Canada's tanks

[markppcli]

Put together by countries like Canada who recognize that due to Russia's actions they politically have to be seen to do something but just can't bring themselves to truly accept that we really are in a conflict with nations that consider us as "enemies" and are making concerted efforts to weaken us.

I think that’s largely true. But the fact we can’t have a rotational Bn to be is honestly shocking.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Would it be advantageous to build a NATO tank? One that has design ideas from all members. Pick the best gun, best power pak, armour, etc then design something and make it available. Consolidate all resources and build one tank for everyone?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Would it be advantageous to build a NATO tank? One that has design ideas from all members. Pick the best gun, best power pak, armour, etc then design something and make it available. Consolidate all resources and build one tank for everyone?

That's been tried before. A lot of good ideas came out of it, but no common tank. We do have a now common gun with the smoothbore 120mm being adopted for the Brits.

 

[MrWhyt]

That's been tried before. A lot of good ideas came out of it, but no common tank. We do have a now common gun with the smoothbore 120mm being adopted for the Brits.

The MBT-70 waves from the past

 

[KevinB]

Would it be advantageous to build a NATO tank? One that has design ideas from all members. Pick the best gun, best power pak, armour, etc then design something and make it available. Consolidate all resources and build one tank for everyone?

MBT-70 enters the chat. As @Colin Parkinson points out it’s been tried.

Even before it died it was getting pulled in multiple directions. The Germans wanted an auto loader 120mm smooth bore, and America wanted the 152mm gun/missile concept from the Sheridan in a higher pressure.

The various teams split and the XM-1 resulted here as the 152mm never worked to requirement, and the Leo2 got a manual loader 120mm as the automatic loader counte be made reliable. Neither got the pneumatic suspension working like had been planned.

 

[FJAG]

I keep hoping there will be a reset on this. Simply because I ‘believe’ that SHAPE has war plans that envision a much larger NATO force.

eFPs are designed to let everyone have some skin in the game to demonstrate to themselves that everyone is contributing and to demonstrate to Russia that ... well ... everyone is contributing. They are not viable defensive forces but a trip wire of solidarity with a hope of some utility.

There won't be a reset - Canada won't give up its "framework nation" status in Latvia to become a minor contributor to an American force in Poland. We like our closeness to Nordic nations because we basically are a northern country and we like to think of ourselves as members of that club. Their basic political leaning makes it cozy.

All that said, I'm firmly in the camp of being part of a North American arms industry. That goes all the way to equipping our force with common equipment (especially communications equipment) and adopting operational doctrine that is fully integrated (if not identical). A Canadian artillery "battalion," for example, needs to be capable of slipping seamlessly into an American Div Arty structure if we hope to ever have a battle group or brigade slip into an American formation.

That said, we are totally unreliable to the Americans because of our frequent forays into electing a government whose basic philosophy includes a healthy dose of anti-Americanism. The current ammunition kerfuffle is a prime example of that. Rather than working out a logical deal behind the scenes, we scream our opposition from the Peace Tower.

 

[suffolkowner]

Would it be advantageous to build a NATO tank? One that has design ideas from all members. Pick the best gun, best power pak, armour, etc then design something and make it available. Consolidate all resources and build one tank for everyone?

I feel like there is already a NATO tank, the Leo2. If the French-German pulls through that will be one niche tank off the table and with Italy buying Leopards thats another. Is the Uk going to go it alone again?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I feel like there is already a NATO tank, the Leo2. If the French-German pulls through that will be one niche tank off the table and with Italy buying Leopards thats another. Is the Uk going to go it alone again?

The gun will be the same as the Leo 2 for the Chally 3 and possibly the power pack. Even talk of dropping a new turret in which might be related to current European development programs. Only the hull and the running gear may remain. To be fair the Chally 2 has very good suspension.

 

[KevinB]

I feel like there is already a NATO tank, the Leo2. If the French-German pulls through that will be one niche tank off the table and with Italy buying Leopards thats another. Is the Uk going to go it alone again?

Honestly that POV is fairly myopic.

Even IF this mythical French/German “Leopard 3”does come to be, it could get adoption by even more countries and will still be less than 1/3rd of the Abram’s in Europe.

 

[suffolkowner]

Honestly that POV is fairly myopic.

Even IF this mythical French/German “Leopard 3”does come to be, it could get adoption by even more countries and will still be less than 1/3rd of the Abram’s in Europe.

There's the number of tanks and then there's the number of users. How many Abrams does the US have in Europe?
I dont think its myopic to point out that the vast number of NATO nations are running Leo2's

Germany
Italy
NLD
Denmark
Spain
Portugal
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Lithuania
Poland
Czechia
Slovakia
Hungary
Croatia
Greece
Turkey

 

[KevinB]

There's the number of tanks and then there's the number of users. How many Abrams does the US have in Europe?
I dont think its myopic to point out that the vast number of NATO nations are running Leo2's

Germany
Italy
NLD
Denmark
Spain
Portugal
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Lithuania
Poland
Czechia
Slovakia
Hungary
Croatia
Greece
Turkey

So there are at least 1,566 US Army M1A2 between Poland and Germany. Then others who have Abram’s.

I'm not seeing planned Leo3 partners getting nearly that number.

 

[IKnowNothing]

If we were forward thinking we would have designed our Brigades to be plug-and-play with US Divisions and instead of leading eFP Latvia we could either have joined eFP Poland along with the US or provided a 3rd rotational ABCT to Poland (with pre-positioned equipment) for the US as part of Atlantic Resolve.

Unfortunately one of the (many) failings of the CAF and GOC is that we are NOT forward thinking

I'd say that that would be the easy way to be serious, rather than the right way.

There's no doubt we've backslid, but I think if we're being aspirational about what we think the GOC/CAF should do/ should have done I think we should our sights higher than reverting to our pre WW2 place in the world as a vassal- just to a different master.

The problem isn't the mission, it's that the decisions of the last 15-20 years left us in a position where we can't deliver to the tune necessary to live up to our (increasingly former) status as a leading middle power. It's reasonable for us to not be able to field a wholly Canadian division. But a country of our size and means should have been able to step up and be the lead nation of a Multinational Division North that has a wholly Canadian Bde (even if flyover), and a Bn+ manouver component deployed to the MN Bde, + HQ/CS/CSS.

 

[GR66]

I'd say that that would be the easy way to be serious, rather than the right way.

There's no doubt we've backslid, but I think if we're being aspirational about what we think the GOC/CAF should do/ should have done I think we should our sights higher than reverting to our pre WW2 place in the world as a vassal- just to a different master.

The problem isn't the mission, it's that the decisions of the last 15-20 years left us in a position where we can't deliver to the tune necessary to live up to our (increasingly former) status as a leading middle power. It's reasonable for us to not be able to field a wholly Canadian division. But a country of our size and means should have been able to step up and be the lead nation of a Multinational Division North that has a wholly Canadian Bde (even if flyover), and a Bn+ manouver component deployed to the MN Bde, + HQ/CS/CSS.

Being completely interoperable in terms of equipment doesn't make you a vassal. You can be lead nation in a Multinational Division North with Abrams and Bradleys just as well as with Leopards and CV90s. Either way you're dependent on other nations for key elements of your supply chain (although arguably with GDLS you're less foreign dependent than with the European vehicles). The difference is that the US supply chain has much, much greater depth than the European one.

 

[PrairieFella]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter if we go K2, Leopard 2, Abrams or whatever, we need something, literally anything. I don't think the politicians truly understand that the RCAC is a couple Tps of VORs away from what is essentially collapse in the heavy fleet. There so is little in the way of wiggle room for training and operational purposes. Hopefully this maintenance contract helps but shit man, only so much blood you can get from a stone, especially when the hulls were built in the 80s.

 

[dapaterson]

We need tanks. Echelon. Training area infra upgrades. On base infra upgrades. Simulators. Ammo handling and infra investments.

 

[PrairieFella]

We need tanks. Echelon. Training area infra upgrades. On base infra upgrades. Simulators. Ammo handling and infra investments.

That goes without saying.

 

[dapaterson]

That goes without saying.

Those all need to be integral to the tank project. Trying to do things piecemeal after the fact never works out.

 

[KevinB]

I'd say that that would be the easy way to be serious, rather than the right way.

It can actually be both - neither of those options is contradictory

There's no doubt we've backslid, but I think if we're being aspirational about what we think the GOC/CAF should do/ should have done I think we should our sights higher than reverting to our pre WW2 place in the world as a vassal- just to a different master.

It doesn't mean one is a vassal to adopt other nationals equipment -- it often means one is being practical and a good steward of the countries tax dollars.

The problem isn't the mission, it's that the decisions of the last 15-20 years left us in a position where we can't deliver to the tune necessary to live up to our (increasingly former) status as a leading middle power.

It goes back way before then.

It's reasonable for us to not be able to field a wholly Canadian division.

I totally disagree, as a G7 Nation - with the size of Canada and the CA even at it's current strength - you should have at least 2 Divisions - potentially even a 3rd.

But a country of our size and means should have been able to step up and be the lead nation of a Multinational Division North that has a wholly Canadian Bde (even if flyover), and a Bn+ manouver component deployed to the MN Bde, + HQ/CS/CSS.

Quite realistically Canada should be able to field an "advance" Division to Europe, with 2 of it's three maneuver Bde's Flyover Personnel.
Of course that would mean reforming the CA, and incorporating the PRes into the actual force structure.

 

[KevinB]

Those all need to be integral to the tank project. Trying to do things piecemeal after the fact never works out.

TBH it should not just be a Tank Project -- it really should be 1 Canadian Armoured Division Project...
Tanks, IFV, AEV, ARV, ABV, AVLB, Armored Ambulance, SPA, SPAA etc.

 

[dapaterson]

TBH it should not just be a Tank Project -- it really should be 1 Canadian Armoured Division Project...
Tanks, IFV, AEV, ARV, ABV, AVLB, Armored Ambulance, SPA, SPAA etc.

AEV, ARV and AVLB to my mind are inherently part of the tank project. IFV and armoured support vehicles can be two more projects... Make them top big and they take too long.