Canada's tanks

[Maxman1]

I wonder which would be more feasible, convincing Rheinmetall to open a factory in Canada, or BAE to open a factory and build new Challenger 3s (the Challenger 3 is an extensive upgrade of existing Challenger 2 hulls rather than a new production).

 

[daftandbarmy]

I wonder which would be more feasible, convincing Rheinmetall to open a factory in Canada, or BAE to open a factory and build new Challenger 3s (the Challenger 3 is an extensive upgrade of existing Challenger 2 hulls rather than a new production).

So that's a hard 'no' for the upgraded M1 then?

The U.S. Army's New M1E3 Tank vs. Russia's T-72: Who Wins in 5 Words

The US Army unveiled the M1E3 Abrams at the Detroit Auto Show. Here is how its radical redesign compares to Russia’s T-72B3M.

www.19fortyfive.com

 

[medicineman]

So are newer tanks going to come with a co-ax or cupola mounted, belt fed 12g shotgun for dealing with drones?

 

[MilEME09]

200 plus tank hulls plus another 250-400 IFV. Enough for an assembly plant?

Doubtful and last I heard HDFM was unfunded as is the MCAV project. Likely not due to a lack of money, but more they dont have enough people to administer the projects with so many others on the books already.

 

[Kirkhill]

Col. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon - late of the Royal Tank Regiment and Challenger veteran, also Telegraph defence correspondent

WRT to the AJAX

....That’s why I spent most of last Friday driving and personally operating the systems of an Ajax tank lent to me by the makers, to find out the truth – which I set out below.

....

I did not test a pristine, “gold-plated” demonstrator as Jeremy Clarkson might. The vehicle I was lent was a Drop 3 model, uncleaned, unpolished and representative of the most mature variant now in service, not the early versions that dominate much of the online criticism.

My conclusion is straightforward. In its current form, Ajax broadly delivers what it says on the tin. It is not perfect, but it is credible, lethal and essential. Combined with Challenger 3, air power, drones and modern gunnery, it restores a genuine all-arms capability. On my personal “Top Tanks” board, it sits firmly at number one: not bad for a judgement formed over twenty-five years of commanding armour in war and peace.

I’m a former tank commander. Here’s my Clarkson-style review after driving the reviled Ajax

Our writer spends a day at the track with the British Army’s trouble-prone light tank

www.telegraph.co.uk

....

The issue that cannot be avoided is noise and vibration, highlighted most starkly following Exercise Titan Storm in late 2025. I spent approximately six hours driving Ajax hard around the test track, reaching 70 km/h and still accelerating into turns. Powered by the proven MTU V8, the ride and noise levels seemed comparable to my old Challenger 2. Communications were clear, even with my own long-standing tinnitus which I acquired as an armour commander in former times. Claims that crew drills by today’s soldiers are at fault I reject entirely. The real issue here, in my view, is training continuity and training time.

Modern crews are transitioning from wheeled platforms and counter-insurgency mindsets into a high-end warfighting system, without the time historically required to master it. When I commanded my first tank, appropriately named “Dinosaur” – a Chieftain – I had the same tank for two and a half years, training across Europe and North America with 12 months in the field. That depth of familiarity is now unaffordable. Modern Whole Fleet Management and short exercise cycles mean that crews rotate constantly. Under those conditions, problems, medical and operational, are unsurprising.

 

[Maxman1]

So that's a hard 'no' for the upgraded M1 then?

The U.S. Army's New M1E3 Tank vs. Russia's T-72: Who Wins in 5 Words

The US Army unveiled the M1E3 Abrams at the Detroit Auto Show. Here is how its radical redesign compares to Russia’s T-72B3M.

www.19fortyfive.com

If we can get Abrams in large numbers, and there's political willpower to do so, that's just as good.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If we can get Abrams in large numbers, and there's political willpower to do so, that's just as good.

We should be buying Abrams. But I am pretty sure the USA has tainted that option.

 

[PrairieFella]

We should be buying Abrams. But I am pretty sure the USA has tainted that option.

Abrams isnt the be all end all of armoured warfare. Its crazy heavy, logistically greedy and given our propensity to add-on armour, itll get even heavier.

It has its benefits but lots of downsides too.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Abrams isnt the be all end all of armoured warfare. Its crazy heavy, logistically greedy and given our propensity to add-on armour, itll get even heavier.

It has its benefits but lots of downsides too.

Google Search

I would say its key benefit is access to the US Army's sustainment and logistics train. Up until the current geo-political situation I was of the camp that we should always buy US kit unless its completely outclassed by something else. And it was purely because I don't see us being able to project credible forces and sustain them without access to the US Military's sustainment.

And I still don't. But I know the political temperature just too high right now.

 

[Maxman1]

Google Search

View attachment 98184

I would say its key benefit is access to the US Army's sustainment and logistics train. Up until the current geo-political situation I was of the camp that we should always buy US kit unless its completely outclassed by something else. And it was purely because I don't see us being able to project credible forces and sustain them without access to the US Military's sustainment.

And I still don't. But I know the political temperature just too high right now.

Also the factory is just across the border, so we could order parts more easily and ship tanks for more extensive repairs.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Also the factory is just across the border, so we could order parts more easily and ship tanks for more extensive repairs.

Imagine just being able to rotate tanks in and out of their stockpile.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Also the factory is just across the border, so we could order parts more easily and ship tanks for more extensive repairs.

I've driven past that facility in Lima, OH. My daughter had an offer to play soccer from a uni close to there.

When I worked in Michigan (Warren), I worked just up the road from this place and I would drive by it daily. They closed production the year I left Michigan for Boston. Move all the production over to Lima.

Detroit Arsenal (Warren, Michigan) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Furniture]

I would say its key benefit is access to the US Army's sustainment and logistics train. Up until the current geo-political situation I was of the camp that we should always buy US kit unless its completely outclassed by something else. And it was purely because I don't see us being able to project credible forces and sustain them without access to the US Military's sustainment.

And I still don't. But I know the political temperature just too high right now.

The problem with that would be the CAF would be indistinguishable from the UA to both friends and foes. Essentially, the CAF would be an auxiliary to the US Military. We go that route, and all defence industries in Canada would dry up, because America is going to protect American jobs first. It already happens, and would only be worse if the official policy was just buy what America has.

The second and more serious issue is the CAF doesn't have the staffing to do things the American way, so tying ourselves to their kit and processes would limit our effectiveness even more.

If the CAF wants to play copycat with another country, we should be choosing a similar sized country(population), with a similar sized force. Look at what they do right, and combine those things with what we do right. As for the kit, we should be looking for things we can reasonably sustain, and then beefing up our sustainment to increase capability if we want/need more capability.

As for the tanks, I'm not an expert, but the Koreans seems the most capable of getting us tanks the fastest. Perhaps we should be looking to that, and talking to them and the Poles about how sustainable the K2 is long-term.

 

[suffolkowner]

Col. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon - late of the Royal Tank Regiment and Challenger veteran, also Telegraph defence correspondent

WRT to the AJAX

....That’s why I spent most of last Friday driving and personally operating the systems of an Ajax tank lent to me by the makers, to find out the truth – which I set out below.

....

I did not test a pristine, “gold-plated” demonstrator as Jeremy Clarkson might. The vehicle I was lent was a Drop 3 model, uncleaned, unpolished and representative of the most mature variant now in service, not the early versions that dominate much of the online criticism.

My conclusion is straightforward. In its current form, Ajax broadly delivers what it says on the tin. It is not perfect, but it is credible, lethal and essential. Combined with Challenger 3, air power, drones and modern gunnery, it restores a genuine all-arms capability. On my personal “Top Tanks” board, it sits firmly at number one: not bad for a judgement formed over twenty-five years of commanding armour in war and peace.

I’m a former tank commander. Here’s my Clarkson-style review after driving the reviled Ajax

Our writer spends a day at the track with the British Army’s trouble-prone light tank

www.telegraph.co.uk

....

The issue that cannot be avoided is noise and vibration, highlighted most starkly following Exercise Titan Storm in late 2025. I spent approximately six hours driving Ajax hard around the test track, reaching 70 km/h and still accelerating into turns. Powered by the proven MTU V8, the ride and noise levels seemed comparable to my old Challenger 2. Communications were clear, even with my own long-standing tinnitus which I acquired as an armour commander in former times. Claims that crew drills by today’s soldiers are at fault I reject entirely. The real issue here, in my view, is training continuity and training time.

Modern crews are transitioning from wheeled platforms and counter-insurgency mindsets into a high-end warfighting system, without the time historically required to master it. When I commanded my first tank, appropriately named “Dinosaur” – a Chieftain – I had the same tank for two and a half years, training across Europe and North America with 12 months in the field. That depth of familiarity is now unaffordable. Modern Whole Fleet Management and short exercise cycles mean that crews rotate constantly. Under those conditions, problems, medical and operational, are unsurprising.

meanwhile Ajax has IOC withdrawn

Army withdraws Ajax IOC after ministers misled

The Ministry of Defence has formally withdrawn Initial Operating Capability for the Ajax armoured vehicle programme.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

 

[Halifax Tar]

The problem with that would be the CAF would be indistinguishable from the UA to both friends and foes. Essentially, the CAF would be an auxiliary to the US Military. We go that route, and all defence industries in Canada would dry up, because America is going to protect American jobs first. It already happens, and would only be worse if the official policy was just buy what America has.

Canada has always, and will always be someone's side kick. Equipment commonality just makes things easier. We don't have the national desire to be more than a middle power.

The second and more serious issue is the CAF doesn't have the staffing to do things the American way, so tying ourselves to their kit and processes would limit our effectiveness even more.

When you're talking an Arleigh Burk, sure. A tanks not so much. Take into account all the personal, crewed and equipment we already use of theirs (M777, CF18 ect ect) I think crewing is an issue only in extreme scenarios, which we have already ruled out.

If the CAF wants to play copycat with another country, we should be choosing a similar sized country(population), with a similar sized force. Look at what they do right, and combine those things with what we do right. As for the kit, we should be looking for things we can reasonably sustain, and then beefing up our sustainment to increase capability if we want/need more capability.

The CAF and Canada need to stop thinking we have some sort of unique set of requirements that demands we R&D and produce our own stuff.
Army uniforms are a good example, if it works for Norwary or Sweeden it will probably work for us.

CRCNs talk about the new Subs was refreshing. What ever we get is coming as manufactured by the home nation. If we have to buy everyone converters to plug things in, so be it. The meaning is we are done with Canadianization. Get the solution available.

As for the tanks, I'm not an expert, but the Koreans seems the most capable of getting us tanks the fastest. Perhaps we should be looking to that, and talking to them and the Poles about how sustainable the K2 is long-term.

My understanding is the K2 is essentially a derivative of the Abrams. I stand to be corrected.

Either way, the current temperature means spending any treasure on American made products is going to be a difficult sell, and rightfully so.

 

[suffolkowner]

Canada has always, and will always be someone's side kick. Equipment commonality just makes things easier. We don't have the national desire to be more than a middle power.



When you're talking an Arleigh Burk, sure. A tanks not so much. Take into account all the personal, crewed and equipment we already use of theirs (M777, CF18 ect ect) I think crewing is an issue only in extreme scenarios, which we have already ruled out.



The CAF and Canada need to stop thinking we have some sort of unique set of requirements that demands we R&D and produce our own stuff.
Army uniforms are a good example, if it works for Norwary or Sweeden it will probably work for us.

CRCNs talk about the new Subs was refreshing. What ever we get is coming as manufactured by the home nation. If we have to buy everyone converters to plug things in, so be it. The meaning is we are done with Canadianization. Get the solution available.



My understanding is the K2 is essentially a derivative of the Abrams. I stand to be corrected.

Either way, the current temperature means spending any treasure on American made products is going to be a difficult sell, and rightfully so.

I think the K1 was a derivative of sorts of an Abrams contender? A lot of copying from Chrysler?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think the K1 was a derivative of sorts of an Abrams contender? A lot of copying from Chrysler?

There is a really good reason why SK would look for commonality with the US wherever it can. Its just to the North of them.

Having said that I don't know what strain the US/SK relationship is currently under and if its relatable to ours.