Should the CF be retain in its present form? (Split from MBT thread)

[RickB]

Sorry if this is a bit off topic.

The question in my opinion right now is not really if we should keep MBT's but if we should even keep the CF. So far our government since we started peacekeeping, has forgot about the possibility of a real war with countries or coalitions as enemies more and more. The main idea behind having a military is to defend our sovereignty, not to peacekeep. I'm not denouncing peacekeeping, as it is necessary and useful, but if that's the only purpose for our military, it might as well be a larger version of the RCMP. Once we have this figured out then we could really render a decision as to MBT's, Helicopters, Airlift etc.

My personal opinion on this, is that our military is here to fight wars; so thefore, we should retain both heavy, medium, and light armour capabilities. Thefore we should keep MBT's but also focus on creating a "cavalry" tank so to speak. Something that could have the firepower and all-terrain capabilities of of a tank, whilst keeping the speed and low profile or a recce vehicle/light tank and looking non threatening for those peacekeeping missions.

But as for wars, you NEED heavy armour and you NEED light armour, and medium armour couldn't hurt either. Each has their own capabilities that complement one another, taking one set out throws the whole equation out of balance.

Of course I could be all wrong about everything.

Once again I'm sorry if this went off topic a little bit.

Regards,

Rick B, Cadet MCpl

 

[generic]

RickB.
I would have to voice agreement on your post and would not think you off base.

To many there is a perception (and a stark reality behind it) that Canada is becoming increasing irrelevant in the global forum.
With continued cutbacks and oft times myopic foresight we are serious losing our capability to effect any kind of action, defensive or offensive. This is not only from a military point of view but one from a political standpoint as well.  When you no longer sustain/maintain the ability to enforce your own sovereignty,and foreign policies you lose complete credibility when it comes to negotiating or effecting change.  Taking MBT's out of the picture, you leave it's replacement looking like a smaller, weaker option.  Left to fight a mainly defensive battle.  As we all know offense and initiative seize the day.
It is well and noble to be known as a nation where "peacekeeping" is our forte, but it would be wise to remember that an army trained to fight a war can handle peacekeeping, not the other way around.

I have read an increasing number of articles since I have joined which echo repeated the same sentiment: The situation is critical.

 

[Spr.Earl]

We must keep our MBT's they have the punch and mobility which the new 8 wheeled light armoured,light gunned vehicles we are supposed to get don't have.

Same goes for our Arty we need the Guns wheather towed or S.P.

 

[tomhynes]

But in todays ever changing world is the need for MBT's there? Canada is in the midst of making some huge decisions concerning our forces, and I honestly think they're really looking into it deep. Our military is in the public eye more and more, and the politicians know it and have accepted it, its only a matter of time now before we start seeing major increases in attention and defense spending.

As far as what our role should be, I used to think we need the heavy, medium and light capability, but then started thinking more realistically. Our military should be very mobilized, with a medium/light punch which will still put us on the offensive overseas. New missions will arise not on big open battlefields, but in urban areas against rogue enemies where the need for a MBT isnt there. Send the Leos into Kabul they'll only create a larger, slower target for enemy attacks. The key words in our transformation are speed and mobility. We should have the ability to get in, make a difference, and get out quickly. If the need is there to stay on the ground we also need the ability to sustain our battlegroups.

Whether we stay a heavy force, or downgrade to medium the fact still remains that we've hit the bottom and theres nowhere else to go but up from here. The government knows that and its taken alot of hard times and grim realities to prove it, but the money is coming.

 

[Cliff]

Sorry if this is a bit off topic.

The main idea behind having a military is to defend our sovereignty, not to peacekeep.

The only country that is in a position to invade Canada is the US and the probability of that happening isn't very good.   Even more MBTs wouldn't do much to deter them, if they ever did.   Sovereignty is a nice word, but it takes $$ to exercise it.

 

[GerryCan]

Regardless of what's going on in the world right this instant, getting rid of MBT's is stupid. It's been said here a million times.
Having an easily deployable force with Medium to Light vehicles sounds all fine and dandy, but do you honestly believe there will be no need for tanks again, ever??

C'mon people, this whole quick deployment crap is a line fed straight from the Bean Counters that are taking the tanks away to begin with.
A good excuse really when you think about it. Convince the people that these pieces of equipment aren't useful anymore and we can replace them with absolute trash ie; STRYKER MGS with both sides going away happy. Until that is, one day when we actually realize that losing a Main Battle Tank isn't such a good idea.
I know we haven't fought in a full scale war in a long time, and hopefully we don't anytime soon, but do we honestly believe that it 'could' never happen again? Well we didn't see 9/11 coming and it happenened(as much as I hate to bring it up)

No medium or light vehicles will ever replace the role of a MBT, they are entirely different roles one or the other can't fill on their own.

We're a peacekeeping nation because the word itself, helps the majority of tax payers that believe we dont need a military sleep at night.

Anyone can 'Peacekeep.' Anyone can sit on the sidelines and watch a country tear itself to shreds and pick up the pieces afterwords, not everyone can fight wars...And by not having tanks, we may become just that.

Here's a look at both sides of the spectrum.

http://www.rense.com/general61/loses.htm

 

[tomhynes]

But is it worth using up our valuable dollars just to keep a small fleet of tanks that are just going to keep needing more and more upgrades? I agree that we need a MBT, in my opinion every army that has any sort of structure should have them, but times are changing the need is getting smaller. The US has over 8,000 MBTs in service, we have roughly 130. If there was some sort of war, lets say against China, do you think our 130 old tanks will make a difference? If we transformed our forces into a quick reaction force, we'd still be able to make differences when fighting alongside our allies, just not in heavy equipment. I know it sucks and we all wish that Canada could once again field an army of huge magnitudes, but it'll never happen. Getting back to a war with a country like China, there'd be no fighting on our soil anyways, at least on the ground. We dont even have the ability to transport our Leo's anywhere, and do you think in a time of all our war the Russians or Americans will come to our aid? No, they wont. This just brings up more and more things that are wrong with the CF today.

 

[GerryCan]

But is it worth using up our valuable dollars just to keep a small fleet of tanks that are just going to keep needing more and more upgrades? I agree that we need a MBT, in my opinion every army that has any sort of structure should have them, but times are changing the need is getting smaller. The US has over 8,000 MBTs in service, we have roughly 130. If there was some sort of war, lets say against China, do you think our 130 old tanks will make a difference? If we transformed our forces into a quick reaction force, we'd still be able to make differences when fighting alongside our allies, just not in heavy equipment. I know it sucks and we all wish that Canada could once again field an army of huge magnitudes, but it'll never happen. Getting back to a war with a country like China, there'd be no fighting on our soil anyways, at least on the ground. We dont even have the ability to transport our Leo's anywhere, and do you think in a time of all our war the Russians or Americans will come to our aid? No, they wont. This just brings up more and more things that are wrong with the CF today.

No it's not worth keeping a small fleet of tanks that need constant upgrading, but it is worth is to replace the antiques we have with newer ones that don't need constant upgrading.

As for a war against China or whoever, why is it so hard to comprehend any fighting on our soil?  Just because the western world has been bringing the war to foreign soil for so many years, it still doesn't mean it can't happen eventually within our own borders.

I absolutely agree that a Quick Reaction force would be able to make a great difference in various global needs and I'm not ruling it out as a bad idea. But along with that QRF, we should also have a substantial force to further aid in our own protection right here. And yes, tanks would make a difference. Sure we don't have a lot of them, but we don't have a lot of LAV's, Grizzly's, Cougars or anything for that matter. So in the same sense, would our small fleet of any of our vehicles make a difference?

And could you explain as to why you believe America wouldnt come to our aid if we needed? Russia I can understand as they're not one of our biggest allies, but the U.S and Canada are the 2 closest allies in the world, making us one of their best interests.

 

[George Wallace]

A couple of things TommyHynes:

Our tanks have done a fantastic job when deployed overseas.  They filled a niche in Kosovo and went places the larger Leo 2, Challenger 2 and M1's couldn't go.  They went place the wheeled Italian Centaro couldn't go.  They did their job.

Yes we have to up date our tanks.  All weapons systems need upgrades.  Do you think that our brand new LAV IIIs are immune to this?  No, they are already undergoing yet more upgrades, and they will continue to do so.

Several factors that civilians making these decisions seem to make are very destructive.  Civies look at their own situation and then think that a Light Force would be more than adequate to combat it, not looking at current world politics and the evil people out there who may want to cause us harm.  They are "bean counters" who don't worry that the five dollar saving they are making today, will cost us $500 tomorrow.  They don't realize that skill sets lost by our military because of their cuts, will be hard to get back (if ever) in time of a crunch.

Have you ever sat in a trench on an overcast night, pitch black and listened to a tank moving cross country out there somewhere?  It is terrifying.

Your example of tanks being too slow in Kabul, not as fast as a LAV III or Coyote, is OTL.  Have you ever wondered what happens in a narrow street of mud walls and houses, should these LAV or Coyote get ambushed?  It takes "40 acres" to turn one around.  A tank can turn on the spot.  Can a LAV of Coyote get out of there quickly?  No!  A tank can.  It has Fire Power.  It has raw power in its' diesel engine and can drive through those mud houses and walls.  It has a lot better protection than the wheeled APCs we are now putting our lives in.

Tanks have Mobility, Fire Power, Protection, Good Comms and "Shock Action".  All something that is being lost on this new generation of Soldier and Politician.  All for a couple of bucks savings today.

GW

 

[tomhynes]

If the world was ever thrust into another world war (I use China only as a hypothetical example), you cant honestly say the US would gladly give up some of their transport planes so that Canada can also play along. Afghanistan was one thing, but if the shit ever did hit the fan and we're talking big time, I just could picture the US taking a more unilateral approach towards fighting the war. Of course they'd still be our closest ally, and probably request we send what we can, but for them to always give up their resources for us is taking a gamble on our part. So my only point was simply that we need bigger transport planes, and Hercs that can get the job done.

As for tanks, I dont necessarily agree that we should be giving them up like this. I WANT Canada to have a military with a punch, I love seeing the Leos in action ripping around in the fields and shaking fear into anyone within a close range to them. I know that they have made a dent in missions such as Kosovo. What my point was, however, is that when the politicians come to the military and say, "heres the money you'll get for the next 5 years, do what you want with it", it puts alot of programs, and equipment on the cutting block. In an ideal budget of course I want us to have all the firepower we can, so that we can pack a punch overseas if the need be. Its not ideal though, its the opposite, it sucks. I will almost never support what our politicians do to us, but sometimes you have to look at the reality of things.  :-[

 

[George Wallace]

: Putting on Philisophical Hat!.......Ah! yes! but what is Reality?

;D

GW

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Lets look at this slightly differently.  Tanks are important, ergo we must have tanks.  The budget is 13.5B, and isn't going to get any bigger.  But we have to have tanks.  What do we give up to have tanks?  It is a zero sum game gents.

Dave

 

[generic]

It seems to me with what I have read here (and I am fairly new here) and in other places that the overall the consensus is: Getting rid of Tanks, no matter the size, is a bad idea. 

Your example of tanks being too slow in Kabul, not as fast as a LAV III or Coyote, is OTL.  Have you ever wondered what happens in a narrow street of mud walls and houses, should these LAV or Coyote get ambushed?  It takes "40 acres" to turn one around.  A tank can turn on the spot.  Can a LAV of Coyote get out of there quickly?  No!  A tank can.  It has Fire Power.  It has raw power in its'
diesel engine and can drive through those mud houses and walls.  It has a lot better protection than the wheeled APCs we are now putting our lives in.

Tanks have Mobility, Fire Power, Protection, Good Comms and "Shock Action".  All something that is being lost on this new generation of Soldier and Politician.  All for a couple of bucks savings today

When you listen to it put logically like George Wallace has, it seems to sum up the point perfectly. However, as PPCLI Guy put it, it is a zero sum game because of the pathetically limited budget.  ??? 

I really do not like the feeling that this "new mobile light-weight" ideology for the future just feels and sounds like an ill begotten excuse for the fact that we choose not to put money in our military and it is nothing more than a doctrine that can fit around noncommital.

It seems like we decided to not have tanks because we lost the ability to take them anywhere without hitchhiking. But from all accounts that I've read we've had difficulties with the Stryker's as well...

It's a downward spiral.... :-\

 

[tomahawk6]

I agree with the assessment that the CF is facing a zero sum game where the defense budget is concerned. Canada should be spending
around $20 billion to maintain a modern military force. But with the existing budget were you CDS what would you do to free up money for critical military modernization ?

To answer the original question about MBT's. Tanks are nice but Canada hasnt deployed its MBT's. If you arent going to deploy the MBT's then why spend money on them ? A more deployable system than the Stryker MGS would be the M8 light tank with a 120mm main gun. It is deployable by C-130 and could be deployed with a BG more readily. The 82d would love to have this tank in its inventory.
Hopefully as the 82d is reorganized money will be found to buy 90-100 M8's to reconstitute the 82d's airborne armored battalions.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

All of you, well, most of you anyway, are missing a major point.

It doesn't matter that Canada only owns 114 Leopard C2.  It wouldn't matter if we owned half that number.  The number is sufficient to keep us familiar with war fighting.  It doesn't matter to the crew commanders, or the troop leaders, or the Generals, that we are operating Leo C2's, and not M1A1(HA).  The Leopard is easier and cheaper to maintain, but it allows us to remain current in the skills that the armour soldier has to be proficient in.  It also allows the Infantry and Armour to train together as combat arms should train together.

If a buildup in our Armed Forces is deemed necessary, then we have sufficient trained personnel to train additional soldiers in the required skills.  Of course, the equipment has to be relatively modern, it would most likely be easier to train civilians to operate an M1 than it would be to train crewman only current on a Sherman.

Lose the tank, and we lose not only capability, but we lose a huge chunk of future capability as well.  Once skills are lost by the armour and infantry, the skills that were so hard won are lost forever.

In my opinion, retaining one Brigade with a "medium" structure, would be the way to go.  Have three "light" brigades, or UA's, or whatever the current buzz word is.  Keep the medium, with the Leo's, the M113 (oops, I mean TLAV's) and M109.

Of course, we don't learn from history, do we?  Look at post WWI, post WWII, and now post cold war.  Sad.

 

[CupFrantic]

Just a question why wouldn't a M8 be a good compromise between having an only striker force or our out of date MBT? This would give us the fire power we need to be effective in a deployable force. This is not my area of knowledge let everything I read about the M8 is that it is a solid machine.

 

[tomhynes]

I'll have to admit I didnt think about the future aspect of things. I've never totally supported getting rid of our tanks, like I said before I love seeing them and hearing about our Leos. At least when a few Canadians can read articles about our tanks going up against the US tanks in the CANAM competition? I think thats what its called anyways. Thats all good publicity for our forces. Although the new things we're getting might look cool to the average Joe Canadian, I know they're pieces of crap just as much as the rest of you do. At least we can claim to have tanks that perform very well for the tasks theyre given, whether it be in a peacekeeping support role, or just training.

 

[jrhume]

I've been visiting the board for a couple of years and this issue keeps coming up.  No resolution seems possible because it looks like the money isn't going to be available -- barring radical changes in your situation.

So what about 'thinking outside the box' as our over-paid management consultants say.  What about a Canadian armored brigade as a component of a US Army division?  Let me expand a bit on the basic idea.

-- The US Army has lots of tanks.

-- Canada has plenty of willing tankers.

-- We even have historical precedent in the 1st Special Service Force, not to mention nearly a century of combat, side by side.

The practical aspects are not that difficult.  Canadians could train alongside their American counterparts in the same facilities.  The CF armored brigade could be stationed in Canada, but that's not a big deal.  Sizeable parts of American units are often stationed in different places.

It's the politics that would make the idea impossible, I suppose.  If the US were to be involved in fighting the Canadian government did not support, then the Canadian brigade could not be used in that conflict.  The Canadian unit could simply be sent to replace an American unit in some other place, freeing that unit for combat.  However, there are two major problems with that scenario: One -- it would detract from the overall fighting ability of the division in question.  Two -- the Canadian troopers would want to go with their friends and comrades in arms.

Nah.  It would never work.  Imagine the screams if someone even suggested such a thing. 

But there must be a way.  As was pointed out above, losing the tanks is one thing -- losing personnel, experience and training -- the culture of heavy armor, if you will, is a much more serious problem.

Jim

 

[tomahawk6]

I think I read somewhere that the artillery was being relegated to the reserves in favor of mortars ?
Looks to me like the plan is to quietly convert the army to a constabulary force.

 

[ArmyRick]

Its interesting to see the points being brought up here about tanks.

First point, wether we think it is stupid or not to get rid of tanks, the Govt says we aint getting tanks. No tanks for the CF in the foreseeable future.
Yes a huge set of skills and training and lessons learned will be lost.
Too bad. Canada put Liberals in, this what we get.

As far as worrying about China invading or some other massive all out war? I would much rather spend the money (if thats the case) on up grading our air fighter fleet or get the Navy some really kick #ss kit.
Now to get back to where we really are.

I agree the CF should have a 20 Billion $$$ (not unreasonable) budget. But we don't.

Tanks are going. Like a close friend thats terminally ill, we don't want to say good bye. However we must.

Lets move onwards.