• 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

Further to the notion of "mortar tanks"

1754257841681.png

The Panhard AML-60, a Ferret with a turret and a breech-loading 60 mm mortar, was extensively used by the French, South Africans and Irish, for many years as a recce vehicle.

Why would a Mjolner/Nemo/AMOS not be considered a heavy force version of the same concept?
 
Four

The loader is also responsible for the internal mounted machine guns. Loading, IA & stoppages.

On another note, I don’t know who else here has ever commanded a tank, but there's a fuck ton of shit going on. Operating a command tank and three autonomous robot tanks, would be more than any commander could handle, I would think. Especially if you are fighting the vehicles.

Using recce vehicles within the tank troops? 60 belongs to the Brigade Commander. It is not a Regimental asset in the field.
 
Four

The loader is also responsible for the internal mounted machine guns. Loading, IA & stoppages.

On another note, I don’t know who else here has ever commanded a tank, but there's a fuck ton of shit going on. Operating a command tank and three autonomous robot tanks, would be more than any commander could handle, I would think. Especially if you are fighting the vehicles.

Using recce vehicles within the tank troops? 60 belongs to the Brigade Commander. It is not a Regimental asset in the field.

But what if you are using the tank troops for recce?
 
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?

I guess that my view of tank usage is influenced greatly by my time in Shilo working with the Germans. They thought of panzers in battle groups of no less than two panzer companies acting in concert with an attached panzerjaeger company, a heavy recce element (a platoon of panzers or Marders and/or ATGM dets) for the flanks, and an artillery battery and sometimes a mortar group. Speed and violence.

In my day, like @Fishbone Jones's, the Canadian armoured regiment had a recce squadron but it was really a brigade recce squadron (and then just a troop). At best the regiment had a troop at it's disposal. But that isn't the way that it has to be. Look at an American combined arms battalion which has one or two 14-tank armor companies, two or one IFV companies and a sole scout platoon (for the battalion's use) with almost no organic tail (it comes from the BSB). Brigade recce is done by the ABCT's cavalry.

It's a perfect time to look at the whole structure using basic principles. Canada scrapped all of its heavy elements around the turn of the century, abandoned almost all meaningful heavy armour training for the better part of two decades creating a generation of senior leaders with minimal LSCO experience and has now been exposed to what our most likely opponent's doctrine, TTPs and strengths and weaknesses are. There are scores of new weapon systems and others under development. There are promises of fresh money. It's a great time to design a Cold War Army 2.0 from the ground up. But. . . don't. . . waste. . . time trying to find a consensus. Canadians are real crappy at committee structures that drag simple functions into multi-year programs.

🍻
 
I guess that my view of tank usage is influenced greatly by my time in Shilo working with the Germans. They thought of panzers in battle groups of no less than two panzer companies acting in concert with an attached panzerjaeger company, a heavy recce element (a platoon of panzers or Marders and/or ATGM dets) for the flanks, and an artillery battery and sometimes a mortar group. Speed and violence.

In my day, like @Fishbone Jones's, the Canadian armoured regiment had a recce squadron but it was really a brigade recce squadron (and then just a troop). At best the regiment had a troop at it's disposal. But that isn't the way that it has to be. Look at an American combined arms battalion which has one or two 14-tank armor companies, two or one IFV companies and a sole scout platoon (for the battalion's use) with almost no organic tail (it comes from the BSB). Brigade recce is done by the ABCT's cavalry.

It's a perfect time to look at the whole structure using basic principles. Canada scrapped all of its heavy elements around the turn of the century, abandoned almost all meaningful heavy armour training for the better part of two decades creating a generation of senior leaders with minimal LSCO experience and has now been exposed to what our most likely opponent's doctrine, TTPs and strengths and weaknesses are. There are scores of new weapon systems and others under development. There are promises of fresh money. It's a great time to design a Cold War Army 2.0 from the ground up. But. . . don't. . . waste. . . time trying to find a consensus. Canadians are real crappy at committee structures that drag simple functions into multi-year programs.

🍻
I think its worth mentioning that we should probably charitable and see what comes out of the Army reform project coming next month (Sept already, wow). For all we know, they've been thinking of these sorts of things already.
 
I guess that my view of tank usage is influenced greatly by my time in Shilo working with the Germans. They thought of panzers in battle groups of no less than two panzer companies acting in concert with an attached panzerjaeger company, a heavy recce element (a platoon of panzers or Marders and/or ATGM dets) for the flanks, and an artillery battery and sometimes a mortar group. Speed and violence.

In my day, like @Fishbone Jones's, the Canadian armoured regiment had a recce squadron but it was really a brigade recce squadron (and then just a troop). At best the regiment had a troop at it's disposal. But that isn't the way that it has to be. Look at an American combined arms battalion which has one or two 14-tank armor companies, two or one IFV companies and a sole scout platoon (for the battalion's use) with almost no organic tail (it comes from the BSB). Brigade recce is done by the ABCT's cavalry.

It's a perfect time to look at the whole structure using basic principles. Canada scrapped all of its heavy elements around the turn of the century, abandoned almost all meaningful heavy armour training for the better part of two decades creating a generation of senior leaders with minimal LSCO experience and has now been exposed to what our most likely opponent's doctrine, TTPs and strengths and weaknesses are. There are scores of new weapon systems and others under development. There are promises of fresh money. It's a great time to design a Cold War Army 2.0 from the ground up. But. . . don't. . . waste. . . time trying to find a consensus. Canadians are real crappy at committee structures that drag simple functions into multi-year programs.

🍻

Heavy agreement on the consensus bit. Put one person in charge and let them run with it.

I think its worth mentioning that we should probably charitable and see what comes out of the Army reform project coming next month (Sept already, wow). For all we know, they've been thinking of these sorts of things already.

Looking forwards to seeing developments.....any developments.
 
Four

The loader is also responsible for the internal mounted machine guns. Loading, IA & stoppages.

On another note, I don’t know who else here has ever commanded a tank, but there's a fuck ton of shit going on. Operating a command tank and three autonomous robot tanks, would be more than any commander could handle, I would think. Especially if you are fighting the vehicles.

Using recce vehicles within the tank troops? 60 belongs to the Brigade Commander. It is not a Regimental asset in the field.

Ken Giles enters the chat ;)


"The 75(mm gun) is firing. The 37(mm gun) is firing, but it is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning (machine gun) is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance" on the A set, and the driver, who can’t hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away . . . . someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
 
But what if you are using the tank troops for recce?
Canada seemed to be allergic to the heavy recce concept.

Admittedly now, against a lot of enemies, you would not want to roll in like that, unless you have a means to blind, gag and hog tie the enemy first. ISR UAS, Space based systems, and UGV's can do a lot of what used to be done by Mud recce and Armoured Recce - without exposing troops to potential enemy fires.
 
Canada seemed to be allergic to the heavy recce concept.

Admittedly now, against a lot of enemies, you would not want to roll in like that, unless you have a means to blind, gag and hog tie the enemy first. ISR UAS, Space based systems, and UGV's can do a lot of what used to be done by Mud recce and Armoured Recce - without exposing troops to potential enemy fires.

But sooner or later, short of turning the ground into a sheet of glass, somebody has to advance to contact, no?
 
But sooner or later, short of turning the ground into a sheet of glass, somebody has to advance to contact, no?
No, ATC is basically walking blind, and realistically walking into an ambush - or any equally unprepared enemy.

Find
Fix
Destroy

You don't necessarily need human eyeballs to find, and one doesn't always need them to fix. Generally though (short of thermonuclear weapons) you do need to get onto the objective with humans to destroy other humans - even if it is just minor cleanup.
 
No but my point is that other nations, to include every single one that runs Russian tanks (a non zero number of our allies) are able to operate in three man crews.
Lack of a choice in that respect.
I am not fully against autoloaders, I do want some sort of viable manual backup though, and I still believe that 4 is the better number for crew.
 
Lack of a choice in that respect.
I am not fully against autoloaders, I do want some sort of viable manual backup though, and I still believe that 4 is the better number for crew.

My whole line of argument is that suggesting it must be 4 because of maintenance is deeply flawed and putting the cart before the horse.
 
My whole line of argument is that suggesting it must be 4 because of maintenance is deeply flawed and putting the cart before the horse.
Fair, but three burn out a lot faster in a 24/7 environment. Even if your running 1 crew member for turret watch, that doesn't leave a lot, considering the needed preventative maintenance, commander needing to go for orders (or taking orders via data), basic routine etc.

I'm also a guy who wants a two man turret - simply for greater SA - even if buttoned up.
 
Ken Giles enters the chat ;)


"The 75(mm gun) is firing. The 37(mm gun) is firing, but it is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning (machine gun) is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance" on the A set, and the driver, who can’t hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away . . . . someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
Truer than most want to believe 🙂
 
No, ATC is basically walking blind, and realistically walking into an ambush - or any equally unprepared enemy.

Find
Fix
Destroy

You don't necessarily need human eyeballs to find, and one doesn't always need them to fix. Generally though (short of thermonuclear weapons) you do need to get onto the objective with humans to destroy other humans - even if it is just minor cleanup.

The problem I see is that you can't see intent from space.

At some point, unless you intend to turn everybody into a corpse, you have to walk into the crowd and figure out if they are hostile.
 
Back
Top