New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?

[Wm. Harris]

Our current Leopards have given many years of good service, but a time will eventually come when they will have to be replaced. If the government were to replace the Leopards today, what would you recommend for their successors?

I personally would say the Israeli Merkava III or the German Leopard 2A5. Both are pretty tough tanks, heavy on armour, fast, and armed to the teeth. But perhaps someone else has a better suggestion.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It‘s hard to say if and when we will replace our MBT‘s. The current political climate offers no hope what so ever. We currently take the Leo‘s out hardly at all, to preserve what life is left in them. Most modern MBT‘s have reached a point of sophisticated technology. The biggest hinderance to them all is weight, hence transportability. The Brits have long been innovators of armour that is copied, bought, stolen, whatever. At the moment they are developing an MBT made primarily of plastic and ceramics. This should seriously deplete the weight problem. When will it hit service? Who knows. Will we buy it? Not likely. If, and it‘s a big if, we decide to retain tracks as the MBT, it would likely be something from south of the border, based on the current climate and formation of the European Union and our own North/South American union, presently in it‘s infant stages. All western tanks are pretty well on par as far as armour, gunnery, etc. Some a little better than others. It would just be nice to get something up to date. Hopefully the replacement will be battle proven what ever it is. It‘s nice to see an infanteer that‘s concerned about the armour, at least you know who carries the hot coffee and fresh rations! "The objective is 3000 meters that way, We‘ll cover you from here"!

 

[John Nayduk]

Since we are being hypothetical, I like the Merkava. Like the Couger, it has the ability to carry a couple of troops inside giving extra bodies for hide protection, GAP drills and running replen security. Of course, like the Couger, we probably would not exploit this "extra" space inside the vehicle and use it for the barbeques and lawnchairs.

 

[Armoured Fist]

I only know one person who is concerned about the placement of a barbeque and lawn chair, I like tanks, tanks are good. Thats all I have to say.

 

[corporal]

i must say that i have been out of the loop for many years .It has only been ,since we sent something to afghanistan that my desire to know the state of affairs pewrtaining to the military,have been aroused. I LIKE THE LEO 2A5 JUST BECAUSE THE GERMANS ALWAYS KNEW HOW TO MAKE A GREAT TANK!. That being said the poor reality is so long
as the gov has this lax attitude to our services and all the good the military does the chances are we will not see another tank again. More likley some armoured variant of a troop carrier.

 

[MikeH]

We are not going to get a new main battle tank.
The polaitical support is not there for such
touchy-feely things as SAR helicopters, how
are we ever going to get support for the M1A2
or the Merkava 3? So mean and dangerous...

What we will get is some kind of LAV3 with a
direct fire support capability. Maybe 105, but
someone who knows more about stab systems
can tell me if hellfire can be stabilised in a turret.

How can we structure a war-fighting force with
no MBT‘s? Well, we could buy Apache Longbow
to fill our holes in direct fire, maybe form mixed
air assault battalions (a la the brits), but that
would also require a proper helicopter. And the
entire air force seems to be falling apart the last
few years, I don‘t know what they‘re losing faster,
aircraft or aircrew. So their resources to support
us would be limited. I‘m a track guy myself, so
maybe we can get political support for a ‘light tank‘
with tracks, like the old us XM8 Armored Gun
System, maybe even get GM to assemble it to
ensure political support.

Sigh, just a few thoughts...

 

[Gordon Angus Mackinlay]

Gentlemen‘

Re the Merkava, the ‘cubbyhole‘ at the rear of the vehicle is not designed to carry personnel, it is actually for ammunition resupply. Jane‘s Armour and Artillery 1996 issue has a couple of very interesting photographs showing the fitment of the ammunition pallet into the space.

The Royal Australian Armoured Corps has been having a look over the past two years in regard to our unmodified Leopard I‘s.

The vehicle which has comes out on tops for replacement of the Leopard (if the money comes) is the British Challenger II. Good mobility, fuel consuption, armour and gun. The main thing in it‘s favour is however - spare parts - the majority of the vehicles working systems (ie automotive, transmission, electrical etc) are standard commercial commonents, thereby ensuring that replacement parts are easily available and at a resonable price. This is not the case in the Leopard II A6 or the Abrams (its fuel comsuption knocked it out of the computation very quickly).

No other vehicles were considered suitable.

Yours,

Jock in Sydney who loved Centurion tanks in SVN, they gave the Nogs something to shoot at, and they did wonderful things to bunker systems!

 

[enfield]

Which raises the question, do we need MBT‘s?
They‘re expensive, and if we get MBT‘s then we better go buy the transport aircraft/ships to go with them. And in what situation will the application of Canadian armour be so important? What about the Reserves? The "Armoured" Militia runs around in jeeps....

(Of course I want tanks, but I‘m trying to play devil‘s advocate)

What about a LAV with a 105-type vehicle? Isn‘t the US testing such weapon systems for their new Medium Brigades?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We‘ve been through all this over on the Armoured section. Lot‘s of good stuff there, including some pictures.

 

[portcullisguy]

Looking through history, tanks seem to play a vital role in armed land conflict, and it would be silly for a country the size of Canada (area wise) to ignore completely their value in getting from A -> B really fast with lots of ordinance.

In WWII, Germany swept across Europe within months with their "Blitzkreig" double-whammy of tanks and fighters, easily defeating any resistance through bringing massive superior firepower to bear in a short period of time - something just not possible with infantry alone.

But the question is, is a conventional warfare scenario realistic for our Forces? Tanks didn‘t fare very well in Viet Nam. They tend to be susceptible to guerrilla warfare. They require lengthy logistics/maintenance supply chains.

I heard during the Gulf War, for each company of M1 tanks, 2 companies of maintenance and supply personnel were required, and tanks were only operational 1/3 of the time they were in present, the rest of the time they were having sand cleaned out of the working parts.

And, what about the Reserves? We call them armoured regiments, but in fact there is nothing armoured about an Iltis jeep.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yet your joining an INFANTRY res regiment which doesn‘t have all the equipment the RCR or PPCLI does, what‘s that make you?

 

[30 for 30]

While reserve armoured recce regiments are part of the RCAC, I think the focus is more on "recce" than "armour". Reserve units with Cougars are certainly armoured regiments, and I think they make up half of all our reserve armoured units. I think the important thing to remember is that they may only be Iltus, but they do have certain recce advantages over big lumbering coyotes. It really isn‘t accurate to imply that reserve recce units use "Iltus instead of tanks", you know? I could be wrong here, but that‘s my impression...

 

[fortuncookie5084]

For one, removing a role for tracked vehicles from our doctrine will never get passed the Armoured Corps Conference. Likewise, we‘ll never get any money for something new. The Leo 1‘s, cleverly updated to misleading C2 status, are here to stay (or until they‘re blown off the battle scape of some future conflict). We need tracked vehicles!

 

[Infanteer]

big lumbering coyotes

Haha...there is an overstatement!

 

[Infanteer]

Hey I am not a tanker, but I had a question.
What are the possibilities for designing a tracked main battle tank that can hold an infantry section (8-10 troops) in the rear. Too much extra logistics to make the extra addition? I was just curious.

 

[portcullisguy]

Originally posted by recceguy:
[qb]Yet your joining an INFANTRY res regiment which doesn‘t have all the equipment the RCR or PPCLI does, what‘s that make you? [/qb]

I might be a little optimistic when I say this, but I don‘t believe infantry require any more equipment than a ride to the battle and a good rifle.

Call me crazy!

Even the ride is optional... afterall, infantry are supposed to be expert at forced marching.

But seriously, I do‘t think it was ever the CF‘s intent to equip the RES F to the full capacity of the REG F. However, you would think that an res armd regt would have something ... armoured, perhaps?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not all reserve armoured regts are armoured. Some are recce, and the iltis is a good mud recce veh. Our new SMP LUVW, for recce, will have add on armour capability. Oh, and reserve armoured (tank) regts have cougar, which is armoured and has add on capability. At least it‘s a closer approximation to a tank than your LSVW cargo is to a carrier.

 

[rceme_rat]

Interesting thing about this query is that the responses draw the same contenders that were being championed in the late 80s (LEO II, Abrams, Merkava, Challenger, etc. MBT technology has been moving slowly.

Merkava III - great tank, in its theatre of ops. Not suitable for Europe - too wide. Some of you may know the old saw about out rail guages having been determined by the width of Roman chariots. Guess what - the width of tanks is determined by those same chariots. How so? -- tank have to fit on flatcars for transport -- Europe has standard size tunnels that tloaded flatcars have to fit through. A Merkava doesn‘t. As an aside - theory also applies to transporting AFVs in Hercs - if you forget about add-on armour until after you‘ve built the hull, you have to choose between flying in without the applique, or finding a staging area! Not that anyone would make such a basic mistake.

For MBTs, it eventually leads back to the "Leo II v. M1" question. Appropriate, since the two started out as the same project until the Germans insisted on one gun and engine, and the Americans on the others.

Aside from the question of engines, the other big concern is the source of your spare parts - do you want them coming from the U.S. or Germany. Again, if considering the European theatre (arguably no less important than ever, particularly wrt MBTs), the choice is having them closer, if the factories aren‘t destroyed (Germany) or further away, but more certain (U.S.)

As has been discussed elsewhere, the first question to be asked is "do we need tanks at all?" This is a big strategy question that goes beyond our allegiance to a particular arm, our lust for the biggest and baddest toys, and our tendency to prepare for the last war.

Unfortunately, no one seems to have the necessary bits to make the call - what do we want our military to do for us, how much notice will we give our troops (and industry) to prepare, and how much money we are willing to throw at the problem.

Maybe there is some hope - it seems that the Minister is hot for the new joint fighter - maybe the army can squeeze a few bucks out to get some new toys, too. After all, the F-18s haven‘t been around anywhere near as long as LEO I.

 

[enfield]

Do we want tanks? Of course! But, I‘d also want amphibious assault ships, an extra couple battalions, Apaches, a solid fleet of choppers, a hundred new CF-18‘s, AFV‘s for the Militia, Wainwright turned into a NTC, and a decent set of boots.
Unfortunatley, most oif the above will probably never happen. It‘s not a question of what the military wants, it‘s a question of what the government will pay for.

The politburo, I mena liberal cabinet, will look at CNN see a bunch of high-speed infantry running around, and order that kit. Forget the choppers, ships, fighters. Or maybe build another MFRC.

We need to be realistic here. Given our resources and predict resources, and the conflicts we will have to meet, do we need tanks? Because if we choose one item, we‘re forgoing something else. MBT‘s or helicopters?

 

[John Nayduk]

Enfield has a point about wanting other pieces of kit but getting rid of tanks would also get rid of a whole section of the army. The Armoured Corp has a unique role within the army and canning it would be a detriment to the Forces. I don‘t think anyone can argue the benefit of tanks in the Gulf War of the early 1990‘s and given the rhetoric dealing with Iraq they maybe needed again (not that Canada will send anyone).
The argument that the width of European railways eliminates many tanks from the list of possible Leopard replacements doesn‘t wash. According to Jane‘s AFV Recognition Handbook gives the following widths:
Merkava - 3.7 meters
Leopard 2 - 3.7 meters
LeClerk - 3.71 meters
M1 - 3.65 meters