Canada's tanks

[Kirkhill]

At least the tires are run flats.

I look at that beast and see nothing but bolts and lenses. Lots of things to rattle loose and to crack.

 

[Maxman1]

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.

The M103 was the last to have a five man crew, and it was in service until 1974 with the Marines.

 

[GK .Dundas]

The M103 was the last to have a five man crew, and it was in service until 1974 with the Marines.

I stand corrected, I'd forgotten about that beast.

 

[PrairieFella]

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

Gunning and commanding is next to impossible. For an effective crew, the gunner and commander must be separate.

 

[FJAG]

Meanwhile, the M109:

Yup. So far the M109 is handraulic. As is the process of getting the rounds into those racks. There's been a lot of improvement using the MACS propellant over the old white bag, green bag red bag charges but the biggest challenge is having having a mix of projectiles handy within very limited storage space inside the turret. The Americans and Koreans have a reasonable armoured ammo limber in the M992 and K10 and even though they have a conveyor to connect the two vehicles the Americans hardly ever use theirs and often remove them from the vehicle. We used to use the M548 which also meant hand moving rounds from the back of it into the turret.

There are a few videos out there talking about an autoloader on the M109A7 but in reality its a loading tray with an automated rammer. It's still necessary for a gun number to take a round off the rack and place it on the tray. The rammer does look like an improvement over the ones we had (and we had two of those - the earlier one cab mounted the newer one breech mounted.)

There was supposed to be an autoloader coming for the ERCA but the ERCA disappeared off the table. Brochures for the M109-52 do not talk about an autoloader.

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

There's no simple solution yet. Every automated solution is a combination of compromises with a functioning technical solution being the least of the problem. In my view its the loadout, the resupply process and the tactical employment are. Most of those can be solved by redundant systems to cycle into and out of reload phases. But no one wants to pay for a twelve-gun Archer battery that can guarantee six guns being in action at any given time. That's the Russian solution - a motor rifle brigade supporting four manoeuvre battalions with two 18-gun howitzer battalions and one 18-launcher MLRS battalion.

I was just rereading an interview of one of our FOOs on Op Intizaar Zmarey in Oct 07. He did a mission using a two-gun troop that consisted of five cycles of twenty rounds fire for effect (i.e. 20 rds per gun fired five times). Each of those cycles would have emptied an Archer and sent it out of action for a reload (The Archer carries 21 rounds in its magazine [the AGM carries 30] and when you consider some of those may need to be smoke you can start to see the issue.)

Even with pallet loads with HIAB type cranes on the trucks there's still always the need to break-bulk on pallets at some point. Even on an Archer to get it into that cargo truck that they call an ammo limber. People continue to matter.

 

[FJAG]

The M103 was the last to have a five man crew, and it was in service until 1974 with the Marines.

Arnie still owns an runs an M47 - painted up in the colours of the one he did his national service in in Austria,

 

[markppcli]

20 - we use 20 F Ech car squadrons. I think it's a little over optimistic to think that any manning cuts to the tanks will be translated into an entirely new position with doesn't exist in our doctrine and requires extra kit. It's more likely they're just be posted away to other places that need them, be that different squadrons or different organizations like the school. It's a neat idea but we all know how this institution runs.

Sure but this is literally a discussion forum for a whole bunch of things that highly unlikely to happen. We have 300 threads discussing reorganizing the reserves to a usable force with a measurable operational output.

And more of an aside it was a comment about being worried there wouldn’t be enough people to do maintenance if we went to a three man crew. Given that plenty of countries have ran 3 man crewed tanks since the 1970s and earlier I’m sure they’ve found a solution. One of those is the French model of have spare crews in a seperate platoon.

 

[Maxman1]

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).

Considering that BAE Systems builds both the CV90 and the Bradley, I wonder if it would be possible to build a Canadian version of the CV90 with the engine, transmission and tracks of the Bradley and M109A7, for greater parts commonality if we get M109s again.

It seems we acquired a CV9035 in 2009 for evaluation, before the LAV-UP program.

I stand corrected, I'd forgotten about that beast.

I think most would prefer to forget about the M103.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yup. So far the M109 is handraulic. As is the process of getting the rounds into those racks. There's been a lot of improvement using the MACS propellant over the old white bag, green bag red bag charges but the biggest challenge is having having a mix of projectiles handy within very limited storage space inside the turret. The Americans and Koreans have a reasonable armoured ammo limber in the M992 and K10 and even though they have a conveyor to connect the two vehicles the Americans hardly ever use theirs and often remove them from the vehicle. We used to use the M548 which also meant hand moving rounds from the back of it into the turret.

There are a few videos out there talking about an autoloader on the M109A7 but in reality its a loading tray with an automated rammer. It's still necessary for a gun number to take a round off the rack and place it on the tray. The rammer does look like an improvement over the ones we had (and we had two of those - the earlier one cab mounted the newer one breech mounted.)

There was supposed to be an autoloader coming for the ERCA but the ERCA disappeared off the table. Brochures for the M109-52 do not talk about an autoloader.


There's no simple solution yet. Every automated solution is a combination of compromises with a functioning technical solution being the least of the problem. In my view its the loadout, the resupply process and the tactical employment are. Most of those can be solved by redundant systems to cycle into and out of reload phases. But no one wants to pay for a twelve-gun Archer battery that can guarantee six guns being in action at any given time. That's the Russian solution - a motor rifle brigade supporting four manoeuvre battalions with two 18-gun howitzer battalions and one 18-launcher MLRS battalion.

I was just rereading an interview of one of our FOOs on Op Intizaar Zmarey in Oct 07. He did a mission using a two-gun troop that consisted of five cycles of twenty rounds fire for effect (i.e. 20 rds per gun fired five times). Each of those cycles would have emptied an Archer and sent it out of action for a reload (The Archer carries 21 rounds in its magazine [the AGM carries 30] and when you consider some of those may need to be smoke you can start to see the issue.)

Even with pallet loads with HIAB type cranes on the trucks there's still always the need to break-bulk on pallets at some point. Even on an Archer to get it into that cargo truck that they call an ammo limber. People continue to matter.

That pneumatic assist the Swedes are using to transfer rounds from the truck to the gun would also transfer from pallet to truck.

For that matter a version might fit inside your M109 to transfer from rack to tray.

 

[suffolkowner]

Tanks of 2024: Same dogs, more tricks

Two years on from the last one of these posts, we have a new edition of what's what in the world of tanks. This post focuses on the exciting future oriented concept vehicles, and not on the many upgrade options we have seen (Leopard 2A8 etc.).

jonhawkes.wixsite.com

Ive probably posted this before but a rundown of some of the tank demonstrators out there

3 person crew
unmanned turret
big gun on the way 130 or 140
active protection
30 mm RWS

 

[Underway]

Considering that BAE Systems builds both the CV90 and the Bradley, I wonder if it would be possible to build a Canadian version of the CV90 with the engine, transmission and tracks of the Bradley and M109A7, for greater parts commonality if we get M109s again.

It seems we acquired a CV9035 in 2009 for evaluation, before the LAV-UP program.

I think most would prefer to forget about the M103.

Frankestien orphan fleet that would need to be developed. No way. One or the other.

Edit: or some other acceptable option, Lynx, Redback whatever...

 

[dapaterson]

Frankestien orphan fleet that would need to be developed. No way. One or the other.

Edit: or some other acceptable option, Lynx, Redback whatever...

I agree that our force size is too small for Canadian versions, and that we should buy off the shelf or build under license using off the shelf designs.

Now about the AOPV, JSS and RCD...

 

[Underway]

I agree that our force size is too small for Canadian versions, and that we should buy off the shelf or build under license using off the shelf designs.

Now about the AOPV, JSS and RCD...

I feel targeted. Do I need to wiffle bat you again with the "there is no such thing as off the shelf" for warships (built domestically)? BONK

 

[OldSolduer]

I feel targeted. Do I need to wiffle bat you again with the "there is no such thing as off the shelf" for warships (built domestically)? BONK

I like wiffle bats too. Do we have to get three quotes before we purchase them?

 

[Underway]

I like wiffle bats too. Do we have to get three quotes before we purchase them?

Under $500 on amazon. Probably can just get a few using the PMC's mess discretionary allowance for the month.

 

[dapaterson]

I feel targeted. Do I need to wiffle bat you again with the "there is no such thing as off the shelf" for warships (built domestically)? BONK

Is this where I wiffle bat the RCN for permitting unsafe changes to ships cough wood panelled wardrooms, hardware store add-ons that are neither fire retardant nor safe in the case of explosion?

We could buy off the shelf unmodified ships from other nations , then change the way we operate. But the RCN is steadfast in its belief in tradition unimpeded by modernity...

 

[Underway]

Is this where I wiffle bat the RCN for permitting unsafe changes to ships cough wood panelled wardrooms, hardware store add-ons that are neither fire retardant nor safe in the case of explosion?

We could buy off the shelf unmodified ships from other nations , then change the way we operate. But the RCN is steadfast in its belief in tradition unimpeded by modernity...

Not the thread.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Is this where I wiffle bat the RCN for permitting unsafe changes to ships cough wood panelled wardrooms, hardware store add-ons that are neither fire retardant nor safe in the case of explosion?

We could buy off the shelf unmodified ships from other nations , then change the way we operate. But the RCN is steadfast in its belief in tradition unimpeded by modernity...

That is more a government of canada decision than an RCN one.

A national shipbuilding strategy is important to the government, across party lines.

 

[Maxman1]

I feel targeted. Do I need to wiffle bat you again with the "there is no such thing as off the shelf" for warships (built domestically)? BONK

 

[FJAG]

A national shipbuilding strategy is important to the government, across party lines.

It needs to become a "National Armaments Strategy" with "Shipbuilding" as a subcomponent.