Canada's tanks

[Colin Parkinson]

I would say you are historically correct

Back when Canadian's where primarily settled by Europeans I would agree with you -- however now a lot of emigres have come from Asia - and will demand that Canada look towards there as well.

I think that it is the easiest effort for the CAF - and unless you guys want to jump into Amphibious Operations, and Carrier Based Naval Aviation - I tend to see the Pacific as a second runner to Europe for Canada (and I can't see Canada being willing to pony up a few hundred B a year CAF budget to get the tools needed to go play credibly in the Pacific)

A fleet of KS-III Batch 2 subs with loaded VLS tubes would be a much appreciated addition to any Pacific operation.

 

[Prairie canuck]

"No one is going to give a shit about a Canadian Battalion or Squadron. Heck putting a Division toward the Pacific theatre isn't a flex these days either."

Maybe the "big ol USA" wouldn't give a shit but I'm sure there's many countries who would welcome a Canadian Battalion etc. I'm sure they would find a way to deploy.

 

[MilEME09]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935311513851674742

new CV90120 Mk. IV dropping, looks like lessons from Ukraine learned into this updated design. It ain't a MBT but if i had a CV90 based mechanized force and wanted a cheap direct fire solution with a 120, this would be a good option.

 

[PrairieFella]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935311513851674742

new CV90120 Mk. IV dropping, looks like lessons from Ukraine learned into this updated design. It ain't a MBT but if i had a CV90 based mechanized force and wanted a cheap direct fire solution with a 120, this would be a good option.

I love me some CV90s but I guarantee commanders would use these like MBTs which they are not. The armiur just isn't heavy enough to take the pain of modern combat.

 

[FJAG]

I love me some CV90s but I guarantee commanders would use these like MBTs which they are not. The armiur just isn't heavy enough to take the pain of modern combat.

I would hope not, but its like the MGS all over again, isn't it.

What makes this particulalry concerning is that unlike the Stryker, which was not an IFV, the CV90s that the CV90120MkIV would work with are clearly IFVs. One would expect that CV90 IFVs would operate with proper MBTs. What vehicles then is the CV90120MkIV expected to support and how? Are they another M10 Booker?

 

[PrairieFella]

I would hope not, but its like the MGS all over again, isn't it.

The MGS was a category of its own in terms of being shit lol.

What makes this particulalry concerning is that unlike the Stryker, which was not an IFV, the CV90s that the CV90120MkIV would work with are clearly IFVs. One would expect that CV90 IFVs would operate with proper MBTs.

One would think.

What vehicles then is the CV90120MkIV expected to support and how? Are they another M10 Booker?

I suspect that's the appropriate assumption. That or a light tank for countries that dont want or can't pay MBT prices. That might actually work for small countries with small budgets like Latvia, Slovenia, Montenegro, etc.

 

[FJAG]

. . . countries with small budgets like Latvia, Slovenia, Montenegro, etc.

. . . Canada?

I jest! I jest!

 

[PrairieFella]

. . . Canada?

I jest! I jest!

At least we'd have a medium cavalry vehicle so the RCDs and 12RBCs can actually bring something to the field the infantry don't haha.

 

[Kirkhill]

A couple of points

Heavy tanks are bogging down in Ukraine. Also their roads are narrow and their bridges are light.

Also the Swedes had a long history with their S Tank which was more an SPATG than a tank.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A couple of points

Heavy tanks are bogging down in Ukraine. Also their roads are narrow and their bridges are light.

Also the Swedes had a long history with their S Tank which was more an SPATG than a tank.

But operated by them as a tank. Particularly suited for their terrain, with minimal opportunities for open space flanking actions.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to...

35 tonne

Crew of 3 + 2

Autoloader with 10 in the turret and 30 in the hull that can transfer to the turret

2 seats in the rear for supernumeraries (comms, UAVs, replacement drivers and gunners, spare hands)

....

Same standard of protection as the infantry being accompanied in their CV9035s.
Same mobility as the CV9035s
Same controls for driver, gunner and commander.

...

Differentiate between the 35 tonne force and the 70 tonne force.
2 Regiments with the CV9035-ATGM, and a CV90120 squadron each.
1 Heavy Regiment with Leos.

 

[OldSolduer]

A couple of points

Heavy tanks are bogging down in Ukraine. Also their roads are narrow and their bridges are light.

Also the Swedes had a long history with their S Tank which was more an SPATG than a tank.

The tank needs to suit the terrain, no?

But operated by them as a tank. Particularly suited for their terrain, with minimal opportunities for open space flanking actions.

 

[Kirkhill]

The tank needs to suit the terrain, no?

In which terrain are we going to use our tanks?

 

[KevinB]

The CV-90 is running close to 50t with all the add on armor etc.

Engine in front, so you get Merkava type concept of having the engine being glacis armor.


I think anyone trying to sell it as 35t system isn’t being honest though.

 

[Kirkhill]

The tank needs to suit the terrain, no?

Ground Pressure Comparison (kPa/psi)

Abrams M1A2 SepV3 - 106/15.4
S-Tank - 104/15
Challenger 2 - 88/12.8
Leopard 2A6 - 81/11.8
T72 - 81/11.8
Marder 1A3 - 81/11.8

Footstep - 60-80 kPa

Bradley M3A2 64/9.3
BMP 3 - 60/87
CV9040 - 52/7.5

Patria Famous - 32/4.6
BvS10 - 30/4.35
MTLB - 27/4

Bv206 - 13/1.9
X-country ski - 13-111 kPa
Snowshoes - 7/1

I wonder if this helps to explain the preference for Bradleys and CV90s in close combat?

Comparison

LAV 6.0 Tires 395/85 R20 - Air Pressure = Ground Pressure = 35-42 PSI or 241-290 kPa
Leopard 2A6 - 81 kPa
M113 - 52 kPa
Bv206 - 13 kPa

 

[GR66]

The CV-90 is running close to 50t with all the add on armor etc.

Engine in front, so you get Merkava type concept of having the engine being glacis armor.


I think anyone trying to sell it as 35t system isn’t being honest though.

The video mentions that the new CV90120 has an RWS specifically designed to counter drones and also and APS. At what point do these features become a valid trade-off for the heavier armour of a MBT?

 

[KevinB]

The video mentions that the new CV90120 has an RWS specifically designed to counter drones and also and APS. At what point do these features become a valid trade-off for the heavier armour of a MBT?

When Militaries (or perhaps most importantly the crews of those vehicles) become believers in them…

Right now if you look for wrecked AFV’s with APS you can find a bunch of images of Merkava’s and a few Namers. Which the Israeli Trophy was integrated on. APS’s aren’t totally a solution in themselves at this point.

Ukraine has a number of Trophy systems on vehicles — and they have still added other features in combinations of some or all of the following: Up Armor packages, Slat Armor, Cope Cage, Explosive Reactive Armor blocks, camouflage nets etc

 

[GR66]

When Militaries (or perhaps most importantly the crews of those vehicles) become believers in them…

Right now if you look for wrecked AFV’s with APS you can find a bunch of images of Merkava’s and a few Namers. Which the Israeli Trophy was integrated on. APS’s aren’t totally a solution in themselves at this point.

Ukraine has a number of Trophy systems on vehicles — and they have still added other features in combinations of some or all of the following: Up Armor packages, Slat Armor, Cope Cage, Explosive Reactive Armor blocks, camouflage nets etc

Which again raises the question...if even heavy MBT's and HAPC's equipped with APS like the Merkeva and Namer are being taken out by the current threats then do they really offer a significant advantage over lighter systems that may have more mechanical commonality with the IFV's they are supporting? To be clear we're talking a comparison between a 70-ton MBT vs a 50-ton "light tank" with and APS and anti-drone RWS like the CV90120 as opposed to a 25-ton 120mm MGS like the Centauro 120mm.

I'm no zipperhead and no access to data on comparative survival rates of the different vehicle types being used in Ukraine against specific weapons but my gut tells me that the traditional MBT vs up-gunned IFV argument is not as clear cut as it may have been even 2 or 3 years ago.