Canada's tanks

[TangoTwoBravo]

What would that look like, something like LAV Recce with baseline armour for light, LAV 105/ 35+ATGM fully uparmoured for medium?


Could I take that to mean that my whole "walks like a tank, talks like a tank, probably a better tank than the C2, without all of the logistical/infrastructure challenges of full MBT weight" line of thought is not unique to me?

Continuation of the exercise with option 3- the hypothetical 9 squadrons of M10's are downgraded to 9 squadrons of LAV-105/ Canadianized type 16 MCV (~30 tonne, 4 man turret w/ 105mm high velocity, STANAG 6 protection), but you get 2+ squadrons worth of MBT in Europe (1 rotationally deployed, 1 fly over, +~10 war stock/ replacements) and one squadrons worth for work up in Canada. Better?

I am just saying that I do not speak for the RCAC and that some of my colleagues may well have differing professional opinions from me. It will be hard to convince me, though, that an M10 is a better tank than a Leopard C2.

I am not an equipment project guy, but acquisition is not like a Real Time Strategy game where you use resources each turn as you see fit and can exchange/interchange freely.

I do know that having more fleets means more complexity in training but most critically in terms of support.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Never been, so I can’t say.

Meaford would qualify. It needs lots of work though.

 

[KevinB]

I am just saying that I do not speak for the RCAC and that some of my colleagues may well have differing professional opinions from me. It will be hard to convince me, though, that an M10 is a better tank than a Leopard C2.

The holistic question is: Is the M10 a better partner to a LAV 6.0 than the Leo2, or should the Infantry get an IFV that partners properly with the Leo2.

But I mean that would require the Infantry and Armoured to actually talk

I am not an equipment project guy, but acquisition is not like a Real Time Strategy game where you use resources each turn as you see fit and can exchange/interchange freely.

I do know that having more fleets means more complexity in training but most critically in terms of support.

To me I see the M10 Booker as neither fish nor fowl. I put it in the same column as “headium” wheeled systems. It isn’t light system, and it’s too light to fight in a Peer Armor battle.

It fits for PSO’s like Somalia. But I don’t see the need to create a vehicle solely for that type of operation.

 

[Maxman1]

What about Meaford? - they used to shoot Shermans, Centurions and Cougars there.

My ankles can attest to that.

 

[Maxman1]

Are all the TAPV's going to be withdrawn from the PRes to fill the requirements of the RCAC reorg?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

But I mean that would require the Infantry and Armoured to actually talk

No problem Kev. There's a phone on the back of the tank.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No problem Kev. There's a phone on the back of the tank.

Likely requires a coin or a card to pay for the call. The Germans in Shilo had Schnapps in the protective box on their Leopard 1's when we got the tour.

 

[WLSC]

But I mean that would require the Infantry and Armoured to actually talk

Touché

 

[markppcli]

Until freqs blocked.

Explain how you block LRF “freqs “ or do you mean the radios in which case thank goodness we have some work arounds now, and even still I’d rather smoke signal my cat 2 grid than man at best 300m accurate mk1 eyeball.

 

[KevinB]

No problem Kev. There's a phone on the back of the tank.

Yeah I’ve been dragged on my face by one as the crew laughed hysterically. Odd that their tent somehow got shot to pieces later

 

[ueo]

Oh crap, lose some of the artsy shit insert usuable field skills.

 

[ueo]

Meaford would qualify. It needs lots of work though.

Yep. increase template about 3 kms into tourist waters, reinvent the naval componant. increase either staff or radar to monito Etc etc.

 

[ueo]

My ankles can attest to that.

No fall of shot into the lake permitted today. IF war shot used in Leo or replacement then 6 kms of water on an arc fm CAEN tower reqd for"most" ricochets. Dont think local business would stand for that type of restriction even if the entirity of the RCN were deployed to enforce the no-go lines. Posted in jest but based in reality.

 

[QV]

Yeah I’ve been dragged on my face by one as the crew laughed hysterically. Odd that their tent somehow got shot to pieces later

I've fond memories of the phone bouncing along the ground as the tanks punched through and I narrowly avoided saplings snapping back upright.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The holistic question is: Is the M10 a better partner to a LAV 6.0 than the Leo2, or should the Infantry get an IFV that partners properly with the Leo2.

But I mean that would require the Infantry and Armoured to actually talk



To me I see the M10 Booker as neither fish nor fowl. I put it in the same column as “headium” wheeled systems. It isn’t light system, and it’s too light to fight in a Peer Armor battle.

It fits for PSO’s like Somalia. But I don’t see the need to create a vehicle solely for that type of operation.

I am thinking the Bradley rep has been redeemed by it's performance in Ukraine. Some people feel it is as important or even more so than the donated tanks?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yeah I’ve been dragged on my face by one as the crew laughed hysterically. Odd that their tent somehow got shot to pieces later

Never get off the tank!

 

[Kirkhill]

The holistic question is: Is the M10 a better partner to a LAV 6.0 than the Leo2, or should the Infantry get an IFV that partners properly with the Leo2.

But I mean that would require the Infantry and Armoured to actually talk



To me I see the M10 Booker as neither fish nor fowl. I put it in the same column as “headium” wheeled systems. It isn’t light system, and it’s too light to fight in a Peer Armor battle.

It fits for PSO’s like Somalia. But I don’t see the need to create a vehicle solely for that type of operation.

And then there is this....

"Obsolescence could be dangerously close for a platform that is newly arrived in service, given the speed of innovation," Mr Heappey warned.

Mr Heappey stressed the necessity for adaptability in the procurement process, acknowledging the imperative for change.

Minister for the Armed Forces James Heappey says there must be a complete transformation in defence procurement to keep up with the pace of innovation.

Defence procurement needs complete transformation, minister warns

The Minister for the Armed Forces says there’s a need for a complete transformation in the way we equipment is procured.

www.forces.net

 

[MilEME09]

The holistic question is: Is the M10 a better partner to a LAV 6.0 than the Leo2, or should the Infantry get an IFV that partners properly with the Leo2.

But I mean that would require the Infantry and Armoured to actually talk



To me I see the M10 Booker as neither fish nor fowl. I put it in the same column as “headium” wheeled systems. It isn’t light system, and it’s too light to fight in a Peer Armor battle.

It fits for PSO’s like Somalia. But I don’t see the need to create a vehicle solely for that type of operation.

M10 to me fits in as a Cavalry tank, its light weight, air transportable, and in theory designed to be easy to maintain and reliable. If you wanna mix fleet it, having LdSH(RC) as our sole heavy tank regiment with leopard 2, and then buying two regiments (plus extras) of M10 for the RCD's and 12 RBC could work. Ignoring our personal issues for 5 seconds, having armoured regiments without armour is laughable, and DND should be ashamed to let capabilities atrophy that way.

 

[KevinB]

M10 to me fits in as a Cavalry tank, its light weight, air transportable, and in theory designed to be easy to maintain and reliable. If you wanna mix fleet it, having LdSH(RC) as our sole heavy tank regiment with leopard 2, and then buying two regiments (plus extras) of M10 for the RCD's and 12 RBC could work. Ignoring our personal issues for 5 seconds, having armoured regiments without armour is laughable, and DND should be ashamed to let capabilities atrophy that way.

My concern is what is a Cavalry tank?

It’s a Mobile Protected Firepower Vehicle for Lighter forces. Let’s be honest it’s a cheaper, lighter tank, that can’t really tank.

Now if that is a goal, to have a COIN lesser peer oriented force, then the M10 can make some sense.

At the end of the day what does Doctrine require (assume one had updated doctrine that has a realistic view of the threats).

Doctrine is supposed to drive requirements.

The RCAC has the need to do X,Y,Z in conjunction with the rest of the CA and allies.

If you look at the Doctrine for Light and Medium Forces down here, the M10 had no honest requirements to justify it. It was an Iraq/Afghan COIN contingency program.

Frankly if I was on the HASC and SASC I’d be questioning how the F it got fielded (that goes for a lot of other stupid programs down here of late).

@TangoTwoBravo would have a much better understanding of CA Armoured Doctrine - but to me it’s one of those neither fish nor fowl (admittedly like a lot of other CAF programs).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Frankly if I was on the HASC and SASC I’d be questioning how the F it got fielded (that goes for a lot of other stupid programs down here of late).

Military Industrial Complex.