Canada's tanks

[Kirkhill]

My concern is what is a Cavalry tank?

It’s a Mobile Protected Firepower Vehicle for Lighter forces. Let’s be honest it’s a cheaper, lighter tank, that can’t really tank.

Now if that is a goal, to have a COIN lesser peer oriented force, then the M10 can make some sense.

At the end of the day what does Doctrine require (assume one had updated doctrine that has a realistic view of the threats).

Doctrine is supposed to drive requirements.

The RCAC has the need to do X,Y,Z in conjunction with the rest of the CA and allies.

If you look at the Doctrine for Light and Medium Forces down here, the M10 had no honest requirements to justify it. It was an Iraq/Afghan COIN contingency program.

Frankly if I was on the HASC and SASC I’d be questioning how the F it got fielded (that goes for a lot of other stupid programs down here of late).

@TangoTwoBravo would have a much better understanding of CA Armoured Doctrine - but to me it’s one of those neither fish nor fowl (admittedly like a lot of other CAF programs).

Perhaps the M10 is what it says it is on the box:

A Mobile Protected Firepower Vehicle or, alternately, a Self Propelled Armoured Assault Gun.

A field gun on tracks.

 

[KevinB]

Perhaps the M10 is what it says it is on the box:

A Mobile Protected Firepower Vehicle or, alternetely, a Self Propelled Armoured Assault Gun.

A field gun on tracks.

And doctrinal purpose?

It’s a 105mm gun, so not really an anti tank weapon.

It’s also got less range than ATGM’s

So then is it a cheaper anti light vehicle and structure weapon - which we also already have.

As for the protection aspect, it’s a medium weight system, so similar to the Up Armored Bradley and better than the UA Strykers.

Mobility - a tracked vehicle to operate with light forces still doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Sure it’s a tool in the tool box, but TBFH it takes up more room than it really offers in that respect.

 

[Kirkhill]

And doctrinal purpose?

It’s a 105mm gun, so not really an anti tank weapon.

It’s also got less range than ATGM’s

So then is it a cheaper anti light vehicle and structure weapon - which we also already have.

As for the protection aspect, it’s a medium weight system, so similar to the Up Armored Bradley and better than the UA Strykers.

Mobility - a tracked vehicle to operate with light forces still doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Sure it’s a tool in the tool box, but TBFH it takes up more room than it really offers in that respect.

What was the doctrinal purpose of the Stryker MGS. It was a very large Carl Gustaf. The infantry took it with them to punch holes in walls cheaply.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And doctrinal purpose?

It’s a 105mm gun, so not really an anti tank weapon.

It’s also got less range than ATGM’s

So then is it a cheaper anti light vehicle and structure weapon - which we also already have.

As for the protection aspect, it’s a medium weight system, so similar to the Up Armored Bradley and better than the UA Strykers.

Mobility - a tracked vehicle to operate with light forces still doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Sure it’s a tool in the tool box, but TBFH it takes up more room than it really offers in that respect.

105 L7(I think it's a modern L7?) with modern ammunition is still a threat to most tanks. Certainly the tanks it is likely to face. That 20 ton per vehicle weight difference will add up quickly with a company of armour (roughly 280 tons) that could be directed to fuel and ammunition. This thing brings about the same or better protection as the Leopard 1. Mixed in with ATGM's, autocannon and manportable AT systems, I think opposing tanks won't be rushing in. Plus the real key is the FCS, if that is top notch then it's likely to get the first hit in. I am looking forward to the gun & missile AA version.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

One could always uparmour them.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One could always uparmour them.

They are designed to have different armour packages on them. I should add it does not have the L7 gun, but the M35, a lightweight version firing the same ammunition as the L7.

 

[GR66]

Why add an entirely new fleet of vehicles with the M10 if you're going to use it as a DFS vehicle to support the LAVs? Put the turret on the LAV and you simplify maintenance and supply and both supporting and supported vehicles have the same mobility.

Now if GDLS wins the US Army's XM30 OMFV competition with its Griffin-based entry then an M10 DFS vehicle could be paired with that to give the same chassis commonality. In that case I'd go for an Abrams MBT as the M10 and M1 have common systems which allow for a single training stream.

My question about the Heavy/Medium/Light Cavalry Regiment structure is how do we plan to use these units in relation to the rest of the Army? If they're going to perform "Cavalry" roles presumably we won't use them to regroup our Brigades into combined arms Combat Teams, or will they act like "Armoured" Regiments when required and "Cavalry" Regiments when able?

 

[Kirkhill]

MGS - unit cost 5-9 MUSD apiece with 18 rounds aboard
MPF - unit cost 12.9 MUSD with 40 to 50 rounds
MBT - unit cost 24 MUSD with 42 rounds

Javelin LWCLU cost $100,000
Javelin missile cost $78,000

1 MGS at 8 MUSD = 1 LWCLU + 100 Javelin Missiles
Add 4 more missiles a year for the 3 crew members

1 MPF at 12.9 MUSD = 1 LWCLU + 164 Javelin Missiles

1 MBT at 24 MUSD = 1 LWCLU + 306 Javelin Missiles

In terms of targets served which is the best bang for the buck?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Why add an entirely new fleet of vehicles with the M10 if you're going to use it as a DFS vehicle to support the LAVs? Put the turret on the LAV and you simplify maintenance and supply and both supporting and supported vehicles have the same mobility.

Now if GDLS wins the US Army's XM30 OMFV competition with its Griffin-based entry then an M10 DFS vehicle could be paired with that to give the same chassis commonality. In that case I'd go for an Abrams MBT as the M10 and M1 have common systems which allow for a single training stream.

My question about the Heavy/Medium/Light Cavalry Regiment structure is how do we plan to use these units in relation to the rest of the Army? If they're going to perform "Cavalry" roles presumably we won't use them to regroup our Brigades into combined arms Combat Teams, or will they act like "Armoured" Regiments when required and "Cavalry" Regiments when able?

All RCAC units will be "Armoured Cavalry. " How a CMBG Comd chooses to group his forces for a given task will likely look similar to today. If a CMBG Comd has three Heavy Sqns with Leopard 2s then I anticipate he will use them pretty much like tank squadrons. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

I don't like to use Cavalry in the Canadian context since it evokes US Army terminology where there is a specific mission set for Cavalry and another for Armor. That's not really the case up here.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

MGS - unit cost 5-9 MUSD apiece with 18 rounds aboard
MPF - unit cost 12.9 MUSD with 40 to 50 rounds
MBT - unit cost 24 MUSD with 42 rounds

Javelin LWCLU cost $100,000
Javelin missile cost $78,000

1 MGS at 8 MUSD = 1 LWCLU + 100 Javelin Missiles
Add 4 more missiles a year for the 3 crew members

1 MPF at 12.9 MUSD = 1 LWCLU + 164 Javelin Missiles

1 MBT at 24 MUSD = 1 LWCLU + 306 Javelin Missiles

In terms of targets served which is the best bang for the buck?

That's not really how it works. Its not about "targets served."

What can kill or suppress the soldier with the Javelin? How does that soldier with a Javelin support an assault? Or an advance? Or conduct counter-moves? Tanks have been killable by relatively cheap systems since they entered service. And yet they continue to be a vital component of the combined arms team.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Just curious. How and how quickly do we plan on deploying tanks for a hypothetical Russia scenario? What about an Indo-Pacific scenario?

Do we have the logistical capacity to deploy enough tanks in a timely manner in the proper AO? If not, why do we have tanks?

 

[Kirkhill]

That's not really how it works. Its not about "targets served."

What can kill or suppress the soldier with the Javelin? How does that soldier with a Javelin support an assault? Or an advance? Or conduct counter-moves? Tanks have been killable by relatively cheap systems since they entered service. And yet they continue to be a vital component of the combined arms team.

I take your point on the MBTs.... but how about the MGSs and the MPFs?

The original MGS allocation was 3 per company.
Which would be more useful to an infantry company commander? 3x MGS or 300 Javelins?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Just curious. How and how quickly do we plan on deploying tanks for a hypothetical Russia scenario? What about an Indo-Pacific scenario?

Do we have the logistical capacity to deploy enough tanks in a timely manner in the proper AO? If not, why do we have tanks?

We have 15 Leopard 2A4M in Europe right now.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I take your point on the MBTs.... but how about the MGSs and the MPFs?

The original MGS allocation was 3 per company.
Which would be more useful to an infantry company commander? 3x MGS or 300 Javelins?

A non-sensical discussion. Is everyone carrying 3 Javelin?

Now, in a LSCO scenario I imagine that it you asked an infantry Company Commander if he would rather have 3 x MGS or one Javelin per Section then I expect he would take the Javelin. Every time. MGS is dead anyway. But war is not a Real Time Strategy game. The OC doesn’t choose. He needs integral ATGMs. If he is assaulting then he might actually want M10s. Or M1s. He might even appreciate MGS.

 

[FJAG]

Just curious. How and how quickly do we plan on deploying tanks for a hypothetical Russia scenario? What about an Indo-Pacific scenario?

Do we have the logistical capacity to deploy enough tanks in a timely manner in the proper AO? If not, why do we have tanks?

The tanks that Canada contemplates deploying to a European scenario are already there working in a battle group that has quite a few additional tanks supplied by other nations.

If and when Canada decides to send more than it will happen as quickly as the C17s can ferry them over. That part is easy enough.

I doubt that Canada has any plan to deploy ground forces into the Indo-Pacific at this time. So its really a mute point.

We do have the logistics to deploy tanks in a timely manner. But the question is what is the time required/ It's not like Canada cranks up a mission overnight. It's not that tanks are part of a rapid reaction force. When the need for them was identified in Afghanistan they went; and fairly rapidly.

The reason we have tanks is the same as to why we have CFPs, F-18s, LAVs etc - because we may need the capability they give us. They give Canada options which we wouldn't have if they weren't there. Getting them into the proper AO in a timely manner, once a decision is made by the government to go to that AO, is a logistics problem to be managed - just like any other.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I

The tanks that Canada contemplates deploying to a European scenario are already there working in a battle group that has quite a few additional tanks supplied by other nations.

If and when Canada decides to send more than it will happen as quickly as the C17s can ferry them over. That part is easy enough.

I doubt that Canada has any plan to deploy ground forces into the Indo-Pacific at this time. So its really a mute point.

We do have the logistics to deploy tanks in a timely manner. But the question is what is the time required/ It's not like Canada cranks up a mission overnight. It's not that tanks are part of a rapid reaction force. When the need for them was identified in Afghanistan they went; and fairly rapidly.

The reason we have tanks is the same as to why we have CFPs, F-18s, LAVs etc - because we may need the capability they give us. They give Canada options which we wouldn't have if they weren't there. Getting them into the proper AO in a timely manner, once a decision is made by the government to go to that AO, is a logistics problem to be managed - just like any other.

I think you may all be missing one important point.
The Government of Canada irregardless of which party is power. Simply put doesn't want to have those capabilities because then they would have to make all sorts uncomfortable decisions.
Take away the options and you take away the need for politically dangerous decisions that could cost you votes .
Tell me me I'm wrong.
I'll wait....

 

[FJAG]

I

I think you may all be missing one important point.
The Government of Canada irregardless of which party is power. Simply put doesn't want to have those capabilities because then they would have to make all sorts uncomfortable decisions.
Take away the options and you take away the need for politically dangerous decisions that could cost you votes .
Tell me me I'm wrong.
I'll wait....

I think you're wrong and the proof of that is in Trudeau the elder who initiated numerous defence projects when faced with strong allied pressure to do so because Canada's economy depended on it. His son is too thick to understand that because he has abandoned the economy for virtue signalling as his path to glory. He won't be there forever.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Just curious. How and how quickly do we plan on deploying tanks for a hypothetical Russia scenario? What about an Indo-Pacific scenario?

Do we have the logistical capacity to deploy enough tanks in a timely manner in the proper AO? If not, why do we have tanks?

Bang on.

We do have the logistics to deploy tanks in a timely manner. But the question is what is the time required/ It's not like Canada cranks up a mission overnight. It's not that tanks are part of a rapid reaction force. When the need for them was identified in Afghanistan they went; and fairly rapidly.

Yes and no. If I am a betting man the material support behind these beasts is like the rest of our fleets (Sea, Ground and Air) and its drying up. Also when the ball drops those C17s will be in high demand for a host of users, not just tanks. And the C17s will be prize targets to shoot down.

 

[KevinB]

We’ve done the Logistics math on tank deployments many times before.

Even down here, with our 30X more C-17 we don’t view that as a viable option to get Armor into theatre. We have sealift and the 2Corps worth of AFV’s in POMCUS depots, so in emergencies we can just fly troops to Europe (which also taxes our fleets of aircraft that we call up the Commercial carriers (that we subsidize to have that capability).

If Canada wants tanks in theatre then you shouldn’t be waiting till a crisis and simply pre-deploy them, and by them I mean the entire fleet (which is basically an ABCT’s plus worth).

Then you could look at the M10 as a trainer for domestic units, and a potential COIN/PSO support vehicle.

 

[Halifax Tar]

We’ve done the Logistics math on tank deployments many times before.

Even down here, with our 30X more C-17 we don’t view that as a viable option to get Armor into theatre. We have sealift and the 2Corps worth of AFV’s in POMCUS depots, so in emergencies we can just fly troops to Europe (which also taxes our fleets of aircraft that we call up the Commercial carriers (that we subsidize to have that capability).

If Canada wants tanks in theatre then you shouldn’t be waiting till a crisis and simply pre-deploy them, and by them I mean the entire fleet (which is basically an ABCT’s plus worth).

Then you could look at the M10 as a trainer for domestic units, and a potential COIN/PSO support vehicle.

Agreed wholesale.

Sea lift is the only real option to project heavy forces en masse. Which Canada does not have. Which will require a start of the convoy system. What we often fail to remember in our sustainment and projection planning is that the enemy will get a say in how much of that material actually reaches its desired destination.

Air is great for moving people, not so much for material.

Canada also needs to remember when the ball drops its too late to start buying the right quantity of material and weapons.