Extreme heat in army tanks endangers troops; forces use tank blanket to keep troops from baking

[tank recce]

OK, I know I'm coming in two or three pages since it was mentioned - some of us work for a living!  (Kidding)

The very idea of tanks for the Reserves - fascinating! Picture if you will the first Militia TRACK exercise in 40 years. As part of the opening ceremonies, a G-Wagon C&R will be sacrificed under the tracks of the first c/s to cross the LOD (Bravo's got the map! ) in profound thanks to the gods of Track and Steel...  ;D

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

George,

What are the limitations of running two sets of extremely similar tanks?

A larger group of let's say (60) Leo 2A4+ for training purposes at Wainright, and (20) dedicated foreign deployment models Leo 2 PSO.

The base training units would be upgraded to maximize commonality (radios, optics, other communications gear) but not armour or main gun, while the (20) dedicated foreign deployment models would be the newest and best available with maximum armour protection.


Matthew. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Maybe just so I can cinch that Don Cherry collar a little tighter on ya George, but one must notice that the Artillery always manages to use different equipment.......and no skill loss. :warstory:

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

To go further down the idle speculation lane, what is the break point in terms of "quality over quantity?"  Its been said in the past that quantity has a quality of its own...

20 tanks means that you can barely put a Sqn in the field with nothing left for training and spares.  80 gives you a Sqn in the field, two squadrons conducting training in Canada and a good number left over for the Schools.

ARVs should be in the deal as well.  The engineer variants will be trickier.  

 

[George Wallace]

Maybe just so I can cinch that Don Cherry collar a little tighter on ya George, but one must notice that the Artillery always manages to use different equipment.......and no skill loss. :warstory:

Bruce

I would equate that to the Loader in the Armour Corps being able to load on several types of tanks as being the same as a Gun Member on the Guns, but the Gunner and Commander being like the Arty Tech, who would have to work on a different computer in every Bty CP  in the Branch.   ;D

 

[George Wallace]

George,

What are the limitations of running two sets of extremely similar tanks?

A larger group of let's say (60) Leo 2A4+ for training purposes at Wainright, and (20) dedicated foreign deployment models Leo 2 PSO.

The base training units would be upgraded to maximize commonality (radios, optics, other communications gear) but not armour or main gun, while the (20) dedicated foreign deployment models would be the newest and best available with maximum armour protection.


Matthew.  

Let's simplify a few things.  The Drivers will find little or no difference between the A4, A5 and A6 as the hulls, suspensions and Powerpacks will be fairly much the same.  The A6M would handle differently due to its' being up-armoured.  The Loader/Operator will probably find little differences, other than positions of some boxes; the radios may have been placed in a different location, Safety Switches relocated, etc.  For the main part the Guns will all be the same and positioned in the same locations.  For the most part, those two crew members will find little in the way of a Learning Curve.

The problems between the three tanks now comes to the jobs of the Gunner and Commander.  In the A4, let's say the Gunnery is run by a 'Commadore 64', and in the A5 the Gunnery is controlled by a P3 running Windows XP, with the A6 being controlled by a Dual Processor running Vista Ultimate.  There is where your Learning Curve comes into play.  Different Fire Control Systems, different Sights, different turret controls, different turret power, etc.

Now, don't forget we need to train the Maintainers also.  And we mustn't forget spare parts........how many types of electronic components do you want to stock?

 

[genericview]

Reading what George had written, although it is not really the greatest option, the “train in the field” concept is a reality or close to reality I think. Arguably the most important piece of kit in our war zone, the Nyala has had most if not all its training done in the field. Many of our tanks crews are getting their pcf courses just before deployment training begins and then rolling into a theatre of war.  You can also equate that to pretty much training in the field with a bit of stretch.  Without any reserve armour regiments training in turreted vehicles there are no trained crew replacements for the tanks and thus this approach to the armour training with continue or get more prevalent in the future I would think. 

The number of vehicles needed must be based on how many are we expected to deploy, minus those needed for training, minus those in maintenance.  The fact that 80 poorer models may be more beneficial to us rather then 20 better models if we do not expect to train our lads and lasses in the field as we are doing now due to the lack of a solid support model being in place

 

[Bobbyoreo]

I thought I was drunk when I saw something on the news about this on Sunday....then I couldnt find anything at all about this....good to see that Im not losing it. Hope this comes to light. Would be fricken sweet to see more armour.

 

[George Wallace]

Reading what George had written, although it is not really the greatest option, the “train in the field” concept is a reality or close to reality I think. Arguably the most important piece of kit in our war zone, the Nyala has had most if not all its training done in the field. Many of our tanks crews are getting their pcf courses just before deployment training begins and then rolling into a theatre of war.  You can also equate that to pretty much training in the field with a bit of stretch.  Without any reserve armour regiments training in turreted vehicles there are no trained crew replacements for the tanks and thus this approach to the armour training with continue or get more prevalent in the future I would think. 

You are pretty much saying that we can take someone right off the street and give them a gun, put them on a plane and have them patrolling the Afghan countryside within 24 hours.  (I just exaggerated a little there, but you should catch my drift.)  I nearly died laughing when I heard a member of the NDP say something along those lines on national TV, many years ago, as a solution for the homeless and unemployed in Toronto (During the time that we were still doing Tours of Cyprus).

Our tank crews are not getting their PCF courses just before deployment.  Our tank crews have been working on tanks for several years, with the minimum amount of training being found in the young Drivers.  In most cases the Gunners are on their second tank PCF, and the rest of the crew probably have been on tanks for some time.  Most of our tank crews will have trained on the worse ground in the world prior to heading over to Afghanistan.  To compare the skill sets of crewing a wheeled armoured truck to those of a MBT is ridiculous.  Most of the crews did receive training on the Nayla here in Canada, once the initial purchase had been made.  Some even went to South Africa.

 

[genericview]

George, I must say you are completely incorrect in your statement:

You are pretty much saying that we can take someone right off the street and give them a gun, put them on a plane and have them patrolling the Afghan countryside within 24 hours.  (I just exaggerated a little there, but you should catch my drift.)  I nearly died laughing when I heard a member of the NDP say something along those lines on national TV, many years ago, as a solution for the homeless and unemployed in Toronto (During the time that we were still doing Tours of Cyprus).
>>> I will not even bother to respond to this since I indicated nothing at all in your response. My reference was for trained soldiers how you warped it to this is beyond me and has nothing to do with the discussion.

Our tank crews are not getting their PCF courses just before deployment.  Our tank crews have been working on tanks for several years, with the minimum amount of training being found in the young Drivers. 
>>>> Also completely incorrect.  The reserves and regs are doing PCF courses right now for the next deployment.  You clearly are a bit out of touch with what is going on to support these rotos.  None of the reserves that I know of have tank PCF and their cougar PCF's are rather stale I would say and thus my argument seems to hold. 


Most of the crews did receive training on the Nayla here in Canada, once the initial purchase had been made.  Some even went to South Africa.
>>>> Sorry George this is not true, Roto 2 may have gotten some access to the vehicles but for roto 0 and 1 all training was done in theatre.  Hence my argument still holds. 

 

[George Wallace]

Our tank crews are not getting their PCF courses just before deployment.  Our tank crews have been working on tanks for several years, with the minimum amount of training being found in the young Drivers. 
>>>> Also completely incorrect.  The reserves and regs are doing PCF courses right now for the next deployment.  You clearly are a bit out of touch with what is going on to support these rotos.  None of the reserves that I know of have tank PCF and their cougar PCF's are rather stale I would say and thus my argument seems to hold. 

Sorry brains, but you are out of your lane there.  Yes there are PCF course being run right now prior to the next deployment, which is some six months off, but you will find that the majority of the tank crews are already trained and have been working on tanks for years. 

PCF courses do not stop just because there is a deployment coming up.  It is all part of the Training cycle.  Reserve augmentees benefit by this, and can get more PCFs if they are lucky.

I know that the Nayla's were delivered to Theatre first, and that people were trained on their arrival.  Others, however, did go to South Africa to receive training (photos have been posted on this site.).  Much the same way that the Artillery sent people to France to train on the Spewars (SP) and down to the US to train on the M777.  You do not, however, train a tank crew in Theatre, nor for that matter a LAV or Coyote crew.

As for my equating your comments to picking someone up off the street and giving them a rifle, putting them on a plane and sending them over to patrol the back 40 in Afghanistan......well I guess you missed that one.....right over your head.  I'll let you ponder the comparisons.

Your posts are beginning to look very familiar.  I will have to look a little more closely into some files.

 

[vonGarvin]

ALLCON:
There are a variety of methods and means for training.  Stop, take a deep breath and realise that we are all talking about one big huge mother loving IF.

So, if we were to get new tanks, I'm fairly certain that those in the know for training would make recommendations that balance operational needs and training needs.

 

[genericview]

Big breath.  Wow, George I will not bother with a response on your interesting version to my comments and will move on old boy.

I am still wondering how others feel about smaller number of higher quality vehicles or a larger number of vehicles that better respond to the support tail. As indicated I would choose the number that provides enough vehicles to ensure that the reserve regiments can train on them also, that the maintainers can keep the fleet available for training and deployment and that can be positioned in enough regiments across the country to allow a capability to be drawn from more then one spot. 

If that means 80 of a less quality machine then 20 of the best then I would lend weight to purchase of the 80 to keep us proficient in that skill and to ensure the sustainability of that skill. 

I think our training and the quality of the soldier can compensate for many factors but we introduce significant risk when we have to quick train PCF's or train in theatre to support a mission.  We should be able to better plan then that, save for when a new tactic requires an immediate change to our approach that needs to be adopted to respond to an operational reality.

 

[vonGarvin]

FYI: "Deep Breath" means "Don't Post" for a while.  Go have a smoke or something.  Everyone

 

[Kirkhill]

Zu befehl, Herr Hauptmann,  ;D

Suckin' back.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You are pretty much saying that we can take someone right off the street and give them a gun, put them on a plane and have them patrolling the Afghan countryside within 24 hours.  (I just exaggerated a little there, but you should catch my drift.)  I nearly died laughing when I heard a member of the NDP say something along those lines on national TV, many years ago, as a solution for the homeless and unemployed in Toronto (During the time that we were still doing Tours of Cyprus).

Our tank crews are not getting their PCF courses just before deployment.  Our tank crews have been working on tanks for several years, with the minimum amount of training being found in the young Drivers.  In most cases the Gunners are on their second tank PCF, and the rest of the crew probably have been on tanks for some time.  Most of our tank crews will have trained on the worse ground in the world prior to heading over to Afghanistan.  To compare the skill sets of crewing a wheeled armoured truck to those of a MBT is ridiculous.  Most of the crews did receive training on the Nayla here in Canada, once the initial purchase had been made.  Some even went to South Africa.

George I think you hit upon the reason why operational training would work (I am including pre-deployment training in the term “operational”) Most of our tankers have several years to a generation of tanking under their belt, (You crewed on “Mother” if I recall correctly!)  ;D

They have an ingrained understanding of how tanks works and what needs to be done, it would certainly be intense, but I suspect they would be able to perform within weeks with the new equipment if they had to. Even for the wrench turners, they would be getting kit that is well known and field proven and mechanical similar to what they have. Now a switch between diesels to turbines would be a much greater leap. The company reps could support us in the field, as could German wrench turners on loan for a few months.

This potential purchase is being pushed forward to meet an operational wartime tempo along with a political one in the background. This will not be a traditional procurement (thank god!)

Also consider that the crews will not be going up against an opposing armoured force, but working in a direct fire support role, there will be enough lulls for them to smooth out the rough edges and develop new SOP’s while in ops. The Infantry has by the sound of it, had to readjust tremendously to the situation over there, I have no doubt our tankers are more than up to the task.

 

[Mortar guy]

OK, I had a smoke and I wasn't even in the initial bun fight!  >  Here's my humble opinion on this unsubstantiated rumour: perfect is the enemy of good enough. We seem to always strive for perfect in our acquisitions when 'good enough' is, well, good enough. Yeah, the 20/80 split is not ideal, but at the end of the day, it might mean we get 100 relatively new tanks. Think about how amazing that is compared to where we were 5 years ago or even 5 months ago! I've seen this in other acquisition discussions and in my mind we, as the CF, do ourselves no service by continually aiming for the stars, especially when it means we get nothing.

As was previously mentioned, we once gunned for nuclear subs and the politicians balked at the idea. Maybe we would have been better off asking for 10-12 diesel subs. I've also seen people say that an Apache-esque attack helicopter is the minimum we need when it comes to armed helicopters when an armed Griffon or the Bell 407 ARH might suit our needs and actually be affordable. I'm not saying we should always opt for Kmart when Gucci is available, I'm just saying that we need to realize that we have a limited budget and very tenuous support from gov't. Who knows what the next election will bring, but an acquisition like this could easily be gunned down.

We will never get 100% of what we need but if the gov't is looking at getting us new Leo 2s, I would recommend we as an Army say "roger that" and then make it work. Who knows, if we make a stink about how this isn't the perfect solution, we may find the gov't telling us that we have to make due with the Leo C2s or (cringe) an MGS-type abortion.

MG

 

[tank recce]

I don't smoke, but I went for a walk in the snow... 

This seems to be the perfect point in the conversation to insert a bit of RumInt from Friday - unconfirmed, unattributed pure RumInt. YMMV

The notion was that when the Strats deployed with the Leos they were CRYING for augmentees, especially gunners. The suggestion was made that there were insufficient qualified gunners to man either this or forthcoming rotos, the individual wasn't clear. (The vast majority of Leo gunners apparently having progressed to CC positions, many now languishing in Coyotes) The direct conclusion was that future rotos were going to include Reservist ex-Cougar gunners who would be the fastest ramp-up to a qualified Leo gunner.

I found this incredible - in both meanings of the word. While I am DROOLING at the thought of a roto as a frikkin' TANK GUNNER  8), I find it hard to believe that 1) the armoured school isn't CRANKING out gunners, now that we've actually deployed the steel cats, and 2) that LAV / Coyote gunner isn't also a very close match, what with all the toys in the turret. The Cougar may be a "discrete round" system, vs the MG-style of the 25mm, but the 25mm has all the laser, stab, yadda yadda that we poor boat people could only dream about.

Comments from those who know more than I? (OK, the peanut gallery can chime in too!  ;D)

 

[retiredgrunt45]

"If this rumour turns out to be fact"

The way i see it. Finnally after 20+ years of being neglected and depleted to an almost nonexistent military, a government in power is finally, actually taking an interest in the military and See's that something must be done. I understand that there are some old tankers that posted here, and you may see the weaknesses and maybe some of the shortfalls in purchasing a 20/80 fleet. But i argue that if we wait for the A6's to be built in 2 or more years. What happens if the government changes? God help us all if Dion gets in, he's on the same mindset as Chretien was towards the military, and we all know what happened.

I can understand the cost that would be interred in upgrading these tanks later, but on the upside we have "Newer tanks".for our people to use in theatre "Right now".  Giving our troops the best equipment and keeping them alive in the "here and now", should be much more important than speculating what is it going to cost later, unless someone can place a price tag on a soldiers life...

As for training the crew on the new tanks. In a perfect world we would have the luxury of time, but we don't live in that world, we live in this one. Our tank crews are some of the best in the world and I'm quite sure without a doubt that they would and could do there training in place and adapt to the new tanks, not to mention the excitement of having a new tank would cause a heightened sense of moral, which would make the transition that much smoother.

Please don't underestimate our people over there, a Canadian soldier knows exactly how to adapt and overcome, due to the fact that we've been doing it for so long with less adequate equipment and still coming out on top. Give them what they need and bring them home safely and be thankfull someone is finally in our corner.

"A little of something, is much better than a whole lot of nothing"

 

[George Wallace]

"If this rumour turns out to be fact"

"A little of something, is much better than a whole lot of nothing"

Be it Ships, Aircraft, Tanks, Naylas, .50 Cals, Ballistic plates, IR Reflectors/strobes, etc...