Canada's purchase of the Leopard 2 MBT
- Thread starter bison33
- Start date
Fall 1990, at the time the 8CH(PL) was in Grafenwoehr doing a gun camp and getting ready for the Gulf, the LdSH(RC) was in Calgary getting ready to deploy to the US to train on the M1A1 tank with a view to manning a company (or so) of M1A1s in the Gulf. Once the decision point was reached and the gummint of the day decided to guard Lahr and Baden instead, the train in the US plan was canned - perhaps as close as the day before they left.
ironduke57
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 230
Sound´s like he like´s his new "toy": 
- http://youtube.com/watch?v=rfRauhF0xPU
Regards,
ironduke57
- http://youtube.com/watch?v=rfRauhF0xPU
Regards,
ironduke57
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
ironduke57 said:Sound´s like he like´s his new "toy":
- http://youtube.com/watch?v=rfRauhF0xPU
Regards,
ironduke57
Thanks that was an excellent clip.
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
John did well.
He'll do a fine job with his new tasking as the Gunnery WO at the Armour School. It will be nice whenever the "new" tanks arrive in Canada!
He'll do a fine job with his new tasking as the Gunnery WO at the Armour School. It will be nice whenever the "new" tanks arrive in Canada!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Interesting addition to the Canadian armoury is the Germany MG3 in the Leo 2A6M as the coaxial MG. WO Harju noted that the MG3 has a greater firing rate then the C6 (MG3 can be configured to fired between 900 & 1200 rpm depending on which bolt is installed vs 600 to 900 rpm for the C6 if I am not mistaken).
Question in my mind is what the loaders pintle MG will be? It does appear in the Munster training video to be an MG3 as well.
Good luck, BM.
Question in my mind is what the loaders pintle MG will be? It does appear in the Munster training video to be an MG3 as well.
Good luck, BM.
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
As TCBF mentioned, we are only borrowing the Leo2A6 equipped with the MG3, there is no plan to buy them for our inventory. Once the tanks we bought are "Canadianized" , they will mount the C6.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Blue Max said:
It isn't a bolt change; it is changing the setting on the Gas Regulator. Remember: the higher the rate of fire, the quicker you use up your ammo and overheat your barrel, burning out barrels quicker. That is why we have modified our Gas Regulators to the lower rate. Conservation of Ammo and Prolonging the Barrel Life.
The pintle of on the Leos is the same for both the MG3 and C6, if I recall correctly.
Mortar guy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 330
George,
The MG3 isn't gas operated like the C6 - it's short recoil operated so the ROF has nothing to do with a gas regulator (which the MG3 doesn't have). The ROF can be changed by swapping out the 550g bolt with the 950g bolt.
Cheers.
MG
The MG3 isn't gas operated like the C6 - it's short recoil operated so the ROF has nothing to do with a gas regulator (which the MG3 doesn't have). The ROF can be changed by swapping out the 550g bolt with the 950g bolt.
Cheers.
MG
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
I misread his post and thought he was going on about the c6..........Skimmed over his line "MG3 can be configured to fired between 900 & 1200 rpm depending on which bolt is installed vs 600 to 900 rpm for the C6 if I am not mistaken). " too quickly, missing the "vs". :-[
Mortar guy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 330
Oh, sorry. :-[
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,367
- Points
- 1,160
Reference the wall breaching, the CF plan (at least, the vision as it was three months ago) is to retain the old AEV & AVLB until some future project (FFCV) can replace them. The AEV is more than capable of any wall breaching a dozer tank would have done. The AEV is also already in Afghanistan. Unless anyone has heard that they are being pulled from country, then I would expect this capability to continue to exist.
Minefield breaching would be another issue though.
Minefield breaching would be another issue though.
FormerHorseGuard
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 422
- Points
- 760
hoping no one uses me for using a copy writed story here, but ithought it was an interesting read
I am glad some people put their necks on the line to get them for the troops.
November 18, 2007
Army faced bureaucratic battle to get tank purchase approved
By Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS
A Leopard 2 Tank in Afghanistan. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Bill Graveland/file
OTTAWA - The decision to borrow 20 Leopard A6M battle tanks from the Germans and purchase 100 slightly-used models from the Dutch was a hotly debated and ultimately last-minute decision for the Conservative government and Canada's Defence Department.
The debate was so intense it almost cost the army its most senior commander, political and defence sources say.
Records released under access to information laws also show that the army was conducting research tests as late as last February on its Leopard C1s to determine whether the older tanks could withstand the rigours of duty in Afghanistan.
The results of those tests - showing the old tanks were not suited for the searing Afghan summer - touched off an intense debate within National Defence and the wider bureaucracy.
Although contingency plans were prepared, former defence minister Gordon O'Connor faced push-back, particularly in the Privy Council Office which was deeply skeptical about replacing the army's inventory of antique Leopards with newer Dutch models, said the defence sources.
No one questioned the need to borrow up to 20 modern, mine-resistant battle tanks from Germany for the current mission in Kandahar, said the sources.
"It was clear that lives were being saved by their presence in theatre," said an official who asked not to be named.
But the debate over the purchase of the other tanks dragged on throughout last March and prompted the head of the army Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, to put to his job on the line, demanding that it go through.
The debate was ultimately silenced when O'Connor put his foot down and rammed the entire package, which is now estimated at $1.3 billion, through cabinet in early April.
In a recent interview with The Canadian Press, Leslie was asked about the battle to get the purchase approved.
"I can't answer any of the specifics because that's cabinet confidentiality; advice that I and others gave to the minister must remain between he and I because that's part of the bond of trust that exists," he said.
"In terms of debate there is always debate within this building because the pool of gold is not infinite. If you spend money on A you can't spend money on B.
"There was a vigourous debate with all of the right questions being asked by a bunch of folk around town."
But one defence expert said that, after the deaths of more than 70 soldiers in Afghanistan, he can't understand why such a basic requirement for a modern army resulted in such a heated debate.
"I think we still live with that myth of Canada, the peacekeeper," said Alain Pellerin, executive director the Conference of Defence Associations.
"The government in the 1990s sort of fed that myth because they didn't want to spend money on defence. We've been in conflict situations since Bosnia and there are some people - bureaucrats - who don't recognize it."
Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, who at one point described the military's older Leopard tanks as a "millstone around the neck of the Canadian Forces" and favoured the introduction of a light, mobile gun system, said the war in Afghanistan should have changed a lot of minds.
"The combat situation and environment our soldiers faced during Operation Medusa in September 2006 made it abundantly clear to us that the platforms such as the Mobile Gun System could simply not yet do what we need them to be able to do," Hillier said in an e-mail statement.
"The mission in Afghanistan has demonstrated the on-going requirement for tanks in the Canadian Forces so that we are ready to carry out whatever task our government asks of us. Tanks are saving lives in Afghanistan, and will in future missions. Minister O'Connor and I were of one mind, both on the lease of the tanks for immediate use in theatre, and on the purchase."
The $650 million purchase and borrowing scheme was approved and announced on April 12, even before a cost estimate on a long-term support contract was finalized.
That crucial bit of number-crunching eventually added another $650 million to the program cost - and became public only when O'Connor was questioned over his department budget in the Commons.
The German were initially going to charge Canada a rental fee on the tanks that are now deployed in Afghanistan, but they eventually waived it, said Leslie.
"The Germans were trying to figure out how to be generous," he added.
The government in Berlin has refused repeated NATO calls for it to send troops to southern Afghanistan to help hard-pressed Canadian, American, British and Dutch forces, but Leslie said he doesn't believe the Germans were trying to make amends with the loan.
"They're good friends," he said.
Guilt about not being willing to send troops into combat "was not at the forefront of their thinking. It didn't resonate well with anybody that they would be charging money to have these fine machines."
I am glad some people put their necks on the line to get them for the troops.
November 18, 2007
Army faced bureaucratic battle to get tank purchase approved
By Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS
A Leopard 2 Tank in Afghanistan. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Bill Graveland/file
OTTAWA - The decision to borrow 20 Leopard A6M battle tanks from the Germans and purchase 100 slightly-used models from the Dutch was a hotly debated and ultimately last-minute decision for the Conservative government and Canada's Defence Department.
The debate was so intense it almost cost the army its most senior commander, political and defence sources say.
Records released under access to information laws also show that the army was conducting research tests as late as last February on its Leopard C1s to determine whether the older tanks could withstand the rigours of duty in Afghanistan.
The results of those tests - showing the old tanks were not suited for the searing Afghan summer - touched off an intense debate within National Defence and the wider bureaucracy.
Although contingency plans were prepared, former defence minister Gordon O'Connor faced push-back, particularly in the Privy Council Office which was deeply skeptical about replacing the army's inventory of antique Leopards with newer Dutch models, said the defence sources.
No one questioned the need to borrow up to 20 modern, mine-resistant battle tanks from Germany for the current mission in Kandahar, said the sources.
"It was clear that lives were being saved by their presence in theatre," said an official who asked not to be named.
But the debate over the purchase of the other tanks dragged on throughout last March and prompted the head of the army Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, to put to his job on the line, demanding that it go through.
The debate was ultimately silenced when O'Connor put his foot down and rammed the entire package, which is now estimated at $1.3 billion, through cabinet in early April.
In a recent interview with The Canadian Press, Leslie was asked about the battle to get the purchase approved.
"I can't answer any of the specifics because that's cabinet confidentiality; advice that I and others gave to the minister must remain between he and I because that's part of the bond of trust that exists," he said.
"In terms of debate there is always debate within this building because the pool of gold is not infinite. If you spend money on A you can't spend money on B.
"There was a vigourous debate with all of the right questions being asked by a bunch of folk around town."
But one defence expert said that, after the deaths of more than 70 soldiers in Afghanistan, he can't understand why such a basic requirement for a modern army resulted in such a heated debate.
"I think we still live with that myth of Canada, the peacekeeper," said Alain Pellerin, executive director the Conference of Defence Associations.
"The government in the 1990s sort of fed that myth because they didn't want to spend money on defence. We've been in conflict situations since Bosnia and there are some people - bureaucrats - who don't recognize it."
Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, who at one point described the military's older Leopard tanks as a "millstone around the neck of the Canadian Forces" and favoured the introduction of a light, mobile gun system, said the war in Afghanistan should have changed a lot of minds.
"The combat situation and environment our soldiers faced during Operation Medusa in September 2006 made it abundantly clear to us that the platforms such as the Mobile Gun System could simply not yet do what we need them to be able to do," Hillier said in an e-mail statement.
"The mission in Afghanistan has demonstrated the on-going requirement for tanks in the Canadian Forces so that we are ready to carry out whatever task our government asks of us. Tanks are saving lives in Afghanistan, and will in future missions. Minister O'Connor and I were of one mind, both on the lease of the tanks for immediate use in theatre, and on the purchase."
The $650 million purchase and borrowing scheme was approved and announced on April 12, even before a cost estimate on a long-term support contract was finalized.
That crucial bit of number-crunching eventually added another $650 million to the program cost - and became public only when O'Connor was questioned over his department budget in the Commons.
The German were initially going to charge Canada a rental fee on the tanks that are now deployed in Afghanistan, but they eventually waived it, said Leslie.
"The Germans were trying to figure out how to be generous," he added.
The government in Berlin has refused repeated NATO calls for it to send troops to southern Afghanistan to help hard-pressed Canadian, American, British and Dutch forces, but Leslie said he doesn't believe the Germans were trying to make amends with the loan.
"They're good friends," he said.
Guilt about not being willing to send troops into combat "was not at the forefront of their thinking. It didn't resonate well with anybody that they would be charging money to have these fine machines."
FormerHorseGuard
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 422
- Points
- 760
sorry i forgot to include the link to the news story
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/11/18/4666076-cp.html
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/11/18/4666076-cp.html
Similar threads
