Too Big/Tall for Armoured?

[Fishbone Jones]

at least he didn't say curled up in a ball rocking and humming....!

Seen that, thanks. Not very pretty ;D

 

[northern girl]

ouch. are you guys being sarcastic or seriously mocking my potential? I've been shot at (accidentally) but I didn't curl into a ball and cry.

 

[ajp]

I was adding humour if it was seen that way.  You will do fine I am sure.  Just always keep in mind that you will be a driver for a brief period as Armd and it all uphill from there.  You will do time at the Regt, School, tours....its not all sitting in the seat.

 

[Dean22]

I am too tall to be a driver for the Leopard 2 would this affect my chances of ever being in a Leopard?

That's what I would rather be doing than an armoured recce vehicle(truck). I would be fine even with the Coyote but the TAPV is just a truck from what I have seen on the candidates page.

Also, on that note if one wanted to be in tanks would he/she post to Lord Strathcona's in the next two years? I heard from an Ex General that the Leopards will soon be swapped out of Lord Strathcona's to most likely Royal Dragoons as part of some sort of equipment swap that the regiments do.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I am too tall to be a driver for the in a Leotard 2? would this affect my chances of ever being in a Leotard?

Fix it for ya.  Yer welcome.  I imagine you'll do fine. 

 

[Dean22]

Fix it for ya.  Yer welcome.  I imagine you'll do fine.

Nice one....not.

 

[SABOT]

I am too tall to be a driver for the Leopard 2 would this affect my chances of ever being in a Leopard?

Yes and no.  You may not be a Driver.  You may be a Loader.

That's what I would rather be doing than an armoured recce vehicle(truck). I would be fine even with the Coyote but the TAPV is just a truck from what I have seen on the candidates page.

Images of WW II come to mind, of the burning tank and the crew trying to exit through the hatches on top (of a very large vehicle) and being easy targets for the enemy.  If hanging half in and half out of a hatch, bleeding to death on a burning vehicle are what you want, then go ahead.  >

Also, on that note if one wanted to be in tanks would he/she post to Lord Strathcona's in the next two years? I heard from an Ex General that the Leopards will soon be swapped out of Lord Strathcona's to most likely Royal Dragoons as part of some sort of equipment swap that the regiments do.

With the "budget cuts"/cutbacks, I don't think DND and the CF have the money to purchase Algonquin Park to make a good training area for tanks.  So, perhaps The Royal CANADIAN Dragoons may get some tanks, but they will not have the training area to take them all.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

With the "budget cuts"/cutbacks, I don't think DND and the CF have the money to purchase Algonquin Park to make a good training area for tanks.  So, perhaps The Royal CANADIAN Dragoons may get some tanks, but they will not have the training area to take them all.

Don't forget, the RCD also have a Sqn in Gagetown (part of 2 RCR and thus 2 CMBG). Lots of room to play there!

As an aside the plan as I last saw it had a tank squadron in each Regiment. To go with what you are saying, though, that does not mean that there will be a squadron of tanks in each Regiment.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Don't forget, the RCD also have a Sqn in Gagetown (part of 2 RCR and thus 2 CMBG). Lots of room to play there!

As an aside the plan as I last saw it had a tank squadron in each Regiment. To go with what you are saying, though, that does not mean that there will be a squadron of tanks in each Regiment.

That they do, but don't have any space to store them IIRC...... the K-lines hangers are all full of vehicles belonging to the Armoured School

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

That they do, but don't have any space to store them IIRC...... the K-lines hangers are all full of vehicles belonging to the Armoured School

Hangar space is important, but it isn't a reason to base your force structure on. Hangars can be built, allocated and re-allocated as required. Even existing tank hangars may have issues with Leo 2s.

 

[Dean22]

Yes and no.  You may not be a Driver.  You may be a Loader.

Images of WW II come to mind, of the burning tank and the crew trying to exit through the hatches on top (of a very large vehicle) and being easy targets for the enemy.  If hanging half in and half out of a hatch, bleeding to death on a burning vehicle are what you want, then go ahead.  >

With the "budget cuts"/cutbacks, I don't think DND and the CF have the money to purchase Algonquin Park to make a good training area for tanks.  So, perhaps The Royal CANADIAN Dragoons may get some tanks, but they will not have the training area to take them all.

Hey, thanks for the reply. So I am guessing the tanks aren't leaving LdSH anytime soon. Yes, in WW2 that was a common situation because tankers ignored the capabilities of their vehicles and didn't have fire extinguishing systems in their tanks. The sherman tank was a horrible tank to be in but very cheap to produce.

I just think being in a tank is what I would love the most in the military. I have studied ballistic mathematics including those of tank warfare (ex. velocity, weight of round, explosive compound, angle of target, thickness of armour, kinetic/explosive energy on impact).

Although, I doubt I will be posted as a Loader in a Leopard 2 if I do go to LdSH. In the German military I have read the loader is the average monkey soldier but in the Canadian military it's usually a Corporal or Master Corporal from what I have read here.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Hey, thanks for the reply. So I am guessing the tanks aren't leaving LdSH anytime soon. Yes, in WW2 that was a common situation because tankers ignored the capabilities of their vehicles and didn't have fire extinguishing systems in their tanks. The sherman tank was a horrible tank to be in but very cheap to produce.

I just think being in a tank is what I would love the most in the military. I have studied ballistic mathematics including those of tank warfare (ex. velocity, weight of round, explosive compound, angle of target, thickness of armour, kinetic/explosive energy on impact).

Although, I doubt I will be posted as a Loader in a Leopard 2 if I do go to LdSH. In the German military I have read the loader is the average monkey soldier but in the Canadian military it's usually a Corporal or Master Corporal from what I have read here.

Every regiment will have Leopard and Recce Sqns. Soldiers will, no doubt, move between them which will give us options for soldiers who are too tall for the driver's seat (ie start as a driver on a recce vehicle and then be a gunner on a Leo). Unless we modify the trade specs don't get too excited.

As a complete aside I am seeing what gets you into trouble around here. Saying things like "because tankers ignored the capabilities of their vehicles" when refering to losses in WW2 and refering to soldiers of today as "average monkey soldiers" will not make you friends in any military circles, especially when you arrive in the conversation with no training or experience. Now it is true that the loader position is treated differently between armies, but it is the moniker you give the least experienced crewman that draws my ire. You could have said "least experienced", but instead you decided to use an insult.

You have obviously read books and articles, but you need to temper that with some humility. All I see is arrogance. We have scientists that do the ballistics and blow-things-up calcuations. What I need is tankers who can work in a crew to apply that stuff on the enemy. Working in a crew means people skills.

 

[Dean22]

Every regiment will have Leopard and Recce Sqns. Soldiers will, no doubt, move between them which will give us options for soldiers who are too tall for the driver's seat (ie start as a driver on a recce vehicle and then be a gunner on a Leo). Unless we modify the trade specs don't get too excited.

As a complete aside I am seeing what gets you into trouble around here. Saying things like "because tankers ignored the capabilities of their vehicles" when refering to losses in WW2 and refering to soldiers of today as "average monkey soldiers" will not make you friends in any military circles, especially when you arrive in the conversation with no training or experience. Now it is true that the loader position is treated differently between armies, but it is the moniker you give the least experienced crewman that draws my ire. You could have said "least experienced", but instead you decided to use an insult.

You have obviously read books and articles, but you need to temper that with some humility. All I see is arrogance. We have scientists that do the ballistics and blow-things-up calcuations. What I need is tankers who can work in a crew to apply that stuff on the enemy. Working in a crew means people skills.

The monkey quote was not my insult. It was an insult from a Directing Staff member of Millnet.ca who had heard it from the German's teaching them about Leo 2's. I just carried it not added it.

In terms of WW2 I was referring to the gross tactics that were used to take out German Tiger tanks in WW2 with Sherman tanks. Sherman tankers charged Tiger Tanks instead of staying outside of the kill zone and flanking. Then those that survived were taught to sacrifice four tanks of his friends while one tank drove around the enemy tank to take it out. 20 peoples lives and four tanks only to take out one enemy tank and 5 people. It was the same thing with the T-34 as Russian tankers were taught to drive up within 1 meter from the Tiger Tank and fire into it. This is why some Tiger tanks ended up with 100 T-34 kills in one sortie. 500 Lives lost due to poor tactics and inferior armour but superior production. People should always avoid their weaknesses. If the Leo 2 can't withstand a 120mm shot to the rear end then don't show your ass to the enemy as you retreat.

That's all I am saying about WW2. There have even been reports of Sherman tank rounds bouncing off Tigers at point blank. (By the way when I say Sherman I am referring to the M4A2 short barrel 75mm)

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The monkey quote was not my insult. It was an insult from a Directing Staff member of Millnet.ca who had heard it from the German's teaching them about Leo 2's. I just carried it not added it.

In terms of WW2 I was referring to the gross tactics that were used to take out German Tiger tanks in WW2 with Sherman tanks. Sherman tankers charged Tiger Tanks instead of staying outside of the kill zone and flanking. Then those that survived were taught to sacrifice four tanks of his friends while one tank drove around the enemy tank to take it out. 20 peoples lives and four tanks only to take out one enemy tank and 5 people. It was the same thing with the T-34 as Russian tankers were taught to drive up within 1 meter from the Tiger Tank and fire into it. This is why some Tiger tanks ended up with 100 T-34 kills in one sortie. 500 Lives lost due to poor tactics and inferior armour but superior production. People should always avoid their weaknesses. If the Leo 2 can't withstand a 120mm shot to the rear end then don't show your *** to the enemy as you retreat.

That's all I am saying about WW2. There have even been reports of Sherman tank rounds bouncing off Tigers at point blank. (By the way when I say Sherman I am referring to the M4A2 short barrel 75mm)

Please don't think that tactical mistakes are confined to one period of time or one group/army. German super-tanks suffered reverses plenty of times as well. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you. In any case, while I love to talk about WW2 tank stuff (I think you need to dig a little deeper though), my point was your attitude in how you described the men who fought in that war.

Anyhoo. I see that you won't be able to reply out here so PM me if you feel that I am simply reading you wrong.

 

[trppeter]

i enjoyed doing armored reserves for the last 3 something years and have given thought about ct to reg force and since the infantry is closed for the next 25 years or so, armored is probably the way to go. Since we use g-wagons and i was woundering if i will be able to fit into a lav/coyote/leo?? I'm 6'3.

thanks

 

[Tetragrammaton]

I haven't been in a G-Wagon or Leopard, but you will fit in the driver/ crew commander positions / troop compartment of a LAV. Should be plenty of room in the G-Wagon as well.

I'll just add that width may be more important a factor than height in terms of getting in and out of hatches.

 

[Tank Troll]

i enjoyed doing armored reserves for the last 3 something years and have given thought about ct to reg force and since the infantry is closed for the next 25 years or so, armored is probably the way to go. Since we use g-wagons and i was wondering if i will be able to fit into a lav/coyote/Leo?? I'm 6'3.

thanks

6'3 is to tall to be a Leo II tank driver there is a restriction because of the swing seat (to tall for a Leo I driver also IMHO)  there is also a restriction for LAV III RWS drivers  for the same reason (not a swing seat but a armoured seat) That being said there are lot of tall guys in the Armour Corps they aren't comfortable in the vehicles but they are there none the less.

There is also a thread on this all ready.

 

[Franko]

6'3 is to tall to be a Leo II tank driver there is a restriction because of the swing seat (to tall for a Leo I driver also IMHO)  there is also a restriction for LAV III RWS drivers  for the same reason (not a swing seat but a armoured seat) That being said there are lot of tall guys in the Armour Corps they aren't comfortable in the vehicles but they are there none the less.

There is also a thread on this all ready.

You'll also be a bit cramped in the gunners hole of either tank and have fun in a Coyote turret.

Regards

 

[SeanNewman]

I went through LAV trg with a guy who is 6'7" and he pulled it off, going on to be a platoon commander on one of the hardest Afghan tours.

I have no idea how he did it, because I am 6'2" and it's everything I can do to sit down in the LAV hatches with my knees jammed in the corner of the metal.

I can't speak for the driver's compartment though but others have already answered that part anyway.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I am 6'4" and 225lbs, and I have crew commanded M113s, LAVs, Saxons, Sabres and Challengers - neither of which is any fun at all at that size.  However, seeing as you are a short-ass at only 6'3", you should be fine.... ;D