Canada's tanks

[MilEME09]

From 74 or 82 tanks to 200 is quite an expansion

id estimate we would want a full squadron permanently in Latvia (maybe more?) as well so add another bakers dozen to that

 

[PrairieFella]

id estimate we would want a full squadron permanently in Latvia (maybe more?) as well so add another bakers dozen to that

Honestly, in a perfect world we have an armoured regiment (3 sqn and an RHQ) there, but two squadrons would probably suffice.

 

[FJAG]

From 74 or 82 tanks to 200 is quite an expansion

It's a necessary expansion in order to properly field and sustain one brigade with the possibility of forming and deploying a second. Where perhaps Canada should think seriously is in reducing a mechanized brigade group to just two mechanized infantry battalions.

I'm also one of those who believes that one could reduce a Type 59 regiment to a Type 44 like many armies run, which, with some adjustments could get you to four regiments. I'm sure most of the armoured folks won't agree with me on that.

I wouldn't want to rule out a new version of the M1 either. The big bad orange man won't be around forever and there may very well come a time when better compatability with the US will matter again.

 

[suffolkowner]

It is but it's needed. We currently have two armoured regiments that bring no more firepower than a LAV mech battalion and we desperately need more tankers, the Strats cant keep up the op tempo for much longer. Fierher, in a real war, 4ish squadrons will not hack it for any period of time. The minimum for what is supposedly a symmetrical force would be equipping the three regiments the same way. I'm assuming no bde/div reform in the near future with 200 tanks as the minimum.

Well with 200 mbt and maybe another 100 arv aev ablv etc. It might be feasible to do something here. K2 or kf51?

 

[PrairieFella]

It's a necessary expansion in order to properly field and sustain one brigade with the possibility of forming and deploying a second. Where perhaps Canada should think seriously is in reducing a mechanized brigade group to just two mechanized infantry battalions.

I'm also one of those who believes that one could reduce a Type 59 regiment to a Type 44 like many armies run, which, with some adjustments could get you to four regiments. I'm sure most of the armoured folks won't agree with me on that.

I wouldn't want to rule out a new version of the M1 either. The big bad orange man won't be around forever and there may very well come a time when better compatability with the US will matter again.

Type 56 being 3 tank sqn, one C&R sqn and an RHQ. What's a type 44?

 

[PrairieFella]

Well with 200 mbt and maybe another 100 arv aev ablv etc. It might be feasible to do something here. K2 or kf51?

I can't speak to the chimo jazz, but for ARVs, ideally I'd want 2 at minimum per squadron, plus some at RHQ. Call it 8 per regt. Plus training stock and some for the Svc Bn and CERs would be nice. Call it 40-50 ARVs.

 

[GR66]

Type 56 being 3 tank sqn, one C&R sqn and an RHQ. What's a type 44?

44 Tanks per Regiment/Battalion like the US Tank Battalions are organized.

3 x Tank Companies with 4 x Tanks in each of three platoons and another 2 x tanks in the Coy HQ gives you 14 x tanks per Company.

Three companies plus two more tanks in the Battalion HQ gives you 44 x tanks total.

There are a number of countries that organize their tank Regiments/Battalions in that way.

 

[MilEME09]

I can't speak to the chimo jazz, but for ARVs, ideally I'd want 2 at minimum per squadron, plus some at RHQ. Call it 8 per regt. Plus training stock and some for the Svc Bn and CERs would be nice. Call it 40-50 ARVs.

if CER has AEV's, then they will have ARV's in the armoured engineering squadron. Svc battalion would have 2 in the tracked vehicle/recovery element.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I can't speak to the chimo jazz, but for ARVs, ideally I'd want 2 at minimum per squadron, plus some at RHQ. Call it 8 per regt. Plus training stock and some for the Svc Bn and CERs would be nice. Call it 40-50 ARVs.

Considering they are priority targets in a modern war, you want as many as possible, same with engineering vehicles.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Which is true in general, but not in the Canada's tanks forum page haha.

To get us back to tanks, I was curious how much it would cost to replace our fleets with minimum amount to recapitalize the MBT fleet. I assumed no extra units being stood up and no warstock, just rearming the three regf regts with three squadrons of 20 each and half squadron for training in Gagetown and a half squadron for RCEME training. 10 squadrons total. 200 tanks. I did not include supporters like AEVs, ARVs, etc, just MBTs.

Leo 2A8 - $7.5 billion CAD (insane cost inflation on Leos, upwards of 29 million euro a piece is being reported for the 2A8...Rheinmetall is making sure they gouge every penny of the current crisis) They will certainly get cheaper as the shutdown lines restart and start pumping out tanks.

K2 - Roughly $5 billion CAD. Poland just bought 180 for 3.4 billion USD, assuming a similar cost.

KF51 - Roughly $5 billion CAD. Rumored to be around 15 million Euro a piece.

Not going to include the Abrams because with the current climate, we're about as likely to buy Abrams as we are to buy some Minutemen.

Also, as an aside, here's a link to a video showing the K2's active suspension being demonstrated. File:K2 Black Panther tank demonstrating the posture control function of the in-arm suspension unit at the Gyeryong Ground Forces Cultural Festival 2016.webm - Wikipedia

What the infrastructure shopping list to support a full regiment of 55+ tonne MBT's + support vehicles at 2 of Petawawa/Gagetown/Valcartier?

 

[Maxman1]

The M88A3 seems like the best option for ARV.

 

[KevinB]

Rumor has it that the CA is willing to abandon the Symmetrical Bde Groups.

4 Armoured Reg'ts and 4 Mech Inf BN's would give you robust 2 Armoured Bde's
The CA currently has 3 Reg Force Armoured Reg'ts (albeit 2 do not have tanks) - so the 4th would require either a adopting some sort of Hybrid Force - or activating another Reg F Armoured Unit - Or making a 1st and 2nd Reg't of one of the 3 Reg Armour units.


That would leave 3 Light Infantry BN's for a Light Bde.


IF Canada was to go to K2 or KF-51, Domestic Manufacturing would be a requirement.

What the infrastructure shopping list to support a full regiment of 55+ tonne MBT's + support vehicles at 2 of Petawawa/Gagetown/Valcartier?

Pet is a no go, it heavily occupied by CANSOF, and I believe the planned site for a Light Bde if the CA goes to a Asymetrical Army.

 

[Kirkhill]

This - although some residual logistics advantage relating to the ongoing care and feeding of the vehicle remains.

This is why I'm so firmly on the tracked side of the debate.

I think those folks who tout the wheeled fleet for its strategic mobility see them careening down an autobahn from one country to another.

I tend to view things in the light of tactical mobility where snow, mud, plowed fields, cratered roads and rubble from destroyed buildings all need to be traversed. And yes, there is a logistics burden associated with tracked fleets but those can all be planned and compensated for by building a proper system for them in the first place (like Canada used to have)

I read a book once about the logistics burden imposed on the US Army in Normandy in keeping the wheeled fleets supplied in replacement tires which were shredded in humungous numbers by rubble and shrapnel littering the roads and fields. It would be interesting to see Iraq's numbers as well as Ukraine's.

As an aside - and strangely to get this back on the topic of tanks - I note an article (that I don't fully trust) that Hegseth is issuing a list of projects destined for the chopping block. Apparently the M10 Booker is on the list.

 

[FJAG]

Type 56 being 3 tank sqn, one C&R sqn and an RHQ. What's a type 44?

The Brits have run several types of tanks regiments recently - the Type 56, Type 58 and Type 44. The numbers refer to the number of tanks in the regiment regardless of the number of recce vehs or squadrons in the regt.

Type 44 and 56 are three-squadron regiments. The Type 44 with 14 tanks per sqn and 2 in the Regt HQ. The Type 56 has 18 tanks per sqn and 2 in the HQ. The Type 58 has four squadrons and I'm not sure exactly how they are distributed. Type 44s generally had a larger number of recce vehs than the Type 58. Type 44 and 58 were older organizations and the current at this time seems to be the three-squadron Type 56 which also has a recce sqn.

I tend to use the term Type 59 because Canada generally has 19 tanks in a squadron and should also have two in the HQ for a total of 59. Interestingly, the older CFP 305-1 from 1990 called for a Canadian armoured regiment to have four tank squadrons and a recce troop. I'm not sure if that ever happened on the ground. When I left the RegF in 1981, the RCD in Germany were established with three tank squadrons, but I'm not sure if they ever had a flyover 4th squadron the same way that 1 RCHA had a flyover 4th M109 battery.

 

[Kirkhill]

44 Tanks per Regiment/Battalion like the US Tank Battalions are organized.

3 x Tank Companies with 4 x Tanks in each of three platoons and another 2 x tanks in the Coy HQ gives you 14 x tanks per Company.

Three companies plus two more tanks in the Battalion HQ gives you 44 x tanks total.

There are a number of countries that organize their tank Regiments/Battalions in that way.

Add a troop of 4x NEMO/Mjolner Mortars to every Gun Squadron.

 

[KevinB]

As an aside - and strangely to get this back on the topic of tanks - I note an article (that I don't fully trust) that Hegseth is issuing a list of projects destined for the chopping block. Apparently the M10 Booker is on the list.

FWIW as soon as the next Gen Abrams was announced to be a rapid initiative the Army lost any interest in the M10, and those who had championed it have either reversed course, or STFU'd.

The Stryker is a lot more likely to get divested than the AMPV cancelled, as the Army needs a M113 replacement, while the Stryker Bde's are just kind of sitting there trying to tread water and not draw attention.

 

[markppcli]

FWIW as soon as the next Gen Abrams was announced to be a rapid initiative the Army lost any interest in the M10, and those who had championed it have either reversed course, or STFU'd.

The Stryker is a lot more likely to get divested than the AMPV cancelled, as the Army needs a M113 replacement, while the Stryker Bde's are just kind of sitting there trying to tread water and not draw attention.

Well this aged poorly given Hegsworths policy update. AMPV seems to be done and dusted.

 

[PrairieFella]

Well this aged poorly given Hegsworths policy update. AMPV seems to be done and dusted.

M113 is the Army equivalent of the B52, it's tired, boss

 

[markppcli]

Add a troop of 4x NEMO/Mjolner Mortars to every Gun Squadron.

No, because no one is going to be able to provide the FDC for them. 16 mortars to a regiment is frankly astronomical, and you’d need some kind of CP / FDC to coordinate them. I know i know this is all that boring / restrictive “professional” stuff you hate.

 

[markppcli]

M113 is the Army equivalent of the B52, it's tired, boss

So’s Hegsworth’s liver, and yet

Army to cancel planned Robotic Combat Vehicle award, pause howitzer competition: Sources - Breaking Defense

A day after the service unveiled a massive shake up, a two-star general’s email sheds light on additional ground combat vehicle cuts and plans to accelerate work on a Bradley replacement and future Abrams tank.

breakingdefense.com