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

[Lance Wiebe]

Just for clarification.....when the Germans decided to install the Leo 2A4 FCS in to the Leo 1 family, this created quite a bit of work.  It may be hard for some to believe, but the flight characteristics of a rifled round makes it more difficult for a computer to calculate the aim point, as compared to a smooth bore round.  German engineers spent about five years developing the EMES 18 FCS as is used in the Leo1A5.  During these five years, a number of improvements were added to the FCS, the end result was a FCS superior to the Leo2A4, and in fact, superior to, or at least the equal of any FCS you care to name.

The problem was, when the Germans upgraded their fleet of Leo 1's, they upgraded the original Leo1, the Leo1A1, and the Leo1A2.  They all shared the same turret design, after all.  But all of them had hull changes, and, for example, the support arms were not interchangeable, amongst a slew of other things the Germans upgraded throughout the build life of the Leo 1 family.

Anyway, when the Canadians initiated the Leo Thermal Sight Upgrade Program, it came with a fixed, finite amount of dollars.  The Danes had just finished upgrading their Leo1A3 to the A5 standard, while keeping the Leo1A3 turret, like we wanted to do.  The problem there was that there was exactly zero companies in Canada with the required capability.  The Germans, around this time (~1998) decided on a fleet rationalization plan, which would see the Leo1 removed from service, except for specific specialized roles, such as the FOO vehicle.  All of a sudden, there were literally a thousand Leo1A5 FCS systems available.  All used, to be sure, but a very capable system, at a price we could afford.

I was lucky enough to be involved in the program, and managed to get a few trips in to Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, and Israel....

After a bunch of negotiations, Germany agreed to sell us 114 tanks.  They would not just sell us the turrets, or just the FCS, because they wanted to get rid of the whole shooting match.  So, 114 tanks were parked at Wegmann, in Kassel, just for us.  A deal was struck (with Wegmann, not the German government) for the turrets to be repaired and rebuilt as necessary, so that the FCS systems were in a "like new" standard.  We found a few, not many, Leo1A2 hulls in the batch, which we could buy, as they matched our hull.  (The difference between the Leo1A2 and the Leo1A3 was turret, not hull)  We brought something like 20 hulls to Canada, I think it was seven were used to replace worn out hulls, the remainder were stripped to fill the parts bins.  We sold the remaining Leo 1 hulls to Wegmann. 

 

[TCBF]

"German engineers spent about five years developing the EMES 18 FCS as is used in the Leo1A5.  During these five years, a number of improvements were added to the FCS, the end result was a FCS superior to the Leo2A4, and in fact, superior to, or at least the equal of any FCS you care to name.'

- Yes. In 1992, the PzAufklaBtl s that Recce Sqn 8CH(PL) trained with were transitioning from the 1A5 Ttanks used in the 'Heavy Recce Patrols' (A heavy patrol was three Leo 1A5s, a light patrol was two Spahpanzer Luchs) to a cascaded variant of the 2.  They did not like the fact that the optics on the Leo 2 were poorer, or that they could no longer drive slowly over MLC 16 (Yes! SIXTEEN!) bridges as they once did.

- Pretty cool, when you consider we ever so briefly doubled the gun-tank strength of thr Canadian Forces.  I imagine the CFE (Conventional Forces in Europe) types were not going to let us get away with THAT for very long - not to mention our own home-crowd cheering section of Canadian Commies.

;D

Tom

 

[Armymatters]

Back on topic (thanks Lance for the clarification about the German Leopards we got!), I have done some digging and have got a number on purchasing new Leopard 2's. In 1998, the Spanish agreeded to buy 219 tanks of the Leopard 2E line (which is a derivative of the 2A6 line with heavier armor), 16 Leopard 2 recovery tanks and 4 training tanks. The Spanish had a budget of around 2 billion Euros (2.8 billion Canadian today), and that includes integrated logistical support, training courses for crew instructors and maintenance engineers and driving, tower, maintenance, aiming and shooting simulators. In total, that works about to around 9.1 million Euros (12.8 million Canadian) each tank, excluding the recovery and training tanks. Stryker MGS costs around 9.1 million dollars each vehicle. For around 3 million dollars more, we can have Leopard 2E's.  ???

 

[a_majoor]

You forgot to add the billion or so for each transport ship, a milloon or two or three to update the ranges to accomodate the (far) more powerful guns, new hangers, extra walls in the messes for the pictures etc.

We've got to look at the big picture, people!

 

[Armymatters]

You forgot to add the billion or so for each transport ship, a milloon or two or three to update the ranges to accomodate the (far) more powerful guns, new hangers, extra walls in the messes for the pictures etc.

We've got to look at the big picture, people!

Shouldn't be much of a problem; the Spanish before they ordered the Leopard 2's were operating around 150 M60 Patton tanks in 1998. They were also leasing 108 Leopard 2A4's for 5 years until they got their Leopard 2E's.
The Spanish spend around $10 billion dollars US (11.5 billion Canadian) for all of their forces, including the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Civil Guard, and the Coastal Civil Guard.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/e-1569.htm

The Spanish Army itself has 118,000 personnel. Compared to Canada, we spend around $10 billion dollars for the entire CF, and we have around 62,000 personnel, split in all three forces.

With our respective air forces, Canada operates 115 CF-18's, while Spain operates 96 F-18's, and have ordered 87 Eurofighter Typhoons. Compare the two airforces equipment:
Spain:
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/spain/spanaf4.htm
Canada:
115 McDonnell-Douglas CF-18A/B tactical fighter bombers
18 Lockheed CP-140 'Aurora' /3 CP-140A 'Arcturus' long-range patrol aircraft
28 Sikorsky CH-124 'Sea King' maritime helicopters
15 CH-149 AgustaWestland 'Cormorant' search and rescue helicopters
86 CH-146 Bell 'Griffon' tactical transport helicopters
32 CC-130 Lockheed 'Hercules' combat transports
5 CC-150 'Polaris' Airbus A310 long range transports
6 CC-115 Dehavilland 'Buffalo' short range transports
6 CC-144 Canadair 'Challenger' jet transports (4 VIP/2 utility)
4 CC-138 Dehavilland 'Twin Otter' short range transports
22 CT-114 Canadair 'Tutor' jet trainers
24 CT-156 Raytheon 'Harvard II' trainers
21 CT-155 BAE 'Hawk' jet trainer
CT-142 Dehavilland Dash 8
4 CT-133 'Silver Star'
Source: DND

The Spanish Navy has around 47,300 personnel. The Marines have a strength of around 11,500 personnel. The Spanish Navy has a VSTOL aircraft carrier (Principe de Asturias), and construction is underway to build a new VSTOL carrier/amphibious assault ship, due for delivery in 2008. They also operate 4 F-100 Alvaro de Bazán class frigates, 6 Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, and a pair of Knox class frigates. For the submarine force, the Spanish operate or plan to operate 4 S-80 class submarines, 4 Agosta class coastal submarines, and have 4 Daphne class submarines (due to be retired upon delivery of the S-80). The Spanish Navy also operate 2 Galicia class LPD's, 40 patrol craft (of 1000 tons and less), 7 minehunters, and 3 AOR's. On top of that, 2 vehicle cargo ship's are also present with the Spanish Navy.
Compared to Canada, we have 3 destroyers, 12 frigates, 4 submarines, 12 minehunters/patrol/training ships, and 2 AOR's.

In short, I am seeing that one nation is getting shafted defense wise, and the other is pretty well off, in terms of equipment. Guess which one? And that nation can fix that by spending some money on its forces, especially for a proper tank.

 

[Kirkhill]

Personnel costs in Spain are lower.

Quote taken from a draft of a project I am working on:

"Tanks also suffer from the amount of logistics support that they need on deployment.  Their first need is transportation.  Once the tank gets off the ship or aircraft it may still have to travel hundreds, of kilometres to get to the area of operations. If they deploy on their tracks they may have to replace them once they get there.  As well, with their 67 km / h top speed, they can’t get where they are going very fast and the tracks are likely to damage the highways and trails they use making it harder for the wheeled vehicles carrying their supplies to follow.

To counter these problems tanks require the services of specialized trucks called tank transporters.  The Oshkosh HET (Heavy Equipment Transporter) spreads the load of the 62 tonne Abrams out over 9 axles. This saves tracks and highways but it doesn’t do much for speed of deployment.  The top speed of the HET is still only 72 km/h or roughly the same as the tank it is transporting.  Together with the tractor and trailer the entire combination weighs up to 105 tonnes or more than 6 LAVIIIs.

A tank also requires trucks to carry spare track, road wheels and sprockets as well as spare engines all of which are considerably more weighty than the counterpart needs of the LAVIIIs. All the necessary support vehicles, from wreckers to MRTs all have to be heavier.

Another serious consideration in deploying tanks is fuel consumption. An Abrams consumes 400 l of fuel for every 100 km moved while a LAVIII consumes 45 l over the same distance.  The M978 tanker carries 2500 USG of fuel or 9462 l.  One tanker will keep one tank going for 2300 km, or roughly one track change.  The same tanker of fuel will keep 8 to 9 LAVIIIs supplied over the same distance.  The actual distance that the tank can travel on that tank could be further reduced by the fuel necessary for the tank transporter which is not required by the LAVIIIs.

All of these requirements together make it difficult and expensive to deploy tanks.  The costs of training with tanks are similarly higher than training with LAVIIIs.  A final cost saving resulting from the use of LAVIIIs over the Abrams is the elimination of one crew member although there are tanks that also only require a crew of three."

Having said that, and before I get flamed, I do believe there is a role for tanks and I would like to see them in the order of battle.  But lets not kid ourselves. Tanks are expensive to operate.  Just because the budget will support new LAVIIIs at similar capital costs to reconditioned tanks doesn't mean that they are both equally affordable.

 

[Clément Barbeau Vermet]

Tanks are expensive, Tanks are slower to get in action, OK. LAVs may get there faster, but they also get destroyed faster. LAVs cost less money, but a 12-years-old kid armed with a RPG can destroy a LAV and kill its occupants. Personally I think it is more intelligent to pay with money than with human lives, especially that I might be one of these.

 

[a_majoor]

Tanks are expensive, Tanks are slower to get in action, OK. LAVs may get there faster, but they also get destroyed faster. LAVs cost less money, but a 12-years-old kid armed with a RPG can destroy a LAV and kill its occupants. Personally I think it is more intelligent to pay with money than with human lives, especially that I might be one of these.

USMC LAV 25's and US Army "Strykers" have served to good effect in Iraq, in the initial OIF and ever since in the low-medium intensity phase of the conflict. Similarly, Canadian troops have used Cougars in former Yugoslavia (where they could expect to meet M-84 tanks, a licenced copy of the T-72), Illtis in Yugoslavia, Somalia and Afghanistan, and so on and so on.

Every piece of kit has strengths and weakness, and intelligent planning and use can allow soldiers to use the tools issues to very good effect. On the other hand, the French had more and better tanks than the Germans in 1940, and while the T-34 came as a huge and unpleasant shock to the Germans in 1941, they still drove to the gates of Moscow; so technology isn't everything.

Kirkhill pointed out that just having tanks isn't enough, logistical considerations actually trump almost everything else. Since we will have to contemplate sending our troops and equipment to far distant shores, there are arguments that something smaller and lighter than a 70 tonne MBT is easier to transport and support. There are also counter arguments that only a 70 tonne MBT can survive the modern combat environment. Finally, there are lots of possible scenarios, so we really need lots of tools in the toolbag. A heavy combat team with M-1 or Leopard 2 tanks and IFV's would have little utility in Afghanistan, for example.

If I were to decide the issue, I would choose the CV-90120 (and associated CV-90 IFV) as the compromise between transportability, logistical support, firepower and kinetic effects, and protection. Like vehicles derived from the LAV, the designers made a concious choice to trade off passive protection for operational and strategic mobility, which seems aligned with our needs today. A force armed with CV 90120s could also give a good account of itself if fighting the PLA, so covers the full spectrum of operations.

 

[Armymatters]

USMC LAV 25's and US Army "Strykers" have served to good effect in Iraq, in the initial OIF and ever since in the low-medium intensity phase of the conflict. Similarly, Canadian troops have used Cougars in former Yugoslavia (where they could expect to meet M-84 tanks, a licenced copy of the T-72), Illtis in Yugoslavia, Somalia and Afghanistan, and so on and so on.

Every piece of kit has strengths and weakness, and intelligent planning and use can allow soldiers to use the tools issues to very good effect. On the other hand, the French had more and better tanks than the Germans in 1940, and while the T-34 came as a huge and unpleasant shock to the Germans in 1941, they still drove to the gates of Moscow; so technology isn't everything.

Kirkhill pointed out that just having tanks isn't enough, logistical considerations actually trump almost everything else. Since we will have to contemplate sending our troops and equipment to far distant shores, there are arguments that something smaller and lighter than a 70 tonne MBT is easier to transport and support. There are also counter arguments that only a 70 tonne MBT can survive the modern combat environment. Finally, there are lots of possible scenarios, so we really need lots of tools in the toolbag. A heavy combat team with M-1 or Leopard 2 tanks and IFV's would have little utility in Afghanistan, for example.

If I were to decide the issue, I would choose the CV-90120 (and associated CV-90 IFV) as the compromise between transportability, logistical support, firepower and kinetic effects, and protection. Like vehicles derived from the LAV, the designers made a concious choice to trade off passive protection for operational and strategic mobility, which seems aligned with our needs today. A force armed with CV 90120s could also give a good account of itself if fighting the PLA, so covers the full spectrum of operations.

1. Sure, the LAV's are doing a fine service in Iraq, but when push comes to shove, in a heavy assault situation, you want a tank for that job. And the Cougar's 76mm gun ain't much of use against a tank... it only fires a HESH round against armored targets. I think we sent the M113A2 TUA out to the Balkans to provide a creditable punch against Yugoslav armor.
2. Having the right plan can create success, but there is one rule that dominates on the battlefield: No plan survives first contact with the enemy in one piece. Having the right tools on hand just when you need them is also of equal importance. You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. Having a proper tank corps is important for a war fighting capability. You can back your light armor with heavy armor if the situation looks like it might turn ugly.
3. The PLA is fielding some very advanced tanks; they are now replacing their older tanks in service with the Type 96 (fielded to most tank battalions), and the more advanced Type 98G/99 tank (fielded to advanced divisions within the PLA). All of these tanks are equipped with high performance 125mm guns, and gun-launched missiles, both are equipped with a computerized fire control system, laser range finders, ballistic computers, thermal imaging sights, and GPS and infrared jamming/disturbing systems. On top of that, the Type 98G/99 features an laser rangefinder/warning/self-defence device. Unlike the Russian active tank self-defence systems such as Drozd, Drozd-2, and Arena, which launch projectiles to disable or "shoot-down" incoming anti-tank missiles and projectiles, the Chinese system apparently uses a high-powered laser to directly attack the enemy weapon's optics and gunner, destroying them. These tanks are more than mere threats to current Western MBT's; some analysts predict that both tanks are equal to the American M1A2 Abrams tanks in firepower, and overall performance. A enemy faced with such advanced armor won't stand a chance without a proper MBT; if the gun cannot reach the target with these Chinese tanks, the gun-launched missiles will.

 

[a_majoor]

WRT point 1, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you desire.

WRT point 2, The Chinese have the same problems almost everyone else has; they can't transport a signifigent number of tanks (and associated logistical support) anywhere. Since we share that boat, we either need to invest tens of billions to get the transport resources to go with a heavy force; or think of other ways to do things.

As commanders have known since the beginning of history, speed can substitute for mass. A light or medium force which gets in location first counts for a lot, and since that is what Canadian soldiers will have to do, then the equipment must be tailored to support that. CV-90120s have high velocity 120mm cannon which can also fire through tube missiles, are easily transportable and would work as part of a Western, network centric, all arms team, so can bring capabilities to the table that are applicable to all ends of the full spectrum of operations.

 

[Armymatters]

1. China has adapted to the fact that there are difficulties in moving heavy armor around; they have introduced rapid reaction forces that have priority in training, equipment, and transport. Such rapid reaction forces will be the intial force that any war with China will face off with. The total personnel strength of the PLA’s rapid reaction units (RRU) is estimated to be about 258,000. These units generally receive better equipment and training than other units, and are ready to mobilise in 24 to 48 hours. The known RRU's are as follows:
PLA Air Force 15th Airborne Corps, Guangzhou MR, comprising three airborne divisions (43rd, 44th, 45th)
PLA 38th Group Army, Beijing MR, comprising an armoured division, three mechanised infantry divisions (112th, 113th, 114th)
PLA 39th Group Army, Shenyang MR, comprising an armoured division and three mechanised infantry divisions (115th, 116th, 190th)
PLA 127th Mechanised Infantry Division, 54th GA, Jinan MR
PLA 149th Mechanised Infantry Division, 13th GA, Chengdu MR
Seven special operations forces (SOF) groups, one in each military region
PLA Navy 1st Marine Brigade, South Sea Fleet

15th Airborne Corps is said to be capable of deploying to any location within China by air, but China’s limited air transport capability can only support the deployment of one airborne division. The rest of RRUs are normally deployed by road or trail. While the RRU's response to a situation, a group army can be mobilised and deployed within a few weeks time.

Also, the PLA is known for its ability to create and stick to a schedule. The tanks, planes, helicopters, artillery in many exercises are all at the right place at the right time. Translating this to the battlefield means that any opposition can expect the PLA to be able to move substantial (keyword: substantial) forces into place before battle. The enemy can also expect the PLA units to attack on time.

The current PLA doctrine has changed to War Zone Campaign (WZC) in which war will take place in a “local war under high tech conditions.” Under the WZC, the PLA will continue their tradition of active defense and taking the fight to the border in a rapid manner during a national emergency before a political settlement can be reached. The Chinese have taken great strides to mechanize and provide the support to their forces. PLA ground forces are also categorised according to their readiness and manning levels. Class-A units are at or near full manpower (over 80% of personnel and equipment) and capable of deploying without significant argumentation and training. Class-B units are maintained at 60~80% manning level, lack some organic units, and require more training and more time to deploy than Class-A units. Previously there were also Class-C units, most of which were disbanded, became reserve units or taken over by PAP. This classification mainly applies to divisions and brigades. Sometimes entire group armies may also be categorised as Class-A or –B, though the difference between two class of GAs are much less evident. What the Chinese are really lacking is the ability to project power from their borders. They require systems that can project power beyond their borders, such as advanced, long range fighters, advanced submarines and destroyers, and other systems that can cover their forces at range. Getting the equipment and the troops to a location isn't a matter for the Chinese; it is supporting the troops with firepower and cover that becomes a issue with the PLA, one that the PLA is anxious to correct.

2. A light or medium force may be good at getting into a location, but if the opponent is capable of a highly netcentric warfare (like the PLA), you need to back up the force that you inserted, or risk being thrown out or having that force destroyed. Like I said earlier, the Chinese are fielding highly advanced tanks that are on par with the best of Western designed tanks. A IFV mounting a tank gun isn't going to cut it against such advanced threats. It may be good against a rag-tag army fielding T-54/55's or even some low end T-72's, but against a well equipped and trained army? Nope.

 

[ArmyRick]

Armymatters, would you please fill out your profile so we know from what expiriences you come from? Otherwise most of us here will just regard you as a huge theory monster that over looks the "murphy" factor of well thought out plans and tactics.

"No plan survives first contact"

 

[Rory]

Tanks are expensive, Tanks are slower to get in action, OK. LAVs may get there faster, but they also get destroyed faster. LAVs cost less money, but a 12-years-old kid armed with a RPG can destroy a LAV and kill its occupants. Personally I think it is more intelligent to pay with money than with human lives, especially that I might be one of these.

Not that I am particularily oriented in the mighty metal that is armoured but I do have a comment to pipe up. (forgive me if I missed it in my reading)

Why does everyone assume that all armoured transports going through a city are just by themselves. Have you nay sayers ever thought a section of infantry would be or easily could be assigned to help prevent these "Terrorist Tikes" from apparently making us cry bloody murder as they destroy a column of LAV's, or better yet an actual tank? In scenarios where rpg threats are highest (this is my little guess) would be within a city, we know the reasons for this, and thats why I can see any army with half a brain assigning a section or two to go on foot along side the armoured column to help dispatch these rpg threats.

 

[Clément Barbeau Vermet]

                                we either need to invest tens of billions to get the transport resources to go with a heavy force

about 2 B is enough

 

[Clément Barbeau Vermet]

USMC LAV 25's and US Army "Strykers" have served to good effect in Iraq, in the initial OIF and ever since in the low-medium intensity phase of the conflict.

USMC LAVs are baked-up by Abrams, US Army Strykers have cage armor (this cage armor saved a lot of lifes in Irak, but also ruins the aleredy poor mobility of the vehicule).

 

[Clément Barbeau Vermet]

Since we will have to contemplate sending our troops and equipment to far distant shores, there are arguments that something smaller and lighter than a 70 tonne MBT is easier to transport and support.

True. I say that something in the 50 tons range would be a good compromise.

 

[Armymatters]

To retain heavy armoured capabilities within the CF, I see the following needs to be address within the CF:
1. Purchasing new tanks. As we saw with the Spanish deal, new Leopard 2's are only slightly more expensive than MGS. Spend the 3 billion dollars Canadian on the latest Leopard 2E's, plus 16 Leopard 2 recovery tanks and 4 training tanks. Sure, we are getting more tanks than we need, but we can park half of them and rotate the equipment between what is parked and what is in active service so we aren't wearing out our equipment so fast. A common problem within the CF is the issue of too many hours on too few frames of equipment, leading to early retirement of equipment as we have worn out the equipment long before it becomes obsolete.
2. Heavy road transporters will have to be assessed within the CF. Are the current HLWV transporters capable of carrying the 62 ton Leopard 2, as they currently carry our Leopard C2? But one must note that before we got the HLWV's, we never had the ability to drag our tanks around. If we find that our current transporters are good enough, fine. Otherwise, upgrading them is a priority.
3. CF engineer bridges will have to be looked at again as the tanks now are now at military loading class 60 or above. If we need new bridges, the appropriate equipment should be acquired. The Germans have developed a new vehicle launched bridge on the Leopard 2 chassis known as Panzerschnellbrücke 2. Perhaps reducing the order from 219 to 200 to pay for the Panzerschnellbrücke 2 is an option. Otherwise, with our other bridges, upgrading and replacing the bridges for more capable bridges should be looked at for NATO commonality, as our NATO allies are now operating tanks and other heavy equipment that require bridges that can take a load from a vehicle of military loading class 60 or above.
4. Training our crews to the new platform requires some innovative thinking. A small side project to upgrade our ranges is important, and crews can be rotated off for military exchange and training in Germany with German crews so the Canadian crews can take advantage of German facilities until Canadian facilities are available. Remember that the Spanish when they ordered their Leopard 2's also included in the order training courses for crew instructors and maintenance engineers, plus some driving, tower, maintenance, aiming and shooting simulators. By the time the tanks arrive off the production line and end up in Canada, we will have crews ready to man the tanks.
5. Moving our equipment overseas is a issue that has been identified within the CF and plans are in place to address them. The CF ALSC Project is one of those projects, but there are doubts about the planned ship's ability to do everything it asks for. As the Americans have found, a Roll On, Roll Off platform is more essential than a LPD. Priority should therefore go to a proper RO/RO ship than a LPD. Three ships are more than sufficient in the 20,000 gross ton range. Such ships can be acquired from civilian sources, as these ships do not need to be military spec vessels as they are meant to work behind the front lines. A example of such a ship is the Kyokuyo Shipyards A-5767 RO/RO vessel.
http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/pdfs/a5767.pdf
The ship has a service speed of 20 knots, and the design is capable of carrying 15 8 ton vehicles, 76 40 ton vehicles, and 176 1.5 ton vehicles. We can modify the load so that a smaller amount of vehicles are carried as we want to transport tanks plus a entire battalion's equipment. Heavier equipment such as our tanks can be carried on "D" deck, and our jeeps and other vehicles can be carried in the decks above the tanks. The layout as shown on the PDF from the shipyard is extremely flexible in terms of the various sort of equipment it can carry. Such ships will be excellent additions to the Forces as they will add valuable sealift capabilities to the CF without the need to design and build a ship, as commerical interests have designed and built the ship for us.
6. There is no need for the CF to be able to airlift heavy tanks to our deployments. Past deployments of tanks by the Americans and by other NATO forces have used sealift as the primary way of lifting such heavy equipment. Airlifting tanks may be great, but you will never have enough airlifters to airlift that many tanks to a hotspot. Sending them by ship is the easiest way to do so. However, with our light armour, the ability to move them quickly to a hotspot is important. Therefore, purchasing more capable airlifters over the current C-130 fleet is important. I advocate we purchase either a westernized IL-76 or the Airbus A400M. Both are capable of taking our light armour to a hotspot quickly. In the event that we have to build up forces in a region, airlifting our light armour battalions to the region will take priority to hold down the situation until the heavy armour arrives via ship. We have seen the massive issues with chartering airlift and ships when there is a world crisis; take the 2004 tsunami as a example of issues with airlift. DART was stuck in Canada for lack of available airlifters to take all of our equipment, and with sealift, remember the GTS Katie incident with our tanks returning from deployment.

I think I covered all the bases, but if I missed anything, feel free to add it in.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

One of the great deterrents to up-gunning to 120 is the fact that we would most likely have to buy our ammunition off shore.  While this would not necessarily be a bad thing, in terms of cost, it is a bad thing in terms of having our own source of ammunition.

Currently, SNC-Lavelin produces all of our 105 ammunition with the exception of service sabot and WP.  I don't believe that they would get the rights to produce all natures of 120mm ammunition.  Mind you, we pay a hefty premium for our ammunition to be made here, most of our ammunition is costing us 200-300% more than if we bought it from outside sources.

Just another tidbit to chew on....

We could have upgraded our Leo C2's to 120mm, this was a no-go on the political front.

 

[plattypuss]

I had read a book - I think it was something like "King of the Killing Zone" where they talked about the trials for the gun with which they would arm the Abrams.  I thought that during the trials the 105mm had done well, if not bested the 120 (albeit I think it was uranium depleted).  At that time I thought that the decision to go 120mm was more political (the Russians had gone 120mm) than based on effectiveness.  Is the 105 still just as effective or have advancements in technology made the 120mm much more effective these days?

 

[George Wallace]

I think the step to 120 has been the fact that we have pretty well maxed out on the capabilities of 105.  The 120 still offers some room for advancing in its capabilities and abilities to be effective against new developments in armour protection.  The 105 doesn't have the 'punch' in most cases to take on some of the new developments and the abilities to increase that 'punch' have pretty well peaked.  The 120 gives us more options in warhead design and munitions ('Standard' tank ammo and Missiles).