Role of Armour on the new front

[rceme_rat]

While it is likely that the MBT will eventually disappear, I doubt direct support will. Take a look at the variants of the Stryker available from GM Defense. One sports a 105 tank gun. This would seem to be a good possibility for the way our force is shaping up and is far more likely to be politically and financially acceptable.

 

[Pikache]

Politically acceptable...

I cringe whenever I hear that phrase.

 

[rceme_rat]

"Politically acceptable" is used here in the sense that the structure and outfitting of the military will not represent the pipe dreams of soldiers who would like to prepare for WW III, but will be limited to what the public (through its elected officials) is willing to support financially.

In short, we must accept the reality of our time which is that the public accepts our limited military budget and the concept of a low to medium intensity combat force.

 

[Recce41]

The Armour Corp will be set up as follows
RCD 1xRHQ
2XRecce Surv Sqn
1X HQ Sqn
LDSH 1xRHQ
1XRecce Surv Sqn
1XTank Sqn
1XHQ Sqn
12RBC same as RCD
ArmourSchool no change but will grow until people retire
TrainingCntre West in Aberta
Bges will not change, LIBs 80% will stay
Res may be the filler stock.
SgtJ CD<CDS com

 

[Gunnar]

Originally posted by rceme_rat:
[qb]"In short, we must accept the reality of our time which is that the public accepts our limited military budget and the concept of a low to medium intensity combat force.[/qb]

So I‘m one in 30 some odd million these days.....but THIS member of the public doesn‘t support it, for what it‘s worth.
:rage:

 

[rceme_rat]

The problem for those of us who shake our heads at the thought that 1% GDP is an acceptable level of spending is that our government leaders take their cue from the polls. The most effective polls are our votes but we haven‘t seen a real change in voting pattern recently, so the Liberals haven‘t had any need to change.

Frankly, I think most Canadians really don‘t care much about the military -- out of sight, out of mind -- and probably resent even the 1% until the actually need soldiers. Then, they wonder why we can‘t knit a few.

As an old friend (strangely, a Liberal) once said, "the people get exactly what they deserve" in a democracy.

 

[corporal]

i do not feel that the public in general accepts our budget limitations nor do they for the most part accept what our gover is dishing out, we can only hope that with a new gov that they will do the right thing and bring our forces up to snuff,we as antion do not have alimited or a medium intensity capability, **** we can;t even protect our borders decently,it is sad that we are in this state now,hopefully with new gov comes refreshing change. we need armour we need paras we need all assets,for to eliminate any weakens the whole and adversley affects morale. :tank:

 

[Coniar]

Ahganistan aside the world is heating up and it looks like it may be aproaching the boiling point. I belive that there will be another magor war very soon but where? most likley in the middle east but then again thats a wide range of battle fields, from Urban to the middle of nowhere desert terrain we all see on TV these days. I think it is pheasable to expect both Urban and desert warfare on a large scale very soon. My question is what do you think the role of the Canadian Armour will be when and if it happens??? at the moment it seems we are simply doing recc for the US but in the event of a world war situation we would most likley be depolyed in a CEF divisional formatt like the first and second world wars to fend for ourselfs. Obviously the role of the Armour is to support the Infantry but beyond that how when and where?

I think the way things are going now a tank war like the 2WW is unliley but so Is a fast mobile Vietnam type conflict. Anywhere involving a large Urban landscape will not work the same way it does now, it will become another "Fortress Stalingrad" something that has not been seen any time latley because of the lack of large conflicts in Urban areas since the 2WW ho will todays Armour react to such a conflict???

Coniar

 

[Sharpey]

We have tanks?

Seriously though, I really doubt Canada would commit her small collection of Leo‘s to an overseas mission / battle. Not just for logistical reasones like how would we get them over there? We seem to rent everything we need from other countries and if a situation broke out where our rental country is involved, naturally they will use their own equipment and shaft Canada.

With todays world threats, small militant groups, would an Armoured force be suitable, especially in the terrain these situations are currently happening in? Yes and no I guess. But in all honesty, I can‘t see Canada commiting a tracked armoured force due to logistics and finances. We are cheap, we will send our tankers over in rusted out Cougars and play support to our larger Allies. And that‘s sad because Canada has the potential to be a great world power if the freaks up there would just open their wallets a bit more!

 

[Coniar]

I swear ive seen our Leos in bosnia before, mabey it was something borowed though, anyhow about the world power thing, I think your wrong, we dont have the population to be a "United States" or "Britian" but we do have the ptential to have a stong Military we just dont spend the cash to have it, anyhow Im not talking small Militia group Im talking all out world war, fight or die logistics not a problem whole country in War mode. So we deploy, thats a given but how fast and with what???

Coniar

 

[Sharpey]

No I know we will never be a large world power, but we could be more.

How fast and with what? I would say it would take us 3 months to get our ducks in line, and with what still remains a mystery. I think Canada currently has 118 Leo‘s. Wooo. Mind you their crews are among the best in the world, but up against an enemy with lets say 500 tanks? Our air support as well is limited. I do not think Canada at this point is capable of entering a war on its own, we need support from our Allies, no question. Canada simply does not have the equipment or personelle to conqour a country, unless it‘s the size of something like Guam!

 

[Coniar]

where not taking over anyone antime soon thats for sure but think of a more CEF type force like the 1st world war we had logistical support of our allies we just had to attack, Im thinking where gonna end up with the armour becoming more of a light assistance force to the infantry rather than heavy support. more LAV‘s less Leos. If things whent my way we would have more and newer tanks over the next 15 years simply because I think there an ireplacable part of our defense force and at the moment what we have couldnt hurt a horsefly but whoever makes these decisions seems to disagree, we are currently moving towards being an all recon force with some token MBT‘s. Not that armoured recon isnt important and we are exxelent at it (the coyote is certainly world class) but being the eyes and ears of our allies wont protect our country or effectivley defend it abroad...

Coniar

 

[Sharpey]

MBT‘s will almost certainly be on the other end of the barrel if this thought up war were to happen. Thus, MBT‘s should be in the arsenal of the Canadian Land Force. Otherwise, we will be throwing rocks!

 

[Recce41]

First off
Tanks went to Bosnia in 96 during IFOR, then to Kosovo. Tanks are useless in most theatres. Lav based Vehs are the way to go.

 

[John Nayduk]

I think that the tank vs. LAV debate will go on for some time. With the size of our Armoured Corp, we can only, really, support one or the other.
It was probably a good idea to keep the tanks together in one Regiment. It has been some time since we had three squadrons of tanks in one Regiment.
Since the CLS has mandated interoperability with the U.S., wouldn’t it be a good idea to equip ourselves with the same direct fire support vehicle they are using? Granted, we have climatic considerations to keep in mind. As was demonstrated in Afghanistan, we may have to get our bullets (and who knows what else) from them so it might make sense to have the same vehicle.
Because of the state of the military, we may have to let our allies fight the heavies and we would have to take the highly mobile, flank security duties.
Doctrine changes as the need changes but unfortunately, the doctrine changes much slower than the need. Look at the way we train to meet the Soviets, oh, I mean Genforce in Europe. I don’t know the last time we sent guys down to train in a desert environment. Given the situation in the world today that might be a good idea. It might be a good idea to look at the U.S. doctrine and adopt it, with a Canadian slant.
We can only hope that one day our political masters will see the need for a strong military (hopefully before it is needed, not after). Maybe some day we will have a few Regiments of tanks and others with LAV based DFS vehicles.
:tank:

 

[Recce41]

Heres the speal.
1. After the RCD come back from ex in the west, the tanks will stay in Suffield.
2. NO DFS veh.
3. The RCD/ 12RBC will be a 2/3 Sqn Recce Regt. The Strats will be tank with one recce sqn.
4. In Sept no one can C/C a AFV unless he is qualified after the C/C course in Gagtown. Only 6a qualifed MCpls can. But only the veh they are qualifed gunner. No Coyote no C/C, no C2 no C/C, no TLAV no C/C, no ELAV no C/C etc.
5. The ARTC and ARSC will be rewritten in fall 02.
6. Theres more but I‘d be here all night.
Its great to have an in, in the Int.

Sgt J Canadian Decoration, Chief of Defence Shaff Commandation
Airborne, Bold and Swift

 

[corporal]

okay,ithink the orig statement was what our role,if any,would be in a world conflict?
i would think that we would be a small mobile reserve,if you think about it any initial
conflict would req that we wget to the conflict the fastest with the mostest,

seeing as how we have the big neighbour next door the chance of invasion of north america is crazy,therefore we could send whatb we have,which ain‘t much!

 

[corporal]

ah the lament of those still ,in and the good souls that once served but are now out.
the truth as i see it is the same as many,in the 80‘s when iwas still in i voted conserv
at the time they said all the right thing‘s and did nothing,canadiens in general don‘t care enough most are concerned with getting by in a country that taxe‘s them to death. so when the gov roll‘s out more tax demand we bend over and take it.
i‘m 38 now and since i‘ve been old enough to put on a uniform i have never seen any different

 

[gate_guard]

I‘ve seen this discussion on other boards and the consensus I‘ve heard from a few Strats is that the CF is moving towards the 105mm mounted on a Stryker (LAV 3) platform instead of MBTs. Good or bad idea? And the reason I‘m posting this here is because on other forums, it seems that the ideas being presented can‘t seem to provide objective viewpoints beyond saying "we need tanks cause they‘re big", so educated opinions would be appreciated.

 

[Cycophant]

Although my direct, first-hand knowledge of battle is minimal, I feel I‘ve read, researched and discussed enough to offer a semi-educated opinion on the matter. So here goes

Judging from the way the world‘s military affairs are going, I would suggest this move is a good one. The idea of mounting large guns on huge, heavily-armored platforms seems to antiquate daily. Particularily for the Canadian Forces, whose roles are primarily not requiring a large MBT. Even the United States seems to be moving away from MBT‘s as of late.

It would seem many armies are focusing more on mobility. True, the M1A2 is fairly mobile for a tank - but that comes at a huge price. And how many situations nowadays require a 120mm, tank-busting cannon? Yet again, particularily with Canada‘s traditional roles.

One final note too: Cannons themselves seem to be antiquating. With our current armament of missiles (TOW, Carl Gustav, M72, Eryx and ADATS), we seem perfectly capable of stopping any modern tank. Is there really a need to mount an expensive cannon onto an expensive chassis for this purpose as well? Missiles have traditionally out-performed many direct-fire cannons anyway.