• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Leo 2A6M CAN - are they in service?

Olaf Scholz and the Justin Trudeau school of communications.....


Olaf Scholz hails Ukraine tanks fiasco as victory while critics count reputational cost​

German chancellor says ‘It was right that we didn’t let ourselves be pushed around’ over his refusal to send tanks to Ukraine without the US

ByJorg Luyken BERLIN28 January 2023 • 8:19pm

Olaf Scholz: ‘... by acting as part of an international alliance we have diminished the risk that this support could have had’

Olaf Scholz: ‘... by acting as part of an international alliance we have diminished the risk that this support could have had’
Whichever way you look at it, it has been a bad start to the year for Olaf Scholz.
After the resignation of his widely criticised defence minister Christine Lambrecht, he has endured weeks of criticism from his own coalition allies and state leaders across Europe over his refusal to send tanks to Ukraine without the US.
Yet domestically at least, the German chancellor is pushing a different narrative: that the tank fiasco is in fact a huge victory.
“It was right that we didn’t let ourselves be pushed around,” Mr Scholz said as he announced that Germany would send 14 Leopard 2 battle tanks to Ukraine and approve re-export licences earlier this week following a similar announcement by Washington.
“Trust me,” he added, “by acting as part of an international alliance we have diminished the risk that this support could have had.”
But even his own coalition members think his Trappist approach to diplomacy – characterised by silence and inscrutability – has turned Germany into an “unreliable partner”.

Mr Scholz announced that Germany would send 14 Leopard 2 battle tanks to Ukraine and approve re-export licences earlier this week following a similar announcement by Washington CREDIT: Getty/Ronny Hartmann
The decision should have come “weeks ago” and Ukrainian soldiers should have been trained on the Leopard last summer, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, head of Germany’s defence committee, told The Telegraph.
Ms Strack-Zimmermann of the Free Democrats has been one of Mr Scholz’s fiercest critics in recent weeks, accusing him of a “catastrophe of communication”.


“You need to tell people why you do something and why you don’t. Otherwise people get suspicious,” she said.
“Work will now have to be done on reassuring other countries that Germany is in fact a reliable partner.”
Behind closed doors, Mr Scholz is said to be furious at those who have pushed for him to act more quickly.
A report in Spiegel magazine this week described a scene in which he vented about the “bellicose” language of those publicly pushing for battle-tank deliveries.

Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann has been one of Olaf Scholz’s fiercest critics in recent weeks, accusing him of a ‘catastrophe of communication’ CREDIT: Getty/Isa Foltin
These people would soon be calling for fighter jets and troops on the ground, he reportedly claimed.
Mr Scholz and his team insist that his critics are underestimating the likelihood that one false move could end up causing a dreadful escalation in the crisis.
Behind Mr Scholz’s slowness was another calculation, though. He was insistent that Germany would only take the next step in military aid if the US came along too.
He is said to have made this clear in a phone call with US President Joe Biden on the Tuesday before last.
Despite the fact that the US administration was reluctant to send its own Abrams tanks over fears that their excessive weight would make them ineffective on the Ukrainian battlefield, Berlin once again insisted on reciprocity at a meeting of defence ministers at Ramstein air base, German media reported.
Eventually, on Monday, Mr Biden reportedly overrode the advice of his own defence department and agreed.
That then gave Mr Scholz the cover to announce his decision to deliver a high-tech model of the Leopard tank from the supplies of Germany’s army supplies.

Berlin says it was not blackmailing​

Berlin has tried to make out that its insistence that the US also supply tanks was not a form of blackmail.
“There was no hard condition” placed on the US sending Abrams tanks, Scholz ally Nils Schmid insisted to The Telegraph.
At the same time, it is true that Germany would have only delivered tanks if the US delivered too, conceded Mr Schmid, who is foreign affairs spokesman for the Social Democrats.
While Berlin has never been explicit about why it was so insistent that the US should be involved in the tank alliance, local media have reported that it was due to fears that Russia would single Germany out for special treatment if it made the decision to send battle tanks without having the cover of US participation.

Concerns over Russia targeting infrastructure​

Berlin is particularly concerned that Russia may target key infrastructure such as a gas pipeline under the Baltic from Norway, or seek to stoke a new refugee crisis, a report in the Süddeutsche Zeitung laid out this week.
The fact that Germany is the only major Western power not to have its own nuclear deterrence is also said to have played a role in Berlin’s thinking.
Whatever the reason, Mr Scholz’s insistence on painting the tank affair as a win is misleading, experts say.
“The idea that Scholz should be given any credit for manoeuvring the Americans into agreeing to deliver the Abrams is far-fetched to put it mildly,” says Benjamin Tallis, an analyst at the German Council on Foreign Relations.
While quick to point out that German military aid to Ukraine has been substantial, Mr Tallis said Mr Scholz’s delaying tactics “dragged Germany’s reputation through the mud”.
“There is not quite the realisation yet of the damage that this has caused to transatlantic relations.”

 
What is the difference between a 40 tonne 105mm Leo 1A5, in good condition with Lexan or Mexas armour and 60 onboard rounds, a 38 ton 105mm GDLS MPF or even a 40 tonne 120mm CV90120 with the latest armour and optronics.

Buy 300-400 CV90s for the RCAC. Leave the LAVs with the Infantry.

RCAC -
CV90120
CV9035
CV90-Mjoelnir
The CV90 would make sense if we wanted to turn the RCAC regiments into common chassis versions of the US ABCT Cavalry Squadrons.

But recalling the Army Journal articles recently posted that doesn't seem in the cards. Shifting to a vehicle agnostic common doctrine and organization, 4x4 squadrons without separate recce/scout and armour specialties, all weights of vehicles used as cavalry with a desired emphasis on firepower.

Why not at least 2 (if not 3) tank regiments then. Heavy Armour Leo2 out west, Medium Armour Griffin's at Pet (infrastructure supported Leo1's before) and the same at Val if they can handle the 40 tonne vehicle. Make the RCAC armoured again.
 
Last edited:

European allies will send about 80 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, Germany says​

Chancellor Olaf Scholz finally agrees to supply the German-made tank after the US also agrees to send American tanks.




Germany

The chancellor appeals to the Panzer partners' consciences​

After the Leopard 2 decision for Ukraine, there are problems with implementation. According to SPIEGEL information, there have been hardly any tank commitments from European partners. The situation is precarious, the chancellor intervenes.




Portugal

The head of government refused to send Leopard 2 tanks, from the Portuguese Army, to Ukraine, showing himself to be only available for Portugal to train Ukrainians in this field – Nascer do Sol learned from a military source.

António Costa thus contradicts the first statements by João Cravinho, Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said that Portugal would supply the Leopards to Ukraine. This would also be the intention of Defense Minister Helena Carreiras, who, however, faced with the Prime Minister's refusal, ended up announcing that the decision would be taken later.

The Armed Forces are unaware of the reasons for the blockade of António Costa, speculating in military circles that could range from the desire not to further hostile Moscow to purely budgetary reasons, given the costs involved in the operation.

It should be noted that most of the 37 vehicles in Portugal – parked in the military field of Santa Margarida – are not operational due to lack of spare parts. This is because, despite having been purchased second-hand in the Netherlands, they belong to the most advanced range of Leopard 2 (the A6 model), being technologically very complex. In addition, the Army does not have and never had a single live ammunition for armored personnel to fire, but only training ammunition.



So some of the difference to be made up by Leopard 1A5s - after they too are repaired.


And the Abrams will be delivered - after they are built

And the 150 km GLSDB - will be delivered after they, and their modified launchers, are assembled -



The Donald was less wrong than we thought.
 
I wonder then...

It would seem we aren't the only ones having trouble maintaining their Leopard 2 fleet?

Is the Leopard 2 more maintenance intensive than advertised or commonly thought?
 
RCAF snickers in chat
Just to clarify: I am no military although I have spent a fair bit of time in contact with various ranks. Spent 5 years working alongside a reservist German tanker around 2005. At that time he constantly complained that their equipment was sitting in warehouses gathering dust and that apart from a few that were maintained primarily for training and show, most were almost derelict and required copious hours to bring up to standard. They also didn't have the staff or the budget to do so. By the looks of the respective budgets most countries seemed to have taken the fall of the wall as evidence that military was no longer needed. We could all sit back and enjoy our lattes in peace.
 
Just to clarify: I am no military although I have spent a fair bit of time in contact with various ranks. Spent 5 years working alongside a reservist German tanker around 2005. At that time he constantly complained that their equipment was sitting in warehouses gathering dust and that apart from a few that were maintained primarily for training and show, most were almost derelict and required copious hours to bring up to standard. They also didn't have the staff or the budget to do so. By the looks of the respective budgets most countries seemed to have taken the fall of the wall as evidence that military was no longer needed. We could all sit back and enjoy our lattes in peace.
Maybe we need to think outside the box. We decide we need "X" number of tanks for both our Reg Force and our Reserves. However we really only need "Y" number for day to day training purposes (and don't really have the full-time maintainers available to keep all "X" up to high readiness condition). So we order "X" from the OEM but only take delivery of "Y". The OEM is contracted to maintain the balance of the tanks in storage until we need them. That storage location might even be in Europe.
 
Maybe we need to think outside the box. We decide we need "X" number of tanks for both our Reg Force and our Reserves. However we really only need "Y" number for day to day training purposes (and don't really have the full-time maintainers available to keep all "X" up to high readiness condition). So we order "X" from the OEM but only take delivery of "Y". The OEM is contracted to maintain the balance of the tanks in storage until we need them. That storage location might even be in Europe.

Maybe we should just be leasing rather than buying. Commit to leasing X number of vehicle hours per year of operational vehicles. And require the vendor to keep a store of vehicles on hand for operational use.

And this situation with the Ukraine - trying to scrape together a working force from multiple varieties, variants and mods from a multitude of national microfleets - surely this should cure the "Canadianization" crap? Just buy what is available and upgrade the international fleet regularly.

There are something like 2000 to 3000 Leo 2s in existence - and it is hard to scrape up 88 of a uniform standard in working condition.
The same thing goes for virtually every other piece of kit apparently - from bullets to aircraft.
 
I wonder then...

It would seem we aren't the only ones having trouble maintaining their Leopard 2 fleet?

Is the Leopard 2 more maintenance intensive than advertised or commonly thought?
It is a highly capable modern tank that requires more maintenance than older less capable models. Normal corrective maintenance takes up lots of resources (infrastructure (work bays and cranes as examples), trained people (mechanics and fire control pers as examples), specialized tooling and specializing test equipment. All of those resources are low density in the CAF.

In addition, there is a preventative maintenance schedule that needs to be followed to allow the tank to be certified to be used for driving or shooting in peacetime as well as to ensure the machine is running . All CAF vehs have this schedule for the most part. The LEO 2's PM schedule is just very intensive and needs lots of resources to do. While it is hopefully changing soon, it was essentially all CAF folks doing all the CM & PM work on the LEO 2 essentially juggling with the same resources to keep the tanks going.

Many countries that run modern MBTs use some form of R&O line and/or contracted solution to do the high level PM inspections freeing up their military resources to mostly focus on CM and low level inspections. We didn't do that although it is something that is being looked at. I can't recall what stage of the project they are at. Letter of Interest call went out in 2019 so guessing they are at or close to solicitation stage.
 
The reality is if you need X Tanks for your formations - you most certainly need 2X or more likely 3X tanks in inventory.
You then need to keep those storage units upgraded and maintained, and ideally pre positioned for at least half of the fleet.
 
The reality is if you need X Tanks for your formations - you most certainly need 2X or more likely 3X tanks in inventory.
You then need to keep those storage units upgraded and maintained, and ideally pre positioned for at least half of the fleet.
which was the plan when they pulled the forces out of Germany. Weren't the MBT's supposed to be positioned in Norway and maintained by us on a constant basis by having the maintainers posted there? Going from memory and it is decades old
 
It is a highly capable modern tank that requires more maintenance than older less capable models. Normal corrective maintenance takes up lots of resources (infrastructure (work bays and cranes as examples), trained people (mechanics and fire control pers as examples), specialized tooling and specializing test equipment. All of those resources are low density in the CAF.

In addition, there is a preventative maintenance schedule that needs to be followed to allow the tank to be certified to be used for driving or shooting in peacetime as well as to ensure the machine is running . All CAF vehs have this schedule for the most part. The LEO 2's PM schedule is just very intensive and needs lots of resources to do. While it is hopefully changing soon, it was essentially all CAF folks doing all the CM & PM work on the LEO 2 essentially juggling with the same resources to keep the tanks going.

Many countries that run modern MBTs use some form of R&O line and/or contracted solution to do the high level PM inspections freeing up their military resources to mostly focus on CM and low level inspections. We didn't do that although it is something that is being looked at. I can't recall what stage of the project they are at. Letter of Interest call went out in 2019 so guessing they are at or close to solicitation stage.
There are plenty of shops around Canada who are more then capable of maintaining our Armored fleet if given the contract.
 
All their staff are cleared level 2 due to ITAR?
Security clearance can be done, thousands if not tens of thousands of contractors attain and hold Security Clearances around the world for similar work.
They all have sufficient stand-off in the event of ammunition incidents?
Many can, I do not know why a maintenance shop would require stand off for ammunition incidents, all munitions are suppose to be removed prior to going to the shop to be maintained. I mean we use to unload our Howitzers and empty the Gun Tractors of all Ammo before headin back to the barn. Maybe they do things different nowadays.
They all have access to the supply chain?
Supply chain is the simple part of the equation. The Canadian Military is the limiting factor in many cases. For example the Military had a hard time maintaining the LSVW, now that Civilians have been buying them somehow they can go to the parts store and order many of the parts the military had a hard time acquiring.
But For example Red Deer Ab has a Large shop that was used by Gas Compression companies, then by Finning to over haul large equipment. It is co located to a rail line, has close access to main transportation corridors and is close to the the CFB Edmonton and Wainwright. The building and yard would not be a hard transition to maintain and overhaul Tanks. I am sure there are plenty of Staff who would like a steady job to do so.
There are similar facilities all over country who could do similar work.

Limiting factor is simple, the want to do so. Lots of excuses why we can not do things. Very few things to make it happen. Offer a contract, get bids and go from there.
 
Well, we do have a new CCA, and the situation has evolved since 2019 (both in Europe and with respect to our Leo fleets). Some problems have become resolved and others are more acute. Even if CCA had not changed over that period of time, the answer might have.
 
Well, we do have a new CCA, and the situation has evolved since 2019 (both in Europe and with respect to our Leo fleets). Some problems have become resolved and others are more acute. Even if CCA had not changed over that period of time, the answer might have.
Possible, I’m all for it. Hell ship all but one training squadron of tanks over there. It would make good sense as far as I’m concerned.
 
Back
Top