Armored vehicle preference

[Bomber]

Well, I guess it doesn't really matter anymore

http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIII/MMIIIMar25c.html

All three went for 13.5 million USD's. 

 

[RCnapalm]

Getting back to vehicles and away from ferries
I like the Challenger 2
its a little slow, but packs a hell of a punch
Its Chobham armour is extremely effective, esspescially against RPG's
The Brits had some trouble with the engines, it was found that Middle Eastern sand was too fine
for the engines that had been designed for North Africa, but that was solved with a new add-on to the treads
we have good trade relationships with the Brits and after Chicoutimi we might get a guilt sale.
obviously if you want an APC the Challenger is way too heavy,
for that I like the look of the CV 90.

 

[Blue Max]

Even though I am partial to the Leopard with its run on everything diesel, our neighbour that we support most of the time is the US. For an MBT the smart choice for Canada would be the M1A2, or one of its family. As for the much needed Airborne, they should be equiped with the Wiesel, a very nimble practicle AFV.

CND armoured forces could train with our own ABRAMS, and when the need arose (such as Gulf War 1) we could use prepositioned equipment that the US has stashed around the world, thus rendering mout the discussion of how Canada would get our tanks off shore.

This assumes that we are in a conflict that the US wants us to support. Of course if the US was not involved then the chance of Canada sending a heavy forces would be 0%.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Blue Max

I could not agree with you more.  We tend to forget who are allies are when it comes to buying our equipment and focus on the political game at home.

The M1A2 would be excellent for our armoured boys, they might not all agree but think of the training costs it would save if you just had to fly south with troops instead of taking tanks to train.

The MGS striker is a nightmare it was not goodenough what 5 yrs ago and now all of a sudden it is common how much did they have to pay to get that endorsement.

Buy for the troops not for the padded pocket

 

[Steel Badger]

How about the Rooikat??

 

[1feral1]

I prefer tracks over wheels any day.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[BernDawg]

Track is the way to go.  They called us TOW platoon for more than one reason after the Grizzly was introduced in the 80's.  BTW we were in tracks (M113).  I pulled out a great deal of wheeled vehicles back then.
I saw a feature on discovery the other night where they said that the scorpion was the fastest tank(sic)  at about 50 mph.  Ive been told that the Abrams has been clocked by state troopers at 75 mph plus (on pavement like the Scorpion on the test).  Point being I don't think we need a wheeled veh to replace the Tank.  We need a beter MBT.

 

[Steel Badger]

I would agree with track over wheel....I think just about every post concludes the same....

Wether the M8 is selected (as the "through-deck cruiser" Brit approach to getting purchases past the wiles of the politically appointed "tank haters") or my personal preferrence of the leopard 2.....

I would argue that the Army still needs gun tanks...

 

[Q 1]

  Why not upgrade leopard c2 with 120mm, north American powerplant, modern electronics and thermal, etc. plus we could easily acquire more from European countries who are unloading their leopard 1's.
  Another option could be to buy surplus Leopard 2's in the a3/a4 range that are NATO partners might not be willing to upgrade but might be willing to offload cheaply.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Q1,

Our Leopard C2 actually has relatively modern electronics and an excellent thermal sight and I wouldn't do anything to the powerpack.  I'm not sure about the feasibility of putting a 120mm on the Leopard 1 (others here might be able elaborate).  The 105mm is very accurate and is hard hitting (if not to the extent of the 120mm).  I think that our allies have the tanks that the 105mm cannot penetrate.  In terms of firepower and mobility the Leopard C2 is a good tank.  The biggest liability on the battlefield with the C2 is protection.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Wizard of OZ]

I hate to sound like a nag but do you see what we have come to. Why do we settle for stuff the other guys don't want. :rage:  I think the government should get off its ass and get something we need,  New equipment, its not like they won't make us keep it for 30 yrs.  It just annoys me that we all seem to settle on used or abandoned equipment to make due.

MOO

 

[Cpl.Banks]

Why cant we do liek the Aussies? they got how many M1'sAbrahms? for 500 mil was it? Our MGS is costing 600mil!!! I liek the challenger, it packs a hell of a punch and its armour is pretty bad as* > lol I think we should get MBT's that our allies use, they have them for a reason unlike us they think twice about buy equipment *cough seaking cough*
UBIQUE

 

[Love793]

Why cant we do liek the Aussies? they got how many M1'sAbrahms? for 500 mil was it? Our MGS is costing 600mil!!! I liek the challenger, it packs a heck of a punch and its armour is pretty bad as* > lol I think we should get MBT's that our allies use, they have them for a reason unlike us they think twice about buy equipment *cough seaking cough*
UBIQUE

Could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Aussie's are using Leo 1s (our old turrets to be exact).  I really think the Abrams is over rated.  Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be broad side to one (or for that matter, in a hull or turret down with one coming at me either).  But it does have serious problems do to the type of engine and the location of it's air intakes (not good for fording or amphibious operations).  I think we'd be better off with the Leo 2.  It is modern, cheaper than the Abrams, similar defensive capabilities, similar top end speed and cross country capability and has the same gun as the Abrams.  It also has the quick disconnects on the power pack, so it can be changed quickly.  Pretty dead point though, as I highly doubt we'll ever see a maple of the side of another tank. :'(

 

[TCBF]

Hate to bust a lot of bubbles, but the Aussies will pay less for their  Abrams  than we will for the MGS.

Tom

 

[Love793]

Hate to bust a lot of bubbles, but the Aussies will pay less for their   Abrams   than we will for the MGS.

Tom

So true.

 

[Cpl.Banks]

Thats exactly what I said, and the Aussies are ordering some low millage M'1's from the US for much cheaper than we are getting the MGS! Does anybody listen? And a Leo 2 is a pretty good tank, cheaper like you said but with 600mil how many could we get new M1's? would be able to get the same deal as the Aussies? or Better? what about a challenger? tried and true! anyways doesnt matter we are stcking with the MGS...
UBIQUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PJOsborne]

Don't forget that the M1 Abrams' Allison Gas Turbine engine is retardedly maintenance-intensive. the US army spends more maintaining the M1 fleet than our ENTIRE defence budget.  the Challenger 2 is an interesting tank, but its main weakness lies in the fact that its gun is rifled and not smoothbore. this means that it cannot use HEAT ammunition, and therefore relies on the largely outdated HESH rounds. 120mm smoothbores are the current NATO standard.. sadly, we're sticking to our 105mm L7A1 guns for the MGS....

 

[McG]

Don't forget that the M1 Abrams' Allison Gas Turbine engine is retardedly maintenance-intensive. the US army spends more maintaining the M1 fleet than our ENTIRE defence budget. the Challenger 2 is an interesting tank, but its main weakness lies in the fact that its gun is rifled and not smoothbore. this means that it cannot use HEAT ammunition, and therefore relies on the largely outdated HESH rounds. 120mm smoothbores are the current NATO standard.. sadly, we're sticking to our 105mm L7A1 guns for the MGS....

Mr 18yr old Defence Analyst,
Me thinks you've stepped out of your lane.

Never have I crossed anything that suggested HEAT could not be fired through a rifled barrel.  In fact, I've fired it through a rifled CarlG barrel.  A quick check tells me that Jane's lists several tanks with 105 mm rifled barrels that fire HEAT rounds.

Lastly, HEAT and HESH each defeat armour in a different way and so have differing strengths & weaknesses.  However, HESH is still a relevant ammunition on the modern battle field.

 

[PJOsborne]

it's far less common for a tank with a rifled gun to fire HEAT, since the ammunition has to be specially designed not to spin. sure, there are ways of stabilizing the ammunition, like using a ball-bearing lined round, for example. my main pont was that the challenger does not fire HEAT rounds, and relies on HESH instead. after the advent of split armour and ERA panels, HESH lost its potency against tanks and is less lethal than HEAT in the anti-armour role. of course it's still viable and potent as an ammunition type. it's particularily well-suited for bunker busting and attacking thin-skinned vehicles and infantry.

let's place a Challenger 2 in a situation where it's facing a hypothetical MICV with ERA panels. the Challenger gunner can decide to fire an APFSDS-T round at the target, but this isn't the best fit for the target, since the thin skin of an MICV won't pose much resistance to such a powerful round. the result is a clean through-and-through. if the gunner chooses HESH, the explosion is almost completely defeated by the ERA panels and the gunner is back to square one. a modern Tandem-warhead HEAT round would have been the perfect solution, since the rear charge defeats the ERA, and the primary pierces the armour and ignites the fuel and ammunition within.

 

[McG]

As someone qualified to conduct conventional munition disposal, I'm going to say your talking out your arse.

Ref Conduct Guidelines - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-81391.html#msg81391

Qualify that information.