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

[Matt_Fisher]

Garry,

Thanks for the "Lesson" I must have forgotten/mentally blocked out when I was in Nasiriya last spring with 1st Marine Division as an LAV-25 gunner conducting ops in urban situations. Our M1‘s lead the spearhead over the Rt. 7 Bridge into town, with 2nd Bn. 8th Marines on their butt providing close support.

In CIBUA/FIBUA/MOUT, whatever you want to call it, direct fire support from an armored platform is essential. Tank/Infantry cooperation is key to seizing ground in the hellish chaos that is urban warfare.

Franko: In reference to the cage, if such a system were employed it would be on a hinged platform so that maintenance critical areas could be accessed. Modification of the front torsion bars would be something that would need to be addressed, especially when you consider the additional weight of the MEXAS package for the Leopards, if it hasn‘t been already.

 

[Franko]

It hasn‘t and it won‘t. As for MEXAS, we won‘t employ that system seeing how we already bought an add-on/ up-armour package for the panzers.

Also, don‘t start belittling troops on this board with your personnal experiences when you didn‘t even have the courtesy of filling out your profile with your mil history...we can‘t read minds.

Service in the CF? Mind filing us in?

Regards

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Originally posted by Recce41:
[qb] George
Colin
The 105 is as good as the 120. Just because "Bigger is not always better". The old Sherman had a 37mm Ram, 17 pdr,75,76,90,and last a 105. The old 17 was the best out of the bunch. It was the same size as the 76 but hit harder. There is a big differnce between a tank 105 and a Arty 105. [/qb]

Recce
I do understand the difference between the L7 105mm tank gun and the 105mm howitzer, which if I remember correctly had a MV of only 1500 FPS for the C1 version. From rereading your post I take it that you are referring to the new smoothbore 105mm that was being developed by the Germans? I don't know if anyone has actually purchased them yet? Also GIAT produced a 105mm used on the AMX RC armoured car, which I think relies more on a HEAT/HESH round than a Kinetic energy round (Sabot). I do think the 105mm on our leo's is a good gun, but it and the ammunition for it is getting dated and would be hard pressed to up against the newest marks of T-80's, T-90's or Arguns.

A minor oops, the RAM was equipped with the 2pdr (40mm) although the American M2 medium tank (Grandfather of the Sherman) was equipped with the American 37mm. Even though the 17 pdr was an excellent gun, it had a poor accuracy rate due to it's APDS and the lack of understanding at the time of how the petals affected the flight of penetrating rod.

sorry for taking so long to post a reply. cheers

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Franko,

"As for MEXAS, we won‘t employ that system seeing how we already bought an add-on/ up-armour package for the panzers."

The MEXAS (Modular Expandable Armour System)by IBD Deisenroth Engineering of Germany was purchased and fitted for the both models of Leopards (Leopard A3 and A5 turrets) that the CF‘s have used. This information was provided by Alan Bolster, Deputy Project Director, Mobile Gun System. Due to the differences in turret shape, 2 different packages of MEXAS were produced.

In reference to the "belittling" I understand your point, however when someone on the forum presents their position in such a sarcastic way as "lesson time", they open themselves up for sarcasm in the response.

As far as service in the CF‘s:
1993-95 AVGP Driver with the BC Dragoons.
1995-99 Recce. Crewman with the BC Regiment.

2000-Present LAV Crewman with Delta Company, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, during which I served in Operation Iraqi Freedom from March 2003-October 2003.

 

[Franko]

Originally posted by Matt_Fisher:
[qb] This information was provided by Alan Bolster, Deputy Project Director, Mobile Gun System. Due to the differences in turret shape, 2 different packages of MEXAS were produced.
[/qb]

MGS DPD right? These are the same guys who are trying to sell us the POS MGS Stryker, are they not?

I‘m not going to get into this can of worms. Everyone here I‘m sure know my POV on this topic and doesn‘t want to hear it again....

I‘ll pass it on to George Wallace for his input.

As for your docier...glad to hear you made it back.

Regards

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Franko,

I agree with you in that the LAV III/Stryker MGS is not the ideal replacement for the Leopard.

By writing the article for CASR I wanted to create some thought on using a platform that the CF‘s already have in a very cost-efficient and effective manner. Hence the proposal for modifying the Leopard for a CIBUA role, something that both you and I know the MGS is not suited for.

We can argue the merits of Leopard II‘s vs. Challengers all day, but we both know that the CF‘s will not be replacing the Leopard with a newer MBT ie. M1/Challenger/Leclerc/LeopardII.

What needs to be considered is an alternative that is feasible for the CF‘s other than the MGS.

 

[Franko]

There really isn‘t one at the present time. The biggest point that most of us serving in the Corps is that we are buying the MGS while we could buy the M1 or Leo 2 for a marked down price, which the Aussies already have agreed to with the US. They are battle proven, somewhat reliable, and getting parts would primarily be a snatch seeing how the US is right next door. As for Leo 2, we are already on line with the systems of an older model which would be nothing more than an expanded conversion course, primarily for the FCS/ Weap/ and maintainers. The crews would adapt quite quickly.

The MGS (I‘m sure we can all agree upon)is a stop gap measure...that will end up costing lives in future ops in the end.

The fact that the puchase has been put on hold could be construed as a sober second look...much to everyone‘s relief.

The CF will never go for such a rigg that you proposed...it‘s not economically feasable to modify panzers that were just recently upgraded. Besides think of the political fallout of such a proposal going through

Regards

 

[George Wallace]

Ya had to mention my name...didn‘t ya? Being an older guy, I am prone to talking to myself, and I‘ve been debating with myself on the Future of the Corps. With recent half page letters to the Ottawa Citizen and such by our former CO, LGen R. Hillier, I have the feeling the Corps is DEAD. He has greatly disappointed me in his favouring the purchase of the MGS and retiring of the Leopards (just after a major upgrade).

Canada is going to require a tank. There is no way that we can reasonably maintain any form of an Army without one. The removal of the tank from our inventory has not only killed the RCAC, but the whole Cbt Arms. Too many ‘uninformed‘ people believed that Air Power alone was all we needed to end the violence in places like Kosovo and Macedonia. Surgical Strikes. Yeah sure. It still takes the taking of ground by Cbt troops to end that paragraph of history. Without tanks the Cbt Arms have lost an integeral part and have in essence been neutered. Infantry still need heavy firepower to provide close support. Artillery is not there in the direct fire role, so will not be able to effectively provide "timely" fire on an enemy. Armour moves fast. Infantry struggles to keep up. No Armour. The Advance slows.

If the Tank is a Cold War relic, what is the MGS? It is a system, although greatly updated, that wasn‘t employed since WW II. It was a system that was used as a Tank Destroyer or as an Assault Gun. Neither proved close support to Infantry in the Assault, Advance, Defence, or withdrawl. It is limited in the amount of ammo it carries. Its whole gunnery system is problematic. It has poor arcs of vision for both Gunner and Commander. The US Army is larger than Canada‘s and can afford to create Heavy, Medium and Light Bdes (H#*#!, even Armies). Canada does not have that luxury.

If we lose the tank, all our Armour skills will be lost, not only in the Corps, but in the whole Cbt Team. It will take generations to relearn lessons that we will have lost, should somewhere in the future we be required to bring tanks back.

Franko...You know we already lost 30 people last fall, just because we lost our tanks. These guys had joined to be Tankers, now they are civies. The act had totally demoralized them and their faith in the CF.

I still haven‘t figured out how they seriously want to employ the MGS, but who am I? I can do Recce, and so will the rest of us. Perhaps the future of the Corps will be the replacement of the Coyote‘s with LAVs (Commonality of Parts) and we will be "Bus Drivers" for the Grunts?

Long enough for you?

GW

 

[Franko]

MORE I WANT MORE GEORGE!

Regards

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Franko & George you guys warm my heart and I not even a tanker!

People fail to mention that the turret for the MGS has been kicking around for a least a decade and no one has bought until the Styker family came along.

For me the tank is the Canary in the mineshaft, if we can‘t afford or are incapable of operating tanks in the field, then there is something truly wrong in the whole structure of the forces. Your mention on the effect on morale is very good, people forget how all this crap kills people‘s spirits and makes it impossible to keep the good ones.

This whole lethal and light stuff makes me want to puke, it reminds me to much of a Budweiser ad, all fizz and no taste. Does anyone remember that it was â Å“light forcesâ ? that got their asses kicked in Somali, **** even the Brits in 1930's knew that Combined Armour/infantry was the way to go for dealing with the NorthWest Frontier.

 

[Franko]

Yep.....

Nothing make the enemy crap their pants and run for their lives like a squadron of panzers screaming across the battlefield...guns blazing...

What will they do when they see the MGS putting along and getting stuck?

Regards

 

[Kirkhill]

You know, hearing all you armoured types constantly say that you don‘t want the MGS perhaps it should be handed over to the Arty along with the LAV-TUA. They handle all the rest of the fire support tasks and up until you cavalry types were told to give over your horses for those dirty, grimy tanks they handled the direct fire support as well as indirect support.

Cheers all

 

[Danjanou]

What will they do when they see the MGS putting along and getting stuck?

Die laughing (hopefully)

 

[Franko]

So give it to another bunch of troops who don‘t know Combat Team manouvers and ops so they can die a horrible death in a POS that has operating problems with the main gun?

Yeah...great idea

The whole problem with the MGS is it‘s an idea that was thrown away in WW2 for it being a bad idea...why resurect it now? Sure it modern...I can smell the "new car scent" too.

Remember Kirkhill...this is to be a REPLACEMENT for the Leopard C2 main battle tank.

The bloody thing takes up to 20min to reload the magazines, and they jam. There is NO protection for the crew against heavy fire (20mm and up), nevermind RPGs...and it‘s WHEELED! The crewcommander can‘t see jack, so there goes the hunter-killer capacity of the crew right there.

It‘s a great ADDITION to the US Army heavy divisions...they can afford to have it.

We, however,can‘t.

It won‘t be able to provide direct fire and support capability nor the protection the way an MBT can...no matter how much money you throw at it.

If you think it can and will...your living in a dream world. I hope you statement was retorical.

Regards

 

[Kirkhill]

Franko, I understand your dedication to your regiment and your corps and appreciate it. I don‘t think that MBTs have gone the way of the dodo just yet and reckon they could be put to good use if available. But I do think that you might have developed a degree of tunnel vision.

Soldiering is about more than motoring over us "crunchies". Cavalry is about more than shock action and sabre charges.

From the stand point of an ex-infanteer I would sooner have the support from an MGS in the field than the support from an MBT that wasn‘t available or may not even have been deployed.

As a complete aside I have noticed on this thread a tendency of late to slag Lt-Gen Hillier for failing to support the RCAC. He may or may not be deserving of that slagging for a variety of reasons but I saw the conference where Hillier and McCallum announced the MGS. At no time did Hillier say he wanted to get rid of the MBTs nor did he commit himself to getting rid of them. It was McCallum that called the MGS an MBT replacement. It was McCallum that said that his desired number of tanks was zero.

Hillier left himself an out. All he said was that he wanted the MGSs as soon as possible.

McCallum is gone. Nobody‘s got a clue on the future out there.

Regards, and keep safe

Airghardt.

 

[George Wallace]

Originally posted by Kirkhill:
[qb] As a complete aside I have noticed on this thread a tendency of late to slag Lt-Gen Hillier for failing to support the RCAC. He may or may not be deserving of that slagging for a variety of reasons but I saw the conference where Hillier and McCallum announced the MGS. At no time did Hillier say he wanted to get rid of the MBTs nor did he commit himself to getting rid of them. It was McCallum that called the MGS an MBT replacement. It was McCallum that said that his desired number of tanks was zero.

Hillier left himself an out. All he said was that he wanted the MGSs as soon as possible.

[/qb]

This half page Byline by: Lt.-Gen. Rick J. Hillier, Source: Citizen Special
Page: B7, Edition: Final
The Ottawa Citizen - Sat, Jan 17, 2004 - 1001 words, says differently.


"Our transformed army: A more nimble force best meets Canadian needs in a changed world, says the chief of the land staff.

A recent Citizen article ("Tanks crucial in Iraq," Jan. 8) has used a widely acknowledged fact -- that tanks played a key role in the Coalition ground fight in Iraq -- to criticize the..."

Slag! Read this archived half page letter from Hillier and tell us again that he did what?

He let the Corps down. There are others, wearing Black Berets in high places, who should never have worn a Black Beret, nor lead Armour troops, as they have no concept of Armour. They are contributing to the Death of the Army also. You seem to be an outsider, with a set of blinders on, who also has no concept of the Role of Armour and its‘ place in a Combat Team. When you get a little older, you will not have had the oportunity to do a Quick Attack with real tanks (should be 25 to 45 minutes, as opposed to the Infantry 3 hrs.). You will never have known the sound of diesel engines driving 50 tonnes of steel firing cannon and MG at an enemy as you advance beside it. You will never experience that with a MGS. It will not advance onto an enemy position with you. It will have to fire through you to get at the enemy as opposed to advancing with you and firing from your side. You‘re young and you‘ll learn (perhaps).


The Death of the Armour Corps is the Death of the Army. The Combat Team is gone. The four Cbt Arms are required to fight and win battles. Lose one and the rest are neutralized.

IT IS A TEAM.

GW


:soldier:

 

[Kirkhill]

Well George, many things I am, young I am not. All the best to you and your pals on this site.
Enjoy yourselves.

Cheers.

 

[Franko]

Obviously someone who never knew the thrill of working with the tanks on combat team when he was in the reserves. :crybaby:

Smelled like a troll anyways...

As for his point on having the MGS on deployment when he needed it, I agree...but a question must be added.

How would his beloved MGS get into theater, realistically ?

Not by C-130 that‘s for sure. By ship...the same way a tank would be transported, therefore negating any squabbles about it being too difficult to transport them into theater. If heavy firepower is required for an op, there is NO excuse for not employing our Leopards...even if it‘s to save opening the Liberals purse.

As for my supposed tunnel vision...

I am not completly opposed to the CF procuring the MGS as an ENHANCEMENT to the combat team, not the master link or hinge pin. To do such a thing would put the entire army into a place, that on the battle field, where we could face disaster in future ops.

Anyone who worked with the panzers would agree...

Or am I wrong?

Sorry for the rant troops

Regards

BTW...as for the CLS leaving himself an out...not even going to touch that one.

 

[Garry]

Guys,

We‘re arguing apples and oranges here.

There is NO argument that in battle, a balanced, all-arms force is vital. Tanks are an absolutely crucial part of that force. No question, no excuses, no arguments.

Canada is planning on NOT having a combined arms, "total war" making Army any more. Period. We‘re out of the war making business.

Is this right? Smart? A good idea? No.

Is it reality? Yes.

Our Government doesn‘t give a flying f*** about defending the Country. We‘ve ridden the American coattails for the last 25 years or so, and will continue to do so.

We are NO LONGER responsible for defending our country, the US is.

Our role is all it ever was, minus this one little (!!??!!) task.

Our Mission has shifted from Defense of Canada to our NATO/UN contributions. Are they valid? Dunno- I‘d guess the NATO commitment is, since "collective security" is how we stay free (yeah, right) but have less comfort with our UN taskings.

So, the question is, since we are no longer going to make all out war, but will do lots of force projection as a part of NATO or UN missions, what do we REALLY need to do the job?

I‘d guess that Artillery is on it‘s way out, the Corps will revert to Recce, and we may even lose our (Air Force) Fighter Force. Subs are brand new, so politically an embarrasment to lose, but their days are numbered as well.

Anyone want to bet we get lean and light? Lots of light Infantry, Armoured Recce/Fire Support, and a smaller Logistic train as well?

Moan and complain all you want. By your standards (and, I might add mine) you‘re right....but the MISSION has changed....deal with it.

Sucks, doesn‘t it?

Sigh.

Cheers-Garry

 

[Gunnar]

Ya know Garry, I‘d like to yell at you for your last post. Really, I would. I just don‘t have a good reason.

Yup, it sucks.