L
Linc
Guest
Well I agree that Canada currently still needs tanks, but I try not to have the mindset of "you‘re not an army without tanks". A decade ago, they used to say "you‘re not a navy without battleships," now you can‘t find a battleship in any modern fleet.
But we all seem to be in agreement that the role for tanks in Canada‘s army is infantry support, not as a stand-alone combat force. In this regard, I don‘t think the Abrams is the right tank, unless they come out with a diesel version. The current gas-turbine version expells exhaust at 1000 degrees F which means infantry has to keep its distance in urban-type operations and cannot follow closely behind the approaching armour. Not to mention the Abrams engine is very expensive to maintain and operate as it is a fuel hog.
Check out this article
We need something that can put down some ‘heavy‘ direct fire and can take a hit from a 20mm gun, RPG, or AA gun being used in the anti-surface role. These are weapon threats that are common to almost every conflict. This should be the idea behind a Leo replacement, whether that can be accomplished by a medium tank, light tank, or some to-be-developed up-armoured LAV-type vehicle. That is how procurement strategy should work, by identifying capabilities needed, not by saying "armies must have tanks" or "navies must have battleships". Tanks are means to end, they are not ends in themselves. Right now we need some armoured DFS capability that‘s currently being provided by the Leo, but If some non-tank vehicle could do the job more efficiently, I‘d say ditch the tanks.
But we all seem to be in agreement that the role for tanks in Canada‘s army is infantry support, not as a stand-alone combat force. In this regard, I don‘t think the Abrams is the right tank, unless they come out with a diesel version. The current gas-turbine version expells exhaust at 1000 degrees F which means infantry has to keep its distance in urban-type operations and cannot follow closely behind the approaching armour. Not to mention the Abrams engine is very expensive to maintain and operate as it is a fuel hog.
Check out this article
We need something that can put down some ‘heavy‘ direct fire and can take a hit from a 20mm gun, RPG, or AA gun being used in the anti-surface role. These are weapon threats that are common to almost every conflict. This should be the idea behind a Leo replacement, whether that can be accomplished by a medium tank, light tank, or some to-be-developed up-armoured LAV-type vehicle. That is how procurement strategy should work, by identifying capabilities needed, not by saying "armies must have tanks" or "navies must have battleships". Tanks are means to end, they are not ends in themselves. Right now we need some armoured DFS capability that‘s currently being provided by the Leo, but If some non-tank vehicle could do the job more efficiently, I‘d say ditch the tanks.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I think that article was from someone that knows **** about what a tank does. A tank is designed to take ground with the inf. The are the support as Inf roll up and take the trenches. A Lav cannot do that. Even a Sqn of Light 30 ton tanks, coming at you with make you feel. Very alone. You need Plow/Roller tanks to clear mine fields. A plow tank can also ripe up dug in positions. The tank is ring of steel, that punches out to hold up against enemy counter-attack tanks. They are the 2000m killing veh. Lavs cannot stand up to tanks.
Bottom line Tanks are important.
Bottom line Tanks are important.
Bert
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 230
The tank and infantry are crucial in a ground engagement. I‘d figure Recce41 makes a good point.
I can‘t recall the article I read recently [and I don‘t know if its true] stated that the Iraqi defence against the American armoured columns was a classic Russian stradegy. American airpower basically wiped out a majority of Iraqi armour and those who will militarily go against the American forces in the future may have taken notes.
In relation to Canada and lessons learned from Iraq, what would be the better future for Canadian armour? Being over simplistic, I‘d figure more stealth and a tighter triad of air power (helicopter air defense), tank, and infantry for ground operations and this would influence the future of the Canadian tank.
I suspect if Canada would send armoured forces anywhere, it would be under NATO or the UN and the Iraq war isn‘t a fair parallel. Its just how quickly the Iraqi tank was identified, targeted, and killed may mean a change in conventional thinking and likely in militaries around the world.
I can‘t recall the article I read recently [and I don‘t know if its true] stated that the Iraqi defence against the American armoured columns was a classic Russian stradegy. American airpower basically wiped out a majority of Iraqi armour and those who will militarily go against the American forces in the future may have taken notes.
In relation to Canada and lessons learned from Iraq, what would be the better future for Canadian armour? Being over simplistic, I‘d figure more stealth and a tighter triad of air power (helicopter air defense), tank, and infantry for ground operations and this would influence the future of the Canadian tank.
I suspect if Canada would send armoured forces anywhere, it would be under NATO or the UN and the Iraq war isn‘t a fair parallel. Its just how quickly the Iraqi tank was identified, targeted, and killed may mean a change in conventional thinking and likely in militaries around the world.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Just to add an interesting fact to one of Recce41‘s points, in the first gulf war the Americans lead one offensive with tanks equipped with plows. What where the plows for? To, litterally, burry the enemy alive in their trenches.
Man, that would be a horrible way to go.
Man, that would be a horrible way to go.
- Reaction score
- 9,728
- Points
- 1,260
I still remain interested in the Merkava III with the small bay in the back. Do any of you Black Hats think this can expanded on to have a dismount section in the back. It would eliminate the need of AFV if the infantry could roll up in a 60 MBT and peel out of the back when needed.
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,573
- Points
- 1,160
Infantry travelling in tanks is a combination that would cripple combat effectiveness. Yes, it would provide significantly more firepower and armour protection to the infantry section. However, it would also bind those tanks to the Infantry after the dismount. The conduct of exploitation would be significantly prejudiced, as it would result in the tanks leaving the Infantry with no alternate means of mechanized mobility and without section level kit. In a withdrawal, tanks would be employed ferrying infantry to the rear when they could better be employed as a guard.
There would also be the potential to loss a tank and an infantry section to one well aimed AT missile. Tanks would be bigger, harder to hide, and easier to shoot.
APC-Tanks would also reduce a commander’s flexibility. He would always be forced to work with the same tank : infantry ratio. There are times when it is better to have more infantry (FIBUA, woods clearing, etc) and times when more tanks are desirable (Iraq, Wainwright, etc).
The APC has a separate role from the tank. It is best to keep that role in a separate vehicle.
There would also be the potential to loss a tank and an infantry section to one well aimed AT missile. Tanks would be bigger, harder to hide, and easier to shoot.
APC-Tanks would also reduce a commander’s flexibility. He would always be forced to work with the same tank : infantry ratio. There are times when it is better to have more infantry (FIBUA, woods clearing, etc) and times when more tanks are desirable (Iraq, Wainwright, etc).
The APC has a separate role from the tank. It is best to keep that role in a separate vehicle.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,227
- Points
- 1,160
A marine buddy of mine said a problem they had run into a few times during war games were officers trying to use bradleys loaded with troops as tanks and the bradly would get hit and all troops on board were considered killed.
I would think having a tank dual tasked with carrying infantry would really mess with tactics unless the infantry in the tank were not an actual part of a platoon/company but rather they belonged to the individual tank. When required they would dismount and fight through trench or whatever, maybe along with assault groups from other tanks. In the defensive the infantry could deploy around the tank and act security. This would probably take away a lot of the effectiveness of the grunts though.
I would think having a tank dual tasked with carrying infantry would really mess with tactics unless the infantry in the tank were not an actual part of a platoon/company but rather they belonged to the individual tank. When required they would dismount and fight through trench or whatever, maybe along with assault groups from other tanks. In the defensive the infantry could deploy around the tank and act security. This would probably take away a lot of the effectiveness of the grunts though.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I would think by now that that the second Iraq war has proved without a doubt that tanks have a place on the modern battlefield to; kill other tanks, support mixed weapons teams in MOUT environments...
What isn't clear is why the DND is considering letting go of Canada's only armoured assets to be replaced by a unproven system (MGS). This would appear to border on the cavalier, as far as attitude for the well being/effectiveness of the Canadian soldier.
If you get rid of the tanks what happens to:
1. infantry mixed combat team and anti-tank training without tanks?
2. If in future you decide that it was a mistake and you need MBT assets again, who will run them, when all experts retire?
3. How can DND consider losing MBT when they have not even written a defence white paper since (correct me if I am wrong) 1991?
MHO
What isn't clear is why the DND is considering letting go of Canada's only armoured assets to be replaced by a unproven system (MGS). This would appear to border on the cavalier, as far as attitude for the well being/effectiveness of the Canadian soldier.
If you get rid of the tanks what happens to:
1. infantry mixed combat team and anti-tank training without tanks?
2. If in future you decide that it was a mistake and you need MBT assets again, who will run them, when all experts retire?
3. How can DND consider losing MBT when they have not even written a defence white paper since (correct me if I am wrong) 1991?
MHO
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
from what i can tell, the tanks are being dropped because we can't really use them outside of canada. what good is a MBT with no aircraft to transport it? sure you can train on it, but why train on something you'll never use outside canada. the question here should not be about MBTs but about when the hell are the decision makers gonna buck up and get tactical airlift capability for the military so we can actually transport equipment and make use of it over seas.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Infanteer said:
The Merkavav 3/4 is a near perfect tank IMHO. As for an Infantry carrier, just get some with the Turrets removed to create more space and place either a Bradley Turret or one or two RWMount. This will help with the commonality of parts and the overall protection of the passengers. Plus get whole lot of either, not 100 tanks plus 300 APCs. We need a 1 crew to 3 tank ratio. 1 tank to be used, 1 tank to be stored for war(or training), 1 tank to be refit/updated. If we remove the politicos from the buying equation, I am sure that we can get them cheaper and quicker than with their "help".
As for Strategic Transport, flying the tanks may be unrealistic. Shipping them may be more practical. IE: to airmail a 60+ tank battalion you need at least 60+ flights<assuning its 1 Flight per 60+ ton tank, I am not aware of any air transport that can lift and land 120+ tons on a single load>, plus the echelon (at 20+ vehicles per squadron - some of which like the recovery vehicle which is as heavy and large as a tank- you need another 10 -approx flights). It would be very difficult and costly.
Sealift is better. Plus the Sealift can double as a refueling/resupply ship when not busy moving armour. Or a Bulk Cargo container for commercial use.
There are alot of options out there that Canada can use to replace its Leo fleet. But none of them can be used with out the expressed will of the Citizens. (IE vote these left winged nut jobs out).
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
The question should really be resolved by our doctrine, since every type of tank has its own particular advantages and disadvantages. When the focus was on defeating the USSR on the plains of Germany, MBTs needed more and more protection and firepower. Generation Two tanks like the Leopard 1 or AMX-30 had to be uparmoured from their 30 tonne design weights, while Generation Three vehicles like the M-1, Leopard 2 or Challenger tipped the scales at 60 tonnes or more. The proposed Block III tank program launched under President Reagan was looking to replace the M-1 with a totally new vehicle which was projected to be almost 80 tonnes in weight!
If our focus is to be an expeditionary force, then monsters like the Block III are clearly unfeasable unless there is a giant commitment to the supporting transport and logistics infrastructure as well. The next thing to consider is what sort of work the expeditionary force is supposed to do. A "Cavalry" force designed for screening and flanking tasks could probably do with light tanks or FSVs derived from APC and IFV hulls, since the focus is not shock action or direct battles with the enemy. Our force, as defined in the "White Paper", is supposed to ba a general purpose force, so by doctrine and government mandate, we would need a medium tank in the 30-50 tonne range armed with a high velocity 120mm cannon, advanced fire control system and a range of active and passive offensive and defensive measures.
If our focus is to be an expeditionary force, then monsters like the Block III are clearly unfeasable unless there is a giant commitment to the supporting transport and logistics infrastructure as well. The next thing to consider is what sort of work the expeditionary force is supposed to do. A "Cavalry" force designed for screening and flanking tasks could probably do with light tanks or FSVs derived from APC and IFV hulls, since the focus is not shock action or direct battles with the enemy. Our force, as defined in the "White Paper", is supposed to ba a general purpose force, so by doctrine and government mandate, we would need a medium tank in the 30-50 tonne range armed with a high velocity 120mm cannon, advanced fire control system and a range of active and passive offensive and defensive measures.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Hello all,
This is my first post and is on a most interesting subject. Please excuse the spelling and grammer.
I have to agree with the above statement that we must keep our general purpose role alive by somehow gaining an up to date, effective MBT. To think that the direct fire support role can be filled by a 105 equip't LAV (stryker) is once again short and cheap thinking on the Govs part. Our effectiveness and ability to keep our guys alive in anything more dangerous then a small police action (which our people seem to think is the only role our military fills) would be seriously compromised.
The Leopard II would be nice since it would be an fairly easy cross over. I hear the Germans have offered some cheap (but this rumour comes up ever few years anyway). How true is it this time?
With that being said. our ability to transport anything is as you know has completely failed. We have no heavy lift capability, our Herc's are about to fly apart, and our supply and support ships are ready to rust out. Thus once again we must rely on our "friends" and our pocket books to haul us around. Much like what happened in Kosovo with the Leopard C-2s (I wasn't there.)
So how likely is it that we will be able to not only afford MBT's? But be able to afford to deploy them?
Thanks
This is my first post and is on a most interesting subject. Please excuse the spelling and grammer.
I have to agree with the above statement that we must keep our general purpose role alive by somehow gaining an up to date, effective MBT. To think that the direct fire support role can be filled by a 105 equip't LAV (stryker) is once again short and cheap thinking on the Govs part. Our effectiveness and ability to keep our guys alive in anything more dangerous then a small police action (which our people seem to think is the only role our military fills) would be seriously compromised.
The Leopard II would be nice since it would be an fairly easy cross over. I hear the Germans have offered some cheap (but this rumour comes up ever few years anyway). How true is it this time?
With that being said. our ability to transport anything is as you know has completely failed. We have no heavy lift capability, our Herc's are about to fly apart, and our supply and support ships are ready to rust out. Thus once again we must rely on our "friends" and our pocket books to haul us around. Much like what happened in Kosovo with the Leopard C-2s (I wasn't there.)
So how likely is it that we will be able to not only afford MBT's? But be able to afford to deploy them?
Thanks
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Infanteer said:
This might tie back into the Cavalry thread (or maybe Future Infantry), but I can see a role for "close protection sections" deployed with the tanks or AFV's under certain circumstances, such as dealing with complex terrain. This would be a suppliment to the normal compliment of Infantry, so you should picture the AFV moving up to a dominating intersection and dismounting the close protection section, while the APCs or IFVs peel off to deliver the troops for the assault. In open terrain, where tanks and AFV's have fewer restrictions, the close protection section can be replaced with extra ammunition (the Merkava's rear space is the reserve ammo bin, by taking it out a section can be stuffed into that space), or perhaps a section of dismounted scouts, or maybe a VL missile launch bay...a certain amount of flexibility will open up more possibilities for the armoured and the combat team commander.
- Reaction score
- 7,688
- Points
- 1,160
Actually a_majoor,
Combining your thoughts with those of pbi, 2B and the USMC Major that 2B was talking about, with some of my own meandering this is what I come up with now.
Your Single Combat Branch (SCB) unit to be formed as I suggested around a Light Infantry/Rifle core of 3-4 companies and Combat Support Company. BUT... whereas I suggested using the LAVs as a basic carrier for the Support Company use a 30 tonne tracked Carrier like the CV90 in its ISC, Mortar and 105/120 mm variants. That weight of vehicle seems to be reasonably RPG proof. Revive the old concept of the Infantry Tank. Slow and Heavily armoured.
The relatively small number of tracked vehicles (20-25) and their weight, coupled with the light companies, potentially motorized would make for a "medium" weight force with effective armoured support that would be relatively easy to deploy.
By contrast the Cavalry function, ranging over long distances rapidly, would still be best done by the LAV and its variants.
Remember our modern MBT is actually a Medium Battle Tank. It was the compromise between the Heavy Infantry Tank which was slow moving and heavily armoured, and the Light Cavalry Tank which was fast moving and supposedly heavily gunned. The Brits and the Israelis came at the MBT from the Heavy side and created the Merkava and Centurion, while the Germans, French and Americans came at it from the Cavalry side and created the Sherman, the AMX30 and Leopard.
Combining your thoughts with those of pbi, 2B and the USMC Major that 2B was talking about, with some of my own meandering this is what I come up with now.
Your Single Combat Branch (SCB) unit to be formed as I suggested around a Light Infantry/Rifle core of 3-4 companies and Combat Support Company. BUT... whereas I suggested using the LAVs as a basic carrier for the Support Company use a 30 tonne tracked Carrier like the CV90 in its ISC, Mortar and 105/120 mm variants. That weight of vehicle seems to be reasonably RPG proof. Revive the old concept of the Infantry Tank. Slow and Heavily armoured.
The relatively small number of tracked vehicles (20-25) and their weight, coupled with the light companies, potentially motorized would make for a "medium" weight force with effective armoured support that would be relatively easy to deploy.
By contrast the Cavalry function, ranging over long distances rapidly, would still be best done by the LAV and its variants.
Remember our modern MBT is actually a Medium Battle Tank. It was the compromise between the Heavy Infantry Tank which was slow moving and heavily armoured, and the Light Cavalry Tank which was fast moving and supposedly heavily gunned. The Brits and the Israelis came at the MBT from the Heavy side and created the Merkava and Centurion, while the Germans, French and Americans came at it from the Cavalry side and created the Sherman, the AMX30 and Leopard.
Similar threads
