Canada's tanks

[GR66]

There's a big plant in Lima Ohio, just a little down from Detroit. That has all the tools and labour one needs to keep M1s spiffy - if one had the bucks and inclination.

My guess is that with Canada not even close to 2% we can't expect a deal from the US to lease us a couple of hundred M1s from storage for a buck if we donated Leos (as is) to Ukraine and replace our fleet with new AbramsX in due course.

Sadly, Canada has made, and continues to make, its bed. But . . . a boy can dream.

The highlighted parts are key to me. The current Abrams are extremely heavy, maintenance demanding, fuel hogs and we shouldn't marry ourselves to them long term. Lease just what we need to cover our current requirements now (including contracting out as much of the maintenance as possible) to keep us going and partner with the US on the Abrams X program to get us into the early production queue once they are in production. Abrams X are expected to be lighter and faster with hybrid-electric drives, APS and an unmanned turret - but with the same protection levels as the current Abrams.

That's when we ramp up the numbers (ideally to three full tank Regiments including matching support vehicles) which will give us time to also ramp up our recruiting and training of maintainers as well as crews (and infrastructure).

Of course the 60-ton elephant in the room is the Abrams X program itself. The US Army doesn't have a great track record recently in seeing its vehicle replacement programs to completion. If the Abrams X program stalls or is cancelled then we end up "half pregnant" with a leased M1 fleet and no clear path to a replacement fleet.

 

[suffolkowner]

The highlighted parts are key to me. The current Abrams are extremely heavy, maintenance demanding, fuel hogs and we shouldn't marry ourselves to them long term. Lease just what we need to cover our current requirements now (including contracting out as much of the maintenance as possible) to keep us going and partner with the US on the Abrams X program to get us into the early production queue once they are in production. Abrams X are expected to be lighter and faster with hybrid-electric drives, APS and an unmanned turret - but with the same protection levels as the current Abrams.

That's when we ramp up the numbers (ideally to three full tank Regiments including matching support vehicles) which will give us time to also ramp up our recruiting and training of maintainers as well as crews (and infrastructure).

Of course the 60-ton elephant in the room is the Abrams X program itself. The US Army doesn't have a great track record recently in seeing its vehicle replacement programs to completion. If the Abrams X program stalls or is cancelled then we end up "half pregnant" with a leased M1 fleet and no clear path to a replacement fleet.

do we have comparison numbers on the maintenance burden of an M1A2 vs our Leo2A4's?
i dont think theres a clear path for a Leo3 yet either

 

[lotech]

do we have comparison numbers on the maintenance burden of an M1A2 vs our Leo2A4's?
i dont think theres a clear path for a Leo3 yet either

There is two issues here, the Leopard 2 demands maintenance yes, but there is also a personal problem, not enough people to maintain , train and deploy every six months. Alberta is a hard province to keep military mechanics, even with the OEM shop, KNDS can’t compete with the wages some companies are willing to pay. Don’t think there is any golden solution, even if we switch to the Abrams, now we need to start from the beginning, training personal, revamping building to house and maintain them. The Leopard 2 was an easy transition from the Leopard 1s, training was quick, buildings needed minor adjustment.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

do we have comparison numbers on the maintenance burden of an M1A2 vs our Leo2A4's?
i dont think theres a clear path for a Leo3 yet either

I don't think you need much of a comparison. They are both tracked. Track maintenance is heavy and labour intensive. That is why I am against 3 man crews. There are just some jobs on a tank that require four people. Amount of maintenance based on miles driven only increases the further you drive. That's why we have built in maintenance days during an ex. Five days of rainy, cross country movement is going to cost you two days wrenching on your mount. No matter which one. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[PrairieFella]

I don't think you need much of a comparison. They are both tracked. Track maintenance is heavy and labour intensive. That is why I am against 3 man crews. There are just some jobs on a tank that require four people. Amount of maintenance based on miles driven only increases the further you drive. That's why we have built in maintenance days during an ex. Five days of rainy, cross country movement is going to cost you two days wrenching on your mount. No matter which one. It's the nature of the beast.

Exactly. Gotta take care of the horse first and man is that tough without that extra set of hands. I've read a lot of T-series issues stem from overworked crews trying to maintain their beasts but doing so poorly. Probably doesn't help to have a conscript army though.

 

[suffolkowner]

I don't think you need much of a comparison. They are both tracked. Track maintenance is heavy and labour intensive. That is why I am against 3 man crews. There are just some jobs on a tank that require four people. Amount of maintenance based on miles driven only increases the further you drive. That's why we have built in maintenance days during an ex. Five days of rainy, cross country movement is going to cost you two days wrenching on your mount. No matter which one. It's the nature of the beast.

Everyone says the Abrams is a maintenance hog. Im just curious to know if there are some actual public numbers to compare too. Is it the track driving costs? They all have tracks and the Leo2's are what 10x that of the Leo1s? Or is it the systems or the engine? Or fuel? Ive run enough equipment and trucks to know that there can be actual huge differences between competitors.

3 man crews may be a hard fight. There's a lot in its favour in a manpower short world add in 130mm ammo and autoloaders and unmanned turrets. 3 dead is one less than 4. The KF51 may maintain a 4 man crew but thats with a manned turret

 

[suffolkowner]

There is two issues here, the Leopard 2 demands maintenance yes, but there is also a personal problem, not enough people to maintain , train and deploy every six months. Alberta is a hard province to keep military mechanics, even with the OEM shop, KNDS can’t compete with the wages some companies are willing to pay. Don’t think there is any golden solution, even if we switch to the Abrams, now we need to start from the beginning, training personal, revamping building to house and maintain them. The Leopard 2 was an easy transition from the Leopard 1s, training was quick, buildings needed minor adjustment.

the maintenance issue isnt a Canadian only one though

 

[OldSolduer]

I don't think you need much of a comparison. They are both tracked. Track maintenance is heavy and labour intensive. That is why I am against 3 man crews. There are just some jobs on a tank that require four people. Amount of maintenance based on miles driven only increases the further you drive. That's why we have built in maintenance days during an ex. Five days of rainy, cross country movement is going to cost you two days wrenching on your mount. No matter which one. It's the nature of the beast.

It has been since you guys rode horses into battle as well. Cavalry was expensive and maintenance heavy

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

 

[suffolkowner]

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.

thats true of a lot of these things i expect although commercially/industrially Ive had very good luck with most modernization experiments. It does seem like servicing and maintaining modern military systems doesnt seem to follow quite as well

are they really trying to save manpower or just dead manpower?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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.

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.

 

[markppcli]

I don't think you need much of a comparison. They are both tracked. Track maintenance is heavy and labour intensive. That is why I am against 3 man crews. There are just some jobs on a tank that require four people. Amount of maintenance based on miles driven only increases the further you drive. That's why we have built in maintenance days during an ex. Five days of rainy, cross country movement is going to cost you two days wrenching on your mount. No matter which one. It's the nature of the beast.

Take a page out of the French and have an integrated spare crew platoon that does security tasks.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Take a page out of the French and have an integrated spare crew platoon that does security tasks.

Im not sure of your point. Spare crew platoon to help with maintenance? For scheduled, it might work. If you throw a track out on the trace? You'll be hard pressed with a three man crew. If for replacement? All pers in the SSM echelon are crewmen with the exception of RCEME pers. That's where our spare crews are at. Again, not sure if that is tracking or not.

 

[Underway]

Also, would GDLS even bother putting in a bid for a Canadian tank contract, knowing it would be for a small number of tanks and that we would most likely be asking for specific Canadian requirements in the Statement of Works?

You put in a bid when you know the value of the contract. If it makes business sense then businesses will do it. GDLS are not snobs, they like money.

 

[dapaterson]

You put in a bid when you know the value of the contract. If it makes business sense then businesses will do it. GDLS are not snobs, they like money.

Or put in a bid when you know the fix is in.

Or get your friends to give you a March 31st hundreds of millions contract for new Challengers...

 

[Underway]

Or put in a bid when you know the fix is in.

Or get your friends to give you a March 31st hundreds of millions contract for new Challengers.

Don't understand the Challenger reference, but yah fix is in makes sense. It doesn't invalidate my premise of GDLS not being afraid of money.

 

[markppcli]

Im not sure of your point. Spare crew platoon to help with maintenance? For scheduled, it might work. If you throw a track out on the trace? You'll be hard pressed with a three man crew. If for replacement? All pers in the SSM echelon are crewmen with the exception of RCEME pers. That's where our spare crews are at. Again, not sure if that is tracking or not.

Yes that’s exactly it. You have a platoon / troop of extra bodies both for maintenance and replacing bodies. They’re in VABs and can secure the SSM esch, while being mobile enough to support.

 

[PrairieFella]

Yes that’s exactly it. You have a platoon / troop of extra bodies both for maintenance and replacing bodies. They’re in VABs and can secure the SSM esch, while being mobile enough to support.

That's basically what we do anyways, just that they're the work crews for the Ech, ammo drivers, POL drivers, Ech force pro, sentries, etc. It's a good concept but the problem is if you want an extra 16 man security troop in GWagons/LUV replacements, TAPVs, etc you'll need to find PYs from somewhere else. The RCAC is pretty threadbare in pers these days (along with threadbare in everything else).

 

[markppcli]

That's basically what we do anyways, just that they're the work crews for the Ech, ammo drivers, POL drivers, Ech force pro, sentries, etc. It's a good concept but the problem is if you want an extra 16 man security troop in GWagons/LUV replacements, TAPVs, etc you'll need to find PYs from somewhere else. The RCAC is pretty threadbare in pers these days (along with threadbare in everything else).

Yeah well we are trying to grow. And the comment was in response to a comment on 3 man crews - which is 19 pers per squadron.

 

[PrairieFella]

Yeah well we are trying to grow. And the comment was in response to a comment on 3 man crews - which is 19 pers per squadron.

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.