Combat vehicles on list

[OLD SCHOOL]

I think you fuk‘d up there tanker.
Infantry stalk and kill targets. We don‘t really walk or stroll anywhere.
Some Infantry silently approach from the clouds, kill the target and stalk back out. Pathfinding is best done on foot and by those with the balls to go in hot. Tough to do in a MBT or LAV.
Sometimes we need a ride, sometimes not. Just wanted to clear that up. Stalking and walkin‘ beats driving around in a crispy pizza oven any day.

This is not a MBT but if I have a 105mm anywhere on my team, I don‘t give a **** if it mounted on a bicycle.

How are we going to move them? Feather wings strapped to Bloggins and flappin‘ like ****in mad?
They will be out of date by the time we buy them anyway as procurment here takes a century. Can you say Seaking replacement? ****ing Liberals.

 

[Garry]

Old School,

Tank design considers three things: Firepower, Mobility, and Armoured protection. The first two generations of Tanks (of wich Leopard C1 is a member) had a tradeoff between Mobility and Armoured protection. The heavier the vehicle was, the slower it moved, whereas a light tank moved more quickly. Slow tanks are going to get hit, fast ones may not. Leopard was THE fastest tank that I has ever heard of when it was new, due partly to it‘s high horsepower to weight ratio, and especially due to it‘s amazing suspension.

The third generation of tanks (Leo II, M-1) solved the weight/armour tradeoffs, and we now have speedy, nimble tanks that can take a hit.

Why should you care? Well, primarily because your chances of staying alive are greatly enhanced by having tanks in your battle group. Not a particular gun, but a weapons system that can fight. The cross country mobility of the Stryker is so poor that not only would it take me a lot longer to get somewhere, but may not be able to take the most "tactically sound" route.

All of this boils down to your *** on the line.

Now, you can argue that you really don‘t need any other elemnts to do your job, and you wouldn‘t be wrong. All of us are there to support that 19 yr old trooper with the muddy boots and a bayonet, and to try and keep him not only mission successful, but alive. I can guarentee that you stand a better chance of staying alive with a Squadron of Main Battle Tanks in your team than with a Squadron of Fire Support Vehicles.

Come to think of it, "our" chances are better too.

Cheers-Garry

 

[Garry]

[No message]

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

This new vehicle will not to well off road and thats a fact. Look at 2RCR and the amount of times they get those things stuck in Gagetown. The last time tanks of ours were deployed was in the Kosovo crisis (according to the news) in 1995. The fact is there needs to be a direct fire vehicle in our inventory that is uesed overseas not kept back at home. I‘m just not sure that this is the best option. Perhaps the big boss with the hot sauce should focus on air lift capaibilites for a while.
P.S. LAV‘s aren‘t pizza ovens, they have A/C.

 

[MG34]

Recce41: man you are an idiot,you have no idea of what the **** you are talking about,the Armour School does not dictate what happens with LAV Doctrine,they may think so but we write our own material,the Infantry tactics are something best left to those who can understand them,if you have questions ask .For one the LAV does not go to a Zulu Harbour on the assault but stays with the Section providing support onto and beyond the obj.
I have seen more than my fair share of F‘ed up tankers so don‘t even go there on that one laddie.
The future of the Armoured Corps is assured by the LAV 105 and recce roles like I said earlier no tanks with the current bunch in Ottawa. I you wish to keep with your nostalgic views go to Wainwright and try and keep the Leo‘s running (good luck on that).

ASSAULT TANK!!! ROTFLMAO!!! You are not serious ..are you??? If so get your head examined the LEO C2 wouldn‘t last 5 mins in a real shooting war,it cannot slug it out with the T-72/80,etc regardless of what TACOPs says .

Lastly I do get a kick out of you lack of knowledge of the Infantry and how we operate so if you have no idea of what you are talking about..shut the **** up.

 

[MG34]

Oh yeah one more thing where is the source on these 12 LAV 90 that the Aussies lost in Iraq??

 

[Spr.Earl]

What about our fellow Comrade‘s in Arm‘s?
Should they not have the best weapon‘s and protection,as I an Engineer a can have?
To me it‘s a let down for our Armoured Corp.
Or will it be our Artillary Corp.

The Stryker can not replace a Tank never mind if it‘s a heavy,medium or a light tank!
Tank‘s have the capibilty to move over all kind‘s of terrain and support the Infantry,Engineer‘s et.al. and Tank‘a are a "A 1" psychological weapon against ground troop‘s!

It‘s a waste of money!!

 

[MG34]

It seems the Aussies don‘t have any LAV 90 their ASLAV family is made up of the following:

ASLAV [DTT] - Driver training version with added ‘greenhouse‘.
ASLAV-25 - Fire support/recce version with 25mm cannon.
ASLAV-A - Ambulance version.
ASLAV-C - Command version with multiple radios.
ASLAV-F - Repair version with hydrailic crane.
ASLAV-M - Fire support version with turreted 120mm mortar.
ASLAV-PC - Personnel carrier version.
ASLAV-R - Recovery version with winch and earth anchors.
ASLAV-S - Surveillance version with RASIT GSR and additional observation equipment.


The LAV 105 is being tested but no mention of the LAV 90,it seems the only ones who bought that vehicle were the Saudis.I would like to see your info to the contarary if you would care to produce it. Thanks

 

[OLD SCHOOL]

Garry,
My point is that there will be no tank$ in the future with the state of the military. I think it is unfortunate but a reality. SOMETHING that runs (new) with a 105 punch is a nice toy. Useful? In some situations yes. How are we going to move them around quickly anyway? We can‘t even move troops around. Would I rather you be in a MBT? Yes, no ****, but it won‘t happen. Don‘t worry about saving my *** , one can do wonders with a laser des. and the U.S airforce.

CFL,
Crispy pizza oven as in when it gets smoked by some infantryman walking around. Not a/c. A/c won‘t help you cool off from that one.

This is a waste of money that we don‘t have but what use are the Leopards? Target practice? Fill ‘em with sand boys and line up!

 

[MG34]

Speaking of targets,we happen to have some Leo C1 turrets(about a dozen or so) waiting to be put out for us to blow the **** out of with LAV and various AT weapons...hmm will be good to actually shoot at something other than sheets of wood and fibreglass for a change.

 

[onecat]

MG34, what‘s your beef with armoured guys. They are complaining about poor decission and poor kits choices... just the infantry do. LAV 105 is even more dead when it runs into MTB. And given that CF doesn‘t really much lift transport... these will even up getting stuck here too.

Yes the LAV-105 is newer, but it sure isn‘t better than the C2. If you just fire support then the C2‘s 105 can do that as well. Most likely uses just as much gas, and after the 66 are driven around will be just as over used as the C2‘s and spend just as much time in the shop.

 

[Recce41]

MG
I will find it. It was on a web site. As well as it was passed around at the Armour School. One of the WO from the RCD sent it. When he was in Aussie and NZ last march selling the Coyote surv gear. It like the 4 M1s that were lost in the first couple days for Bagdad. The press never hear about that until, someone spilled the beans.

 

[Bomberman]

All right people. Remember we are all on the same side here! I agree that the LAV 105 may not be the answer to replacing the Leopards. I think that with all the upgrades that have gone into the Leopards in the last couple of years, that they won‘t need replacing in a while (I am not an armoured SME, so correct me if I am wrong!) However, in a peacekeeping scenario, I think it would be a good idea to have a few LAV 105‘s for extra fire support, as they would be a little more mobile in urban areas than leopards. I think that they could be a valuable addition IF THE BUGS ARE WORKED OUT BEFORE WE BUY THEM, but in a conventional war-fighting scenario (ie: assaulting an enemy objective across country with LAV III‘s, engineers, armoured, etc) I would definately prefer to be following an up-armoured Leopard as opposed to a LAV 105. Being a former grunt, any time I have direct fire support on my side I am a happy man! If we buy the LAV 105‘s, it should be to supplement, not replace the Leopards.

Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do and/or die. Pro Patria

 

[MG34]

My beef is the fact that the Leopard C2 is not a good tank,hasn‘t been since the mid 80‘s it is under armoured and under gunned.It is not able to survive any more than the LAV 105 would in a shooting war,no way no how.The LeoC2 is not some wonderful piece of equipment that we should wail about losing it is decades past it‘s useful life as an MBT.Slapping an new/old turret on the thing with new FCS and optics doesn‘t do a **** thing for the worn out chasis or lack of parts to run the thing.
The LAV 105 is not a tank it is a Direct Fire Support Vehicle,or an Assault Gun if you wish ,the sooner folks get their heads wrapped around that the better. Who knows the vehicle may not even be bought but if it is there had best be some though put into it‘s role.
**** if the tankers don‘t want them give them to the Infantry where they will be appreciated.

 

[Garry]

May be time to put this thread to bed.

Nite all.

Garry