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

[rceme_rat]

I won‘t argue with Jane‘s on dimensions, although a Merkava seems a lot wider than that when it‘s coming up the highway towards the Golan.

Perhaps I‘m mistaken on whether it was height, width or what not -- but I distinctly recall the clearance issue being highlighted by everyone who looked at the Merkava [when I was on course (mid-80s) and we had to go over the comparison and contrast of historic and modern tanks]. Still too young for the brain cells to be fading that rapidly, I hope, and I would never be able to find the notes. I‘ll have to leave it as a point to ponder.

While on the topic of Merkava, it is reputed to pitch violently due to its howizer-like layout. Think "M109 with more weight and speed". I suppose active suspension might solve this -- and if not, perhaps it is a reasonable price to pay for having the engine as a bit of extra frontal protection. Just screen your tank crews for strong stomachs.

 

[rceme_rat]

I agree tanks would be needed if we deployed to the Gulf. We‘ll either have our own or someone else‘s taking care of us -- and most of us would prefer to have our own.

The question is whether the government will have the integrity to either tell the military it needn‘t be concerned with certain roles (and therefore won‘t need the associated kit) or to tell the people that they‘ve got to spend the bucks to properly outfit their soldiers.

It‘s just so pathetic that the government continues to tell the people that the military can do it all with the limited resources they are grudgingly paying for.

Maybe you can fool them all the time.

 

[Recce41]

Well

1. i‘ve just came back from the MAIS trail, To test the Lav III. We need Tanks. In the end the Lav could not equal a tank.
2. The Lavs should be manned by Crewmen, the inf. had no real clue how to fight a vech. the cryed for it and in every attack, the lavs could not be used it a self defence role.
3. A big MBT we do not need, a light med tank, this would keep the tank skills and they could be used for UN tasks that the Coyote can‘t.
4. We even did Recce in the tanks, which got all thoughs anti Recce tankers crying.
So to all a tank is gone, no we have to find a useful one.

Sgt J. CD, CDS com Bold and Swift, Airborne :tank: PS: we need some wings added to your smiles.

 

[Bill Green]

You know we talk alot about a force multiplier and a battlefield presence. And the theory of having a light cav role while sexy in concept with atk helos and air mobility, really doesn‘t exist in our current forces.

We have a tank with recent upgrades that gives us lots of flexibility as queen of the battlefield or a real presence in peace-making or keeping. On the other hand, our tank trainer the cougar has outlived its maintenance, and so the armour (tank) reserve units are left with a broken piece of worn-out kit and no parts or will to fix them.

The reserve units are left with only a few options:
A. continue with the cougar and hope things get better
B. adapt the coyote or lav to an armour role in the hopes that this kit that was bought for reserves will eventually make its way to the MTC‘s in sufficient numbers and maintenance to allow sub-units to train.
C. reroll or concentrate on a mud recce role with Luvw or COS version.

So as I look at things the reserve is already cut-off from armour (tank) training. And just so you know where I stand I support a tracked tank in our corps. Unfortunately in this climate of living with less and less I don‘t see too many armour CO‘s arguing or laying the ground work for enhancing the armour role with tracked tanks.

It almost seems that everyone is waiting to see what unit or army component is next in DND‘s sights. Armour soldiers should be standing shoulder to shoulder with Inf units, Arty units and other armour units to insure that we have the balanced general purpose combat ready forces that our mission statement declares. It is too easy to wait for the boot to fall and then run around wringing our hands. We need to get the public and our government on line with us. I think for the most part citizens are there already--now to move the government on line I need your suggestions.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Irrespective of government parsimony, I think the introduction of non-infantry soldiers into the infantry battalion is worth investigating - engineers man the pioneer platoon; gunners man the mortar platoon; black-hatters man the anti-armour platoon, the crewed AFVs, and maybe the recce platoon; and the infanteers concentrate on bread-and-butter infantry.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Governments don‘t change their path unless threatened by the prospect of a loss of power. That can happen by foreign invasion, revolution, or at the polls (or the threat of any of those). The first is too unlikely to be a realistic consideration, the second is beneath us, and so the third is the only practical option. Pressure to change can be applied to the government only via the citizenry. So simply having the citizenry on-side is insufficient. They must believe that not only are the Forces worthwhile, but the Forces are neglected by government and urgently require priority in the line of departments with their hand out for a share of the federal pie.

 

[John Nayduk]

Infanteer: In response to your question on page 1 of this thread.

Here’s my opinion. I’ve seen photos of infantry coming out of the Merkava. You really only need to carry two in each tank. Four tanks to a troop means an infantry section in each troop and an infantry platoon in each squadron. This would make clearing defiles easier as there would be a full crew to fight the tank in case of contact. Hide security would be better as the crews would be able to service the tanks while the infantry provided security. I had written an article for the Armour Bulletin but being a reserve force master corporal at the time it probably went straight into the garbage pail.

 

[TOW2B]

Originally posted by Another Recce Guy:
[qb]Infanteer: In response to your question on page 1 of this thread.

Here’s my opinion. I’ve seen photos of infantry coming out of the Merkava. You really only need to carry two in each tank. Four tanks to a troop means an infantry section in each troop and an infantry platoon in each squadron. This would make clearing defiles easier as there would be a full crew to fight the tank in case of contact. Hide security would be better as the crews would be able to service the tanks while the infantry provided security. I had written an article for the Armour Bulletin but being a reserve force master corporal at the time it probably went straight into the garbage pail.[/qb]

How would this make clearing defiles any easier as there would be a full crew to fight the tank????What do you do ...dismount the loader and have him clear it????With ref to hide security,I don‘t know how your unit plays but in the real world the Infantry do the security in the hides now,while the zipperheads play with their toys and do everything possible to break light and noise discipline.The Merkava is an Infantry support tank (think of an updated Matilda)..period It is heavily armoured and slow and is awesome when cruising across the Golan Heights or dug in along a defensive line but not suited to much more than that.The Infantry being carried inside is a PR stunt,the space is intended or ammunition pallets and evac of wounded in emergencies.As for splitting up the Infantry Section in the troop who is in command???How do the Infantry see their objective prior to dismounting???How does the Section Communicate with each other??? Questions like these most likely killed your paper you can‘t look at it from one point of view.
:sniper:

 

[John Nayduk]

Here are the answers to your questions.

How would this make clearing defiles any easier as there would be a full crew to fight the tank???? What do you do ...dismount the loader and have him clear it????

Currently, yes. In the Couger, it‘s the gunner or commander. Makes it hard to fight with one of the crew missing.

With ref to hide security, I don‘t know how your unit plays but in the real world the Infantry do the security in the hides now, while the zipperheads play with their toys and do everything possible to break light and noise discipline.

Well, I‘ve been in plenty of hides where we were the only occupants.

The Merkava is an Infantry support tank (think of an updated Matilda), period It is heavily armoured and slow and is awesome when cruising across the Golan Heights or dug in along a defensive line but not suited to much more than that.

Given the weapons systems carried on the tank, I think it carries quite a punch. As far as the speed and range, I don‘t have my reference in front of me and I would hate to speak without knowing the facts. I will look it up and get back to you.

The Infantry being carried inside is a PR stunt, the space is intended for ammunition pallets and evac of wounded in emergencies.

PR stunt or not, the fact remains that it is possible. The ammunition pallets are extra ammo over and above the usual load.

As for splitting up the Infantry Section in the troop who is in command???

I would imagine the troop leader, who is a lieutenant or a captain, would be in command as opposed to a section commander who is usually a sergeant, is it not? Once the troop leader has given the task to the section commander, he would carry out the mission assigned to him.

How do the Infantry see their objective prior to dismounting???

I guessing the infantry would take a look at the objective after dismounting similar to the way it must be done after getting out of a carrier. The infantry would get a briefing from the troop leader who would give them their objectives and support them with tank fire if needed. The infantry would be more like the panzer grenadiers of the second world war dedicated to the armour as opposed to our traditional use of infantry independent of but capable of supporting armour and visa versa.

How does the Section Communicate with each other???

Via radio on the troop net, this would let everyone in troop know the situation.

Questions like these most likely killed your paper you can‘t look at it from one point of view.

Well it was submitted to the Armour branch, thinking it was a good place to start. It didn‘tget a follow up response. These questions could have been answered then or at least opened up a topic for further discussion, as it seems to have done here.

 

[rceme_rat]

I think the question of command was with respect to the infantry section - if you are splitting the section, how does the section commander keep tabs on both parts of his section -- particularly since they will be separated by greater distance than typical.

Personally, I think this discussion is rooted in the Canadian tendency to focus on section and troop level tacticsat the expense of formation level operations. This has been driven by our small forces, great dispersion, and limited budgets. When was the last exercise which deployed more than a brigade? Even a brigade?

At larger level operations, I would think it almost a truism that neither infantry nor armour would work alone -- hence combat teams, on up.

In short, I think the answer is not breaking up infantry sections and spreading them around tanks, but employing IFVs among the tanks -- the way we are taught. The real trick is ensuring that the tanks and IFVs are compatible -- which probably means addressing issues like tracks vs wheels, track width, single fuel type, etc. All strategic level decisions.

 

[John Nayduk]

Sorry for taking so long to get back with the MBT debate. Using Jane‘s
Tank Recognition Guide as a reference, here‘s a maximum road speed
comparison of a few modern MBT.

Leopard 1 - (not modern, but it‘s ours) - 65 k/hr
Leopard 2 - 72 k/hr
Leclerc - 71 k/hr
Merkava 1 - 46 k/hr
T80 - 70 k/hr
Challenger 2 - 56 k/hr
M1 - 72 k/hr

It‘s true that the Merkava is the slowest. Unfortunately, I couldn‘t find any data on the latest marks of these tanks.
Maybe someone out there could help out. I would imagine that there has
been improvements to these in the latest models.

The use the term infantry section was used to describe the job (as opposed
to the trade). They would be like the assault troopers in the Recce
squadron.

 

[Recce41]

Well
1. The gunner in a tank dismounts to clear a blind corner or short D File. There is a concept on the books, the have Armour crewman man the LAVIIIs. and 1 Inf coy to go to the tank Sqns.
2. Like I said the grunts used the LavIII like the Grizzly. We tryed to get them to use it to fight light vehs. And the Tanks can take on the heavys and then punch to their ring of steel, for their next task.
3. A heavy tank is S*** now for usein Peacekeeping/making.
4. We had the tanks in Bosnia and Kosovo and all they were are Recce or as in Bosnia Flowerpots.
5. A real tank, that would be useful would be the CG 2000, We donot have heavy lift. and they would be great for our Hercs.
6. Even the US is going wheeled.
7. In a hide an Armour Sqn will be cleared by the SSM and Adm/ Maint Tp.
8. Recce does not do Sqn hides. 99% of the time it is Tp.
The Doctrine for a Tank Sqn new is a 14 veh Tank Sqn, 1 Inf Coy, FOO, Eng Tp.
For Recce it will be3 x 7 Coyotes, 2 LAVIII TOW per Tp( made by crewmen), an Assault TP, 1 Attack Helo det, 1 Obs Helo det. , and a Eng Tp for heavy Eng tasks. This is what the new Army is going to look like if we have time to suck back and reload.

SGT J. CD,CDS com (Airborne, Bold and Swift) :tank:

 

[Black6]

Just a few points:

The driving force behind the devlopement of the tank was Protection. The Leo 1 does not provide that any more. Then came along this C2 variant - more applique armour but what will it stop? The next characteristic of armour is Mobility. How does all this new "armour" affect that? And the third aspect of armour is Firepower. the L7 105mm does not cut the mustard anymore. Period. The best anti-tank system is another tank. There is no way that the Leo 1 (in any variant) can go toe to toe with any other modern MBT.

The government is rethinking the role of the CF. I think the "General Warfighting Capability" will be struck off the list very soon. We will become UN ‘specialists‘ and involved in nothing more low intensity conflicts.

The tank will go the way of the Buffalo in our Army. The Armd Corps is desparately trying to find roles for the Leos on UN missions (like the Danes and the US do) in order to continue to justify the expense of keeping obsolete equipment around.

An intersting twist on the MBT for small armies can be found in Australia. In that army, most of the Leos are used by reserve units. This keeps operating expense down and gives the reserves a clear cut role: The defence of Australia.

Hmmmmmmm

 

[Black6]

Tommy Atkins:

So tell me lad, how DO the infantry see the objective PRIOR to dismounting?
I have been in combat team hides where 1 RCR REFUSED to do hide security. It was a f*cking mess!

We did security while they were doing carrier landings in mud puddles THEN drying out their wet and muddy combats with bonfires - no word of a lie. I was a troop leader then, and did a shift on sentry to take up some of the work and prepared my orders while on "sentry".

Finally my troop sgt had enough and grabbed one of the little pongo fellas by da throat and put ‘im to the ground

He was charged (I was his assisting officer) and he got a caution, lol. Well Done Sgt! (and you know who you are)

So stuff it, Tommy!

 

[John Nayduk]

The minister of National Defence has stated that they are looking to buy a wheeled direct fire support vehicle soon. So does this mean that we will keep the DFS role instead of going all RECCE in the Corp? If so, does anyone have any idea about what the squadrons will look like in the future?

 

[Recce41]

ARG
The DFS (LAV105) will replace the Tank. As for Recce. It will be as stated in one of the last posts. I have some pics of the new look for, the Recce Sqn and the new look for a Coyote. But cannot get them off the damm disc. It maybe the format? If anyone has an Idea email me. Thanks.

 

[Korus]

According to This Website, we already have the LAV-90 "Bobcat I", and will be replacing them with the LAV-105 "Bobcat II"
The kicker is that both the pictures of the "bobcat I" and "bobcat II" are of the same type of vehicle, the LAV-90, and both are from Qatar. (In fact, they‘re from a single picture, but it was split in 2 by that website)

On a serious note, though, I‘m wondering about the effectivness of a 105mm gun.. I don‘t think it would have the same punch as a 120mm when both are firing HEAT, but what about Discarding Sabots? How much does reduced barel size affect the kill power of a Sabot..

 

[Recce41]

The only LAV we have is the LAVIII. The rest are US/Aussie. Canada only builds them. The 105 is just as good as a 120.

 

[Zoomie]

Korus, I believe we have already debuffed those kind of websites. They are for an online computer game. Full of inaccuracies and fiction.

There have been tests that have proven the 105mm SABOT to be more effective at killing a tank over a 120mm SABOT. When it comes to tank killing, it is the Kinetic energy of the dart that makes the difference. During the most recent Gulf War, Bradly IFVs were engaging and destroying Iraqi T-72s with their 25mm Auto-cannon.

DRES in Valcartier is working on some new innovative projects for transforming the firepower and defense of a 20 ton LAV into the equivalent of a 70 ton MBT. See the most recent copy of "Maple Leaf" for more info.

 

[Korus]

Yeah, I know that website was inaccurate, I was poking fun at it too.