Canada's Leopard 2 Purchase

[HItorMiss]

Your right George thats why I changed my comment. I can be as arrogant as I want about something but it doesn't make it more accurate. I wanted to convey something and failed with my first attempt (miserably I might add). What I am saying and I can easily be corrected if I am wrong is that just like a C6 barrel you burn it out if you have to, and get it replcaced in a resup or emerg resupp  during the reorg/consolidaton.

 

[George Wallace]

......What I am saying and I can easily be corrected if I am wrong is that just like a C6 barrel you burn it out if you have to, and get it replcaced in a resup or emerg resupp  during the reorg/consolidaton.

In the heat of battle you may.  It is no simple matter, however, to replace barrels on large calibre guns, not only Tanks, but also Arty.  This may require a whole day to do, depending on availability of the proper tools and skilled techs.  Several tons of barrel is not a 'quick change', and has been pointed out by others, it could put that tank or gun out of service for a long period of time covering weeks or months if a new barrel is not available.  Now we are back to where we started, before the tanks came on scene.

 

[MJP]

Actually HoM your experience doesn't count.  Yes, you were there and you experienced that, but the Leopards were not.  You have little experience with tanks, and little knowledge of their Gunnery and ammo.  It voids everything you have to say reference the subject of Canister and it's employment.  You have made a few rather poor statements about burnt out/worn barrels and have been right off base on that subject. 

If you want, we can compare the tank barrel to the C6 or C9 barrel.  In a TIC, when the shooting gets heavy, it is easy to change a hot or burnt out barrel on a C6 or C9 and maintain accuracy.  You are not going to do the same with the Main Gun on a Tank.  You may think nothing of 5.56 or 7.62 rounds cartwheeling down range, but I would hope that you would be a bit more worried about 105 mm rounds doing the same.

I tend to agree with HOM....in a TIC any commander worth his salt will keep fire down range on the enemy while troops are engaged.  If he's worried about the adverse effects of the sustained fire he'll inform higher and most likely move his vehicle to an area that IF the round drops short or goes wild it won't hit friendly troops.  Hell in some extreme cases I'm sure the guys on the ground will take the risk of friendly fire to beat back the enemy....no different than calling arty in on your own postion no?   Besides burning out the barrel of some weapon, even a tank is IMHO through to much usage is much better than sustaining casualties in a TIC.

 

[HItorMiss]

Up to 24hrs to replace, sure now even if you add 24hrs for the resupp (and it shouldn't be as that would be a IOR item)your follow on compnay is continuing the adavance or has a replacent tank coming to fill the gap. But now of course were getting into tactics and such and we likely shouldn't. I still have the opinion that if you have use it and fix it later, but thats just me I am no tank expert and about the only experience I have is doing Cbt Team attacks on the Matawa.

+1 MJP

 

[George Wallace]

I tend to agree with HOM....in a TIC any commander worth his salt will keep fire down range on the enemy while troops are engaged.  If he's worried about the adverse effects of the sustained fire he'll inform higher and most likely move his vehicle to an area that IF the round drops short or goes wild it won't hit friendly troops.  

I too agree, that in TIC you are going to keep firing.  I am talking extremes when I talk about a burnt out barrel on a Tank.  In the Infantry or Ground role it is a matter of seconds to change barrels on a MG, not so on a Tanks Main Gun.  If he does move his vehicle to an area where his fire will not adversely harm friendly troops, is he not negating the reason he was there in the first place?  (Remember we have just created an extremely rare and unusual scenario, that in actuality would probably never happen.)

Hell in some extreme cases I'm sure the guys on the ground will take the risk of friendly fire to beat back the enemy....no different than calling arty in on your own postion no?   Besides burning out the barrel of some weapon, even a tank is IMHO through to much usage is much better than sustaining casualties in a TIC.

You are beginning to make me wonder about you.   ;D 

 

[rmacqueen]

Hey, HoM, don't worry about the comment, if there wasn't rivalry between armour and infantry were would the fun be. ;D

The problem with burning out the barrel on a 105 is really twofold. 

First, once that happens it becomes extremely dangerous to those around it.  The inaccuracy creates a risk to friendlies in the vicinity and innocents in the general area of the target.  The fired round could just as easily fall short, to the detriment of our own people.  In a situation were the use of canister was necessary it would indicate close contact so the last thing you would want is inaccurate direct fire.  Again, there is also the danger of debris left in the barrel and resultant danger to those around.  Would you want to be close to the tank when the barrel explodes?

Secondly, replacement of the barrel is not just a matter of calling in the ARV for a quick change.  There is the logistical considerations for one thing.  A number of C6 barrels can be shipped in a single crate, whereas a 105 takes a lot of space.  Given the limited space on the Hercs the inclusion of 105 barrels is a major deal.  If there are already some spares in Afghanistan there is still the problem of getting them to the tank itself. You can't just throw one in the back of a vehicle and run it out.  It could be taken in by helicopter but most likely the Leo would be sent back to KAF for the replacement and now you have lost one of your tanks.

The canister round is also designed for use on enemy who are in the open and extremely close.  It is not very effective against dug in personnel and is actually more for use when being overrun by infantry.  Even using it to "dust off" another armoured vehicle is supposed to be used as a last resort.

In my opinion, I think using canister would create more problems than they would solve.  Although I have not been there, from what I have read/heard the Leo would have been quite valuable without ever having to resort to the use of canister.  They could have just as easily, and probably more effectively, used coax to take them out and it is a heck of a lot more accurate.

 

[MJP]

If he does move his vehicle to an area where his fire will not adversely harm friendly troops, is he not negating the reason he was there in the first place?  (Remember we have just created an extremely rare and unusual scenario, that in actuality would probably never happen.

Depends where he moves......  You and HOM made the scenario....I just stuck my nose in and gave one of the solutions.  I prefer the tried and true 155 arty and B1 bombs to kill the enemy, but hey thats just me.

 

[HItorMiss]

You know nothing says love like the Boom Boom Boom of that 25mm just when you need it most!

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I've avoided the canister discussion as I've been trying to find data on an Australian 105mm round called "Splintex", which was (in 20 pounder form) used on the Centurions in Vietnam.  I do remember them having it for the Leopards, though, and it being a through the barrel round that splintered on impact, creating the "canister" effect without the barrel wear.  Until we have an actual round to fire, discussions regarding barrel wear under battle conditions are somewhat academic.

Tanks in close support create all types of issues, from infantry movement forward of the gun trunnions, to resupply problems.  However, a tank brings a precision direct fire capability to the battlefield that's unequaled by any other weapons system in our inventory, including CAS and 155mm.  All have their uses, and are just tools in the commander's tool box.

TR

 

[Kirkhill]

"Canister is also a round designed to be used at close range and not extremely accurate once it is fired.  This is not a round that heads to the target and explodes but sends rather large chunks of steel in an ever expanding cloud.  Basically, anything between the end of the barrel and the target is at risk of being hit.  Again, as George pointed out, it is a tool to be used for emergencies only."

Perhaps what is needed is a Shrapnel round - something like the Denel 105mm low velocity howitzer round (the PFF) with its VT fuze and 7800 tungsten balls.  Could something like that bullet be mounted on an L7 compatible cartridge?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Sheridan in Vietnam had a canister style round for it and the barrel was 152mm! mind you contact was close in, short and furious and the missile was never used.

 

[GAP]

Is this not edging into the antipersonnel stuff so decried by those who have never fought? We have to fight "fair", they don't....

 

[George Wallace]

Perhaps what is needed is a Shrapnel round - something like the Denel 105mm low velocity howitzer round (the PFF) with its VT fuze and 7800 tungsten balls.  Could something like that bullet be mounted on an L7 compatible cartridge?

Let's not start confusing Artillery Indirect Fire Support with Direct Fire Support provided by Tanks.  Leave the Artillery to the Artillery.

 

[Kirkhill]

Let's not start confusing Artillery Indirect Fire Support with Direct Fire Support provided by Tanks.  Leave the Artillery to the Artillery.

I hope I am not causing confusion George. 

I was not suggesting using the Tanks in an indirect fire role.  What I was suggesting is that if the Tanks are going to Infantry support roles, and if Canister is considered a useful but short range anti-personnel device then we are back to the 1780s, before the advent of the machine gun, when Gunner Shrapnel added a bursting charge to a Canister Shell to take out mass formations of enemy troops at longer ranges.  The guns, like the tanks, were used for direct fire support and were critical when there were no machine guns.

The 105mm Shrapnel Round could be configured with the same type of fuse found on that M203 Grenade Launcher, also a Direct Fire Support weapon, to achieve an airburst behind cover.  Might need a couple of velocity sensors on the barrel to set the fuze.

 

[AmmoTech90]

The 105mm Shrapnel Round could be configured with the same type of fuse found on that M203 Grenade Launcher, also a Direct Fire Support weapon, to achieve an airburst behind cover.  Might need a couple of velocity sensors on the barrel to set the fuze.

See my description earlier in this thread of the difference between cannister and APERS (beehive).  The APERS round is the Shrapnel round you are talking about.  It dispenses its payload where (more or less) the firer wants it, instead of right outside the barrel.

See here, http://www.imi-israel.com/Business/ProductsFamily/TankAmmunition.aspx?FolderID=31&docID=110 , for a more upto date solution.  The Israeli APAM 105mm tank round designed to attack infantry who are behind/under cover.  Keep in mind this is not yet fielded and the website information is by the people selling it.  Good idea, I hope they can get the technology to work.

D

 

[Kirkhill]

AmmoTech90,  I've noticed before that if I have an idea, somebody else has usually thought of it first.   Thanks for keeping my streak unbroken. ;D

PS - I was under the impression that there were some lethality problems with the flechettes vs the tungsten balls.  I think that others have alluded to that as well.

Chris

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There was some discussion about the Leo 2A5, found this video talking about the upgrades done to bring to the A5 standard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JxuUbcaQHQ&mode=related&search=

 

[Thorvald]

Nice find there Colin!

I also found two good Leopard 1 documentaries (one on the tank itself, one on variants).  Was able to save these using good ol' Tubesock.

Leopard 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klPIvxk8N1

Leopard 1 Variants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJEK8U4lroI

Cheers

 

[GAP]

Tanks for the Lesson: Leopards, too, for Canada
13-May-2008 15:50 EDT
Article Link

It would seem that the Canadian Forces are taking some of the lessons re-learned during Operation Medusa in Afghanistan to heart. Canada’s DND:

“The heavily protected direct fire capability of a main battle tank is an invaluable tool in the arsenal of any military. The intensity of recent conflicts in Central Asia and the Middle East has shown western militaries that tanks provide protection that cannot be matched by more lightly armoured wheeled vehicles…. [Canada’s existing Leopard C2/1A5] tanks have also provided the Canadian Forces (CF) with the capability to travel to locations that would otherwise be inaccessible to wheeled light armoured vehicles, including Taliban defensive positions.”

In October 2003, Canada was set to buy the Styker/LAV-III 105mm Mobile Gun System to replace its Leopard C2 tanks. In the end, however, the lessons of war have taken Canada down a very different path – one that now has them renewing the very tank fleet they were once intent on scrapping with one of the world’s best tanks, and backing away from the wheeled vehicles that were once the cornerstone of the Canadian Army’s transformation plan. This updated article includes a full chronology for Canada’s new Leopard 2 tanks, and adds information concerning DND’s exact plans and breakdowns for their new tank fleet…

Why New Tanks Now?

As noted above, existing Leopard 1A5-CAN tanks (designated C2) have been a welcome addition to the fighting in Afghanistan, and their MEXAS ceramic-composite armor kits and combat engineering attachments increase their versatility. The Canadian Forces are also deploying tracked M113 armored personnel carriers, which offer much less complete protection but similar mobility benefits.

Canada’s LAV-III wheeled armored personnel carriers have played useful roles, using their sensor suites and 25mm autocannon in road overwatch and patrols. The Panjwai district’s mud-brick compounds and its irrigation ditches, however, presented the LAV-IIIs with limits they could not easily overcome – and would have done the same for the LAV-III/Stryker MGS systems, had Canada gone ahead with that purchase.

Canadian sources tell DID that in addition to direct fire support from the Leopard C2s’ 105mm gun, the tanks’ heft and traction are equally significant because they can crumble low-lying brick walls by using front-mounted engineering attachments like dozer blades – or just their own weight. This clears a path for other forces, and allows the tanks to continue moving forward and providing fire support.

The Leopard C2s have their own deficiencies, however. The first – and biggest – issue, is heat. Temperatures in southern Afghanistan can reach 50C/122F in the summer time, which can easily become a life-threatening 65C/150F inside the vehicle due to its enclosed nature plus heat generated by the tank’s hydraulic systems. Australia managed to add air conditioning to its Leopard 1s, but the Canadian version has a number of unique characteristics; any retrofit project could face delays and complications. With vehicles committed to the fight and needed in the field, failure was not an option.

The second issue is protection. Even with its add-on MEXAS armor, the 1970s vintage Leopard 1s lack the all-around protection possible in the latest main battle tanks like the American M1 Abrams, German Leopard 2, et. al. The M1 TUSK and Leopard 2A6M versions can ignore single-warhead anti-tank rockets, and add belly armor kits to improve protection against IED land mines.

The third issue is electronics and maintenance. Retrofitting modern digital communications and force tracking systems into tanks like the 6th generation Leopard 1 is an effort, while 7th generation vehicles are designed and equipped to include them. In addition, by 2012 there will no longer be logistics support and spare parts for the turrets of Leopard 1s. By 2015, it may well become impossible to maintain them.

With their LAV-III MGS and the combined anti-air/anti-armor LAV-III MMEV procurements in limbo, and the tactical rationale for these programs brought into question, the Canadians chose a different path.

Choices, Choices: Leopard 2s For Canada
More on link