• 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

The US will give us all the M1s we want for cheap. We could probably even talk them into giving us diesel ones. Along with a lot of other stuff if we want it.
 
PrairieFella said:
No! Don't even get it in your head lol. If it's gun can't reliably kill another tank on first hit, we don't need it and it isn't good enough.
Click to expand...
depends on the ATGM, the main issue with the 105mm is ammunition development has stagnated, there is room to improve the lethality
 
Kirkhill said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Russia has almost run out of armour. Putin’s men are attacking in Ladas

Russian and Ukrainian vehicle attrition rates should be keeping our defence planners awake all night every night
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk



What are the current characteristics of an AFV? What does the Protection-Mobility-Firepower triangle look like?
Click to expand...
Well, the Canadian Army defines an Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) as a vehicle with cross country mobility, armour protection and a weapon system for close combat. We then add new definitions for light, medium and heavy (tank).

The definition does allow for a broad range of vehicles, but I think that the ability to go across a typical field, protect against small arms and shell fragments and a machine gun would be the entry qualifications for a light AFV meant to move troops around in or near contact.

If the point of the article you posted is that the West should have deep stocks of AFVs and the means to produce more then sure. Hard to argue with that. Does this mean we go with economy models? Not sure. With tanks, we've seen in recent times (and less recent times) where smaller numbers of tanks can utterly dominate larger numbers of tanks who were a half-generation behind or lacked in protection and/or firepower. In some cases, things like optics, communications and ergonomics made a big difference (France 1940, Iraq 1991). Supporting arms can try to make this difference up, but going cheap can be a false economy. Having said that, keeping things to the essential to allow for greater production is a thing. Determining that is the key.

For instance, is an MRS with a top-line fire control computer a luxury or a requirement for a tank? I think its a requirement. Is Thermal a luxury or a requirement? I think its a requirement.

Protection is probably an area where there will lots of debate. Protection against which threats and to what degree.

Anyhoo.
 
TangoTwoBravo said:
Well, the Canadian Army defines an Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) as a vehicle with cross country mobility, armour protection and a weapon system for close combat. We then add new definitions for light, medium and heavy (tank).

The definition does allow for a broad range of vehicles, but I think that the ability to go across a typical field, protect against small arms and shell fragments and a machine gun would be the entry qualifications for a light AFV meant to move troops around in or near contact.

If the point of the article you posted is that the West should have deep stocks of AFVs and the means to produce more then sure. Hard to argue with that. Does this mean we go with economy models? Not sure. With tanks, we've seen in recent times (and less recent times) where smaller numbers of tanks can utterly dominate larger numbers of tanks who were a half-generation behind or lacked in protection and/or firepower. In some cases, things like optics, communications and ergonomics made a big difference (France 1940, Iraq 1991). Supporting arms can try to make this difference up, but going cheap can be a false economy. Having said that, keeping things to the essential to allow for greater production is a thing. Determining that is the key.

For instance, is an MRS with a top-line fire control computer a luxury or a requirement for a tank? I think its a requirement. Is Thermal a luxury or a requirement? I think its a requirement.

Protection is probably an area where there will lots of debate. Protection against which threats and to what degree.

Anyhoo.
Click to expand...

Anyhoo indeed.

I am just wondering if we have a valid plan and if even 2% of GDP is anything close to a useful budget.

My own sense is that two things are necessary

  • moving towards a rearmament-wartime budget of 5%
  • investing in alternative technologies to supplement the traditional technologies, especially given the skill fade society has experienced in the necessary crafts over the last 40 years. Even foundries are hard to come by.
 
MilEME09 said:
depends on the ATGM, the main issue with the 105mm is ammunition development has stagnated, there is room to improve the lethality
Click to expand...
Unless it plans on carrying 20 ATGMs, it isn't that useful on the assault, the raison d'être of a tank. Armour dies if it stops, and this thing would need to stop a lot to rebomb. Where a vehicle like this might make sense is in a brigade ordivisional recce role as a firepower troop or two per squadron to fix targets until the main body can arrive and destroy the enemy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
    • Like
Multi Domain Task Force - Canada
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
    • Humorous
Canada's civil service is world's most effective: UK report
2 3
Replies
45
Views
27K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
K
    • Like
Iron Wolf
Replies
1
Views
6K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Kirkhill
    • Insightful
Artillery Logistics Lessons.
6 7 8
Replies
152
Views
93K
KevinB
KevinB
GR66
    • Insightful
Canada - The Last Super Power
2
Replies
26
Views
22K
Brad Sallows
Brad Sallows
Back
Top