• 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

Put together by countries like Canada who recognize that due to Russia's actions they politically have to be seen to do something but just can't bring themselves to truly accept that we really are in a conflict with nations that consider us as "enemies" and are making concerted efforts to weaken us.
I think that’s largely true. But the fact we can’t have a rotational Bn to be is honestly shocking.
 
Would it be advantageous to build a NATO tank? One that has design ideas from all members. Pick the best gun, best power pak, armour, etc then design something and make it available. Consolidate all resources and build one tank for everyone?
 
Would it be advantageous to build a NATO tank? One that has design ideas from all members. Pick the best gun, best power pak, armour, etc then design something and make it available. Consolidate all resources and build one tank for everyone?
That's been tried before. A lot of good ideas came out of it, but no common tank. We do have a now common gun with the smoothbore 120mm being adopted for the Brits.
 
Would it be advantageous to build a NATO tank? One that has design ideas from all members. Pick the best gun, best power pak, armour, etc then design something and make it available. Consolidate all resources and build one tank for everyone?
MBT-70 enters the chat. As @Colin Parkinson points out it’s been tried.

Even before it died it was getting pulled in multiple directions. The Germans wanted an auto loader 120mm smooth bore, and America wanted the 152mm gun/missile concept from the Sheridan in a higher pressure.

The various teams split and the XM-1 resulted here as the 152mm never worked to requirement, and the Leo2 got a manual loader 120mm as the automatic loader counte be made reliable. Neither got the pneumatic suspension working like had been planned.
 
I keep hoping there will be a reset on this. Simply because I ‘believe’ that SHAPE has war plans that envision a much larger NATO force.
eFPs are designed to let everyone have some skin in the game to demonstrate to themselves that everyone is contributing and to demonstrate to Russia that ... well ... everyone is contributing. They are not viable defensive forces but a trip wire of solidarity with a hope of some utility.

There won't be a reset - Canada won't give up its "framework nation" status in Latvia to become a minor contributor to an American force in Poland. We like our closeness to Nordic nations because we basically are a northern country and we like to think of ourselves as members of that club. Their basic political leaning makes it cozy.

All that said, I'm firmly in the camp of being part of a North American arms industry. That goes all the way to equipping our force with common equipment (especially communications equipment) and adopting operational doctrine that is fully integrated (if not identical). A Canadian artillery "battalion," for example, needs to be capable of slipping seamlessly into an American Div Arty structure if we hope to ever have a battle group or brigade slip into an American formation.

That said, we are totally unreliable to the Americans because of our frequent forays into electing a government whose basic philosophy includes a healthy dose of anti-Americanism. The current ammunition kerfuffle is a prime example of that. Rather than working out a logical deal behind the scenes, we scream our opposition from the Peace Tower.

🍻
 
Would it be advantageous to build a NATO tank? One that has design ideas from all members. Pick the best gun, best power pak, armour, etc then design something and make it available. Consolidate all resources and build one tank for everyone?
I feel like there is already a NATO tank, the Leo2. If the French-German pulls through that will be one niche tank off the table and with Italy buying Leopards thats another. Is the Uk going to go it alone again?
 
Back
Top