Should the CF retain MBTs?

[das]

OMG your kidding me no way no way Canada can‘t drop its tanks why in the whole world would Canada drop its tanks why....what were they thinking with todays advancments in armour we can paradrop battle tanks in to hot zones i saw it on the history channel the tank was all plastic but was juts as strong and powerful as the m1a1 and leos who would want to pass up a tank they server soo many good jobs as transport support and even static defence if Canada goes all inf then any one we fight who has tanks will have the advantage for what can inf really do to a tank ohhh fire anti tank shells wow you can‘t if the tank blasts you first ya know I for one really hope Canada doesn‘t drop its tanks it would be the worst thing Canada could do

 

[Pikache]

Just a grunt asking a question.

Then what would be a good tank to replace the Leos, putting in all factors together, ie current CF‘s role, cost, budget, etc.

 

[das]

I not too sure I like the leos I feel they are a good tank even if they are old i would just upgrade tham to fit in with todays changing times **** Britan still uses a lot of its old golfwar age armour I belive so why can‘t Canada?? but in a few years the way techs are improving on things Canada could easly get a good tank if are gov would only think of its protection and not its greed

 

[John Nayduk]

The Afghanistan tour would be a good one, like the Balkans in the early 90’s. The message that came to our Regiment says they only want pte to MCpl & Lts to Capts. With all the reserves they are going to need, I find it hard to believe that there is no jobs anywhere for Sgts and W.O. Dave W. is supposed to go but he’s one of those touchy-feely CIMIC guys now.
I understand that the pm has committed troops to post war Iraq but no one knows yet who or how many. We’ll see.
I was wondering how they were going to get more Coyotes with the budget we have. Heard rumours that we are going to get 9-12 down here starting in September but I find that hard to believe.

About a replacement for the Leopards. The discussion about the best replacement tank has been going on since the First Tank Battalion started using the Mark V in WW1. What ever they choose, I’m sure it will be build by Bombardier.
:crybaby:

 

[Recce41]

John
The Reg Armour units will take all the Coyotes from the Grunts. No Res will receive any. But may get courses. The Role for the Res will be the mud Recce.
The best tank would be a light one. Maybe a CG2000, or some of the new ones. Such as the Battle Tank Light, which is designed by the British. It has a 105, weight in about 20-25 ton. Crew of 4, no high tech stuff, but TI, MRS, Stab. I wish I had a pic. It looks like a very small Challenger.
We don‘t need MBTs, no Army really does. Today a Tank can be small have a 120, and be light. The Leos are just Too old. Before I left Petawawa, there were 5 out of 17 grounded for hulls. 2 were grounded due to turrets.
Just because we have a new style turret does not make it new.

 

[Bert]

If I could ask, how will the Canadian armour units deal with lessons learned from Iraq?

I‘m asking this in concept not to get classified
info. The general conventional concept of armour engagements if I‘m correct is usally recce, tank and against tank, and infantry against tank and vice versa.

In Iraq, we see a majority (Im assuming) of Iraq tanks killed by airbourne launched missles and ordnance by A-10s, Apaches, AC-130s, and maybe B52s. The Amercians are using alot of high-tech against Iraqi armour.

If a Canadian armour unit was attacked by another armoured unit, say Iraqi, then the engagement is basically tactics, stradgey, and similar tank on tank/TOW on tank to win. If a Canadian unit was attacked by a Russian, American, Chinese unit as an example, probably the engagement would be more high-tech in nature and the tactics/stradgey changes.

Given what is seen in Iraq, will the Canadian armour and future armour have more defence against
airbourne tank-killers or high-tech recce?

 

[John Nayduk]

Dave:
From what Col Rousseau was saying, you are correct about the reserves and the light RECCE role, which makes sense for us anyway. I remember the Cougar days and only getting the vehicles for a few weekends a year. At least this way we can train year round on the equipment that we would use. I was trying to figure out how they were going to equip 9 RECCE squadrons and the training centers and still give the reserves all these vehicles.
Couldn’t agree more about the turrets. Our Leopards rolled off the line almost 30 years ago. Nothing last forever, does it?
We probably don’t need anything too fancy or high-tech. As long as they buy enough to fully equip full Armoured Regiments.

 

[John Nayduk]

Bert:
The lessons learned in Iraq will no doubt by studied for year to come. The use of airpower to defeat tanks is sound and so far, very successful. It’s the modern version of holding the high ground in a battle.
A tank and its crew survive by using it’s wits, training and deception. It’s hard to do much about airpower except try to hide. They can hit you if they can’t see you. When fighting other tanks, using low ground or other cover to move into firing positions. Who ever we are fighting, our tactics would stay pretty much the same.

As far as future armour developments, that would be a good question to ask a scientist.

 

[Jason Jarvis]

In light of this great discussion on the future of Canada‘s armoured units, have a glance at the article that I stumbled across in the Daily Telegraph (UK) today:

Army to axe one in five of its tanks
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 01/04)

The Army is to lose up to a fifth of its tanks and heavy artillery under plans drawn up on the basis that light ground forces will be all it needs in any battle it is likely to have to fight in the future.

The plans, devised before the difficulties suffered by light forces in the Iraq war, would lead to the axing of more than one tank regiment and a complete artillery regiment, the journal Defence Analysis reports today.

The measures, part of the Ministry of Defence‘s Equipment Plan 2003, are not designed to cut costs. They are based on the idea that all forces will be much lighter in the future.

They reflect the belief of the RAF and the Royal Navy that air power and light forces, such as the Royal Marine commandos, can carry out most of the tasks Britain‘s armed forces are likely to face.

But with coalition commanders in Iraq calling in more armoured units amid concerns that they will not have enough tanks to take on the Republican Guard, the plans are already looking like a mistake.

The cuts would see between 56 and 84 Challenger 2 tanks and 18 and 24 AS90 self-propelled guns axed.

The importance of the support provided by the AS90 guns has been highlighted by the constant demand for them to protect US marines around Nasiriyah.

The Royal Armoured Corps‘s anti-tank role is due to be taken over by the Apache attack helicopter. But it will not be fully operational in the British Army until 2012 and its reputation has been damaged by its vulnerability to Iraqi ground fire.

Allied commanders were shocked at how badly the Apache coped against ground fire and rocket-propelled grenade launchers in the battle against the Republican Guard north of Karbala. Less than a third of the Apaches that took part in that attack are now serviceable.

Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, said yesterday that the plans needed to be rethought.

"In the aftermath of what has been seen in Iraq, it beggars belief that, in effect, one artillery regiment and up to one and a half tank regiments should be retired."

Is this some kind of twisted April Fool‘s joke? I have to think that the PR guys in Whitehall will be very busy handling this one over the next few days, especially if UK forces start taking heavy casualties in Iraq.

Maybe we could buy the Challengers at fire-sale prices, just like our "new" subs.

 

[onecat]

"The cuts would see between 56 and 84 Challenger 2 tanks and 18 and 24 AS90 self-propelled guns axed."

Hey if the UK still plans on doing this when its all over, maybe Canada can get in there and buy them. Even 56 Callengers would be a huge benifit to the CF, yes its not a Leo2 or M1A2 but from what I‘ve read they are pretty close and if the UK doesn‘t need them we sure do.

I seriously doubt that they do these cuts now that war is showing that Tanks and SP guns are still very important.

What do the armoured guys feel about the Challengers? I realize that many people have a thing for Abams, but is it really the best?

 

[das]

yes the Challager is a good tank its about as good as the leos i just laugh at how poor canada is we buy stuff at bargen basement prices hahaha

as for the m1a1 sure its a good tank and powerful but its also got high tech gagets in it and if you drop a bomb that messes with computer aimers and stuff it becomes a big metal tomb were as the old tanks that don‘t have computer controled coffee makers will have no problems coping and I‘m sure with the way us canucks fight any age of tank will be like brandnew in are hands give us a leo a challanger or even a ww2 tiger and we can make it work i know we can

 

[GGHG_Cadet]

Check this out
cdnarmy.ca
Hey guys our tanks aren‘t too bad if they can hover . Right?

 

[das]

ya ok we have hovertanks ya ok and where do we find them ???? i think your thinking way to much there we will not have hover tanks tell 2030 or more

 

[Korus]

Has anybody heard about how the M2/M3‘s have taken out some T-72s in Iraq using their 25mm bushmasters? We could just use our Coyotes as tank hunters..

Of course all it takes is one 125mm round to have a bad day in a Coyote.

But then again, the Iraqis have export equipment with low grade steel, so if I don‘t think the 25mm would as lucky with a T-72 or T-80 made from high grade steel.

 

[Linc]

Granted, I‘m no armour expert, but when the Iraq war is mentioned, let‘s remeber both sides are fielding armour at the brigade and even divison level. 50 or even 100 Canadian tanks we be only of limited use in such conflicts, and its doubtful the Yanks would find much use in having our Leos embedded in one of their Abrams formations, unless they‘re using them to intentionally draw enemy fire. Sure a single Leo could hold its own against an Iraqi T-72, especially given the updated imaging and fire control system, but we will never have an entire armoured division to send up against a Republican Guard division.

We could buy new Abrams or Leo 2‘s but we‘d still have to attach them onto a Yank or Brit formation because we wouldn‘t have enough for our own stand-alone force, and I‘m not sure that would even be money well spent as it would not generate much bang for the buck in terms useful contributions to a coalition.

Remember the last time the west used armoured force on a large scale was over a decade ago in the first Iraq war. Since then, there have easily been at least a half-dozen asymetrical conflicts in which heavy armour was marginalized or unneccessary: Afghanistan, Somalia, Kosovo, UNPROFOR, IFOR, etc. Tanks do have a role in RMA but unfortunately, I think it is only as Direct Fire Support for infantry. Maybe every couple of decades or so there would be a war where large amounts of armour play a key role, but I think they would be too infrequent to justify the expense and would require a force size well beyond the scope of even the most realistically generous Canadian Defence budget.

 

[das]

very true but still we can‘t just scrape the old tanks who knows we may need them to add the inf. squads in some fire fights or as support just incase the enemy has tanks still we could update the old tanks and bring them around to todays stats but owell i don‘t think are pasifistic goverment would want to the way i see canada going its going to drop all military forces and turn us all into a police force or something

but thats just my opinon nothing more

 

[Jarnhamar]

Even though our tanks may not be considered on the modern battlefield wouldnt it be a good idea to keep them around for atleast training so if our infantry/artillery/armored recce have to work with a country that uses tanks we would have some practice working with them?

 

[Virgo_Quinn]

Interesting discussion so far. Poor old Leopards. Theyre not so bad. Made in Germany after all. They‘re more than a match for any armour you see in Third World armies like Iraq‘s. T55‘s and T72‘s are what the cat was designed to eat. Sure its no match for the armour of some of our buddies, (or the Russians), but we‘re not going to war with them anytime soon I hope. And isnt one of the major reasons we chose the Leopard is its semi amphib ability? Lots of lakes and rivers in this country...

We could at least upgrade them to the next level, I think ours are mostly Mk.IV while for instance the Dutch have the Mk.V, plz correct me if I‘m wrong.

Where does armour fit into the big defense picture? The CAF have a two fold mission: to defend Canada and support our friends and allies.
Let‘s face it though, on the first score, we (thankfully) dont need large domestic armoured formations, unless the Russians, Chinese or Yankess mess with us. Even then, huge swaths of Canadian territory are good to excellent tank country; the Mackenzie river valley, the tundra, and of course the Prairies. We‘d need at least a couple dozen armoured divisions to defend all that. So, tanks are not at present vital to the defense of Canada.

International deployment is the other role our Armoured forces could have. Other than the smallish garrion force we used to have in Germany, the last time significant Cdn. armoured untis were deployed was the Korean War. When you‘re dealing with non conventional wars, tanks are not that usefull; lighter armour is called for. The other role our armour could play is to embed (are you sick of that word yet?) ourselves with US or UK units, but as a previous poster noted, there are issues of interoperability, and, well, our tanks arent as good as theirs. Do we really want to send (via fedex of course) our armour overseas at great cost to defend some ammo dump or act as a screening force (read: cannon fodder) for US or UK armour? I think not.

The future of Canadian armour is probably the Coyote. Everybody loves it. A great example of how Canadians can make a supberb killing machine if we put our minds to it. I dare you to mess with a regiment of Coyotes backed up by the USAF, which was their role in Afghanistan. Having said that there is still a need for a light tank, heavier than a Bradley but nothing as big as the Abrams.

But if one day we do need to face hordes of tanks invading Canada, or one of our allies, we‘d better retain the doctrine and training, or look out.

There is a larger truth at work here of course, and that is that in peacetime, our armed forces have always been starved of the latest equipment and resources. We always wait until the very outbreak of hostilities before improving our military. It‘s worked for us so far, but its a dangerous mentality to be in. If you want peace, as they say, prepare for war. :tank:

 

[Recce41]

Our tanks are light tanks now. At 43 tons they are light weights. It can ford, (drive under water) anytank can do that. We bought it to spit the US, in 1976 they wanted (forced)us to buy new tanks. So in 1978 we bought the Leo. Most tanks are rate 60-70m ton. We do need tanks, a Country/Army without tanks is not an Army. Our tanks are not the best but do the job. You could 2 troops on a Antinov. Thats 8 tanks. We can keep our tanks for Res, but buy new for the Regs. A Coyote cannot fight, a tank. Linc, we cannot work with the Yanks because of how they fight. Brits maybe. A heavy M1/Leo2/Chall. is a useless tank for us. Heavy tanks were didnot even really used in Iraq. It was mostly a SP Gun. Blasting buildings. The Iraqis Tanks were done in mostly by Apaches. So anyone thinks "Cool" buy a M1/Leo2, growup. We cannot afford to buy them. But we could buy cheaper one ie Ariete, Leclarc or even a T80. :tank:

 

[Pikache]

Okay then.
What are the idea candidates for medium tank?
Didn‘t know Leclerc and T80 were medium tanks...