Should the CF retain MBTs?

[Paul Gagnon]

Originally posted by Sharpey:
[qb]But like you said, the tank is not appropriate for Canada‘s role, Peacekeeping. [/qb]

Peacekeeping is a politcal role not a military one. Unfortunately the politicians send the military in to make themselves feel good without ever having to risk their own lives or reputations. It is sad that so many people believe that the reason Canada has a military is for peacekeeping. Like I‘ve said before I believe Peacekeeping has been the downfall of the CF. It is nothing more than a publicity game and serves only to underscore the reasons(all lies) we don‘t need a military. Peacekeeping is something that should be done on the side. It should never be our role. unfortunately our government is more concerned with how warm and fuzzy they feel than how we meet our commitments to our allies and our ability to protect our own sovereignty.

 

[rceme_rat]

Peacekeeping is well within the spectrum of roles that the military can be assigned to achieve a country‘s political aims. After all, war is a political act and the military is a political tool.

The military is not just about high-intensity combat, or even just about combat. The military has a vested interest in the success of peacekeeping, since it is soldiers that pay the price for failed peacekeeping missions.

And getting back to tanks - they do have a place in peacekeeping, which is not just about counting opposing forces as they move in and out of the separation zone. Sometimes, a big threat is needed - the tank provides that, as do TOW missiles!

 

[enfield]

The question is, do they have a place in Canadian peacekeeping?
Personally, I‘m in favour of maintaing a small core of MBTs, while going more towards wheeled armoured vehciles - stuff we can realistically deploy. (How did those Leo‘s get to Kosovo anyways?)
I think any new MBT in Canada would be just a white elephant, nearly useless and expensive. No war or conflict will ever rest upon the contribution of Canadian tanks. No war will be lost for want of Tanks will Maple Leafs on them. Keep a unit of them for training, and to provide the core if we ever do need MBT‘s. Otherwise, roll out the LAV3‘s, Coyotes, and direct-fire variants.

Skimming around, I saw a similar debate on an Australian webpage.

 

[BillP]

Thanks for the info on the LAVIV YARD APE!
I was looking through the Western "SENTINEL" publication, and saw an article where the CF are looking at converting some(76?) LavIII with TUA capability! Any truth/rumor to that?
Also looking at the 105mm, it seems that for stability, that gun can only be fired from the 12, 3,& 9 o‘clock pos. I wonder if some of those 105 variants are being looked at??

 

[Jungle]

I guess that takes us back to the brigades: should we change our Bde org ? If we want to limit the no of MBT‘s in service, why not create a heavy Bde with a full tank regiment, a medium Bde with the turretless (tank destroyer) version of the LAV-III and a light Bde with only a DFS version of the coyote ? As I mentionned before, this would be nearly impossible with our current Regimental system.

 

[enfield]

This whole MBT debate extends to other services as well. Due to limitations of personnel, resources, and political will and direction, the CF is constantly choosing one or another capability and getting rid of another.

At some point, it was decided to cut our in-air refueling capability. Something we need, but just couldn‘t have.
Someone has decided that Canada can have submarines, but not aircraft carriers or decent naval choppers - but having both would be nice.
In the 1990‘s, for a variety of reasons it was decided that the CAR capability as not needed, but that a JTF2 capability was.

A military with subs, carriers, transport ships, C-17‘s, MBT‘s, Airborne, CF-18‘s, guided missile cruisers, etc. would be nice and arguably all necessary. But there has to be picking and choosing. It‘s a zero-sum gain - we lose one thing, but can gain or increase another. What is the oppurtunity cost of having MBT‘s?

If DND has $500 million to spend, is it better to have: (I‘m making these numbers up)
100 MBT‘s, or 150 LAV3‘s? or 2 C-17‘s? or 10 new CF-18? new coaches for NDHQ? or 6 years of good training for the infantry?

Once acapbility is decided upon, how do you meet it? Is it better to have 100 old Leo‘s, or 50 brand-new Challanger 2‘s? or 50 Challanger‘s or 25 Apaches? 100 leo‘s or 100 Chinooks? 72 Generals and Admirals or 72 tanks?

 

[rceme_rat]

Well put Enfield. I would agree that there is a high probability that the Leo will not be replaced any time in the near future, and that we should be moving towards more of a wheeled fleet. For Canadian peacekeeping contributions, I‘d suggest direct fire can be provided by the LAV variant w/ 105mm gun.

Clearly, it is time for another White Paper -- one based on a public discussion of what we want to do with our military, what resources we are prepared to commit, and what standards we expect.

 

[Jungle]

Oh and before I forget, the LIB‘s are NOT scheduled to receive LAV-III‘s (even though some people would love to get rid of "light infantry", it‘s the anti-CAR syndrome again), and the US did carry out an Airborne assault in Afghanistan on the 19th of Oct with a company+ of Rangers and a number of Delta operators. The ongoing ops certainly prove the need for light forces, and that should be reflected in the coming changes in the Army. There is still a need for MBT‘s in the Army, but I still believe they should be regrouped in one REAL Armor Regt.

 

[Brock]

I am unsure who made a comment on the LAV III being limited to fireing its weapon at very limited angles, but it is important to understand why. The 105mm cannon that has limitations is the to be produced by General Dynamics Land Systems. It is based on full bore 105mm cannon and therein lies the problem. A LAV III equipped with a full bore model cannon is too powerful for such a light vehicle. However, a 105mm soft-recoil cannon can fire from all angles and has 95-99% of the same capabilities of a full bore model. The full bore model essentially enables the cannon to have greater penetration at longer ranges. Their are some excellent soft-recoil 105mm cannon turrets available that are fully developed and could be very quickly put into service--as opposed to the partially developed G.D.L.S. Low Profile Turret (full bore model pictured in one of the articles). GIAT industries has a 105mm THML turret, United Defense and Bell-Textron have the 105 soft-recoil turrets developed for the US Army‘s M551 Sheridan Replacement Vehicle.

I agree that we have to decide on what Canada‘s Army needs and not what the Royal Canadian Amroured Corps or Royal Canadian Infantry Corps needs before Canada buys anything.

 

[John Nayduk]

The tanks were cut from the Armoured Corp with the excuse that they are expensive (granted) and out-dated (ours are but they are talking about tank warfare). Does anyone think this will be rethought given the use of armour in the war with Iraq?

 

[Recce41]

Tanks are not gone, they have just moved to the West.
The rundown of the Corp.
RCD -3 x Surv Sqns, 1 HQ Sqn, 1-3 Tps Assault
12 RBC -Same
Strats - 1 Surv,2x Tank,1 HQ,1-3 Assault
Res- All recce, MB.

 

[onecat]

Sure the Leo C2‘s are old and some what out dated; but they ahve been upgraded. And I believe they are still a good tank for our needs. What do people here think, if Canada actually sent a battle group of 50 upgraded Leo‘s.. How fo you think would profrom? Yes their not M1A2‘s bu they have upgrade targetting and comm systems and the L-7 105 is a great gun, so I think would do well. The Iraqi have old 7-72‘s and T-62‘s that haven‘t been upgraded so yes they are a threat to our tanks but not something a well trained crew couldn‘t handle.

So what do you theink?

 

[John Nayduk]

The Director of Armour was telling us in December that all three regular regiments were going RECCE - 3 x Surv Sqns, 1 HQ Sqn, 1-3 Tps Assault. The tanks were going to be two independent squadrons at the new maneuver training center our in Wainwright.
So it seems that tanks in Canada are only training aids.

 

[Recce41]

We just received the new briefing. It ‘s as I posted. Yes the Tank Sqns will be in Wainwright, but are Strat. The Corp Reg will be Surv, and the Res will be Recce. I‘m writing the New lesson plans for the ARTC, updating the ARSC.
Since I‘m the smee on the Coyote SAAB Barracuda Cam kit, and NBC. I have been stuck with that stuff too. I guess when you say F#@& this I getting out. You get the C^&* bad. But some of the Tech trips have been paying off. May even go on tour, if they send the new kit. Just to see how it does.

 

[Jason Jarvis]

I‘m sitting here watching more of that great footage on CNN from 3rd of the 7th Armd Cav, and after reading the previous postings on the fate of our armoured units, I really hope the lessons learned from this conflict will make the army reconsider the evolutionary role of armour in the ongoing "RMA."

After my graduation parade at Camp Argonaut in 1990, the two Leopards flanking the podium powered up and raced each other to the end of the parade square. It was an awesome sight, and the shaking of the ground was something I‘ll never forget.

What are we going to do to replace the fire support provided by the Leopards? Are we going to go the way of the Stryker brigades and buy Mobile Gun Systems? From what I‘ve read, they seem to be poor substitutes for traditional, tracked AFVs -- especially since it seems few other countries are getting rid of their MBTs.

Okay, maybe Canadian soldiers won‘t find themselves on a battlefield such as we‘re seeing in Iraq right now -- especially if the Liberals win the next election or four -- but relegating the Leopards to what appears to be OPFOR duty at Wainwright seems awfully short-sighted.

Considering that the South Africans are still using rebuilt Centurions, I don‘t see any reason why we can‘t keep our Leopards going for the foreseeable future. We‘re not likely to face anything more menacing than T-54/55s, -62s and the odd T-72, and I‘d say the superiority of our training would allow us to more than hold our own with any of the above.

Thoughts?

 

[Bert]

Another Recce guy - "The tanks were cut from the Armoured Corp with the excuse that they are expensive (granted) and out-dated (ours are but they are talking about tank warfare). Does anyone think this will be rethought given the use of armour in the war with Iraq?"

Tanks can serve as an offensive and defensive support for infantry. In Iraq, the American success in the armoured battles seems to be reflective of airpower and "tank-killing" capability. Iraqi armour is generally taken out well before the American infantry and armour are within Iraqi effective range.

Given this, how to evolve the Canadian armour?
Perhaps the idea isn‘t outdated armour but the concept of survivability (sp?) of armoured forces.
Whoever achieves air-superiority and has the detection technology can pick tanks off at a distance.

Though I‘m not versed enough to give a educated opinion, I‘d figure the American stradegy against Iraqi armour and the technology used will be greatly scrutinized. Airpower and the technology of detection and counter-detection will likely alter the stradegy and design of future armour.

How about a "Coyote-like" viehical with stealth plating with a big gun. Mounted air to air and air to ground missles could be controlled by a connection to a intranet or locally. Radar and passive antennas connected to an information grid. Command and Control could discern the information, direct the missles at on coming aircraft and systems at a distance. The big gun for the shorter distance all purpose punch, and stealth plating for counter-detection
and IR reduction.

To me anyway, this is how I would rethink armour.

 

[John Nayduk]

Dave, anyway to take a look at the new lesson plans, it’d be nice to stay current. Send me an e-mail. So, how many tours will this be?

As far as the replacement for the Leopard goes, with the present government, it probably won’t happen. We are becoming a Reconnaissance Corp. It’s been said that armies plan to fight the last war. Everyone thought the First World War was going to be fought like all the other European wars of the 1800’s, they were wrong. People thought the Second World War was going to be like the first, they were wrong. The government is looking at the mission in Afghanistan and said “light infantry is where it at” (and cheaper). The images from Iraq show the massive armoured columns moving with lightening speed. If we are to have “multi-purpose, combat capable” forces, then we need tanks in the mix. It’s all part of the combined arms doctrine that most modern armies adhere to.

As far as a future tank goes, the Americans are working on a variety of models (and I would imagine that most modern countries are as well). I’ve seen stuff on stealth tanks, very small one and two man tanks with no turret (like the Swedish S tank) and I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a model of a hover-tank somewhere. As missiles become more deadly, we have to use speed as the best defence until we come up with cloaking or chameleon like camouflage for tanks. They’d have to come up with a way to dissipate heat so that thermal imagery wouldn’t find them.

 

[Recce41]

John
I‘ll send you copies after.
It maybe tour 5. I‘m involved with the new Cam system and new Counter Surv Course. I have a few jobs lined up with SAAB and Barracuda. But to move to Sweden? I‘ll try to post a look of the Coyote with Cam.

 

[John Nayduk]

Dave:
Thanks for the lesson plans, I’ll be looking for them.
The pic didn’t come through. I remember SAAB and Barracuda from your last e-mail.
Going to Afghanistan? Dave W. might be going as well.

 

[Recce41]

Don‘t know if Afganistan. Theres alot of changes for the Coyote. Would like to go. I got screwed for the orignal RCD one. I‘ll send you a pic of the Coyote system. This is not the first time no image came up.
As for tanks the Army and Goverment knows we do need tanks. But our Leos are at the end. It is costing more to fix then to use. We may or will not get rid of the tank. It is just why buy something we don‘t need. As of now, they are looking at a few different ones.
But to buy a tank then have to replace something a couple yrs later is not worth it.
The Grunts want all LAV, Arty- LAV, Engs-LAV and Heavy. We are taking all of the Grunt Coyotes and putting masts in them.
Here in the Recce world, it is the new way of the Corp. We will be getting UAVs, Helos, and now are the leaders for ISTAR.
Untill we get a real RECCE veh, the MB will be it.