Canada's Leopard 2 Purchase

[vonGarvin]

I wouldn't worry about an unannounced rant

 

[rick7475]

I think the purchase of new tanks may hinge around how well the Leapord's perform in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not tank country, the soviets found that out the hard way.

The Soviet's were ousted 20+ years ago. Armor and many other improvements have been made since then. Italy in WW2 wasn't tank country either, if you define mountains, swamps, and reinforced fortifications along the Gustav and Hitlerlines as non-tank country. Yet tanks were instrumental in many break-throughs. 

 

[vonGarvin]

OK, history lesson.  The Soviets didn't lose in Afghanistan due to their use of any one single piece of equipment!  They lost it on the moral plane, not the physical plane.


Next?

Can we talk about leopards now?

 

[geo]

With sudden outburst, we figured the "rant" thing for ourselves George.

 

[Iron Oxide]

Warning: Ignorant Civilian Question

The media is reporting that it's costing aprox. $189 million to transport 19 tanks, assorted engineering kit and counter mortar to afghanistan. Presumably it will cost a similar amount to bring it back when we're done over there. I've also read elsewhere on this site that second hand (gently used  ) Leopard 2's are going for around $350,000 as europe sells off its cold war stocks. 100 tanks at $350,000 each is $35 million, less then 20% of the announced transport costs. So here's the ignorant question: Are we planning on bringing them back when we can get a whole fleet of nearly new ones for less then the transport costs on 19?

(I realize that the tanks from europe will have to be shipped to Canada but that has got to be really cheap compared to shipping from landlocked afghanistan.)

 

[George Wallace]

The purchase price of those Leopard 2 tanks in Europe probably does not include Transportation.  They would probably be transported by sea as opposed to what we had to do for the tanks which we sent to Afghanistan by Air.  Transport by sea that has been booked well in advance, from a peaceful nations seaport, would be cheaper that last minute arrangements to fly commercial air into a war zone. 

I am also sure that the amount spent to send these tanks to Afghanistan likely is not the amount you stated, but even if it was, it in all likelihood included a multitude of other items such as spare parts, ammunition, fuel, lubricants, tools, and various other commodities that would not have to come back.  No doubt someone also included the amount to send over the Crews and Technicians to keep these tanks working.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I wonder if that price includes the wages of the troops?

 

[Jantor]

And the big Antonov they came over on  :-\

 

[GAP]

And not to mention the upgrading and uparmouring done prior to deployment. The Ammunition stocks, etc..

The point being that the $189 M not only included the tanks and its' stuff, but the additional personnel (Vandoos) for reconstruction, and all the other stuff/people.

 

[Iron Oxide]

The source of the $189 million quotation.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/WarOnTerrorism/2006/11/07/2276127-cp.html

 

[George Wallace]

The very first sentence is very clear:

Canada's defence minister says it's costing taxpayers $189 million to send re-enforcements,

Which just happens to be

including Leopard tanks, to Afghanistan to support Canadian troops.

Seems pretty clear to me, that this is the overall cost of sending an amount of equipment, material, supplies and personnel over to Afghanistan.  It is not the cost of sending over a few tanks, but for the whole shebang.

 

[Kirkhill]

Once upon a time I had to spend $500 to charter an aircraft to ship a $5 part across 40 miles of open water.  Without the part the process wouldn't run, the plant wouldn't run, the employees couldn't work, the fishermen couldn't catch and the competitors were eating up the fish as the season wound down.

The cost of shipping has nothing to do with the value of the goods being shipped.  It has everything to do with whether the goods are necessary and how soon they are needed. 

If I remember and American report correctly with gas at 2 USD/Gal at home they were having to budget something like 10 to 20 times that to get it into the gas tanks of their Hummers and M1s in Iraq.  The price difference was all due to transportation.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

At least the cost is not in blood, the Bits figured that were losing 20% of the fuel to North Africa as spilliage!!! That meant that every one out every 5 tankers that got through the Germans was wasted! 

 

[sgtdixon]

With Regards to a 105mm Cannister Round, I know the Americans have successfully fielded a 120mm Cannister rd in Iraq, how hard would it be to downscale it to 105mm for use with our gun systems?

As well, with the worries on damaging the fume extractor, why not just package the shot like a shotshell, have a wad/shot cup that just falls away as soon as the rd(s) exit the barrel, much like the shot cup on your average shotshell.

 

[AmmoTech90]

US 120mm is smoothbore, the L7 on Leos is rifled.  Not an insurmountable problem and I'm sure there's a solution out there somewhere.

D

 

[George Wallace]

With Regards to a 105mm Cannister Round, I know the Americans have successfully fielded a 120mm Cannister rd in Iraq, how hard would it be to downscale it to 105mm for use with our gun systems?

As well, with the worries on damaging the fume extractor, why not just package the shot like a shotshell, have a wad/shot cup that just falls away as soon as the rd(s) exit the barrel, much like the shot cup on your average shotshell.

As AmmoTech90 pointed out, the Leo 105's have a rifled barrel and the 120 is a smoothebore.  Including all the crap of the fume extractor vents and the rifling, Cannister can still be fired, but it puts extreme wear on the barrel and greatly reduces barrel life.  Your idea of a wad would not work, and the idea of a shot cup would only dilute the effect of Cannister.  The cup would probably fly a good 200 + meters before disgorging the shot.  Cannister is a solution for ranges shorter than that.  If you want to use a cup, we already have STUP rounds that are used in Training as a cost effective way or firing, but they are as inaccurate as shyte, and probably the reason we did away with them.

 

[rmacqueen]

Not an insurmountable problem and I'm sure there's a solution out there somewhere.

Not insurmountable but very expensive

 

[gnplummer421]

If I remember correctly, whenever we did a borescope on a Leopard barrel, we paid particular attention to the fume extractor vent holes, as wear would show in the form of small cracks there.

However, when in a Combat situation, wearing out a barrel should not be an excuse not to use an effective tool such as a Canister round, especially if it benefits our troops. If we need it and it is/becomes available, we should use it. My .02 Cents

Gnplummer421

 

[George Wallace]

???

This is the first time I have ever heard a "Gun Plumber" make a comment like that.  I have seen the effects of burnt out barrels on .50 and 7.62 and although it makes great night photography, it is not at all effective fire.  A worn Tank barrel is no different.  Accuracy is loss.  That to me would be a very serious matter in combat, contributing to a crews eminent death or the deaths of troops that they are supporting.

[edit - to reflect on statement]  I took that a bit to the extreme and do agree with you statement that it should be a tool that we can use in an "emergency".

 

[HItorMiss]

But a canister round on leaving th barrel is just a large claymore mine no? who cares about accurate thats more a right direction sort of round no?