Canada's purchase of the Leopard 2 MBT

[George Wallace]

Well... IIRC the Leo C2 did fairly well with those same tools.  There are enough Leo 1 hulls stacked up in Longue Pointe to last us a good long while.... Otherwise, we mught just have to breakdown and use what everyone else is using.... which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Just creates a situation of mixed inventory.  The US appear to be happy with their M1A1 Abrams mine plow

Some of those Leo 1 hulls are probably awaiting a concrete pad to rest on, or worse.  Many of them are reaching the point that metal fatique is a major concern. 

 

[geo]

not sure about that.... stripped of paint, they've been stacked there for a long, long time.... prolly dating back to the time we went from C1 to C2.  For a long while they were stacked up in a faraway corner of the yards - but I noticed (on last visit to the dentist) that they had been moved closer to the actual workshops (but no turrets) ­..... - so I figure that they will either use em or or do something with em... 

 

[Franko]

not sure about that.... stripped of paint, they've been stacked there for a long, long time.... prolly dating back to the time we went from C1 to C2.  For a long while they were stacked up in a faraway corner of the yards - but I noticed (on last visit to the dentist) that they had been moved closer to the actual workshops (but no turrets) ­..... - so I figure that they will either use em or or do something with em... 

Maybe sell them to Gillette?      ;D

Regards

 

[TCBF]

not sure about that.... stripped of paint, they've been stacked there for a long, long time.... prolly dating back to the time we went from C1 to C2.  For a long while they were stacked up in a faraway corner of the yards - but I noticed (on last visit to the dentist) that they had been moved closer to the actual workshops (but no turrets) ­..... - so I figure that they will either use em or or do something with em... 

- Are we talking about the original C1 hulls, or the 1A5 hulls used to carry the the C2 turrets off the boat?

8)

 

[Lance Wiebe]

When we bought the Leo1A5 turrets, we also bought an extra 8 hulls.  Three were to replace three worn out hulls from the C1 fleet, and five were kept for spares.  So having eight hulls laying around would make sense, although three of them are no good.

 

[TCBF]

When we bought the Leo1A5 turrets, we also bought an extra 8 hulls.  Three were to replace three worn out hulls from the C1 fleet, and five were kept for spares.  So having eight hulls laying around would make sense, although three of them are no good.

- So, where are all of the 1A5 hulls that were used as "C2 turret prime movers"?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

We sold them back to the Germans.  Most of them were the original Leo 1 hulls, with the rest Leo1A1 hulls.  Those hulls had some differences from the A3 hulls we own.

 

[GAP]

A Bit of an update on the same article by DID

Tanks for the Lesson: Leopards, too, for Canada
10-Mar-2009 13:50 EDT
Article Link

The front part of the article gives the background and information and is interesting, but this seems to added

In the aftermath of their sales to Norway, Denmark, and now Canada, The Dutch will be left with 110 Leopard 2A6-NL tanks in their arsenal [DID: dropping again to 73 if the proposed December 2007 sale to Portugal goes through].

Canada’s 100-tank buy includes 20 Leopard 2A6-NL, and 80 Leopard 2A4s. Why 100? Because Canada’s Department of National Defence believes this is the minimum fleet size to support a deployed tank squadron:


Badger AEV
(click for full photo)40 for deployed operations. The Canadian Forces need 2 combat-ready squadrons of approximately 20 tanks each: one for deployment and a second for rotation into theater to allow for depot repair and overhaul of the first.

40 for training. An additional two squadrons of 20 tanks each are required for collective and individual training in Canada: individual training at the Combat Training Centre at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick and squadron training at CFB Wainwright at the Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre in Alberta. These tanks do not need the same up-armoring conversion as the 2A6Ms, but they do need the same guns ad electronics if training is to be faithful.

20 specialists. The final 20 vehicles will consist of key support vehicles such as armored recovery vehicles (Canada’s Leopard 1 version: Taurus ARV, one was deployed to Afghanistan), armored bridge-laying vehicles (Canada’s Leopard 1 version: Beaver bridge-launcher), and armored engineering vehicles (Canada’s Leopard 1 version: Badger AEV, also deployed to Afghanistan and used in preference to LAV-III engineering vehicles). See DID’s coverage of the Swiss “Geniepanzer” purchase for the Leopard 2 “Kodiak AEV” variant. The 20 Leopard 2A4s would make good Kodiak conversion stock. On the other hand, without turrets that drive a 2015 expiration date, it may be practical for Canada to simply keep many of their existing Badger and Taurus vehicles for this role.

In the end, the 20 specialist vehicles were reduced to 8 ARV-3 Armored Recovery Vehicles, and 12 vehicles used for spare parts.

Next Steps and Updates


Leopard 2A6-PSO
(click to view full)March 10/09: Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper reports that 80 of the 100 new Leopard 2 tanks [the Leopard 2A4s] remain in storage, over a year after the formal contract with the Netherlands, 18 months after the first Leopard 2A6s were shipped to Afghanistan, and over 2 years after the initial agreement in principle. Without even a contract to get them ready for service:

“Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff, said he can not explain why he is still waiting for the badly needed tanks. ...[He] told the Senate committee on national security and defence. “They bought 100 Leopard 2s. Forty are still in Europe and 40 are currently in Montreal and they’ve been in Montreal since I believe November of last year. And I do not yet have my hands on those Leopard 2s with which to train our soldiers.”

Gen. Leslie told senators the government has yet to contract a private firm to do the upgrades required to get the vehicles into service. As a result, soldiers training in Canada must use nearly 40-year-old Leopard 1 tanks, which he said have a breakdown rate of 71 per cent.”

Oct 2/08: Leopard manufacturer Krauss-Maffei Wegman issues a release that discusses Canada’s field experiences in Afghanistan:

”[The 2A6 model’s extra mine-protection] proved its worth in November, 2007, when the Taliban attacked a Canadian Leopard 2A6M-CAN with a large booby trap. The tank did sustain damage, but the entire crew survived. The Canadians had purchased the tank from the German federal army’s inventory. The Canadian commander wrote a letter of thanks to the German ministry of defence, emphasising that survivors would have been highly unlikely in any other vehicle. Canadian Chief of Staff General Rick Hillier also pointed out that the Leopard 2A6M had not been destroyed, but was indeed back in operation after repairs.
More on link

 

[geo]

Are you surprised ?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Are you surprised ?

Not in the slightest.  The fact that we would buy equipment with no line of parts is disappointing, but not surprising.

 

[geo]

... how about the buying of 100 MBTs - 20 we give back to the germans.......
80 Hulls just sitting around after going thru the puchase process in record time.

 

[McG]

... how about the buying of 100 MBTs - 20 we give back to the germans.......
80 Hulls just sitting around after going thru the puchase process in record time.

We keep the 20 rental tanks that the Germans gave us, so in the end it is 100 tanks.

 

[geo]

and returned to them the 20 Leo2A6s we got from the dutch 

Even stevens..... +/-

 

[retiredgrunt45]

"Deja'Vu". I see nothing has changed with our ridiculous procurement process.

Purchase the vehicle and then after we've driven them into the ground, some bureaucrat scratches their head and finally clues in that we have no parts to repair them.

I would think that after 8 1/2years in Afghanistan, this would have been the perfect opportunity for someone to clue in and update and revamp our antiquated procurement system.  : Guntape and 5/50 cord may have worked to hold together our vehicles during the cold war years but now real bullets are flying...

 

[George Wallace]

"Deja'Vu". I see nothing has changed with our ridiculous procurement process.

Purchase the vehicle and then after we've driven them into the ground, some bureaucrat scratches their head and finally clues in that we have no parts to repair them.

I would think that after 8 1/2years in Afghanistan, this would have been the perfect opportunity for someone to clue in and update and revamp our antiquated procurement system.  : Guntape and 5/50 cord may have worked to hold together our vehicles during the cold war years but now real bullets are flying...

Yes.  We have really advanced in this age of technology.  We are now at that stage that you describe without having driven them into the ground.  ;D

 

[McG]

Purchase the vehicle and then after we've driven them into the ground, some bureaucrat scratches their head and finally clues in that we have no parts to repair them.

To be fair, parts probably were purchased.  However, we are operating the tanks at a higher tempo and over greater distances than the Germans thought was possible and we are doing it in an environment that the tank was not designed for.  Failures in Afghanistan don't match what Leopard 2 user nations have observed operating the tanks in Europe.  The result is that we need more of some parts than could have been predicted (some items which 'never' failed in Europe have shown a patter of frequent failure in Afghanistan). 

 

[Nfld Sapper]

To be fair, parts probably were purchased.  However, we are operating the tanks at a higher tempo and over greater distances than the Germans thought was possible and we are doing it in an environment that the tank was not designed for.  Failures in Afghanistan don't match what Leopard 2 user nations have observed operating the tanks in Europe.  The result is that we need more of some parts than could have been predicted (some items which 'never' failed in Europe have shown a patter of frequent failure in Afghanistan).

Consider it extended testing on our part. Think about it, we are improving the Leo for them.

My  :2c:

 

[Kat Stevens]

This was the problem when the AEVs and AVLBs were parcelled out in Canada after return from Germany.  In 1CER we had to beg chassis parts from the Strats, and engineer specific parts from Gagetown.  There was no parts establishment for us.  Everyone wanted us in the field all the time, and we bagged our chassis into the ground, with a corresponding VOR state.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

To be fair, parts probably were purchased.  However, we are operating the tanks at a higher tempo and over greater distances than the Germans thought was possible and we are doing it in an environment that the tank was not designed for.  Failures in Afghanistan don't match what Leopard 2 user nations have observed operating the tanks in Europe.  The result is that we need more of some parts than could have been predicted (some items which 'never' failed in Europe have shown a patter of frequent failure in Afghanistan). 

You would have thought that with all those bright minds in Ottawa, they could have figured this out before hand, after all, all we had to do was ask our neighbours to the south for some insight from their experiences in Iraq with their armour.

Yes.  We have really advanced in this age of technology.  We are now at that stage that you describe without having driven them into the ground. 

Isn't progress great George?  ;D

 

[George Wallace]

To be fair, parts probably were purchased.  However, we are operating the tanks at a higher tempo and over greater distances than the Germans thought was possible and we are doing it in an environment that the tank was not designed for.  Failures in Afghanistan don't match what Leopard 2 user nations have observed operating the tanks in Europe.  The result is that we need more of some parts than could have been predicted (some items which 'never' failed in Europe have shown a patter of frequent failure in Afghanistan).

This is understandable.  What isn't, is the fact that there are Leo 2s sitting in Montreal for refit and that is not being done.  Someone dropped the ball there.