Canada's tanks

[KevinB]

I don't agree with his premise or the solutions he proposes.

Many of the solutions are both possible and desirable, but as additional capabilities and not as the next generation of armour. His basic premise starts with the concept that UAVs make massing armour and massive breakthroughs impossible. That ignores the possibility for the development of new systems for defeating surveillance (including satellite surveillance) and swarming UAV attacks. It also ignores the fact that if you are wrong about that premise, then you have nothing to fall back on.

The type of roles that he proposes - dispersed, multiple run ups etc - were part of our NATO strategy in the 1970s with Active Defence. It was done by full-fledged tanks, in conjunction with the fledgeling anti-armour missiles systems of the day. All of those are better, but so is everything else and there always needs to be a capability for exploitation through rapid, violent counter-attack or else you relegate yourself to the meat grinder war going on now in Ukraine. Developing the technology to enable tanks to keep doing just that is paramount.

Many of his suggested future uses for tanks in their infantry support role, are better done by cheaper specialized vehicles in the field of anti-tank, air defence or engineering. Some may be on tank chassis, others on lighter vehicles. A lot of the ideas should be, and are being incorporated, into new models. There's no question that we need cheaper, lighter tanks but the core concept for armour is still required.

There is also the entire possibility that Armored Formations become even more powerful. The Phalanx of olden times renewed with C-RAM and C-UAS.

With the money going into Golden Dome just on the weapons side, there will be miniaturization of many systems.

Smaller DE options - we already have Deimos on the LAV, but it’s limited by power generation
If you had something like @Kirkhill ’s SMR there could be power to hundred of DE systems that would be a viable C-RAM solution, and your Armoured Division would just roll forward - vaporizing any Anti-Access/Area Denial obstacles, as well as rockets, artillery etc, and the direct fire systems and NLOS Missiles clearing targets ahead.

 

[Kirkhill]

There is also the entire possibility that Armored Formations become even more powerful. The Phalanx of olden times renewed with C-RAM and C-UAS.

With the money going into Golden Dome just on the weapons side, there will be miniaturization of many systems.

Smaller DE options - we already have Deimos on the LAV, but it’s limited by power generation
If you had something like @Kirkhill ’s SMR there could be power to hundred of DE systems that would be a viable C-RAM solution, and your Armoured Division would just roll forward - vaporizing any Anti-Access/Area Denial obstacles, as well as rockets, artillery etc, and the direct fire systems and NLOS Missiles clearing targets ahead.

And I see that Hegseth has just decreed that drones are ammunition and not aircraft.

They are missiles without launchers, bombs without mortars and bullets without guns. But they are smart and can communicate.

Just as important they can be bought by Colonels with the company credit card and proprietary comms are acceptable.

 

[Kirkhill]

There are multitudes of small islands close to the Mainland that make up Taiwan, they will be able to attack those and although Taiwan will resist, they know that they are going to lose those islands.

In which case, if the Chinese really, really want them, then the Taiwanese should use them to kill as many Chinese as possible while using as few Taiwanese as possible. Make it an artillery vs infantry battle.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Absolutely brutal. Let's hope that is incorrect or at least the Canadian fleet is tracked too. It is completely different going from wheeled to tracked armoured warfare. The use of terrain and therefore positions of fire and observation are completely different.

I don't know how else to interpret a 400 vehicle purchase for Medium Cavalry Capability + Life Cycle Extension project for tanks

 

[KevinB]

I don't know how else to interpret a 400 vehicle purchase for Medium Cavalry Capability + Life Cycle Extension project for tanks

I think the issue is what the Medium Cav capability is.

Some of us remember the AVGP with the Cougar being the ‘Armoured’ part.


If it’s just more LAV then it is truly a waste.
But if it’s a legitimate Medium Cavalry Combat System, that can work with Tanks and help LAV’s, then maybe it’s not a total waste.

 

[GK .Dundas]

It sounds like a cost reflective of what the US does with their M1 referbs. Pull everything off the frame, clean everything, repaint everything, replace everything broken, add on new things that make sense including engines etc...

A full rebuild for lack of a better term on the base frame. One wonders if just new tanks are a better option.

Part of the reason for this is to keep the production line hot. Otherwise the plant would shut down and worse would the loss of corporate knowledge . Tooling is actually easier to replace them dealing with the fact that the people who made it work and more importantly knew how to get the most out of it.
One only has to see the British Battleship programme of the mid to late 1930s to see what happens when you lose both an industrial base and the corporate knowledge that went with it.

 

[PrairieFella]

I think the issue is what the Medium Cav capability is.

Some of us remember the AVGP with the Cougar being the ‘Armoured’ part.


If it’s just more LAV then it is truly a waste.
But if it’s a legitimate Medium Cavalry Combat System, that can work with Tanks and help LAV’s, then maybe it’s not a total waste.

I could see Ajax being considered as its a GDLS project. For enough vehicles and a limited yearly production of replacements/warstock could be worth tooling a line. It seems most of the teething issues have been resolved and the 40CT is a helluva shell. Add an RWS ATGM like the Brits are doing and that's a beast of a cav vehicle. Problem is no dismounts so you'd need a bunch of Ares too to carry scouts.

 

[CBH99]

I think the issue is what the Medium Cav capability is.

Some of us remember the AVGP with the Cougar being the ‘Armoured’ part.


If it’s just more LAV then it is truly a waste.
But if it’s a legitimate Medium Cavalry Combat System, that can work with Tanks and help LAV’s, then maybe it’s not a total waste.

Holy do I ever feel old now... (It just hit me that I could walk up to a group of Pte's today and there is a decent chance they wouldn't know what either the Cougar or AVGP were. Yikes!)


We'll see where this project goes...

Part of me thinks it may just end up being more LAV's of various specialty types (ATGM, Mortar vehicle, EW vehicle, etc etc - as well as flushing out the units with any LAV 6's they may need)

Part of me thinks the Army may be dusting off the plans they had near the end of the Afghan war to acquire tracked armoured vehicles to fight alongside the Leo 2's

(That project was shelved at the time, but things have obviously changed quite dramatically since then)

 

[FJAG]

Part of me thinks the Army may be dusting off the plans they had near the end of the Afghan war to acquire tracked armoured vehicles to fight alongside the Leo 2's

(That project was shelved at the time, but things have obviously changed quite dramatically since then)

That was the Close Combat Vehicle Project (CCV). While it was designed to accompany tanks, it was not required to be tracked. In fact only one contender was tracked. The rest were wheeled. It was cancelled on the eve of announcing a winner for various reasons including the view that the then ongoing LAV UP program, which was delivering the LAV 6.0, made the CCV unnecessary.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That was the Close Combat Vehicle Project (CCV). While it was designed to accompany tanks, it was not required to be tracked. In fact only one contender was tracked. The rest were wheeled. It was cancelled on the eve of announcing a winner for various reasons including the view that the then ongoing LAV UP program, which was delivering the LAV 6.0, made the CCV unnecessary.

It was utterly stupid that have that program and not require tracks. What would be the point of operating two different 8x8?

 

[markppcli]

I could see Ajax being considered as its a GDLS project. For enough vehicles and a limited yearly production of replacements/warstock could be worth tooling a line. It seems most of the teething issues have been resolved and the 40CT is a helluva shell. Add an RWS ATGM like the Brits are doing and that's a beast of a cav vehicle. Problem is no dismounts so you'd need a bunch of Ares too to carry scouts.

Ajax would be my pick, however if we’re buying it to conduct tasks that can be better done by a tank one wonders why not just buy bloody tanks. Ideally enough for 3 regiments of 3 Sqns each and a 4th for Op stock. Sooo around 210 lets call it. Poland bought 180 K2s for just over what we’re going to pay for refurbishing Leos.

 

[PrairieFella]

Ajax would be my pick, however if we’re buying it to conduct tasks that can be better done by a tank one wonders why not just buy bloody tanks. Ideally enough for 3 regiments of 3 Sqns each and a 4th for Op stock. Sooo around 210 lets call it. Poland bought 180 K2s for just over what we’re going to pay for refurbishing Leos.

Agree wholeheartedly. There still is a role for a non-tank cav vehicle but in an Army our size, not 400 of them.

 

[Underway]

Ajax would be my pick, however if we’re buying it to conduct tasks that can be better done by a tank one wonders why not just buy bloody tanks. Ideally enough for 3 regiments of 3 Sqns each and a 4th for Op stock. Sooo around 210 lets call it. Poland bought 180 K2s for just over what we’re going to pay for refurbishing Leos.

Would love to point to the doctrinal points that support this but the Cav Doctrine is now in what, 2 years still in "translation" and pretty much locked out to anyone who doesn't know anyone.

That being said the training shift away from the "recce" mindset to the "tanker" mindset is concerning. Used to be the RCAC put out the best NCO's with regard to critical thinking, problem solving and independent action because of how the Coyote's were used. Now they are all trained "tanker" mindset as that's the baseline. Very unfortunate as the future of war is looking a lot more recce thinking and a lot less tanker.

 

[PrairieFella]

Would love to point to the doctrinal points that support this but the Cav Doctrine is now in what, 2 years still in "translation" and pretty much locked out to anyone who doesn't know anyone.

We've been transitioned for a half decade now. I did my ACC on the new doctrine and that was 5 years ago. Its on the DWAN, if you have ACIMS you can look up ACRiB - Armoured Cavalry Regiment in Battle.

That being said the training shift away from the "recce" mindset to the "tanker" mindset is concerning. Used to be the RCAC put out the best NCO's with regard to critical thinking, problem solving and independent action because of how the Coyote's were used. Now they are all trained "tanker" mindset as that's the baseline. Very unfortunate as the future of war is looking a lot more recce thinking and a lot less tanker.

Recce still exists and is still trained but I agree that it should be trained more. The problem with our recce doctrine at the time was it was fundamentally useless in modern war beyond niche tasks. 8 unsupported afvs with no internal fires, no ATGMs and extremely limited dismounts made the 8 car troop a great way to get 32 skilled and well-trained crewmen killed. Bear in mind the 8 car troop was born out of lessons learned from peacekeeping in the Sinai. It was time to kill it and rebuild.

We are seeing a return of 6-0, aka regimental recce troop (which is bigger than a cav troop), a conceptual find-strike troop (a real deep cut that being discussed) and assault troop, all of which have some recce assets and recce tasks assigned to them. Drones will also begin proliferation at the squadron level. You're also seeing more focus on enabling operations and other TACSEC tasks in light cav squadrons as a complement to their base maneouvre functions.

Personally I think non tank cav troops should be six cars, with 4 IFVs and 2 light APCs/PMVs with dismounts but that's just me haha.