Canada's tanks

[KevinB]

Hard to make larger bases if you do not have the land mass to get them from

Air space for training in some countries means for straight flights, more than 2 to 3 minutes you are turning so not to over fly your neighbors

The UK came to Canada to train so they could practice bigger operations and movements

Several US bases dwarf Canadian ones.
Suffield can drop into White Sands and not be significantly noticeable…
Canada really doesn’t offer anything inviting these days.

 

[childs56]

Several US bases dwarf Canadian ones.
Suffield can drop into White Sands and not be significantly noticeable…
Canada really doesn’t offer anything inviting these days.

Is White Sands not a a few bases grouped together?
Regardless the US still uses Canadian Airspace to test cruise missiles from their sites south. Does that mean CFB Cold lake and Goose bay are extensions of White Sands or vice versa?

All these bases both here and in the US have specific purposes. Certain Canadian bases are critical to training our Allies, not so much nowadays but I have feeling that is going to change.

 

[ueo]

There is a big difference between being a vassal, and having aligned goals.

Goals, what goals does te CF have?

 

[KevinB]

Is White Sands not a a few bases grouped together?

White Sands Missile Range is a continuous base. Holloman AFB is adjoining.

Regardless the US still uses Canadian Airspace to test cruise missiles from their sites south. Does that mean CFB Cold lake and Goose bay are extensions of White Sands or vice versa?

I’m not even sure of what sort of leap of logic that took to type.

All these bases both here and in the US have specific purposes. Certain Canadian bases are critical to training our Allies, not so much nowadays but I have feeling that is going to change.

Less and less training is being conducted in Canada for many good reasons.
The Germans left Shilo, and the Brits have mainly left Suffield.

The US Army used to come up for RV but there hasn’t been an RV since 92.

The LIB’s go down to NTC for validation. The CA doesn’t have much to offer.

Cold Lake still conducts its annual Maple Flag NATO air Ex, but more and more stuff is being done in relevant theatre’s now, which the RCAF apparently can’t even attend due to aircraft issues.

 

[KevinB]

Goals, what goals does te CF have?

National Government goals. The CAF is simply an extension of Govt Policy.

 

[suffolkowner]

On the serious side of my so called thought. Some NATO countries being small geographical could actually use the space a Canadian base offers to do training so they could practice various drills without the worry of running out of range safety requirements.


Example Poland biggest joint traing base shared with the army and airforce is 340sq km . 1280 tanks soon to be parked in Poland . They could use a larger training base to operate in .


CFB Suffield is 8 Times that size

There are arguments for my idea.

They can play with the lone British soldier left in exchange for 150+ K2 Hulls

 

[Colin Parkinson]

FHG idea is not bad, offer up Suffield as a safe international training area for any NATO Ally. Offering to pay some of the initial setup costs and construction. It will help with our commitment with NATO and create local jobs.

 

[SupersonicMax]

FHG idea is not bad, offer up Suffield as a safe international training area for any NATO Ally. Offering to pay some of the initial setup costs and construction. It will help with our commitment with NATO and create local jobs.

Why would NATO countries haul their equipment across the ocean to train in Canada?? They either need a massive logistical tail for any exercise deployment to Canada, or take from their fleet and permanently leave them in Canada. No good option here.

 

[YZT580]

Why would NATO countries haul their equipment across the ocean to train in Canada?? They either need a massive logistical tail for any exercise deployment to Canada, or take from their fleet and permanently leave them in Canada. No good option here.

don't most maintain a number of vehicles purely for training? Many forces are purchasing the same equipment so commonality is present. If each country were to transport a couple to Alberta they wouldn't miss them and there would be a ready group, maintained by us, available for training. As mentioned earlier though, a great idea but no one is going to send diddly squat to Canada until Canada steps up to the plate. Trudeau senior found that out when he tried to downgrade our contribution decades ago. Junior obviously didn't learn much at his father's knee

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Why would NATO countries haul their equipment across the ocean to train in Canada?? They either need a massive logistical tail for any exercise deployment to Canada, or take from their fleet and permanently leave them in Canada. No good option here.

It would have to run similar to BATUS. At the end it will cost nothing to make the offer and since we are already doing the bare minimum, then at least it's a small possible addition.

 

[Ludoc]

We don't even run collective training in Canada for Canadians any more. MAPLE RESOLVE is moving to Latvia to be run concurrently with ICE/CREVAL and we use JTRC/JMPRC (Louisiana/Alaska) to validate our light infantry battalions. If Canada can't run exercises here why would anyone want to travel half way around the world to run training here?

If each country were to transport a couple to Alberta they wouldn't miss them and there would be a ready group, maintained by us, available for training.

Have you see our VOR rates? We can't even keep our vehicles on the road. How are we going to support orphan fleets of foreign vehicles?

Many forces are purchasing the same equipment so commonality is present.

We don't even have commonality in the Leopard fleet in the CAF. Do you think a bunch of vehicles purchased and modified by our allies will have have much commonality? We complain about things getting "Canadianized," becoming so different from their source projects that they become, effectively, their own fleets. We aren't the only country that does that, everyone modifies the vehicles they get.

 

[suffolkowner]

I dont think any European country is going to have more than a couple hundred tanks other than Poland and Ukraine and they will all be different from each other even if the "same" tank

Abrams
Leo2's
Challenger 3
Leclerc
K2

 

[OldSolduer]

Goals, what goals does te CF have?

To be inclusive and not give a shit about other stuff like competence.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

We don't even run collective training in Canada for Canadians any more. MAPLE RESOLVE is moving to Latvia to be run concurrently with ICE/CREVAL and we use JTRC/JMPRC (Louisiana/Alaska) to validate our light infantry battalions. If Canada can't run exercises here why would anyone want to travel half way around the world to run training here?


Have you see our VOR rates? We can't even keep our vehicles on the road. How are we going to support orphan fleets of foreign vehicles?


We don't even have commonality in the Leopard fleet in the CAF. Do you think a bunch of vehicles purchased and modified by our allies will have have much commonality? We complain about things getting "Canadianized," becoming so different from their source projects that they become, effectively, their own fleets. We aren't the only country that does that, everyone modifies the vehicles they get.

The Canadian Army can absolutely run exercises in Canada. The decision to conduct the Combat Team and Battle Group exercises for Build Year elements in Latvia was taken in the interests of efficiency, allowing us to square the circle of readiness and reconstitution. Light Battalion validation at JRTC and JPMRC allows for interoperability gains to be made in an efficient manner, while allowing our light battalions to work inside formations of like forces.

There will still be collective training in Canada, and the folks designing and running the training in Europe will, for the most part, be the ones that were running MAPLE RESOLVE in Canada. CT in Canada will focus on up to Level 5 Combined Arms Team at training centres as close to home garrisons as possible to minimize transportation costs and reduce time away from home garrisons ahead of deployments.

Having said that, I agree with you on your assessment of the viability of the plan offered on the last page to have NATO tank fleets in Canada. There is very little "win" for anyone involved but great costs for all!

FHG,

We have been operating an effective tank fleet for decades, with some peaks and valleys along the way to be sure. We are small, and I would like us to have at least two regiments worth but there we are. For the foreseeable future we'll have tank squadrons roll through our Latvia mission. Our tankers will work with Canadian infantry along with those of many other NATO eFP partners. Those in Canada will be prepping to go on the next rotation or reforming after one. They will likely take advantage of places like Suffield and Wainwright for live fire prior to deploying. One of our fleets is in R&O, and we will have a new maintenance facility out west. So the situation is difficult but manageable and it is improving.

Could a NATO ally at some point in the future decide they want to have a training centre in Canada like the Germans did? Who knows? It is very expensive to ship battlegroups across the ocean (and a continent for that matter). If they station it here they then have to take care of it. Nothing is free. If they chose to do that it would be for their benefit and they estimated that the juice was worth the squeeze.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

The Canadian Army can absolutely run exercises in Canada. The decision to conduct the Combat Team and Battle Group exercises for Build Year elements in Latvia was taken in the interests of efficiency, allowing us to square the circle of readiness and reconstitution. Light Battalion validation at JRTC and JPMRC allows for interoperability gains to be made in an efficient manner, while allowing our light battalions to work inside formations of like forces.

There will still be collective training in Canada, and the folks designing and running the training in Europe will, for the most part, be the ones that were running MAPLE RESOLVE in Canada. CT in Canada will focus on up to Level 5 Combined Arms Team at training centres as close to home garrisons as possible to minimize transportation costs and reduce time away from home garrisons ahead of deployments.

Having said that, I agree with you on your assessment of the viability of the plan offered on the last page to have NATO tank fleets in Canada. There is very little "win" for anyone involved but great costs for all!

FHG,

We have been operating an effective tank fleet for decades, with some peaks and valleys along the way to be sure. We are small, and I would like us to have at least two regiments worth but there we are. For the foreseeable future we'll have tank squadrons roll through our Latvia mission. Our tankers will work with Canadian infantry along with those of many other NATO eFP partners. Those in Canada will be prepping to go on the next rotation or reforming after one. They will likely take advantage of places like Suffield and Wainwright for live fire prior to deploying. One of our fleets is in R&O, and we will have a new maintenance facility out west. So the situation is difficult but manageable and it is improving.

Could a NATO ally at some point in the future decide they want to have a training centre in Canada like the Germans did? Who knows? It is very expensive to ship battlegroups across the ocean (and a continent for that matter). If they station it here they then have to take care of it. Nothing is free. If they chose to do that it would be for their benefit and they estimated that the juice was worth the squeeze.

Costly yes.

As I have said before I am a train guy, I have watched the British ship their equipment across Canada to Montreal or Halifax to reloaded on ships and sent back tot he UK after training. ( Have seen it at least 6 times in 10 years ) That is the costly mistake. ( One group even shipped back personal cars and a antique John Deere tractor on one train. 2006 I think )


NATO Country ships ( just a number 75 tanks, and support equipment ) they leave it in Western Canada, stop the shipping of equipment, they do not all to have working main guns or weapons, they upgrade them to use Slim rounds, lasers etc. They keep a few with full systems for live fire training. Canadian companies or military maintains the fleet while here. ( since the main NATO Tanks are M1 series, LEO2 and Challenger2 25 of each ). Fuel trucks, etc can be Canadian SVC BN equipment, AMMO haulers are Canadian. Troops are flown out on and back equipment never leaves, they rotate the troops out, 3 months or what ever time period required and bring in fresh troops. ( Even Western Reserve Units could be use this NATO training as part of their training , actually doing the work they practice but never get to do )

The training area is big enough no trooper can memorize it and know where the enemy etc because it is not the same training area they use every exercise in their home country. ( Nothing worse than knowing this is your area every month and only place to be ambushed etc is the same spot over and over and over)

I am no expert, but I think Canada needs to offer something to NATO and it needs to prove Canada wants to be considered a serious member of NATO. Cannot offer a strong Naval Force , Air Force is need of time to rebuild and train, Army is lacking funds and equipment. But Canada can offer land for training and run the training program. We have world class instructors, and soldiers who do great work with what they are given. We could show the world how we do it,

 

[Kirkhill]

66 tonne Challenger 3 too heavy.
54 tonnes optimum.

Challenger 3: Could the tank's weight be a problem in war?

RUSI's Doctor Jack Watling suggests the new 66-tonne Challenger 3 main battle tank could be too heavy.

www.forces.net

Are we back to Leopard 1 vs Challenger 1 all over again?

Challenger 1 - 62 tonnes
Leopard 1 - 42 tonnes

M1 Abrams with the 105mm gun was 54 tonnes
M1A2 SEP V3 Abrams with 120mm gun is 57 tonnes

M10 Booker with 105mm gun is 38 to 42 tonnes
Ajax is 38 to 42 tonnes
CV90 is about 38 tonnes
T80 is 42 tonnes

 

[Kirkhill]

Tank and Anti-Tank

Poland is equipping itself with a new generation of tank destroyers armed with the UK-developed MBDA Brimstone anti-armor missile.

Warsaw’s Ottokar Brzoza program will use wheeled 4x4 vehicles equipped with launchers for 4-8 Brimstone missiles. The lightly armored vehicles will be able to stand off and engage tanks, using the Brimstone’s grid-square targeting mode that allows operators to mark a target grid and then launch the Brimstones to attack armored vehicles within that area.

Headed for the Suwalki Gap.

Larger, tracked vehicles with 12 to 24 missiles are under consideration.

Poland Signs Contract For MBDA Brimstone-Equipped Tank Destroyers | Aviation Week Network

Typically considered an air-to-ground weapon, Poland will follow Ukraine's tactic of firing Brimstones from ground vehicles.

aviationweek.com

MBDA Teams with PGZ to Deliver Missile-Carrying Tank Destroyers - Defense Update:

MBDA and the Polish defense enterprise PGZ have unveiled at MSPO 2019 two configurations of tracked tank destroyers armed with Brimstone precision strike missiles. The initiative comes in response to Poland’s requirement for a Tank Destroyer able to counter massed armor formations on its Eastern...

defense-update.com

 

[Kirkhill]

A summary of the development of Brimstone from inception to July 2023.

Brimstone Guided Missile - Think Defence

Brimstone is a potent and precision-guided anti-armour missile that arms RAF Typhoons and Protectors

www.thinkdefence.co.uk

 

[markppcli]

White Sands Missile Range is a continuous base. Holloman AFB is adjoining.


I’m not even sure of what sort of leap of logic that took to type.


Less and less training is being conducted in Canada for many good reasons.
The Germans left Shilo, and the Brits have mainly left Suffield.

The US Army used to come up for RV but there hasn’t been an RV since 92.

The LIB’s go down to NTC for validation. The CA doesn’t have much to offer.

Cold Lake still conducts its annual Maple Flag NATO air Ex, but more and more stuff is being done in relevant theatre’s now, which the RCAF apparently can’t even attend due to aircraft issues.

I think the only base that regularly gets Americans training at it / using it is ironically enough Shilo, it’s the closest air weapons range to Minot so B-52s drop live and the UH-1s do ranges here frequently as well.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

I think the only base that regularly gets Americans training at it / using it is ironically enough Shilo, it’s the closest air weapons range to Minot so B-52s drop live and the UH-1s do ranges here frequently as well.

I would like to see B52 drop live ammo.....do they sell bleacher seats?