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

[a_majoor]

Forcasting the future is a very difficult art, and most people who try are usually wrong. I believe we may be equating armour=Armour in some of these arguments. A fast moving weapons system which can pack a punch is "Armour", so a CV-90120 is indeed an Armoured weapon, and so would a LAV III with a CV_CT turret.

A Leopard 2A6 is also an Armoured weapon, but its virtue of armour protection (along with any generation 3 or 3.5 tank) is actually best exploited in the current environment as an infantry assault gun, as was demonstrated in Iraq or Merkavas in the West Bank and Gaza strip.

This argument is also developing in the "Is the MGS/MMEV dead yet?" thread. I will say that the mobility and ability to shape the battle makes the "Armoured" part of the equation. General Patton was able to envelop large German formations, even when they were equipped with Tiger and Panther tanks, not because his troops had Sherman tanks and half tracks (all which were only equal to German Mk IV tanks and German half tracks, and far inferior to the Tigers and Panthers), but because he employed his troops effectively, avoided slug fests when he could, and employed operational manoeuvre to outflank the enemy, drive into the rear and collapse their morale.

The protection argument "may" go out the window as well. At a presentation I was at last year, an American general said the fundimental reason for the FCS program was extrapolation; a current 120mm cannon can deliver 12 megajoules of energy on target (which can "just" be stopped by the armour array of a 70 tonne M-1), but extrapolating future trends weapons systems in 2020 would be able to deliver 42 megajoules of energy on target. Hand held weapons were projected to have similar improvements, rendering passive protection somewhat moot.

While we don't have to believe this, we should certainly consider it in our thinking, before we are surprised by the introduction of hand held railguns or some equally exotic threat. This won't be the end of tanks or Armoured units, after all, Cavalry soldiers shed all their armour during the 1600's but remained Cavalrymen, with virtually the same roles and missions as before. An "Armoured Regiment" with CV-90120 tanks may not have the ability to go toe to toe with an "Armored Cavalry Regiment" packing M-1's, but they will organize and fight differently to exploit the mobility and firepower of their mounts.

 

[George Wallace]

The CV-90 may be a good IFV, but I would not want to see us use it as a replacement for the Tank.  It is too lightly armoured.  If it is rated as being armoured against 30 mm and less, it would still be a relatively light target to be taken out by RPGs and possible IED threats, which are our greatest threats today.  It would require serious add on armour, which kinda defeats any benefit of buying it over a tank.....

 

[Mortar guy]

I just don't get some people's infatuation with the CV90. I understand it looks good in Jane's Armour and Artillery and I am certain it is a decent vehicle but it is not a panacea for our Army. The LAVIII is, IMHO, vastly superior to the CV90 when it comes to ICVs - especially when you consider what we use our ICVs for. The amount of driving done by our LAV IIIs down South would be much more difficult to sustain with a tracked vehicle (much more maintenance). Also, the CV90 is friggin tiny inside. It makes a BMP look spacious. I for one would much rather live out of a LAV III for weeks on end (as is done down South) rather than try to squeeze a bunch of big Canadian lads, their ammo, water, fuel and snivel kit into a CV90.

As for the CV90120 again I think it's just a variation on a theme. It's too lightly armoured to be considered a tank and it's tracks might make it less than ideally suited to accompany the LAV III. If we want a tank we should buy a tank (Leo 2A6 or M1A2 TUSK have my vote). If we want an assault gun to support infantry in LIC we should get a vehicle on the LAV chassis that can keep up on roads (LAV III chassis with CV-CT turret, for example). Just my 1 Afghani.

MG

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The CV90 is not a MBT, being not much more than any other IFV.  You do not replace a MBT with an IFV/APC.

Agreed, but how good is our Leo for Urban warfare, my understanding is that most of the armour is very light? I see the CV90 as similar to the TAM, it is a lightweight system with a good gun. Working with real tanks I think it gives you some flexibility in how you array your forces and the vehicle family offers up a lot of choices.

Mortar guy, I have been inside a BMP 2 and only seen video of the inside of the CV, the BMP would seem to be far worse, not to mention the double doors.

The LAV is a great vehicle for what we are doing presently, but if we have to fight someone like the Serbs or such, the LAV will be in trouble. Like it or not we are going to need a tracked element alongside the wheeled. Plus if we are not going to buy a heavier MBT, then we need an intemin vehicle to help reduce the strain on the LEO's as they wear out.

 

[Kirkhill]

Colin, why is it a given that we need a tracked element alongside the wheeled?

If it is just to cover a greater variety of terrain then the Bv206/Bv206S/BvS10 family of vehicles are tracked vehicles that can likely cover the terrain better than the TAM/CV90/Puma, not to mention any of the MBTs.

Or is it that we need the weight of armour to create a well-defended vehicle and the only way we can distribute that weight on the ground is by using tracks?

Or is it that we need a vehicle with a really big gun and the only way to effectively counter the massive recoil forces is to have a really heavy vehicle and again we need to use tracks to distribute the weight?

When you state that we need tracks alongside wheels I am trying to understand what it is you want the tracks to accomplish.

 

[a_majoor]

The CV-90 may be a good IFV, but I would not want to see us use it as a replacement for the Tank.  It is too lightly armoured.  If it is rated as being armoured against 30 mm and less, it would still be a relatively light target to be taken out by RPGs and possible IED threats, which are our greatest threats today.  It would require serious add on armour, which kinda defeats any benefit of buying it over a tank.....

This is really the armour vs Armour argument. While it would be ideal to have Leopard 2A6 for the armour, Armour is about mobility and shock action. Just like Cavalry shed armour protection in the 1600's once it became far too obvious that there was no practical protection against firearms, we may have to adjust our thinking to moving faster and hitting harder, rather than being able to shrug off the effect of enemy weapons.

This argument actually occurred after WW II, when there was a short lived mania for super heavy tanks capable of defeating anti tank cannons and guns of 100+ mm in size. The British Conqueror, American T-90 and "Tortoise" tank destroyer were examples of this sort of thinking, and in the 1980's the United States embarked on the "Block III" program which postulated tanks and AFV's of 80 tonnes (or more) which could shrug off Soviet guns and ATGM's. You can imagine the logistical issues revolving around that. Unless there is a practical way to absorb, deflect or avoid the effects of a 42 megajoule strike against your vehicle without sacrificing mobility, I would guess that the current set of  Generation 3 and 3.5 tanks are the pinnacle of current tank design, and a serious rethink is needed for Generation 4.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Kirkhill

There is potential for a major conflict within the next 20 years, while the LAV’s are excellent for the type of fighting we are doing now, you also have to prepare for the next war also, throwing away tracks in favour of an all wheeled force, may be akin to using anti-Warsaw Pact tactic in Afghanistan.

Due to our political affiliations, geography and such, it is very difficult to determine which battlefield Canada will next be involved in. Had I told people in 1999 that Canada would be fielding a 2,000+ combat force in offensive operation in Afghanistan, likely I would have been laughed out of the room.

If a major war evolves, we will likely have 6 months to year to prepare and preposition. You cannot train or equip troops properly with medium-heavy armour in that timeframe. We need to keep a portion of the military ready for the heavy stuff, the question is how?

Do we rebuild our current stock of Leopards? Which give us a relatively decent vehicle with a gun that is on the edge of being obsolete, do we get heavier Leo 2’s which puts us in the heavyweight class and accept the tactical limitations that gives us or do we go for a mix of lighter/medium/heavy with a vehicle that has an excellent gun, decent mobility, but marginal to adequate armour?

By the way I am also a fan of the Bv206/Bv206S/BvS10 family, but see their role more for the arctic, with more limited uses elsewhere.

 

[George Wallace]

Here's an old thought.  Why not cascade the current Leo 1's down to the Recce Sqns, and equip the Sabre Sqns with Leo 2's.  The Leo 1/Coyote mix in the Recce Sqns would give a Light to Medium level of Deployable troops.  For the Heavy Stuff, you'd have the Leo 2's.  This gives a wide range of skill sets and flexibility to Commanders. 

With the Tanks more widely spread out through the Army, there would be a better chance of lower level Commanders, being familiar with how Cbt Teams operate and what capabilities they offer. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Here's an old thought.  Why not cascade the current Leo 1's down to the Recce Sqns, and equip the Sabre Sqns with Leo 2's.  The Leo 1/Coyote mix in the Recce Sqns would give a Light to Medium level of Deployable troops.  For the Heavy Stuff, you'd have the Leo 2's.  This gives a wide range of skill sets and flexibility to Commanders. 

With the Tanks more widely spread out through the Army, there would be a better chance of lower level Commanders, being familiar with how Cbt Teams operate and what capabilities they offer. 

Good Lord, then commanders might be asking for tanks all the time, can't be having them proved useful or anything like that can we! 

 

[CanadaPhil]

Not that I am an expert, but has anyone noticed this trend.....

I believe we fielded 500 Centurions back in the day, which were replaced by our current 100 odd Leo 1's.

Apparently the Liberals wanted to entirely phase MBT's altogether and replace them with 66 MGS's??? and pretend that the MGS could stand toe to toe with heavy battle tank in a slug fest.

From 500 to 100 to 66???

Now that the CF will hopefully soon have heavy lift capability, would it not make more sense to upgrade all the working Leopards we have to extend their useful lives? Does anyone have a rough idea on how much cost to upgrade our Leopards with the add on armour and gun sight upgrades? I believe the deal for the 66 MGS's is over $650 million!!

If the government decides we should still acquire the MGS, well then fine. But why should we get rid our MBT's? Shouldn't we at least hang to some of them for a heavy direct fire support role??

Here is a thought for an upgraded Leo for a urban fire support role...... In addition to the armour upgrade pkg.,  how about the shorter version of the 105mm gun to allow for easier use in tighter European style city streets along with add on slat armour(ala US Strykers in Iraq) for increased RPG protection. It may not win any beauty contests, but it would at least have 10 times the survivability of an MGS.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[George Wallace]

CanadaPhil

With 44 pages on this subject in this topic alone, you should have read all that. 

By the way, what is with a short barrel to handle tighter European style city streets?  That is where this tank came from.  It, and larger tanks, have managed very well in European style streets for the past seventy years.  Am I missing something here?

 

[CanadaPhil]

I have to confess that I didn't get through all 44 pages.

There were some very interesting write ups on this very issue that I came across while looking for info on heavy lift aircraft and landing ships. However, part of the sight (unfortunately the part with a ton on info on land forces) is now down for the summer while it gets revamped). It will probably be up in another month or so.

There was a proposal for a Leopard 1 "upgrade" as described. It would better be described as an engineering or bunker clearing vehicle than a main battle tank.The idea behind a shortened 105mm (cant remember the specific designation of this gun) was to allow for full turret rotation in very tight urban quarters without the danger of being impeded (literally) by building walls, telephone poles, etc. Slat armour was added all around for increased rpg protection. I believe there was also a protected weapons station with 40mm grenade launcher.

You can still check out some other topics there if you like at:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-0intro.htm

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-0intro.htm

Oh no...  :

 

[Kirkhill]

The point I was getting at Colin, at risk of being pedantic but in the interest of trying to put cart and horse in order, was that it isn't tracks that make a Tank.  A Tank is a Tank, IMHO, because it is heavily armoured and can therefore directly assault an enemy position in the face of enemy fire with the greatest chance of survival.  Tracks generally seem to allow a heavier weight of vehicle to move across more types of terrain than wheels.  

I know "tracks" as opposed to wheels is often shorthand for Tanks  but that tends to lead to the discussion as to whether or not a vehicle like the CV90/Puma/TAM, which is not much more heavily armoured than a LAV/Warrior/Bradley/Stryker class of vehicle is a Tank.

I don't think a Tank is a Tank until it can absorb punishment and while all Tanks may have tracks in order to carry the greatest mass of "passive defensive material" possible not all Tracks are Tanks.

On a related note I don't think that the size of the main armament on a Tank matters nearly as much as its Armour.  Personally I would be more inclined to regard a heavily armoured APC that can deliver troops directly on to the enemy position but has only MGs and 25mms as more of a Tank than a lightly armoured CV90 with a 120mm gun that can't close on the objective.  If it can't close with the enemy then it can only offer Fire Support (at a low angle) and therefore is a Direct Fire Support Vehicle, regardless of whether it has wheels or tracks, and is not a Tank.

The fact that a Tank has an enormous mass because of all that defensive material necessary to protect its human cargo means that it can absorb the recoil forces from a very large calibre gun.  The Tank makes the Big Gun possible.  The Big Gun doesn't make the Tank.

This may seem like picking fly-shyte from pepper to you and some other folks but the way I see it Wheeled Light Armoured Vehicles, Tracked Light Armour Vehicles, Tracked Heavy Armour Vehicles and Specialty Tracked Vehicles (like the Bv206) are four complementary systems that are designed to fight four separate battles, or maybe it is just three.  

Wheels give Arthur his mobile cavalry element covering large distances of "good going" in a short time.  Their greatest protection is a good pair of binoculars so that they can find the enemy before they are found and generally keep their distance.  If they are going to do any killing it should be done at long range.  The best use of these vehicles seems to be in areas with roads, or at least tracks, and hard packed ground.

Heavy Tracks are specialist vehicles designed for the close assault.  They are not designed for the covering ground - I don't see how their proponents can argue otherwise when track changes, engine changes and even complete "reset" requirements are measured in 100's of kilometers and not 10s of thousands of kilometers.  They are needed at FEBA but they need a massive amount of infrastructure to get them there and keep them there.  

The Specialty Track Vehicles, much like the Wheeled LAVs can also be seen as "Cavalry" vehicles.  They extend the variety of terrains over which troops can patrol denying that ground to the enemy.  Without them a small amount of enemy on foot in poor ground could dominate the terrain - tying down a very large number of own forces if they were restricted to foot-borne movement.  Helicopters in conjunction with the staying power of Specialty Tracks seems to make a good operational combination from my understanding.  They also increase the weight of weaponry that can be brought to to the fight against a foe limited to what can be back-packed or mule-trained.  As well they permit own forces to permit enemy positions from unexpected directions over ground that might otherwise be thought impassable.

The Light Tracks seem to be something and nothing much of the time.  If they were truly intended to allow the infantry to keep up with the tanks then they would be built along the lines of the Elgins WWII Rams and Defrocked Priests or the Israeli Achzarits.  They seem to have been built of ligther armour not for tactical purposes but for cost purposes.  Early doctrine to defeat the Combined Arms attack was, IIRC, to strip off the BMPs at long range, destroying as much infantry as possible and forcing them to debus.  This made them easy targets for the machine guns and artillery and ensured that the survivors were dead beat by the time they reached the objective and in no position to support the tanks.  The tanks, now isolated and on the defensive position were now at greater risk of being defeated by man-portable weapons at close range.

In landscapes with wet fields then Light Tracks can do the jobs the LAVs and Strykers are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan but over much shorter distances.  They are every bit as vulnerable, it seems to me anyway.  They also have a role in support of the Specialist Tracks in that they may be more able to deploy into similar terrain, terrain you can't get a Heavy Track into, and thus beef up the support available.  But is that support necessary or can it be handled by other means, for example the helicopters mentioned before?

If I was looking at fielding a balanced force I might be inclined to offer something like:

LAV Force - all wheels:  60% of the Vehicles and Manpower and about 50% of the Budget
Heavy Force - Gun Tanks and APC Tanks: 15% of the Vehicles and Manpower and 25% of the Budget
Lt Force - Bv206s and Helicopters: 25% of the Vehicles and Manpower and 25% of the Budget.

The Light Force and LAV Force are manpower heavy in Combat Arms but the Heavy Force is Manpower intensive in the Support Arms - 10 PYs in the Infantry are likely to be allocated to a Rifle Section.  In the Armoured Corps 10 PYs probably equals something like 4 Tank crewmen, 2 Tank Transporter Crewmen, 2 POL Crewmen and 2 Resupply Crewmen, not to mention the Mechanics.  15% of the Manpower would probably mean only 40% of the PYs were available to actually man Tanks or about 1/10th of the number of LAV vehicles that could be manned with 60% of the total manning.  Conversely 10% of the number of vehicles although smaller would consume a much larger portion of both the capital and operating budget in this case about five times as much to field a Tank with support as to field a LAV (pure guess work but ....)

The Light Force like the LAV Force can also deploy a high proportion of its man-power tactically, and vehicles like the Bv206 are relatively cheap and cheap to run but the supporting helicopter force ( and fixed wing support) is very expensive even if the heli-support is limited to CH47s and a force of ARHs (Bell 407s) rather than "proper" Attack Helicopters like the Apache.

That would result in a LAV force of something like 6 Battle Groups, a large Heavy Battle Group and 3 Light Battle Groups.  Cross attach at will.

Returning to armchair.  

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Kirkhill, we aren’t all that far off of each other. I think the CV-90/120 is a decent vehicle, I know it’s not a tank, but I have concerns about the state of our current fleet and their ability to survive till 2015 (assuming that the next few governments will replace them)

I see our options are:

Hold on and repair what we have and hope for the best.

Replace them with a MBT, Abrams or Leo 2 are the 2 likely contenders

Replace/supplement them with an interim light AFV, hence the CV-90/120 until a full replacement is decided (Merk 5???)  ;D

I personally like Georges idea of a mix of LeoC2 and Leo 2’s

The main reason to choose the CV/90 is that it comes as a family of vehicle built be a country that suffers winters like ours. It also has limited combat/service in Africa. The other 2 existing choices for an IFV are the Brad and Warrior, neither offer an extensive family of vehicles and then creating a wider mix of vehicles if purchased.

This family would include SP arty, IFV’s, AGS and possibly engineer support, meaning that the heavy element would be made up of 2 basic types of vehicles.

Neither of us are talking about replacing the LAV with APC/IFV’s but as you put it having a heavy and light brigades.

 

[ArmyRick]

here are my views on this discussion (Open fire or praise as U see fit)

Heavy MBT (Leo 2, Abrams, Leclerc, etc, etc)
Advantages-Mobility over difficult terrain, heavy protection, truly are mobile fortress
Disadvantages-Consume POL at a very high rate, wear and tear, costly, difficult to move

Lighter fighting vehicles (CV90-120) Faster, less protection but same fire power as MBT

What do we do. If majoor is correct and future weapon systems are as deadly as planned, we need to rethink things through.

If the US is successful with MGV family (part of FCS), maybe that would be our ideal replacement for Leo in say 2010.

People are screaming to purchase leo 2A6 or Abrams. Or as one person suggested, an interim vehicle. Keep in mind these vehicles have been around for 20-25 years and I think there service lives in the next ten years will come to an end. Interim vehicle, in the CF, no such thing. If we get an interim vehicle, be prepared for thirty years of temporary service.

Predicting the future is a dangerous gamble. Keeping a heavy Battle group, maybe 3-4 LAV (medium) battlle groups and 3 light (lots of helicopters) battle groups seems ideal.

I am also a beleiver that we should get in on the US FCS program.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Even if the Uber-weapons were created today, they would only be in frontline service of a handful of Western countries in the next 10 years, highly unlikely that Serbia, NK, Pakistan, Uganda will have them anytime soon.

Possible China would be the next country following the West to equip with them.

MBT's will be around until this month's recruits are RSM's

 

[Red 6]

You placed the Leclerc in the same category as the M1 in regard to being a heavy MBT. I believe the weighs about 15 tons less than the M1A2, which strains the pavement at around 70 tons. The Leclerc is a complex tank, and there are pros and cons to the autoloader. The digital bus in the Leclerc is world class, probably every bit as capable as the M1A2.

 

[a_majoor]

I would class the Le Clerc as a Generation 3.5 tank.

Colin. you are correct there will be a time lag between "uber weapons" being developed and being widely fielded, but it might not be as long as we hope. The laws of supply and demand work in the military field, and if (say) a practical hand held or shoulder fired rail gun was developed, every army and paramilitary on Earth would want it.

Even if the United States was the developer, the presence of a successful example and a certain knowledge of the laws of physics would allow advanced nations like France, Israel and China to reverse engineer them in short order, and the next string (Singapore, North Korea, Belgium) would be cranking out knock off copies soon after. All these nations have customers and clients, and the United States also has many military clients who would be able to access these weapons.

We in the West could hope to develop counter weapons and techniques to defeat these engines of destruction, but historical examples tell us that arms races like this reach diminishing returns very fast, and there is either a drastic rethinking of how the affected arm is used. The loss of armour by Cavalry soldiers during the 1600's is a pretty clear example, there was no practical method of protecting the soldier against fire arms, even heavy plate armour proof against longbows, cross bows and most polearms could be defeated by a lowly infantryman firing a matchlock, but Cavalry survived into the 20th century on horseback, and exists today mounted on AFVs and Helicopters. Armour will survive, but adapted to the new circumstances.

 

[George Wallace]

You placed the Leclerc in the same category as the M1 in regard to being a heavy MBT. I believe the weighs about 15 tons less than the M1A2, which strains the pavement at around 70 tons. The Leclerc is a complex tank, and there are pros and cons to the autoloader. The digital bus in the Leclerc is world class, probably every bit as capable as the M1A2.

I think that the Leclerc is considered in most circles as being in the same class as the M1 and Leo 2, although at the bottom end weight wise, because it is still over that 50 ton line. 

Actually there really wasn't much distinction between Heavy, Medium and Light tanks after WW II.  Most looked at the M47, M48, M60, T54, T62, T64, T72, Leo 1, AMX 30, Centurian, Chieftan, Challenger 1, etc as just being MBTs.  Yes there were light tanks like the AMX 13, but they still weren't segregated that much from the pack.  When we got into the Chieftan/Challenger, M1, Leo 2 families, we have started to go Heavy again, but still didn't really start calling them "Heavy" rather than MBTs. 

Have we maxed out on weight?  Good question.  We are very concerned lately with portability, and weight has been the main concern.  Iraq has proven the requirement for Armour and the M1 has proven itself there and the need for MBTs in a modern army.  But how do we cut down the Weight Factor without cutting down on the Protection Factor?  We have seen some advances in armour protection in the 70's with Chobham Armour and improved ceramics, which have cut down the weights of tanks drastically, but they are still weighing in at over 55 and 60 tons and breaking the 70 ton mark. 

Will Light Armour be the solution?  Only in Peacetime.  Even in Vietnam, the M113 was found to be lacking in armour protection, and it was reinforced at times with sandbags, extra armour plates, extra track stowed on the sides, Gun Shields, etc.  If we have to buy packages today to 'uparmour' our vehicles, isn't that sort of defeating any cost savings or weight savings that we have initially decided on?  I do agree that we should be looking at Tracks, as they are better suited suspension wise for any 'add on' armour or other accessories that may be required in future needs.  Tracks beat out Wheels in this case.

I'd say...go with the armour protection to begin with.  'Add ons' only cause more problems with engines, transmissions and suspensions.  Buy the 'full deal package' and save on the wear and tear that would be caused by any 'add ons'.  Take Tracks over Wheeled for the same reasons.  Although the LAV III is a great vehicle, I am sure that if we start adding more weigh in uparmouring it, we will see all it's advantages negated, as it's engine, transmission and suspension loose their abilities to keep this a fast, mobile piece of kit.  I won't even get into the amount of 'protection' is having to be dropped on the MGS to get it to meet the 'Requirements' set - protection that will have to be added on later, causing more stress on the mechanics of the vehicle.

Go Heavy.  MBT.