New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?

[Franko]

Leo 2 fleet goes for about 2.5 billion for 250 tanks and all parts, training, and sims for gunnery....

so I hear

Regards

BTW....don't get your hopes up.....bloody Liberals won't spend a dime extra on good kit.

 

[Genetk44]

I checked the DND  Army website and it says we have 114 leopards in our inventory.
Oh...my hopes aren't up at all that the Gov't will spend any portion of that surplus on equipment......especially not tanks....  :'(

 

[patt]

I checked the DND   Army website and it says we have 114 leopards in our inventory.
Oh...my hopes aren't up at all that the Gov't will spend any portion of that surplus on equipment......especially not tanks....   :'(

i think there still goiing along with the stryker program maybe we might get more than just 66 who knows...we will have to wait and see

 

[Lance Wiebe]

If memory serves, the Swedes picked up the Stvr 122 for somewhere around 12 million US each, which included parts for 10 years, simulators, a BMS and ammunition, initial training, and some other odds and sods.  The tanks alone cost a bit less than half of that.

The 122 is the model that convinced Germany to produce its own version, and call it the Leo2A6.  The Swedes are now taking delivery of the anti-tank mine protection system, which the Germans are also going to buy.  These models, which will not allow penetration by any known anti-tank mine, will have the "M" suffix, as in Leo2A6M.

Seems to me the M1A1HA costs about US 3 Million, but these are used tanks.  The M1A2SEP is somewhere around 8 million, which is a brand new turret on a rebuilt M1 Hull.  No new hulls are being built for the A2.

We turned down a good deal when the Germans left Shilo.  They offered to leave their Leo2A4 and Marders behind for our use, but we said no thanks.  Go figure.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

My take is it's a race between the Conservative Party trying to win the next election
and the Liberals trying to de-tank the Canadian Military.

Bottom Line:  If Harper doesn't win the next one, we'll be out of armour.



CB.  :'(

 

[George Wallace]

We're pretty well out of Armour now.  The new thing is WHEELS. 

We are no longer an Army, but an Armed Constabulary.  Praise Trudeau.

GW

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well when we go up against someone that hands our asses to us then maybe they'll change their minds.

 

[scm77]

The've already put the surplus into paying the national debt.  Of course this causes controversy because a few months ago there was no new money for healthcare or military etc. and now theres once again a bigger then expected surplus.

 

[WAFFEN_SS]

Some ppl might think we dont need a battle tank, we are replacing our old Leopard ; shouldn't we invest in a new set of battle tanks? The challenger2, the M1 Abram, Leopard 2?? It doesn't make sense to me, to be without a main battle tank. Regardless of its present need, you can not replace a battle tank with a stryker or H2 or a John Deer. 

 

[12alfa]

thanks lol do u translate for free lmao.

will be more carfull what i type lol because the British don't eat a thesaurus on a regular basis.

we believe in action.

that speaks louder than words.

so from now on i will post like this!

as to not confuse you all.

also i would like to say that the point my well schooled translator said.

on the American marketing!....

an American genrial of the army said.

no m1 a2 was destroyed in combat in the recent actions in the gulf .

this statement is wrong.!

thats what i meant.

if an rpg hits a tank but the crew only have minnor injury's then it has done its job.
but if it lights up (catches on fire) then there clearly is a fault in its design


What the helll.. a tank burning is a design fault? explain please (this should be good)

as the army's in the world swing to the idea that most wars will be rogue nations where insurgency will be the main factor.(men with rpgs and small arms/terrorists or small units of troops not well armed but with fundamental ideals)
then why is the "best" tank in the world not designed to deal with this

the fact that the American government is in sales talk with the Australian government over sales also most of the middle eastern
NATO/united nation contreys has no bearing on the statement "no m1a2 mbt was destroyed in combat"of course it has

the charm3 main gun means that with the rifled barrel this allows the gun to be used as an artilary piece (troop suppport) vital for the above said anti insergency roll as well as bunker and building clearance as it fires the hesh round giving it the edge in this roll above smooth bore main guns but also is more than capable of being used in the hunter killer roll this was the main factor in the design of the charm3

The smooth bore (120) has more in it's favor towards being a better hunter/killer system because of the sabot fired from a smoothbore is as we have talked about being a bit more accurate that a rifled sabot, and has a greater growth in development or newer ammo than the 120 charm
That being said the wpn/tube is a very small part of the hunter/killer system, the fcs and computer/optics/thermal/ctiv has a greater effect on the system.

Also no need for h/k system for buildings/bunkers I would think

the British have worked on tactics for along time now and believe that in the tank hunter roles most fire will be to the front of
of the tank but also to the sides and now more so from above as most anti tank weapons employ the same type of technology as
the hellfire anti armour weapon "hit them from above" using the up-armour/passive/reinforced armour/plastic armour inserts in the effected areas
as keep them from being venerable from the likes of main gun ammo/rpg/guided missiles but then again every tank has a week spot-
the rear end but the advancement of new armours has helped this since the days of the challenger 1

the need for Du inserts has been raised, but seen as only develop if need as only NATO forces use these rounds i.e the united states.
the need is not there only if a rogue state employs the technology "not in the near future"
the threat is from blue on blue but advancements in communication and vehicle recognition will eliminate this threat

There is if you look, nations that have DU ammo, and there not the good old US of A

the power plant of the challenger 2
as we all know the power plant is the floor in all tanks the bigger the more power it provides
but in return the size of the tank increases also
so to keep it in the size that British transports can handle it could not be as large as the m1a2 power plant
this maybe a downfall but the extended range of challenger 2 is a plus
as the need for fuel is more Conservative

I may be mistaken here (i'll look it up) but the AGT turbine in the M1 is smaller than the perkins Condor.

as the gulf war proved resupply of fuel the m1 was at times very stretched
as it was for all NATO forces but because of the extended range the challenger 2 had the edge

M1+498km
Challey2=400km
these are est's but they are very close, these two MBT's can't claim better a "fuel range" I would think

as it could always wait (but still have reserves to counter any forseeable threats) or move closer to supply's
this gave it an edge in the field.
the m1 did not have this luxury

hope this post is better if not feel free to translate it    ;D

I think I just did . ;D

 

[cpl forrester]

so what your saying then is scrap artilary because theres no need for it in this day and age. the bristish devoloped the callenger 2 with the charm3 not only as a h/k but also as an artilary gun there is still a need for tanks to employ the hesh/high explosive roll. basra was a testerment to that distrution of communication masts and reinforced buildings also deployment in the close artilary support as the alternertive would of been massive infantry casultys
the british have come to relise that troop support is vital r u seriuosly tell me there is no need for this?

the british tank will always out gun any other tank and rpgs will continue to bonce of leaving only black marks on the side/and maybe a dent or two

and as for a tank bursting into flames a design fault = improper design of internall fire supprestion which i add the challenger 2 has you only
read what you know how many of you train in this weapon platform how many of you have rolled this tank out in combat
how many of you have served along american tank units in side of a challenger 2

even they have more confidance on the challer 2 performance than there own mbt's

paper is all and good

BUT when push comes to shove : i have  im talking about faults known at the ground level that holds more ground in any argument as they are aware of problems and the limits of the weapons platforms they operate not ppl who just read tec info that maybe incorect

or is it just because im a british service man i note that tankei got the same responce

 

[Fishbone Jones]

cpl forrester,

You took your time a couple of posts back to relax, form your sentences and make an intelligent, understandable post.

Now your back to your disjointed, hard to read posting format.

I like what your saying, I just find you too hard to read. Sorry, but if you don't fix it, I won't be reading your responses anymore. A pity really, they seem to have some good discussion, somewhere, in them.


"or is it just because im a british service man i note that tankei got the same responce"

You're also above pouting and feeling dejected, I would hope.

 

[12alfa]

so what your saying then is scrap artilary because theres no need for it in this day and age.

No, I did not say that, re-read my post please.

the bristish devoloped the callenger 2 with the charm3 not only as a h/k but also as an artilary gun there is still a need for tanks to employ the hesh/high explosive roll. basra was a testerment to that distrution of communication masts and reinforced buildings also deployment in the close artilary support as the alternertive would of been massive infantry casultys
the british have come to relise that troop support is vital r u seriuosly tell me there is no need for this?

No , again I did not say that. The hunter/killer system is for other AFV's mainly. Your grunt with his RPG (as you have pointed out) will have very little effect on mission kill on any modern MBT.

the british tank will always out gun any other tank and rpgs will continue to bonce of leaving only black marks on the side/and maybe a dent or two

and as for a tank bursting into flames a design fault = improper design of internall fire supprestion which i add the challenger 2 has you only
read what you know

Well I've trained on AFV's with fire supression systems, generally they are all the same. Is the Challenger fire supression system different than all modern MBT's that would give it a better advantage in this department?

how many of you train in this weapon platform how many of you have rolled this tank out in combat
how many of you have served along american tank units in side of a challenger 2


I for one have not, could you tell us here what the system has that gives it a better fire fiting system over the rest of our MBT's? Reaction time, chemical's used,maintaince times, etc?

even they have more confidance on the challer 2 performance than there own mbt's

Who is, and where can I read this?

paper is all and good

BUT when push comes to shove : i have   im talking about faults known at the ground level that holds more ground in any argument as they are aware of problems and the limits of the weapons platforms they operate not ppl who just read tec info that maybe incorect

or is it just because im a british service man i note that tankei got the same responce

No I don't think thats the reason. Most people, myself included need to see some hard data. A link is also usefull.
I have read most of the info on Vickers site as well as the DOD for the british army, and I can't see how the Challey is better than most modern MBT's.

I would put it in the top 5 in the world, the merkava 3 and 4 would be 1st, then the STRV122(Leo2A5) and then the Challenger2.
With it's ammo that is non-standard and it weight/mobility facts/data, it can't compete with the Merkava3-4.
The Merk4 is simply way out in front, better FCS,ammo, armour(being modular) and it mobility across ground that will stop most MBT/s of simular weight is why it is the standard for tank design. Now some may argue this (and probly will), but carefull fact/data searching will show them why the Merkava is at the top.

My 2 cents,,,,,hey wait, the dollaris up!.. My 3 cents....LOL

 

[cpl forrester]

most of my info is from serving with in the tank its self

so i maybe bias in my thinking

but i will say that i complete conferdance in the challenger 2

i know its limits and some not all of the technical infomation is not strictly true

although the fcs is the same as most European tanks there has been some advances in the system new curcit boards and alike
"i know this i was there during fitting" to help gather the connect technical infomation on targeting. although this has
no direct effect on the system it self it makes it more reliable in extreme temperatures(less prone to over heating)
also better thermal shielding of most of the on-board computer hardware i.e development of the so called vapor chill(this system is basically the same as the basic fridge takes the heat away and vents it from the radiator) this in return means faster processing of infomation without the worries of burning out.
its a very simple idea that works!

also new commander infer red and night sights have a better field of view the so called 360%.
although in real terms this means 280%.

also the hydraulic commander hatch is being modified to fix the problems faced in the latest conflict sights are to be added to the 7.62 gpmg (gimppy) to allow complete "fire by wire" keeping the commander from having to man the hatch (manually oppperate the gpmg)
although the technology is currently employed but with not outstanding effect.

i do not see the specialist ammo as a fault in the gun yes resupply maybe harder but also means the ammo is useless to anyone else.

remember this the challenger 2 is so they say only just of the press but expect to see radically changes over the next 2-4 years.

the m1 has had over 20+ years to advance its technology.
and still fails in certain areas

there are certain things that you can do with a chally that other tanks struggle with the above said close artillery support.
keeping the main gun on your target at all times (providing theses line of sight) no matter the tarrain you are tackling.

most of the info on the challenger2 is some 6 months behind the times as to keep with in the official secrets act.

as we are all aware there is a need for this act.

getting such info on hard copy is harder than a rock.

but time will show the challenger 2 has allot of tricks up its sleeve this tank is still young and is growing into new boots almost every day
the big one will be the advancement in the armour with the advancement in the plastic armours.
test programs are still running on this and will be directly influencing the design of the challenger 2's next line

you may see plastic armour on the challenger before you see the first plastic afv.

also electric armour now I'm not to sure on how this will work so this is the word!

if the metal on a tank is charged( don't ask me the specs no one knows them yet ) then the result would be this as a metal object
comes close to the field a static/electric would be discharged at the object the objects course would change or an explosive charge would be detonated way before impact.

how much of that is fact i do not know and do not claim to know.just some thing i heard !

but it do's raise my brow a bit, sitting on it maybe a bit tricky?

most of these advancement will not be available on the export model.

the MOD are directly in charge of this project so don't expect this info to be freely available for some time!

 

[Kirkhill]

Corporal Forrester,  I just wish that our "System" could give our Forces as much confidence in their kit as you have in yours.

Cheers.

 

[George Wallace]

Corporal Forrester, I just wish that our "System" could give our Forces as much confidence in their kit as you have in yours.

Cheers.

I don't think that is the problem.  We have as much confidence in our kit and abilities, if not more than Corporal Forrester......unfortunately it is becoming more of a problem of "No Kit" than anything else.  Any of us who have been on a tank have confidence in our abilities to use that piece of kit, as does all those who laboured on Cougars, and now Coyotes, as well as the Gunners on the M109's and the Infanteers in their LAVs.  It is not a question of 'confidence', but of lack of kit.

GW

 

[cpl forrester]

i agree kit is major issue in all forces .............

lack of body armour

lack of clothing

lack of basic things that we all take for granted

lack of side arm or small arms munitions

as the armed forces live in the world of cut backs

its an old argument really

but one that we will always complain about!

there is no immediate solution to this

my comments on this are simple

they want us to do more of the so called peace keeping

they embark men every day to keep the Peace all over the globe

but money is allways an issue

maybe we should thing in terms of civvies

yea i want to be safe
yea i want to be defended
yea i want world peace

what you mean i have to pay for that?

governments need votes to be in power and the one thing that voters want is

better health care.
better schools..
better law enforcement.
better public serves.

the fact that if we are not supplied with the correct kit

they will loss it all if we cant defend them!!!!!!

 

[Kirkhill]

I think on those points you would find a lot of agreement here Cpl.

Cheers.

 

[GunfighterSB]

Some ppl might think we dont need a battle tank, we are replacing our old Leopard ; shouldn't we invest in a new set of battle tanks? The challenger2, the M1 Abram, Leopard 2?? It doesn't make sense to me, to be without a main battle tank. Regardless of its present need, you can not replace a battle tank with a stryker or H2 or a John Deer.  

Dear Moderator,

I am reporting that this User: WEAPON is deliberately trying to provoke me and many of our brethren into another hopeless debate with our current government and their <insert an insult here> policies.

Sarcasm_ON

We have discussed this topic over and over already with the varying results of recommended action (I will list in order of Magnitude)
      1) Hang Every Liberal MP or Ex MP from Trudeau's Time to Present.
      2) Force those very same MPs to drive their little Armoured Winnebago's(LAV105) in the face of danger.
      3) Go Toe to Toe with those MPs in a Winnebago. Us in a Leo2, T-90, Challenger2, M1A1 or even a LeoC2.
      4) Actually vote for the Conservatives in the next election instead of whining and crying doing nothing....

Sarcasm_OFF

In summary, please convey to USER: WEAPON that his initial thoughts are correct that we cannot replace a MBT with an Armoured Jeep/Panel Van/Camper/Lawn Mower/Combine Harvester or any other lame brained excuse for not funding the soldiers properly.

Gunfighter

 

[REZTEEN]

i agree u need a tank. whats a modern army with out a battle tank. u know what it is its nothing, its just not an army, like c'mon FRANCE has a main battle tank so Canada should have one