Canada's tanks

[ueo]

Granted, that poster's comment was hyperbole. That being said, ResF crews jumping from obsolete wheeled cougars into M1's is one thing, RegF crews operating in state of the art tanks and crosstraining into other tanks before deployment is another thing.

M10s are tanks. US crews are the same trades as their Abrams counterparts, going through the same training. I'll challenge the idea that they would add little. Every M10 squadron would be a deployable subunit its own right, without touching the NATO tasked MBT holdings, with reduced infrastructure requirements, and greater strategic mobility. But no, not without cost. No COA to recapitalize the RCAC will be cheap. But By expanding the number of crews, troops, and squadrons trained on tanks, and properly planning for their conversion pre-deployment, you expand the size of what we can sustain with a 3 stage MRP and 1 in 6 rotational deployment for an MBT committment, while having something other to contribute than TAPV's and yet more 25mm LAVs to non NATO missions

I dont want to minimize that. But with all due respect, as a semi-informed taxpayer, a half squadron of deployed tanks from a 3 regiment RCAC does not seem like efficient use of taxpayer funds, and it seems like at this juncture the primary role of the RCAC is surviving to a point beyond the "forseeable future" when aforementioned recapitalization comes.

Sorry I'm old. The last M10 I saw was the defrocked Shermans mounted with either a 90MM or 105 system. Now lost in the annals of history I suppose. Pix of this "new" one pls.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Like @TangoTwoBravo I see no need for the M10 (including down here FWIW).

I’d like to see 12 CA Tank Squadrons of M1A3 (Abrams X), with a total of 400 tanks (allowing for training, pre deployment, and additional warstock numbers)

We'd all like to see a lot of things. Hope isn't a strategy, wishes aren't plans.

The armour centric articles here both acknowledge that the RCAC as it exists isn't tenable.

One posits the way forward is to single stream ttp's with multiple weights of vehicle. Homogenous 4x4 squadrons of direct fire fighting vehicles, with vehicles at all weights acting as proto-tanks, sticking to the core value prop of providing a more firepower and battlefield mobility than the force they're attached to.

The other to embrace armoured cavalry as understood by NATO allies and "beef up" our recce stream with more firepower and integral combat support to both: A be capable of the full spectrum of security tasks and B. fight for information when required.

If the RCAC wants to embrace true armoured cavalry the M10 is out of the picture- unless coupled with OMFV and other variants on the same chassis.

If the RCAC wants to single stream with multiple weights there's no better way to do it than with two kinds of tank- the alternative is a wheeled gun.

Either way, 2/3 rds of the RCAC needs new rides and a purpose, and 80 years of CAF history says it's not going to be in MBT's

 

[IKnowNothing]

Sorry I'm old. The last M10 I saw was the defrocked Shermans mounted with either a 90MM or 105 system. Now lost in the annals of history I suppose. Pix of this "new" one pls.

M10 Booker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

US Army Unveils M10 Light Tank, Its First New Combat Vehicle in Two Decades

Top US Army leaders on Saturday afternoon during an Army birthday celebration at Fort Belvoir, Va., were set to unveil the official name for the vehicle...

www.defense-aerospace.com

 

[Kirkhill]

How about just buying CV90s? The power and weight of the MkIVs seems to be similar to the Booker and both 105 and 120 mm turrets have been mounted on earlier, lighter models.

Keep the Leos and upgrade them and buy the CV90s and turn the RCAC into Combined Arms regiments.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Granted, that poster's comment was hyperbole. That being said, ResF crews jumping from obsolete wheeled cougars into M1's is one thing, RegF crews operating in state of the art tanks and crosstraining into other tanks before deployment is another thing.

M10s are tanks. US crews are the same trades as their Abrams counterparts, going through the same training. I'll challenge the idea that they would add little. Every M10 squadron would be a deployable subunit its own right, without touching the NATO tasked MBT holdings, with reduced infrastructure requirements, and greater strategic mobility. But no, not without cost. No COA to recapitalize the RCAC will be cheap. But By expanding the number of crews, troops, and squadrons trained on tanks, and properly planning for their conversion pre-deployment, you expand the size of what we can sustain with a 3 stage MRP and 1 in 6 rotational deployment for an MBT committment, while having something other to contribute than TAPV's and yet more 25mm LAVs to non NATO missions

I dont want to minimize that. But with all due respect, as a semi-informed taxpayer, a half squadron of deployed tanks from a 3 regiment RCAC does not seem like efficient use of taxpayer funds, and it seems like at this juncture the primary role of the RCAC is surviving to a point beyond the "forseeable future" when aforementioned recapitalization comes.

If someone is in one of our three Armoured Regiments then they will be deploying to Latvia at least once every three years. They are going to be plenty busy. There is more than the Leopard 2 capability. Speaking of which, we will have world-class tanks in a meaningful mission for which they were designed. There will be 15 tanks in theatre, so its really a Sqn minus with the addition of a Troop worth of crews for any type of surge. Not sure how that is "surviving?" Surviving would be just running courses and low-level exercises in Canada while waiting for a mission that never comes and defending large O&M budgets. This mission means that the tanks are front and centre, were they belong on a mission like this.

There can be an argument for a "medium AFV", but it occupies an awkward place. What can it really do that a Leopard 2 or M1 couldn't just do better? Yes its lighter than an MBT, but an M10 still weighs around 40 tons. If something looks like a tank it will tend to end up being used like a tank. They will not be cheap to acquire and they will still need extensive, bespoke maintenance. So if we are going to do that for a small army then just acquire more MBTs.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Rearranged things a little

Speaking of which, we will have world-class tanks in a meaningful mission for which they were designed. There will be 15 tanks in theatre, so its really a Sqn minus with the addition of a Troop worth of crews for any type of surge.
This mission means that the tanks are front and centre, were they belong on a mission like this.

This a positive story and a win. I'm not trying to take away from that.

If someone is in one of our three Armoured Regiments then they will be deploying to Latvia at least once every three years. They are going to be plenty busy. There is more than the Leopard 2 capability.

Not sure how that is "surviving?" Surviving would be just running courses and low-level exercises in Canada while waiting for a mission that never comes and defending large O&M budgets.

LAV's and TAPV's?
The "just surviving" is directed at the non-tank RCAC. As I said in the post to Kevin
"Either way, 2/3 rds of the RCAC needs new rides and a purpose, and 80 years of CAF history says it's not going to be in MBT's".
Sending troops to Latvia in LAV's and TAPVs as "armoured cavalry" is, well, not the same as the win above. Nothing against the soldiers, but those are admittedly, by RCAC thought leaders in CAJ, placeholder vehicles that aren't really fit for the role.

There can be an argument for a "medium AFV", but it occupies an awkward place. What can it really do that a Leopard 2 or M1 couldn't just do better?

Can I assume that the power to weight ratio and surface pressure advantages aren't enough to create meaningful battlefield mobility advantages, and that the we should disregard the the 2:1 strategic airlift advantage via C17 as armour should ideally be moved by sea? If so, nothing, but is the bolded really the question?Yes its lighter than an MBT, but an M10 still weighs around 40 tons.They will not be cheap to acquire and they will still need extensive, bespoke maintenance. So if we are going to do that for a small army then just acquire more MBTs.

If something looks like a tank it will tend to end up being used like a tank.

Is that really an issue? At 42 tonnes, with a full velocity 105mm and modern FCS would it not be as or more capable of being used as a tank than say, a C2 was?

Yes its lighter than an MBT, but an M10 still weighs around 40 tons. They will not be cheap to acquire and they will still need extensive, bespoke maintenance. So if we are going to do that for a small army then just acquire more MBTs.

"Still weighs 40 tonnes." Less than 50%. Within the envelope for Petawawa (still? The base used to be able to handle C2's), no clue about Valcartier. The "still" seems like misapplied emphasis that understates the difference and resultingly increased flexibility of use/ decreased infrastructure requirements.

"Will not be cheap" / "Just acquire more MBT's" , again I think that's an understated difference. M10's are something like half the reported price of M1A2 Sepv3's / 2A8's. 2:1 acquisition ratio.

So circling back to both the question

What can it really do that a Leopard 2 or M1 couldn't just do better?

The answer would be "Be purchased in numbers big enough to outfit the rest of the RCAC in a timely(ish) while being able to do a job." Framing it as an upgrade on LAV's/TAPVs rather than a downgrade on Leo's.

 

[suffolkowner]

Are the USMC going to reacquire the tank capability with the M10?

 

[McG]

Not everything the US armed forces do is right for other militaries. Some of the things they do are not even appropriate for other NATO or ABCANZ forces.

The US military is so massive, even its small fleets have economies of scale that our whole army cannot achieve with our predominant systems. The US strategic airlift capability dwarfs the rest of NATO combined. They have the ability to airlift large mechanized forces, and the efficiencies of fitting two light tanks or one heavy tank is a relevant question for them. Even with light tanks, Canada is not air deploying a mechanized rapid reaction force across the globe.

The US & UK field the world’s two heaviest modern MBT. The US gets advantages from buying a light tank that we can have just from retaining Leopard 2 (including lower fuel consumption & greater compatibility with military bridges in service across NATO).

 

[McG]

Are the USMC going to reacquire the tank capability with the M10?

That is not the plan.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That is not the plan.

The current plan which will change again in another decade. The USMC has always been on and off again in regards to armour.

 

[IKnowNothing]

So maybe this is the wrong thread for this conversation, but I went back and found the convo that (when coupled with the CAJ articles) is kind of the catalyst to the whole M10 train of thought

Canada’s cavalry concept, as explained to me, is that recce and “sabre” tasks are just activities on opposing ends of a cavalry capability spectrum; and a TAPV can do any task a tank can do while a tank can also do any task that a TAPV can do. Obviously, terrain and threat will dictate which platform is better in any given incident. But, we are now supposed to be comfortable employing either platform anywhere on the cavalry spectrum of tasks.

It is an attempt to unify the Branch with common doctrine, training and organization, but not necessarily equipment, for mounted tasks.

it also seems to be a more aggressive change in role, from sneak and peak recce to recce in force. Long term Cavalry may evolve into something more then TAPV, and could involve light tanks, if certain people get their way, and budget.

As Mil alluded to, it seems like Light tanks fit that spectrum well as closest step in that mounted spectrum with the easiest application of common doctrine etc.

Is the issue that it's too close, and the next "step down" (in weight) needs to be more pronounced to address needed capabilities?

If so,
what does that look like?
How does the surveillance suite on a LAV recce fit into common doctrine with tanks?
Does focusing on common doctrine and homogenous sub-units limit the ability to upgrade the LAV Recce's/ TAPV's with various weapon systems to layer effects as a stopgap? (Thinking mixed squadrons with Crows-J on recce's, Hero-90/120 on TAPV in more of an overwatch role)

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not everything the US armed forces do is right for other militaries. Some of the things they do are not even appropriate for other NATO or ABCANZ forces.

The US military is so massive, even its small fleets have economies of scale that our whole army cannot achieve with our predominant systems. The US strategic airlift capability dwarfs the rest of NATO combined. They have the ability to airlift large mechanized forces, and the efficiencies of fitting two light tanks or one heavy tank is a relevant question for them. Even with light tanks, Canada is not air deploying a mechanized rapid reaction force across the globe.

The US & UK field the world’s two heaviest modern MBT. The US gets advantages from buying a light tank that we can have just from retaining Leopard 2 (including lower fuel consumption & greater compatibility with military bridges in service across NATO).

Agreed. American power rests on its sea and airborne projection capabilities and its sustainment capabilities. This is its true strength. It can put lots men and stuff in places and keep/sustain them there until the political will ceases to exist.

 

[Kirkhill]

If someone is in one of our three Armoured Regiments then they will be deploying to Latvia at least once every three years. They are going to be plenty busy. There is more than the Leopard 2 capability. Speaking of which, we will have world-class tanks in a meaningful mission for which they were designed. There will be 15 tanks in theatre, so its really a Sqn minus with the addition of a Troop worth of crews for any type of surge. Not sure how that is "surviving?" Surviving would be just running courses and low-level exercises in Canada while waiting for a mission that never comes and defending large O&M budgets. This mission means that the tanks are front and centre, were they belong on a mission like this.

There can be an argument for a "medium AFV", but it occupies an awkward place. What can it really do that a Leopard 2 or M1 couldn't just do better? Yes its lighter than an MBT, but an M10 still weighs around 40 tons. If something looks like a tank it will tend to end up being used like a tank. They will not be cheap to acquire and they will still need extensive, bespoke maintenance. So if we are going to do that for a small army then just acquire more MBTs.

If I am not mistaken the Ukrainian 82nd Brigade is effectively nibbling away in the Robotyne area with:

14 Challengers
24 M113s
40 Marders
90 Strykers and

approximately 2000 troops.

Who are Ukraine's 82nd Air Assault Brigade? A new elite unit armed with the best Western gear seems to have Russia rattled.

Leaked Pentagon documents from earlier this year said the unit would have 90 US Strykers, 40 German-made Marders, and 14 Challenger tanks.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[KevinB]

If I am not mistaken the Ukrainian 82nd Brigade is effectively nibbling away in the Robotyne area with:

14 Challengers
24 M113s
40 Marders
90 Strykers and

approximately 2000 troops.

Who are Ukraine's 82nd Air Assault Brigade? A new elite unit armed with the best Western gear seems to have Russia rattled.

Leaked Pentagon documents from earlier this year said the unit would have 90 US Strykers, 40 German-made Marders, and 14 Challenger tanks.

www.businessinsider.com

Point?

I think we all know that the AFU is making do with the equipment they have been given as best as they can. The Western donated kit is often mixed with their own holdings (either domestic products or old USSR vintage items).

They have been extremely vocal they would prefer to have pure fleet setups, but cannot due to the limited numbers.

As far as Canada goes, it isn’t in Ukraine’s situation, and so it should be looking at a high end fleet option rather than getting multiple types of lesser systems.

 

[Kirkhill]

Point?

I think we all know that the AFU is making do with the equipment they have been given as best as they can. The Western donated kit is often mixed with their own holdings (either domestic products or old USSR vintage items).

They have been extremely vocal they would prefer to have pure fleet setups, but cannot due to the limited numbers.

As far as Canada goes, it isn’t in Ukraine’s situation, and so it should be looking at a high end fleet option rather than getting multiple types of lesser systems.

I agree the AFU is making do. I would argue that Canada is making do as well. T2B and McG seemed to me to be suggesting that a Squadron (-) of Leos is not nothing. In fact in the "near peer" battlespace that is Ukraine their 82nd seems to be able to acquit themselves quite well with Strykers, M113s and a US/Euro company of Leos. The Marders no doubt come in handy as well.

Would they, and the CAF prefer to have more of everything and better of everything?



And before somebody challenges me on "near peer" - I would argue that Ukraine and Russia are pretty much of equal standing in this battlespace. If anything I would give Ukraine the edge. Which, in turn, would suggest that there is only one country that could conceivably be considered a US peer. And it isn't Russia.

The issue, surely, is just making sure that the force engaged is not overmatched, that it is given a task commensurate with its capabilities.

Could Canada be doing better? Could it be buying more Leos and CV90s, K9s and Chunmoos? Should it? Absolutely. But it ain't. And that isn't the fault of anybody riding those Leos and LAVs. They have to make do.

 

[Brad Sallows]

T2B and McG seemed to me to be suggesting that a Squadron (-) of Leos is not nothing.

They seem to be correct. Limited as I am mostly to WWII stories, I can't get worked up about a war east of Poland that provokes social media commentary about what happens to platoon-sized groupings of tanks and other AFVs. But here we are.

 

[KevinB]

I agree the AFU is making do. I would argue that Canada is making do as well. T2B and McG seemed to me to be suggesting that a Squadron (-) of Leos is not nothing. In fact in the "near peer" battlespace that is Ukraine their 82nd seems to be able to acquit themselves quite well with Strykers, M113s and a US/Euro company of Leos. The Marders no doubt come in handy as well.

Would they, and the CAF prefer to have more of everything and better of everything?

View attachment 79750

And before somebody challenges me on "near peer" - I would argue that Ukraine and Russia are pretty much of equal standing in this battlespace. If anything I would give Ukraine the edge. Which, in turn, would suggest that there is only one country that could conceivably be considered a US peer. And it isn't Russia.

The issue, surely, is just making sure that the force engaged is not overmatched, that it is given a task commensurate with its capabilities.

Could Canada be doing better? Could it be buying more Leos and CV90s, K9s and Chunmoos? Should it? Absolutely. But it ain't. And that isn't the fault of anybody riding those Leos and LAVs. They have to make do.

A Sqn(-) is worse than nothing honestly. It’s an empty seat at the table of grown ups because the CA can’t manage itself.
44k personnel in the CA of which 23k are Regular Force, and all it can muster for deployed Armour is less than a Squadron….

Time to look at WTF the CA is actually about.
Because right now that is a Corps worth of Troops, with less than a Bde worth of Equipment…
Maybe better to cut the size of the force to 3 actual Bde’s and equip them properly.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't know what support the tanks get, but clearly it's not enough. Perhaps it's time to have a full workshop that can tear tanks apart and rebuild them and they have a direct authority to get parts without going through the procurement process. Also have contracts let to make tracks, roadwheels and sprockets here. Buy more engine packs and final drives, so we can cycle refreshed ones into the fleet.

The big problem coming is that with the RCN and the RCAF both getting major systems, there is going to be very little in the pot for the army. Coupled with a rocketing debt, this current government is going to do the least amount it can in this regard. Even if the CPC gets in, it may stop the rot, but there will be few pennies lying around to spend on new tanks.

 

[Kirkhill]

A Sqn(-) is worse than nothing honestly. It’s an empty seat at the table of grown ups because the CA can’t manage itself.
44k personnel in the CA of which 23k are Regular Force, and all it can muster for deployed Armour is less than a Squadron….

Time to look at WTF the CA is actually about.
Because right now that is a Corps worth of Troops, with less than a Bde worth of Equipment…
Maybe better to cut the size of the force to 3 actual Bde’s and equip them properly.

That presupposes that DND gets to swap people dollars for hardware dollars.

 

[Fabius]

Not MBT but related to two of our Armoured Regiments.

First 5 of 66 LAV 6 Recce variants to replace the 141 Coyote’s are being delivered for testing.

IOC in fall of 24 with FOC planned for summer of 25.

Apparently the delay to date was issues with driving cross country with the mast fully raised.

Further delays to Canadian LAV recce vehicle as first units delivered