- Reaction score
- 10,346
- Points
- 1,260
a_majoor said:The court jester speaks well: a common chassis is a desirable thing to achieve.
Well, I always knew I had a calling in life.... :warstory:
A fleet based on the Leo 2 chassis, even with the drastic modifications suggested, will be quite big in terms of logistics footprint. The vehicles would weigh in from about 40,000kg for Infantry assault carriers to 60,000kg for the 2A7 tank version.
Is 40,000 - 60,000 kg a good weight range for ensuring maneuverability and sustainability without inhibiting survivability or lethality?
(For maximum protection without paying a huge weight penalty, I would suggest the assault carrier not have a turret at all, but rather several banks of grenade dischargers on the roof to shower the bad guys with gifts of WP and Frag).
How about the Weapons Station that the American Stryker (ICV) uses? Do we have to get rid of the turret? The German Lynx suggests that the turret is still useful on an Infantry vehicle.
This will call for pretty impressive sea lift capabilities, lots of heavy duty tank transporters, a big fleet of fuelers when you hit the road and so on. The main reason to contemplate getting this fleet would be if there is a perceived need to crack hard targets, or swing Thor's hammer for the countermove.
Fallujia and the West Bank would indicate heavy armour still has a role to play, since even the threat of being able to go in with relative impunity seems to put a damper on the bad guys. In the two examples above, the leadership tended to flee, leaving the rank and file uncoordinated and probably demoralized. An all Cavalry formation such as suggested in the Armoured Cavalry thread will have lots of uses, but not be as threatening to insurgents holed up in an urban environment. The leaders might be tempted to hunker down, making the dismounted assault much more difficult against a confident and organized foe. Waiting for an allied heavy force to arrive may be impractical for many reasons, and the pause will give the bad guys more time to organize, and defiantly hand them the initiative. At least one battlegroup in Canada should be kitted out in the heavy role for this reason alone.
Agree 100%. Although it may be costly to deploy and sustain, this should be Canada's "Ace-in-the-Hole" - it would be the perfect companion to the Cavalry Group. Infact this is a model similar to that suggested by Douglas MacGregor in his Transformation Under Fire. A mobile expeditionary force like the USMC maintains tracked MBT capabilities, so why shouldn't we?