- Reaction score
- 17,354
- Points
- 1,260
I saw a mountain lose its peak in Afghanistan after a B-1 and B-52 run.
Dramatic to say the least.
Canada's tanks
- Thread starter jfposada
- Start date
Dramatic to say the least.
- Reaction score
- 7,536
- Points
- 1,160
Romania cleared to buy $2.5B worth of Abrams tanks - Breaking Defense
Romania hopes to buy 54 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams Main Battle Tanks through the Foreign Military Sales process.
breakingdefense.com
54 MBTs
4 ARVs
4 AVLBs
110 HEMP-T rounds per MBT and 78 training rounds per tank.
Three comments
1 - a lot of money for a small capability
2 - a bit less than two reloads for each tank (42 in the primary load, 42 and 26 in the reloads)
3 - again the Europeans emphasize water crossing ability in their purchases - amphibious vehicles where practical and bridges where necessary.
Final comment
54 tanks divided by 4 ARVs and 4 AVLBs yields a regiment of four squadrons of 13 MBTs, each with an ARV and an AVLB, and a command section of 2 MBTs.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,255
- Points
- 960
I seem recall when under PM Mulroney during the 80's we had planned to purchase 300 M1A1s .
Think had barely dried when we cancelled.
I think the purchase price at the time was under billion dollars.talk about inflation.
Think had barely dried when we cancelled.
I think the purchase price at the time was under billion dollars.talk about inflation.
- Reaction score
- 1,084
- Points
- 1,060
hmmm
$3.37 B for 180 K2 to Poland = $19M each
or $2.53 B for 66 M1 to Romania = $38M each
I like the idea of commonality with the US but I dont know if I like it that much
$3.37 B for 180 K2 to Poland = $19M each
or $2.53 B for 66 M1 to Romania = $38M each
I like the idea of commonality with the US but I dont know if I like it that much
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,440
- Points
- 1,160
Really depends on the terms of the contract, were they both just for bare tanks and no service support and parts? I would like to see NATO adopt a standardized way of reporting defence contracts, so citizens of NATO countries can make proper comparisons. Even if the contracts vary country to country. How the costing is reported would remain the same.
- Reaction score
- 1,084
- Points
- 1,060
Havent seen what Poland got from Korea but there is this breakdown on the Romanian
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,613
- Points
- 1,160
Or three companies of 14 each plus a command element plus a training/spares establishment.
- Reaction score
- 1,084
- Points
- 1,060
And how are we organized in theory and/or practice?Or three companies of 14 each plus a command element plus a training/spares establishment.
We had 82 tanks and 18 AEV and 12 ARV with 40 assigned to training before the Ukraine donations but are shipping 15 out to Latvia?
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,613
- Points
- 1,160
I think we're still on the CFP 305-1 doctrinal organization of four tank squadrons of 19 tanks each and two command tanks (for 78 total). My recollection was that in practical terms the RCD in Germany were provided with 59 tanks - sufficient for three 19-tank squadrons and 2 command tanks but that only two squadrons were fully manned. (Something like 1 RCHA which had 24 M109s but only manned 3 six-gun batteries for 18 with the other six for flyover reinforcement.)
Where we stand today I have no real idea but I think two squadrons with the LdSH and another squadron split amongst the other two regiments for training and a 14 (maybe 15) tank squadron in Latvia now with some odds and sods at the school.
@TangoTwoBravo would know this much better than I.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,400
- Points
- 1,160
That would be a stupid grouping for AVLBs.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,814
- Points
- 1,110
They've purchased a battalion worth of tanks and support vehicles - all good. Although they have smartly included 4 x AVLB for small gap crossing, I would hardly characterize this purchase as emphasizing water-crossing capability.Romania cleared to buy $2.5B worth of Abrams tanks - Breaking Defense
Romania hopes to buy 54 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams Main Battle Tanks through the Foreign Military Sales process.
54 MBTs
4 ARVs
4 AVLBs
110 HEMP-T rounds per MBT and 78 training rounds per tank.
Three comments
1 - a lot of money for a small capability
2 - a bit less than two reloads for each tank (42 in the primary load, 42 and 26 in the reloads)
3 - again the Europeans emphasize water crossing ability in their purchases - amphibious vehicles where practical and bridges where necessary.
Final comment
54 tanks divided by 4 ARVs and 4 AVLBs yields a regiment of four squadrons of 13 MBTs, each with an ARV and an AVLB, and a command section of 2 MBTs.
I will let the Romanians figure out their organization including whether or not they are using some as spares and school tanks, but putting one AVLB with each sub-unit would not be a very good idea.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,814
- Points
- 1,110
The Canadian Army is reorganizing it’s Armour regiments. Eighteen months ago there were two tank squadrons at the LdSH in Edmonton and then C Sqn RCD in Gagetown. C Sqn is a mix of RCD and 12 RBC.
When the dust settles there will be three tank squadrons (Armour Sqn Heavy?) in Edmonton and seven Recce (Armour Light Sqns?) between Pet, Val and Gagetown.
The Leo 2A6M are all in turret R&O out East. The Leo 2A4M are en route to Latvia. C Sqn RCD will do at least one rotation in Latvia and then convert to Recce (Armour Light) when they get back home. The Leo 2A4s will be concentrated in Edmonton where the LdSH will prepare successive tank deployments for Latvia. Perhaps they will be augmented by personnel from the ARes and other regiments, but in any case those 40ish Leo 2A4s will be used to conduct courses and CT up to Sqn level.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 27,188
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks for the informative update!
Dumb question: why eight recce squadrons? (after C Sqn RCD converts)
- Reaction score
- 17,354
- Points
- 1,260
Same role? Tanks and LAV’s (let alone the TAPV and GWagon) are significantly different that the role can’t even be viewed as similar.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,724
- Points
- 1,140
OK former - well actually in my mind I'm infantry. If my PL/Coy wants armored Fire Support I want tanks backing me, not g Wagons TYVM.
- Reaction score
- 17,354
- Points
- 1,260
That is quite frankly beyond stupid.
- Reaction score
- 4,990
- Points
- 1,060
Movement and ground will determine the tactics. Tanks and TAPV do not have the same mobility. Tracks and wheels, the age old dilemma of employing both in the same ground. But I also don't count the TAPV as a recce platform.
Our fire and movement is performed the same. One foot on the ground at all times. No matter what vehicle. Even a full on frontal assault has a fire base.
Troop numbers can be modified with atts & dets, as needed. Never, ever deploy less than a pair.
Logistics are the same. Just different load outs. Running replens are the same. All of our hide, harbour and leaguer drills are the same.
Tank, recce, light recce and cavalry mean nothing. They are descriptors. We've been changing those names for ever. Use your call sign, everyone will know what your mounted in.
Our fire and movement is performed the same. One foot on the ground at all times. No matter what vehicle. Even a full on frontal assault has a fire base.
Troop numbers can be modified with atts & dets, as needed. Never, ever deploy less than a pair.
Logistics are the same. Just different load outs. Running replens are the same. All of our hide, harbour and leaguer drills are the same.
Tank, recce, light recce and cavalry mean nothing. They are descriptors. We've been changing those names for ever. Use your call sign, everyone will know what your mounted in.
- Reaction score
- 7,536
- Points
- 1,160
But if you couldn't get a Tank into your area to supply Fire Support would you accept a G-Wagon with a GMG?
Half a loaf and all that....
Similar threads
