• 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

Interesting. I appreciate the look into your world. What we do is probably closer to what you call robbing.

Incidentally, in the RCN the TRANREQ process is initialized by FER (Formation Engineering) but the CO of the losing ship needs to approve the removal of the material.

We have NAVORDs around this, if you really want to get nerdy lol.
No worries, it is just a high level over view. As much as it pains me to admit our DGLEPM/RCEME folks are great at their jobs even if they at daily/ individual level they can be frustrating.

For the RCN, it makes sense that it's more tightly controlled considering it's reducing a system on very low density platform (ship) therefore reducing the ability to move that platform and the capability of the RCN overall. Interesting insight thanks.
 
Interesting. I appreciate the look into your world. What we do is probably closer to what you call robbing.

Incidentally, in the RCN the TRANREQ process is initialized by FER (Formation Engineering) but the CO of the losing ship needs to approve the removal of the material.

We have NAVORDs around this, if you really want to get nerdy lol.
There are differences between an army with 1500+ vehicles and a navy with 12 ships...
 
I've been involved with the tank fleet for years, primarily in a tertiary support role. Parts have always been a challenge, but I haven't seen the issue quantified in some time. Since my RCEME colleagues often attribute problems to missing parts—when the real bottleneck might be a lack of facilities or personnel—I decided to take a deeper dive. Without getting into specifics, I reviewed work orders for the domestic fleet and analyzed some up-to-date briefs. Broadly speaking, the primary issue isn’t parts availability, but rather personnel shortages and limited time.


That’s not to say we aren’t missing parts, that sourcing them isn’t difficult, or that we always have enough on hand. However, the fleet’s current serviceability appears to be more closely tied to a lack of personnel and facilities. With the Leo facility in Nisku coming online to handle resource-intensive inspections, this could relieve pressure on overstretched 2nd (and 1st) line maintainers. In turn, this may free up time to address the minor corrective and preventative maintenance issues that are currently dragging down tank serviceability.
Interesting perspective, thank you for giving us a view at the real problem. In your opinion as a guy on the inside, what might be done to help get VOR down?
 
Interesting perspective, thank you for giving us a view at the real problem. In your opinion as a guy on the inside, what might be done to help get VOR down?
Just so I make it clear, I am on a very far rung on the tank support file currently. I recently assisted the LEO EMT with some orders for the NISKU Regional Maintenance Center (RMC) facility but I don't work in/around the tanks day to day. When I was in Edmonton myself and a number of key players had our hands in making parts flow and vehs not be VOR and I still interact with many of those folks to this day.

Honestly IMHO one of the biggest things is getting the intensive inspections schedule out of being done by the CAF resources and set up a proper reconditioning line. They take up a large ammount of resources especially trained pers who could have been working on corrective maint or less intensive preventative maint. Hopefully with RMC coming online we will see the fleet in a healthier place in the coming years
 
For those of us that have been pitching South Korea as a potential partner for AFV production here's a reminder that we shouldn't look at SK through rose coloured glasses:


The second-phase deal, originally expected to mirror the 180-unit order of the first contract, has become entangled in disputes over pricing, technology transfer, and local production terms.

According to local reports, the cost of the contract has risen to nearly 9 trillion won (approximately $6.2 billion), more than double the original price, due largely to the inclusion of locally manufactured K2PL variants.
 
For those of us that have been pitching South Korea as a potential partner for AFV production here's a reminder that we shouldn't look at SK through rose coloured glasses:

this next order of 180 K2's seems to be a stop gap as they are not ready for full production of the 820 K2PL.
bit of a jump in price from 15m to 33 m?

Poland just has an incredible appetite for tanks, SPH, and MLRs thats for sure
180 K2
180 K2
820 K2PL
total 1180 K2 tanks
366 M1's
230 Leo2's

218 K9's
606 K9PL
320 Krab
100+ DANA

290 K239
506 HIMARs

really just an insane amount. Hopefully we can after the election one way or another move forward with what looks like our own
HIMARS purchase of 24?
RCH purchase of 96?

tanks ????
 
this next order of 180 K2's seems to be a stop gap as they are not ready for full production of the 820 K2PL.
bit of a jump in price from 15m to 33 m?

Poland just has an incredible appetite for tanks, SPH, and MLRs thats for sure
180 K2
180 K2
820 K2PL
total 1180 K2 tanks
366 M1's
230 Leo2's

218 K9's
606 K9PL
320 Krab
100+ DANA

290 K239
506 HIMARs

really just an insane amount. Hopefully we can after the election one way or another move forward with what looks like our own
HIMARS purchase of 24?
RCH purchase of 96?

tanks ????
In all fairness, Poland is pure tank country. I imagine in 20 years the Poles won't be able to compare to the 15 destroyers, 12 subs, 12 corvette, etc RCN. Matter of priorities.
 
In all fairness, Poland is pure tank country. I imagine in 20 years the Poles won't be able to compare to the 15 destroyers, 12 subs, 12 corvette, etc RCN. Matter of priorities.
true and whatever they spend on defence is cheaper than being another Ukraine but
looks like they will attempt to maintain a tank fleet of around 700 bumping up to 1000?
another 1000 SPH and 800+ MLRS
I dont think whats left of Russia's army is going to want to cross that border
 

German-supplied armour and equipment is underperforming in Ukraine, according to leaked comments by a German defence official.

The deputy defence attaché to Ukraine made the remarks on a visit to a German army training centre in Saxony, where he gave feedback from the frontline on how German kit is performing.

And at first glance they're pretty damning verdicts.

He said the Leopard 1 tank is being used as makeshift artillery due to its weak armour instead of its intended role as a main battle tank.

The Panzerhaubitze 2000 (PzH 2000) self-propelled gun suffers from frequent barrel overheating and electronic failures, so much so that its suitability for war is strongly questioned.

And while Germany's IRIS-T air defence system is highly effective, he said the missiles are costly and in short supply.

A transcript of his comments was leaked and later published jointly by three of Germany's largest media outlets.

The story has caused a stir, but what does it tell us? And are German vehicles and equipment really that poor?

Well, firstly German kit is far from being the worst-performing in Ukraine. That honour goes to Russia's Soviet-era turret-tossing tanks with their exploding auto-loaders.

But the story has generated debate on how well exquisite Western weapons cope in the intensity of a complex, grinding battle like Ukraine.

The Leopard 1

Let's take the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 tanks as an example.

According to figures on the German Federal Government website, Berlin has given Kyiv 103 Leopard 1 A5s and 18 Leopard 2 A6s, with another 22 of the more advanced 2 model in the pipeline.

Now the Leopard 1 A5 is a Cold War tank from the mid-1980s. On the plus side, it's light, weighing around 40 tonnes compared with 64 tonnes for the Challenger 2.

As a tank, it offers good protection from mines and artillery, and the firing system for the 105mm main gun on the upgraded A5 model is the same as on the Leopard 2.

But it is relatively light on armour, and that makes it vulnerable to capable anti-tank weapons like Russia's Kornet as well as more powerful drones and loitering munitions like the Lancet.

That appears to be the reason the Ukrainians often dig them in and use them as static artillery.

The Leopard 2

The Leopard 2, on the other hand, has proven to be a deadly weapon, possibly Ukraine's most effective tank, despite being vulnerable to a top-down drone strike.

The problems seem to be less with the tank itself and more with how it is being deployed and operated.

A Green Party politician in Germany recently said he'd visited a repair facility in Lithuania where they fix damaged Leopards, but he found they were short of spare parts.

And he was told untrained Ukrainian troops were trying to fix Leopards in the field, but in doing so were making things worse.

The Leopard 2 is complex to maintain, particularly its sophisticated fire control system and powerful V-12 twin turbo-diesel engine.

It requires specialist technicians and tools, plus the ability to work under constant threat of drone attack, hence they end up in Lithuania or Poland.


German tank crews also take three years to learn how to operate a Leopard 2 properly.

So it's not surprising that so many were lost during Ukraine's unsuccessful counteroffensive in 2023.

They didn't have enough of them, crews didn't have enough training and they didn't use them in the way they were designed.

The Leopard 2 was built for fast, high-intensity battles, not the grinding attrition of Ukraine, where the skies are saturated by drones and electronic warfare.

They were also designed to operate with air support – and Ukraine has very little of that.

Big cat alternatives

So, how does the Leopard 2 compare to other tanks given to Ukraine?

Well, the American M1 Abrams' gas-turbine engine can actually be removed fairly easily. It's held in with 10 bolts and a well-trained crew can apparently do it in less than 20 minutes, but it does need a recovery vehicle.

Britain's Challenger 2 is also complex to operate and maintain, plus, Ukrainian troops complain that it's heavy and sinks in the mud.

It also requires two sets of tools because the turret uses metric measurements and the hull uses Imperial.

It's also worth noting that Ukraine hasn't lost that many Leopards.

According to tracking website Oryx, of the 1,147 tanks Kyiv has lost, 17 Leopard 1s have been destroyed and 38 Leopard 2s.

That's out of a reported 250-odd Leopards supplied by Germany and other countries, so around a fifth of them.

Compare that to Russia, which has lost 3,903 tanks – around 100 a month – since the war began.

Are German tanks too complicated?

So what about the claim that German tanks are just over-engineered? Comparisons are being made between the Leopard and Germany's Second World War tanks.

These include the formidable Tiger 1, which could easily knock out Allied tanks but was unreliable and costly to maintain.

It's a neat comparison, but the Tiger's problems were more to do with a lack of parts, ammunition and fuel than any inherent design flaws, which it did undoubtedly have.

And crucially, the leaked report says many of the weapons Germany has given to Ukraine, like the Marder infantry fighting vehicle and the Gepard anti-aircraft tank, have been very effective indeed.

There have also been reports that the intensity of combat in Ukraine means some systems, like the PzH 2000, have been pushed beyond their design limits.

The PzH was intended to fire up to 100 rounds a day,
but in Ukraine, that's regularly being exceeded, increasing wear and tear on the systems.

Germany has established dedicated repair facilities in countries like Lithuania, and both Rheinmetall and KNDS, the makers of the Leopard, have now set up workshops inside Ukraine itself.

While the headlines don't paint a flattering picture of the Leopard 2, it's still among the best tanks in the world.

And critically, it's provided huge survivability for the crews using it.

What the conflict in Ukraine has done is shift the dial, with forces looking increasingly at sustainability, not just firepower.

While this report says "hardly any German heavy equipment is suitable for war", it's a conclusion that many Russian soldiers at the receiving end of a Leopard 2 may well take issue with.

These seem to be popular - 34 tonne Marder 1A3 with 20mm cannon, MG3 and Milan? as well as the 47 tonne Gepard 1A2 with twin 35s.


1744935452865.png1744935665708.png

Also popular are Bradleys -28 tonne with 25mm cannon and TOW and the CV90 (23 to 38 tonnes).

How heavy is heavy enough?
 
Last edited:
One of the things I have always liked about the Marder was the placement of the cannon. It facilitated not just hull down but also turret down engagements. Effectively a first generation RWS.
Now just bump up the cannon to something in the 30 to 40 mm range and add some counter drone sensors.
 
In any case it is mere nuance and only Log/RCEME nerds will really care about the differences (just to be clear I put myself in that nerd category).

Homer Simpson Nerd GIF
Hey! I represent that statement
 
Back
Top