New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
The Merkava Mk4 can carry 8 Troops.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
big bad john said:
However, that requires that some ammunition racks be removed to make room for them. The rear door of the Merkava is normally used for the crew to escape in a emergency.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
a_majoor said:
The Leo 2 comes in at about 60 000 kg in its latest variants
A mixed fleet of LAVs and Leo 2 mbt/other variants would not be such a big logistical problem.
The French are doing like that with VAB/VBCI and Leclerc. The USMC is an expeditionary fighting force and they operate 70 T mbts and LAVs.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I have been reading a bit on here and some people have been saying that Stephen Harper did not have anything direct concerning new tanks.
I found this on CTV's website and thought some of you might be interested by it.
Maybe it is just wishful election talk though!
I found this on CTV's website and thought some of you might be interested by it.
Maybe it is just wishful election talk though!
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
For the short term, Prime Minister Harper needs to concentrate on the structural deficits in government accountability, finances, law enforcement and tax structures. So I will make a confident prediction; no tanks or programs for the next three years. (I could be wrong and hope so, but ....).
Given the long lead times for government to get around to this and then the actual procurement process; we might start thinking along the lines of "Future Armour" http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961.0.html. The US Army will be into adopting the FCS by that point in time, and dinosaur like 60-70 tonne tanks will be out of favor to support strategic and operational mobility. (The arguments FOR these tanks will be overbalanced by the arguments for a lighter and mor nimble force IMO).
For my money (and given the discussion in this and other threads) I would look carefully at a CV 90120 derivative, probably with a low profile Wegmann turret, autoloader and the FCS and electronics required to fire both "dumb" and "smart" rounds.
Given the long lead times for government to get around to this and then the actual procurement process; we might start thinking along the lines of "Future Armour" http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961.0.html. The US Army will be into adopting the FCS by that point in time, and dinosaur like 60-70 tonne tanks will be out of favor to support strategic and operational mobility. (The arguments FOR these tanks will be overbalanced by the arguments for a lighter and mor nimble force IMO).
For my money (and given the discussion in this and other threads) I would look carefully at a CV 90120 derivative, probably with a low profile Wegmann turret, autoloader and the FCS and electronics required to fire both "dumb" and "smart" rounds.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I just got word that the Brits are continuing to downsizing their Challenger 2 squadrons. They are apparently reducing their number of tanks by 100 or so tanks. Perhaps we can pick up those tanks that the Brits are planning to retire to storage. This may be a good decent opportunity to get tanks on the cheap.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Having worked on Centurians, as have a few others on this site, I would not go with a secondhand British Tank. I wouldn't even entertain the idea of a brand spanking new British Tank.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
George Wallace said:
Can you explain why? Thanks.
There was once a high speed jet interceptor called the Lightning. It was built by a company called English Electric. That company is now called BAC. Why? Because one should NEVER use the words "English" and "Electric" in the same grid square.
Tom
Tom
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
TCBF said:
I get the message now. Crappy electrics, eh?
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Armymatters said:
Unique and non NATO standard main cannon and ammunition;
Logistical incompatability between CF fleet or rest of NATO fleets, nor available in large enough numbers to exploit economies of scale WRT supply contracts for support and spare parts;
Huge size and weight makes strategic, operational and even (in some cases) tactical mobility difficult;
British tanks have been traditionally poor in mobility (the comment on the Cheiftan series was you wanted to break down in a good fire position). This has been resolved to some extent with the Challengers, but they are still slow compared to the M-1 or Leopard 2 series.
Buying tanks in isolation is rather pointless; supporting vehicles like ARVs and AVBLs, infantry IFVs and so on need to be factored in as well.
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
The Centurion was the best tank of its day. We, being Canadian, simply didn't rebuild them often enough, and ran them right in to the ground. Which is the history of most of our kit.....
Having said that, the Challenger, even with the smoothbore, would be a poor choice, for all of the reasons Mr Majoor brought out. This despite the fact that the Challenger is arguably the best armoured tank in the world, with an extremely capable gun.
Having said that, the Challenger, even with the smoothbore, would be a poor choice, for all of the reasons Mr Majoor brought out. This despite the fact that the Challenger is arguably the best armoured tank in the world, with an extremely capable gun.
AmmoTech90
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,118
- Points
- 1,010
A very capable gun that is being replaced by a rifled 120mm. Same design as Leopard2/M1 but not sure on calibre length. The project is going ahead, just a bit slowly.Lance Wiebe said:
- Reaction score
- 6,064
- Points
- 1,160
Kirkhill said:
Lucas, the Prince of Darkness.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Armymatters said:
It seems the builders of the Merkva and the authors of your books are an impass for through some diligent resourcing "part of the ammunition load to be restored in the turret. " In the MK 1 yes some ammunition had to be unloaded. And many of the MK 1 have been relegated to support roles such as an armoured ambulance. "The tank( Mark 4) is capable of carrying eight infantry soldiers, a Command Group or three litter patients (stretcher casualties) in addition to the tank crew of commander, loader, gunner and driver." and that " Merkava tanks are equipped with a window and firing hatch in the rear door, enabling snipers to guard the rear section of the tank."
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk4.html
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-06/urban-il-4.htm
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk1.html
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
I suspect the evolution of the Merkava is bypassing many information sources. The Mk 1 was not designed with troop carrying as a prioraty, and statements about the rear hatch being for the crew to bail out under fire and so on are correct for when it was introduced. As the design evolved, tankers worked out new and exciting uses for the rear compartment, developed TTPs and passed lessons learned to the design team, which incorporated them in subsequent models. One can only imagine what the Merkava Mk V will be like.....If only our equipment was being put through the cycle that quickly.
The idea of using a Merkava Mk 1 as a heavy IFV is interesting, each platoon would actually be a pocket combat team with the addition of an Achzarit for the FOO/MFC and (as a minimum) another dozer equipped Achzarit or Puma carrying a section of Engineers/Pioneers. Each Merkava carries its own 60mm mortar, as do the Achzarits and Pumas, in addition to the cannons and machine guns.
The idea of using a Merkava Mk 1 as a heavy IFV is interesting, each platoon would actually be a pocket combat team with the addition of an Achzarit for the FOO/MFC and (as a minimum) another dozer equipped Achzarit or Puma carrying a section of Engineers/Pioneers. Each Merkava carries its own 60mm mortar, as do the Achzarits and Pumas, in addition to the cannons and machine guns.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
a_Major/Kirkhill
you are correct in guessing that certain information is by passing many public information sources. Most of what I have been able to ascertain is the result of personal contacts and then being pointed in the right direction in the public domain. Afterall the military is still some what of a "exclusive old boys club" and then there is the connect the dots scenario. Thanks to the somewhat ambiguous posts of another site member I got out the old "black book of phone numbers" and made a few calls.
Okay disclaimer on information sources over and done with. With both the Merkava and the Ollifant series of development there is a striking difference in the way in development and production is accomplished vis via the way we do things. It seems that in both the aforementioned vehicle series experience on the battle field was immediately transfered back into the research and development phase and then immediately implemented into the production phase. Similar to Kelly Johnston's turn around of Lockhead Martin in that "the engineers and product users are in control not the accountants." In both countires tank crews themselves have been recognized as a resource that is not unlimited and shows in their design improvements, compartmental ammunition storage, CCTV, improved armor in the floor and front mounted engine etc. This coupled with the willingness on the part of the respective governments to recognize this facet and also to recognize changing trends in combat itself. Additionally, both countires have had to a certain extent become self reliant in regard to their own armaments development. A perfect example of this particularly in the SA case would be the SA SP Rhino. I surmise that it also helps that the military in both has the "ear" of the government when needed rather than layers of bureaucracy to deal with. As to the Merkava Mk 4 from what I have been able to ascertain yes it does have a nice little niche as exemplified by the the Israeli's refusal to export them.
you are correct in guessing that certain information is by passing many public information sources. Most of what I have been able to ascertain is the result of personal contacts and then being pointed in the right direction in the public domain. Afterall the military is still some what of a "exclusive old boys club" and then there is the connect the dots scenario. Thanks to the somewhat ambiguous posts of another site member I got out the old "black book of phone numbers" and made a few calls.
Okay disclaimer on information sources over and done with. With both the Merkava and the Ollifant series of development there is a striking difference in the way in development and production is accomplished vis via the way we do things. It seems that in both the aforementioned vehicle series experience on the battle field was immediately transfered back into the research and development phase and then immediately implemented into the production phase. Similar to Kelly Johnston's turn around of Lockhead Martin in that "the engineers and product users are in control not the accountants." In both countires tank crews themselves have been recognized as a resource that is not unlimited and shows in their design improvements, compartmental ammunition storage, CCTV, improved armor in the floor and front mounted engine etc. This coupled with the willingness on the part of the respective governments to recognize this facet and also to recognize changing trends in combat itself. Additionally, both countires have had to a certain extent become self reliant in regard to their own armaments development. A perfect example of this particularly in the SA case would be the SA SP Rhino. I surmise that it also helps that the military in both has the "ear" of the government when needed rather than layers of bureaucracy to deal with. As to the Merkava Mk 4 from what I have been able to ascertain yes it does have a nice little niche as exemplified by the the Israeli's refusal to export them.
