Ukraine - Superthread

[TacticalTea]

Six hundred tanks? Ignoring the crews, that's several hundred additional technicians to maintain them. Vehicle techs, weapons techs, electro optical techs... and that's just from the My Little Pony Crew, before anyone from the Naked Greek God mafia put in their requirements.

Is it prohibitively so, though?

Spread the wear... Fewer crews, hours per tank. Less maintenance required.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Six hundred tanks? Ignoring the crews, that's several hundred additional technicians to maintain them. Vehicle techs, weapons techs, electro optical techs... and that's just from the My Little Pony Crew, before anyone from the Naked Greek God mafia put in their requirements.

Yup and that's probably not even why it won't happen. We're going through another period of omigawd ! Tanks are obsolete..yet again.
And then we have those people who are actually have a revulsion towards them .
One of the reasons we only bought as many Leo 1s as we did as it was sufficient to maintain 4CMBG . In one government document referred to tanks as "not relevant in the Canadian context."

 

[suffolkowner]

I hope when I wake up in the morning to find out that Russia has massively overextended themselves in Bakhmut

 

[YZT580]

Six hundred tanks? Ignoring the crews, that's several hundred additional technicians to maintain them. Vehicle techs, weapons techs, electro optical techs... and that's just from the My Little Pony Crew, before anyone from the Naked Greek God mafia put in their requirements.

he is talking about equipping an army, not a colour guard

 

[Zipperhead99]

Canadian military will get new tanks to replace Leopards going to Ukraine: minister - National | Globalnews.ca

Anita Anand says the Canadian Forces will be receiving new tanks to replace the eight fighting machines sent to Ukraine, and they won't necessarily be Leopard 2 battle tanks.

globalnews.ca

For those having panic attacks about our kit.

Interestingly: "not necessarily the same tanks".

I will believe it when it happens

 

[OldSolduer]

I will believe it when it happens

Despite what the Minister stated I have my doubts as well. This current government would rather house illegal immigrants than ensure our military is properly equipped.

Edited to add: While we are dreaming can the CAF get some decent Air Defense kit?

 

[dapaterson]

Is it prohibitively so, though?

Spread the wear... Fewer crews, hours per tank. Less maintenance required.

The one thing worse for a vehicle than being driven hard is not being driven at all.

 

[OldSolduer]

The one thing worse for a vehicle than being driven hard is not being driven at all.

You are wise in the ways of science.....Sir Bedivere.
Seals and gaskets dry up and shrivel and the next thing you know your 1500 hp turbo diesel is pooched.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I hope when I wake up in the morning to find out that Russia has massively overextended themselves in Bakhmut

The Russians are thinning out the further they advance west. It's a pretty solid assumption that the Ukranians are waiting for them to attempt a link up, but will cut the respective tails before that happens. Then it's 2 pockets of beleaguered and isolated forces to mop up before the spring offensive.

The Russians are forgetting that the enemy gets a say in your OPP.

 

[MJP]

he is talking about equipping an army, not a colour guard

What does that even mean?

@dapaterson pointed out rightly that tanks need support. We barely get by right now within the trades supporting tanks. Adding more without significantly increasing support pers would just be another fail bus

 

[dapaterson]

Hey now, you know just as well as I do no one in the history of the CAF has ever asked for or factored in our requirements on anything.

You bunch and your "laws of physics" are just a bunch of debbie downers.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

You bunch and your "laws of physics" are just a bunch of debbie downers.

"What do you mean our VHF comms can't reach 80k out? That'ssome bullshit, Pronto"
"Well there's this thing called the curvature of the f@$%ing planet that definitely affects the range of VHF comms..."

 

[OldSolduer]

There is that whole “line of sight “ thing too, right?

Spiral commences

 

[TacticalTea]

The one thing worse for a vehicle than being driven hard is not being driven at all.

Can't we have a happy medium of neither?

Edit: my apologies, I realize I'd have about the same discourse as you had someone suggested adding a bunch more ships to our fleet.

 

[dapaterson]

"What do you mean our VHF comms can't reach 80k out? That'ssome bullshit, Pronto"
"Well there's this thing called the curvature of the f@$%ing planet that definitely affects the range of VHF comms..."

The RCN, satellite internet, and SAP would like a word...

 

[dapaterson]

Can't we have a happy medium of neither?

Bank of the envelope math. Arbitrary but likely understated figures. Each tank will require, annually, on average 240 hours of vehicle tech maintenance; 80 hours each EO/IR and weapons system maintenance, and 40 hours of radio system maintenance.

That's 144,000 hours of vehicle tech time; 48,000 hours of EO/IR time; 48,000 hours of weapons tech time; and 24,000 of Jimmy magic time.

Normal working figure for CAF members is on the order of 1500 hours wrench bending annually - there's leave of various sorts, career courses, other duties, exercises etc etc that take techs away from the workshop.

So, we therefore need 96 more vehicle techs (hands on - this excludes production and control, excludes materiel management techs to handle parts etc); 32 more EO IR techs; 32 more Weapons techs; and 16 more LCSS techs.

That's 176 personnel - plus some command overhead (I'll be conservative and say 24) plus plus... and that's quite conservative.

Are there some extant techs? Yes. But the Army already has a large backlog of maintenance. There is less than zero slack in the system.

 

[FJAG]

Bank of the envelope math. Arbitrary but likely understated figures. Each tank will require, annually, on average 240 hours of vehicle tech maintenance; 80 hours each EO/IR and weapons system maintenance, and 40 hours of radio system maintenance.

That's 144,000 hours of vehicle tech time; 48,000 hours of EO/IR time; 48,000 hours of weapons tech time; and 24,000 of Jimmy magic time.

Normal working figure for CAF members is on the order of 1500 hours wrench bending annually - there's leave of various sorts, career courses, other duties, exercises etc etc that take techs away from the workshop.

So, we therefore need 96 more vehicle techs (hands on - this excludes production and control, excludes materiel management techs to handle parts etc); 32 more EO IR techs; 32 more Weapons techs; and 16 more LCSS techs.

That's 176 personnel - plus some command overhead (I'll be conservative and say 24) plus plus... and that's quite conservative.

Are there some extant techs? Yes. But the Army already has a large backlog of maintenance. There is less than zero slack in the system.

I seem to have lost track of this discussion. Assuming that your initial 240 tech / 80 EO/IR and 40 Rad hrs and 1,500 wrench bending time per annum per tank are correct (and I have no reason to doubt that they are) then a tech can handle 6 tanks per year, and EO/IR tech can handle 18 tanks per year and a Rad tech 36 tanks per year.

If we take a type 44 Regt then that requires roughly 8 veh techs, 3 EO/IR techs, 3 wpns techs and 2 Rad techs based on the math - roughly 16 total. A type 56 Regt (hell, we're Canada - let's make it a Type 60) would need 10 veh techs / 4 EO/IR / 4 wpns techs / 2 Rad techs - roughly 20.

My own experience with M109s makes that a bit light. Although we only had 6 guns per battery we had about 15 M113, variants, an M578 and about 15 wheeled vehicles to take care of which is more than the tankers, so we would have had more in the area of 30 - 40 veh techs, 4 - 6 EO/IR techs, 4 wpns techs and around 6 - 8 Rad techs. That comes out to 44 - 58 which is still well under the 176 you list. Your total hours seem to be based on 600 vehicles. Am I missing something?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

 

[KevinB]

I seem to have lost track of this discussion. Assuming that your initial 240 tech / 80 EO/IR and 40 Rad hrs and 1,500 wrench bending time per annum per tank are correct (and I have no reason to doubt that they are) then a tech can handle 6 tanks per year, and EO/IR tech can handle 18 tanks per year and a Rad tech 36 tanks per year.

If we take a type 44 Regt then that requires roughly 8 veh techs, 3 EO/IR techs, 3 wpns techs and 2 Rad techs based on the math - roughly 16 total. A type 56 Regt (hell, we're Canada - let's make it a Type 60) would need 10 veh techs / 4 EO/IR / 4 wpns techs / 2 Rad techs - roughly 20.

My own experience with M109s makes that a bit light. Although we only had 6 guns per battery we had about 15 M113, variants, an M578 and about 15 wheeled vehicles to take care of which is more than the tankers, so we would have had more in the area of 30 - 40 veh techs, 4 - 6 EO/IR techs, 4 wpns techs and around 6 - 8 Rad techs. That comes out to 44 - 58 which is still well under the 176 you list. Your total hours seem to be based on 600 vehicles. Am I missing something?

He based it on the 600 tank request above.
TBH, I think Canada should be somewhere along 360 Tanks
Basically 3 Armored Bde worth. 1 Pre Deployed, 1 in PreDeployed storage and 1 Domestic.

 

[KevinB]

Claims Swirl Around Supposed Strike On Russian A-50 Radar Jet In Belarus (Updated)

One of Russia's most prized military aircraft, an A-50 Mainstay, is claimed to have been struck at its forward base in Belarus.

www.thedrive.com