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

[Michael Dorosh]

A couple of things for you Michael D.  First off, there is that statement of fighting the next war in places where wheels will go and tracks will not.  You have been around long enough to know better than that.  You got it completely backwards, so it really caught me by surprise to see it come from you.  In the event, you honestly believe what you posted, I would like to correct you on it; Tracks are more maneuverable and capable than wheeled vehicles in all terrains. 

It was an example, George, of not being able to predict what kind of war or terrain we would fight in.  Probably a bad one.  2Bravo has I think encapsulated what I was trying to say in better language.

I really don't think you are being fair in your half look at simulations.  You go on and question the scientific aspects of Tank or wpns fire on Armour Vehicles and call them suspect.  I am sure that you probably hold the same suspicions on the effectiveness of simulated small arms fire on the infanteer.  I suppose you would like us to use live ammunitions to actually test the effectiveness of fire on our Armour vehicles in the same light as you would like us to actually use live ammunitions to shoot at our dismounted troops. 

Michael.....get real.

I have no idea what you're on about here, but it little matters - the others seem to have grasped it fine.  If you really want to discuss it further, I'd suggest doing it here would be a waste of everyone else's time.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Because "lessons learned" always come out of shooting wars.  Generally speaking, the kit is a lot more predictable than the people using it. 

Tom

That's an interesting comment.  I suppose you could also include the people shooting at it, too, no?

 

[George Wallace]

It was an example, George, of not being able to predict what kind of war or terrain we would fight in.  Probably a bad one.  2Bravo has I think encapsulated what I was trying to say in better language.

I have no idea what you're on about here, but it little matters - the others seem to have grasped it fine.  If you really want to discuss it further, I'd suggest doing it here would be a waste of everyone else's time.

Your entire post is well stated 2Bravo, so thanks for that.  I especially agree with this, obviously.  Perhaps I was stating it in ways George wasn't able to understand.  Hopefully this clears it up for him. 

Right.....You are not at all familiar with what you are posting in this thread so I consider your comments to be those of an ignorant egotist, intent on nothing else but trolling. 

Michael, you know the rules of the forums and the site.

 

[muskrat89]

You will not troll the boards or feed the trolls. This is making posts that intentionally create hostile arguments, or responding to such posts in the same hostile tone.

MD - I know that you are an expert on the Forum Guidelines. You will know, of course, that the above is taken from the posted guidelines. The above guideline, in my mind, is subjective in nature. Since it is subjective, and you insist in walking along the edge of said guidelines there is always a chance you are taking a risk in getting further warnings. I hope you are confident in your ability to plead your case with Mike Bobbitt, should you receive the next step in the warning system, from a Moderator who doesn't see everything in black and white as you do.

 

[McG]

I don't think you have your facts correct.  In 1989-90 there was an opportunity to pick up 300 US tanks, in exchange for our 128 Leo C1s.  The deal was not for M1s, but for M60s, an older tank than what we already had.

How would those have been if we later upgraded to M60-2000 standard?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m60-2000.htm

The Americans successfully trialled a M1A1 with the Leo's diesel engine.  That it was not part of the M1's A2 upgrade was simply because the diesel is not American. 

Perhaps the best trade off for Canada, assuming a MBT buy, would be buying surplus M1A1, rebuilt with the MTU power pack?

And it sounds like there will be a few new surplus M1A1 when the US implements its fleet managment plan.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38080.0.html

 

[Armymedic]

Back to topic:

As both tanks are MBT's, I would have to say we need niether. The day and age where Canada's contribution to its allies is to provide a fully functional armoured force of brigade level or higher are over. Lets leave the A list countries run MBTs. We do not have the troops or the money to get back into the MBT game, nor are we going to jump in right beside our NATO allies and fight on the frontline with them in a high intesity conflict with a technically equivelent enemy.

Once we find our role in the world, then lets get what is best suited for that role.

 

[George Wallace]

As both tanks are MBT's, I would have to say we need niether. The day and age where Canada's contribution to its allies is to provide a fully functional armoured force of brigade level or higher are over. Lets leave the A list countries run MBTs. We do not have the troops or the money to get back into the MBT game, nor are we going to jump in right beside our NATO allies and fight on the frontline with them in a high intesity conflict with a technically equivelent enemy.

Unfortunately, it is the Skill Sets that we will be loosing that is the major problem.  Just as the Navy needs submarines to maintain it Skill Sets and expertise in that area of operations, the Army needs to maintain, at least a minimum, of Skill Sets and expertise in operating Tanks and Cbt Teams.  Tanks are a vital part of the All Arms Team.  Without them, we are loosing valuable experience and training for future Combined Arms operations.  If a Canadian Infantry Unit gets attached to a larger NATO Army and have to operate in conjunction with tanks, Combat is not the time to learn. 

During the First Gulf War the US offered Canada the loan of M1 Tanks so we could participate.  All we had to do is crew them.  We sent a Field Hospital and a Protection Force of Infanteers.

The tank has proven itself over and over again.  Tracked vehicles are more maneuverable on a Battlefield than wheeled.  Their survivability rates are also higher.  The M1 has proven itself in combat over and over again.  The Leopard 2 has seen limited action in the Balkins, but has being field tested and has the same or better ratings as the M1.

I am not a Techie, nor an armour developer, but I do know that every Tank put into production has had ballistic trials done on its armour.  Anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is naive. 

The German designs have been well thought out to the minutest detail.  They are easy to maintain.  They are easy to replace parts and Power Packs.  The American designs are good, but not as good as the Germans.  We won't even get into British engineering and the plumbers nightmares their equipment are plagued with in the maintenance side of the house.

I would side with the Leopard 2 in its latest variant.

 

[ZipperHead]

I will take sides on this one and say the Leo2, mainly for sentimental reasons (as already noted by others) because of time spent on the C1 and C2, and for what I consider to be superior German engineering (so says the owner of a VW Golf, and former owner of a Jetta  ;D ..... and WHEN I win the 6/49, I'll be getting a BMW, so there!!). I liked what I saw of it in Bosnia (with the Dutch).

I will have to admit my exposure to the M1A2 is more limited, other than seeing it/playing the simulated version in SteelBeast2 Pro (demo version, baby!!!) and on BattleField2 (which I'm kind of ashamed to even admit to as "experience", but man can I kick some ass with it). The supply line issue is valid, but I don't know how far that can be pushed. Having to beg from our Allies is almost an SOP now for the CF, but I don't know if that is something you want to get into the habit of (assuming you are talking about bumming off of them come wartime). If you are talking "normal" peacetime supply lines, ships work pretty good at getting BMW's and VW's over here , so I'm guessing they would work at getting Krauss Maffei parts here as well (sorry for the sarcasm). And in that vein, if we are overseas when we need these parts, Germany is a lot closer than the US, no?!?!

It seems Ashley and I are agreeing a little too often lately (the Apocalypse must be approaching), but I am also of the opinion, when push comes to shove, we aren't going to be duking it out alongside the big boys (US, UK, Germany, gulp, France) in their MBT's. If the Army's of the world were a motorcycle gang, Canada would likely show up with a tricycle (I stole that from somebody). I am going to hop on the M8 Thunderbolt bandwagon instead. From what I have read/seen (which is admittedly little, but who has time for these things.... other than everybody else at Army.ca) I like. But that is another thread, as this is Leo2 vs M1 for Canada, which I'm sure is kind of a moot point anyways, and I'm surprised at the hostility that people are showing (well, not really surprised). It's kind of like the the arguments over who is hotter (on Gilligan's Island): Mary Ann or Ginger???

Al

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Canadian soldiers have always made the best of sub-rated kit. Give us T-72's and we'll kick ass till we're all dead. As per norm, we'll do our best with what we have, garner a few praises two generations on, and shine only in our son's and daughter's eyes. It's why we joined and all we can hope for.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Discovery Channel had the top 10 tanks on recently and the Lep 2 was number 1.

 

[TCBF]

.... and Ginger (Tina Louise,  38-23-37) WAS hotter than Mary-Ann.



Glad to read I have a few converts to the M8.  The last five years have been a bit lonely.

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

This is such an "It depends" sort of argument. Unless a lot of other factors are considered (where we are going, who we are working with, how we plan to get there, what we are supposed to do), then there really is no particular reason to suggest the M-1, Leopard 2, LeClerc, M-8, CV 90120, FCS or anything else.

Practical considerations would suggest something small and light enough to transport, considering we are half a world away from most trouble spots, while tactical considerations suggest something with heavy armour that can withstand close range attacks is needed. Given that transporting equipment in "ones and twoes" by air over strategic distances is rather pointless, we need to get enough transport ships to carry a battlegroup and support them in theater. Once we have that squared away, then we can argue over what to put into them.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Good point, Art.

I'm just going to add one minor point to the Michael/ 2Bravo/George debate about "lessons learned".

Simulation and computer projections are excellent, and a lot is learned from them.  Where things go for hell in a hand basket is when we start using vehicles for purposes other than there original design purpose.  Using Michaels Sherman example, it was known that the Sherman could not fight other tanks.  It was not designed for that, the tactics of the day used tank destroyers to kill tanks, and the Sherman to kill everything else.  It was a flawed philosophy, but it was the flavour of the day.  The Sherman was used outside of its design role, and suffered for it, because no one practised (simulated) for the way it was eventually used.

Hence the lessons learned.  The Stryker was never designed for fighting in cities, when it was used there, the "lessons learned" resulted in adding the bird cage.  Same for the M1, it was never designed for fighting any closer than 1000 meters from the enemy, when it was used in cities, the "lessons learned" resulted in a cannister round being developed.

It's virtually impossible to simulate every possible role for every piece of equipment in every terrain it may be used in.  We can't have a piece of kit for every possible scenario, so we use kit outside of its designers original role.

 

[ASLT TPR]

It doesn't seem like Canada really knows what it wants to do with the armoured corps. One minute we are scrapping the tanks then we get a turret upgrade then they are getting mothballed. Then in Gagetown we shipped all but 8 out west now we are hearing rumours that we are getting them back. But its funny no matter how much you curse them things, you sure do miss them when there gone. Who knows whats going to happen next. I really don't think they do. I remember the big rumor of the Striker. But that fell through but no matter what they do money will dictate. And it doesn't have to be the best piece of kit either look at the LSVW for instance. ENOUGH SAID  LOL

 

[youravatar]

I Read an article in the Citizen. The British have or are currently developing a certain armour that can disrupt incoming RPGs. Like a force field. Apparently to be fielded on their new light armour in a decade or so.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I think that we're having a big'ol chat about it here.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38169.0.html

Cheers,

2B

 

[big bad john]

I Read an article in the Citizen. The British have or are currently developing a certain armour that can disrupt incoming RPGs. Like a force field. Apparently to be fielded on their new light armour in a decade or so.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38169.0.html

 

[STONEY]

I recently read a report about a series of interviews that was done after the major fighting in the last gulf war. They talked to US Army, US Marines, British Army & Marine Commando's in various types of units and there was one common thread.  Anytime they ran into  any opposition the first cry that went out was "where are the tanks", where are the tanks", "WHERE ARE THE TANKS" . Seems nobody could get enough of them.  So if your going to go in harms way ?  Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

 

[a_majoor]

While a Tank is an excellent general purpose weapons system, the need for large numbers of tanks for close support tasks suggests perhaps we should be talking about reviving the idea of a WWII era "assault gun" for infantry formations. In WW II, they were usually built on cut down tank chassis, and mounted large calibre cannons to blast any hard targets which presented themselves (enemy bunkers, machinegun nests or other strong points were the primary target for this type of vehicle, although they could shoot at enemy tanks in a pinch.)

This isn't to say that the WW II era vehicle layout is ideal, in today's environment it would be woefully inadequate in a complex terrain environment. The old CASR site had a presentation of re-rolling a Leopard tank into an urban assault gun, replacing the 105mm cannon with a breach loading 120mm mortar and a multiplicity of secondary weapons (co ax and mounted on OWS stations). Stand off armour and a dozer blade were also part of the package. Matt_Fisher was the author of this idea, and should perhaps comment in more depth.

Redoing the Leopard would be ideal in theory, since we already have them, and lots of NATO nations have stockpiles of Leopard I's in reserve or awaiting disposal. In my mind, the best place to place these "Storm Leopards" would be as support elements in an Infantry battalion (what's so strange about that? ADATS and TOW are now incorporated in the LdSH(RC)). Of course this goes against the prevailing wisdom of stripping support elements away from units, so plan "B" might be to have a "Support Battalion" which can mix'n'match platoon and company sized elements out to task forces as required.

 

[Fabius]

I agree that as a close support system WW II assault guns were effective. However we would be wrong to follow the WW II German example of developing assault guns with out traversing turrets, which proved a limiting factor in combat, the Germans acknowledged that assault guns were inferior to tanks in this regard but that for them it was a necessary trade off in that they needed to produce armaments as quickly and as matireally efficient as possible, conditions which the assault guns meet. The idea of Storm Leopards seems like a good solution to the identified need for close armoured support in complex urban terrain. Such a system equipped with stand off armour, dozer blade and secondary remote operated weapons mounts would incorporate the  lessons learned by the Israelis in 2002 during the Battle of Jenin in which D9 armoured bulldozers proved highly useful for breaching and the British and American lessons learned in Iraq especially in the Battles of Basra and Fallujah in which the invulnerability and integral firepower of tanks proved highly relevent in a suppression role