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

[canuck101]

I was just wondering if we are not keeping the Leopard 1 in service what about a lighter tank.  The Spanish have a tracked armoured fighting vehicle that can be a light tank to. What do you think of it.  Here is the URL:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ascod/

 

[Lance Wiebe]

This is certainly the way to go, a common chassis with many versions.  It is, I think, what we started out to do, but we screwed up.  Originally, our eight wheel chassis was going to be the common chassis with about a dozen variants.

Unfortunately, the Bison, Coyote, LAV III and MGS will have very few parts common to each other.  The Coyote and LAV III share the turret, and that's it for commonality.  The MGS shares nothing except a few minor things, such as batteries.

Sigh.  "A" for planning, "D-" for preparation, and "F" for execution.

 

[12alfa]

Does our army think ahead?

What do they see as the veh that will come after the AGS, I mean this was I think looked at in the 80's, we are just now seeing the goverement saying yes. So have they looked past this family of AFV's?

I see the Brits developing plastic AFV's, and with modulsr amour added to them for certian missions. This i think is what the FCS is for the US's next generation of AFV's. We could jump onto this as well, but nah, we would screw that up as well....what was i thinking?

The British I think will feild the next generation of AFV's, as they should, after all they gave us the Tank.

It looks very good, protypes have been made/tested, me thinks this will work, and work well for the "deployment" people in goverments.
Seems that is all they are looking at theses days..............(insert profanity).

 

[ArmyRick]

Maybe we could do like the aussies and replace Leo 1 with a new tank and (to be realistic) reduce the replacement (like 3 squadrons of 14 = 44 or so + 8 for training = 52)

 

[George Wallace]

Maybe we could do like the aussies and replace Leo 1 with a new tank and (to be realistic) reduce the replacement (like 3 squadrons of 14 = 44 or so + 8 for training = 52)

Why do that?  We have been halving our purchases since 1953.  Let's just end all this nonsense and go straight to Zero.

66 POS to replace 128 Leo I and auxiliary equip, which replaced over 350 Centurions, which replaced over 1000 Shermans........When will the madness stop?

GW

 

[bossi]

66 POS to replace 128 Leo I and auxiliary equip, which replaced over 350 Centurions, which replaced over 1000 Shermans........When will the madness stop?

Well, to paraphrase "Papa Doc Crouton" ...

... We don'ts needs no stinkin' Cadillacs for da Farces ... me, I likes da Chevrolet ...

 

[ArmyRick]

Why did I suggest only X number of M8s? We either compromise or get nothing. As far whining about the numbers halfing as time goes on ? Finicial restraint is a REALITY in the CF. We all know that.
When will the madness stop ? Answer your own question. Roll with the punches or take 'em head on, we aint gettin new TANKS any time soon...

 

[canuck101]

That is a fact Jack! :'(

 

[RCD]

A light tank would do.

 

[G .Dundas]

Why do that?   We have been halving our purchases since 1953.   Let's just end all this nonsense and go straight to Zero.

66 POS to replace 128 Leo I and auxiliary equip, which replaced over 350 Centurions, which replaced over 1000 Shermans........When will the madness stop?

GW

  As I recall the we were orginally were supposed to buy the M-48 but it was'nt ready and wanted nothing to do with the M-47. So we purchased the Centurions instead.And furthermore the number at one point was supposed to be 850 Centurions. We have a real long history of this! :

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The government of the day wanted all US kit, from boots to planes.  We actually started it, too, ordering the deuce, and the three quad.  But, when we started shopping for a tank, the Americans wanted to sell us the M-46, we wanted the M-47, but the US wouldn't give us the M-47.  They wanted all production for their own use.  Only after all the US Forces were equipeed was any exporting to be allowed.  The Brits offered us the Centurion for a very good price, so we bought it.  Thank goodness, it was far superior to the M46/M47/M48 POS that the Americans had to use.

 

[a_majoor]

OK, I am King for this forum, and decree the RCAC shall be equipped with real tanks. After careful consideration of the various models on the market, I am dissatisfied, and ask my royal advisors to get me something which is fast, hard hitting, well protected yet does not have a monsterous logistics footprint and is also somewhat lighter for better operational and tactical mobility.

The quick thinking Armoured advisor pulls a copy of ARMOR magazine from the royal library and shows me the January February 2001 edition. In the article "Modern German Tank Development, 1956-2000", there is a concept based on a modified Leopard 2 chassis. A low volume "Wegmann" turret is installed, which is about 30% lower than the issue turret, and a "Euro-Power Pack" is installed, allowing the hull to be shortened by almost a metre. http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/jf01/1bundeswehr01.pdf

A "top of the head" calculation suggests the resulting beast (Leopard 2 A7 ?) would weigh in at about 50,000 kg, yet still have the virtues of the parent, being fast, hard hitting (120mm smoothbore) and well protected. In fact the weight reduction would improve the cross country mobility , and the lowered shillouette will increase the protection factor, while the lighter weight should also result in better fuel economy.

The sad part is these were real concepts using current technology, and since the Leo 2 is still in production, it wouldn't cost that much for the Leopard 2 A7 (Canadian) to be a reality...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

OK. Next time I see you, you'll have to share whatever it is your smokin'. ;D Like the concept though.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

OK, King of this forum, I like this idea.  I'm not sure that we would shave off nearly 20,000Kg from the "M" versions of the Leo2A6 or Stvr 122, but even shaving 10,000 Kg is a huge saving, in terms of initial cost, maintenance, operating cost, shipping cost, and so on.

Of course, to carry on this theme would mean that we would have to purchase a suitable MICV to accompany it.  Of course, it would have to be tracked, reasonably mobile, protected, and have some more firepower than the weenie 25mm.  I kind of like the CV90.

We would need enough equipment for a heavy Brigade, or UA, or whatever we want to call it, plus a reserve, plus training vehicles, what say about 114 tanks, and 300 MICV?

Hey, maybe the Germans would cut us a deal on the PZH2000 for the artillery?  And maybe some helicopters..........you know, this thread could really expand!

oops.  Sorry, you're the King.  Your call.

 

[a_majoor]

That's why I have royal advisors!

The weight reduction is admittedly a guess, but I am also thinking of the "knock down" effect of shaving 30% off the turret hight and a metre off the hull: smaller engine and transmission (already factored), lighter suspension parts and so on. 10,000kg would probably be the bottom end, while 20,000kg would be the top end of the diet plan.

If we really want to have a UA heavy, then why not go all out? Let's take the Leo 2 hull, put the Euro-Power pack in the front and open up the rear hull space for the other members of the UA heavy combat team. We now get an assault carrier, engineer vehicle, SP Howitzer (capable of DF tasks), ATGM carrier and so on. This would be a "hammer" formation for smashing deep defensive positions, cracking open urban combat zones or lurking in the background as the countermove force.

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

Sorry to deflate the king's dream, but I do believe that the future tank is the MMEV/ADATS/TUA/MGS...just kidding.  I believe that we are making a mistake not having a MBT and like the concept.  Just need some heavy lift so we can get it overseas.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

If I'm going to engage in wishful thinking I would go with the M1 (the Abrams Standard is combat proven) and the CV9030 for the Infantry.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Leo 2 hull with the engine in front, eh?  Sounds almost like the PZH 2000.  Of course, the hull height could be lowered from the PZH, but the example does live!

It is certainly do-able!

And while the M1 is combat proven, it is extremely expensive to maintain and operate.  And, if you consider the M1A1HA or the M1A2, they are also very heavy, closing in on 70 tons.

 

[Infanteer]

Ok, if I can maybe post some thoughts.

I think A Majoor struck on a very valid point - a common chassis.  If anything, this idea shows that there is an alternative to a massive, 70 ton MBT if we desire to maintain a tracked, heavy-hitting capability.  Is there a possibility of us doing the same thing as the Swedes (If the Swedes can do it, we can to) and designing a Common Chassis, Tracked (CCT) - The LAV Chassis would become the Common Chassis Wheeled (CCW).  Like the CV series, we could produce an entire series of chassis which only feature different turrets (if they have one).  They don't have to be tiny-chassis either - look what the Germans are doing with the Leopard Chassis (Gepard comes to mind).

Is this workable, or do you Panzer-types feel that a MBT chassis is simply overkill for an IFV, an anti-aircraft platform, an ambulance, etc, etc.  A Common Chassis would do wonders in streamlining the fleet and reducing the logistical footprint of mechanized units.  As well, swapping crewmen from vehicle to vehicle wouldn't be too difficult.  However, I think there is a line to be cautious of, lest a vehicle be chosen that is a jack-of-all-trades and yet a master-of-none.

PS.  I also think it is worthwhile establishing the desirability of a Light Chassis Tracked (LCT) along the lines of a Weasel and a Light Chassis Wheeled (LCW) along the lines of the HMMVW.

 

[a_majoor]

The court jester speaks well: a common chassis is a desirable thing to achieve.

A fleet based on the Leo 2 chassis, even with the drastic modifications suggested, will be quite big in terms of logistics footprint. The vehicles would weigh in from about 40,000kg for Infantry assault carriers to 60,000kg for the 2A7 tank version. (For maximum protection without paying a huge weight penalty, I would suggest the assault carrier not have a turret at all, but rather several banks of grenade dischargers on the roof to shower the bad guys with gifts of WP and Frag). This will call for pretty impressive sea lift capabilities, lots of heavy duty tank transporters, a big fleet of fuelers when you hit the road and so on. The main reason to contemplate getting this fleet would be if there is a perceived need to crack hard targets, or swing Thor's hammer for the countermove.

Fallujia and the West Bank would indicate heavy armour still has a role to play, since even the threat of being able to go in with relative impunity seems to put a damper on the bad guys. In the two examples above, the leadership tended to flee, leaving the rank and file uncoordinated and probably demoralized. An all Cavalry formation such as suggested in the Armoured Cavalry thread will have lots of uses, but not be as threatening to insurgents holed up in an urban environment. The leaders might be tempted to hunker down, making the dismounted assault much more difficult against a confident and organized foe. Waiting for an allied heavy force to arrive may be impractical for many reasons, and the pause will give the bad guys more time to organize, and defiantly hand them the initiative. At least one battlegroup in Canada should be kitted out in the heavy role for this reason alone.

A CCW-M based on the LAV should be a product improved LAV III (LAV 3.5)

If we want to get into the CCT-L, I would suggest a product improved BV 206.

The HMMVW chassis is a good starting point for a CCW-L, since it is not only a 5/4 ton utility truck, but has served as the basis for lots of Armoured Recce vehicles, such as the MOWAG EAGLE.