Extreme heat in army tanks endangers troops; forces use tank blanket to keep troops from baking
- Thread starter GAP
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 330
x
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
CSA105
All fine and good. A Gnry Crse is usually about two weeks of class and one week of firing. If we have 20 tanks and they are all in theatre, then we have a problem.
We would have to buy Simulators, which would help some of the conversion training, but still not give the actual hands on required and actual Range work that is necessary. Buying a different variant is not the ideal solution. (A4/A5 in Canada, A6 in Theatre)
It took three months of hard training for the CAT 77 Team to become proficient on the Rent-a-Tanks. You seem to be suggesting we do it in days or hours, in Theatre.
As you mentioned, the longest time restraint in training, is not really the crews, but the various Mechs; Vehicle Mechs, Wpns Techs, FCS Techs, etc. Their training will take months, perhaps years.
All fine and good. A Gnry Crse is usually about two weeks of class and one week of firing. If we have 20 tanks and they are all in theatre, then we have a problem.
We would have to buy Simulators, which would help some of the conversion training, but still not give the actual hands on required and actual Range work that is necessary. Buying a different variant is not the ideal solution. (A4/A5 in Canada, A6 in Theatre)
It took three months of hard training for the CAT 77 Team to become proficient on the Rent-a-Tanks. You seem to be suggesting we do it in days or hours, in Theatre.
As you mentioned, the longest time restraint in training, is not really the crews, but the various Mechs; Vehicle Mechs, Wpns Techs, FCS Techs, etc. Their training will take months, perhaps years.
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
I think that the only way to have tank crews trained and competent on the leased Leo2A6 would be to send them to the German Armour School for three weeks to a month prior to their deployment to Afghanistan.
As CSA 105 pointed out, the EMES 18 as used in our Leo C2 is near identical to the FCS is the Leo 2. The learning curve for the gunner would be relatively short. The loader's biggest learning curve would be learning the new coax, along with the comms system. I doubt that we would be able to install MAG 58 MG's in the leased tanks, and our current C6 coax mounts wouldn't fit the new tank. I also kind of doubt we can get TCCCS installed in the leased tanks within a three month period, although that is not an insurmountable proble.
The driver would require a couple of weeks.
The PERI sight used by the commander is totally new, there is nothing the same from the commanders perspective, however, I'm sure a couple of weeks learning would suffice here as well.
So, two weeks training, followed by a full gun camp should have our guys ready to rock and roll.
I still dread the thought of having the A4 in Canada, and the A6 in theater. Unless, of course, we enter in to an agreement that the Germans would provide trained maintenance personnel in theatre. That way our maintainers could concentrate on learning the A4.
Upgrading the A4 to the A5 is not really all that difficult. I know that the Dutch did theirs at their maintenance facilities, using parts provided by KMW. Of course, getting KMW to build us brand spanking new A6's would be easy too, but extremely expensive. And the news release did say purchasing 80 of an "older" variant.
I wonder what it would take, and how much it would cost, to convince the Germans to sell us Leo2A5's? Then they could upgrade some A4's to replace them......Ah well, wishfull thinking......
As CSA 105 pointed out, the EMES 18 as used in our Leo C2 is near identical to the FCS is the Leo 2. The learning curve for the gunner would be relatively short. The loader's biggest learning curve would be learning the new coax, along with the comms system. I doubt that we would be able to install MAG 58 MG's in the leased tanks, and our current C6 coax mounts wouldn't fit the new tank. I also kind of doubt we can get TCCCS installed in the leased tanks within a three month period, although that is not an insurmountable proble.
The driver would require a couple of weeks.
The PERI sight used by the commander is totally new, there is nothing the same from the commanders perspective, however, I'm sure a couple of weeks learning would suffice here as well.
So, two weeks training, followed by a full gun camp should have our guys ready to rock and roll.
I still dread the thought of having the A4 in Canada, and the A6 in theater. Unless, of course, we enter in to an agreement that the Germans would provide trained maintenance personnel in theatre. That way our maintainers could concentrate on learning the A4.
Upgrading the A4 to the A5 is not really all that difficult. I know that the Dutch did theirs at their maintenance facilities, using parts provided by KMW. Of course, getting KMW to build us brand spanking new A6's would be easy too, but extremely expensive. And the news release did say purchasing 80 of an "older" variant.
I wonder what it would take, and how much it would cost, to convince the Germans to sell us Leo2A5's? Then they could upgrade some A4's to replace them......Ah well, wishfull thinking......
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I doubt the Leo purchase is a rumour. Remember that the media first brought this story to light a month ago when government officials were supposedly sniffing around a possible tank deal with Germany, a deal which was promptly denied by the government.
Now we're seeing the same story again, this time with a lease deal in the works. That's how Canada bought tanks the last time around - lease a few to get the training establishment up to speed, then buy the tanks. Although this time the leased tanks are going to Afghanistan.
I can't see much point in buying used Leo 2A4's and leasing a small number of 2A6's. The Leo 2A6 costs somewhere around $7 million a copy. 80 such examples would cost about $500 million, not a huge sum of money relative to what would have been spent on the MGS or what's going to be spent on new air transport and naval assets. I mean, why not go with new and save us the inevitable maintenance and upgrade headaches?
On the other hand, if the Leo 2A4's that are available are the ones which are 'lightly used' and selling for $350,000 a pop, I say go for it - as long as we're not buying the German version of the Victoria-class subs we got from the UK. The Finns and the Poles bought similar numbers of used 2A4's and seem to be doing OK with them.
Wikipedia has a page on the Leo 2A6M, and on the page are pictures of the many Leopard 2 variants. There you find a picture of a Spanish Leopard which has been uparmoured to meet A5 standard and looks little different from the real deal. So I suspect that's what might be in the works if we get the 2A4.
Either way, this is a very good day for the Armoured Corps. We're finally going to get the new tanks the army has needed for so long.
Politics and the spurious game of optics aside, I wonder why we waited so long when non-G8 countries like Sweden, Finland, et al., all of which have much smaller defence budgets and GDP's, jumped on the chance.
Now we're seeing the same story again, this time with a lease deal in the works. That's how Canada bought tanks the last time around - lease a few to get the training establishment up to speed, then buy the tanks. Although this time the leased tanks are going to Afghanistan.
I can't see much point in buying used Leo 2A4's and leasing a small number of 2A6's. The Leo 2A6 costs somewhere around $7 million a copy. 80 such examples would cost about $500 million, not a huge sum of money relative to what would have been spent on the MGS or what's going to be spent on new air transport and naval assets. I mean, why not go with new and save us the inevitable maintenance and upgrade headaches?
On the other hand, if the Leo 2A4's that are available are the ones which are 'lightly used' and selling for $350,000 a pop, I say go for it - as long as we're not buying the German version of the Victoria-class subs we got from the UK. The Finns and the Poles bought similar numbers of used 2A4's and seem to be doing OK with them.
Wikipedia has a page on the Leo 2A6M, and on the page are pictures of the many Leopard 2 variants. There you find a picture of a Spanish Leopard which has been uparmoured to meet A5 standard and looks little different from the real deal. So I suspect that's what might be in the works if we get the 2A4.
Either way, this is a very good day for the Armoured Corps. We're finally going to get the new tanks the army has needed for so long.
Politics and the spurious game of optics aside, I wonder why we waited so long when non-G8 countries like Sweden, Finland, et al., all of which have much smaller defence budgets and GDP's, jumped on the chance.
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
As an amateur chicken farmer, I can honestly say something that harmonises that activity with my profession: don't count your panzers before you stand in the hatch.
I also remember that we were going to get nuclear powered subs in the 1980s.
I also remember that we were going to get nuclear powered subs in the 1980s.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Since we're still in the realm of prognostication....
What do the learned members think will happen to the C2's if this goes through?
What do the learned members think will happen to the C2's if this goes through?
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
The Government has a nasty habit of buying on the cheap. It will pass up "Quality" for "Cheap" everytime, and land up wasting more money than had they gone with "Quality" in the first place when they "Upgrade". I am all for the purchase of Leo 2, but have to say, it is a waste of money if we want to buy A4's and then turn around and spend millions/billions on upgrading them to A5 or A6 variants. A cost that will inevitably cost more than buying A5 or A6 in the first place. Spend the extra cash up front and save billions in the future.
I would definitely go with the suggestion of contracted out training in Germany for the crew members and Armour School instructors. Initially, Technicians will also have to be trained in Germany so as to form Training Cadres and Instructors for Borden as well as the Technicians for the first Unit to be equipped with Leo 2. Simulators will have to be bought or developed. Spare Parts will have to be bought. As Lance pointed out, modifications will have to be done to the Coax mounts, and perhaps the AA mounts (although I think the AA may be a generic mount.) TCCCS will be another story.
I am leery of contracting out Maint to civilians in a War Zone. It is OK for them to remain safe behind the wire, but there are times when things break outside the wire and can not be brought in for servicing. Will doing so be more efficient or economical is debatable in my mind.
This may mean that any expectations of seeing the Leo 1 C2 cascaded down to other Units or reroled Recce or Light Armour will not happen. They will be scavenged for Spare Parts for Operational tanks and eventually be retired due to nothing being left in the Supply System. This may cause a problem for our Engr Variants down the road. That or a new Spare Parts inventory will have to be rebuilt from the ground up.
I would definitely go with the suggestion of contracted out training in Germany for the crew members and Armour School instructors. Initially, Technicians will also have to be trained in Germany so as to form Training Cadres and Instructors for Borden as well as the Technicians for the first Unit to be equipped with Leo 2. Simulators will have to be bought or developed. Spare Parts will have to be bought. As Lance pointed out, modifications will have to be done to the Coax mounts, and perhaps the AA mounts (although I think the AA may be a generic mount.) TCCCS will be another story.
I am leery of contracting out Maint to civilians in a War Zone. It is OK for them to remain safe behind the wire, but there are times when things break outside the wire and can not be brought in for servicing. Will doing so be more efficient or economical is debatable in my mind.
This may mean that any expectations of seeing the Leo 1 C2 cascaded down to other Units or reroled Recce or Light Armour will not happen. They will be scavenged for Spare Parts for Operational tanks and eventually be retired due to nothing being left in the Supply System. This may cause a problem for our Engr Variants down the road. That or a new Spare Parts inventory will have to be rebuilt from the ground up.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
George Wallace said:
I think so. And it seems to be a shame. Perhaps a roles such as
- Engineering vehicles (mine clearance might seem to be an obvious example, perhaps ARV),
- augmenting RCD and 12RBC to a sort of "Armoured Cavalry", or
- developing a MOUT tank 1
Clearly such a scheme would cost dollars, quite likely those $$$'s will not be forthcoming.
I wonder, looking at the discussion on training and maintenance if we will see these beasts in Afstan any time soon.
Could it be that this present situation, and a government that has shown some interest in the CF is really just an opportunity to get new(er) MBT's under the guise of the Afstan situation? I am thinking here that what is really happening is a decision to run the C2's into the ground in the AOR, then once they are spent, new(er) Leo 2's fully acquired, crews and maintainers trained, will be waiting (at home) once things have properly run their course.....
1- Yeah, go ahead slam me, the idea is directly off of CASR :-*
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
Not to split this into a Leo C2 "what if", I think it's too early to say. As for any variant of the Leo 2, there is another thread as for its naming convention (I think "Steve" won out).
It's way too early to be counting our Panzers. Nice rumour, though, but, I'm somewhat jaded, and I'll believe it when I see it (or, to keep in line with my earlier thread, when I'm in the hatch)
It's way too early to be counting our Panzers. Nice rumour, though, but, I'm somewhat jaded, and I'll believe it when I see it (or, to keep in line with my earlier thread, when I'm in the hatch)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
How true
I can remember as a young Lt watching a briefing from the PMO for purchasing a new tank in a Gagetown mess in 1987. These were very earnest and dedicated Majors, Captains, and maybe a LCol - not sure. (I think that's where someone mentioned Krauss-Maffei building a plant in Cape Breton)Even then I was cynical enough to think, "That's a lot of time and effort going towards something that will never happen."
While it would be great in so many ways for Canada to get these new tanks will the country have the long term commitment to the military to justify this expenditure? Where will they be in 10 years from now if we get them soon?
- Reaction score
- 22,473
- Points
- 1,090
Back to CplCaldwell's question: Should we acquire new (or gently used) Leo IIs from the Germans, we'll dispose of our Leo I C2s. Keeping both fleets running would take people we don't have (both crews and maintainers) and cost money we don't have (to procure spares and ammo).
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
IF new tanks were purchased, THEN, perhaps, a staff check would have to be made vis-a-vis the viability of maintaining C2 fleets. Reservist Tank Regiments? Why not. Pool the C2s in Training areas, designate a number of reservist armour regiments as "tank" and there you go. Now, they would not likely deploy with Leo C2s, but if it helps streamline the training, and allow for collective training in the summer concentrations (away from Wainwright) AND encourage recruitment for the reserves, it may be worth it. Maybe.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,344
- Points
- 1,160
A6 for the Regular army and A4's for the reserves.........please.........
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,986
- Points
- 1,010
I agree with centralizing Leo C2 at the area TC for the reserve units to train on. They might also want to open up certain amount of class B positions of reserve crewman who would look after maintaining the tanks and post in a small number of techs to assist in that regard as well.
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
Do you want fries with that? I mean, really, I could NOT see that happening. To keep in the realm of the possible (as in believable, because this is pure speculation), as stated, the A4 and A6 aren't transferable (in the turret, anyway). So what? Why buy a different tank when we already have that different tank, and I'm certain that Class B's for former reg force members to keep those cats running would be in ample supply.Colin P said:
So, if "Steve" becomes a reality, then the next question of the C2 would have to be examined. Personally, that's getting way ahead of ourselves. So, just maintain status quo and put steel on target!
- Reaction score
- 7,427
- Points
- 1,160
Lance Wiebe] The Leopard 2A4 is the most basic model of Leo 2 out there. Most have been rebuilt to the A4 standard from their original A1/A2/A3 version. There are new built A4's said:
So let me see if I have this straight -
The A4 is an upgraded A1/2/3. There are no A1/2/3s left. They were all upgraded to A4, destroyed or sold off. There are some A4s in stock.
The A5 is an upgraded A4. Some were new build but most are original A4s that were rebuilt to A5 standard. There are no A5s in stock.
The A6 is an upgraded A5. All the A6s in German service are rebuilt A5s, which were previously rebuilt A4s. This is the reason there are no A5s in stock. They are either in use as A5s or as A6s.
The A6M is an upgraded A6. With additional armour added.
The PSO is an upgraded A6 with the A4/A5's L44 cannon vice the A6's L55 cannon.
Consequently, once we have the A4s in hand it is not inconceivable to rebuild them to the A6-PSO standard.
We can get the A4s before a change of government and have the proverbial bird in the hand.... Then it becomes much less politically problematical to upgrade an exisiting asset than to buy new.
In the meantime you have new vehicles that are more supportable than the vehicles that you have currently deemed fit for service despite being less supportable.
Supplier training and maintenance facilities exist. An increasingly common way of supporting field equipment.
The Aussies, with their Abrams, essentially have done the same thing: buying older refurbished models that can be further upgraded if time, money and circumstances permit/require.
(edited to get my cannons straight)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Give the C2's to a deserving country... Why would we keep inferior tanks around. You had spoke of money pits.. These would be ones of those.
I certainly hope we do purchases the best we can. It would be nice to see some honest effort. Lets call it what it is though, just a year ago the tanks we have were of no use to us. I am sure this is on everyones mind.
How long would you think it would take to see the first few overseas? 6 months? a year? 5 years?
Lets be honest, if this is not a plan of immediate action than don't bother rushing the decision. It isn't going to affect our current mission and after this mission we really don't know where we could be.
Speculate away my friends
I certainly hope we do purchases the best we can. It would be nice to see some honest effort. Lets call it what it is though, just a year ago the tanks we have were of no use to us. I am sure this is on everyones mind.
How long would you think it would take to see the first few overseas? 6 months? a year? 5 years?
Lets be honest, if this is not a plan of immediate action than don't bother rushing the decision. It isn't going to affect our current mission and after this mission we really don't know where we could be.
Speculate away my friends
B
brains
Guest
Clearly the Leo I needs to be retired, it has served us well but it is nearing (or is past based on your perspective) of its operational life and need to be replaced. I would be interested in seeing the requirements definition that says that the Leo II is the tank that Canada actually needs for the next 30 years (based on current replacement mentality).
As far as I have observed nothing has been published as a requirement that would exclude great deals from the states, UK, or a host of other heavy metal providers or proven mobile gun platform suppliers. Since the armoured corps does not appear to have a strategic vision, exactly how is this decision being weighted and evaluated? Our leadership just recently was telling us we did not need armour, that MGS will fit the bill, now was that the budget reality speaking or a strategic analysis of the world situation? Either way they were clearly wrong, what has changed in their process to make this decision right for our future?
Convince me.
As far as I have observed nothing has been published as a requirement that would exclude great deals from the states, UK, or a host of other heavy metal providers or proven mobile gun platform suppliers. Since the armoured corps does not appear to have a strategic vision, exactly how is this decision being weighted and evaluated? Our leadership just recently was telling us we did not need armour, that MGS will fit the bill, now was that the budget reality speaking or a strategic analysis of the world situation? Either way they were clearly wrong, what has changed in their process to make this decision right for our future?
Convince me.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
And you are?
Similar threads
