Canada's tanks

[daftandbarmy]

I'm not so sure. I was part of the AMF(L) (with the dubious distinction that every time it went over to Norway I was off on a course - very frustrating) I thought AMF(L) was a good concept. The trouble with CAST was it wasn't prepositioned equipment. The ST part of CAST was not practical. BRAVE LION in 1986 proved that and the logistics of supporting a brigade in Germany and one in Norway was basically undoable.

I never knew if the plan was to preposition equipment for 5 Bde in Germany - it never came to that but I thought that an air -sea transportable role to Germany as impractical as for Norway even though the logistics situation would have been mitigated with the bde in Germany alongside 4 CMBG.

By that time I'd gone to the legal branch and wasn't really tracking this type of issue very much. I think we kept a battalion role in Norway and I thought that a good and feasible idea.


If I recall the decision to retire the MGS was made in late 2021 and to be complete by the end of 2022. What I haven't seen yet is confirmation that the divestiture has been completed seeing as the MPF won't start its roll out its LRIP models until mid 2024 for testing with the first battalion to be equipped with them in late 2025; four battalions by 2030; and the program completely rolled out in 2035.

I've yet to see what the plan for the SBCT cav squadron's weapons company is in the interim.

Interestingly I see no SBCTs where the MPF will exist. Some SBCTs are part of the basic armoured divisions (which do not have any MPF) and two separate cavalry regiments which are organized as SBCTs, and again have no MPF. The MPF battalions are basically part of only the light divisions' establishment. It makes me wonder, but I don't know, if the plan is to give SBCT cav squadrons a company of tanks to support their Strykers. tanks for the weapons company like they do for an ABCT cavalry squadron.

I did three AMF (L)/ NATO Winter deployments to Arctic Norway, and participated in a couple of long-ish exercises in Denmark.

Despite the hype, it was a pretty threadbare dismounted Brigade Group level effort especially when compared to the massive US contribution centred on the USN and USMC, who made us all look like we were kids playing in our sandboxes with slightly worn toys in comparison.

Also, an important lesson learned was when you are a British battalion brigaded with a Canadian and an Italian unit the enemy will always attack the Italians first, with stereotypically predictable results

 

[FJAG]

British battalion brigaded with a Canadian and an Italian unit

That reminded me that I did have one foreign exercise with AML(F), but that was a liaison visit with the Italian AMF(L) artillery contingent in the Italian Alps and Turin - in summer for three weeks.

 

[Ludoc]

Edit: I had an afterthought. Maybe the problem is the "P" in MPF. Maybe what light infantry needs is just a better version of a 106mm recoilless rifle on a jeep.

If you are doing that, why not just use an ATGM on a jeep? More range, flexibility (to dismount and go where the jeep can't), punch, and accuracy.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's kind of funny. I was looking back at some of the American MBTs over the years and came up with this - M41 Walker Bulldog - 76mm, 24 tonnes;

M-41 was intended for light tank roles. A US lineage should place the M-26 (intended as a heavy) in there, preceded by all versions of the Sherman. One point I note is the spacing of tank generations in time - the end/post-war generation (Patton, Centurion, T-55), the '60s/70s generation (M-60, Chieftain, Leopard, T-62/64/72), the post-'80s generation (very roughly). Mostly what we have to choose from are improved third-gen tanks. If we were to resort to some sort of "lighter/smaller/cheaper" equipment to raise the number of MBT-capable sub-units (operating in Canada), I'd be inclined to any platform which has, or can have, all the latest bells and whistles for improving situational awareness and gunnery, and which can stand up to a lot of operating hours. Crews trained to use that gear to tactical advantage are more important than having more of the latest improved third-gen tanks.

 

[KevinB]

M-41 was intended for light tank roles. A US lineage should place the M-26 (intended as a heavy) in there, preceded by all versions of the Sherman. One point I note is the spacing of tank generations in time - the end/post-war generation (Patton, Centurion, T-55), the '60s/70s generation (M-60, Chieftain, Leopard, T-62/64/72), the post-'80s generation (very roughly). Mostly what we have to choose from are improved third-gen tanks. If we were to resort to some sort of "lighter/smaller/cheaper" equipment to raise the number of MBT-capable sub-units (operating in Canada), I'd be inclined to any platform which has, or can have, all the latest bells and whistles for improving situational awareness and gunnery, and which can stand up to a lot of operating hours. Crews trained to use that gear to tactical advantage are more important than having more of the latest improved third-gen tanks.

Arguably there is zero point in having trained troops with no viable equipment.

MBT’s at this point are extremely in demand items, unless you buy into a new model early you are waiting decades. Canada won’t buy in early…

 

[suffolkowner]

Arguably there is zero point in having trained troops with no viable equipment.

MBT’s at this point are extremely in demand items, unless you buy into a new model early you are waiting decades. Canada won’t buy in early…

exactly look at the costs of Norway or Italy or Romania's recent buys. We might pick up 10 hulls from Switzerland or Spain to replace what we gave to Ukraine and rebuild them here. That is probably the most we can hope for at least with this government

 

[Kirkhill]

I actually agree with what you say. The problem that Sea Lion showed was that the CAF had great problems in executing the actual process. Eventually they did get there but it was pretty much a boondoggle. There was a similar situation with the "Bungle in the Jungle" or "Great Lakes Fiasco" in 1997 when General Baril was sent off to the Congo to plan having 1 Cdn Div become the lead element for the humanitarian UN Op ASSURANCE. The op fell apart for many reasons but one of the major ones was that Baril concluded that Canada did not have the requisite command, control or logistics capability to do such a leadership mission.

Sometimes there is a big delta between what we should be able to do and what we actually can do. IMHO we're quite capable of sending heavy forces as an administrative move in peacetime but would have troubles with doing so where time is a factor.

I don't see money as a problem. In fact I see a prepositioned force as one that can actually save money if you convert much of our higher end collective training to a single installation in Europe. The creation of the Selonia training area and the acquisition of the CC-330 makes flyover training quite practical. Think GATES and BATUS in reverse.

FTFY

Yeah. I basically agree. There are doctrinal limitations here and only time will tell how those will be addressed. In short, it provides light divisions with an additional resource to use. How they use it; how they manage the logistics involved with using it, waits to be seen.

It's kind of funny. I was looking back at some of the American MBTs over the years and came up with this - M41 Walker Bulldog - 76mm, 24 tonnes; M47 Patton - 90mm, 49 tonnes; M48 Patton - 45 tonnes, 90 and 105mm; M60 - 105mm, 46 tonnes.

The M10, weight wise, has crept into the area of what used to pass as an MBT. It's role is not to be an MBT but protected direct firepower for dismounted infantry.

IMHO, the turret causes it the most weight problem. The German concept of the Sturmgeschütz was to take an existing tank chassis, rip off the turret and replace it with a significantly larger gun to provide direct fire support for the dismounted infantry. Of course there is no existing tank chassis to build off - the M1 is much too heavy to be a contender. But if the M10 had been built without a turret one might be able to strip it of around 5-10 tonnes of weight.

We've gone quite far in beefing up the armour side of the speed v weight v firepower triangle in general. If you do not reduce one of the three then as armour creeps up the total mass is just bound to get heavier. The same problem for BAE's AMPV which is destined to replace the M113 in ABCTs. It clocks in at around 35 tonnes, depending on the variant, and the M113 which it will replace in ABCTs comes in at around 11 tonnes. GDLS Ajax comes in at 38 (I haven't been able to find an actual weight for the turretless Atlas but presume its a bit lighter) Between BAE and GDLS there isn't much difference in their armoured vehicles base weights. Interestingly, your favourite country, Sweden's, Stridsvagen 103 (the closest thing to a Sturmgeschütz) also came in at around 43 tonnes back in the 1960s.

Just for a giggle, the MGS came in at just over 20.

Edit: I had an afterthought. Maybe the problem is the "P" in MPF. Maybe what light infantry needs is just a better version of a 106mm recoilless rifle on a jeep.

Agreement across the board.

Just a clarification on the money issue.

I was thinking about how difficult it is to get any capital projects approved and the resulting desire of the operational elements to get their hands on everything that has been approved.

Prepositioned kit requires kit that is removed from the operational cycle and requires a warehouse to store it in. Not to mention a caretaker element of mechanics and guards and cooks.

My personal preference is for a floating, relocatable warehouse or three.

We can cycle them through from a Canadian dock to a foreign dock and park it overseas for any duration, relocate it to another port as the situation demands and bring the whole warehouse back home to have its cargo refreshed while it is replaced by one of the other two warehouses.

 

[FJAG]

If you are doing that, why not just use an ATGM on a jeep? More range, flexibility (to dismount and go where the jeep can't), punch, and accuracy.

$300.00 round rather than $100,000 round.

Not every problem is a nail. Not every solution needs a hammer.

You can have both. Back in the 60s ATk platoons had a mix of 106 RR and SS 11 wire guided missiles.

At the low end they're already running relatively cheap M72s and M4s that can bust stuff up. Something in the 106 to 120mm range gives an even stronger punch to break up defensive positions and various types of vehicles. The M10 comes with a 105 mm gun and fills that role; the 106 - 120 merely replaces the M10s gun.

You can and should supplement that with the guided missiles to take out the heavier armour at longer ranges.

My thought is that everyone in a light division is basically - well, light and unprotected. Why do they suddenly need a heavy tracked MPF which theoretically is not and does not replace a tank. If they need heavier fire power does it have to be the only piece of 40 ton "protected' kit in the division? Or is this just smoke and mirrors to sneak "tanks" into the light divisions? I'm not even raising the question of why SBCTs have neither tanks nor MPFs as it stands.

 

[Kirkhill]

$300.00 round rather than $100,000 round.

Not every problem is a nail. Not every solution needs a hammer.

You can have both. Back in the 60s ATk platoons had a mix of 106 RR and SS 11 wire guided missiles.

At the low end they're already running relatively cheap M72s and M4s that can bust stuff up. Something in the 106 to 120mm range gives an even stronger punch to break up defensive positions and various types of vehicles. The M10 comes with a 105 mm gun and fills that role; the 106 - 120 merely replaces the M10s gun.

You can and should supplement that with the guided missiles to take out the heavier armour at longer ranges.

My thought is that everyone in a light division is basically - well, light and unprotected. Why do they suddenly need a heavy tracked MPF which theoretically is not and does not replace a tank. If they need heavier fire power does it have to be the only piece of 40 ton "protected' kit in the division? Or is this just smoke and mirrors to sneak "tanks" into the light divisions? I'm not even raising the question of why SBCTs have neither tanks nor MPFs as it stands.

Company Support Weapon from Venezuela

6x 106mm Reckless Rifles
1x 81mm mortar
1x 50 cal

All mounted on a repurposed AMX-13 chassis

 

[FJAG]

US M50 Ontos

M50 Ontos - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

8 Tons - crew of three - Chinook transportable - its even armour protected - no mortar - the USMC liked it and used it for direct fire support.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I am not a project guy, but I would expect a ten-year horizon for any vehicle that is not "off the shelf" or "used." Used is getting hard to come by these days...

If a "medium" AFV can be produced on the LAV 6 chassis (say - a turret with a 90mm cannon with additional protection instead of troop carrying capacity) then it might be viable. Another option is to fit ATGMs on a LAV to allow Light Cavalry Squadron to overmatch like-opponents. Of course, we need to ask what a Light Cavalry Squadron is providing that a LAV Infantry Company cannot.

 

[markppcli]

Of course, we need to ask what a Light Cavalry Squadron is providing that a LAV Infantry Company cannot.

Elan and a certain roguish charm

 

[Underway]

Elan and a certain roguish charm

I was going to go with a different berret colour but your's is better.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Elan and a certain roguish charm

Also, amazing breakup stories

 

[Kirkhill]

US M50 Ontos

8 Tons - crew of three - Chinook transportable - its even armour protected - no mortar - the USMC liked it and used it for direct fire support.

Forgot the link....

Venezuela’s 'The Thing' Six-Barrelled Fighting Vehicle Is One Seriously Bizarre Franken-Weapon

Combining U.S., French, and Russian components, the Maisanta YZR is a modern-day equivalent to the M50 Ontos used in Vietnam.

www.thedrive.com

 

[FJAG]

Forgot the link....

Venezuela’s 'The Thing' Six-Barrelled Fighting Vehicle Is One Seriously Bizarre Franken-Weapon

Combining U.S., French, and Russian components, the Maisanta YZR is a modern-day equivalent to the M50 Ontos used in Vietnam.

www.thedrive.com

Coincidentally enough Ontos means "the thing" in Greek.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am not a project guy, but I would expect a ten-year horizon for any vehicle that is not "off the shelf" or "used." Used is getting hard to come by these days...

If a "medium" AFV can be produced on the LAV 6 chassis (say - a turret with a 90mm cannon with additional protection instead of troop carrying capacity) then it might be viable. Another option is to fit ATGMs on a LAV to allow Light Cavalry Squadron to overmatch like-opponents. Of course, we need to ask what a Light Cavalry Squadron is providing that a LAV Infantry Company cannot.

Where do attack helicopters fit on the light - medium - heavy spectrum?

 

[KevinB]

Where do attack helicopters fit on the light - medium - heavy spectrum?

Never in Canada

 

[IKnowNothing]

If a "medium" AFV can be produced on the LAV 6 chassis (say - a turret with a 90mm cannon with additional protection instead of troop carrying capacity) then it might be viable. Another option is to fit ATGMs on a LAV to allow Light Cavalry Squadron to overmatch like-opponents. Of course, we need to ask what a Light Cavalry Squadron is providing that a LAV Infantry Company cannot.

Counter question- if a medium AFV can be produced on a LAV 6 chassis, at LAV 6 weight (or close to it), would that not make a the LAV Recce an under-gunned, under-protected medium AFV, and the classification of LAV Recce equipped squadron as "Light" an exercise in mental gymnastics, and the bolded a doctrinal red-herring?

A true light cavalry squadron (Scimitar Mk2, Scorpion 90, JLTV HGC) wouldn't be made redundant by LAV company. Could offer lots of things- strategic mobility, tactical mobility, firepower, smaller vehicle signature. Is it something we need, something worth the logistical complexity of a 3rd vehicle fleet? Undetermined. Maybe even unlikely. But if that (truly light cavalry) isn't in the cards we might as well drop the charade, concede (to ourselves) that there will be/are two weights rather than 3 , and that we currently do not have a proper vehicle for the 2nd.

 

[Kirkhill]

Counter question- if a medium AFV can be produced on a LAV 6 chassis, at LAV 6 weight (or close to it), would that not make a the LAV Recce an under-gunned, under-protected medium AFV, and the classification of LAV Recce equipped squadron as "Light" an exercise in mental gymnastics, and the bolded a doctrinal red-herring?

A true light cavalry squadron (Scimitar Mk2, Scorpion 90, JLTV HGC) wouldn't be made redundant by LAV company. Could offer lots of things- strategic mobility, tactical mobility, firepower, smaller vehicle signature. Is it something we need, something worth the logistical complexity of a 3rd vehicle fleet? Undetermined. Maybe even unlikely. But if that (truly light cavalry) isn't in the cards we might as well drop the charade, concede (to ourselves) that there will be/are two weights rather than 3 , and that we currently do not have a proper vehicle for the 2nd.

Do they fight mounted or on their feet?