Our North - SSE Policy Update Megathread

[GR66]

If Canada went to the GDLS XM-30 vehicle as a IFV, then I could see the M-10 being used as a DFS system, (as it’s a common chassis) for those battalions equipped with the OMFV, but one would still want a true MBT to operate with.

I really hope that the XM-30 wins the OMFV competition for the US Army. It would check a bunch of boxes in my CA fantasy world.

• Tracked IFV for a true CA Heavy Brigade
• Commonality with the US Army for logistics purposes
• Potential to be built in London
• M10 Booker as DFS variant using the same chassis
• Training commonality between the M10 and the Abrams (hopefully the AbramsX goes forward so it can replace our Leopard 2's)

 

[markppcli]

Keep in mind that in WWII, the US built some very capable heavy tanks, but choose to keep sending Sherman tanks. The reason was logistics. Eventually some US heavies made it to Europe, mainly to test the support infrastructure.

There are some very good reasons to have a light tank like the Booker and that revolves around logistics, terrain and infrastructure. There are a lot of places that would not allow a tank as heavy as the M1 to operate as the roads and bridges would collapse. so a light tank that can support the infantry there, is worth its weight in gold. The US can easily sustain some light tank battalions and it's likley these will sell as exports to replace the remaining CRVT's and other older light tank fleets out there.

Only it’s objectively not built to do what you said. It’s not meant to do pretty much anything we expect a light tank to do. Rather it’s meant to provide limited direct fire support to the air borne and air assault divisions. The 105 has been an obsolete tank gun since the mid 80s, the armour protection is only good when compared to the ISV, and so the question of what it would add to a mechanized formation looms large. It’s being fetishized by some who love the idea of the “small and handy” while failing to understand the design of the M10 and the intent behind it.

Logistics is exactly the issue, so you want to operate part of a very small production fleet or part of a very large production fleet? The late adoption of the Pershing is as much to do about parts, and the general view of tank destroyers as more important, than an inability to ship them.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Is Canada eyeing THAAD or Patriot? It makes sense but just not something to expect from any recent government to actually put this in writing...

This from the Our North document where it talks about defending North America and Canadian infrastructure ...

Edit: note also the plug to the CSC to help provide air defence to the continent. SM3 or SM6, maybe ...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Is Canada eyeing THAAD or Patriot? It makes sense but just not something to expect from any recent government to actually put this in writing...

This from the Our North document where it talks about defending North America and Canadian infrastructure ...

Edit: note also the plug to the CSC to help provide air defence to the continent. SM3 or SM6, maybe ...

Who knows, with this Government.

If they were smart, they would just leverage the massive SPY-7/SM2, SM3, SM6 buy that the RCN will be making over the next decade or two and keep logistics simple…

 

[Cloud Cover]

They did it again. Now they are saying it will be long range ground based missiles “to deter threats … at an appropriate range”. Presumably that means shooting down targets before they cross over land mass. (Very big presumption).

Is there an RCAF Regiment in the works? Are we BOMARC’ing again but this time with NGI? What a great way to push defence over 3% GDP with just a single program that will cripple every other project.

We won’t be Finland and acquire Davids Sling, that’s for sure.

 

[dapaterson]

Land missiles are ATACMS type systems, not GBAD, which was part of SSE and still being worked on (together with a GBAD UoR).

 

[Cloud Cover]

Right, but ATACMS type systems to “defend North America”? That’s not really needed.

 

[PrairieFella]

Only it’s objectively not built to do what you said. It’s not meant to do pretty much anything we expect a light tank to do. Rather it’s meant to provide limited direct fire support to the air borne and air assault divisions. The 105 has been an obsolete tank gun since the mid 80s, the armour protection is only good when compared to the ISV, and so the question of what it would add to a mechanized formation looms large. It’s being fetishized by some who love the idea of the “small and handy” while failing to understand the design of the M10 and the intent behind it.

Logistics is exactly the issue, so you want to operate part of a very small production fleet or part of a very large production fleet? The late adoption of the Pershing is as much to do about parts, and the general view of tank destroyers as more important, than an inability to ship them.

Agreed. When it comes up in conversation with fellow blackhatters, the rough consensus is that the Booker would only be useful in a light bde scenario where for example 5CMBG is converted to 5CABG (Canadian Airmobile Brigade Group) as a DFS or light armoured cav element. 3 Sqns plus an RHQ worth of Bookers and compatible wreckers along with some spares for 12RBC would be all we need max. They'd add some teeth to a bde otherwise mounted up in MRZR/DAGOR type platforms or whatever IMV the LUV program may provide. The main benefit of the Booker is the ability to move 2 in a C17 at once. We desperately need a new real tank, not a StuG.

 

[suffolkowner]

Agreed. When it comes up in conversation with fellow blackhatters, the rough consensus is that the Booker would only be useful in a light bde scenario where for example 5CMBG is converted to 5CABG (Canadian Airmobile Brigade Group) as a DFS or light armoured cav element. 3 Sqns plus an RHQ worth of Bookers and compatible wreckers along with some spares for 12RBC would be all we need max. They'd add some teeth to a bde otherwise mounted up in MRZR/DAGOR type platforms or whatever IMV the LUV program may provide. The main benefit of the Booker is the ability to move 2 in a C17 at once. We desperately need a new real tank, not a StuG.

Do you see a use for the Booker in amphibious landings for the USMC?

 

[PrairieFella]

Do you see a use for the Booker in amphibious landings for the USMC?

I'm certainly not an amphibious expert but I'd say no, simply because they aren't amphibious. If the USMC wants a second-wave light tank that lands after the marines then maybe it could be useful but I think they'd rather have real tanks from the Army land instead of tracked assault gun in those scenarios. Anywhere the USMC needs tanks the Army will be there anyways. That was the rationale for getting rid of USMC tanks in favour of a more agile force.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'm certainly not an amphibious expert but I'd say no, simply because they aren't amphibious. If the USMC wants a second-wave light tank that lands after the marines then maybe it could be useful but I think they'd rather have real tanks from the Army land instead of tracked assault gun in those scenarios. Anywhere the USMC needs tanks the Army will be there anyways. That was the rationale for getting rid of USMC tanks in favour of a more agile force.

not amphibious no but neither is the M1. The landing part being carried out via landing craft

 

[PrairieFella]

not amphibious no but neither is the M1. The landing part being carried out via landing craft

Exactly, so if you need a landing craft anyways, may as well have an army MBT. Better armour, better gun.

 

[dapaterson]

Right, but ATACMS type systems to “defend North America”? That’s not really needed.

We need to be ready if St Pierre and Miquelon get uppity.

 

[suffolkowner]

Exactly, so if you need a landing craft anyways, may as well have an army MBT. Better armour, better gun.

except that the tanks were too big for the landing crafts as i understood or limited to one

 

[PrairieFella]

except that the tanks were too big for the landing crafts as i understood or limited to one

They are on the cushioned landing craft. One tank max. The Booker would also be limited to one. Maybe two if the combat load is severely limited and the craft dimensions allow for it and that'd really be pushing it. I'd still rather have one real tank as opposed to one assault gun or two ammunition-limited assault guns.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed. When it comes up in conversation with fellow blackhatters, the rough consensus is that the Booker would only be useful in a light bde scenario where for example 5CMBG is converted to 5CABG (Canadian Airmobile Brigade Group) as a DFS or light armoured cav element. 3 Sqns plus an RHQ worth of Bookers and compatible wreckers along with some spares for 12RBC would be all we need max. They'd add some teeth to a bde otherwise mounted up in MRZR/DAGOR type platforms or whatever IMV the LUV program may provide. The main benefit of the Booker is the ability to move 2 in a C17 at once. We desperately need a new real tank, not a StuG.

Would the Leopard 1 have been considered as an appropriate light tank for an Air Mobile Brigade?

Leopard 1

Specifications
Mass	42.2 tonnes (increased on later models from original 40 tonnes)[1]
Length	9.54/8.29 m (gun forward/rearward)
Width	3.37 m
Height	2.39/2.7 m (turret roof/absolute)
Crew	4 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/loader)
Armour	Steel: 10–70 mm RHAe
Main armament	1 × 105 mm Royal Ordnance L7A3 L/52 rifled gun (13 rounds in turret 42 rounds in hull)
Secondary armament	2 × 7.62 mm MG 3 or FN MAG (co-axial and commander's hatch) (5500 rounds)
Engine	MTU MB 838 CaM 500, 10-cylinder, 37.4 litres, multi-fuel engine 830 PS (819 hp, 610 kW) at 2,200 RPM
Power/weight	19.6 PS (14.5 kW) /tonne
Suspension	Torsion bar
Operational range	600 km (on road), 450 km (cross-country)
Maximum speed

Booker M10

Specifications
Mass	roughly 38–42 tonnes (37–41 long tons; 42–46 short tons)[2][3]
Main armament	1 × 105 mm M35 tank gun
Secondary armament	1 × 12.7 mm M2HB heavy machine gun 1 × 7.62 mm M240B machine gun
Engine	Diesel MTU 8V199 TE23[4] 15.9 L, 1,070 hp (800 kW)
Transmission	Allison Transmission 3040 MX cross-drive
Suspension	Hydropneumatic[5]
Operational range	250–350 mi (400–560 km)
Maximum speed	45 mph (72 km/h)

The Booker is almost a dead ringer for the Leopard 1.

It is a long way from the Sheridan or the Scorpion.

 

[PrairieFella]

Would the Leopard 1 have been considered as an appropriate light tank for an Air Mobile Brigade?

Leopard 1

Specifications
Mass	42.2 tonnes (increased on later models from original 40 tonnes)[1]
Length	9.54/8.29 m (gun forward/rearward)
Width	3.37 m
Height	2.39/2.7 m (turret roof/absolute)
Crew	4 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/loader)
Armour	Steel: 10–70 mm RHAe
Main armament	1 × 105 mm Royal Ordnance L7A3 L/52 rifled gun (13 rounds in turret 42 rounds in hull)
Secondary armament	2 × 7.62 mm MG 3 or FN MAG (co-axial and commander's hatch) (5500 rounds)
Engine	MTU MB 838 CaM 500, 10-cylinder, 37.4 litres, multi-fuel engine 830 PS (819 hp, 610 kW) at 2,200 RPM
Power/weight	19.6 PS (14.5 kW) /tonne
Suspension	Torsion bar
Operational range	600 km (on road), 450 km (cross-country)
Maximum speed

Booker M10

Specifications
Mass	roughly 38–42 tonnes (37–41 long tons; 42–46 short tons)[2][3]
Main armament	1 × 105 mm M35 tank gun
Secondary armament	1 × 12.7 mm M2HB heavy machine gun 1 × 7.62 mm M240B machine gun
Engine	Diesel MTU 8V199 TE23[4] 15.9 L, 1,070 hp (800 kW)
Transmission	Allison Transmission 3040 MX cross-drive
Suspension	Hydropneumatic[5]
Operational range	250–350 mi (400–560 km)
Maximum speed	45 mph (72 km/h)

The Booker is almost a dead ringer for the Leopard 1.

It is a long way from the Sheridan or the Scorpion.

Strategic airlift capabilities are vastly different now compared to the 1970s-1980s. The Globemaster III can carry over double it's predecessor (Starlifter). Nowadays maybe you could use the Leo 1 in an Airmobile bde. Maybe you can use a Sherman. Wouldn't be advisable though since they aren't designed as such. The Booker is designed as such. The first div to get it is the 82nd, pretty clear what the intent is there.

 

[KevinB]

They are on the cushioned landing craft. One tank max. The Booker would also be limited to one. Maybe two if the combat load is severely limited and the craft dimensions allow for it and that'd really be pushing it. I'd still rather have one real tank as opposed to one assault gun or two ammunition-limited assault guns.

Actually the M1A2 was too heavy. Hence why the USMC never bought into it, but stuck to A1 variants.

 

[PrairieFella]

Actually the M1A2 was too heavy. Hence why the USMC never bought into it, but stuck to A1 variants.

I imagine that would be rectified with the SSC landing craft program? Isn't delivery starting this year or next?

 

[Kirkhill]

Strategic airlift capabilities are vastly different now compared to the 1970s-1980s. The Globemaster III can carry over double it's predecessor (Starlifter). Nowadays maybe you could use the Leo 1 in an Airmobile bde. Maybe you can use a Sherman. Wouldn't be advisable though since they aren't designed as such. The Booker is designed as such. The first div to get it is the 82nd, pretty clear what the intent is there.

I'm not sure we can agree that the intent is clear.

The Booker was purchased to replace the MGS which was, effectively, an assault gun. The scale of issue, one battalion per division allows for one company per brigade and one platoon per infantry battalion. The debate then turns to should the Booker battalion be massed, inviting its use as a poor man's tank, or dispersed to as an a assault gun?

I'm trying to understand if the Blackhats in the States are that keen of keeping jobs that they are willing to try to use the Booker like an Abrams.