Canada's tanks

[markppcli]

Some money to help keep some of the tanks running until 2035:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1834279924095746056

Note this is not stated to be upgrade or improvement funding.

That funding better mean they’re hiring 100 civilian maintainers

 

[PrairieFella]

Yes but they have a massive presence in armoured memery.

Exactly.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Who’s quitting reg f and sending a resume….

 

[FJAG]

Independent tank squadrons?

Not in the way that I'm thinking. They are a tank squadron or two permanently embedded in a combined arms battalion. In my world a 14 tank squadron. This is the setup of the three combined arms battalions in a US Armoured brigade (including the ARNG ones)

The 2A4s are essentially obsolete, hence the upgrades to 2A4M.

So are T72s but . . . It is what it is. We have what we have.

I'm pretty certain what we have left of the 2A4s are pretty well just trainers, turret operation is very different compared to the more modern marks.

I'm frankly not up on the interior systems with the A4M v the A4. I know the A4M has an armour package upgrade but the gun remains as the same L44 as the A4. I presume that the basic turret and automotive operation is fundamentally the same in the A4 as the A4M. Can anyone confirm?

At this point we should donate all our Leos and start fresh,

That's exactly the problem though if we've just entered a long-term maintenance contract, A4s aren't going away or will be replaced anytime soon.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Japanese MBTs are are very interesting in that they are incredibly light, coming in between 40-48 tonnes dependent. Consider the Booker MPF around the same weight. This allows them to use infrastructure very few other tanks other than light tanks can actually travel around Japan. An Abrams would go straight through most Japanese bridges required for navigating the more mountainous sections of Japan, so would Chinese Type 99s.

They also tend to employ adjustable hydro pneumatic active suspensions which are very rare in MBTs, allowing them to compensate for the poor fire positions offered in heavily hilled/mountainous terrain by jacking the suspension in certain directions, similar to the Strv 103 from Sweden. If AFVs have active suspensions these days it's mostly to assist in stabilization and braking, not for adjusting to inadequate or severe fire positions.

Anywho, TLDR is Japanese tanks are unique and cool, operating in mountainous terrain most modern MBTs could never dream of.

Posted today …

https://twitter.com/x/status/1834041875919147456

 

[Halifax Tar]

While I applaud this move it does appear to lock us in for the time being.

Once again we stay stuck with the concept that we have one squadron that is combat capable - the A6M; a second squadron near combat capable the A4M and several squadrons of training tanks - the A4s.

We put ourselves into this battle group rut in 2006 rather than design a brigade with a full tank regiment and it appears we may stay that way unless there is either a purchase or major upgrade . . . or we get used to using the A4s as a combat tank like many other nations do.

Honestly, I think its time to give up 3 PPCLI and use the PYs to form a fully manned and equipped 1 CMBG with three combined arms battalions (with a total of four or five tank sqns and five or four mech infantry coys), a proper SP artillery regiment and a proper heavy brigade armoured engineer squadron and service battalion.

I know, I know, that runs counter to the whole army's managed readiness system but . . .

I have no dog in the fight, nor allegiance to any cap badge; but why 3 PPCLI ?

 

[KevinB]

I have no dog in the fight, nor allegiance to any cap badge; but why 3 PPCLI ?

Quite frankly I don’t think chopping an Inf BN will do much for the CA, other than simply reorganizing the deck chairs on a sinking ship.

Canada doesn’t have the equipment to make a proper Division anyway.


An ABCT generally has 97 tanks, which correct me if I am wrong, I don’t believe Canada has that anymore. Doing anything less than Bde sized just shows even more lack of credibility.

 

[suffolkowner]

Some money to help keep some of the tanks running until 2035:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1834279924095746056

Note this is not stated to be upgrade or improvement funding.

kind of a sad announcement and commitment to make IMO. When it seems like every other member of NATO has announced tank upgrades or purchases

 

[Kirkhill]

No. You folks are light. Should always remain light and concerned with mountains and coasts. Do a few more amphibious assaults.

So the USMC are right and don't need tanks?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So the USMC are right and don't need tanks?

The USMC has decided that they don’t need tanks for their new role.

We aren’t the USMC and have a different role.

 

[PrairieFella]

So the USMC are right and don't need tanks?

The USMC envisions itself storming beaches and island hopping, not conducting full spectrum operations in Latvia and Russia. We need tanks.

 

[MJP]

kind of a sad announcement and commitment to make IMO. When it seems like every other member of NATO has announced tank upgrades or purchases

This is Canada. The tank ISS project has been in the works for years now, we rarely turn on a dime and go another direction. In any case while it can be viewed as sad, I am a glass half full kinda guy and the fact that the field force will be getting a respite and not have to be resp for doing all the tank maint is a good thing. That is something that most (many?) other countries also do so we are just playing catch up. For an unserious country when it comes to defence, it is a win even if it is just slightly too late and barely across the finish line

 

[KevinB]

The USMC envisions itself storming beaches and island hopping, not conducting full spectrum operations in Latvia and Russia. We need tanks.

110%.

Given my druthers, the CA would have 1 Heavy DIV, and 1 Light. One of the Bde’s in the Light DIV would be USMC ish, and based out of BC.

 

[Kirkhill]

The old USMC used to envisage itself using tanks to storm beaches while island hopping.

I am not saying they were wrong.

The suggestion had been made that tanks weren't appropriate on the West Coast.

Maybe the difference between Light and Heavy forces is just the number of tanks? Some Light forces just have a few penny packets of tanks rather than having no tanks at all.

 

[KevinB]

The old USMC used to envisage itself using tanks to storm beaches while island hopping.

I am not saying they were wrong.

The suggestion had been made that tanks weren't appropriate on the West Coast.

Maybe the difference between Light and Heavy forces is just the number of tanks? Some Light forces just have a few penny packets of tanks rather than having no tanks at all.

The logistics of adding tanks to Island hoping and amphibious operations is not worth the squeeze.

The USMC correctly identified that. For further pushes inland, you then bring in the Army if you need heavy armor.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The logistics of adding tanks to Island hoping and amphibious operations is not worth the squeeze.

The USMC correctly identified that. For further pushes inland, you then bring in the Army if you need heavy armor.

There's that damn word again

 

[KevinB]

There's that damn word again

Honestly it was easier to use that word to encompass a lot more than logistics, but at the end of the day all of those other Issues create their own logistical challenges, and so the umbrella of ‘logistics’ is apt.

Going down the rabbit hole further.
One needs larger landing craft to accommodate modern MBT’s, which in turn cost more, often move slower and are easier targets, so you need to then accept more casualties on insertion, demanding more systems and more landing craft and taking more monies etc.

Rather than drill down further I think Logistics was all encompassing.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Honestly it was easier to use that word to encompass a lot more than logistics, but at the end of the day all of those other Issues create their own logistical challenges, and so the umbrella of ‘logistics’ is apt.

Going down the rabbit hole further.
One needs larger landing craft to accommodate modern MBT’s, which in turn cost more, often move slower and are easier targets, so you need to then accept more casualties on insertion, demanding more systems and more landing craft and taking more monies etc.

Rather than drill down further I think Logistics was all encompassing.

Log is a big umbrella. You don't have to convince me.

 

[PrairieFella]

Honestly it was easier to use that word to encompass a lot more than logistics, but at the end of the day all of those other Issues create their own logistical challenges, and so the umbrella of ‘logistics’ is apt.

Going down the rabbit hole further.
One needs larger landing craft to accommodate modern MBT’s, which in turn cost more, often move slower and are easier targets, so you need to then accept more casualties on insertion, demanding more systems and more landing craft and taking more monies etc.

Rather than drill down further I think Logistics was all encompassing.

In fact if I recall the current landing craft can't actually take the newest marks of Abrams, they're too heavy. Hence why the USMC was still using M1A1. Am I correct in that? I can't recall where I saw that.

 

[KevinB]

In fact if I recall the current landing craft can't actually take the newest marks of Abrams, they're too heavy. Hence why the USMC was still using M1A1. Am I correct in that? I can't recall where I saw that.

Yes and even then the M1A1 was limited to certain landing conditions.