Canada's tanks

[markppcli]

I have nothing but speaking to follow crewmen in the French military. C'est à mon avantage que je parle français Dan's better situation haha.

Everyone pounds track in the troop and many are crossed trained. Investigation is integral to their platoon maintenance plan. It’s not just a "do if you can" type thing - it’s expected. Battle order has a video on it.

I’m familiar with the video, I’d alway take Brendan’s stuff either way a grain of salt. He’s a good guy but at the end of the day he’s a graphic designer with some contacts.

It’s cool everyone pounds track - I’d expect in operations that the investigation guys in the VBLs are in OPs / doing their job while the tanks are static. In garrison? Sure, but if your always side by side then what the fuck is the point

 

[PrairieFella]

I’m familiar with the video, I’d alway take Brendan’s stuff either way a grain of salt. He’s a good guy but at the end of the day he’s a graphic designer with some contacts.

It’s cool everyone pounds track - I’d expect in operations that the investigation guys in the VBLs are in OPs / doing their job while the tanks are static. In garrison? Sure, but if your always side by side then what the fuck is the point

Our tank squadrons are dispersed in harbours, yet people sometimes have to move around for sentry tasks. Its not different for the French. 4 can be up on the OP, 4 on maintenance and 4 on rest, etc etc.

 

[markppcli]

Our tank squadrons are dispersed in harbours, yet people sometimes have to move around for sentry tasks. Its not different for the French. 4 can be up on the OP, 4 on maintenance and 4 on rest, etc etc.

My assumption is that if you have 4 VBL for recce tasks they are out doing those tasks pushed out from the platoon.

If your dispersed harbours are close enough together that troops are doing sentry for each other you haven’t actually dispersed.


Now to the topic actually being discussed: not having an auto loader so you can have an extra body to help pound track seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.

 

[KevinB]

Rollers and ploughs are Sqn assets operated by the Tank Troops.

Clip on Rollers and Plows yes. Other nations however make dedicated breaching tanks - t that have a significant dozer blade and fire MICLIC’s as opposed to a main gun. That is a breaching tank - not a Squadron asset but generally a Bde or Divisional one.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Clip on Rollers and Plows yes. Other nations however make dedicated breaching tanks - t that have a significant dozer blade and fire MICLIC’s as opposed to a main gun. That is a breaching tank - not a Squadron asset but generally a Bde or Divisional one.

Yup. Engineers man those and bridgelayers. Our BLs had armour drivers.

 

[ueo]

I like that French idea. A reserve of troops who are not getting shot at and who are not getting tired?

Effectively fielding 2 or 3 crews per tank? And supplying security for lagers and ammo points?

OK. how do you sell this at the recruiting center? "you wanna be a tanker, OK 3rd team!"

 

[markppcli]

I like that French idea. A reserve of troops who are not getting shot at and who are not getting tired?

Effectively fielding 2 or 3 crews per tank? And supplying security for lagers and ammo points?

That’s not what the French do. They have an organic recce element at the platoon level. I’m sure they do help with maintenance but like I was saying - if your recce is in the hide beside the tank what was the point of bringing recce along ?

I’m all for having replacement crews. I just don’t think the argument of needing to have 4 people per tank so let’s not have an auto loader holds water.

 

[markppcli]

OK. how do you sell this at the recruiting center? "you wanna be a tanker, OK 3rd team!"

You’re a tanker ! Alright Bloggins you’re assigned to security platoon now.

 

[suffolkowner]

That’s not what the French do. They have an organic recce element at the platoon level. I’m sure they do help with maintenance but like I was saying - if your recce is in the hide beside the tank what was the point of bringing recce along ?

I’m all for having replacement crews. I just don’t think the argument of needing to have 4 people per tank so let’s not have an auto loader holds water.

thats why i keep coming back to the KF51. You can have your 4 crew members and the autoloader. Bonus starting production now

https://www.rheinmetall.com/Rheinmetall%20Group/brochure-download/Vehicle-Systems/B325e0522-Panther-KF51-main-battle-tank.pdf

I believe the updated version is with an unmanned turret as well

with respect to tanks and IFV the updated schedule for the Leonardo-Rheinmetall joint venture

View attachment 94956

the previous schedule as i understand it
View attachment 94957

the first few produced are supposed to be in an "international" configuration which i take to include german power train and not the Italian one

 

[daftandbarmy]

Is it required or just required for how we do it? Presumably the French are able to maintain their tanks with an auto loader, and the Russians have been running 3 man crews for 50 years. We get into these cycles where we’ve done something a certain way for so long we forget to reassess and determine what is actually needed. Holding horses and all that.

We should also beware of borrowing ideas emerging from countries that traditionally rely on the mass conscription of people and national infrastructure, unlike our traditionally bespoke 'expeditionary' approach.

When you have a million troops, backed by a nationalized manufacturing base, it's often easier to replace a whole tank squadron than duct tape the tanks in situ...

 

[Maxman1]

the Russians have been running 3 man crews for 50 years.

I don't think Russia is the model for success.

 

[Kirkhill]

That’s not what the French do. They have an organic recce element at the platoon level. I’m sure they do help with maintenance but like I was saying - if your recce is in the hide beside the tank what was the point of bringing recce along ?

I’m all for having replacement crews. I just don’t think the argument of needing to have 4 people per tank so let’s not have an auto loader holds water.

I agree entirely with the autoloader. It doesn't make sense to me that a system that has been made to work reliably for all calibres between 5.56 mm and 105 mm (AMX-13 / CN105-F1) fails at the 120 and 155 level. Especially when the 120 doesn't use adjustable charges.

 

[suffolkowner]

I agree entirely with the autoloader. It doesn't make sense to me that a system that has been made to work reliably for all calibres between 5.56 mm and 105 mm (AMX-13 / CN105-F1) fails at the 120 and 155 level. Especially when the 120 doesn't use adjustable charges.

im sure theres complaints. But the French, Japanese and SK at least are using them on 120 plus im curious if the Italian KF51 will be 130

 

[FJAG]

There are two points that I see with three man crews and autoloaders that speak to the future.

A three man crew is easier to fit into a segregated crew pod. The current KF 51 configuration still has two men in the turret in what is essentially a Leo A4 chassis (although this will be redesigned if the vehicle goes into production.)

An unmanned/autoloader turret leads to a wider selection of configuration for the vehicle including a front engine version with the crew, in line, to the front and the turret further back. That leads to what I consider the gold standard of having one basic chassis that suits a tank, an IFV, an SP and various bespoke mission modules.

I'm not that much on a mission to save manpower. A tank squadron already has one of the lowest number of folks for an army sub unit. I appreciate @Fishbone Jones's comments and I think some of that issue can be offset by a more robust RCEME contingent in the squadron. These modern tanks will be complex. Specialized technicians are a must. And yup on the bore brush issue. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. It can be a ball buster but fixed by crews doubling up when required during maintenance.

I'm also not fond of the KF-51s concept of the HERO 120 and having a systems operator in the hull. I don't think that you want tanks to be doubling up on direct and indirect missions when it's very easy to have small trucks with tons of loitering munitions and their operators just a little back from the line. Why give away your tanks signature/location with HERO 120 launches before needed with a deep fight before the close fight? Why have them take their attention off the direct fight that will be right in front of them? IMHO, it's an unnecessary complexity both technically and tactically. By all means send the sqn comd/battle captain aerial recce feeds but don't have members of the tank crews double hatted to control those; have it done by someone who's elsewhere. Two options are UAV dets working with the regiments recce elements or, organic tank squadron UAV elements operating out of the sqn's A1 echelon or both.

I think we sometimes try to cram too much capability onto the folks who will be busy fighting for their lives.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Little things keep popping up in my head. It's been more than awhile since I've had to apply any of this. So I'll just post them as I remember them.

First one.

With a 4 man crew, if the commander becomes incapacitated for whatever reason, another crew member can take over and continue the mission. A four man tank can be commanded from the loader hatch if necessary.

With an autoloader you are out of action.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Two

If an autoloader breaks, you're done.
If your human loader breaks, the SSM can bring another one up in short order.

 

[suffolkowner]

There are two points that I see with three man crews and autoloaders that speak to the future.

A three man crew is easier to fit into a segregated crew pod. The current KF 51 configuration still has two men in the turret in what is essentially a Leo A4 chassis (although this will be redesigned if the vehicle goes into production.)

An unmanned/autoloader turret leads to a wider selection of configuration for the vehicle including a front engine version with the crew, in line, to the front and the turret further back. That leads to what I consider the gold standard of having one basic chassis that suits a tank, an IFV, an SP and various bespoke mission modules.

I'm not that much on a mission to save manpower. A tank squadron already has one of the lowest number of folks for an army sub unit. I appreciate @Fishbone Jones's comments and I think some of that issue can be offset by a more robust RCEME contingent in the squadron. These modern tanks will be complex. Specialized technicians are a must. And yup on the bore brush issue. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. It can be a ball buster but fixed by crews doubling up when required during maintenance.

I'm also not fond of the KF-51s concept of the HERO 120 and having a systems operator in the hull. I don't think that you want tanks to be doubling up on direct and indirect missions when it's very easy to have small trucks with tons of loitering munitions and their operators just a little back from the line. Why give away your tanks signature/location with HERO 120 launches before needed with a deep fight before the close fight? Why have them take their attention off the direct fight that will be right in front of them? IMHO, it's an unnecessary complexity both technically and tactically. By all means send the sqn comd/battle captain aerial recce feeds but don't have members of the tank crews double hatted to control those; have it done by someone who's elsewhere. Two options are UAV dets working with the regiments recce elements or, organic tank squadron UAV elements operating out of the sqn's A1 echelon or both.

I think we sometimes try to cram too much capability onto the folks who will be busy fighting for their lives.

the first 9 KF-51 are to be delivered in 2027?
manned turret or unmanned?
refurbished 2A4 hull or new? I have been told new
120mm or 130?
Im not sure how much the HERO 120 is vital to the concept

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Three

Most tank engagements are meeting engagements. The tank that can put that second shot out the fastest normally wins. Humans can load faster than autoloaders in the short term.

 

[suffolkowner]

Three

Most tank engagements are meeting engagements. The tank that can put that second shot out the fastest normally wins. Humans can load faster than autoloaders in the short term.

can they load a 130mm faster? a 140mm faster?
I think it is an academic point unless there is a tank on offer for the future that doesnt feature an autoloader
For now we avoid the issue as we stay with our 2A4's/2A6's

 

[Kirkhill]

There are two points that I see with three man crews and autoloaders that speak to the future.

A three man crew is easier to fit into a segregated crew pod. The current KF 51 configuration still has two men in the turret in what is essentially a Leo A4 chassis (although this will be redesigned if the vehicle goes into production.)

An unmanned/autoloader turret leads to a wider selection of configuration for the vehicle including a front engine version with the crew, in line, to the front and the turret further back. That leads to what I consider the gold standard of having one basic chassis that suits a tank, an IFV, an SP and various bespoke mission modules.

I'm not that much on a mission to save manpower. A tank squadron already has one of the lowest number of folks for an army sub unit. I appreciate @Fishbone Jones's comments and I think some of that issue can be offset by a more robust RCEME contingent in the squadron. These modern tanks will be complex. Specialized technicians are a must. And yup on the bore brush issue. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. It can be a ball buster but fixed by crews doubling up when required during maintenance.

I'm also not fond of the KF-51s concept of the HERO 120 and having a systems operator in the hull. I don't think that you want tanks to be doubling up on direct and indirect missions when it's very easy to have small trucks with tons of loitering munitions and their operators just a little back from the line. Why give away your tanks signature/location with HERO 120 launches before needed with a deep fight before the close fight? Why have them take their attention off the direct fight that will be right in front of them? IMHO, it's an unnecessary complexity both technically and tactically. By all means send the sqn comd/battle captain aerial recce feeds but don't have members of the tank crews double hatted to control those; have it done by someone who's elsewhere. Two options are UAV dets working with the regiments recce elements or, organic tank squadron UAV elements operating out of the sqn's A1 echelon or both.

I think we sometimes try to cram too much capability onto the folks who will be busy fighting for their lives.

Are Regiments to be used as troops, squadrons or regiments?
I'm pretty sure that I know they are not to be used individually.
If they were to be used individually then I could see a rationale for each vehicle to be all-singing, all-dancing.

Troops? Can you have 3 Gun-Tanks and a Command-Support Tank?
Is that where you would find a Hero-120? It has a range of 60 km and an endurance of 60 minutes. They can be fielded in twin launchers, 4 packs and 8 packs on wheeled and tracked vehicles.

Being able to act 60 km in front of the guns seems a long way for a young troop commander to me.
Personally I would be more inclined to put a 120mm mortar tank into such a troop for local support - 6 to 12 km - but I have been given to understand that that is not in the remit of the RCAC. The modern mortars can fire high and low angle, at the halt or on the move, LOS direct or indirect. If a forward troop were engaged from defilade by an ATGM I imagine an ability to lob a round into their position would be useful.

How about a Support Troop in a Squadron outfitted with UAVs, LAMs and Mortars. Does a 60 km LAM fit there? How about a Brimstone troop instead with autonomous munitions in the 10-20 km range?

Regimental Support Squadron?
RHQ Troop?

Or is a Regiment going to be a pure gun tank assembly?
Is it going to be a mailed fist? Or a recce element? Or both?

It seems to me that all of those questions enter into the debate about the nature of the "tank" and its preferred armament.