Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[MilEME09]

Does anyone have any sources for the Canadian M1A1 offer? News to me.

This seems cold but, perhaps the gov't could let it be known at a certain time in a possible Ukraine Army rebuild that we offer up our Leopard Fleets in their current state? If Ukraine is independent at the end of this, Europe would continue to escalate and rearm Ukraine after the war to be a bigger deterrent as NATO membership and standardization is finalized (Leo 2s would help this). They get a nice cheap/free fleet of Leo 2s from other nations too i'm sure.

We could take the chance to develop/reorganise/rebuild a "Canadian Cavalry", complete with Canadian (ex-USMC) M1CAs 'Rams', and an IFV (with variants) for depth. Make them visually distinct for identification and Canadianize them / help industry. Get a cheap industrial capability and job creator in X province with another Canadian GDLS subsidiary plant that would do XYZ level maintenance and repair of our new M1 fleet with commitment to US-based contracts for long-term maintenance and repair (lord knows we'll keep them long...). Heck, make that GDLS plant develop hybrid electric propulsion or something. GDLS invests long-term into Canada again, securing a market for investors with long-term commitments. CAF gets a renewed fleet with a close-to-home logistical footprint. America sees a willing Canada, Europe and NATO would notice the contribution size of the Leopards for our political gain.

IMHO, maybe it's time for our vehicle fleets to be closer in similarity to the US? Something designed and built in the US has simply got to be easier to maintain than something built in Germany.

Crew swaps with Australian and US M1s. A cheap mix in with the US's M1 storage in Europe, and crew exchanges in Europe too. Maybe take a leading role in the rebuilding of a NATO-Ukraine armour rebuild/training school with our old Leopards too.

All this for the cost of how many M1s the US has laying around that they'd love to sell?? Buy 300+ with batches in Aus, Ger, and Ukr.

If it's a real offer, I bet it's more NATO shell game, our tanks to Poland,polish PT91s to Ukraine, we get new M1s.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I have.

Well, to be honest, as I'm over 6 ft tall I was able to get part of me in a Ferret

Seems an appropriate link

 

[GK .Dundas]

If it's a real offer, I bet it's more NATO shell game, our tanks to Poland,polish PT91s to Ukraine, we get new M1s.

The only Abrams offer that I am aware of i s our purchase plan in the early eighties cancelled some time in 83 - 84.

 

[MilEME09]

The only Abrams offer that I am aware of i s our purchase plan in the early eighties cancelled some time in 83 - 84.

There was also the offer during the first gulf war

 

[FJAG]

IMHO, maybe it's time for our vehicle fleets to be closer in similarity to the US? Something designed and built in the US has simply got to be easier to maintain than something built in Germany.

Historically we've been a bit of a lost child. Up until the end of WW2 we mimicked the British in both equipment and establishments. When Korea and then NATO came we had a choice of which way to go. For many reasons (chief among them that Simonds was an anglophile) we chose to stay British, joined the Commonwealth Division in Korea and the BAOR in Germany.

We did do some moves at that time to become more American. Our guns went from 25 pounders to American 105 and 155 millimeter. As did our vehicle fleet with the 1/4, 3/4, 2 1/2 and 5 ton lines. Our jets became Sabres and then Starfighters. But we still bought Centurions while a bit later we went to American M113 APCs and M109 self propelled artillery. We were starting to draw away from commonality with the Brits but didn't go whole hog to Americanize. The 1960s started the move to a unique Canadian identity which made us a bit of a mongrel in the weapons holding and acquisition process - in the seventies we even bought German tanks.

I'm with you. I think we should take cognizance of the fact that we share a continent with the US and we should, as much as possible, integrate ourselves in their defence industry and organizational structure. I'm not saying give up our independence or operational control to the US but consciously decide to create a common standard. If it ever comes to a defence of North America (which is highly unlikely but not a zero probability) then particulalry our Air Force and Navy ought to be able to interoperate - they already do on a tactical level but my mind is turning more to logistics in that we have common weapons and command and control links so that joint sustainment and operations are seamless)

As far as the Army is concerned, I sincerely doubt that we will ever do a major expeditionary operation where the US isn't the major partner. Here again we would be greatly served if there was the ability to share a common logistics and command and control system. I'd go even further. I think our doctrine is incoherent. I can't understand why we try to develop everything from first principles when someone else with much greater resources has already done so. The US Army is built on modularity based on brigades. Why do we not simply adopt the Brigade Combat Team, artillery brigade, sustainment brigade etc etc construct for both our RegF and ResF right down to equipment, manning and tactics so that we can seamlessly integrate fully into a US division or corps. It would give us a clear direction as to how to arm and train instead of floundering around reinventing the wheel every few years.

Frankly, there is enough major US equipment sitting in storage in the desert down south to completely equip the Canadian Army several times over. It would need some refurbishment and upgrading over time but that's doable.

Yup. We'd lose a bit of control and a bit of our national identity but in the long run we would gain so much in interoperability and efficiency that it would far outweigh that.

$.02

 

[KevinB]

The only Abrams offer that I am aware of i s our purchase plan in the early eighties cancelled some time in 83 - 84.

Conventional Forces Europe Treaty Drawdown - the US effectively offered an Armored DIV worth of Equipment to the CAF if it stayed in Europe.
I've put the link here before, I'm too lazy at the moment to go dig it out again.

 

[suffolkowner]

Yes I've read of multiple offers over the decades for Abrams/Bradleys/and hummers that were apparently turned down due to operating costs

 

[GK .Dundas]

Oops my bad!
I'd forgotten about those.

 

[KevinB]

Yes I've read of multiple offers over the decades for Abrams/Bradleys/and hummers that were apparently turned down due to operating costs

CAF didn’t want to put 80% of the regs in Germany and already wanted to pull 4 CMBG, so the idea of 1 BDE active and the rest reserve/fly over wasn’t considered.

Hindsight’s always 20/20

 

[MilEME09]

Yes I've read of multiple offers over the decades for Abrams/Bradleys/and hummers that were apparently turned down due to operating costs

Cost is always a factor because our defense apparatus is so inefficient most of our dollars are eaten by the red tape.

 

[FJAG]

Cost is always a factor because our defense apparatus is so inefficient most of our dollars are eaten by the red tape.

And manpower costs. Man, we've got to break the back of the manpower cost issue.

 

[MilEME09]

And manpower costs. Man, we've got to break the back of the manpower cost issue.

Give the officers the same working conditions as the enlisted, half will VR in a week

 

[FJAG]

Give the officers the same working conditions as the enlisted, half will VR in a week

That would be part of my answer for breaking the manpower costs - cull the leadership herd; especially the cubicle denizens.

 

[Kirkhill]

And manpower costs. Man, we've got to break the back of the manpower cost issue.

Buy Manpads and ATGMs and Rifles and have monthly field days where the public gets to shoot at targets.

We used to call them Wappenshaws in Scotland. But they were a mediaeval institution.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes I've read of multiple offers over the decades for Abrams/Bradleys/and hummers that were apparently turned down due to operating costs

Not to mention the German offer of Leo2's and Marders in Shilo, with parts, shops, etc

 

[MilEME09]

Not to mention the German offer of Leo2's and Marders in Shilo, with parts, shops, etc

We gotta pick a chassis and stick with it, if we use Leopards, get PzH2000s as SPGs

 

[KevinB]

We gotta pick a chassis and stick with it, if we use Leopards, get PzH2000s as SPGs

100 odd vehicles is not a fleet.
I am a tad biased - but I would look south - as frankly it's easier to drive/fly stuff from here to you, than any other country could supply you parts.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Biggest challenge with the M1's is keeping them fuelled, the Chieftain (Nick Moran) mentioned this point that to get the most out of this platform you need a good logistical system for bringing up fuel in large quantities. Now things have improved since they add APU's so they are not sitting their sucking 60 gals an hour at idle for 12 hours a day. That's the challenge with a turbine, it's thirsty all the time.

 

[FJAG]

If anyone is still wondering why I dislike the M777 as being part of a mechanized force rather than a niche gun in a light force, here's what happened to a Russian D-30 (122mm) battery.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=368349041576618

'Nuff said.

 

[KevinB]

If anyone is still wondering why I dislike the M777 as being part of a mechanized force rather than a niche gun in a light force, here's what happened to a Russian D-30 (122mm) battery.

I mean who'd have guess that non Armored systems would be so vulnerable - it's almost like the CAF never had M109's before