Canada's tanks

[FJAG]

Of course the Brits and Americans jus let used top attack Javelins to get the same effect so back to @KevinB

At roughly 20 times the cost per shot.

If you can get a tank somewhere easily, then that isn’t Light Infantry territory, that is CAB territory, with tanks and mech infantry integrated.

That’s not always true. Thinks complex terrain likeAfghanistan, Iraq or any urban setting.

As @markppcli pointed out it is usually more effective to top attack positions (or vehicles).

See cost above.

Anything one do with the M10 is better served by a different system.
Switchblade, Hero-120, Javelin, Hellfire, and the 120mm and 81mm mortars give options beyond straight direct fire.

I wouldn’t count on switchblade or Hero in every situation. For the others, see cost above.

84mm from CarlG and AT-4’s offer a pretty good punch for direct fire at a low cost as well with decent standoff from 7.62x39.
When you start looking at 7.62x54R and heavier weapons in opposition, then you need to have further standoff - and Switchblade or Hero offer that (along with Javelin and Hellfire etc)

To get back to basics, I never said you need a tank or even an M10. We’re saying a gun on a light chassis. And, yeah; a 106RR on a Mule might fill the bill.

 

[markppcli]

At roughly 20 times the cost per shot.

Does that factor in the cost to deliver the tank, crew it, maintain it, and fuel it?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Missiles are great but they are more expensive, complicated and time consuming to produce and replace than charge and sell.

If we want to be serious about any munitions we need to produce them in quantity and store them in greater quantity.

 

[FJAG]

Does that factor in the cost to deliver the tank, crew it, maintain it, and fuel it?

My post got cut off. See the full one.

My issue with the anecdote about Afghanistan was that sometimes tanks are the answer for everyone, but a 106 RR on a light chassis like a Mule would be an ideal DF system to be deployed when the situation is right.

Not everything requires a tank, but not everything requires a $200,000 missile either.

 

[Maxman1]

Was used, and useful are two different things

From my understanding the Low MV on the Demo guns required them to get quite close - which in this day is decidedly what one does not want to do. Pretty much all the Demo guns platform where from before the age of ATGM's.

Now, for an assault UGV - it may be an option, but I tend to think that if given the choice of a 120mm and shooting something at 1k+ or a 165mm and shooting something inside 300m, the better option is the longer range one, as you don't want to needlessly expend platforms regardless if they are uncrewed.

The 165 was meant more for engineering tasks like fortification demolition, where generally no one is shooting back.

There is a 120mm version of the CV90, with an autoloader, weighing up to 38 tons. Slovakia is apparently considering it. That might be a good assault gun vehicle.

 

[PrairieFella]

The 165 was meant more for engineering tasks like fortification demolition, where generally no one is shooting back.

There is a 120mm version of the CV90, with an autoloader, weighing up to 38 tons. Slovakia is apparently considering it. That might be a good assault gun vehicle.

Just buy a tank at that point lol

 

[GK .Dundas]

The 165 was meant more for engineering tasks like fortification demolition, where generally no one is shooting back.

There is a 120mm version of the CV90, with an autoloader, weighing up to 38 tons. Slovakia is apparently considering it. That might be a good assault gun vehicle.

I beg to differ on the 165 mm gun .
You don't mount something under Armour because no body's shooting at you. You mount it on a tank precisely because they are.
While I personally think that DFSVs are solution looking for problem. The CV 90 is a damned good platform and that makes it a great base for all sorts of vehicles.

 

[KevinB]

The 165 was meant more for engineering tasks like fortification demolition, where generally no one is shooting back.

I can do that with a bit of C4 for cheaper.

There is a 120mm version of the CV90, with an autoloader, weighing up to 38 tons. Slovakia is apparently considering it. That might be a good assault gun vehicle.

I would suggest that @PrairieFella has the correct response for that.

I can think of many uses for the CV-90 platform, but trying to emulate a tank isn't one of them.

 

[GR66]

Presumably (hopefully!) our light forces would have Carl-G's and Javelins (or equivalents) available for use when required, but I'd agree with @Kirkhill and @FJAG that the cost (and availability) might make using them a less than optimal solution for some targets.

I'd also agree with @KevinB that once you start getting into the larger calibre guns you're also looking at a larger vehicle to carry it, which like the M10 Booker makes you decidedly un-light.

What about an option something like this?


CRV-7 (even with a laser guidance kit) is a fraction of the cost of a Javelin. It can be mounted to something as light as a UGV as shown in the picture but I'm sure it could also be mounted to an ISV or whatever mobility platform the Light force is using. With the laser guidance it also would serve a double purpose as a counter-UAV platform.

 

[ueo]

Just stick with missiles. No need for old weapons. If we need a RR we already have the CG.

84 mm vs 106? Veh profile? Many questions.

 

[PrairieFella]

84 mm vs 106? Veh profile? Many questions.

I'm sorry, could you restate your question, I don't quite follow.

 

[KevinB]

84 mm vs 106? Veh profile? Many questions.

No one in NATO uses the 106 anymore and there are not any new ammunition natures.

84mm has a large number of different munitions available for it, and could be easily adapted to a vehicular mount for even a tiny vehicle like an ATV or light UGV.

 

[IKnowNothing]

What's the context of the above discussion, especially as it pertains to Canada?

Are we talking about a fire support system to be held organic to a LIB or LAV Bn in the CS Coy, or an RCAC capability designed to be attached at the scale of a sqn / sqn (-) to add teeth/weight/mobility to an LIB or LAV Bn based BG?

My answers: Re- Organic DF- nonsensical, both battalions should have appropriate robust CS coys based on the overall weight of the unit - LAV based for the LAV, light/ ultra light vehicle or Man portable for the LIB

If we're talking RCAC- that discussion hinges on whether the above robust CS Coy's exist. If a LAV Bn already has turreted 120mm mortars and a DFS platoon mounting 50mmx228 + ATGM's UA, does a 40t with 105mm really bring a novel capability upgrade? Probably not- for the logistic juice to be worth the squeeze you're going to want an MBT. If that robust CS coy doesn't exist, there is a gap that an RCAC squadron in Bookers could help fill- but so to would an RCAC sqn in Jaguars or above LAV based DFS vehicle, with less change to the logistics footprint.

In terms of the LIB- the same premise exists- if you're going to send a Bookers, you might as well send MBT's. If you're not in the hyper specific scenario that calls for flying in a troop of MBT's to attach to light infantry, what weight/capability makes sense? If they have their version of a robust CS coy, you're going to want to add armor- not just more armed rascals, so you're looking at a range from something like the JLTV HGC to the above LAV DFS/Jaguar.


The Army needs to decide what the infantry is going to bring to the fight before it can decide what it needs the armoured to bring on top of that, and in what scenarios. The easy and obvious answer is "more tanks." But is the answer "only tanks", or is there going to be another capability gap that needs filled, and if so- at what weight?

 

[Kirkhill]

What's the context of the above discussion, especially as it pertains to Canada?

Are we talking about a fire support system to be held organic to a LIB or LAV Bn in the CS Coy, or an RCAC capability designed to be attached at the scale of a sqn / sqn (-) to add teeth/weight/mobility to an LIB or LAV Bn based BG?

My answers: Re- Organic DF- nonsensical, both battalions should have appropriate robust CS coys based on the overall weight of the unit - LAV based for the LAV, light/ ultra light vehicle or Man portable for the LIB

If we're talking RCAC- that discussion hinges on whether the above robust CS Coy's exist. If a LAV Bn already has turreted 120mm mortars and a DFS platoon mounting 50mmx228 + ATGM's UA, does a 40t with 105mm really bring a novel capability upgrade? Probably not- for the logistic juice to be worth the squeeze you're going to want an MBT. If that robust CS coy doesn't exist, there is a gap that an RCAC squadron in Bookers could help fill- but so to would an RCAC sqn in Jaguars or above LAV based DFS vehicle, with less change to the logistics footprint.

In terms of the LIB- the same premise exists- if you're going to send a Bookers, you might as well send MBT's. If you're not in the hyper specific scenario that calls for flying in a troop of MBT's to attach to light infantry, what weight/capability makes sense? If they have their version of a robust CS coy, you're going to want to add armor- not just more armed rascals, so you're looking at a range from something like the JLTV HGC to the above LAV DFS/Jaguar.


The Army needs to decide what the infantry is going to bring to the fight before it can decide what it needs the armoured to bring on top of that, and in what scenarios. The easy and obvious answer is "more tanks." But is the answer "only tanks", or is there going to be another capability gap that needs filled, and if so- at what weight?

One other question: Is a Tank Regiment a Combined Arms Unit capable of conducting operations independently as is expected of an Infantry battalion? Or is it a Combat Support Unit supplying a specialist capability, like an Engineer or Artillery Unit, as part of a Combined Arms force?

 

[PrairieFella]

One other question: Is a Tank Regiment a Combined Arms Unit capable of conducting operations independently as is expected of an Infantry battalion? Or is it a Combat Support Unit supplying a specialist capability, like an Engineer or Artillery Unit, as part of a Combined Arms force?

Neither. A tank regiment is a maneouvre unit (assuming we deploy the full regt as a cohesive force), not a combat support unit that provides the shock action and mobile firepower that the infantry can't bring to bear. It is extremely rare for tank regiments to be combined arms globally, mainly because they're part of the combined arms brigade/div already. Why waste time training tankers how to do dismounted drills when the tanks don't operate without the infantry anyways? The only time the tanks are separate are when their mobility is key, for example during the exploitation of a gap or perhaps in a mobile delay.

 

[Maxman1]

I can do that with a bit of C4 for cheaper.

The L9 M123E1 HESH shell contains 40 pounds of C4, has an effective range of 925m and a maximum range of 2,400m, and the kinetic impact is another effect by itself.

It seems like a nice-to-have for a combat engineering vehicle, certainly more versatile than a 25mm or 7.62 gun in a RWS.

 

[KevinB]

Neither. A tank regiment is a maneouvre unit (assuming we deploy the full regt as a cohesive force), not a combat support unit that provides the shock action and mobile firepower that the infantry can't bring to bear. It is extremely rare for tank regiments to be combined arms globally, mainly because they're part of the combined arms brigade/div already. Why waste time training tankers how to do dismounted drills when the tanks don't operate without the infantry anyways? The only time the tanks are separate are when their mobility is key, for example during the exploitation of a gap or perhaps in a mobile delay.

Or if you have a tracked heavy IFV with tank like mobility - you wouldn't need to separate the Infantry and the Tanks - something like a CAB just saying ...

 

[KevinB]

The L9 M123E1 HESH shell contains 40 pounds of C4, has an effective range of 925m and a maximum range of 2,400m, and the kinetic impact is another effect by itself.

It seems like a nice-to-have for a combat engineering vehicle, certainly more versatile than a 25mm or 7.62 gun in a RWS.

I still see that as a solution looking for a problem.
A Hard Point is going to eat a PGM way before any CEV gets to it. If unidentified earlier it will be BIP'd by Engineers during a consolidation if it cannot be used by friendly forces.

Adding a new ammunition nature isn't something done lightly - both the UK and the US phased those out for very good reasons.

 

[PrairieFella]

Or if you have a tracked heavy IFV with tank like mobility - you wouldn't need to separate the Infantry and the Tanks - something like a CAB just saying ...

We already achieve that rough structure with the combat team/battle group. No need to reinvent the wheel.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Is a square combat team based on a 19 tank Squadron a unit or a sub-unit? Where I'm going with that, how thin would it be to take the CS and CSS elements of a Bde, an administrative Type 59 tank regiment and a full mech battalion, and fight the Bde with 3x square combat teams as your maneuver units?