The twit who made this decision was given a too small pot of money and told to replace the engineer tanks. The decision was made to do the AEV fleet right. The alternative would have been to buy a few tokens of each vehicle type but not enough of either to create & sustain a capability.George Wallace said:What? Have all the bridges in the world suddenly become up to the standard of 70 to 100 ton Bridge Class? I wonder if the twit who made this decision has heard of "overbridging"?
MCG said:....... The alternative would have been to buy a few tokens of each vehicle type but not enough of either to create & sustain a capability.
It is a crappy situation, ........
George Wallace said:Where am I coming from?
Well. I am of the philosophy that it is cheaper in the long run to take the extra expense now and do the job right the first time with good quality ____________ to last a long period of time/lifetime; than to wait, allowing the problem to get exponentially worse, and the expense of the job to increase with inflation, and then do the job to lower standards which will require repair/replacement at more expense within a short period of time.
Sorry, but I see the current management (government bureaucracy) as holding the opposite philosophy; "go on the cheap" and have to spend more in the long run, due to replacement and/or repairs.
Arguably, this situation existed prior to the AVLB decision. The current AVLB bridge cannot support the Leopard 2A6 (especially with all the extra add-on stuff) beyond a few risk crossings. We'd be burning through bridge quarters very fast and it would not belong before they'd all be condemned.Kat Stevens said:So now, effectively, there is no bridging capability of any kind in the Canadian army.
Kat Stevens said:So now, effectively, there is no bridging capability of any kind in the Canadian army. you would be hard pressed to find 30 bodies in a CER that are even familiar with, let alone good at, MGB, ACROWE, or MR building. You may find 2 or 3 SNCOs that barely remember something about it on their 6A, but couldn't command a build. Most of the current sappers of all ranks have never even seen a Baillie bridge, except for on "A Bridge Too Far" on History Channel. Just break up the regiments, send them all to infantry battalions with appropriate new hatbadges, and have done with it.
You are thinking of the Leguan 26 m bridge. That system has been adapted to trucks, Leopard 1 hulls and Leopard 2 hulls. It is also the system used by the US M1 Wolverine AVLB.Kat Stevens said:An upgrade to the existing rolling stock is available, including an MLC 70 bridge. Made in Greece, I think.
MCG said:You are thinking of the Leguan 26 m bridge. That system has been adapted to trucks, Leopard 1 hulls and Leopard 2 hulls. It is also the system used by the US M1 Wolverine AVLB.
http://www.armedforces-int.com/categories/mobile-bridges/leguan-system.asp
http://www.kmweg.de/produkt-leguan-en.html
I know the NDHQ staff responsible for managing the current AVLB are fully aware of this option. There is no money though.
MECHANICAL BREACHING AND CLEARANCE
11. General. Mechanical means of breaching include ploughs, rollers and flails which are employed in accordance with Engineer Field Manual, Volume 10, Mines and Booby Traps, Part 2, Engineers and Assault Pioneers and Armoured Regiment in Battle. The full details of these are beyond the scope of this chapter but are summarized below.
12. Ploughs. Tanks can be fitted with a plough attachment which ploughs through the ground in front of each track; it lifts any mines in its path and pushes them to one side clear of the tracks. If a tank is fitted with the plough attachment, its mobility is
restricted when ploughing and crossing hard ground is slow which lengthens the time the tank is exposed to enemy fire. The plough follows the terrain but it is unlikely to be effective in close country where there are roots and boulders or where there are numerous ditches. If the leading tank only is fitted with ploughs, the following tanks must keep in exactly the same track which is
difficult under operational conditions. Otherwise the following tanks may actuate mines pushed to one side by the plough. As the
plough covers only the line of the tracks, the tank could also be immobilized by full width attack mines.
13. Rollers. Tanks can also be fitted with heavy rollers which cover the ground in front of each track and actuate single pressure
mines. These rollers can be defeated by mines with double impulse fuses or full width attack mines. If every tank were fitted with
rollers, then an attack through minefield could be mounted on a broad front, but the mobility of the tank is restricted when fitted
with rollers. If only a proportion of tanks have rollers, then the other tanks must cross the minefield by following exactly in the
tracks of the leading tank. This is technically not difficult, but may be hazardous, particularly if under direct fire and attempting to
cross as fast as possible. There is a good chance that a following tank will actuate a mine which has not been covered by the roller.
14. Flails. A proportion of tanks may be fitted with a flail, which is a high speed rotating drum, the width of the tank, with
lengths of heavy chain attached. The flail poses similar restrictions to the mobility of the breaching tank described above, but has the advantage of being able to actuate all mines over the full tank width.