Canada's tanks

[jfposada]

Hi,
I'm trying to understand why Canada has so few battle tanks (around 82)?
For context, France has 406, Argentina 349, Spain, 327, Italy 200, Switzerland (!) 134, Sweden 120.... (Source: Tank Strength by Country (2021))
UK has 227 (British Army to get 148 Challenger 3 tanks in £800m deal)

Thanks!

 

[brihard]

Hi,
I'm trying to understand why Canada has so few battle tanks (around 82)?
For context, France has 406, Argentina 349, Spain, 327, Italy 200, Switzerland (!) 134, Sweden 120.... (Source: Tank Strength by Country (2021))
UK has 227 (British Army to get 148 Challenger 3 tanks in £800m deal)

Thanks!

Because Canada doesn’t give a shit about its military. We have had a series of weak governments who do not take our role in the NATO alliance seriously, and who are too naive and ignorant to have proper concern about our army’s resilience and survivability if we find ourselves in a conventional coalition war with a peer or near-peer adversary.

 

[KevinB]

Better question would be why doesn't the Army have any modern Anti-Tank Missiles, or Air Defense assets...
Or Attack Helicopter, a real IFV etc.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Because Canada doesn’t give a shit about its military. We have had a series of weak governments who do not take our role in the NATO alliance seriously, and who are too naive and ignorant to have proper concern about our army’s resilience and survivability if we find ourselves in a conventional coalition war with a peer or near-peer adversary.

Canada's near peer = Botswana

 

[Blackadder1916]

For context, France has 406, Argentina 349, Spain, 327, Italy 200, Switzerland (!) 134, Sweden 120.... (Source: Tank Strength by Country (2021))

For context, which of these countries have neighbours that are adversaries (or of questionable intent), or have a history of military dictatorship, or have a history of internal conflict, or have a colonial history that they maintain military ties to, or/and are themselves the neighbour of questionable intent. Maybe that's why they feel a need for that much armor.

 

[KevinB]

For context, which of these countries have neighbours that are adversaries (or of questionable intent), or have a history of military dictatorship, or have a history of internal conflict, or have a colonial history that they maintain military ties to, or/and are themselves the neighbour of questionable intent. Maybe that's why they feel a need for that much armor.

Or simply want to have a viable military?

The answer to the question was already given by @brihard

 

[Spencer100]

I like tanks as much as the next guy. I think we should retain a corporate knowledge of their use and training etc. But as the world keeps moving I think they will be not as important (ie Armenin) and/or not useful in the Canadian context.

Tanks to use to defend Canada at home is not even a thought. If invaders are on Canadian soil we are in bigger trouble. That leaves tanks two other missions expeditionary and training. The training mission can be done without tank tanks. Lol that leaves expeditionary missions (NATO aside which we are not even assigning tanks to Latvia) Is Canada even going to be doing expeditionary mission in the future? Our history says most likely but I don't know.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Take the tanks that we have, cycle them all to A6 standard and buy enough spare parts to keep them going.

 

[suffolkowner]

Take the tanks that we have, cycle them all to A6 standard and buy enough spare parts to keep them going.

Jesus not even upgraded to the A7 standard, how far our dreams have fallen

 

[Spencer100]

Jesus not even upgraded to the A7 standard, how far our dreams have fallen

Lol A7 standard (too bad they stopped marketing it as the peace support variant)

Leopard 2 PSO​

The Leopard 2 PSO (Peace Support Operations) variant is designed specially for urban warfare, which had been encountered in peacekeeping operations with increasing frequency. Therefore, the Leopard 2 PSO is equipped with more effective all-around protection, a secondary weapons station, improved reconnaissance ability, a bulldozer blade, a shorter gun barrel (for manoeuvring on urban streets at the expense of fire range), non-lethal armament, close-range surveillance ability (through camera systems), a searchlight and further changes to improve its perseverance and mobility in a built-up non-wide open area. These features are similar to the Tank Urban Survival Kit for the American M1A3 Abrams. It has been fielded by the Muteki Daitai PMC.


But in all likelihood they would be non upgraded and retired as they wear out.

 

[MilEME09]

But in all likelihood they would be non upgraded and retired as they wear out.

There is an life extension/modernization project already on the books, no details though so no clue if they plan to standardize the fleet.

 

[suffolkowner]

Lol A7 standard (too bad they stopped marketing it as the peace support variant)

Leopard 2 PSO​

View attachment 67827
The Leopard 2 PSO (Peace Support Operations) variant is designed specially for urban warfare, which had been encountered in peacekeeping operations with increasing frequency. Therefore, the Leopard 2 PSO is equipped with more effective all-around protection, a secondary weapons station, improved reconnaissance ability, a bulldozer blade, a shorter gun barrel (for manoeuvring on urban streets at the expense of fire range), non-lethal armament, close-range surveillance ability (through camera systems), a searchlight and further changes to improve its perseverance and mobility in a built-up non-wide open area. These features are similar to the Tank Urban Survival Kit for the American M1A3 Abrams. It has been fielded by the Muteki Daitai PMC.


But in all likelihood they would be non upgraded and retired as they wear out.

I was thinking more along thr lines of this one in service with the German army

Leopard 2A7 Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

The Leopard 2A7 main battle tank was revealed in 2010. It is a proposed upgrade package for existing MBTs. German Army plans to upgrade about 50 - 150 Leopard 2 tanks to the 2A7 standard.

www.military-today.com

Both Rheinmetall and KMW have proposed various A7 upgrades over the years

 

[Spencer100]

I was thinking more along thr lines of this one in service with the German army

Leopard 2A7 Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

The Leopard 2A7 main battle tank was revealed in 2010. It is a proposed upgrade package for existing MBTs. German Army plans to upgrade about 50 - 150 Leopard 2 tanks to the 2A7 standard.

www.military-today.com

Both Rheinmetall and KMW have proposed various A7 upgrades over the years

oh but it doesn't have that all important "peace operation" brand name.

If I was at DND I would brand everything they wanted with that. They are not combat vehicles they humanitarian delivery trucks with electric drive of course. 120mm smooth delivery tube. Paint them pink. These are the new anti pirate and food delivery ships don't mind the flat deck its for the cargo. Make one a "medical" receiving ship and paint it white with a red crescent on it. These are new CC-35 the new parka cargo planes. Delivering warmth and heat with 500 pound (J)olly (D)irect (A)ccess (M)eals.

 

[armrdsoul77]

120mm smooth delivery tube

Split the buy with canada post and save money.

 

[MilEME09]

I was thinking more along thr lines of this one in service with the German army

Leopard 2A7 Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

The Leopard 2A7 main battle tank was revealed in 2010. It is a proposed upgrade package for existing MBTs. German Army plans to upgrade about 50 - 150 Leopard 2 tanks to the 2A7 standard.

www.military-today.com

Both Rheinmetall and KMW have proposed various A7 upgrades over the years

Germany actually uses the A7, they are slowly upgrading to it

 

[OldSolduer]

Because Canada doesn’t give a shit about its military. We have had a series of weak governments who do not take our role in the NATO alliance seriously, and who are too naive and ignorant to have proper concern about our army’s resilience and survivability if we find ourselves in a conventional coalition war with a peer or near-peer adversary.

That is pretty much a correct assessment IMO. We live next door to a fairly large power ( who is in decline) so Canadians feel that the USA will be riding to our rescue on M1 Abrams tanks, Blackhawk helicopters and F-35s.
To be honest the average Canadian has no clue about our military history. In two world wars, Korea and Afghanistan, Canadian forces made huge contributions and punched well above its weight. Yet this is not taught in schools - thanks to our various left leaning teachers associations, various universities and some media.

Canadian politicians do care about the military - basically to see how much government can "defund" the military to fund social programs.

 

[Dana381]

That is pretty much a correct assessment IMO. We live next door to a fairly large power ( who is in decline) so Canadians feel that the USA will be riding to our rescue on M1 Abrams tanks, Blackhawk helicopters and F-35s.
To be honest the average Canadian has no clue about our military history. In two world wars, Korea and Afghanistan, Canadian forces made huge contributions and punched well above its weight. Yet this is not taught in schools - thanks to our various left leaning teachers associations, various universities and some media.

Canadian politicians do care about the military - basically to see how much government can "defund" the military to fund social programs.

And unfortunately it will take an attack on our soil to begin changing minds. If some of the planned attacks on Canada that were foiled had been successful the public outcry over the state of our military would be huge!

 

[OldSolduer]

And unfortunately it will take an attack on our soil to begin changing minds. If some of the planned attacks on Canada that were foiled had been successful the public outcry over the state of our military would be huge!

IMO that's a correct assessment. Unfortunately it may come too late.

 

[Dana381]

Reading your reply OldSolduer and re-reading my post I realized what I said could be taken wrong.

For clarity I do not want Canada to get attacked by terrorists or state actors. I am just saying that if we were attacked then attitudes would change. We need to find a way to change attitudes without an attack.

I posted this before but I believe the GOC could cause the needed shift in public perspective about the CAF if they wanted. I believe the GOC hasn't wanted to do this for a long time because they want all the money they can get to pay for their vision of a socialist Canada.

 

[SupersonicMax]

All we need, politically, is to be capable of defending our sovereign territory (which hasn’t been under credible threat in a long, long time), living up to our NORAD commitment, and living up to our NATO comitment.

For the defence of our territory, you’ll be hardpressed to find an argument to have a modern, near-peer military to do so. We have never been under threat in the recent and not so recent past so a token force is all that is required to be seem as defending our land.

For our NORAD commitment, we need to keep the US happy enough so they don’t back out of the agreement. This has a direct link to the defence of our territory - a lot of it is done through NORAD.

For our NATO commitment, we need to be involved enough to be seen as a plus value and doing out part. There are several ways to do so which do not involve being a top-tier force in all aspects of warfare. The most efficient way politically is to invest in non-kinetic, low risk, low cost capabilities that are in short supply and that act as force multipliers.

Investing in anything else would be foolish from a political point of view.