As we did with the Nyala could we not just get these on an IOR? If memory serves me correctly we just had them shipped directly into theatre on an IOR.  ???


----------



## 3rd Herd

Small hijack re: Grape huts and thermobarbaric

The RPO-A Shmel is issued to airborne and marine assault troops to destroy strongpoints (for example bunkers) or lightly armoured vehicles. In Afghanistan  the weapon was used to clear Mujahideen from caves. It is also claimed that the RPO-A could have peaceful applications as it can be used to destroy ice jams in rivers, break up potential snow avalanches or extinguish fires by the blast effect.Someone want to pass this on to good ole Jack 
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jidr/jidr010104_3_n.shtml

See also:
A 'Crushing' Victory: Fuel-Air Explosives and Grozny 2000: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/fuelair/fuelair.htm

 and the offical Canadian point of view

From the Directorate of Army Doctrine:The Threat from Blast Weapons: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_04/iss_3/CAJ_vol4.3_05_e.pdf


----------



## geo

2nd hand Leo2A4s offered for something like 300,000$/ea was being thrown around last summer.  A much better deal when compared to the cost of a new Leo2 A6

I believe the bolt on armour plates we added to our Leo1C2s are part and parcel of the mine protection & enhanced armour now available to the A6s


----------



## STING

Check out this YouTube vid on the Leopard 2 ...  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMa9MhSSqzk&mode=related&search=


----------



## AIC_2K5

CASR article: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard2-afghan.htm


----------



## ironduke57

There is a flaw in that article. It stats that the A5/A6 have a new turret. That´s wrong. It is the old turret with some modification´s and add-on armor on the front and the side´s.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## eerickso

Just a Navy guy here, but I couldn't help notice the large difference between the price of the Leopard 2 4s and the Leopard 2 6s. Would it be correct to assume that that the version 6 tanks are 20 times better than the version 4 tanks? Do the technological differences merit such a price increase? 

Perhaps we are getting the version 6 tanks because the germans want to make new tanks? Anyways, those 20 leopard 2 6s represent roughly 400 leopard 2 4s! I guess the army plans on using the leopard 2 4s in wars that don't use tank mines? Give me a break. 

Anyways, we should buy every used tank on the market(The Danes, Swiss and Norweigians). The Germans don't need to practice tank making!


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Bubbles said:
			
		

> CASR article: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard2-afghan.htm



Has anyone else noticed that CASR has gotten increasingly obnoxious with its commentary as of late?  

At one point they correctly called the Liberals to the carpet for not buying anything and for generating the rust-out that's so prevelant.

However, since Harper has been in power, they have repeatedly found ways to complain about everything single procurement decision he's made or is even exploring.

The most arrogant was the editorial they did on the possible purchase of the C-17 in which they used the term "wrong-headed" and bandied about the term "neo-con".  

Up until this point I have been fans of both Diane and Stephen for their dedication and coverage of all things military, but their partisan-sniping is unworthy of any respect.


Matthew.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

This is such a great rumour, even better because it originates in Germany.  

The Leopard 2A4 is the most basic model of Leo 2 out there.  Most have been rebuilt to the A4 standard from their original A1/A2/A3 version.  There are new built A4's, of course, but at least half of the A4's are twenty years old.

The Leo2A5 are mostly upgraded A4's, with additional armour, turret electric drive, and the L55 cannon.  Hence, they ar getting older as well.

The A6 are new built tanks, and are priced accordingly.  The "M" variant has a few extra tons of armour on the bottom for mine protection.

To me, it wouldn't make sense to lease 20 Leo2A6, and buy Leo2A4.  There's too much difference from the training and maintenance perspective.  It would make imminent sense however, to buy the Leo2A5, as they are near identical to the A6.

The largest learning curve will be for the commander.  While the gunner's positions won't take much getting used too, there is no similarity between the C2 and the A5/A6 for the commander.

Man, I sure hope that this is one rumour that turns in to fact!


----------



## ironduke57

> The Leo2A5 are mostly upgraded A4's, with additional armour, turret electric drive, and the L55 cannon.  Hence, they ar getting older as well.


Sorry to correct you, but the A5 has the L44 cannon.



> The A6 are new built tanks, and are priced accordingly.



At least the A6 in german service are not new built. They are refitted A5.



> It would make imminent sense however, to buy the Leo2A5, as they are near identical to the A6.



The problem is that AFAIK there are no A5 for sell. And BTW A5 and A6 are identical only the L55 cannon is the difference.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Lance Wiebe

A while back, when I was visiting KMW, I was in a new built A6.  I was also in a Leo 2A5 that was a rebuilt A4, but was fitted with the L55.  That may have been a one-off, or a trial vehicle, but I know I was in both tanks.

There was quite the assembly line for the A6, I'm sure that there are quite a few more new A6 than the 40 Leo2A6M!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the pushing the fact that this purchase is meant to protect the lives of Canadian soldiers because of it’s increased protection,  both in the current and future missions that Canada faces. Focusing on the increased fighting ability will feed the critics, selling it on crew protection means that the critics must take the position that they do not value the lives of Canadian soldiers.


----------



## geo

Lance,  we might not be able to jump the queue to get shiny new kit right now... same as we can't take delivery of C17, CH47, C130s etc, etc ahead of anyone else already in line. 

Big point here is that if we take immediate delivery and ship some of em straight to KAF, then there is no doubt that we will have standard german kit and not have those mods we have put into the Leo1C2s.  Thus, troopers are going to have a steep learning curve.

Are we better off ordering some Leo2A4s or hold out for some Leo2A5s?
after paying 300K for a 4, how much would it cost to bring em up to a 5 level?
(As the Germans are interested in supporting german industry, I would gather they want to produce new tanks, the Bundeswerh will prolly be buying more NEW than upgrade kits)


----------



## ironduke57

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> A while back, when I was visiting KMW, I was in a new built A6.  I was also in a Leo 2A5 that was a rebuilt A4, but was fitted with the L55.  That may have been a one-off, or a trial vehicle, but I know I was in both tanks.
> 
> There was quite the assembly line for the A6, I'm sure that there are quite a few more new A6 than the 40 Leo2A6M!



Sure there are production facility for new A6, but I said that at least all A6 in german service are refitted. But greece, spain and so got some brand new ones which where build here.
I am not quite sure if the A6M in german service also a refitted A6 or if they where new build, but I have my doubt´s that they are new.

That "A5" with the an L55 was probably an test vehicle. Any A5 has already the needed change´s on the hydraulics to compensate the additional back-thrust force of the L55. Maybe that one was not the final A6 version so the people called it A5. The only real difference between the A5 and A6 is the cannon. I think we can agree on that. 

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Better a bird in the hand than a possible program cancelled by the Liberals.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Colin P said:
			
		

> Better a bird in the hand than a possible program cancelled by the Liberals.



Here here! and to answer another query yes I've noticed CASR's bias and took them off my favorites list because of it....I just don't read it anymore


----------



## MarkOttawa

CP reporter David Ebner can't quite get it right:
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070212/TANKS12/national/national/national/6/6/16/



> Defence officials have denied media reports that Canada is buying additional German tanks for use in Afghanistan...
> 
> ...I'm telling you that no decision has been taken," said Tanya Barnes, a spokeswoman for the Department of National Defence.
> 
> "The Canadian Forces are constantly assessing requirements for operations, but there's no decision taken. Any such decision would have to be approved by the government. So that's all the information I have on that right now for you."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

i think the news people are surfing here to get quotes and stuff.......they seem to follow along with what is posted here at times after a small story it grows


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> i think the news people are surfing here to get quotes and stuff.......they seem to follow along with what is posted here at times after a small story it grows



You are not incorrect.


----------



## Justacivvy

Yep all I've been seeing are rumors off news sites and nothing from DND yet


----------



## George Wallace

If "Tanks" are outside of your Lanes; please don't post.  I have just witnessed several posts in this topic that are complete rubbish.  Sailors and others making comments of things totally outside of their Lanes, does not in any way help the discussion.  

eerickso , your post was borderline racist.

Learning curves are no helped by buying the cheapest oldest model of a tank.  The 'Learning Curve' to go from a Leo 1 C2 to a Leo 2 A4 is still fairly steep.  To acquire A4's and A 6's is only going to create TWO 'Learning Curves' that crews will have to go through.  You are wasting time and resources.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

well you know any guy jump boarda  ship and sail off , start witha  canoe and you can take out the carrier  and fleet air wing the next weekend.

i think alot of people jump out of their lanes but somes times the message is more of a question without any question mark at the end of the sentence.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the current generations of tankers would more than happy to deal with challenge of learning new kit and will do it as fast or faster as this possible purchase. The Leo C2 is a decent piece of kit, but you can’t run a tank for forever. This purchase is only 16 years overdue.


----------



## Dale Denton

Can anyone clearly define the differences between our Leopard C2, the A6M and the A4? The A4 (from what I've read about it on CASR and previous posts) sounds very much like our C2's in Afghanistan.


----------



## Franko

We are not going to do you homework for you.       

Regards


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Can anyone clearly define the differences between our Leopard C2, the A6M and the A4? The A4 (from what I've read about it on CASR and previous posts) sounds very much like our C2's in Afghanistan.



Well, other than the weight class, main gun, electronics, optics and armour....and air conditioning....yeah, they're almost exactly same.


Matthew.   ;D


----------



## rmacqueen

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Well, other than the weight class, main gun, electronics, optics and armour....and air conditioning....yeah, they're almost exactly same.


You left out that pesky language problem but we could always train our guys to read German


----------



## Sig_Des

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> You left out that pesky language problem but we could always train our guys to read German



Remember that we'll have to label everything in English and in French  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> You left out that pesky language problem but we could always train our guys to read German


Well, I could go, I'm all set as for understanding German


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

x


----------



## George Wallace

CSA105

All fine and good.  A Gnry Crse is usually about two weeks of class and one week of firing.  If we have 20 tanks and they are all in theatre, then we have a problem.

We would have to buy Simulators, which would help some of the conversion training, but still not give the actual hands on required and actual Range work that is necessary.  Buying a different variant is not the ideal solution.  (A4/A5 in Canada, A6 in Theatre)

It took three months of hard training for the CAT 77 Team to become proficient on the Rent-a-Tanks.  You seem to be suggesting we do it in days or hours, in Theatre.

As you mentioned, the longest time restraint in training, is not really the crews, but the various Mechs; Vehicle Mechs, Wpns Techs, FCS Techs, etc.  Their training will take months, perhaps years.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I think that the only way to have tank crews trained and competent on the leased Leo2A6 would be to send them to the German Armour School for three weeks to a month prior to their deployment to Afghanistan.  

As CSA 105 pointed out, the EMES 18 as used in our Leo C2 is near identical to the FCS is the Leo 2.  The learning curve for the gunner would be relatively short.  The loader's biggest learning curve would be learning the new coax, along with the comms system.  I doubt that we would be able to install MAG 58 MG's in the leased tanks, and our current C6 coax mounts wouldn't fit the new tank.  I also kind of doubt we can get TCCCS installed in the leased tanks within a three month period, although that is not an insurmountable proble.

The driver would require a couple of weeks.

The PERI sight used by the commander is totally new, there is nothing the same from the commanders perspective, however, I'm sure a couple of weeks learning would suffice here as well.

So, two weeks training, followed by a full gun camp should have our guys ready to rock and roll.

I still dread the thought of having the A4 in Canada, and the A6 in theater.  Unless, of course, we enter in to an agreement that the Germans would provide trained maintenance personnel in theatre.  That way our maintainers could concentrate on learning the A4.

Upgrading the A4 to the A5 is not really all that difficult.  I know that the Dutch did theirs at their maintenance facilities, using parts provided by KMW.  Of course, getting KMW to build us brand spanking new A6's would be easy too, but extremely expensive.  And the news release did say purchasing 80 of an "older" variant.

I wonder what it would take, and how much it would cost, to convince the Germans to sell us Leo2A5's?  Then they could upgrade some A4's to replace them......Ah well, wishfull thinking......


----------



## Eland

I doubt the Leo purchase is a rumour. Remember that the media first brought this story to light a month ago when government officials were supposedly sniffing around a possible tank deal with Germany, a deal which was promptly denied by the government.

Now we're seeing the same story again, this time with a lease deal in the works. That's how Canada bought tanks the last time around - lease a few to get the training establishment up to speed, then buy the tanks. Although this time the leased tanks are going to Afghanistan.

I can't see much point in buying used Leo 2A4's and leasing a small number of 2A6's. The Leo 2A6 costs somewhere around $7 million a copy. 80 such examples would cost about $500 million, not a huge sum of money relative to what would have been spent on the MGS or what's going to be spent on new air transport and naval assets. I mean, why not go with new and save us the inevitable maintenance and upgrade headaches?

On the other hand, if the Leo 2A4's that are available are the ones which are 'lightly used' and selling for $350,000 a pop, I say go for it - as long as we're not buying the German version of the Victoria-class subs we got from the UK. The Finns and the Poles bought similar numbers of used 2A4's and seem to be doing OK with them.

Wikipedia has a page on the Leo 2A6M, and on the page are pictures of the many Leopard 2 variants. There you find a picture of a Spanish Leopard which has been uparmoured to meet A5 standard and looks little different from the real deal. So I suspect that's what might be in the works if we get the 2A4.

Either way, this is a very good day for the Armoured Corps. We're finally going to get the new tanks the army has needed for so long. 
Politics and the spurious game of optics aside, I wonder why we waited so long when non-G8 countries like Sweden, Finland, et al., all of which have much smaller defence budgets and GDP's, jumped on the chance.


----------



## vonGarvin

As an amateur chicken farmer, I can honestly say something that harmonises that activity with my profession: don't count your panzers before you stand in the hatch.



I also remember that we were going to get nuclear powered subs in the 1980s.


----------



## cplcaldwell

Since we're still in the realm of prognostication....

What do the learned members think will happen to the C2's if this goes through?


----------



## George Wallace

The Government has a nasty habit of buying on the cheap.  It will pass up "Quality" for "Cheap" everytime, and land up wasting more money than had they gone with "Quality" in the first place when they "Upgrade".  I am all for the purchase of Leo 2, but have to say, it is a waste of money if we want to buy A4's and then turn around and spend millions/billions on upgrading them to A5 or A6 variants.  A cost that will inevitably cost more than buying A5 or A6 in the first place.  Spend the extra cash up front and save billions in the future.

I would definitely go with the suggestion of contracted out training in Germany for the crew members and Armour School instructors.  Initially, Technicians will also have to be trained in Germany so as to form Training Cadres and Instructors for Borden as well as the Technicians for the first Unit to be equipped with Leo 2.  Simulators will have to be bought or developed.  Spare Parts will have to be bought.  As Lance pointed out, modifications will have to be done to the Coax mounts, and perhaps the AA mounts (although I think the AA may be a generic mount.)  TCCCS will be another story. 

I am leery of contracting out Maint to civilians in a War Zone.  It is OK for them to remain safe behind the wire, but there are times when things break outside the wire and can not be brought in for servicing.  Will doing so be more efficient or economical is debatable in my mind.

This may mean that any expectations of seeing the Leo 1 C2 cascaded down to other Units or reroled Recce or Light Armour will not happen.  They will be scavenged for Spare Parts for Operational tanks and eventually be retired due to nothing being left in the Supply System.  This may cause a problem for our Engr Variants down the road.  That or a new Spare Parts inventory will have to be rebuilt from the ground up.


----------



## cplcaldwell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This may mean that any expectations of seeing the Leo 1 C2 cascaded down to other Units or reroled Recce or Light Armour will not happen.  They will be scavenged for Spare Parts for Operational tanks and eventually be retired due to nothing being left in the Supply System.  This may cause a problem for our Engr Variants down the road.  That or a new Spare Parts inventory will have to be rebuilt from the ground up.



I think so. And it seems to be a shame. Perhaps a roles such as 

Engineering vehicles (mine clearance might seem to be an obvious example, perhaps ARV), 
augmenting RCD and 12RBC to a sort of "Armoured Cavalry", or 
developing a MOUT tank 1
might have seemed imaginative.

Clearly such a scheme would cost dollars, quite likely those $$$'s will not be forthcoming.



I wonder, looking at the discussion on training and maintenance if we will see these beasts in Afstan any time soon. 

Could it be that this present situation, and a government that has shown _some_ interest in the CF is really just an opportunity to get new(er) MBT's under the guise of the Afstan situation? I am thinking here that what is really happening is a decision to run the C2's into the ground in the AOR, then once they are spent, new(er) Leo 2's fully acquired, crews and maintainers trained, will be waiting (at home) once things have properly run their course.....



1- Yeah, go ahead slam me, the idea is directly off of CASR  :-*


----------



## vonGarvin

Not to split this into a Leo C2 "what if", I think it's too early to say.  As for any variant of the Leo 2, there is another thread as for its naming convention (I think "Steve" won out).  

It's way too early to be counting our Panzers.  Nice rumour, though, but, I'm somewhat jaded, and I'll believe it when I see it (or, to keep in line with my earlier thread, when I'm in the hatch)


----------



## sigpig

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> It's way too early to be counting our Panzers.



How true     I can remember as a young Lt watching a briefing from the PMO for purchasing a new tank in a Gagetown mess in 1987. These were very earnest and dedicated Majors, Captains, and maybe a LCol - not sure. (I think that's where someone mentioned Krauss-Maffei building a plant in Cape Breton)

Even then I was cynical enough to think, "That's a lot of time and effort going towards something that will never happen."

While it would be great in so many ways for Canada to get these new tanks will the country have the long term commitment to the military to justify this expenditure? Where will they be in 10 years from now if we get them soon?


----------



## dapaterson

Back to CplCaldwell's question: Should we acquire new (or gently used) Leo IIs from the Germans, we'll dispose of our Leo I C2s.  Keeping both fleets running would take people we don't have (both crews and maintainers) and cost money we don't have (to procure spares and ammo).


----------



## vonGarvin

IF new tanks were purchased, THEN, perhaps, a staff check would have to be made vis-a-vis the viability of maintaining C2 fleets.  Reservist Tank Regiments?  Why not.  Pool the C2s in Training areas, designate a number of reservist armour regiments as "tank" and there you go.  Now, they would not likely deploy with Leo C2s, but if it helps streamline the training, and allow for collective training in the summer concentrations (away from Wainwright) AND encourage recruitment for the reserves, it may be worth it.  Maybe.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A6 for the Regular army and A4's for the reserves.........please.........


----------



## ArmyRick

I agree with centralizing Leo C2 at the area TC for the reserve units to train on. They might also want to open up certain amount of class B positions of reserve crewman who would look after maintaining the tanks and post in a small number of techs to assist in that regard as well.


----------



## vonGarvin

Colin P said:
			
		

> A6 for the Regular army and A4's for the reserves.........please.........


Do you want fries with that?  I mean, really, I could NOT see that happening.  To keep in the realm of the possible (as in believable, because this is pure speculation), as stated, the A4 and A6 aren't transferable (in the turret, anyway).  So what?  Why buy a different tank when we already have that different tank, and I'm certain that Class B's for former reg force members to keep those cats running would be in ample supply.


So, if "Steve" becomes a reality, then the next question of the C2 would have to be examined.  Personally, that's getting way ahead of ourselves.  So, just maintain status quo and put steel on target!


----------



## Kirkhill

Lance Wiebe] The Leopard 2A4 is the most basic model of Leo 2 out there.  Most have been rebuilt to the A4 standard from their original A1/A2/A3 version.  There are new built A4's said:
			
		

> Sorry to correct you, but the A5 has the L44 cannon.
> 
> At least the A6 in german service are not new built. They are refitted A5.
> 
> The problem is that AFAIK there are no A5 for sell. And BTW A5 and A6 are identical only the L55 cannon is the difference.
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



So let me see if I have this straight - 

The A4 is an upgraded A1/2/3.  There are no A1/2/3s left.  They were all upgraded to A4, destroyed or sold off. There are some A4s in stock.

The A5 is an upgraded A4.  Some were new build but most are original A4s that were rebuilt to A5 standard.  There are no A5s in stock.

The A6 is an upgraded A5.  All the A6s in German service are rebuilt A5s, which were previously rebuilt A4s.  This is the reason there are no A5s in stock.  They are either in use as A5s or as A6s.

The A6M is an upgraded A6.  With additional armour added.

The PSO is an upgraded A6 with the A4/A5's L44 cannon vice the A6's L55 cannon.

Consequently, once we have the A4s in hand it is not inconceivable to rebuild them to the A6-PSO standard.

We can get the A4s before a change of government and have the proverbial bird in the hand....  Then it becomes much less politically problematical to upgrade an exisiting asset than to buy new.

In the meantime you have new vehicles that are more supportable than the vehicles that you have currently deemed fit for service despite being less supportable.

Supplier training and maintenance facilities exist.  An increasingly common way of supporting field equipment.

The Aussies, with their Abrams, essentially have done the same thing: buying older refurbished models that can be further upgraded if time, money and circumstances permit/require.

(edited to get my cannons straight)


----------



## TAS278

Give the C2's to a deserving country... Why would we keep inferior tanks around. You had spoke of money pits.. These would be ones of those. 

I certainly hope we do purchases the best we can. It would be nice to see some honest effort. Lets call it what it is though, just a year ago the tanks we have were of no use to us. I am sure this is on everyones mind. 

How long would you think it would take to see the first few overseas? 6 months? a year? 5 years?


Lets be honest, if this is not a plan of immediate action than don't bother rushing the decision. It isn't going to affect our current mission and after this mission we really don't know where we could be. 

Speculate away my friends


----------



## brains

Clearly the Leo I needs to be retired, it has served us well but it is nearing (or is past based on your perspective) of its operational life and need to be replaced. I would be interested in seeing the requirements definition that says that the Leo II is the tank that Canada actually needs for the next 30 years (based on current replacement mentality).  

As far as I have observed nothing has been published as a requirement that would exclude great deals from the states, UK, or a host of other heavy metal providers or proven mobile gun platform suppliers. Since the armoured corps does not appear to have a strategic vision, exactly how is this decision being weighted and evaluated? Our leadership just recently was telling us we did not need armour, that MGS will fit the bill, now was that the budget reality speaking or a strategic analysis of the world situation?  Either way they were clearly wrong, what has changed in their process to make this decision right for our future?

Convince me.


----------



## George Wallace

And you are?


----------



## Thorvald

Colin P said:
			
		

> A6 for the Regular army and A4's for the reserves.........please.........



Ok ok, stop, I'm salivating enough as it is!  Don't get my hopes up 

If we had a proper Reserve Armoured Regiment in Ontario with the A4's, C2's or even whats left of the C1's, I'd almost quit my civilian job, take the huge pay cut and go full-time (huge tank lover here... not obvious eh).

I know, we've had this discussion before in previous threads regarding maintenance and training for the Primary Reserve to handle main battle tanks, don't want to hijack this thread for that purpose, just dreaming.

Cheers


----------



## brains

Someone with an interest and is searching for informaiton on a subject is that not allowed?


----------



## TAS278

brains said:
			
		

> Clearly the Leo I needs to be retired, it has served us well but it is nearing (or is past based on your perspective) of its operational life and need to be replaced. I would be interested in seeing the requirements definition that says that the Leo II is the tank that Canada actually needs for the next 30 years (based on current replacement mentality).
> 
> As far as I have observed nothing has been published as a requirement that would exclude great deals from the states, UK, or a host of other heavy metal providers or proven mobile gun platform suppliers. Since the armoured corps does not appear to have a strategic vision, exactly how is this decision being weighted and evaluated? Our leadership just recently was telling us we did not need armour, that MGS will fit the bill, now was that the budget reality speaking or a strategic analysis of the world situation?  Either way they were clearly wrong, what has changed in their process to make this decision right for our future?
> 
> Convince me.



I think I see what you are saying, If i read you right then I believe I do agree. Regardless this is still not an annoucenment and still a press leak.../"getting a feeling" type of thing. We need to do something though


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So let me see if I have this straight -
> The Aussies, with their Abrams, essentially have done the same thing: buying older refurbished models that can be further upgraded if time, money and circumstances permit/require.



There in lies the rub.  The expense of an upgrade adds to the purchase more than would have been spent on buying the upgraded model in the first place.  Then we have the same problems we had with the C1's in upgrading to the C2......if time, money and circumstances permit/require.  Do you trust a change in Government....Liberal's or in a fantasy the NDP,....to approve an upgrade?


----------



## TAS278

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There in lies the rub.  The expense of an upgrade adds to the purchase more than would have been spent on buying the upgraded model in the first place.  Then we have the same problems we had with the C1's in upgrading to the C2......if time, money and circumstances permit/require.  Do you trust a change in Government....Liberals or in a fantasy the NDP,....to approve an upgrade?



That is the truth right there 

Who knows what is going to happen in 2 years... If they are going to procure these, they are going to have to do it yesterday.


----------



## Kirkhill

brains said:
			
		

> Clearly the Leo I needs to be retired, it has served us well but it is nearing (or is past based on your perspective) of its operational life and need to be replaced. I would be interested in seeing the requirements definition that says that the Leo II is the tank that Canada actually needs for the next 30 years (based on current replacement mentality).
> 
> As far as I have observed nothing has been published as a requirement that would exclude great deals from the states, UK, or a host of other heavy metal providers or proven mobile gun platform suppliers. Since the armoured corps does not appear to have a strategic vision, exactly how is this decision being weighted and evaluated? Our leadership just recently was telling us we did not need armour, that MGS will fit the bill, now was that the budget reality speaking or a strategic analysis of the world situation?  Either way they were clearly wrong, what has changed in their process to make this decision right for our future?
> 
> Convince me.



I continue to have vague recollections of that first press conference where the CDS was paired off with then MND McCallum.  I remember being struck at the time by the way that the CDS chose his words.  I don't recall him ever saying that Tanks were not needed.  I do recall him saying that the MGS was needed.  It was needed because the Tanks were not being deployed, not being supported with a budget and could not be deployed by available lift assets.

The inference I made from that was that the battle groups need the 105mm (if not the 120mm) as a support weapon.  The only ones we have are attached to Tanks.  Tanks are not permitted on deployment.  Tanks are not deployable.  Therefore money spent on tanks would continue to be a waste.  If putting a 105 on a LAV chassis gets the 105 into theatre then better that than 105s on Tank chassis's that are going no place.

If I am correct in my inferences, many ifs there, then much has changed.

Tanks are deployed. Tanks are demonstrating their usefulness.  Strategic lift is on-line and coming available (both air and sea).  Many of the conditions that resulted in Tanks being millstones have been removed.  They are no longer hangar queens.  They are now contributing parts of the force structure.

If you are looking for answers I suggest you might consider looking in that direction.

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace

Thorvald said:
			
		

> If we had a proper Reserve Armoured Regiment in Ontario with the A4's, C2's or even whats left of the C1's, I'd almost quit my civilian job, take the huge pay cut and go full-time (huge tank lover here... not obvious eh).



Only if we were to go into a WW III/IV scenario would you see that.  There is no place to train with them.  Meaford is too small.  Petawawa is actually too small.  One or two bound Traces do not make for much in the way of training.  

The C 2's are pretty much seeing their last days.  There are no C 1's left, except for Gate Guards.  The CWM doesn't even have one.

The remaining Leo 1 MBT's will likely be scavanged for parts to keep the ARV's, AVLB and AEV's functioning.  If Leo 2's are purchased, then Leo 2 ARVs and AEV's will have to be purchased also.  I don't think there is a Leo 2 AVLB, nor a Leo 2 AA tank.


----------



## GAP

Or we could always use this


----------



## TAS278

ROFL


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There in lies the rub.  The expense of an upgrade adds to the purchase more than would have been spent on buying the upgraded model in the first place.  Then we have the same problems we had with the C1's in upgrading to the C2......if time, money and circumstances permit/require.  Do you trust a change in Government....Liberal's or in a fantasy the NDP,....to approve an upgrade?



No.  I don't trust a change in the government to do anything.  I do trust in the inventiveness of driven people to get around any road blocks - regardless of time or money constraints.  Most of our "upgrades" have not made economic sense (aircraft in particular). They made political sense.  As most of us are aware the real cost of any system is not the steel or aluminum box that the public sees but the stuff that is jammed inside.
Economically it nearly always makes more sense to buy new rather than commit to block upgrades.  However even the US has to deal with political realities.

I come back to my experience with vessels in the US fisheries.   Laws were put in place to ensure that an expanded US fishery would benefit US fishermen.  It required that any vessels built for the fishery had to be built in the US.  So Norwegians bought up any scrap fishing boat they could find and towed it back to Norway.  They then stripped the machinery out of her, took off the superstructure, cut out the decks, removed the hull plates, cut the ribs back to the keel, removed the stem and stern then sliced the keel in two and inserted a long stretch of new keel.  They then started to rebuild.  When they were finished the only thing left of the original boat was the chunk of the keel with the original keel registration number in her.  These US boats, refitted by Norwegians, then were sailed by Norwegian crews under US flags in US waters.

Did it make economic sense to incur the additional costs of buying, towing and stripping?  

Likewise with the proposals to Upgrade the existing C130s.  By the time they put new avionics in, new engines on, new wings, a new centre box and new landing gear and tires what was left of the existing aircraft.  Another example - the C1/C2 105mm upgrade to the C3 by RDM.  What was left of the original guns compared to what is now in the armouries?

With the 20/80 scenario I could see a future CDS finding funds to upgrade a troop a year, or maybe up armouring a squadron....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The best financial move and the best political move are rarely the same thing. Even if the current government which is Forces friendly becomes a majority, the political game will continue. Strike while the iron is hot, better to have Leo2A4’s that have can be upgraded than a tiny number Leo C2’s that will be worn out by service overseas and no replacements.

If the government wanted value for money would they have started the gun registry? Or multiple other financial failures?


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> The best financial move and the best political move are rarely the same thing. Even if the current government which is Forces friendly becomes a majority, the political game will continue. Strike while the iron is hot, better to have Leo2A4’s that have can be upgraded than a tiny number Leo C2’s that will be worn out by service overseas and no replacements.



We are trying to tell you that it is better to get A5's or A6's and not get A4's.


----------



## Kirkhill

I am understanding that it would be better to get A6s than A4s.  But the A6s are not readily available and cost more than the budget will bear currently (keep in mind that the government currently is having to deal with finding Green Money to prevent the next Ice Age showing up on schedule). The A5s would be a good solution but if I read Lance, Ironduke and CSA105 correctly the Germans are not ready to part with them.  So the A4s are available, the price is right and they can be upgraded and are still better than your favourite bete-noire the MGS-POS.  And if you get really lucky maybe more can be bought in the future with a friendly government and a long term mandate.

Cheers George.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

brains said:
			
		

> Clearly the Leo I needs to be retired, it has served us well but it is nearing (or is past based on your perspective) of its operational life and need to be replaced. I would be interested in seeing the requirements definition that says that the Leo II is the tank that Canada actually needs for the next 30 years (based on current replacement mentality).
> 
> As far as I have observed nothing has been published as a requirement that would exclude great deals from the states, UK, or a host of other heavy metal providers or proven mobile gun platform suppliers. Since the armoured corps does not appear to have a strategic vision, exactly how is this decision being weighted and evaluated? Our leadership just recently was telling us we did not need armour, that MGS will fit the bill, now was that the budget reality speaking or a strategic analysis of the world situation?  Either way they were clearly wrong, what has changed in their process to make this decision right for our future?
> 
> Convince me.



Kirkhill covered this, but I'm going to add my two cents.

In 2002 there was a lot of theory about the future of warfighting, some of which was validated by the available operational experience (OEF 2001/2002).  At various times I was told that we would never advance to contact, that network-enabled precision firepower would win the fight and that rapid deployment was the key.  Defence involves economics (making choices to allocate resources (all resources, not just money)), and decision makers made some calls based on that theory and practice.  Decisions often involve making guesses about the future (most likely/ most dangerous).

In late 2006, Canada had its own recent combat experience.  We have slugged it out in ways  reminiscient of 1944, and some "old-school" lessons have surfaced.  People are now in the process of analysing that information and making decisions.  Some of those decisions may involve new tanks.  They may not.

If they do involve new tanks (and I would support that idea but I'm biased) then there are several systems that could fit the bill.  I imagine that M1 (take your pick of variant) or Leopard II (take your pick of variant) would be prime candiates, although I like the Challenger if only for its HESH round.  HESH is more important that Sabot right now.  I would venture, however, that this type of program would be different than most acquistions. 

Of what exactly do you wish to be convinced?  

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill

I disagree with much of that statement.  I would much prefer that we have the upgrades done by KMW prior to their shipping to Canada, than having to ship them back later.  I have seen the work done on refits by a certain Work Shop here in Canada and wouldn't trust them to change a tire on a Mtn Bike.  The Swedes, and others have been able to get top of the line Leo 2's, so why should we settle for obsolete tanks?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

George
I would love it if we got all A6's, but a delay could cost the forces a better tank, we all know what will happen to this deal if the Liberals get back in or form a minority government. I have seen to many almost deals evaporate. The C2's have been good to us, but we have likely run out of upgrades and how long will the chassis last in the current operation tempo? If they become unrepairable with no replacement in place and a Liberal government in power, you can kiss the Armour Corp goodbye.


----------



## ironduke57

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... The C2's have been good to us, but we have likely run out of upgrades ...



Well theoretical you could still upgrade the Leo1´s with an 120mm cannon, but I doubt that it would pay out.
(Leopard 1A6. Pic: http://www.haaland.info/leopard1/versions/bilder/leopard1a6proto2.jpg)

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Kirkhill

Ironduke57:

Any chance you have ready access to the historical unit upgrade costs of the following-

A4 to A5
A5 to A6 
A5 to A6 (retaining the L44)
A6 to A6M

Is it feasible to immediately acquire the A4s and have KMW upgrade them to A5s prior to shipment?

George, with limited funds available, which would you prefer: 20 A6s with 80 A4s or, given a unit price on the A4s of around 300K and the A6s of 6Mill (20:1), 4 additional A6s?


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill

Please go back to what Lance and Ironduke57 have been saying about the differences between the A4's and A5's and the similarities between the A5's and A6's.

I do not agree with having two or three different tanks.  One will do, so that we will have a good body of trained Crewmen and Maintainers.  

I do not want to see people learning their skills on the Battlefield.  I would prefer them to be trained before they get there.  

I do not want to see a tank purchased to only have it returned to the Mfr for upgrades immediately on delivery.  


Admittedly, if we do purchase these tanks, or any tank, they will have to have Cdn mods done to them before they are sent into Theatre.  Wpn mount mods, Comms mods, etc. will have to be done.   There is much to be considered, and those decisions should not be left to people who are not knowledgeable in what the requirements are, nor to people who have no experience at all in the intricacies of what it takes to operate Tanks.  That is what is so frustrating in this current discusion on a 'Rumour'.  Too many less than knowledgeable folk muddying the waters of a serious discusion.

As to would I take 20 over 80, the answer is yes.  I have made that decision before and still believe in getting quality over quantity.  That is what the CF expects of its' soldiers, and what it should expect of its' equipment.  I could reverse you opinion to 'upgrade later', to one of 'purchase more later'.  (A opinion being held in other major purchase discusions.)


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As to would I take 20 over 80, the answer is yes.  I have made that decision before and still believe in getting quality over quantity.  That is what the CF expects of its' soldiers, and what it should expect of its' equipment.  I could reverse you opinion to 'upgrade later', to one of 'purchase more later'.  (A opinion being held in other major purchase discusions.)



Good enough George and thanks.  I understand what you are saying and in that case perhaps the money spent on the 80 A4s might be better spent on an additional 4 A6s to give a fleet of 24 A6s.  You might even be able to afford a few more if you don't have to pay for 80 more crews and support for the tanks.

At that rate you might find your way up to a full 3x14 regiment of A6s.  We may have already found the money for 24 A6s.  You only need to find money for an additional 18.

Cheers.


----------



## tank recce

OK, I know I'm coming in two or three pages since it was mentioned - some of us work for a living!  (Kidding)

The very idea of tanks for the Reserves - fascinating! Picture if you will the first Militia TRACK exercise in 40 years. As part of the opening ceremonies, a G-Wagon C&R will be sacrificed under the tracks of the first c/s to cross the LOD (Bravo's got the map! ) in profound thanks to the gods of Track and Steel...  ;D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

George,

What are the limitations of running two sets of extremely similar tanks?

A larger group of let's say (60) Leo 2A4+ for training purposes at Wainright, and (20) dedicated foreign deployment models Leo 2 PSO.

The base training units would be upgraded to maximize commonality (radios, optics, other communications gear) but not armour or main gun, while the (20) dedicated foreign deployment models would be the newest and best available with maximum armour protection.


Matthew.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Maybe just so I can cinch that Don Cherry collar a little tighter on ya George, but one must notice that the Artillery always manages to use different equipment.......and no skill loss. :warstory:


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

To go further down the idle speculation lane, what is the break point in terms of "quality over quantity?"  Its been said in the past that quantity has a quality of its own...

20 tanks means that you can barely put a Sqn in the field with nothing left for training and spares.  80 gives you a Sqn in the field, two squadrons conducting training in Canada and a good number left over for the Schools. 

ARVs should be in the deal as well.  The engineer variants will be trickier.


----------



## George Wallace

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Maybe just so I can cinch that Don Cherry collar a little tighter on ya George, but one must notice that the Artillery always manages to use different equipment.......and no skill loss. :warstory:



Bruce

I would equate that to the Loader in the Armour Corps being able to load on several types of tanks as being the same as a Gun Member on the Guns, but the Gunner and Commander being like the Arty Tech, who would have to work on a different computer in every Bty CP  in the Branch.   ;D


----------



## George Wallace

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> George,
> 
> What are the limitations of running two sets of extremely similar tanks?
> 
> A larger group of let's say (60) Leo 2A4+ for training purposes at Wainright, and (20) dedicated foreign deployment models Leo 2 PSO.
> 
> The base training units would be upgraded to maximize commonality (radios, optics, other communications gear) but not armour or main gun, while the (20) dedicated foreign deployment models would be the newest and best available with maximum armour protection.
> 
> 
> Matthew.




Let's simplify a few things.  The Drivers will find little or no difference between the A4, A5 and A6 as the hulls, suspensions and Powerpacks will be fairly much the same.  The A6M would handle differently due to its' being up-armoured.  The Loader/Operator will probably find little differences, other than positions of some boxes; the radios may have been placed in a different location, Safety Switches relocated, etc.  For the main part the Guns will all be the same and positioned in the same locations.   For the most part, those two crew members will find little in the way of a Learning Curve.

The problems between the three tanks now comes to the jobs of the Gunner and Commander.  In the A4, let's say the Gunnery is run by a 'Commadore 64', and in the A5 the Gunnery is controlled by a P3 running Windows XP, with the A6 being controlled by a Dual Processor running Vista Ultimate.  There is where your Learning Curve comes into play.  Different Fire Control Systems, different Sights, different turret controls, different turret power, etc. 

Now, don't forget we need to train the Maintainers also.  And we mustn't forget spare parts........how many types of electronic components do you want to stock?


----------



## genericview

Reading what George had written, although it is not really the greatest option, the “train in the field” concept is a reality or close to reality I think. Arguably the most important piece of kit in our war zone, the Nyala has had most if not all its training done in the field. Many of our tanks crews are getting their pcf courses just before deployment training begins and then rolling into a theatre of war.  You can also equate that to pretty much training in the field with a bit of stretch.  Without any reserve armour regiments training in turreted vehicles there are no trained crew replacements for the tanks and thus this approach to the armour training with continue or get more prevalent in the future I would think.  

The number of vehicles needed must be based on how many are we expected to deploy, minus those needed for training, minus those in maintenance.  The fact that 80 poorer models may be more beneficial to us rather then 20 better models if we do not expect to train our lads and lasses in the field as we are doing now due to the lack of a solid support model being in place


----------



## Bobbyoreo

I thought I was drunk when I saw something on the news about this on Sunday....then I couldnt find anything at all about this....good to see that Im not losing it. Hope this comes to light. Would be fricken sweet to see more armour.


----------



## George Wallace

genericview said:
			
		

> Reading what George had written, although it is not really the greatest option, the “train in the field” concept is a reality or close to reality I think. Arguably the most important piece of kit in our war zone, the Nyala has had most if not all its training done in the field. Many of our tanks crews are getting their pcf courses just before deployment training begins and then rolling into a theatre of war.  You can also equate that to pretty much training in the field with a bit of stretch.  Without any reserve armour regiments training in turreted vehicles there are no trained crew replacements for the tanks and thus this approach to the armour training with continue or get more prevalent in the future I would think.



You are pretty much saying that we can take someone right off the street and give them a gun, put them on a plane and have them patrolling the Afghan countryside within 24 hours.  (I just exaggerated a little there, but you should catch my drift.)  I nearly died laughing when I heard a member of the NDP say something along those lines on national TV, many years ago, as a solution for the homeless and unemployed in Toronto (During the time that we were still doing Tours of Cyprus).

Our tank crews are not getting their PCF courses just before deployment.  Our tank crews have been working on tanks for several years, with the minimum amount of training being found in the young Drivers.  In most cases the Gunners are on their second tank PCF, and the rest of the crew probably have been on tanks for some time.  Most of our tank crews will have trained on the worse ground in the world prior to heading over to Afghanistan.  To compare the skill sets of crewing a wheeled armoured truck to those of a MBT is ridiculous.  Most of the crews did receive training on the Nayla here in Canada, once the initial purchase had been made.  Some even went to South Africa.


----------



## genericview

George, I must say you are completely incorrect in your statement:

You are pretty much saying that we can take someone right off the street and give them a gun, put them on a plane and have them patrolling the Afghan countryside within 24 hours.  (I just exaggerated a little there, but you should catch my drift.)  I nearly died laughing when I heard a member of the NDP say something along those lines on national TV, many years ago, as a solution for the homeless and unemployed in Toronto (During the time that we were still doing Tours of Cyprus).
>>> I will not even bother to respond to this since I indicated nothing at all in your response. My reference was for trained soldiers how you warped it to this is beyond me and has nothing to do with the discussion.

Our tank crews are not getting their PCF courses just before deployment.  Our tank crews have been working on tanks for several years, with the minimum amount of training being found in the young Drivers.  
>>>> Also completely incorrect.  The reserves and regs are doing PCF courses right now for the next deployment.  You clearly are a bit out of touch with what is going on to support these rotos.  None of the reserves that I know of have tank PCF and their cougar PCF's are rather stale I would say and thus my argument seems to hold.  


Most of the crews did receive training on the Nayla here in Canada, once the initial purchase had been made.  Some even went to South Africa.
>>>> Sorry George this is not true, Roto 2 may have gotten some access to the vehicles but for roto 0 and 1 all training was done in theatre.  Hence my argument still holds.


----------



## George Wallace

genericview said:
			
		

> Our tank crews are not getting their PCF courses just before deployment.  Our tank crews have been working on tanks for several years, with the minimum amount of training being found in the young Drivers.
> >>>> Also completely incorrect.  The reserves and regs are doing PCF courses right now for the next deployment.  You clearly are a bit out of touch with what is going on to support these rotos.  None of the reserves that I know of have tank PCF and their cougar PCF's are rather stale I would say and thus my argument seems to hold.



Sorry brains, but you are out of your lane there.  Yes there are PCF course being run right now prior to the next deployment, which is some six months off, but you will find that the majority of the tank crews are already trained and have been working on tanks for years.  

PCF courses do not stop just because there is a deployment coming up.  It is all part of the Training cycle.  Reserve augmentees benefit by this, and can get more PCFs if they are lucky.

I know that the Nayla's were delivered to Theatre first, and that people were trained on their arrival.  Others, however, did go to South Africa to receive training (photos have been posted on this site.).  Much the same way that the Artillery sent people to France to train on the Spewars (SP) and down to the US to train on the M777.  You do not, however, train a tank crew in Theatre, nor for that matter a LAV or Coyote crew.

As for my equating your comments to picking someone up off the street and giving them a rifle, putting them on a plane and sending them over to patrol the back 40 in Afghanistan......well I guess you missed that one.....right over your head.  I'll let you ponder the comparisons.

Your posts are beginning to look very familiar.  I will have to look a little more closely into some files.


----------



## vonGarvin

ALLCON:
There are a variety of methods and means for training.  Stop, take a deep breath and realise that we are all talking about one big huge mother loving IF.

So, if we were to get new tanks, I'm fairly certain that those in the know for training would make recommendations that balance operational needs and training needs.


----------



## genericview

Big breath.  Wow, George I will not bother with a response on your interesting version to my comments and will move on old boy.

I am still wondering how others feel about smaller number of higher quality vehicles or a larger number of vehicles that better respond to the support tail. As indicated I would choose the number that provides enough vehicles to ensure that the reserve regiments can train on them also, that the maintainers can keep the fleet available for training and deployment and that can be positioned in enough regiments across the country to allow a capability to be drawn from more then one spot.  

If that means 80 of a less quality machine then 20 of the best then I would lend weight to purchase of the 80 to keep us proficient in that skill and to ensure the sustainability of that skill.  

I think our training and the quality of the soldier can compensate for many factors but we introduce significant risk when we have to quick train PCF's or train in theatre to support a mission.  We should be able to better plan then that, save for when a new tactic requires an immediate change to our approach that needs to be adopted to respond to an operational reality.


----------



## vonGarvin

FYI: "Deep Breath" means "Don't Post" for a while.  Go have a smoke or something.  Everyone


----------



## Kirkhill

Zu befehl, Herr Hauptmann,   ;D

Suckin' back.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You are pretty much saying that we can take someone right off the street and give them a gun, put them on a plane and have them patrolling the Afghan countryside within 24 hours.  (I just exaggerated a little there, but you should catch my drift.)  I nearly died laughing when I heard a member of the NDP say something along those lines on national TV, many years ago, as a solution for the homeless and unemployed in Toronto (During the time that we were still doing Tours of Cyprus).
> 
> Our tank crews are not getting their PCF courses just before deployment.  Our tank crews have been working on tanks for several years, with the minimum amount of training being found in the young Drivers.  In most cases the Gunners are on their second tank PCF, and the rest of the crew probably have been on tanks for some time.  Most of our tank crews will have trained on the worse ground in the world prior to heading over to Afghanistan.  To compare the skill sets of crewing a wheeled armoured truck to those of a MBT is ridiculous.  Most of the crews did receive training on the Nayla here in Canada, once the initial purchase had been made.  Some even went to South Africa.


George I think you hit upon the reason why operational training would work (I am including pre-deployment training in the term “operational”) Most of our tankers have several years to a generation of tanking under their belt, (You crewed on “Mother” if I recall correctly!)  ;D

They have an ingrained understanding of how tanks works and what needs to be done, it would certainly be intense, but I suspect they would be able to perform within weeks with the new equipment if they had to. Even for the wrench turners, they would be getting kit that is well known and field proven and mechanical similar to what they have. Now a switch between diesels to turbines would be a much greater leap. The company reps could support us in the field, as could German wrench turners on loan for a few months.

This potential purchase is being pushed forward to meet an operational wartime tempo along with a political one in the background. This will not be a traditional procurement (thank god!) 

Also consider that the crews will not be going up against an opposing armoured force, but working in a direct fire support role, there will be enough lulls for them to smooth out the rough edges and develop new SOP’s while in ops. The Infantry has by the sound of it, had to readjust tremendously to the situation over there, I have no doubt our tankers are more than up to the task.


----------



## Mortar guy

OK, I had a smoke and I wasn't even in the initial bun fight!  >  Here's my humble opinion on this unsubstantiated rumour: perfect is the enemy of good enough. We seem to always strive for perfect in our acquisitions when 'good enough' is, well, good enough. Yeah, the 20/80 split is not ideal, but at the end of the day, it might mean we get 100 relatively new tanks. Think about how amazing that is compared to where we were 5 years ago or even 5 months ago! I've seen this in other acquisition discussions and in my mind we, as the CF, do ourselves no service by continually aiming for the stars, especially when it means we get nothing. 

As was previously mentioned, we once gunned for nuclear subs and the politicians balked at the idea. Maybe we would have been better off asking for 10-12 diesel subs. I've also seen people say that an Apache-esque attack helicopter is the minimum we need when it comes to armed helicopters when an armed Griffon or the Bell 407 ARH might suit our needs and actually be affordable. I'm not saying we should always opt for Kmart when Gucci is available, I'm just saying that we need to realize that we have a limited budget and very tenuous support from gov't. Who knows what the next election will bring, but an acquisition like this could easily be gunned down.

We will never get 100% of what we need but if the gov't is looking at getting us new Leo 2s, I would recommend we as an Army say "roger that" and then make it work. Who knows, if we make a stink about how this isn't the perfect solution, we may find the gov't telling us that we have to make due with the Leo C2s or (cringe) an MGS-type abortion.

MG


----------



## tank recce

I don't smoke, but I went for a walk in the snow...  

This seems to be the perfect point in the conversation to insert a bit of RumInt from Friday - unconfirmed, unattributed pure RumInt. YMMV

The notion was that when the Strats deployed with the Leos they were CRYING for augmentees, especially gunners. The suggestion was made that there were insufficient qualified gunners to man either this or forthcoming rotos, the individual wasn't clear. (The vast majority of Leo gunners apparently having progressed to CC positions, many now languishing in Coyotes) The direct conclusion was that future rotos were going to include Reservist ex-Cougar gunners who would be the fastest ramp-up to a qualified Leo gunner.

I found this incredible - in both meanings of the word. While I am DROOLING at the thought of a roto as a frikkin' TANK GUNNER  8), I find it hard to believe that 1) the armoured school isn't CRANKING out gunners, now that we've actually deployed the steel cats, and 2) that LAV / Coyote gunner isn't also a very close match, what with all the toys in the turret. The Cougar may be a "discrete round" system, vs the MG-style of the 25mm, but the 25mm has all the laser, stab, yadda yadda that we poor boat people could only dream about.

Comments from those who know more than I? (OK, the peanut gallery can chime in too!  ;D)


----------



## retiredgrunt45

"If this rumour turns out to be fact"

The way i see it. Finnally after 20+ years of being neglected and depleted to an almost nonexistent military, a government in power is finally, actually taking an interest in the military and See's that something must be done. I understand that there are some old tankers that posted here, and you may see the weaknesses and maybe some of the shortfalls in purchasing a 20/80 fleet. But i argue that if we wait for the A6's to be built in 2 or more years. What happens if the government changes? God help us all if Dion gets in, he's on the same mindset as Chretien was towards the military, and we all know what happened. 

I can understand the cost that would be interred in upgrading these tanks later, but on the upside we have "Newer tanks".for our people to use in theatre "Right now".  Giving our troops the best equipment and keeping them alive in the "here and now", should be much more important than speculating what is it going to cost later, unless someone can place a price tag on a soldiers life...

As for training the crew on the new tanks. In a perfect world we would have the luxury of time, but we don't live in that world, we live in this one. Our tank crews are some of the best in the world and I'm quite sure without a doubt that they would and could do there training in place and adapt to the new tanks, not to mention the excitement of having a new tank would cause a heightened sense of moral, which would make the transition that much smoother. 

Please don't underestimate our people over there, a Canadian soldier knows exactly how to adapt and overcome, due to the fact that we've been doing it for so long with less adequate equipment and still coming out on top. Give them what they need and bring them home safely and be thankfull someone is finally in our corner.

"A little of something, is much better than a whole lot of nothing"


----------



## George Wallace

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> "If this rumour turns out to be fact"
> 
> "A little of something, is much better than a whole lot of nothing"



Be it Ships, Aircraft, Tanks, Naylas, .50 Cals, Ballistic plates, IR Reflectors/strobes, etc...


----------



## GK .Dundas

tank recce said:
			
		

> OK, I know I'm coming in two or three pages since it was mentioned - some of us work for a living!  (Kidding)
> 
> The very idea of tanks for the Reserves - fascinating! Picture if you will the first Militia TRACK exercise in 40 years. As part of the opening ceremonies, a G-Wagon C&R will be sacrificed under the tracks of the first c/s to cross the LOD (Bravo's got the map! ) in profound thanks to the gods of Track and Steel...  ;D


 Hell I 'd pay good money to see that!!


----------



## geo

Heh....
FWIW,  I would imagine that the German gov't is interested in keeping KW around for a long time which means that they have to buy new kit off of them all the time... So, in the long run, the Germans will get kit off the production line - leaving "slightly" used Leo2s A4 available at bargain prices.

My prefered solution would be to order the 80 A4s with an immediate upgrade to the A5 or A6 level prior to taking delivery....


----------



## Eland

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Since we're still in the realm of prognostication....
> 
> What do the learned members think will happen to the C2's if this goes through?




My best guess (and it could be a really wild-assed guess and totally wrong) is that the C2's might get relegated to the training 
establishments. That is,  for as long as they remain functional and do not require extensive maintenance regimens to keep them
erviceable. That's a big 'if' because the remaining service life could be dramatically shortened if a lot of claims are put on the 66-odd C2's we have left - i.e. reservists and regulars cycling through the various Leopard training syllabi at a high rate. It's that one aspect that has me scratching my head and wondering if putting the C2's in training establishments would actually work.

The government and the military must be having some reservations or concerns about the short-term viability of the C2 fleet otherwise they would not be looking so seriously at new-build 2A6's.


----------



## McG

Eland said:
			
		

> My best guess (and it could be a really wild-assed guess and totally wrong) is that the C2's might get relegated to the training establishments. That is,  for as long as they remain functional and do not require extensive maintenance regimens to keep them derviceable.


CMTC OPFOR (and leave operational type vehicles for operations & those training to be on operations)?


Any chance that the Compact Autoloader might fit in the Leo 2?
http://www.wd.com/PRODUCT_DATA_SHEETS_PDF/PD_120mm_Comp_Loader.pdf
It even leaves room to keep the fourth crewman (so he can load if the system breaks or he can operate an RWS the rest of the time).


----------



## geo

Some Leo1 chasis & parts have to be maintained for the Recovery and Engineer vehicles that are not included in the Leo 2 deal/order.

The Leo1C2s that we have left..... well, there aren't that many to begin with.  Do you want to conduct training of some troops on Leo1s and others on Leo2s - and then continuously having to refer to your trusty UERs & 404s to make sure you have the right drivers & crew for the right vehicle?

Naw - that is not efficient AND it does not make sense.

WRT giving em to the Reserves?.... to do what?
You can't do Leo training in Ontario or Quebec.  Some tank terrain in Gagetown, Shilo, Suffield, Wainright............ and places due south.  Trying to maintain a parts inventory for Leo1C2s, Leo2A4 & Leo2 A6Ms will be hellish..... maintaining skill sets on all/either or.... impossible!


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> Some Leo1 chasis & parts have to be maintained for the Recovery and Engineer vehicles that are not included in the Leo 2 deal/order.
> 
> The Leo1C2s that we have left..... well, there aren't that many to begin with.  Do you want to conduct training of some troops on Leo1s and others on Leo2s - and then continuously having to refer to your trusty UERs & 404s to make sure you have the right drivers & crew for the right vehicle?
> 
> Naw - that is not efficient AND it does not make sense.



OK geo

You have been wandering outside of your lanes on this topic, but the above statement really is out to lunch, and shows your lack of knowledge in the matter.  Sorry.  Got to call it as I see it.


----------



## vonGarvin

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK geo
> 
> You have been wandering outside of your lanes on this topic, but the above statement really is out to lunch, and shows your lack of knowledge in the matter.  Sorry.  Got to call it as I see it.


Even though I just had a smoke, I tend to agree with you, George.
Let's keep this on target, troops, after all, "make it happen" often "makes it happen".  

Also, this is JUST A RUMOUR.  And heck, Elvis isn't even involved....


----------



## aesop081

Methinks that 10 pages of unsubstantiated rumours is just about enough.........When something concrete is anounced, feel free to start something new.

army.ca staff


----------



## George Wallace

For some history and and developments on the Leo 2 go here.  This site even includes the Leo 2 PSO, Leo 2 ARV, Leo 2 AVLB, and other Leo 2 Engr Variants.


----------



## George Wallace

This information has arrived:



			
				ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Hi.
> 
> Kirkhill asked in the Leo2 Rumors thread about the upgrade cost from Leo2 A4 to A5/A6. I just found information about that.
> 
> In 2000 the Danes bought 51 used A4 for 980 Million DKR (around 200,991,100 CAD after the today exchange rate) including an direct upgrade to the A5DK standard (which has some improvements over the normal A5) by KMW.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57


----------



## vonGarvin

From the following link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070223.wxtank23/BNStory/National/home


(some points below shared here in accordance with the fair sharing dealy)

   As he spoke about the current mission in Afghanistan, Lt.-Gen. Leslie made it clear that the army has to move to heavier equipment for the future. Whether it's in Afghanistan or in future theatres of operation, he said, the Canadian military has to beef up to defend itself against suicide bombers and rocket-propelled grenades.  "My immediate priority is hardening the force," Lt.-Gen. Leslie told MPs studying the military procurement system. "*We're going back to heavily armoured vehicles.*"


----------



## Franko

Hmmm...learning from past lessons.

Now tarping the panzers from the sun, novel idea.

What the hell are they going to do about the hydraulic pump that gives out the same amount of heat?

Regards


----------



## vonGarvin

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Hmmm...learning from past lessons.
> 
> Now tarping the panzers from the sun, novel idea.
> 
> What the hell are they going to do about the hydraulic pump that gives out the same amount of heat?
> 
> Regards


Retro-fit electric drive turrets? (j/k)


----------



## Reccesoldier

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> Retro-fit electric drive turrets? (j/k)



Hey... didn't I see the trial for that in Germany in 1988?  :

No sh**.  The electric drive was installed and the turret did a full rotation in 9 sec IIRC.  ???


----------



## Franko

The School did yet another trial in the mid 90s as well and came to the same conclusion....good idea.

The gov't at the time didn't want it.

Wait a tick....that was the Liberals again!

I'm starting to see a pattern emerge....perhaps it was a "decade of darkness" as another tanker put it a few weeks back.

Regards


----------



## Reccesoldier

It was a lot longer than a decade, but I'll forgive the CDS's poetic license... I know what he meant.  :threat:


----------



## retiredgrunt45

This what we end up with when we leave a bunch of dumb politicians make decisions on military equipment. Most of them don't know their arsehole from their head, on a good day... 

Just another blunder in a long list for the decade of darkness...


----------



## Kat Stevens

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> From the following link:
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070223.wxtank23/BNStory/National/home
> 
> 
> (some points below shared here in accordance with the fair sharing dealy)
> 
> As he spoke about the current mission in Afghanistan, Lt.-Gen. Leslie made it clear that the army has to move to heavier equipment for the future. Whether it's in Afghanistan or in future theatres of operation, he said, the Canadian military has to beef up to defend itself against suicide bombers and rocket-propelled grenades.  "My immediate priority is hardening the force," Lt.-Gen. Leslie told MPs studying the military procurement system. "*We're going back to heavily armoured vehicles.*"



This is pretty funny.  When Gen Leslie was Comd 1 CMBG (maybe it was LFWA), he paid a visit to 1 CER.  A certain Cpl in the Armd Eng Tp asked him why we were going with light wheeled wagons, when the rest of NATO was still building 50+ tonne tracked behemoths.  His reply was that the days of heavy tracked armour were over, and "old Cold War dinosaurs like you are going to have to adapt or become extinct, Cpl Stevens Noname. It was a contributing factor in my his decision to not stay in any longer. Irony.

edits for clarity and typos only


----------



## PPCLI Guy

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> This what we end up with when we leave a bunch of dumb politicians make decisions on military equipment. Most of them don't know their arsehole from their head, on a good day...
> 
> Just another blunder in a long list for the decade of darkness...



Politicians only make decisions on fund no/fund (and of course which riding gets the bennies...)


----------



## Trooper Hale

I was talking to some suana loving blokes from 1st Armoured the other day. They were saying our Leopards had a kind of "Thermal sleeve" (not the best term but thats what they called it) like thing inside them which kept them from getting to hot. They also had a couple of little fans in there. Boys were saying that they still get stupidly hot though although its usually tolerable.
I've not idea what the "thermal sleeve" thing actually and no one could explain it properly. It would seem though that something like that would be better then just bare metal which when it eventually gets heated up holds that heat for quite some time. I wish someone could explain it better, i could understand better and then i could give you all a better answer.
Stay cool cats,
Hales


----------



## McG

> Forces use tank 'oven' to keep troops from baking
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> Globe and Mail
> 09 Mar 07
> 
> OTTAWA — No, they are not testing the latest in military food rations.The Canadian Forces are using a giant oven in Ottawa to replicate summer conditions in Kandahar, and there is nothing culinary about their goal. Instead, they want to see how their 43-ton Leopard tanks will react under the Afghan sun.


Article Here

It seems we now have some information on the effects an Afghan summer day will have on the Leo C1 & its crew, and we know ways to reduce this effect.  Hopefully we can put this knowledge to use quickly & make this a non-issue.

One of the biggest concerns is solar loading on the tank.  Basily, the conversion of sunlight on the outside to heat on the inside.  As most people know, a black car parked in the sun will get hotter than a white car.  So, it seems odd to me that the tests did not look at painting the tanks a lighter colour (like an arid tan) and determining the benefits achieved.  If it works, the concept could be extended to all vehicles (as time, recources, and the BG's tempo allows).  Sure, other veh may have AC, but that requires the vehicle to be running (and so consumes fuel).

As a single measure, paint will not meet the need.  However, it could help when used in conjuction with other options.


----------



## geo

105
unicolour tan or green - overlayd with tons of sand and dust........

On a highway, camo paint won't help you much
On a wide open plain with the large dust plumes during moves, camo paint won't help you much

The Americans, Brits & Israelis haven't found much use for camo paint in this kind of environment - where vehicles are concerned.

With troops moving slowly, working on being one with the land, the cadpat does help..... but there is a huge difference between a Sapper and a large truck/LAV/C2

BTW, I do not think painting the vehicles a sand or white colour will provide you with much of an improvement in shedding heat.  We've been in Eretria & other hot places in UN white... it was still hot as hell in an "easy bake oven"


----------



## McG

geo said:
			
		

> On a highway, camo paint won't help you much
> On a wide open plain with the large dust plumes during moves, camo paint won't help you much


When static & observing, the proper colour paint may help.  When in a fight, the correct paint could slow detection of a vehicle firing from a well selected hull-down position (and that delay might be the difference between our vehicle getting hit by a TB anti-tank weapon vs our vehicle killing the TB anti-tank crew).



			
				geo said:
			
		

> BTW, I do not think painting the vehicles a sand or white colour will provide you with much of an improvement in shedding heat.  We've been in Eretria & other hot places in UN white... it was still hot as hell in an "easy bake oven"


Reduced solar load (using an over the whole tank suite that the Globe & Mail showed pictures of) was found to be of value in the tests.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

What is the technical hurdle I'm missing:
1)  Lack of space?
2)  Lack of electrical capacity?
3)  Both?

Thanks, Matthew.


----------



## Gunnerlove

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

I could not imagine the cooling load required for a Leopard. It would not supprise me if it was over 2 tons though (cooling systems are rated by how many tons of ice they could melt in 24 hours with the amount of heat they can extract).  3000sqft house = approx 3 tons

Hurdles include

space, weight, cooling sucks lots of power and 240 is better than 120 which is way better than 24volts, removing the heat from where you need it removed (if the turret is cool but the driver is cooking the situation will still suck for the crew), removing heat from systems before they heat the interior of the tank (think hot tanks of fluids), making it survive and operate for long periods in high heat, vibration and dust.

Oh and my favorite thermal mass. You need a system large enough to cool a vehicle that has been heated by the sun in a short period 30mins-1hour to a reasonable temp but small enough so as to be able to control the temp without massive spiking. Refrigerants are also a concern as large systems contain large amounts of them. When some are exposed to high heat and/or flame they break down and produce some very toxic chemicals.

Making a system will be easy, making one that works well will be the real challenge.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Speaking as a guy who knows little about tanks, but knows a little physics and has always been a pretty decent problem solver:
what about creating a set of beige/offwhite insulation tiles to cover all sunfacing surfaces (with the exception of those directly over the engine compartment)?  The offwhite beige colour would reflect most solar energy, and that which is absorbed would still be insulated from the hull by some sort of synthetic rubber or foam.  

With that in place, at least you'll have reduced the cooling load and your condensor/electrical draw should be greatly reduced accordingly.


Matthew.


----------



## geo

the newer Leo2 A6s have some form of AC for the crew.... trying to retrofit a 35 yr old vehicle (Leo1 C2) makes absolutely no sense.  

WRT thermal tiles - using space shuttle technology.... ??? other than the fact that it isn't bullet proof, it should work - though the white tiles would attarct a lot of attention -wonder if they come in a selection of colours (other than white & black)?


----------



## Gunnerlove

Best bet, start shopping for a newer tank. Anything we can do by summer will be band aid. Bet we could get a deal on 12 A6s as we would be using them on operations. I am sure the Germans would love to see how they work out in combat without putting their crews at risk. This is not a slag of the Germans, learning by watching others is the smart way of doing things. 

As far as thermal barriers, I guess the Barracuda IR covers will be of some use.


----------



## geo

gunner...
Per the press release somewhere above, the germans were only prepared to lease 6 A6s and sell A5s... which I would presume we could retrofit to A6 on our dime, prior to final delivery


----------



## TN2IC

MCG said:
			
		

> One of the biggest concerns is solar loading on the tank.  Basily, the conversion of sunlight on the outside to heat on the inside.  As most people know, a black car parked in the sun will get hotter than a white car.



http://www.asseenontv.com/prod-pages/autovent_spv.html?gid=AUDIO_VIDEO

It's on TV, so it must work.


----------



## GAP

You would have to get one for each window of the tank....


----------



## Rowshambow

Sorry just a few things,

1) it's a LEO C2 not C1(different turret)
2) walking with kit on down a mountain is different, you might get some type of breeze, and if anyone has been in a veh with windows closed, you know the only breeze you get is man made!
3) The RCD's we had with us in texas a few weeks ago ate more gravy than the Strats!!

Watch the news next week, you just might see an announcement regarding these problems with the C2 and the possibility of new (or used) Leo 2
just my 2 cents!


----------



## Canadian Sig

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/04/03/3906930-cp.html

CP exclusive: Canada to lease new tanks for Afghanistan

By MURRAY BREWSTER
    


   

OTTAWA (CP) - A federal cabinet committee has given the green light to the lease of 20 state-of-the-art tanks to replace aging armoured vehicles in Afghanistan, The Canadian Press has learned. 

The cabinet priorities and planning committee approved the lease of the German-built Leopard A6M tanks last week, said a Defence Department source, who asked not to be named. 

The recommendation, which is unlikely to be overturned, is now on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's desk for final approval. 

The news Tuesday came as Gen. Andrew Leslie, the country's top army officer, said he might have to consider pulling existing tanks - which don't have air conditioning - out of service in Afghanistan this summer because of the heat. 

He also told troops in Kandahar to expect a decision from the prime minister on the new tanks within a week. 

The new tanks have air conditioning, as well as improved protection against road-side bombs and suicide vehicles, both of which have been packing progressively bigger punches lately. 

The army has a handful of older Leopard tanks, which are currently doing duty in western Kandahar as part of NATO's Operation Achilles. 

The deal, which apparently includes access to ample spare parts, also gives Canada the option to purchase an unspecified number of additional tanks at a later date. 

Reports last winter suggested that in addition to a lease, the army wanted to purchase 80 new Leopards, but the source said that number is likely to be scaled back. 

Harper wouldn't bite on questions about the future of the vehicles. 

"Cabinet has been discussing the tank issue and we'll have an announcement on that shortly," he said in Kitchener, Ont. 

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, in Montreal for a speech, said he wasn't aware the issue was resolved. 

A Defence Department spokesman didn't deny that a lease arrangement has been struck. 

"We are exploring a number of options to address an operational requirement," said Lt. Adam Thomson. "However, we have nothing to announce at this moment." 

The defence source could not say how much the arrangement was worth, but brand new Leopard tanks cost roughly US $6 million each. 

Currently, the army has 17 of its old 45-tonne tanks patrolling the desert and dirt roadways of rural Kandahar. The biggest drawback to the vehicles is their lack of air conditioning in a climate where daytime summer temperatures soar above 50C. 

Defence Department researchers have looked at installing air conditioners in the vehicles but that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per vehicle. 

Another idea proposes to give tank crew cooling vests - the same kind used by professional race car drivers - but they would be cumbersome when layered along with existing body armour. 

Aside from the comfort factor, the lease of new tanks is seen as a more cost-effective solution, said the defence source. 

Alex Morrison of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies said buying new equipment is better than retrofitting. 

"It just makes more sense," he said. "This is a decision that's been in the mill for at least the last seven months." 

New Democrat defence critic Dawn Black said she's not opposed to the lease arrangement, but only because it means tank crews won't have to roast. 

"I think it was irresponsible to deploy them, knowing they weren't suitable for the climate," she said. 

In February, a policy think-tank produced a report that criticized Canada's deployment of tanks to Afghanistan, saying the 1970s vintage Leopard-C2 vehicles were vulnerable to insurgent attacks. 

Researcher Michael Wallace, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, argued that new Leopard A6Ms would also be vulnerable to road-side bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. He said the introduction of tanks had the potential to spark an "arms race" with insurgents, prompting the Taliban to build bigger bombs. 

Morrison dismissed the arguments, calling them ridiculous. 

"What would they have us do?" he asked. "Take the tanks home and then the insurgents won't use whatever weapon they have? What will happen in the end is the insurgents would control the whole country." 

www.canoe.ca


----------



## geo

Remember to turn both Radios & A/C off before starting the engine...


----------



## midget-boyd91

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> New Democrat defence critic Dawn Black said she's not opposed to the lease arrangement, but only because it means tank crews won't have to roast.



So, the only reason she isn't opposing the army from getting new tanks, is because they have air conditioning. You know, I never thought that air conditioning was the turning point for opposition  :.  Maybe we should take out air conditioning from all out out-dated equipment *cough* M-109 *cough* so that the other parties will help out in obtaining new equipment.  ;D
  
    Anyone heard of a possibly date for the first deliveries? (Pending they don't fall through)


----------



## Jammer

So hear it is Zipperheads far and wide:
Canada will lease 20 Leo 2 A6s for use in Afghanistan (...and there was much rejoicing...yay!)


----------



## geo

also an option to buy...
we can pick up some slightly used "cheapies"... Leo2 A4s or 5s and upgrade them to 6s at a far far cheaper price than picking up the new ones


----------



## The Gues-|-

Yep, if that excites you, there is going to be even better news to come, sooner or later...


----------



## The Bread Guy

News here, Armour discussion thread available here.

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Brutal summer heat may force Canadian army to park its tanks in Afghanistan*
John Cotter, Canadian Press, 3 Apr 07
Article link

Canada may park its force of 17 Leopard tanks in Afghanistan this summer to avoid losing any crew members to the brutal heat.  By August the temperature inside the 42-tonne steel monsters, which aren't air-conditioned, could climb as high as 65 degrees Celsius, Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie said Tuesday. "We don't have a solution that is outside the scope of a newer, more modern machine," said Leslie, commander of the Army branch of the Canadian Forces.  "We will have to restrict their operations because we are not going to lose soldiers because they overheat."  Asked if the tanks may not be used at all during the summer, Leslie said it is an option the army will consider based on the temperature.  Leslie has told Canadian troops in Afghanistan that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will make a decision later this month on the future of the 30-year-old Leopard 2 tanks, which were designed to fight on European battlefields.  The military began sending the tanks to Afghanistan last fall to give added punch to Canada's battle group in Kandahar.  Most of the Leopards have been operating as part of a 250-soldier task force in the Maywand district in support of Operation Achilles, NATO's offensive to drive the Taliban out of the northern part of Helmand province ....


*CP exclusive: Canada to lease new tanks for Afghanistan*
Murray Brewster, Canadian Press, 3 Apr 07
Article link

A federal cabinet committee has given the green light to the lease of 20 state-of-the-art tanks to replace aging armoured vehicles in Afghanistan, The Canadian Press has learned.

The cabinet priorities and planning committee approved the lease of the German-built Leopard A6M tanks last week, said a Defence Department source, who asked not to be named.

The recommendation, which is unlikely to be overturned, is now on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's desk for final approval.

The news Tuesday came as Gen. Andrew Leslie, the country's top army officer, said he might have to consider pulling existing tanks - which don't have air conditioning - out of service in Afghanistan this summer because of the heat.

He also told troops in Kandahar to expect a decision from the prime minister on the new tanks within a week.

The new tanks have air conditioning, as well as improved protection against road-side bombs and suicide vehicles, both of which have been packing progressively bigger punches lately.

The army has a handful of older Leopard tanks, which are currently doing duty in western Kandahar as part of NATO's Operation Achilles.

The deal, which apparently includes access to ample spare parts, also gives Canada the option to purchase an unspecified number of additional tanks at a later date.

Reports last winter suggested that in addition to a lease, the army wanted to purchase 80 new Leopards, but the source said that number is likely to be scaled back.

Harper wouldn't bite on questions about the future of the vehicles.

"Cabinet has been discussing the tank issue and we'll have an announcement on that shortly," he said in Kitchener, Ont.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, in Montreal for a speech, said he wasn't aware the issue was resolved.

A Defence Department spokesman didn't deny that a lease arrangement has been struck.

"We are exploring a number of options to address an operational requirement," said Lt. Adam Thomson. "However, we have nothing to announce at this moment."

The defence source could not say how much the arrangement was worth, but brand new Leopard tanks cost roughly US $6 million each.

Currently, the army has 17 of its old 45-tonne tanks patrolling the desert and dirt roadways of rural Kandahar. The biggest drawback to the vehicles is their lack of air conditioning in a climate where daytime summer temperatures soar above 50C.

Defence Department researchers have looked at installing air conditioners in the vehicles but that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per vehicle.

Another idea proposes to give tank crew cooling vests - the same kind used by professional race car drivers - but they would be cumbersome when layered along with existing body armour.

Aside from the comfort factor, the lease of new tanks is seen as a more cost-effective solution, said the defence source.

Alex Morrison of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies said buying new equipment is better than retrofitting.

"It just makes more sense," he said. "This is a decision that's been in the mill for at least the last seven months."

New Democrat defence critic Dawn Black said she's not opposed to the lease arrangement, but only because it means tank crews won't have to roast.

"I think it was irresponsible to deploy them, knowing they weren't suitable for the climate," she said.

In February, a policy think-tank produced a report that criticized Canada's deployment of tanks to Afghanistan, saying the 1970s vintage Leopard-C2 vehicles were vulnerable to insurgent attacks.

Researcher Michael Wallace, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, argued that new Leopard A6Ms would also be vulnerable to road-side bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. He said the introduction of tanks had the potential to spark an "arms race" with insurgents, prompting the Taliban to build bigger bombs.

Morrison dismissed the arguments, calling them ridiculous.

"What would they have us do?" he asked. "Take the tanks home and then the insurgents won't use whatever weapon they have? What will happen in the end is the insurgents would control the whole country." 



*Canada to lease 20 modern tanks from Germany for Afghan mission*
Leopard A6M equipped with much-needed air conditioning
CanWest News Service, Ottawa Citizen, 4 Apr 07
Article link

The Canadian government is proceeding with the lease of 20 of some of the most modern Leopard tanks on the market as it boosts its equipment stocks in Afghanistan.

Defence sources told the Citizen that Canada will lease the 20 Leopard A6M tanks from Germany. The tanks, which have improved protection against landmines and other enemy weapons, could be shipped to Afghanistan direct from Germany, sources said.

Krauss-Maffei, the original German manufacturer of the Leopard tanks, also has a maintenance team in Kandahar working on other equipment for multinational forces there so there would be a built-in support system for the tanks, sources said. In addition, the new Leopards are outfitted with an air conditioning system so they could operate in Afghanistan's stifling summer heat.

Canada's older Leopard tanks now in Kandahar do not have air conditioning and there have been concerns the heat would limit their usefulness on the battlefield. Temperatures inside the vehicles would soar beyond 60C.

The lease was approved last week by the cabinet priorities and planning committee.

The Citizen first outlined the details of the tank lease arrangement in February when Canadian Forces officers started initial discussions with German officials in regards to the deal. The arrangement has now received Canadian government approval.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor wasn't releasing details about the Leopard tank lease yesterday. But he did say that the tanks were a necessity for the Afghan mission. "Our experience in Afghan has proven we need main battle tanks," he said. "It's really to offer security to our soldiers."

Mr. O'Connor suggested that the decrease in the number of Canadian casualties in the last six months was due to increased use of heavier armoured vehicles, including the tanks.

But Canadian Forces officials have acknowledged that the terrain in Afghanistan is also taking its toll on the military's vehicles. Army commander Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie said in Kandahar that some of the service's light armoured vehicles will have to be replaced because of the excessive wear and tear.

Mr. O'Connor explained that meant the vehicles will be sent back to Canada for repair and they will be replaced from the existing inventory. He said there is no need to buy new light armoured vehicles. The same thing will happen to the Nyala armoured vehicles that wear out over time, he added.

Lt.-Gen. Leslie said yesterday in Kandahar that the 17 Leopard tanks currently in use there are "at the end of their legs" and are in need of being replaced. In an address to troops earlier this week, Lt.-Gen. Leslie said Prime Minister Stephen Harper is considering the acquisition of new tanks and that there could be a decision on the matter within the coming days.

But when asked if the army will have to park the older Leopards altogether during the hottest parts of the Afghan summer, Lt.-Gen. Leslie said that's "an option which we'll have to consider."

"We are not going to lose soldiers because they overheat," Lt.-Gen. Leslie said. "We will have to restrict their operations," he added, saying the tank issue was the greatest concern raised by troops in his recent tour of the battlefield.

Lt.-Gen. Leslie said the interior of the Leopard tanks in use here can reach as high as 65 C during hot summer months.

Over the past year there has been a major about-turn in the Canadian military's view of the usefulness of tanks. The Leopards were originally scheduled to be destroyed or sold off, but the army put a halt to that program. It sent the Leopards to Afghanistan in the fall and began its search for newer tanks to purchase or lease.

Three years ago, however, Gen. Rick Hillier, then army commander, labelled the Leopards as a "millstone" around the neck of the service. Several months later, Gen. Hillier wrote an article for the Citizen criticizing retired officers who wanted to keep the Leopard tanks in the army's inventory. He called those officers "armchair strategists" who didn't understand the changing face of warfare.

But as they came to grips with the war in Afghanistan, senior military leaders changed their minds and turned to the tank to provide increased firepower and protection.

Yesterday, the second-in-command of Canada's tank squadron in Afghanistan agreed heat is a significant problem in the tanks -- explaining that because of the combination of air temperature, internal hydraulics and engine heat the tank compartments are already reaching temperatures of about 48 C.

"Having somebody work in above 50 to 60 C is a huge challenge," said Capt. Craig Volstad.

Canada's army has been trying to find solutions to make the tanks cooler -- testing options such as heat shields for the outside of the tanks or cooling vests for the troops to wear inside -- though Lt.-Gen. Leslie conceded yesterday that none of those are likely to bring the relief that is needed.

"We don't have a solution that's outside the scope of a newer more modern machine," he said, adding there are currently tanks available from other countries that could be in Afghanistan and ready for use by the summer.


----------



## geo

> Mr. O'Connor explained that meant the vehicles will be sent back to Canada for repair and they will be replaced from the existing inventory. He said there is no need to buy new light armoured vehicles. The same thing will happen to the Nyala armoured vehicles that wear out over time, he added.


After writing off some 25+ as BER and intending to rotate the inventory back to Canada for a refurbishment/rebuild he says what?

With little or no reserve, to replace the ones leaving Afghanistan, they will have to pull vehicles from an operational unit OR strip CMTC of their LAVs to get sufficient newer ones....

How long before someone wakes up I wonder?


----------



## GUNS

What comes around, goes around.

When it was rumored that DND was going to send the tanks to A'stan, I believe several people offered their opinions as to the +/- of this decision.

Someone noted that heat would be a factor, which has come true. NDHQ should subscribe to ARMY.CA, it could have saved DND millions.


----------



## Mike Baker

GUNS said:
			
		

> Someone noted that heat would be a factor, which has come true. NDHQ should subscribe to ARMY.CA, it could have saved DND millions.


They should have. I remember when they were rumoured to go over on here, and there were factors said, such as heat, that were mentioned a few times. Guess we can't change the past though.


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> After writing off some 25+ as BER and intending to rotate the inventory back to Canada for a refurbishment/rebuild he says what?
> 
> With little or no reserve, to replace the ones leaving Afghanistan, they will have to pull vehicles from an operational unit OR strip CMTC of their LAVs to get sufficient newer ones....
> 
> How long before someone wakes up I wonder?



geo

How many years has this been going on?  50? 60?  It is nothing new.  The fact is, it is now a more serious problem.  When we replaced all our "Deuce and a Halfs" with a smaller fleet of MLVWs, replaced our fleet of M113's with fewer LAVs, reduced our fleet of Leo 1s, and so on and so on, we have created a problem where any BER casualty in a fleet means someone now has to do without.  Once upon a time, we maintained a fleet of vehicles in "War Reserve".  Now we don't have enough to properly/fully equip our Operational Units, saying nothing of our other requirements.  Someone dropped the ball a long, long time ago, and no one has had the "balls" to correct the problem. 

Guns

From where I sit, it looks like half of DND visits Army.ca anyway.  Someone once mentioned that the CDS even visits from time to time.   ;D


----------



## Mike Baker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Someone once mentioned that the CDS even visits from time to time.   ;D


I hope he do. I would like to meet the man


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

GUNS said:
			
		

> What comes around, goes around.
> 
> When it was rumored that DND was going to send the tanks to A'stan, I believe several people offered their opinions as to the +/- of this decision.
> 
> Someone noted that heat would be a factor, which has come true. NDHQ should subscribe to ARMY.CA, it could have saved DND millions.



You give yourselves too much credit.  This was thought of well before the deployment and identified as an issue.  Unfortunately, there was no simple solution available.


----------



## Kirkhill

Teddy - what air conditioning systems did the Panzers of the Afrika Korps and the Lee-Grants of the Eigth Army have in North Africa?  

Jus' bein' nasty. >


----------



## LordOsborne

Didn't the Sherman family have a strong draft that sucked air into the tank as a result of the radial engine?  >


----------



## The Gues-|-

Better yet!... who can tell me what air conditioning system does the leopard 2A6M have? hmm...


----------



## midget-boyd91

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard2-afghan.htm


> Secondary armament for both Leopard models is two 7.62mm machineguns  –  presumably C6s for 2A4s and  German MG3s [5] for 2A6Ms.



  I know casr isn't exactly something that I would call a reliable source, but this stood out to me for some reason.  Once the lease has been agreed upon, are the MG3s going to remain on the 2A6Ms for our use, or would the guns be taken off and replaced by our own C6s?


----------



## orange.paint

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Teddy - what air conditioning systems did the Panzers of the Afrika Korps and the Lee-Grants of the Eigth Army have in North Africa?
> 
> Jus' bein' nasty. >



How many had huge hydralic pumps between their legs and one by the right temple.


----------



## geo

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard2-afghan.htm
> I know casr isn't exactly something that I would call a reliable source, but this stood out to me for some reason.  Once the lease has been agreed upon, are the MG3s going to remain on the 2A6Ms for our use, or would the guns be taken off and replaced by our own C6s?



The MG3 / C6 thing was discussed previously.  When Canada 1st got the Leo1s the 1st batch was on lease - and they had the german MG mounts - not ours... so expect the MG3 to come standard with the 1st batch.


----------



## ringo

What will become of C2's in Afghanistan. any chance of turning them over to Afghan army with German consent of course.
The cost of flying them back to Canada seems prohibitive.


----------



## Trooper Hale

ringo said:
			
		

> What will become of C2's in Afghanistan. any chance of turning them over to Afghan army with German consent of course.
> The cost of flying them back to Canada seems prohibitive.



That must be joke. Please, let that be a joke


----------



## Nfld Sapper

ringo said:
			
		

> What will become of C2's in Afghanistan. any chance of turning them over to Afghan army with German consent of course.
> The cost of flying them back to Canada seems prohibitive.



Who said anything about flying them back ??? They will be floated back just like all equipment has from other deployments.


----------



## geo

ringo said:
			
		

> What will become of C2's in Afghanistan. any chance of turning them over to Afghan army with German consent of course.
> The cost of flying them back to Canada seems prohibitive.


Most equipment going into Afghanistan are shipped in to Turkey and flown over from there.

WRT the LeoC2s.... many alternatives exist but , Afghans DO have MBTs - however they are older soviet models - not compatible with the C2s - not much of an alternative... also doubt they have the $$$ for the spares to maintain them.

Anyhow.... we can keep the C2s in theatre - refurbish them and,while the A6Ms are being serviced - the C2s can be kept as an "in theatre" reserve - else we can always park em at the entrance to our bases... they make dandy door stoppers


----------



## GAP

Leopard tank squadron in Afghanistan won't get to use new models this summer
April 5, 2007  By JOHN COTTER
Article Link


MAYWAND, Afghanistan (CP) - Leopard tank troops in Afghanistan are going to have to drive their old battered machines a little longer. 

Maj. Dave Broomfield, commander of the squadron, said he's been told that a batch of 20 new modern Leopards the federal government is expected to lease will go to another unit that is training to come to Kandahar. 

The decision is good for Canada's armoured corps, but a let down for his troops who are going to have to work the 30-year-old tanks through the heat of the Afghan summer without air conditioning, he said Thursday. 

"We will be carrying on with the Leopard C2," said Broomfield, of the Edmonton-based A Squadron, Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians). 

"It looks like the soldiers of C Squadron will be getting the new tank. Obviously the guys are excited for the corps, but at the same time there is probably a might bit of disappointment." 

A federal cabinet committee has approved the lease of new tanks to replace old models now deployed in the rocky desert west of Kandahar. 

The lease recommendation is not expected to be overturned by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. 

Broomfield, a friendly, straight-forward man not much older than his tanks, said his troops will do the best they can with the old Leopards. 

Temperatures inside the tanks have already crept up once to 50 C - hotter than a sauna bath, and it is only April. The squadron will be in Afghanistan until the end of August. 
More on link


----------



## geo

well.... it'll give the tankers some time to get comfortable with the new vehicle before being expected to perform with a vehicle that is only vaguely similar to what they presently have.

Also - they can get to work with the Dymo gun / P Touch - to translate all those german labels into english & french ­­ >


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> well.... it'll give the tankers some time to get comfortable with the new vehicle before being expected to perform with a vehicle that is only vaguely similar to what they presently have.
> 
> Also - they can get to work with the Dymo gun / P Touch - to translate all those german labels into english & french ­­ >



Yeah!  Sure!

I still have fond memories of a friend being told not to touch that switch under the red cover........and after four halon bottles went off and everyone evacuated the tank.....he knew why he shouldn't touch it.


----------



## reccecrewman

> It looks like the soldiers of C Squadron will be getting the new tank. Obviously the guys are excited for the corps, but at the same time there is probably a might bit of disappointment."



I'm sure it is a let down for the boys, but at least there's the solace in knowing better equipment is coming.  I'm sure the Strathcona's crewing the C2's will carry on with what they have in hand. "PERSEVERANCE"  ;D

Kidding aside, they are professionals and I'm sure they'll adapt and get the job done. I'm envious of the incoming 'C' Sqn. though...... What a dandy assignment to have the new Leo's in an operational theatre.

Regards


----------



## vonGarvin

geo said:
			
		

> Also - they can get to work with the Dymo gun / P Touch - to translate all those german labels into english & french ­­ >


I have a better solution: train the users to speak German  >

"Sabot, Panzer, tausendfünfhundert, anlegen!"
"Angelegt"
"Feuer!"
"Los!"
"Ziel!"


heh heh ;D


----------



## retiredgrunt45

For the Bureaucrats who finally seen the light and made a decision that actually makes sense, I salute you .

 Thank You PM Harper for keeping your promise and supporting our troops, Its a step in the right direction.

 For the lucky troopers who will get the new beauties in theatre, Go kick some taliban ass!!!!!


----------



## Benny

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yeah!  Sure!
> 
> I still have fond memories of a friend being told not to touch that switch under the red cover........and after four halon bottles went off and everyone evacuated the tank.....he knew why he shouldn't touch it.


Had that happen to a mate years back in a LAV25. The nickname Halon didn't stick for too long fortunately for him.


----------

