Tweet
'Morally wrong'
A report warned five years ago that the army's plan to replace its tanks with a lighter armoured vehicle would cost Canadian lives. Now, the government is set to approve the $600M project anyway. Team predicts higher casualties, reduced combat
David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen
Military researchers warned five years ago that replacing the tank with a lighter armoured vehicle, similar to what is to be purchased as part of the army's modernization plan, would not only cost Canadian lives, but would be morally and ethically wrong.
Government officials confirmed yesterday that Defence Minister John McCallum is expected to announce within the next few weeks the $600 million purchase of the Stryker Mobile Gun System. The eight-wheeled Stryker, equipped with a 105-millimetre gun, would replace the military's Leopard tanks, and is seen by Mr. McCallum as a key part of a revitalized army.
But in 1998, Department of National Defence researchers examined how an eight-wheeled vehicle equipped with a 105-millimetre gun would perform during wartime. During a simulated battle, units equipped with such an armoured combat vehicle, or ACV, suffered up to three times the casualties of those outfitted with U.S.-made M1A2 tanks.
"Being aware of the ACV's limitations and deliberately purchasing it as an alternative to the MBT (main battle tank) in warfighting would be morally and ethically wrong and courts defeat," the research team warned.
"What is illustrated is that the firepower and protection limitation of the ACV resulted in much heavier Canadian losses," they added.
The study recommended against replacing the tank with such a lighter vehicle.
It did not specifically mention the Stryker, which has only recently been developed.
Army official Col. Bob Gunn acknowledged the report and its conclusions, adding that it is well known in defence circles that a tank will outperform a wheeled armoured vehicle in a war. "(But) given the resources which we have, the things we think which we'll do over the next little while, the guys who make decisions and accept risks are saying, 'Maybe we can do better by not having a tank,'" explained Col. Gunn, who is involved in determining the army's equipment needs.
He said in the past the army has tended not to make much use of its Leopard tanks on overseas missions. At the same time, military strategists have determined that in a future conflict it is likely that Canada would be operating alongside U.S. forces. "We think in the future when we go into a position where there are (enemy) tanks, our good friends to the south will be there with their tanks," said Col. Gunn.
That would free up Canadian military units to concentrate on other tasks, he added.
The 1998 report also noted that in missions other than war, such as on peacekeeping operations, the tank also came out ahead over the wheeled armoured combat vehicle.
The Stryker is an improved version of the Canadian army's LAV-3, which troops from Canadian Forces Base Petawawa are now using in Kabul. The main difference the Stryker Mobile Gun System has over the LAV-3 is that it is outfitted with the 105-millimetre tank gun.
Canadian Alliance defence critic Jay Hill agrees that the army could use Strykers but not at the expense of the Leopard tanks. "If (Mr. McCallum) replaces the Leopards with Strykers it's just going to be another case of where we are voluntarily reducing our capability," said Mr. Hill. "As soon as you take away that main battle tank capability you're further reducing the types of jobs you can do."
Mr. Hill said the government should follow its own 1994 defence White Paper which called for a well equipped force that could be sent overseas.
Still others are concerned how the purchase of such vehicles might affect the future roles of the Canadian military. In an article produced in 2001 for the Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin, Maj. Lee Hammond noted that the U.S. decision to equip some of its units with Strykers over the next few years could prompt a call for Canada to follow a similar path.
"In my opinion, should the Canadian Army follow this route, and we lose our MBT (main battle tank) capabilities, we will be well on the way to becoming a constabulary, non-warfighting army," the major wrote. He noted that as an artillery officer he believed he was in a position to write a non-biased analysis of the situation.
The Stryker family of armoured vehicles has also had its share of critics in the U.S. military. Some American officers argue that the move toward such lighter forces is dangerous. They believe that heavier armoured vehicles are needed on battlefields such as in Iraq. Wheeled vehicles, such as the Stryker and LAV-3, while good on roadways, lack the mobility for cross-country warfare, they maintain.
© Copyright 2003 The Ottawa Citizen
A report warned five years ago that the army's plan to replace its tanks with a lighter armoured vehicle would cost Canadian lives. Now, the government is set to approve the $600M project anyway. Team predicts higher casualties, reduced combat
David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen
Military researchers warned five years ago that replacing the tank with a lighter armoured vehicle, similar to what is to be purchased as part of the army's modernization plan, would not only cost Canadian lives, but would be morally and ethically wrong.
Government officials confirmed yesterday that Defence Minister John McCallum is expected to announce within the next few weeks the $600 million purchase of the Stryker Mobile Gun System. The eight-wheeled Stryker, equipped with a 105-millimetre gun, would replace the military's Leopard tanks, and is seen by Mr. McCallum as a key part of a revitalized army.
But in 1998, Department of National Defence researchers examined how an eight-wheeled vehicle equipped with a 105-millimetre gun would perform during wartime. During a simulated battle, units equipped with such an armoured combat vehicle, or ACV, suffered up to three times the casualties of those outfitted with U.S.-made M1A2 tanks.
"Being aware of the ACV's limitations and deliberately purchasing it as an alternative to the MBT (main battle tank) in warfighting would be morally and ethically wrong and courts defeat," the research team warned.
"What is illustrated is that the firepower and protection limitation of the ACV resulted in much heavier Canadian losses," they added.
The study recommended against replacing the tank with such a lighter vehicle.
It did not specifically mention the Stryker, which has only recently been developed.
Army official Col. Bob Gunn acknowledged the report and its conclusions, adding that it is well known in defence circles that a tank will outperform a wheeled armoured vehicle in a war. "(But) given the resources which we have, the things we think which we'll do over the next little while, the guys who make decisions and accept risks are saying, 'Maybe we can do better by not having a tank,'" explained Col. Gunn, who is involved in determining the army's equipment needs.
He said in the past the army has tended not to make much use of its Leopard tanks on overseas missions. At the same time, military strategists have determined that in a future conflict it is likely that Canada would be operating alongside U.S. forces. "We think in the future when we go into a position where there are (enemy) tanks, our good friends to the south will be there with their tanks," said Col. Gunn.
That would free up Canadian military units to concentrate on other tasks, he added.
The 1998 report also noted that in missions other than war, such as on peacekeeping operations, the tank also came out ahead over the wheeled armoured combat vehicle.
The Stryker is an improved version of the Canadian army's LAV-3, which troops from Canadian Forces Base Petawawa are now using in Kabul. The main difference the Stryker Mobile Gun System has over the LAV-3 is that it is outfitted with the 105-millimetre tank gun.
Canadian Alliance defence critic Jay Hill agrees that the army could use Strykers but not at the expense of the Leopard tanks. "If (Mr. McCallum) replaces the Leopards with Strykers it's just going to be another case of where we are voluntarily reducing our capability," said Mr. Hill. "As soon as you take away that main battle tank capability you're further reducing the types of jobs you can do."
Mr. Hill said the government should follow its own 1994 defence White Paper which called for a well equipped force that could be sent overseas.
Still others are concerned how the purchase of such vehicles might affect the future roles of the Canadian military. In an article produced in 2001 for the Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin, Maj. Lee Hammond noted that the U.S. decision to equip some of its units with Strykers over the next few years could prompt a call for Canada to follow a similar path.
"In my opinion, should the Canadian Army follow this route, and we lose our MBT (main battle tank) capabilities, we will be well on the way to becoming a constabulary, non-warfighting army," the major wrote. He noted that as an artillery officer he believed he was in a position to write a non-biased analysis of the situation.
The Stryker family of armoured vehicles has also had its share of critics in the U.S. military. Some American officers argue that the move toward such lighter forces is dangerous. They believe that heavier armoured vehicles are needed on battlefields such as in Iraq. Wheeled vehicles, such as the Stryker and LAV-3, while good on roadways, lack the mobility for cross-country warfare, they maintain.
© Copyright 2003 The Ottawa Citizen
Comment