Canada's tanks

[Colin Parkinson]

The real experts are the ones that operate that equipment. They are the ones that should be picking new equipment. No lobbyists, no special interests, no politicians and no waiting ten years for a decision. Which allows them to say "Well, that was what we needed then, now it's going to be obsolete." That let's them solidify their next ten years of pay, work, security etc by starting the process over.

When we were looking for a Centurian replacement, they actually asked every one of us, in Germany (RCD), what we preferred. Centurion with the Israeli modifications or the Leopard. The majority went Leopard. We like to think we really, really had a hand in the process.

One of the challenges with only taking input from the operators, is that they might only know that piece of equipment and tactics. Their input is critical, but it needs to be complimented by very knowledgeable people that have tested and reviewed what is out there and what are the evolving threats. An example is that the Russians are exploiting some of the weaknesses of the M1 with their FPV drones. Those weakness are there because the current models are optimized for KE and HEAT threats from the horizontal. That issue would not be caught in discussions with just the current US crews.

 

[OldSolduer]

The real experts are the ones that operate that equipment. They are the ones that should be picking new equipment. No lobbyists, no special interests, no politicians and no waiting ten years for a decision. Which allows them to say "Well, that was what we needed then, now it's going to be obsolete." That let's them solidify their next ten years of pay, work, security etc by starting the process over.

When we were looking for a Centurian replacement, they actually asked every one of us, in Germany (RCD), what we preferred. Centurion with the Israeli modifications or the Leopard. The majority went Leopard. We like to think we really, really had a hand in the process.

My brother was a TOW guy and had a hand in choosing the TUA we had in the 90s.

 

[Kirkhill]

People see UAV, 3 man tanks, Howitzers with auto-loaders as a way to save manpower, the reality is that you still need the same manpower as before, but instead of being at the pointy bit, they are a bit further back helping with repair, reloading and maintenance.

Do those at the rear have to be Olympic athletes? Or can couch potatoes apply?

 

[suffolkowner]

The thing about a 3 man tank is that it isnt going to really be up to us is it? If the US goes 3 man and France/Germany do are we going to scour the world looking for a manufacturer that still produces a 4 man?

 

[OldSolduer]

The thing about a 3 man tank is that it isnt going to really be up to us is it? If the US goes 3 man and France/Germany do are we going to scour the world looking for a manufacturer that still produces a 4 man?

That is a good point....we kinda have to go along with the ride sometimes.

 

[FJAG]

Do those at the rear have to be Olympic athletes? Or can couch potatoes apply?

Talk to me about couch potatoes again after you've manhandled your fortieth 100 lb projectile into the gun's magazine or onto the back of the truck. The guys and girls serving the guns these days aren't Olympic athletes but they aren't couch potatoes regardless if they are up forward or in the rear.

There's a big issue on this automation though. It's the technical complexity of these systems. I expect I can take a civy off the street and in six weeks have him competent on 6 of the 7 jobs on a 105mm C1. An M777 takes longer. But the really big issue is the training of all those rear area sods that have to fix the optics, electronics, hydraulics, automotives and myriad of other gear that makes up an Archer. I won't get one of them trained in six weeks. And I'll betcha dollars to donuts that Archers are down more and for longer periods of time than the C1s ever were.

 

[suffolkowner]

Canada Should Start Producing Tanks - Spencer Fernando

With Germany getting closer to starting production of the new KF-51, and with Canada in need of parts for our current fleet of Leopard 2 main battle

spencerfernando.com

and suggest the KF51 which would maintain the 4 man crew while adopting an autoloader
maintains a manned turret though

 

[FJAG]

Canada Should Start Producing Tanks - Spencer Fernando

With Germany getting closer to starting production of the new KF-51, and with Canada in need of parts for our current fleet of Leopard 2 main battle

spencerfernando.com

and suggest the KF51 which would maintain the 4 man crew while adopting an autoloader
maintains a manned turret though

I'm all in favour of building heavy equipment in Canada - but my go-to favourite is the Abrams X. I like everything about the design and its GDLS so one might be able to leverage the London plant for much of the work at a low rate of production level for us (say 18 tanks per year - for a decade and a half and then overhaul at the same rate) and squeeze in more for other customers.

 

[Kirkhill]

Talk to me about couch potatoes again after you've manhandled your fortieth 100 lb projectile into the gun's magazine or onto the back of the truck. The guys and girls serving the guns these days aren't Olympic athletes but they aren't couch potatoes regardless if they are up forward or in the rear.

There's a big issue on this automation though. It's the technical complexity of these systems. I expect I can take a civy off the street and in six weeks have him competent on 6 of the 7 jobs on a 105mm C1. An M777 takes longer. But the really big issue is the training of all those rear area sods that have to fix the optics, electronics, hydraulics, automotives and myriad of other gear that makes up an Archer. I won't get one of them trained in six weeks. And I'll betcha dollars to donuts that Archers are down more and for longer periods of time than the C1s ever were.

If you want to think I was talking about gunners, feel free.

What I was actually thinking about is that most occupations these days are replacing muscles with motor power. Farmers don't chuck 50lb hay bales any more. 50 lb bags of sugar and salt and flour, 10 gallon cans of milk. All replaced with bulk handling systems. And where movement of small packages is required in the field then small forklifts and cranes are the order of the day.



Or you can do like the Swedes did with their 155mm limber truck and add lifting aids

By and large the world has moved on and established lifting maximums in the 35 to 50 lb range. Some places the max is a low as 25 lb. That way manufacturers can find people fit and able to do the jobs necessary and keep them on the payroll without unnecessary injury for very long careers.

If the country is offering me nothing but couch potatoes to employ then I have to figure out how to get the job done with couch potatoes.

PS.

I haven't been allowed to build a plant that produced packages weighing more than 50lbs for over 20 years without mechanical handling.

PPS if your three man crew can't get the necessary maintenance done, with appropriate crew rest in 24 hours out of the line then you had better budget for 48 hours.

 

[suffolkowner]

If you want to think I was talking about gunners, feel free.

What I was actually thinking about is that most occupations these days are replacing muscles with motor power. Farmers don't chuck 50lb hay bales any more. 50 lb bags of sugar and salt and flour, 10 gallon cans of milk. All replaced with bulk handling systems. And where movement of small packages is required in the field then small forklifts and cranes are the order of the day.

View attachment 90127

Or you can do like the Swedes did with their 155mm limber truck and add lifting aids

By and large the world has moved on and established lifting maximums in the 35 to 50 lb range. Some places the max is a low as 25 lb. That way manufacturers can find people fit and able to do the jobs necessary and keep them on the payroll without unnecessary injury for very long careers.

If the country is offering me nothing but couch potatoes to employ then I have to figure out how to get the job done with couch potatoes.

PS.

I haven't been allowed to build a plant that produced packages weighing more than 50lbs for over 20 years without mechanical handling.

PPS if your three man crew can't get the necessary maintenance done, with appropriate crew rest in 24 hours out of the line then you had better budget for 48 hours.

every time i see an articulated 6x6 i think thats a platform that could be very useful

 

[FJAG]

What I was actually thinking about is that most occupations these days are replacing muscles with motor power. Farmers don't chuck 50lb hay bales any more. 50 lb bags of sugar and salt and flour, 10 gallon cans of milk. All replaced with bulk handling systems. And where movement of small packages is required in the field then small forklifts and cranes are the order of the day.

Yeah. That's all fine and good; But it doesn't work here.

What you get is this type of thing. And I don't think its running in slow motion - just running slowly.

 

[Maxman1]

Yeah. That's all fine and good; But it doesn't work here.

What you get is this type of thing. And I don't think its running in slow motion - just running slowly.

Meanwhile, the M109:

 

[GR66]

Yeah. That's all fine and good; But it doesn't work here.

What you get is this type of thing. And I don't think its running in slow motion - just running slowly.

There's no possible technical solutions that might fall somewhere between the two?

 

[Underway]

Regarding crew numbers,

Don't do what the world navies have done, aimed for lower crew and found out that's a problem. If you currently think that 4 crew are needed to do all the things required to keep a tank in the fight and running then use 4 crew. If an autoloader is the better option that extra crew can be very useful as an air sentry with a dual use RWS for counter drone/infantry. Or perhaps run the tanks integral drone system themselves. (or battle management system or whatever). The Panther tank may have concept right going forward, where all tanks have the extra crew spot full instead of it being an optional crew position,.

The counter argument is if a tank bogs down or throws a track, given the current prevalence of anti personel drones it might be better to just walk away or stay in the tank and wait for recovery. After 10min you're going to be found and grenades dropped on you. So those crew capable field repairs and maintenance might not be something that is done very often, at least near the front. In that case the extra pers in the support section of platoon/company will be more available. If that's the case 3 crew aren't really a problem, as the four crew tasks won't be able to be done as much.

 

[Underway]

Canada Should Start Producing Tanks - Spencer Fernando

With Germany getting closer to starting production of the new KF-51, and with Canada in need of parts for our current fleet of Leopard 2 main battle

spencerfernando.com

and suggest the KF51 which would maintain the 4 man crew while adopting an autoloader
maintains a manned turret though

Honestly I think we should do this with CV90's for the cavalry rgts and purchase tanks from elsewhere. CV90 needs some diversification of the industrial base away from Europe, and it aligns with our arctic strategy better. And you can do a continuous build with them, whereas tanks won't necessarily be in numbers where continuous is feasible (sub 200 numbers).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Autoloaders are slow. Fast follow up shots are a requirement, not a nice to have.

 

[Kirkhill]

Canada Should Start Producing Tanks - Spencer Fernando

With Germany getting closer to starting production of the new KF-51, and with Canada in need of parts for our current fleet of Leopard 2 main battle

spencerfernando.com

and suggest the KF51 which would maintain the 4 man crew while adopting an autoloader
maintains a manned turret though

I'm going to suggest that the autoloader may require one or two more people in the tank crew to maintain it.

Mayhap the tank will need fewer people in battle but requires its own dedicated MRT team.

 

[GK .Dundas]

The Americans did a study decades ago and came to the conclusion that the optimum number of crewmen was five.
However the increasing size of ammo and the need to keep the vehicle to a reasonable size made the very early 1950's M 47 the last American tank to have a a five man crew.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Americans did a study decades ago and came to the conclusion that the optimum number of crewmen was five.
However the increasing size of ammo and the need to keep the vehicle to a reasonable size made the very early 1950's M 47 the last American tank to have a a five man crew.

How about 1 tank with a battle crew of 2 and a follow on vehicle with second crew and an MRT team? And ammunition vehicles comparable to those the Swedes are using for the Archer (ie with mechanical handling assists)?

Even without tracks some of the new kit is going to require a lot of maintenance hours.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

How about 1 tank with a battle crew of 2 and a follow on vehicle with second crew and an MRT team? And ammunition vehicles comparable to those the Swedes are using for the Archer (ie with mechanical handling assists)?

Even without tracks some of the new kit is going to require a lot of maintenance hours.

View attachment 90139

At least the tires are run flats. Trying to change one of those while maintaining security and comms, with two people, would be a trick.

Follow on crews and MRT are already 1 tactical bound behind. That is the SSMs echelon.