• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada's tanks

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
885
Points
1,060
They were fiddling with a MTU diesel power Abrams a number of years ago. That might be an attractive export option for US Allies.

surprised that it has been experimented with more. An MT883 or 890 Europowerpack would seem to offer some advantages and is already used in a number of tanks
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,945
Points
1,110
I will take it one step further, Jim. Sorry RSM, doing 25 now for that insubordination.

We will not get new anything except what was on/sort of on the books. NO Bradleys, NO Apaches, NO Switchblades 600, NO Javelin Missiles, NO, no, no.

Canada stands strong in words only against Russia and other global threats. We are literally the opposite of the JTF2 motto, so for Trudeau's Canada "Words not deeds"
All is forgiven Jedi Master 👍🏻
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
5,014
Points
1,160
surprised that it has been experimented with more. An MT883 or 890 Europowerpack would seem to offer some advantages and is already used in a number of tanks
May have been who was willing to support the project, or that the the Abrams has a smaller space in the engine as turbines are generally compact and so more stuff gets stuffed into the engine bay?
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
885
Points
1,060
May have been who was willing to support the project, or that the the Abrams has a smaller space in the engine as turbines are generally compact and so more stuff gets stuffed into the engine bay?
Talking out of my but here again but powerpack swap out seems easier than I would have thought witness the Leclerc/Challenger2e/Merkerva/K2. Not sure on the size constraints in the Abrams but an MT883 Europowerpack saves 1m in engine compartment length over the MT873 and the MT890 saves a further 20% in space and a further 30-40% in weight. Having said that I dont think anyone has demo an 890
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
6,262
Points
1,010
Talking out of my but here again but powerpack swap out seems easier than I would have thought witness the Leclerc/Challenger2e/Merkerva/K2. Not sure on the size constraints in the Abrams but an MT883 Europowerpack saves 1m in engine compartment length over the MT873 and the MT890 saves a further 20% in space and a further 30-40% in weight. Having said that I dont think anyone has demo an 890
I am probably talking out of my butt, too, but the reason that nobody in the US or the US allies using M1s have played with an MT power pack has probably more to with US procurement politics than technical feasibility. The GT manufacturer is Honeywell and I am certain that they protect their product line well in Congress.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,065
Points
1,040
Except that with the exception of training and routine maintenance, they won't be used here. It is far more likely that any Canadian tanks will be employed in Europe or as part of an international effort. In all cases it makes more sense strategically to position them in Europe and only keep sufficient here for training purposes. And if they are in Europe, the Leo or whatever equipment London decides upon would be much closer to the parts supplies.
I disagree and I do like the Leo.

I do agree that many of our tanks should be prepositioned in Europe but we'll also need them in Canada for some of the training. I greatly prefer a supply chain that comes from a safe harbour in North America and through the US supply chain. Who knows how long the Rheinmetall plants in Germany will be operating in case of a NATO war? I'd much prefer a solid contract with the US with a war time guaranteed access clause.

If there is one thing that my research on Afghanistan has taught me its that the Americans are open and generous allies to work with. We were given oodles of the newest and most expensive American technical equipment for JTACs for free, had use of Predators and close air on a regular basis and when we needed new guns were allocated a dozen brand new M777s from the first 100 produced for the Marines and before the US Army had any of theirs.

We have a robust established military sales relationship with the Americans (even during Liberal years) which is unlike any we have with the Europeans. On top of that the Americans have the largest air and sea logistics transport system of anyone in the world.

Sorry. Sometimes the shortest supply line isn't the most secure one.

🍻
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
885
Points
1,060
I disagree and I do like the Leo.

I do agree that many of our tanks should be prepositioned in Europe but we'll also need them in Canada for some of the training. I greatly prefer a supply chain that comes from a safe harbour in North America and through the US supply chain. Who knows how long the Rheinmetall plants in Germany will be operating in case of a NATO war? I'd much prefer a solid contract with the US with a war time guaranteed access clause.

If there is one thing that my research on Afghanistan has taught me its that the Americans are open and generous allies to work with. We were given oodles of the newest and most expensive American technical equipment for JTACs for free, had use of Predators and close air on a regular basis and when we needed new guns were allocated a dozen brand new M777s from the first 100 produced for the Marines and before the US Army had any of theirs.

We have a robust established military sales relationship with the Americans (even during Liberal years) which is unlike any we have with the Europeans. On top of that the Americans have the largest air and sea logistics transport system of anyone in the world.

Sorry. Sometimes the shortest supply line isn't the most secure one.

🍻
I kinda agree in the rare case there are a European platform that is superior or equivalent to the American it still needs to be in wide use for the benefits to be noticable. The leo 2 and CV90 probably qualify as well as Rheinmetall HX trucks, a better example would be the A330 MRTT. European military equipment has the disadvantage of there being so many national programs, look at the tanks below for example. But in general and particularly on the ground there seems to be too many advantages to going with US equipment. In the past we have been offerred much of this equipment at little to no cost and refused unlike other allies. Even the navy seems to be switching to more American equipment in the case of the CSC with the choice of the spy 7
 

Attachments

  • natotanks.jpg
    natotanks.jpg
    89 KB · Views: 46

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
15,156
Points
1,160
I disagree and I do like the Leo.

I do agree that many of our tanks should be prepositioned in Europe but we'll also need them in Canada for some of the training. I greatly prefer a supply chain that comes from a safe harbour in North America and through the US supply chain. Who knows how long the Rheinmetall plants in Germany will be operating in case of a NATO war? I'd much prefer a solid contract with the US with a war time guaranteed access clause.

If there is one thing that my research on Afghanistan has taught me its that the Americans are open and generous allies to work with. We were given oodles of the newest and most expensive American technical equipment for JTACs for free, had use of Predators and close air on a regular basis and when we needed new guns were allocated a dozen brand new M777s from the first 100 produced for the Marines and before the US Army had any of theirs.

We have a robust established military sales relationship with the Americans (even during Liberal years) which is unlike any we have with the Europeans. On top of that the Americans have the largest air and sea logistics transport system of anyone in the world.

Sorry. Sometimes the shortest supply line isn't the most secure one.

🍻

On my recent trip to the UK a few people mistook me for a Yank.

My reply: 'No, I'm Canadian. Like the British, we whine about the Yanks until it's time for them to come and save us.' ;)
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,593
Points
1,140
I kinda agree in the rare case there are a European platform that is superior or equivalent to the American it still needs to be in wide use for the benefits to be noticable. The leo 2 and CV90 probably qualify as well as Rheinmetall HX trucks, a better example would be the A330 MRTT. European military equipment has the disadvantage of there being so many national programs, look at the tanks below for example. But in general and particularly on the ground there seems to be too many advantages to going with US equipment. In the past we have been offerred much of this equipment at little to no cost and refused unlike other allies. Even the navy seems to be switching to more American equipment in the case of the CSC with the choice of the spy 7
The diagram is a little dated.
Poland has opted now for the Abrams over Leo 2, while retaining the Leo 2 until they can pure fleet with Abrams.
Most other FWP users are going Abrams too.

FWIW as @FJAG hinted - the turbine was Congress not the US Army…
 
Reaction score
180
Points
530
I'm sure Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania could use some Leo's. 20 to each Estonia and Lithuania with the remaining 42 in Latvia where they could all get together for training. Such a goodwill gesture would make the purchase of 150 Abrams a little more palpable and be seen as a great Canadian contribution to NATO which would be good for a few weeks of back patting in the media.. Now, maybe Ukraine could use 200 or so LAV's which of course would be replaced by Bradleys....
Maybe some Liberal back benchers can take this and present it as their own idea. Could happen...:sneaky:
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,001
Points
1,040
I'm sure Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania could use some Leo's. 20 to each Estonia and Lithuania with the remaining 42 in Latvia where they could all get together for training. Such a goodwill gesture would make the purchase of 150 Abrams a little more palpable and be seen as a great Canadian contribution to NATO which would be good for a few weeks of back patting in the media.. Now, maybe Ukraine could use 200 or so LAV's which of course would be replaced by Bradleys....
Maybe some Liberal back benchers can take this and present it as their own idea. Could happen...:sneaky:

Never it not in the Plan(tm) plus you wouldn't back fill with Bradley's more LAVs! Built in London plus you would add to contract in place. That in realty could almost happen wouldn't have to wait for too long for purchasing.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,455
Points
1,040
The diagram is a little dated.
Poland has opted now for the Abrams over Leo 2, while retaining the Leo 2 until they can pure fleet with Abrams.
Most other FWP users are going Abrams too.

FWIW as @FJAG hinted - the turbine was Congress not the US Army…
The price and availability are big selling features now, as used to be the case with the Leo. Leo 2's are all over Europe because of the Great Leo firesale in the 90's and the M1 clearly had issues at the time (only the US could afford their care and feeding). M1 logistical costs have come way down, particularly with their upgraded engine, and the US has too many of them, making them much more attractive cost-wise (USMC dropping them, still building more when the US Army specifically told Congress they already have enough etc...) and delivery speed wise. If you wanted Leo's now you would have to produce new ones, US just has a pile of tanks laying around doing nothing.

There are other reasons that the M1 is likely a more attractive option to some states but this is a big one.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
6,262
Points
1,010
The price and availability are big selling features now, as used to be the case with the Leo. Leo 2's are all over Europe because of the Great Leo firesale in the 90's and the M1 clearly had issues at the time (only the US could afford their care and feeding). M1 logistical costs have come way down, particularly with their upgraded engine, and the US has too many of them, making them much more attractive cost-wise (USMC dropping them, still building more when the US Army specifically told Congress they already have enough etc...) and delivery speed wise. If you wanted Leo's now you would have to produce new ones, US just has a pile of tanks laying around doing nothing.

There are other reasons that the M1 is likely a more attractive option to some states but this is a big one.
If I were king for a day, I would sell/donate our Leo2s back to Germany and let them either upgrade/standardize them into their army or hand them out as they see fit to the Euro allies.

I would then approach the Americans about buying 3 Bde sets of armoured vehicles (I agree, politically, that keeping LAVs instead of accepting Bradleys would keep London busy/happy) and put two in Canada and one set in Europe. Easy, Peasy.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,455
Points
1,040
If I were king for a day, I would sell/donate our Leo2s back to Germany and let them either upgrade/standardize them into their army or hand them out as they see fit to the Euro allies.

I would then approach the Americans about buying 3 Bde sets of armoured vehicles (I agree, politically, that keeping LAVs instead of accepting Bradleys would keep London busy/happy) and put two in Canada and one set in Europe. Easy, Peasy.
LAV 6's (LAV 3's for that matter) are better than Strykers and just as armored as Bradleys (moreso vs mines) so unless tracks > wheels is important or turret changes (which if we wanted could be done on LAV 6 easy) there really isn't an upgrade there. Just a side grade IMHO.

As for the Leo vs M1 argument if the M1 can be proven to provide the same mobility in snow/ice that the Leo can then I would sign off on that conversion with no problems. I haven't seen evidence that it can (Bradly is also terrible in snow/ice apparently) but I only have salty youtube and a few internet comments to make those assessments.

Another idea along these lines is instead of the Baltic States what if we deployed troops to Finland/Sweden (after they joined) They operate Leo's as well (as does Norway). Winter warfare is supposed to be in our wheelhouse. We might be just the perfect fit for that sort of Euro mission.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,001
Points
1,040
Along those ideas. Would the best thing Canada could give the Ukrainian in heavier stuff would be the LAV6's? Could be easiest backfilled as the line is hot in GDLS Canada in London. There is the open contract in place for the support vehicles being built now. Just add a few more on the end of the order with turrets or RWS if that is better. Unifor will give both the NDP and Liberals cover. Conservatives will agree most likely. The only people not liking it would be the downtown Toronto types.

One thing. With the LAV6 how much US approval is required? Their is a ton of US content but also a ton of Canadian?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,593
Points
1,140
Along those ideas. Would the best thing Canada could give the Ukrainian in heavier stuff would be the LAV6's? Could be easiest backfilled as the line is hot in GDLS Canada in London. There is the open contract in place for the support vehicles being built now. Just add a few more on the end of the order with turrets or RWS if that is better. Unifor will give both the NDP and Liberals cover. Conservatives will agree most likely. The only people not liking it would be the downtown Toronto types.

One thing. With the LAV6 how much US approval is required? Their is a ton of US content but also a ton of Canadian?
The US has given a ton of 5I only stuff to Ukraine -- I wouldn't worry about that.

LAV 6's (LAV 3's for that matter) are better than Strykers and just as armored as Bradleys (moreso vs mines) so unless tracks > wheels is important or turret changes (which if we wanted could be done on LAV 6 easy) there really isn't an upgrade there. Just a side grade IMHO.
I think t least 1 Bde should be fully tracked - as there are significant advantages in some terrain for tracks - plus the whole ATGM and Cannot aspect to the turret with the Bradley - and the A4 Bradley is significantly more armored than the LAV 6.0 with Up Armor.
The same way in some terrain wheels have a large advantage -- I don't see either option as a viable solo method.

As for the Leo vs M1 argument if the M1 can be proven to provide the same mobility in snow/ice that the Leo can then I would sign off on that conversion with no problems. I haven't seen evidence that it can (Bradly is also terrible in snow/ice apparently) but I only have salty youtube and a few internet comments to make those assessments.
You can change tracks for tracks with growsers versus road pads - which makes the tracked vehicles significantly better.
Another idea along these lines is instead of the Baltic States what if we deployed troops to Finland/Sweden (after they joined) They operate Leo's as well (as does Norway). Winter warfare is supposed to be in our wheelhouse. We might be just the perfect fit for that sort of Euro mission.
Finland/Sweden seem to be a perfect fit for Canada.
 
Last edited:

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
347
Points
730
The publicly available info on the Leo and the Abrams is quite similar, I'm sure the secret stuff makes the difference.

I once worked with a very smart guy who previously commanded a tank in the Romainian army. They trained to counter both tanks. His opinion was that the Abrams was much much easier to locate. The turbine sound was a dead giveaway and the heat signature was HUGE and gave away their position even when the turbine was at low power. His words, not mine.

Is his take accurate? If the Abrams is easy to detect that would be a huge issue in my mind. If all other aspects are near equal that is. Or do the Abrams qualities make up for it?
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,945
Points
1,110
The publicly available info on the Leo and the Abrams is quite similar, I'm sure the secret stuff makes the difference.

I once worked with a very smart guy who previously commanded a tank in the Romainian army. They trained to counter both tanks. His opinion was that the Abrams was much much easier to locate. The turbine sound was a dead giveaway and the heat signature was HUGE and gave away their position even when the turbine was at low power. His words, not mine.

Is his take accurate? If the Abrams is easy to detect that would be a huge issue in my mind. If all other aspects are near equal that is. Or do the Abrams qualities make up for it?
Can't speak for the heat signature but that distinctive turbine sound it winds up is a dead giveaway.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,196
Points
1,010
If the Abrams is easy to detect that would be a huge issue in my mind.

It depends. I suppose Iraqi tankers knew M1s were out there. Should one worry about which is the loudest instrument in the orchestra?

that distinctive turbine sound it winds up is a dead giveaway.

Should listeners be more scared, or less?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
5,014
Points
1,160
T-80 also has a turbine. I like both the Abrams and the Leopard 2, but the Abrams is likley the most survivable tank on the field right now, all the ammo is in a bustle protecting the crew.
 
Top