- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Sunday, Nov 02, 2003
Army cannibalizing armour, artillery to bolster infantry
OTTAWA (CP) - Starved for money and manpower, the army is cannibalizing its armour and artillery to preserve its infantry battalions, trading hitting power for bayonets.
Defence Minister John McCallum announced this week that he is buying Stryker combat vehicles to replace the military‘s aging fleet of Leopard tanks, despite warnings from military researchers that the Stryker isn‘t up to the job.
What hasn‘t been publicized is that the army is also planning to reduce the punch of its artillery regiments by scrapping their biggest guns and replacing them with mortars.
The plan to de-fang the artillery was first broached at a recent meeting of the Royal Canadian Artillery Association, much to the dismay of the audience.
The army wants to get rid of the artillery‘s M-109 self-propelled 155- mm howitzers, which can fire a 45-kilogram shell more than 15 kilometres. They would be replaced with 81-mm mortars which are currently integrated into infantry battalions to give foot soldiers extra firepower. The mortars fire four-kilogram shells five kilometres.
The army would retain its 105-mm howitzers, which fire a 15-kilogram shell about 11 kilometres.
"This is all cost-driven," said David Rudd, executive director of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies.
"It‘s, first and foremost, indicative of how tight it is for the Forces."
Brian MacDonald, a retired artillery colonel, calculated that the proposed configuration of mortars and guns would deliver a fraction of the firepower available in the artillery regiments today.
He agrees that the 155-mm guns are reaching the end of their service life. While they could be rebuilt to modern standards - the American army did that with its medium guns, adding electronics and improved engines and other gear - it would still leave heavy, cumbersome weapons.
But, he said there are better answers than shifting the mortars from the infantry. That, he said, is a ploy by a manpower-strapped army.
"It‘s the product of the army‘s desperation to cope with the shortage of infantry for peacekeeping or stability operations."
A report released Thursday at a defence conference in Ottawa recommended across-the-board increases in military spending, including boosting the regular forces to at least 80,000 from the current 60,000, and adding 10,000 reservists to the current 30,000-member reserve.
The report by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute makes a pitch for a modernized and expanded army that "should focus on medium- weight forces such as those being developed by the U.S. army," including the Stryker.
But MacDonald and others argue that under the current plan, the army‘s ability to protect its people by dropping shells on bad guys on the other side of the hill is greatly reduced. That change, plus the abandonment of tanks in favour of the light Stryker guns, leaves the army unable to "fight with the best against the best," MacDonald said.
"We can fight alongside the best, but I don‘t think we‘d do terribly well against the best."
MacDonald said this new model army is up to "neo-colonial policing."
"If you wanted to go in and take control of some obscure African country, that force would be good."
The arrival of the Stryker further weakens the army‘s hitting power, but might free up more people to carry rifles.
Most western countries still maintain arsenals of big tanks, 50 tonnes or better. The 18-tonne Stryker is at a big disadvantage.
A set of 1998 computer simulations run by army researchers pitted a gun much like the Stryker against Russian-built T-80 tanks. Four Strykers went up against two tanks. All four were knocked out without damaging the tanks.
Numbers are also a concern. In the Trudeau era, 30 years ago, the army replaced 500 Centurion tanks with 114 Leopard I tanks built in Germany. Now, it‘s replacing those with 60 Strykers.
The army researchers questioned the wisdom of using Strykers on the battlefield, saying it would be unethical to send them out to fight tanks. The ensuing casualties would be hard on morale, they said.
Rudd said the army is slowly turning into the armed constabulary which some say it its logical niche.
"We‘re moving in that particular direction by stealth, without a policy review," he said.
There is a debate within the army over tanks.
In the winter of 2001, Maj. Lee Hammond published an article in the Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin arguing that tanks are still very useful, even if they have become socially and politically unpopular.
Hammond, an artilleryman, said the tank "has been demonized as a Cold War relic that is no longer a suitable weapon."
That, he said, is wrong.
"Are we the only army in the Western world who is right in surmising that the day of the tank is over?"
MacDonald and Rudd suggest that it‘s not really a case of the army believing that tanks and big guns are obsolete. Rather, it‘s a belief that with little money, the time has come to save at least a core fighting capability.
© The Canadian Press, 2003
Army cannibalizing armour, artillery to bolster infantry
OTTAWA (CP) - Starved for money and manpower, the army is cannibalizing its armour and artillery to preserve its infantry battalions, trading hitting power for bayonets.
Defence Minister John McCallum announced this week that he is buying Stryker combat vehicles to replace the military‘s aging fleet of Leopard tanks, despite warnings from military researchers that the Stryker isn‘t up to the job.
What hasn‘t been publicized is that the army is also planning to reduce the punch of its artillery regiments by scrapping their biggest guns and replacing them with mortars.
The plan to de-fang the artillery was first broached at a recent meeting of the Royal Canadian Artillery Association, much to the dismay of the audience.
The army wants to get rid of the artillery‘s M-109 self-propelled 155- mm howitzers, which can fire a 45-kilogram shell more than 15 kilometres. They would be replaced with 81-mm mortars which are currently integrated into infantry battalions to give foot soldiers extra firepower. The mortars fire four-kilogram shells five kilometres.
The army would retain its 105-mm howitzers, which fire a 15-kilogram shell about 11 kilometres.
"This is all cost-driven," said David Rudd, executive director of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies.
"It‘s, first and foremost, indicative of how tight it is for the Forces."
Brian MacDonald, a retired artillery colonel, calculated that the proposed configuration of mortars and guns would deliver a fraction of the firepower available in the artillery regiments today.
He agrees that the 155-mm guns are reaching the end of their service life. While they could be rebuilt to modern standards - the American army did that with its medium guns, adding electronics and improved engines and other gear - it would still leave heavy, cumbersome weapons.
But, he said there are better answers than shifting the mortars from the infantry. That, he said, is a ploy by a manpower-strapped army.
"It‘s the product of the army‘s desperation to cope with the shortage of infantry for peacekeeping or stability operations."
A report released Thursday at a defence conference in Ottawa recommended across-the-board increases in military spending, including boosting the regular forces to at least 80,000 from the current 60,000, and adding 10,000 reservists to the current 30,000-member reserve.
The report by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute makes a pitch for a modernized and expanded army that "should focus on medium- weight forces such as those being developed by the U.S. army," including the Stryker.
But MacDonald and others argue that under the current plan, the army‘s ability to protect its people by dropping shells on bad guys on the other side of the hill is greatly reduced. That change, plus the abandonment of tanks in favour of the light Stryker guns, leaves the army unable to "fight with the best against the best," MacDonald said.
"We can fight alongside the best, but I don‘t think we‘d do terribly well against the best."
MacDonald said this new model army is up to "neo-colonial policing."
"If you wanted to go in and take control of some obscure African country, that force would be good."
The arrival of the Stryker further weakens the army‘s hitting power, but might free up more people to carry rifles.
Most western countries still maintain arsenals of big tanks, 50 tonnes or better. The 18-tonne Stryker is at a big disadvantage.
A set of 1998 computer simulations run by army researchers pitted a gun much like the Stryker against Russian-built T-80 tanks. Four Strykers went up against two tanks. All four were knocked out without damaging the tanks.
Numbers are also a concern. In the Trudeau era, 30 years ago, the army replaced 500 Centurion tanks with 114 Leopard I tanks built in Germany. Now, it‘s replacing those with 60 Strykers.
The army researchers questioned the wisdom of using Strykers on the battlefield, saying it would be unethical to send them out to fight tanks. The ensuing casualties would be hard on morale, they said.
Rudd said the army is slowly turning into the armed constabulary which some say it its logical niche.
"We‘re moving in that particular direction by stealth, without a policy review," he said.
There is a debate within the army over tanks.
In the winter of 2001, Maj. Lee Hammond published an article in the Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin arguing that tanks are still very useful, even if they have become socially and politically unpopular.
Hammond, an artilleryman, said the tank "has been demonized as a Cold War relic that is no longer a suitable weapon."
That, he said, is wrong.
"Are we the only army in the Western world who is right in surmising that the day of the tank is over?"
MacDonald and Rudd suggest that it‘s not really a case of the army believing that tanks and big guns are obsolete. Rather, it‘s a belief that with little money, the time has come to save at least a core fighting capability.
© The Canadian Press, 2003
