Canada's tanks

[markppcli]

I love there's been three or four attempts to get it back to tanks but everyone just keeps talking about restructuring and paratroopers lol. Army.ca as fuck.

The real question is what colour their forage caps ought to be.

 

[FJAG]

Sooo what does Cavalry do that Recce does not? I mean doctrinally. I'm just trying to understand this tank/armour role here. And then where does Armour fit in (if they are or are not Cavalry).

You might want to look at this edition of the Canadian Army Journal. It has several articles covering the Canadian version of the cavalry concept and is the view as of 2022 when they were written. Not sure what, if any, advances have taken place since then.

Information archivée dans le Web | Information Archived on the Web

publications.gc.ca

 

[Cloud Cover]

Or Sheep

 

[PrairieFella]

Not tanks but here's an interesting new video on the organization of a Jaguar squadron.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not tanks but here's an interesting new video on the organization of a Jaguar squadron.

Just thinking of posting that as well.

 

[PrairieFella]

Just thinking of posting that as well.

The more I learn about this truck the more I realize it's probably a perfect fit for our Cav Regiments. Obviously never happening but it'd be a homerun.

 

[Rifleman62]

Interesting the penetration of a T-72 Tank.

Rheinmetall Unveils UK’s Powerful New Challenger 3 Tank, Packed with Game-Changing Upgrades​

 

[markppcli]

The more I learn about this truck the more I realize it's probably a perfect fit for our Cav Regiments. Obviously never happening but it'd be a homerun.

You’d do well to buy enough of those to outfit two divisional cavalry regiments to accompany a few tank regiments. What’s key about the Jaguar though is that it’s built around SCORPION, which is a data integration and comms systems that allows it to do a lot of the cool shit it can do. We’re still using CNREs and single channel vulos.

 

[PrairieFella]

You’d do well to buy enough of those to outfit two divisional cavalry regiments to accompany a few tank regiments. What’s key about the Jaguar though is that it’s built around SCORPION, which is a data integration and comms systems that allows it to do a lot of the cool shit it can do. We’re still using CNREs and single channel vulos.

I agree wholeheartedly. The comms and data suite the French are bringing to the table through Scorpion blow anything most of NATO has out of the water. I'd love.to get my hands on it haha. The firepower the Jaguar brings is nothing to sniff at either, I would love to see some of the data coming out of the 40CT round.

 

[markppcli]

I agree wholeheartedly. The comms and data suite the French are bringing to the table through Scorpion blow anything most of NATO has out of the water. I'd love.to get my hands on it haha. The firepower the Jaguar brings is nothing to sniff at either, I would love to see some of the data coming out of the 40CT round.

At this point I’d settle for the clip in 152s / 163s system the Danes and Slovaks have. 40CT is great, but having the ability to fire MMP off your partner vehicles targeting is unreal.

 

[PrairieFella]

At this point I’d settle for the clip in 152s / 163s system the Danes and Slovaks have. 40CT is great, but having the ability to fire MMP off your partner vehicles targeting is unreal.

It really does make you realize how much our shit sucks most of the time Maybe one day we can get some modern kit.

 

[markppcli]

It really does make you realize how much our shit sucks most of the time Maybe one day we can get some modern kit.

We have some really great stuff, but it’s in small numbers and not linked together which is really the issue. 163s are great, but cnre makes it impossible to link back.

 

[hb-AH1Z]

For our NATO commitment, we need to be involved enough to be seen as a plus value and doing out part. There are several ways to do so which do not involve being a top-tier force in all aspects of warfare. The most efficient way politically is to invest in non-kinetic, low risk, low cost capabilities that are in short supply and that act as force multipliers.

What would those be? I want to learn more.

 

[KevinB]

I agree wholeheartedly. The comms and data suite the French are bringing to the table through Scorpion blow anything most of NATO has out of the water. I'd love.to get my hands on it haha. The firepower the Jaguar brings is nothing to sniff at either, I would love to see some of the data coming out of the 40CT round.

The 40CT is the same system that was supppsed to be on the Brit Warrior upgrade that was scrapped about a decade ago.

I’ll try to find some hard copy data from NDIA Firepower presentations back then.

 

[PrairieFella]

The 40CT is the same system that was supppsed to be on the Brit Warrior upgrade that was scrapped about a decade ago.

I’ll try to find some hard copy data from NDIA Firepower presentations back then.

It's a fascinating round.

 

[KevinB]

It's a fascinating round.

It and the gun systems where done by Stoner’s old firm Aries, Inc

ARES Inc. Facilities

They no longer have the setups on their website - so I’m unsure who they sold it off too, but I have a guess

System - CTA International

40CTAS (CASED TELESCOPED ARMAMENT SYSTEM) THE WORLD’S MOST POWERFUL AND COMPACT NATO QUALIFIED MEDIUM-CALIBRE WEAPON SYSTEM The 40CTAS is a modular weapon package which includes: The 40CT cannon The Ammunition Handling System is a carousel -type linkless magazine which can be tailored in terms...

www.cta-international.com

 

[FJAG]

The 40CT is the same system that was supppsed to be on the Brit Warrior upgrade that was scrapped about a decade ago.

I’ll try to find some hard copy data from NDIA Firepower presentations back then.

It's in the Brit's new Ajax.

I've always wondered about this system. Ejection of the expended casing is done by the new round entering the pivoting chamber and pushing the old casing out. That begs the question as to whether there is an override to eject an expended casing without introducing a new round so that the expended casing isn't left for a long time in the chamber after firing or a new round introduced long before needed.

This made me think about the Ajax/Ares systems.

I really doubt the viability of Ares as an infantry section carrier. The info on the number of dismounts carried is strangely muted which makes me suspect. I've found one (on a GDLS site) that says 4 dismounts while Wikipedia talks about a crew of three and seven passengers. All Ares has is a 50 cal RWS so you'd think there is some internal space there and it makes me wonder about the need for a "crew" of three. Ajax itself is pure recce and Ares seems designed to accompany recce with only a few dismounts. Boxer is the Brits solution for the armoured/mech infantry role (which handles a crew of three and six dismounts). The whole thing seems a bit inelegant to me.

 

[suffolkowner]

It's in the Brit's new Ajax.

I've always wondered about this system. Ejection of the expended casing is done by the new round entering the pivoting chamber and pushing the old casing out. That begs the question as to whether there is an override to eject an expended casing without introducing a new round so that the expended casing isn't left for a long time in the chamber after firing or a new round introduced long before needed.

This made me think about the Ajax/Ares systems.

I really doubt the viability of Ares as an infantry section carrier. The info on the number of dismounts carried is strangely muted which makes me suspect. I've found one (on a GDLS site) that says 4 dismounts while Wikipedia talks about a crew of three and seven passengers. All Ares has is a 50 cal RWS so you'd think there is some internal space there and it makes me wonder about the need for a "crew" of three. Ajax itself is pure recce and Ares seems designed to accompany recce with only a few dismounts. Boxer is the Brits solution for the armoured/mech infantry role (which handles a crew of three and six dismounts). The whole thing seems a bit inelegant to me.

Are you talking about reconciling section size across different platforms?

Seems like the UK should just use a Ajax derivative as a Warrior replacement

 

[FJAG]

Are you talking about reconciling section size across different platforms?

No. Not at all. I think the Brit infantry will remain with different sections for quite some time. See this article. Personally, I think it is impossible to reconcile the section size as various platforms are built with varying limitations on internal space and crew functions. What works for a Wolfhound won't work for a CV 90 and what works for a CV 90 won't work for a Bradley and light infantry is another story altogether. I think the search for a common infantry section and its carrier is a hunt for a chimera.

Seems like the UK should just use a Ajax derivative as a Warrior replacement

The way that I see it that train has left the station. Ajax/Ares is replacing Scimitar/Spartan (Scimitars are now out of service and the Spartans were retired several years back - but finding their way to Ukraine). Note that Spartans also carried a crew of three and had only four dismounts and were basically designed to carry specialist troops to accompany recce. There was an entire family of the CVR(T) that was primarily designed for armoured recce operations. It strikes me that the entire AJAX family has exactly that same role.

Warrior, on the other hand, is being replaced by Boxer. The Warriors will all be out of service in the next year or so and it wouldn't surprise me if they made their way to Ukraine as well. The Boxers should have replaced them by then so there is no need (or money) to buy additional Ares for the armoured infantry. Besides, I don't think that they have the dismount capacity of the Boxer, but don't know that for sure.

I do like the 40mm CTAS concept. I also like Moog reconfigurable turrets (I'd like to see them on all of our LAV IFVs and AD and ATk carriers). The Moog turret does not currently have an option for the CTAS but it does not seem impossible as CTAS touts its customizability. Honestly, I know it sounds ass backward, but I would first find the IFV with the best weapon system and protection system configuration and design my section size and tactics around that. If the overall platoon size is too small due to limited dismounts then add a fourth section and a fifth vehicle. I actually think we already did that once with the LAV which was a dramatic change from the section configuration in our M113s days.

 

[suffolkowner]

No. Not at all. I think the Brit infantry will remain with different sections for quite some time. See this article. Personally, I think it is impossible to reconcile the section size as various platforms are built with varying limitations on internal space and crew functions. What works for a Wolfhound won't work for a CV 90 and what works for a CV 90 won't work for a Bradley and light infantry is another story altogether. I think the search for a common infantry section and its carrier is a hunt for a chimera.



The way that I see it that train has left the station. Ajax/Ares is replacing Scimitar/Spartan (Scimitars are now out of service and the Spartans were retired several years back - but finding their way to Ukraine). Note that Spartans also carried a crew of three and had only four dismounts and were basically designed to carry specialist troops to accompany recce. There was an entire family of the CVR(T) that was primarily designed for armoured recce operations. It strikes me that the entire AJAX family has exactly that same role.

Warrior, on the other hand, is being replaced by Boxer. The Warriors will all be out of service in the next year or so and it wouldn't surprise me if they made their way to Ukraine as well. The Boxers should have replaced them by then so there is no need (or money) to buy additional Ares for the armoured infantry. Besides, I don't think that they have the dismount capacity of the Boxer, but don't know that for sure.

I do like the 40mm CTAS concept. I also like Moog reconfigurable turrets (I'd like to see them on all of our LAV IFVs and AD and ATk carriers). The Moog turret does not currently have an option for the CTAS but it does not seem impossible as CTAS touts its customizability. Honestly, I know it sounds ass backward, but I would first find the IFV with the best weapon system and protection system configuration and design my section size and tactics around that. If the overall platoon size is too small due to limited dismounts then add a fourth section and a fifth vehicle. I actually think we already did that once with the LAV which was a dramatic change from the section configuration in our M113s days.

Should Boxer be the Warrior replacement though? This is another case of the abandonment of tracked IFV?