- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Rick, that was a great post and should bring us all back to reality. My next question is will we have to formulate a new army doctrine because we will no longer have tanks?
Should the CF be retain in its present form? (Split from MBT thread)
- Thread starter RickB
- Start date
G
generic
Guest
The answer is yes. And we are. We are looking to the "3D" approach. It is being conceptualized and trialed to use LAV III's, TUA (eventually on a LAV chassis), and ADATS/ MMEV (eventually on a LAV III chassis) fight the AA battle.
The logistics, C&C, and realitites of this are a nightmare. Is it the future? All the tarot cards say so.
Will this new concept pack a punch? Yes, covering the short, medium and long range spectrums.
Is there going to be growing pains? You bet.
Will we ever deploy this way? Unlikely, we can't move what we have now.
Is this a replacement for a MBT armor, shock action, firepower (as mentioned before)? Yes.
A good one? No.
There is a previous post that needs to be saluted. Lance Weibe said it best. We are not only losing the present day capability, the skill fade will be staggering, and in this day and age, this loss of ability and skill from the CF concioiusness could be fatal.
As well, the historic parallels are incredible, and foolish. It looks like we are doing it to ourselves again.
The logistics, C&C, and realitites of this are a nightmare. Is it the future? All the tarot cards say so.
Will this new concept pack a punch? Yes, covering the short, medium and long range spectrums.
Is there going to be growing pains? You bet.
Will we ever deploy this way? Unlikely, we can't move what we have now.
Is this a replacement for a MBT armor, shock action, firepower (as mentioned before)? Yes.
A good one? No.
There is a previous post that needs to be saluted. Lance Weibe said it best. We are not only losing the present day capability, the skill fade will be staggering, and in this day and age, this loss of ability and skill from the CF concioiusness could be fatal.
As well, the historic parallels are incredible, and foolish. It looks like we are doing it to ourselves again.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
tomahawk6 said:
This is a misconception of what has been happening. On many of our Tours the Arty support has been in the form of mortars. That isn't to mean that our Guns are going to the Reserves and we are reverting to mortars. It is just the level of firepower that NDHQ deemed required at the time.
On the point that Canada hasn't deployed tanks, you are mistaken. We have deployed tanks to Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo. As I stated a few posts ago, the Leo 1 served a role in Kosovo, in that it could navigate the smaller streets that the large M1, Leo 2, and Challenger 2s could not and also get through the mud that the wheeled Italian Centauros could not.
Our major problem has been dollars. Our Air Force has lost most of its' capabilities, as has our Navy. Therefore, we cannot transport any of our troops and equipment by our own means. It is ridiculous to think that in a Major World Conflict we would have to rely on Renting transport. Even now, people have forgotten the SS Katie incident when one third of our Land Force equipment was held hostage by a freighter captain looking for payment of wages.
GW
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,352
- Points
- 1,010
George,
Unless I am mistaken, we did not deploy MBT to Macedemia (Dan Haverson told me they only deployed Coyotes and Grizzly) in 2001?
Also when did we have MBT in Bosnia? During my first and second tour there, the Dutch, Brits, French and Yanks all had tanks, but we had only deployed Cougars and later Coyotes? During my third tour, I think all of SFOR had only like a squadron of tanks in country (Dutch).
I know we deployed a troop to Kosovo.
Has anybody else here know of some of the more specific details of the LdSH exercise in the fall that trialed new tactics using our current Leo, ADATS and TUA Fleet?
I would love to know some of the sepcifics of they tried and tested the tactics.
For anybody not in the loop, basically what they did was use the Leo (pretended they were MGS), TUA and ADATS to test and develop new direct fire doctrine.
Unless I am mistaken, we did not deploy MBT to Macedemia (Dan Haverson told me they only deployed Coyotes and Grizzly) in 2001?
Also when did we have MBT in Bosnia? During my first and second tour there, the Dutch, Brits, French and Yanks all had tanks, but we had only deployed Cougars and later Coyotes? During my third tour, I think all of SFOR had only like a squadron of tanks in country (Dutch).
I know we deployed a troop to Kosovo.
Has anybody else here know of some of the more specific details of the LdSH exercise in the fall that trialed new tactics using our current Leo, ADATS and TUA Fleet?
I would love to know some of the sepcifics of they tried and tested the tactics.
For anybody not in the loop, basically what they did was use the Leo (pretended they were MGS), TUA and ADATS to test and develop new direct fire doctrine.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
"The only difference between the Stryker and a Tank is armour and price"- a sentiment I saw expressed in the Globe and Mail. In peacekeeping action there is one tiny little difference; deterrence. If I am sitting with my little RPG and see a LAV roll around the corner, I might get all kind of frisky; man portable systems can engage them with a fair amount of confidence. If I know that an MBT roll around the corner next, I'll be less likely to get frisky because the kinds of systems that can engage an MBT are not the sort of hardware insurgents can carry around. Frankly, most of the armoured gun systems out there you can pot with a Carl G, pretty much just an APC with delusions of grandeur. As I understand the new tactical doctrine, MBT are spotters for the indirect fire of missile equipped lighter armour right? The fact that the main gun of a Leopard makes a nasty punch of its own is just a part of the package. If the MBT is to be the unit exposed to fire to direct the fire of lighter armoured units not exposed to return fire, then the weight of its armour and acuity of its sensors are its prime merits. That requires a modern MBT. The Challenger 2 fielded by the UK sports a Canadian designed package for intergrating and directing fire from multiple units. A smaller number of modern MBT, spearheads for light armoured formations might be more cost effective AND SURVIVABLE, than large numbers of big-gunned tinfoil targets.
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
I agree. But there has to be the political will to deploy MBT's/combat troops which seem's lacking. Ottawa is quick to deploy troops on humanitarian reasons but not for combat. Ultimately if you arent going to use your military to fight its a waste of money to have MBT's and other heavy equipment.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
ArmyRick
A Sqn RCD deployed tanks to IFOR in December of 1995. Initially they went with Mine Rollers and were to be for Mine Clearance. They ended up basically doing Gate Guard. You may want to ask Dan if he remembers the ND made by the CO with the coax in '99.
GW
A Sqn RCD deployed tanks to IFOR in December of 1995. Initially they went with Mine Rollers and were to be for Mine Clearance. They ended up basically doing Gate Guard. You may want to ask Dan if he remembers the ND made by the CO with the coax in '99.
GW
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
As I have said elsewhere (See: http://army.ca/forums/threads/25365.285.html ) I believe we need sometanks, even light tanks. The shock effect of armour is, I believe, one of its most important attributes and I believe that a wheeled vehicle, even a wheeled vehicle with a useful (105 mm) gun, lacks sufficient shock effect. Even in low intensity operations the sight and sound of a tank - even a light tank - lumbering and clanking its way into view has a salutary effect, as others have pointed out.
I also agree that we need to keep some tanks for training - in both regular and reserve forces. Reserve force tanks become more and more important as we have fewer and fewer in the regular force.
There is, however, clearly, no stomach in the government-of-the-day (nor, I would suggest, in the ranks of the Conservative Party of Canada) for the sorts of massive and lengthy infusions of money which are needed to buy even some tanks and new ships and new fighter/bombers and new transport aircraft and new helicopters, and, and, and ... and hire, train and equip thousands and thousands more people.
But, the question is: Should the CF be retained in its present form? (My suggested edit)
Rick B was, it seems to me, inching towards a question which many civilians ask themselves: If restoring the CF to something like a balanced, combat effective, combat ready force is so very, very expensive then isn't it time we assessed alternatives?
Again, elsewhere, I have posited that, absent any and all requirements for any sort of military force (àla Costa Rica) every nation-state worth the name MUST have, at all times, the armed forces - but maybe police/para-military forces - required to ensure that any band of armed thugs who can outgun a local police force cannot rob the country of its sovereignty by forcing governments to change the rules to suit an armed and angry minority.
That being said, there will be many Canadians who will argue for disbanding the military and building a new, very light, highly mobile, internal security force - probably a para-military adjunct to the RCMP, perhaps something akin to the French CRS. (See: http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/rubriques/c/c3_police_nationale/c339_sccrs/index_html )
I also agree that we need to keep some tanks for training - in both regular and reserve forces. Reserve force tanks become more and more important as we have fewer and fewer in the regular force.
There is, however, clearly, no stomach in the government-of-the-day (nor, I would suggest, in the ranks of the Conservative Party of Canada) for the sorts of massive and lengthy infusions of money which are needed to buy even some tanks and new ships and new fighter/bombers and new transport aircraft and new helicopters, and, and, and ... and hire, train and equip thousands and thousands more people.
But, the question is: Should the CF be retained in its present form? (My suggested edit)
Rick B was, it seems to me, inching towards a question which many civilians ask themselves: If restoring the CF to something like a balanced, combat effective, combat ready force is so very, very expensive then isn't it time we assessed alternatives?
Again, elsewhere, I have posited that, absent any and all requirements for any sort of military force (àla Costa Rica) every nation-state worth the name MUST have, at all times, the armed forces - but maybe police/para-military forces - required to ensure that any band of armed thugs who can outgun a local police force cannot rob the country of its sovereignty by forcing governments to change the rules to suit an armed and angry minority.
That being said, there will be many Canadians who will argue for disbanding the military and building a new, very light, highly mobile, internal security force - probably a para-military adjunct to the RCMP, perhaps something akin to the French CRS. (See: http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/rubriques/c/c3_police_nationale/c339_sccrs/index_html )
G
generic
Guest
Being fairly new to the forum I don't know if this idea has been floated or debated or contested before.
An idea that I have heard bantered back and forth that falls between disbanding us for a paramilitary, RCMP on steriods model and the present "full-scale" military we have today is that of a model resembling that of an American Marine unit.
A fully cohesive, self- sufficient unit with arty, light armour, infantry all in one unit, with some kind of tactical helo or amphibious capability. I don't know in what direction this would be a step towards but to me would seem to fall in line with the contemporary operating enviroment and give us a quick reaction force with enough teeth to get something done, but would also enable us to get into our much loved humanitarian missions.
An idea that I have heard bantered back and forth that falls between disbanding us for a paramilitary, RCMP on steriods model and the present "full-scale" military we have today is that of a model resembling that of an American Marine unit.
A fully cohesive, self- sufficient unit with arty, light armour, infantry all in one unit, with some kind of tactical helo or amphibious capability. I don't know in what direction this would be a step towards but to me would seem to fall in line with the contemporary operating enviroment and give us a quick reaction force with enough teeth to get something done, but would also enable us to get into our much loved humanitarian missions.
We complain about our defence budget and certainly it could be increased but one problem seems to be how we spend what we do get. Whoever is running this lashup doesn't seem to know what they are doing or where they are going . Why did we spend millons upgrading the C1 to C2 leo then only to get rid of them a short time later. Why did they spend millons building new buildings at CFB summerside then close the place while some were still under construction. Why did they spend millions building new mess facilities & headquarters at CFB Shearwater then downgrade it to a heloport, closing down its main runway's that could handle any aircraft in the air. I'm sure many of you could relate many other horror stories of wasting huge sums of dollars. Does not the left hand know what the right hand is doing ? appearently not.
Maybe the "braintrust" at NDHQ is far ahead in it's thinking than the rest of the world, as in getting rid of MBT's when no one else has thought of it yet. They certainly have failed in getting their line of thought out to the rank & file.
Maybe the "braintrust" at NDHQ is far ahead in it's thinking than the rest of the world, as in getting rid of MBT's when no one else has thought of it yet. They certainly have failed in getting their line of thought out to the rank & file.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
not sure if you have been at either lately but I have and both the new headquarter and the mess are packed and busy, they are not under utilized if thats what you are trying to say.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
STONEY said:
Actually, it's hardly downgraded, there's still 2 Sqns here and an Air Maintenance Sqn plus support personnel, in total 1000+ pers. The mess is used extensively as is the HQ and believe me, the mess isn't new. The O's mess is a hole in the wall while Warrior Block may have been renovated, it's certainly not new and unused.
The big runway was closed since we don't have enough money to be maintaining it when there's no aircraft using it on a regular basis, kinda sounds stupid spending a ton of money on something that won't be used, oh wait, that's the point you were making.
My apologies if this was a hijack.
S
swanson
Guest
Hey guys many of you who drive tanks know me as i was a Strathcona for many years, The question should we keep main BTs is really not the correct question the question should be why in the hell don't we have any MBTs. The LEO is a medium battle tank and a very old hunk of junk. Trust me i know how proud the crews are I still remember the torque specs on every nut and bolt and i remember how important a 19mm socket wrench is. But the truth is the Leo is just old and dead yes in 1999 we added new turrets and some Thermal sights but that just turned and old hunk of garbage into a more expensive one. The powers that lead this country would have you believe that we should go wheeled but every good Tank driver knows just how limited the LAVs really are. Remember what LAV stands for and don't ever forget it. If we want to have Armour we must look at the Leo2 improved or the Challenger2 even the new French MBT the Leclerc or whatever it is called. Canada must think about having one full regiment of Tanks, And the other Regiments can have LAVs other NATO countries have laughed at us for years which really stinks because we have the best men in the world and we deserve better. Well that's my 2 cents worth i hope someone replies
R
R
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
swanson said:
I would have to agree with this, I could see how proud the guys were of their tanks during my last visit to the regiment, but I also saw the state of the tanks. The sight of zap straps holding the thermal shield (I think this is what is was called) onto the tank was not pretty. Not that the crews are bad at maintaining the tanks, but its just as swanson put it that the are old hunks of garbage.
For all those speaking of budgets,
Of course we're are not going to get a bigger budget, unless the people of this country start to really care or even be aware that we have the CF. If the general population doesn't care about something, then the politicians really don't care all that much about it either.
And does it really matter which government party is screwing us over? The two major party's have both done it. You just have to make them care about it, as I previousley stated. Or thats my opinion at least.
As for tanks, (If anyone can confirm or deny this?) we could of had more and better tanks. The Germans wanted to leave us their tanks when they left Canada but no, its bad for us to seem weak accepting military charity. And the suggestion that we could have M1's? not that far fetched at all. The Americans are selling them to Australia and I belive they tried to give them to us 2 for 1 at less than the price of new Leo 2's.
My 0.02 cents on this discussion so far.
Once again I am farely young so feel free to correct me if I am misguided or misinformed.
Regards,
RickB, Cadet MCpl
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
IM only 16 but i know a little about the world still. I know taht the United States is in an enormous(trillions) debt with China and other country's. And, that many country's such as China are pumping money into Canadian resources such as mining and other raw materials and that with the increasing unrest in the Middle East, Canada will soon be a target. It is the perfect time to up our military. What was said in the fourms as to the CF being too bent on peacekeeping as the Topic Starter mentioned, is true. Canada has invested way too much on the peacekeeping with Tanks and such Canada needs an army to defend itself and rescue other country's as we are known for doing(like Holland in WWII). i know that this is off topic too but did anyone know that canada had the chance to be the strongest country in the world once? lol
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
well I may as well add my 2 cents in as well.
I have to agree with those who have said that we must keep the MBT. Not for operational reasons, as they would only be rarely deployed. But for the reasons of history and training. Our forces have been neglected by absolutely every government since confederation and before. We have always played "catch up" when something really big has gone down in the world. One of the reasons Worthington created the Armour school was to train and keep our soldiers as up to date as possible, and to continue to do so after the world wars. Even when we practised with only boards held between 4 guys to represent a tank in the back lot of the garrison, or drove the Iltis around the training area pretending.
So, if we allow our politicians to convince us that we have to lose a certain capability, then we only have ourselves to blame when the next crisis happens and we end up spending more to get up to speed and lose more lives then necessary to gain back what we had in the first place.
As we have seen in Kosovo, Iraq, and even with the Dutch example in Bosnia, the MBT has its place. Not often, but it is still there. To fall into this trap of light cavalry/mobile as an end product is dangerous. It will only be one more step towards driving in jeeps and calling ourselves peace police.
Thanks
I have to agree with those who have said that we must keep the MBT. Not for operational reasons, as they would only be rarely deployed. But for the reasons of history and training. Our forces have been neglected by absolutely every government since confederation and before. We have always played "catch up" when something really big has gone down in the world. One of the reasons Worthington created the Armour school was to train and keep our soldiers as up to date as possible, and to continue to do so after the world wars. Even when we practised with only boards held between 4 guys to represent a tank in the back lot of the garrison, or drove the Iltis around the training area pretending.
So, if we allow our politicians to convince us that we have to lose a certain capability, then we only have ourselves to blame when the next crisis happens and we end up spending more to get up to speed and lose more lives then necessary to gain back what we had in the first place.
As we have seen in Kosovo, Iraq, and even with the Dutch example in Bosnia, the MBT has its place. Not often, but it is still there. To fall into this trap of light cavalry/mobile as an end product is dangerous. It will only be one more step towards driving in jeeps and calling ourselves peace police.
Thanks
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,352
- Points
- 1,010
Yeah, it would be nice to get new MBT..
One the Govt doesn't want them and two, we in the CF couldn't afford a decent size fleet anyways.
RickB, there are alot of rumours of the US would sell us tanks for dirt cheap or that when they shut down GATES (German Army Training Exercise Shilo) that they would practically have givem them to us, etc, etc.
These are nonsense rumours and military myths.
Even if we did get Leo2A6 or Abrams. Do you realize the cost behind them ? The maintenance? The fuel consumption?
What about deploying them? We don't have that ability.
If we had a 20-25 Billion dollar defence budget than we could probably have 5 full brigades, at least 120-150 of the latest and greatest MBTs, a modern and up to date air fighter fleet, a decent air movement fleet (old rusty hercs aint cuttin it no more) and a respectable navy with amphibious transport ships.
The reality is we don't have them their dollars. We are losing alot of kit and we will lose even more yet. The Canadian people put liberals in power again, so that is how our defence will be.
By the way, I have worked several times on ex (with RCD, LdSH and even 12RBC) with our Leos and I admit, nothing says love like a squadron opening up on a volley of fire...
However as I said earlier, the MBT is on the way out. We need to make peace with that fact.
Jerry thunder, what is the point you are trying to make man? As I say to my SQ candidates, make your answer short and simple, man...
One the Govt doesn't want them and two, we in the CF couldn't afford a decent size fleet anyways.
RickB, there are alot of rumours of the US would sell us tanks for dirt cheap or that when they shut down GATES (German Army Training Exercise Shilo) that they would practically have givem them to us, etc, etc.
These are nonsense rumours and military myths.
Even if we did get Leo2A6 or Abrams. Do you realize the cost behind them ? The maintenance? The fuel consumption?
What about deploying them? We don't have that ability.
If we had a 20-25 Billion dollar defence budget than we could probably have 5 full brigades, at least 120-150 of the latest and greatest MBTs, a modern and up to date air fighter fleet, a decent air movement fleet (old rusty hercs aint cuttin it no more) and a respectable navy with amphibious transport ships.
The reality is we don't have them their dollars. We are losing alot of kit and we will lose even more yet. The Canadian people put liberals in power again, so that is how our defence will be.
By the way, I have worked several times on ex (with RCD, LdSH and even 12RBC) with our Leos and I admit, nothing says love like a squadron opening up on a volley of fire...
However as I said earlier, the MBT is on the way out. We need to make peace with that fact.
Jerry thunder, what is the point you are trying to make man? As I say to my SQ candidates, make your answer short and simple, man...
Similar threads
