Canada's tanks

[IKnowNothing]

I'm frankly not up on the interior systems with the A4M v the A4. I know the A4M has an armour package upgrade but the gun remains as the same L44 as the A4. I presume that the basic turret and automotive operation is fundamentally the same in the A4 as the A4M. Can anyone confirm?

I'm pretty sure the A4M's are actually more (or atleast equally) "advanced" as the A6M's, just with the shorter gun. Fully electric turret drive, modern (ish) fire control, night sights etc. Whereas the A4's are straight from the 80's, hydraulic drive etc.

An ABCT generally has 97 tanks, which correct me if I am wrong, I don’t believe Canada has that anymore. Doing anything less than Bde sized just shows even more lack of credibility.

Does a Bde have to follow US doctrine to the T to be credible?
What about an MBCT with 3x Inf heavy combined arms bn's? It lacks the tank heavy armoured fist of a true armoured Bde, but is there still room for a combined arms Mech Bde that isn't Armoured?

 

[FJAG]

I have no dog in the fight, nor allegiance to any cap badge; but why 3 PPCLI ?

A compound of reasons. Wainwright, Suffield and Shilo are good combined arms training ranges which places an armoured brigade in the west (yup, I know, wide separation). An armoured brigade typically has three manoeuvre battalions, at least one of which should be tank heavy. 1 CMBG has four manoeuvre units, LdSH(RC), and 1,2,3 PPCLI. 1 and 2 PPCLI are mech and 3 PPCLI are light. It seems logical to me to retain the LdSH(RC) and 1 and 2 PPCLI and use 3 PPCLI to fill out all the essential positions which are currently unallocated/unmanned in the remaining units.

If you want to see cap badge bias at its ultimate, you should see my org charts for a napkin force of two divisions based on heavy 30/70 use. Only five RegF cap badges survive. RCD, 1 RCR, 1 PPCLI, 1 R22eR, 1 RCHA. Everyone else gets ResF unit names/titles.

 

[PrairieFella]

I'm pretty sure the A4M's are actually more (or atleast equally) "advanced" as the A6M's, just with the shorter gun. Fully electric turret drive, modern (ish) fire control, night sights etc. Whereas the A4's are straight from the 80's, hydraulic drive etc.

Correct, the 2A4M is our most modern tank.

 

[Kirkhill]

The logistics of adding tanks to Island hoping and amphibious operations is not worth the squeeze.

The USMC correctly identified that. For further pushes inland, you then bring in the Army if you need heavy armor.

You surprise me Kevin.

The "Old Corps" is still arguing vigorously against the loss of the tanks and cannons.

Don't confuse me with an "Old Corps" fan. I'm just trying to keep an open mind.

This statement colours all my opinions...

“The problem that we are seeking to solve here … is America and our allies and partners do not have enough weapons, full stop. And we are not capable of producing the volume of weapons that we’re going to need to establish deterrence against a peer competitor,” Anduril Chief Strategy Officer Chris Brose said in a briefing with reporters ahead of the announcement.

Anduril unveils new cruise-missile like weapon, plus voice-controlled drones - Breaking Defense

The defense tech startup disclosed a new “Barracuda” weapon, and put on a demo for reporters where drone wingmen were controlled using voice commands.

breakingdefense.com

I think we need stuff to throw at the enemy. Beyond that I am agnostic.

 

[Kirkhill]

Honestly it was easier to use that word to encompass a lot more than logistics, but at the end of the day all of those other Issues create their own logistical challenges, and so the umbrella of ‘logistics’ is apt.

Going down the rabbit hole further.
One needs larger landing craft to accommodate modern MBT’s, which in turn cost more, often move slower and are easier targets, so you need to then accept more casualties on insertion, demanding more systems and more landing craft and taking more monies etc.

Rather than drill down further I think Logistics was all encompassing.

Or you can field lighter tanks (like the M10 or Leo 1 or Japanese Type 10) that can work with in the limits of the existing roads, rails, bridges, tunnels, landing craft and aircraft.

If your ATGMs and PGMs can suppress the other guys tanks then even a few "light" tanks can help your cause. Although 40 tonnes is not really all that light.

By the way a 40 tonne budget would buy you a CV90120.

CV90120

The CV90120 has been developed to meet a specific demand - firepower comparable to an MBT, in a lighter, more mobile vehicle

www.baesystems.com

 

[FJAG]

Quite frankly I don’t think chopping an Inf BN will do much for the CA, other than simply reorganizing the deck chairs on a sinking ship.

Canada doesn’t have the equipment to make a proper Division anyway.


An ABCT generally has 97 tanks, which correct me if I am wrong, I don’t believe Canada has that anymore. Doing anything less than Bde sized just shows even more lack of credibility.

An ABCT has 87 - 6 companies of 14 (including the cav sqn coy) and 3 bn comd tanks. Canada has 20 x A6M, 20 x A4M, and 34 x A4 for a total of 74 when all the hulls are up and running. That's 13 (or one coy/sqn short) and leaves nothing for tech ref or the school. One can squeeze by with a system of two inf combined arms bns and one armed combined arms battalion.

I'm well aware of the reality of a poor situation, but baying at the moon isn't the solution. Do what you can with what you have. Make a plan that works in stages to build a force with both experience and eventually equipment.

My suggestion is quite simply to form three 30/70 armoured brigades in Canada and one 10/90 prepositioned brigade in Latvia, each with one armoured regiment and two mech infantry regiments. Of the 74 tanks that we have, 44 are prepositioned in Latvia. The remaining thirty are divided up so that each Canadian armoured brigade has 10 (two troops of four and a squadron headquarters of two) which are given to the RegF sqn in the 30/70 tank regiments. The 30 in Canada are used for individual and troop training while the 44 in Latvia are used as pool vehicles for synchronized flyover sqn and regt'l and battle group exercises. It allows the training to progress while, in the meantime, the decades' long progress to equip the whole force takes place.

Same, same for infantry. Two full flyover LAV battalions in Latvia (including the eFP coy/bn HQ). In Canada six 30/70 bns with 15 LAVs in each of the RegF coys in each of the bns (plus a few in bn HQ). With the long term plan to equip all three brigades over the years with IFVs and turn all the LAVs over to the 2nd division to fully equip two Mech bdes (3 mech Inf bns each).

One has to set incremental goals based on what you have at any given time but focused on an ultimate vision of what you need to be.

So the USMC are right and don't need tanks?

BC's 39 CBG isn't the USMC. Consider yourselves combined with the Canadian Rangers and employed as "West Coast Watchers."

 

[Kirkhill]

An ABCT has 87 - 6 companies of 14 (including the cav sqn coy) and 3 bn comd tanks. Canada has 20 x A6M, 20 x A4M, and 34 x A4 for a total of 74 when all the hulls are up and running. That's 13 (or one coy/sqn short) and leaves nothing for tech ref or the school. One can squeeze by with a system of two inf combined arms bns and one armed combined arms battalion.

I'm well aware of the reality of a poor situation, but baying at the moon isn't the solution. Do what you can with what you have. Make a plan that works in stages to build a force with both experience and eventually equipment.

My suggestion is quite simply to form three 30/70 armoured brigades in Canada and one 10/90 prepositioned brigade in Latvia, each with one armoured regiment and two mech infantry regiments. Of the 74 tanks that we have, 44 are prepositioned in Latvia. The remaining thirty are divided up so that each Canadian armoured brigade has 10 (two troops of four and a squadron headquarters of two) which are given to the RegF sqn in the 30/70 tank regiments. The 30 in Canada are used for individual and troop training while the 44 in Latvia are used as pool vehicles for synchronized flyover sqn and regt'l and battle group exercises. It allows the training to progress while, in the meantime, the decades' long progress to equip the whole force takes place.

Same, same for infantry. Two full flyover LAV battalions in Latvia (including the eFP coy/bn HQ). In Canada six 30/70 bns with 15 LAVs in each of the RegF coys in each of the bns (plus a few in bn HQ). With the long term plan to equip all three brigades over the years with IFVs and turn all the LAVs over to the 2nd division to fully equip two Mech bdes (3 mech Inf bns each).

One has to set incremental goals based on what you have at any given time but focused on an ultimate vision of what you need to be.


BC's 39 CBG isn't the USMC. Consider yourselves combined with the Canadian Rangers and employed as "West Coast Watchers."

Wouldn't it be nice to be warm and cozy in a Centauro 2 or a CV90120 while watching the coast from a hull down, or even turret down position?

 

[KevinB]

Does a Bde have to follow US doctrine to the T to be credible?

No, but it helps for interoperability.

An ABCT has 87 - 6 companies of 14 (including the cav sqn coy) and 3 bn comd tanks. Canada has 20 x A6M, 20 x A4M, and 34 x A4 for a total of 74 when all the hulls are up and running. That's 13 (or one coy/sqn short) and leaves nothing for tech ref or the school. One can squeeze by with a system of two inf combined arms bns and one armed combined arms battalion.

I have three different TO&E numbers - 87, 93 and 97, so I defaulted to the larger.
and yes I agree that one could make a Bde out of your 74.

What about an MBCT with 3x Inf heavy combined arms bn's? It lacks the tank heavy armoured fist of a true armoured Bde, but is there still room for a combined arms Mech Bde that isn't Armoured?

I’d suggest you need at least one Armor heavy CAB, simply to be either hammer or anvil which @FJAG proposes above.

But my major issue with CAB’s in Canada is the lack of a Tracked IFV. Wheeled vehicles cannot work in tandem with tracks in all types of require combat situations. If you had a lot more tanks, you might be able to get away with that for most needs - but you don't.

Or you can field lighter tanks (like the M10 or Leo 1 or Japanese Type 10) that can work with in the limits of the existing roads, rails, bridges, tunnels, landing craft and aircraft.

If your ATGMs and PGMs can suppress the other guys tanks then even a few "light" tanks can help your cause. Although 40 tonnes is not really all that light.

By the way a 40 tonne budget would buy you a CV90120.

CV90120

The CV90120 has been developed to meet a specific demand - firepower comparable to an MBT, in a lighter, more mobile vehicle

www.baesystems.com

The M10 isn't a Tank, and no one is going to try to use a Leo 1 in a MBT's place in 2024 and beyond.
Japan until recently consider its Military a Self Defense Force - and rumor has it they are on a heavy armor look now for expeditionary reasons...

You missing the entire role of the tank if you think a Tankette is a viable substitute.

 

[Kirkhill]

No, but it helps for interoperability.

I have three different TO&E numbers - 87, 93 and 97, so I defaulted to the larger.
and yes I agree that one could make a Bde out of your 74.


I’d suggest you need at least one Armor heavy CAB, simply to be either hammer or anvil which @FJAG proposes above.

But my major issue with CAB’s in Canada is the lack of a Tracked IFV. Wheeled vehicles cannot work in tandem with tracks in all types of require combat situations. If you had a lot more tanks, you might be able to get away with that for most needs - but you don't.


The M10 isn't a Tank, and no one is going to try to use a Leo 1 in a MBT's place in 2024 and beyond.
Japan until recently consider its Military a Self Defense Force - and rumor has it they are on a heavy armor look now for expeditionary reasons...

You missing the entire role of the tank if you think a Tankette is a viable substitute.

I think that no matter how big a tank you build, with however many systems you append, somebody will always hit it with a bigger bomb.

On the Falklands, in the absence of anything better, the 76mm Scorpion and 30 mm Scimitar dominated the field.

 

[FJAG]

But my major issue with CAB’s in Canada is the lack of a Tracked IFV. Wheeled vehicles cannot work in tandem with tracks in all types of require combat situations. If you had a lot more tanks, you might be able to get away with that for most needs - but you don't.

We violently agree. Canada needs a tracked IFV and the SOR must specify "tracked", unlike the SOR for the CCV did. For the life of me, considering what the intent was and the geographic solutions it was to overcome (the complex terrain which was often challenging to the LAV3), I couldn't see how we ended up with two wheeled and one tracked competitor for the CCV. (Maybe it was in the first RFP which had no responses)

Having said that we have LAV6s in hand. Use them until they can be replaced then relegate them to the medium mech force where they belong.

The M10 isn't a Tank, and no one is going to try to use a Leo 1 in a MBT's place in 2024 and beyond.
Japan until recently consider its Military a Self Defense Force - and rumor has it they are on a heavy armor look now for expeditionary reasons...

You missing the entire role of the tank if you think a Tankette is a viable substitute.

We agree again.

I have troubles seeing the role for a light armoured direct fire vehicle. There are more than enough man portable or light vehicle carried missiles to do direct engagement. In a pinch there are now many precision indirect fire systems in the inventory. IMHO, the time for an armoured "assault gun" has passed us by. The MGS was technically flawed and I think the M10 will be tactically flawed. But that's just me.

OTOH, the role for heavy assault armour and IFVs will not disappear. There will always be a need for them, supported by appropriate "shield" elements and indirect fire elements, if there is to be any hope of offensive actions.

 

[KevinB]

I think that no matter how big a tank you build, with however many systems you append, somebody will always hit it with a bigger bomb.

Yes, but what logistical increase will that require on their end? Can they hit it even with that "bigger bomb".

On the Falklands, in the absence of anything better, the 76mm Scorpion and 30 mm Scimitar dominated the field.

The Argentinians only had 10x Panhard AML-90's a 4x4 Feret like vehicle as their Armor, and those where ordered to guard Port Stanley, and never seem to have contributed to anything.

The key aspects to remember about Light and Medium Forces, is that one should not attempt to use them like Heavy Forces, as you maximize their negatives and reduce their actual positives. There is Light and Medium Doctrine for a reason.

 

[PrairieFella]

We violently agree. Canada needs a tracked IFV and the SOR must specify "tracked", unlike the SOR for the CCV did. For the life of me, considering what the intent was and the geographic solutions it was to overcome (the complex terrain which was often challenging to the LAV3), I couldn't see how we ended up with two wheeled and one tracked competitor for the CCV. (Maybe it was in the first RFP which had no responses)

Having said that we have LAV6s in hand. Use them until they can be replaced then relegate them to the medium mech force where they belong.


We agree again.

I have troubles seeing the role for a light armoured direct fire vehicle. There are more than enough man portable or light vehicle carried missiles to do direct engagement. In a pinch there are now many precision indirect fire systems in the inventory. IMHO, the time for an armoured "assault gun" has passed us by. The MGS was technically flawed and I think the M10 will be tactically flawed. But that's just me.

OTOH, the role for heavy assault armour and IFVs will not disappear. There will always be a need for them, supported by appropriate "shield" elements and indirect fire elements, if there is to be any hope of offensive actions.

Perhaps assault gun style vehicles still have a role in a medium brigade as DFS/Cav force, however I tend to agree that that idea has passed us by, thankfully we missed a lemon with the MGS.

 

[KevinB]

Perhaps assault gun style vehicles still have a role in a medium brigade as DFS/Cav force, however I tend to agree that that idea has passed us by, thankfully we missed a lemon with the MGS.

The problem is they tend to get used like a tank. You definitely dodged a bullet with the LAV-MGS.

For Light forces ATGM or the M4 Carl G (with appropriate FCS) can do most of the job the gun could with vastly smaller footprint. Quite honestly I’d rather for Medium forces that a LAV based gun system be given to the Engineers to be viewed more as a demolition tool than a DFS weapon to Armor or Infantry — as anything that a GMG or 25mm can’t deal (or is of a scale for the FOO and/or JTAC) with probably needs either a ATGM - or is a engineer related obstacle.

 

[markppcli]

The USMC envisions itself storming beaches and island hopping, not conducting full spectrum operations in Latvia and Russia. We need tanks.

More to the point they imagine clutch and hold with a full array of naval and air delivered fires. Giving up tanks is a much easier proposition when you’ll be supported by a floating air wing and AH assets.

 

[PrairieFella]

The problem is they tend to get used like a tank. You definitely dodged a bullet with the LAV-MGS.

I agree that that is the problem. Light armour is far better suited to be employed in tasks that shape, fix and define the enemy. They are also good to have on raids, guards and can effectively exploit flanks. That said, it takes a lot of discipline to not commit them as tanks, especially from commanders who may have less experience dealing with armour which would be common in a light or medium forces brigade. At this point I'm basically just describing aggressive armoured recce but I digress haha.

 

[markppcli]

I think the Italians have it right with the Centauro’s as a heavy reconnaissance tasked piece of equipment t.

 

[PrairieFella]

I think the Italians have it right with the Centauro’s as a heavy reconnaissance tasked piece of equipment t.

Their recce squadrons with Centauro IIs and jeeps with 50s is fucking sweet. I'd love to have some composite squadrons/troops with a variety of weapons systems for different tasks.