Canada's purchase of the Leopard 2 MBT

[Nfld Sapper]

Thx RBD, I believe that's the one I was told about.

 

[TCBF]

With rollers?

- Ohhhhhhh.... rollers....

:-[

 

[McG]

... and until the breaching capability is figured out, we will also see the old Leopard C2 remain in service (maybe even after the turret has become unsupportable).

If we had gone competitive and insisted that proposed tanks had to be compatible with our current doctrine and have integration complete for track width mine ploughs and rollers.  I did a search of the web, looked through Jane's (the subscriber thing, not the little AFV handbook from Cole's) and even bounced some questions of members of the project team. 

It seems that the only two modern western tanks that would have met this requirement would have been the M1 Abrams and the Merkava (however, I've not been able to find a picture confirming that the Magov plough has been fitted to the Merkava).  If we were to lower the requirement so that the tank only needed integration complete for the rollers, then the Mitsubishi Type 90 could be added to the list.  Coincidentally, the Mitsubishi Type 90 also appears to be the only modern western MBT to have the option of an already integrated and functioning dozer blade.

There have been threads here before that have examined why the Merkava would not have been a good fit for Canada, I don't know enough about the Type 90 to say if it could have been a viable option or not, and the M1 also comes with its own strengths and weaknesses.  So, I'm not suggesting we should have bought something else.  Just that, it is interesting to note that at a time when operations are becoming more & more dispersed, nations are moving away from dispersed breaching capabilities and more to specialized breaching vehicles which are best suited to supporting the mobility of concentrated armour forces.

 

[a_majoor]

There have been threads here before that have examined why the Merkava would not have been a good fit for Canada, I don't know enough about the Type 90 to say if it could have been a viable option or not, and the M1 also comes with its own strengths and weaknesses.  So, I'm not suggesting we should have bought something else.  Just that, it is interesting to note that at a time when operations are becoming more & more dispersed, nations are moving away from dispersed breaching capabilities and more to specialized breaching vehicles which are best suited to supporting the mobility of concentrated armour forces.

That might be a means of supporting the PUMA IFV as the Canadian Close Combat Vehicle (or whatever the acronym of the week is), since it has similar mobility to the Leopard and the "C" armour package provides the protection of a tank. Engineer section vehicles and PUMA engineer variants would be a good fit for a Leopard 2 based battlegroup (with PUMA IFV's for everyone else), cost as always would be the big issue here. The potential of economy of scale (PUMA IFV + Engineer section vehicles + engineer variants) *might* make this plausible. We could always say a huge AFV buy is economic stimulus as well.......

CV-90's are much cheaper and more available, but might not have the protection and power to do the engineer tasks.

 

[geo]

let's not forget the advantages to having a fleet with common parts.... a broken down plow awaiting parts won't serve us well in the long run.

 

[TCBF]

let's not forget the advantages to having a fleet with common parts.... a broken down plow awaiting parts won't serve us well in the long run.

- I would guess that 99% of the time we run out of parts because the CF didn't buy them in time.  Common parts just means that several ECCs get to be sidelined at the same time.  Only advantage is cannibalization.

- Only times I recall different, was in the early 70s when we could not get Pittman Arms for our Dodge 3/4 ton fleet (continental recall and replacement) and the early 80s when we could not get Cougar turret parts. Iran had priority, after which we got parts labelled "RAOC - Iran only".

 

[McG]

That might be a means of supporting the PUMA IFV as the Canadian Close Combat Vehicle (or whatever the acronym of the week is), since it has similar mobility to the Leopard and the "C" armour package provides the protection of a tank.

I'm not sure how the lack of breaching capability on the Leopard 2 would be cause to procure Puma for IFV/CCV.  First off, having common mobility charictaristics will not allow the vehicles to magic themselves across explosive obstacles (mines & IEDs).  Secondly, the project will not procure an engineer variant of the CCV/IFV as this is not in the scope, and (even if were within the project scope) a section carrier is not the right platform to be a breach vehicle (if things go bad during the breach that is 10-12 soldiers killed as opposed to the 3-4).

The inability of the Leopard 2 to mount implements means that we need to re-establish that capability somewhere else with all the necessary new equipment and PYs to support.

 

[TCBF]

- What are the Germans using?

 

[ironduke57]

- What are the Germans using?

The Badger or as it called here Pionierpanzer 2 "Dachs". No money to replace them with the Pionierpanzer 3 "Kodiak".

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[a_majoor]

The inability of the Leopard 2 to mount implements means that we need to re-establish that capability somewhere else with all the necessary new equipment and PYs to support.

I was suggesting an alternative route that could also solve the IFV issue at the same time. Certainly developing custom PUMA based engineer vehicles along the line of the Badger would be prohibitively expensive if done on its own, but if there was a larger program that included PUMA based Pionierpanzers along with IFV's then there is some justification to follow that route.

Incidentally, it seems rather incredible that there isn't a provision for mounting breaching equipment on the Leopard 2. I recall there is an upgrade package for Leopard 2's that does include a 'dozer blade (the Leopard 2 "Peace Support Operations").

 

[McG]

Incidentally, it seems rather incredible that there isn't a provision for mounting breaching equipment on the Leopard 2. I recall there is an upgrade package for Leopard 2's that does include a 'dozer blade (the Leopard 2 "Peace Support Operations").

If you dig through the threads on Leopard 2 on this site (probably this thread) you will find that (while the PSO does have pictures of a blade & there is a well coreographed video of it pushing an empty vehicle in perfect perpendicular contact with the tank), the blade on the PSO is relatively fragile and not effective.  TWMP and rollers have not been integrated for use on the Leopard 2, and KMW has indicated that the vehicle is not structurally up to the challenge without modification. 

 

[McG]

- What are the Germans using?

The Badger or as it called here Pionierpanzer 2 "Dachs".

... and the Badger AEV (which is in Canadian service) does not breach mine/explosive obstacles.

Interesting Jane's article on this topic last spring.  Here are some experts:

Canada plans to upgrade Leopards for use in Afghanistan
Sharon Hobson
28 May 2008

Canada's Tank Replacement Project has several key decisions remaining as the army tries to fit its requirements into a CAD650 million (USD657 million) budget.

Canada announced in April 2007 that it had leased 20 Leopard 2A6M main battle tanks and two armoured recovery vehicles (ARVs) from Germany for use in Afghanistan, and is also buying 80 A4 and 20 A6 surplus Leopard 2 tanks from the Netherlands. The A6 variants will be modified to the German standard by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and Rheinmetall Defence and then handed over to Germany to replace those being used in Afghanistan.

The 20 A6M tanks currently on lease from Germany will be kept as an operational squadron, while 20 of the 80 A4 tanks being purchased from the Netherlands will be designated as a second operational squadron, but their configuration has yet to be determined.

Lieutenant Colonel Perry Wells, project director, told Jane's : "We recognise that because of the funding cap that is placed on us, we won't have all the operational tanks the same." Forty of the A4 tanks will be used for training, but they "will probably be of a lesser capability", and eight will be reconfigured as ARV 3s, while 12 will be kept as logistics stock in a yet-to-be-determined configuration.

Lt Col Wells noted that the Leopard 2A6 was designed for tank-on-tank battles, as envisaged in the Cold War, but maintaining the 20 Leopard 2A6 versions is aimed at providing the Canadian Army with the flexibility to deal with any future high-level conventional threat, although "the threat is all around and the likelihood of seeing a high-end tank is pretty low".

For the more likely asymmetric threat, he said that the tank "doesn't need all this armour, all this stuff on the front" but that "it needs it to be distributed better all around the sides". He added: "That's those 20 which are still to be determined - how are we going to reconfigure them for a more asymmetric threat?"

...

Longer-term requirements for the tank project include modernising the grenade dischargers, upgrading the fire-control system, replacing or upgrading the torsion bars and hydraulic track tensioners and possibly replacing the power pack with the Euro Powerpack as part of a mid-life upgrade. The army may also replace the L55 gun on the A6s with the L44, which is currently used on the A4s.

Canadian doctrine calls for tanks to be fitted with mine ploughs and mine rollers, and Lt Col Wells said "that is an expectation that [the Canadian] army still has for the Leopard 2", adding: "The challenge will be: can the Leopard 2 take the weight of having that type of implement on the front?"

Depending on what the structural analysis shows, Lt Col Wells said that they may have to revisit their doctrine. "Maybe we'll have tanks that don't have guns, or have other systems going into theatre that have rollers and ploughs and things [the Expedient Route Opening Capability] and maybe that's what does it for the future Canadian armoured group," he said.

...


The 80 Dutch A4 tanks will be modified by Canadian industry "to the maximum extent possible", with the contract to be awarded in November. The initial delivery of 20 tanks and two recovery vehicles is scheduled for 2011.

The army expects to start a separate project to replace the Badger armoured engineer vehicles and possibly the Beaver armoured bridge layers. According to Wells, that project will run in parallel with the tank project to take advantage of the synergies inherent in them.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If you dig through the threads on Leopard 2 on this site (probably this thread) you will find that (while the PSO does have pictures of a blade & there is a well coreographed video of it pushing an empty vehicle in perfect perpendicular contact with the tank), the blade on the PSO is relatively fragile and not effective.  TWMP and rollers have not been integrated for use on the Leopard 2, and KMW has indicated that the vehicle is not structurally up to the challenge without modification. 

My understanding is that the base hull of a Leo 2 is thicker than the Leo 1. So I would assume the hull is strong enough to take the attachment points and accompanying weight and forces of the plows and rollers. I would suspect that the problem is the total weight or the current weight placement coupled with the added equipment is the problem?

 

[McG]

I would suspect that the problem is the total weight or the current weight placement coupled with the added equipment is the problem?

That is a major part of it, but ...

My understanding is that the base hull of a Leo 2 is thicker than the Leo 1. So I would assume the hull is strong enough to take the attachment points and accompanying weight and forces of the plows and rollers.

It is not quite that simple as just a factor of hull thickness. As you no doubt can appreciate, varying the structure and/or material of an item can have a significant impact on an items reaction under different types of loads.  Many times, strength in one area is traded away to gain strength in another area (this is particularly true in AFV where the requirement to manage weight limits the ability to needlessly over-engineer).  Items can be designed specifically to provide greater resistance to bending vs twisting (consider 1040 steel I-beam and tube of equal lengths & mass under these types of loads), or strengthening against fatigue could be traded for a greater static load capacity or greater hardness.   We know the armour of the Leopard 2 is different than the Leopard 1 (details to this effect can be found in Jane's) with different material properties.  As the designers were likely focused on the armour protection, the ability to mount implements could have been sacrificed consciously or unintentionally in order to meet weight/mobility requirements. 

 

[ironduke57]

... and the Badger AEV (which is in Canadian service) does not breach mine/explosive obstacles.
...

I know that. Obstacle clearing is part of the mission of the badger. And any obstacle can be booby trapped. There isn´t always the possibility to send some pioneers/sappers first to check it.
Regarding minefield breaching you are right. That is the mission of the Keiler/Boar. I didn´t mentioned it in my last as I thought that the original question was more regarding "normal" obstacle reduction.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[geo]

Always been our problem...
Because we don't have much in the way of rolling stock, we try to do everything with (almost) nothing... trouble is, we continuously find ourselves challenged with structural problems.

Nothing that a bit of chewing gum, gun tape & baling wire can't solve.

 

[McG]

Regarding minefield breaching you are right. That is the mission of the Keiler/Boar.

Which goes back to my origional comment.  Without the ability of the Leopard 2 to breach mine obstacles, we will need to re-establish that capability somewhere else with new dedicated platforms, re-allocated PYs and whatever other infrastructure & equipment needs to go along with this.

Always been our problem...

What has always been our problem?

 

[geo]

Always wanting to tinker with the product..... straight outa the box.

Mind you, It's not a bad problem in itself

 

[McG]

Always wanting to tinker with the product..... straight outa the box.

Mind you, It's not a bad problem in itself

I can be if you compromise the armour or become a self-inflicted mobility-kill by forcing the vehicle to do what it cannot.  Chewing gum, gun tape & baling wire cannot solve the Leopard's implement problem.  Attempts using even the proper tools have so far failed.

 

[geo]

Well... IIRC the Leo C2 did fairly well with those same tools.  There are enough Leo 1 hulls stacked up in Longue Pointe to last us a good long while.... Otherwise, we mught just have to breakdown and use what everyone else is using.... which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Just creates a situation of mixed inventory.  The US appear to be happy with their M1A1 Abrams mine plow