Canada's tanks

[KevinB]

Fair enough. So the secret to battlefield success is our equipment used according to our instruction manual - but we can't give you the manual?
Is it then a surprise that Ukrainians aren't following our manual?

Not that simple.
But they where not given nearly enough equipment or certain types of equipment to even use ‘the manual’ either.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

Does not matter what they want or would like to purchase. It will come down to optics and the eye of the public.

One of the main reasons we as Canadians did not get the tracked vehicles in the 1970s was the fact that the FLQ incident was fresh in the minds of the CF and the political masters in charge.

The media was full of reports of tanks on the streets of Montreal, Quebec City and Ottawa. ( I have never seen a single picture of an actual tank on the streets during the incident, just headlines and stories of tanks on the streets, even remembering asking my former RSM who was a Corporal in the RCDS at the time and he saw no tanks)

If the vehicle has tracks and a gun of any kind that is a tank, and you will be red face in the face, running low on air to breathe to argue it and the media will still report it to be a tank. The image of a tracked vehicle on the streets of old Montreal or Quebec City will cause no damage in the media and the PR department than they could ever fix or correct.

So for that reason alone there will always be a heavy wheeled asset that can be used in advent of another incident where troops are deployed to the city streets. Because everyone knows tanks have tracks and wheeled vehicles can be called anything but a tank. Wheeled scout car, armoured car, battle field taxi all sound better than Leo 2 sitting out side the National Assembly of Quebec, or the Parliament Buildings of Canada.
It will also be reported that the soldiers had machine guns and assault weapons, not their service weapons because soldiers only carry assault weapons and machine guns.

I never want to see troops deployed on the streets of Canada again as an armed force but if it happens once it can happen again, and it has happened twice so far in the last 55 years.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Consider the

Does not matter what they want or would like to purchase. It will come down to optics and the eye of the public.

One of the main reasons we as Canadians did not get the tracked vehicles in the 1970s was the fact that the FLQ incident was fresh in the minds of the CF and the political masters in charge.

The media was full of reports of tanks on the streets of Montreal, Quebec City and Ottawa. ( I have never seen a single picture of an actual tank on the streets during the incident, just headlines and stories of tanks on the streets, even remembering asking my former RSM who was a Corporal in the RCDS at the time and he saw no tanks)

If the vehicle has tracks and a gun of any kind that is a tank, and you will be red face in the face, running low on air to breathe to argue it and the media will still report it to be a tank. The image of a tracked vehicle on the streets of old Montreal or Quebec City will cause no damage in the media and the PR department than they could ever fix or correct.

So for that reason alone there will always be a heavy wheeled asset that can be used in advent of another incident where troops are deployed to the city streets. Because everyone knows tanks have tracks and wheeled vehicles can be called anything but a tank. Wheeled scout car, armoured car, battle field taxi all sound better than Leo 2 sitting out side the National Assembly of Quebec, or the Parliament Buildings of Canada.
It will also be reported that the soldiers had machine guns and assault weapons, not their service weapons because soldiers only carry assault weapons and machine guns.

I never want to see troops deployed on the streets of Canada again as an armed force but if it happens once it can happen again, and it has happened twice so far in the last 55 years.

It should be noted that until fairly recently most publications tended to caption any picture of any military vehicle as a "Tank ". Unless it had four wheels then there was 50 /50 chance it would be labeled a "Jeep ."

 

[Kirkhill]

Consider the

It should be noted that until fairly recently most publications tended to caption any picture of any military vehicle as a "Tank ". Unless it had four wheels then there was 50 /50 chance it would be labeled a "Jeep ."

I've been noticing that even the Ukrainians have a tendency to describe their BMP-1s as "tanks". Worse they seem inclined to attach them to Humvee and Senator teams and use them as "tanks".

 

[FJAG]

One of the main reasons we as Canadians did not get the tracked vehicles in the 1970s was the fact that the FLQ incident was fresh in the minds of the CF and the political masters in charge.

The media was full of reports of tanks on the streets of Montreal, Quebec City and Ottawa. ( I have never seen a single picture of an actual tank on the streets during the incident, just headlines and stories of tanks on the streets, even remembering asking my former RSM who was a Corporal in the RCDS at the time and he saw no tanks)

I don't recall any appearance of a tracked vehicle anywhere (not saying there might not have been an M113 somewhere).

In Montreal we were all issued brand new 3/4 and 2 1/2 ton trucks straight out of war stocks from Longue Pointe (with leaky dried out seals). The most aggressive vehicle I saw was a Ferret scout car. I had one of each for my 30-man troop.

But you're right. The press is lazy (when not provocative). And its easy to use hyperbole.

We certainly had the feeling in the 1970s that we'd never see a tracked vehicle purchase again - and then to our surprise replaced the Centurions with Leos. The AVGP purchase made sense at the time because we had been structured as a lighter, more air mobile, force in our Combat Teams in Canada than the heavier 4 CMBG in Germany. Our defence procurement strategy in those days wasn't always coherent - plus ça change.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I don't recall any appearance of a tracked vehicle anywhere (not saying there might not have been an M113 somewhere).

In Montreal we were all issued brand new 3/4 and 2 1/2 ton trucks straight out of war stocks from Longue Pointe (with leaky dried out seals). The most aggressive vehicle I saw was a Ferret scout car. I had one of each for my 30-man troop.

But you're right. The press is lazy (when not provocative). And its easy to use hyperbole.

We certainly had the feeling in the 1970s that we'd never see a tracked vehicle purchase again - and then to our surprise replaced the Centurions with Leos. The AVGP purchase made sense at the time because we had been structured as a lighter, more air mobile, force in our Combat Teams in Canada than the heavier 4 CMBG in Germany. Our defence procurement strategy in those days wasn't always coherent - plus ça change.

Many years ago I read a few outtakes from the Head report. The phrase that has stuck with me through the decades is "The tank is no longer viable in the Canadian context."

 

[FJAG]

Many years ago I read a few outtakes from the Head report. The phrase that has stuck with me through the decades is "The tank is no longer viable in the Canadian context."

I recently came across an old DLR PowerPoint from 2009 which talks about the Leo2 purchase and describes the A6M and A4M (described as "Ops" tanks) and the 42, some odd, A4s in which these latter A4s are described as "non combat grade". Here we are 14 years later - someone should tell the Ukrainians that they are using fleets of "non combat grade" tanks.

It's a silly shell game we play sometimes.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I've been noticing that even the Ukrainians have a tendency to describe their BMP-1s as "tanks". Worse they seem inclined to attach them to Humvee and Senator teams and use them as "tanks".

Does it have a gun? In the land of the wheeled lightly-armoured/unarmoured vehicle, anything with a gun (direct fire support) is a "tank".

 

[suffolkowner]

Does it have a gun? In the land of the wheeled lightly-armoured/unarmoured vehicle, anything with a gun (direct fire support) is a "tank".

yep and Ive heard lots of people refer to the LAVs as tanks. People just dont see this stuff that often, which is probably a good thing

 

[Underway]

Many years ago I read a few outtakes from the Head report. The phrase that has stuck with me through the decades is "The tank is no longer viable in the Canadian context."

Given recent development the tank may not be viable. But the roles it provides still are.
Seeing the the Germans believe they need four vehicles to do the tanks job... then by following the logical thread of that discussion this means tanks are not viable.

The naval example would be the battleship. When the carrier came along the battleship lost its main role. Providing damaging salvos to sink enemy ships. The carrier could provide higher salvo weight, at a longer range without risking the ship. And the battleship was basically done (except for some shore bombardment support which it did better).

The Russians are showing how their old tanks are still able to provide a role, direct mobile fire support to the infantry (in the defensive), even if they can't be used to destroy other tanks. Is that a tank then? Or just a mobile gun?

Because the old armoured triangle seems dead on the modern battlefield.

Militaries don't care about equipment, militaries care about capabilities. And if a modern tank can't provide the capabilities given modern weapons and tactics then its no longer viable.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Militaries don't care about equipment, militaries care about capabilities. And if a modern tank can't provide the capabilities given modern weapons and tactics then its no longer viable.

It's probably a mistake to draw conclusions like 'the tank is dead' from watching the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

IIRC that Western militaries deploy their armored assets quite a bit more effectively, using a combined arms approach that seems to be almost impossible to achieve by either the UA or RuA, and 'NATO standard' applies to more than just coffee

 

[IKnowNothing]

Given recent development the tank may not be viable. But the roles it provides still are.
Seeing the the Germans believe they need four vehicles to do the tanks job... then by following the logical thread of that discussion this means tanks are not viable.

The naval example would be the battleship. When the carrier came along the battleship lost its main role. Providing damaging salvos to sink enemy ships. The carrier could provide higher salvo weight, at a longer range without risking the ship. And the battleship was basically done (except for some shore bombardment support which it did better).

The Russians are showing how their old tanks are still able to provide a role, direct mobile fire support to the infantry (in the defensive), even if they can't be used to destroy other tanks. Is that a tank then? Or just a mobile gun?

Because the old armoured triangle seems dead on the modern battlefield.

Militaries don't care about equipment, militaries care about capabilities. And if a modern tank can't provide the capabilities given modern weapons and tactics then its no longer viable.

Does it have a gun? In the land of the wheeled lightly-armoured/unarmoured vehicle, anything with a gun (direct fire support) is a "tank".

There was a time when the Stuart, Sherman, and Churchill were all fielded as tanks, (no " ") to fill different roles in the same army. Further, each of those tanks had variants that could provide different capabilities and were employed in different ways. Flame tanks, AT Fireflys, 95mm Howitzers for close support. All still tanks.

Maybe the issue isn't that the "tank" is no longer viable, but that the wheel has kept turning and the "Main Battle Tank" is no longer viable as a one size fits all solution that squeezes out all other "tanks", but instead should be one tracked armoured direct fire vehicle in a portfolio

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

Tanks cannot do every thing that is required on the battlefield. They need to have support and specialized vehicles that can keep up and fight with the tanks, but not as a tank on tank killer. I think they are trying to make the tank crew be the anti air craft crew, the anti tank crew, and the anti infantry crew.

Time to rethink how the battlefield is going to be fought, if this war in Ukraine has not taught that as the main lesson, we have learned nothing about war fighting.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I doubt the MBT is going away. The role-based platforms of WWII emerged for reasons that seem to be firmly buried. Combined arms has become even more imperative, so no infantry/cavalry splits. Guns for fighting other tanks are no longer 37mm popguns, but are in calibres which deprecate the need for specialized tanks firing HE. Highly specialized tanks for amphibious assaults are gone unless someone wants to resurrect amphibious assaults at the army (formation) level. Most other specialized assault tanks can be replaced by something that doesn't need to creep up exposed to within a couple of hundred metres or less. Assault guns were expedients driven by the need to field DFS quickly and cheaply on chassis not originally designed to handle large calibre weapons in a turret.

I grant there is a need for bridgelayers, ARVs, mine-clearing gear. Strategically, fewer platforms is preferable.

Tanks can "work down" with a wheeled force, but wheeled gun platforms are not well suited to "work up" with a tracked force.

 

[Kirkhill]

It's probably a mistake to draw conclusions like 'the tank is dead' from watching the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

IIRC that Western militaries deploy their armored assets quite a bit more effectively, using a combined arms approach that seems to be almost impossible to achieve by either the UA or RuA, and 'NATO standard' applies to more than just coffee

On the other hand?

Can we keep falling back on "we would do it better?"

For starters a lot of our Combined Arms warfare assumptions start with Air and EW superiority. The $1000 Drones seem to be exploiting the seams.
They manage to operate in a high intensity EW environment. And the best counter seems to be GBAD/LAA systems we haven't fielded since WW2 when we won air superiority. I can't see F35s or even F16s supplying sufficient cover to give the freedom of movement anticipated under the old AirLand Battle pams.


Battleorder just issued a video on the Aerial Tank Destroyer Brigade of the Airland era. The brigade was the one that was supposed to deliver 19:1 kill ratios against tanks but got shot up in Iraq but has been supplanted by hordes, if not swarms, of drones.

The Aerial Tank Destroyer Brigade? (Part 1)

New video on the U.S. Air Cavalry Combat Brigade (ACCB) of the 1970s. It was an attack helicopter formation that could be described as tank destroyer group meets armored cavalry regiment.Transcript:So I bought a manual with my Patreon money. FM 17-47, the Air Cavalry Combat Brigade. But it won’t...

www.battleorder.org

 

[Kirkhill]

I doubt the MBT is going away. The role-based platforms of WWII emerged for reasons that seem to be firmly buried. Combined arms has become even more imperative, so no infantry/cavalry splits. Guns for fighting other tanks are no longer 37mm popguns, but are in calibres which deprecate the need for specialized tanks firing HE. Highly specialized tanks for amphibious assaults are gone unless someone wants to resurrect amphibious assaults at the army (formation) level. Most other specialized assault tanks can be replaced by something that doesn't need to creep up exposed to within a couple of hundred metres or less. Assault guns were expedients driven by the need to field DFS quickly and cheaply on chassis not originally designed to handle large calibre weapons in a turret.

I grant there is a need for bridgelayers, ARVs, mine-clearing gear. Strategically, fewer platforms is preferable.

Tanks can "work down" with a wheeled force, but wheeled gun platforms are not well suited to "work up" with a tracked force.

So is Narmer, which, like Kangaroos and "defrocked Priests", evolved from a tank, a tank? How about the Gepard? And does the M in MBT stand for Medium or Main?

I doubt that we have seen the last of the heavily armoured tracked vehicle. I am just not convinced that it will necessarily continue to have 4 crew members and a general purpose role.

Why waste a turret and a crew of four pushing mine rollers and ploughs when you can take an old hull, apply an MOTS autonomous driving rig to it, and use three or four of those to clear assault lanes?

 

[Maxman1]

Why waste a turret and a crew of four pushing mine rollers and ploughs when you can take an old hull, apply an MOTS autonomous driving rig to it, and use three or four of those to clear assault lanes?

Like this?

 

[Kirkhill]

Like this?

Kind of -

But get the poor buggers out of there and install this

Rheinmetall

The Rheinmetall PATH autonomy kit (A-kit) is a proprietary robotic control software suite which integrates autonomous capabilities into existing vehicle fleets.

www.rheinmetall.com

It is functional enough to drive baggage carts around airports, trucks around coal mines and even packets on public highways. It seem likely functional enough to drive a wedge of three mine plows across a minefield. They could even be followed up by an autonomous AVLB.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So is Narmer, which, like Kangaroos and "defrocked Priests", evolved from a tank, a tank? How about the Gepard? And does the M in MBT stand for Medium or Main?

Main, the point being that light/medium/heavy have all been superceded by single platforms.

No point sweating unusual expedients until we have a large enough army facing a large enough mix of combat situations.

Putting a relatively lightly-armoured turreted specialized weapon system on a heavily armoured hull seems like a waste of the hull.

 

[Underway]

It's probably a mistake to draw conclusions like 'the tank is dead' from watching the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

IIRC that Western militaries deploy their armored assets quite a bit more effectively, using a combined arms approach that seems to be almost impossible to achieve by either the UA or RuA, and 'NATO standard' applies to more than just coffee

I didn't.

I drew my line of inquiry from the current German design process for the next generation MBT. Then used the Russian Ukraine conflict as a demonstration of some supporting evidence as one specific role that a tank does that might not need a tank to do (one of the four vehicles example).

I don't have conclusions. Its a discussion thread!