New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?

[Red 6]

You raise some good points, George. It really is a trade off, isn't it? To slug it out on a conventional battlefield, tanks need that armor protection. But, if they weigh so much that they can't cross bridges, then they lose some of their mobility. I recall on quite a few occasions in Europe trying to figure out the weight class for bridges to figure out whether or not they could take the weight of our M1's.

In some ways, the issue isn't so much weight as it is size. Look at the smaller group of tanks. (Russian, French, Chinese, etc) They all mount guns that are comparable with the M1, Challenger, etc, but they present much smaller silhouettes. The trade-off is that they either use an auto loader, or the crew compartment is so cramped, it's like riding inside a cement mixer, or both. When the Army did the design for the M1 back in the 70's, among the many requirements was crew comfort. People may think this is odd, but not if you ever spent a month living in the turret.

In the case of Canada, you have a long history with the Leo. I say, if you want to stay in the tank business, buy the latest version of that tank. I'll confess my ignorance at what the nomenclature is. Since I retired, stuff like that isn't nearly as important as it once was to me.

This is for all you tankers and scouts out there. These were from gunnery at Graf in April 88. The top picture is an M1 from E 2/11 ACR firing at range 117. I was on the ammo pad when I took this. The bottom picture, my LT took. This is me and my crew (old E-35) at range 307 on our table-VIII night run.

 

[a_majoor]

Red-6 and George are making good points, and I certainly agree there is a need for a powerful, well armed and protected fighting machine in the inventory. My question is are large, well armed and protected vehicles the sole province of the Armoured (or Armored for Red-6  ) Corps?

In the current security environment, fast moving and hard hitting units and formations are required to do patrols, sweep areas, shape the battlefield and so on; traditional Cavalry roles. Equally obvious, getting it on in complex or urban terrain requires lots of dismounted Infantry and Engineers, backed by well armed and protected AFV's.

The Armoured units doing patrols or setting up cordons around the built up areas they just chased the enemy into are not likely to encounter tanks or anything heavier than a Toyota Land Cruiser mounting a russian 14.5mm HMG or an RPG team. The troops moving into the urban areas will encounter fierce resistance with enemy forces firing from all angles and directions from improvised cover and concealment. In this environment what we think of as a tank (i.e. an M-1 or Merkava for real life examples of the scenario) is best used as an assault gun to support the dismounted soldiers. This is where I pulled out my thought experiment of inverting the CF's TO&E and placing the Leopards in a "Fire Support Company" of an Infantry battalion, not nessesarily the best or only way to do thigs, but a different way of looking at matching the tools to the job at hand.

The "Armoured" role can be played by a wide range of AFV's in this scenario, with a definite bias towards wheels, while in the Urban fight we need "armour", with a definite bias towards tracks. This situation will not stay with us forever, but there are very real limiting factors of terrain and logistics which will keep us from adding layers of passive protection to our AFVs when upgrading AFV's or designing new ones.

In a way we are starting to drift into the "Future Armour" thread. The role of the Armoured will remain substancially the same, but the Corps will have to adapt to changing circumstances to carry out the role.

As a BTW, while the LeClerc is a "nice" generation 3.5 tank, there are lots of complex features like the "Hyperbar" engine that I wonder about. I would stick with the well proven Leopard II as the premier AFV, and the Puma IFV as it's partner vehicle for going into urban and complex terrain, with the "all Canadian" mods being to replace heavy parts with lighter ones using advanced material science.

 

[Kirkhill]

"Will Light Armour be the solution?  Only in Peacetime"

A quibble George.  Might it not be better to say when the enemy is not or is engaged, rather than peacetime/wartime?

Suppose I suggest that peacetime is defined as being that occasion when one of three circumstances apply:

1 - there is no enemy
2 - the enemy is dispersed and ineffective (militarily*)
3 - the enemy is concentrated and inactive.

This falls from the notion that lack of activity does not mean lack of enemy.

Patrolling determines the shape of the enemy in time and space.  It confines. It deters. It provokes. It discovers.  In peacetime and in wartime patrolling is still required.

The difference as I see it is that in peacetime you don't know if you don't have an enemy, or if they are just inactive, or are dispersed.  You have to cover a lot of ground to determine the situation. That requires dispersal of your own troops to discover not just the enemy but the lack of the enemy and also to discourage people from taking up arms and becoming the enemy.  The more ground that an individual team of soldiers can cover in a day the fewer soldiers you need to invest in that patrolling.

That suggests that a vehicle capable of a good speed over ground and long range is the order of the day.  Armour can be discarded for fuel because, frankly, there aren't many bullets flying and those bullets that are flying are not the large, effective ones that need the treasury of a state to acquire.  The risk of a soldier dying are low because the chance of being seen by an enemy, being shot at, being hit and being hit effectively, combined are low.  Survival in a LAV type, or other light vehicle, is high.

Once the enemy concentrates and declares itself by becoming militarily effective then the calculation changes.  The driving force is not confinement, deterrence and discovery. It certainly isn't provocation.  It is elimination of the threat.  That means "closing and destroying" and that, I fully agree with you, means the heaviest weight of armour possible.  And that means tracks and tanks.  Anything less and the chance of soldier-survival is not what it might be.

Having said that however, in peacetime small, relatively ineffective enemy concentrations need to be assaulted to prevent them becoming bigger and effective. That may not require tanks but it is probably best done with tanks to keep the risks to the soldiers to a minimum.  Even in peacetime tanks should be available although not necessarily in large numbers.

In wartime, however, once the enemy is concentrated, there is still a need for wide-ranging patrolling to confine, deter, provoke and discover. That wasn't as true in north europe where the distances and numbers involved made it physically possible to create an unbroken front of hundreds of kilometers with flanks well anchored on the sea and the mountains.  But now, with the ranges of weapons involved effective concentrations of forces can be more widely dispersed making them both harder to discover and making it less necessary for them to create a continuous line.  The battle maps of the future, IMHO, are going to look as if they have got a very bad case of both blue and red measles with enemy and own forces intermeshed and overlapping.  

It is this combination of the 360 battlefield, long-range weapons, smaller concentrations being more effective and thus more able to escape confinement that gives me to think that the LAV/Strykers of this world will still have a place in wartime.  This becomes even more true if the enemy continues to disregard the Geneva Conventions and Marquis of Queensbury rules and fight as a civilian within the civilian population while simultaneously conducting conventional, high intensity operations in the field.

I do agree with the need for weight of armour when engaging the enemy but I disagree somewhat with your prescription to buy vehicles with 70 tonnes of metal permanently attached.  I agree that 20 tonne drive trains should not be loaded with 40 tonnes of armour but isn't a better solution to buy a 70 tonne drive train and only load it to its maximum capacity when needed?  Why not buy a 20 tonne vehicle with a 70 tonne drive train and add the extra 50 tonnes as and when it is needed?  Wouldn't that keep training and operating costs down and increase the longevity of the equipment?

I am not arguing against the need for tanks.  Nor am I arguing that LAVs don't have their weaknesses. I am just suggesting that it is a matter of "horses for courses" and in peacetime and wartime both will have a role.


- I see Arthur beat me to it as I was preparing this but here's my .02 anyway


* militarily effective is something of a problem for me because it suggests that war is about killing soldiers and therefore that the only effective engagement is one where soldiers (or at least their kit) are killed.  However war is not about killing soldiers, nor is it about killing civilians.  It is about convincing civilians - every war is first and foremost a "hearts and minds campaign".  If that wasn't true before WW2 then Goebels and the Ministries of Propaganda of all parties certainly demonstrated it to be true for then and ever after.  Our current enemies are trading on the Vietnamese success in demonstrating that you don't have to be miltarily effective to win the war.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What I have noticed is that most countries do not have the road infrastructure that we are used to here, 100 ton and up bridges are common as dirt here, but a rarity elsewhere, 70 tons is about the max that you can go for a expeditionary force, as anything heavier puts a strain on the entire infrastructure, including ships, loading ramps, docks, rail, roads and bridges.

The same technology advances will also benefit AFV’s as well as anti-armour weapons.

a-majoor

Currently most of the weapons being encountered overseas are on average 20 years old technologies and not even present state of the art. If our adversaries could deploy Javelins or similar right now it would cause us and the US a lot of problems. So I say that we are relatively safe from that threat for the time being. 

 

[George Wallace]

Collin

You will have to remember that in the cases of Bridge Classes, you will sometimes find bridges that tracked vehicles can safely cross, but wheeled vehicles can't.  Remember that Tracks spread out the Ground Pressure exerted by the vehicle much better than Tires.

As for road infrastructure.  Well, with any large volume of Heavy vehicles, it really doesn't matter if it is Tracked or Wheeled vehicles, those roads will not last long.  That is why Hitler started building the Autobahns out of concrete.  In most Third World countries, that infrastructure may never have existed to any great extent in the first place.  Tracked vehicles would provide more mobility.  Amphibious Tracked vehicles would provide more.  ;D

I have seen numerous variants of Tracked Bridgelayers.  Not too many Wheeled Bridgelayers.  I don't include the Bridges (or Rafts) found in Bridging units, in the same way that I would with the AVBLs, although they are out there and with time can do as much or more.

 

[Shamrock]

George, what are you talking about?  The ground pressure of a vehicle won't matter when the entire vehicle is on the bridge -- it will still have the same amount of mass exerting the same pressure along the same supports and on the shores.  Bridge class is based on mass and volume not footpad.

As for wheeled-chassis based VLB's, there's plenty.  The entire KMM and TMM family, the French PTA.  Even the Leguan comes available on 6- or 8-wheeled chassis, some of which are even armoured. 

Self-correction:
MILIFAX
Canadian Army Vehicle Markings 1939-1945
Bridging Class Markings Part 2

8.        It is important to note that these classification numbers are not necessarily the tonnage
    weights of the vehs , although in the case of tracked vehs they do closely approximate it.  They
    are arrived at from consideration of axle loading, distances between axles and impact factor.
    The class of veh should looked upon merely as ref numbers to permit the comparing of br
    and veh classes and thus provide a simple method of determining what brs particular vehs
    can safely pass over them.

 

[George Wallace]

George, what are you talking about?  The ground pressure of a vehicle won't matter when the entire vehicle is on the bridge -- it will still have the same amount of mass exerting the same pressure along the same supports and on the shores.  Bridge class is based on mass and volume not footpad.

Not always true.  In some cases, the total mass and volume is not the problem, but the concentration of that mass.  On some Bridges you may find that a heavier tracked vehicle is allowed than a wheeled vehicle.  The wheeled vehicle concentrating its' mass on a smaller footprint.  Numbers or Stringers, Deck type, etc. are also factors in these equations.

Now I have to go looking for examples of Bridge Class signs to demonstrate that it is sometimes the fact.  Wait Out.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/5-170/appb.htm#s1

 

[a_majoor]

What happens when you go too crazy in the size/protection department:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz7.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-28_Super_Heavy_Tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_%28tank%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conqueror_tank

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1997/5fcs97.pdf (some discussion of the Block III tank program)

While we have developed the engine and suspension technology to the point we can have 60-70 Tonne AFVs with impressive mobility, the 1500 + hp engines are "gas guzzlers" and the problem of size and weight of the vehicles leads to the same problems which derailed most of the vehicles listed above.

Finally, an article from "Jane's Defence Weekly" which summarizes some of this debate. A powerful weapon like the tank will be in play for many years to come, but what role it will play is a different story.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/518308/posts

 

[Red 6]

I think the US Army tends to push heavier elements forward in the reconnaissance battle than do most armies. In the heavy armored cavalry regiment, each line troop has 2 platoons of Bradleys and 2 tank platoons. There are three troops in a squadron along with a tank company and an organic FA battery. The regiment has three ground cavalry squadrons, and an air cavalry squadron. That's a lot of combat power in the corps screen, plus normally, the regiment fights with a DS battery of MLRS, and other slice elements. The regiment would typically set up a screen line in the defense and advance in a zone recon in the attack.

Heavy division cavalry squadrons also have the same mix of tanks and Bradleys in each troop. This came about as a result of lessons learned in Desert Storm, when almost every divisional cav squadron wound up with tanks op-conned.

In terms of mobility on the modern battlefield, if tanks are needed somewhere, they'll make it to the fight. There have been, for instance, some outstanding books written about employment of armor in Vietnam. I read somewhere that a 1965 study predicted that 80% of the Vietnam battle areas were NO-GO areas for tanks and other tracked vehicles. But once armored units began deploying into theater, they pioneered jungle movement. I had a platoon sergeant in the mid-80s who served in the Blackhorse during the Cambodian operations. He told us how they would bust jungle thru terrain that was unbelievable with helicopters from the air cav guiding the way.

To me, if you need a tank, there isn't a substitute. Armored gun platforms on wheels or light tracked chassis are, for all intents and purposes, like the tank destroyers of World War II. They may have the firepower to knock out an enemy tank, but in a tank-to-tank slugging match, the TD, whatever its nomenclature, is going to get wasted, unless they get a first round kill. Even then, the enemy wingman tank will probably spot the muzzle signature and do the job. Tanks, on the other hand, are very versatile and can operate in just about every battlefield scenario. I really like the way Kirkhill summed this up.

The other issue is mission creep. If things are driving around that look like tanks, shoot like tanks and sound like tanks, it's almost inevitable that they're going to get employed like tanks, even if they aren't. Now, if it's a peacekeeping, or even a peace enforcement mission, that may not be a problem. But we always learn and implement lessons based on the last real-world operation. You guys know how deadly that can be if the lessons aren't the correct ones for the next war.

That has to be tough for a small armored force like Canada's. You guys cannot afford to get it wrong, since every asset is precious.

(PS - Ya'll are a squared away bunch and I won't hold it against anybody that you spell "armored" wrong... 

 

[Michael OLeary]

(PS - Ya'll are a squared away bunch and I won't hold it against anybody that you spell "armored" wrong... 

that is very kind of u

 

[Red 6]

No problem, Michael 

PS: Seriously, this is the most intelligent debate on this topic I've ever read. Usually, it degenerates into a pissing match over who has the better what. My hat's off to you, fellas.

 

[TCBF]

Red 6,

Were you in 11 ACR during FALLEX 1988?

 

[Red 6]

Roger, in 2nd Squadron. I sure was in Reforger that year. At one point, we were operating around Rothenburg and the Canadian Battle Group was in sector. (Apologies in advance if I got their nomenclature wrong.)

 

[TCBF]

4CMBG - 4 Canadian Mecanized Brigade Group - no longer existant, sad to say.

I was a Troop Warrant in the Bde Recce Sqn.  Seven Lynx in a Troop, three Troops in the Sqn.  Amazing exercise.  The scale was staggering. 

 

[retiredgrunt45]

I think the purchase of new tanks may hinge around how well the Leapord's perform in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not tank country, the soviets found that out the hard way.

Even Hilliar being a tank guy, had reservations about sending the Leo's over.

If Canada wants to go the wheeled route, LAV etc, they should look no further than to the South African military as a perfect example of a wheeled, armoured balance. The "Rooikat" comes to mind, its a medium wheeled tank, 28 tons ,8 wheeled and has a decent armour package and a 105 MGS and goes almost anywhere.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Rooikat,,00.html

 

[George Wallace]

I think the purchase of new tanks may hinge around how well the Leopard's perform in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not tank country, the soviets found that out the hard way.

Even Hilliar being a tank guy, had reservations about sending the Leo's over.

If Canada wants to go the wheeled route, LAV etc, they should look no further than to the South African military as a perfect example of a wheeled, armoured balance. The "Rooikat" comes to mind, its a medium wheeled tank, 28 tons ,8 wheeled and has a decent armour package and a 105 MGS and goes almost anywhere.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Rooikat,,00.html

Funny!

You sound like another character on this site.

Who says Afghanistan isn't 'Tank Country'?  What experience do they have?  Are you looking at beautiful pictures of mountains and ignoring the wide open plains?  LAV's don't work so well in the mountains either.  Have you seen the BTR 80 being blown up in the mountain pass on video that circulated around the Net several years ago?  Perhaps you are comparing conscripts in T54 to our guys in Leopards?  How about BTR 80's and LAV's?  Sure the Russians were defeated. 

Why don't you at the same time say Canada isn't 'Tank Country'?  We have the Rocky mountains.  :

Why doe we put up with this crap?

You have been defeated by the propaganda of the al Quada machine and will bring about our defeat.  The Americans didn't loose any battles that they fought in Vietnam, but they lost the propaganda war at home, which brought about their defeat.  This is what is happening here, with your posts, those of the NDP and the CPA.

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

If Canada wants to go the wheeled route, LAV etc, they should look no further than to the South African military as a perfect example of a wheeled, armoured balance. The "Rooikat" comes to mind, its a medium wheeled tank, 28 tons ,8 wheeled and has a decent armour package and a 105 MGS and goes almost anywhere.

 

[Red 6]

Thanks very much for the outstanding intel on the Rooikat. The armored car/tank issue is somewhat like the debate about tank destroyers and tanks took took place in the US Army during World War II. TDs were lighter, cheaper to build and were mounted with heavy guns that could destroy anything out there. The idea was, TD forces could quickly maneuver out to the flanks of an enemy armored force and tear them to pieces from the sides. Armored force guys resisted the push for TDs, arguing that if there was a need for a "tank-like" vehicle, the role should be filled with a tank, not something that looked like a tank, but couldn't stand up to the heavy force battlefield.

Inevitably, TDs were forced into a role that they were never designed or intended to do— operating as tanks in tank vs. tank combat. Many TDs were knocked out in these battles. In my opinion, the debate over tanks vs wheels is analogous to the WW2 debate over TDs and tanks. The issue (in my mind) isn't about having treads or wheels. It's about armor protection and survivability.

I would argue that there are very few places in the world where armor "can't" operate. Even in the highest country, valleys, trails, and roads are available for armor. The great thing about tanks is their versatility. They perform a variety of roles better than practically any other vehicle. Infantry support, convoy escort, economy of force, recon, etc. And the nice thing about having a good tank us that, when the enemy shows up with armor, you have something that can kill his tanks.

The problem in peactime is that no one dies from enemy fire. The important things to bean counters are fuel economy, operational readiness rates, interchangability of parts and stuff like that. A heeled fleet is much nicer because tires are cheaper than tracks to replace, they aren't nearly as destructive to the ground as treads, and so forth. The only problem is, when the next war happens, none of it means anything.

People who don't want you to send tanks to Afghanistan will find reasons to oppose it no matter what. They'll look at the OR rate and say, "See, we told you do." When the first tank is knocked out in combat, "they'll rub their hands together and say, "Yep, we told you it wasn't a suitable place for armor." But, those folks, entitled to their opinions as they are, weren't the ones who asked for tanks in the first place. The commander on the ground did.

 

[solidarnosc]

I think the purchase of new tanks may hinge around how well the Leapord's perform in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not tank country, the soviets found that out the hard way.

Even Hilliar being a tank guy, had reservations about sending the Leo's over.

If Canada wants to go the wheeled route, LAV etc, they should look no further than to the South African military as a perfect example of a wheeled, armoured balance. The "Rooikat" comes to mind, its a medium wheeled tank, 28 tons ,8 wheeled and has a decent armour package and a 105 MGS and goes almost anywhere.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Rooikat,,00.html

You could save yourselves some money

Or even more if one bought 90MM. I think GM Canada (--GDLS) has bought 130 90M MK8's for Saudi-Arabia so there is some experience in Canada. And the MK8 is COTS and exported to several countries. Ok 90MM is not good against modern tanks and upgraded older ones but a wheeled vehicle of 25 ton is not good against heavy armour anyway in my opinion so instead of putting a heavy gun on a light vehicle so it is no good anymore for anything one can put a medium gun on a light vehicle for fire support and recce. Buy second-hand upgraded Leo II's/M1's for heavy duty.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

There's nothing like examining something up close and personal, books and fact sheets just don't cut it. 

IF, and that may be a big IF, we buy an armoured car, perhaps the best bet would be the CT-CV, which is available with the excellent Cockerill 105mm cannon, fully compatible with NATO standard tank ammunition.  As has been noted, we would have to carefully state the purpose of a new beast, (which of course, we will ignore and use the vehicle for everything from a recce vehicle to a tank)  Sigh


I wonder if SA is considering selling any Oliphants?  Might come in handy..........