TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,989
- Points
- 1,110
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.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 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.