Canada Goes Tankless

**Officer of Engineers** · 05 Nov 06,, 04:10

Originally Posted by Canmoore

Now I think that Canada, needs a MBT force. Sure it may seem laughable today, seeing as we are under the protective umbrealla of the Americans. But isnt relying on another country for the protection of your own, a bit of a bad strategy?

There are some countries on this planet that MUST rely on alliances for its protection. Canada is one of them. There is no shame in that. We need NORAD. Otherwise, we could not monitor our own airspace.

We are too small to win wars by ourselves. We have to do it in Coalitions. We, however, can win battles. Now, what battles can we win that would help the Coalition win the war. The CF, for better or worst, has decided that the reconnaissance battle is the one we want to fight. While we could use tanks in the recee fight, better eyes and ears are the main asset.

**-{SpoonmaN}-** · 05 Nov 06,, 06:02

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Both countries decided to upgrade the LEO 1s at around the same time. Canada went for the MGS while Australia went for the M1. The main Canadian concern is to deliver the firepower to a theatre in need. The Australians I think just need to upgrade their tanks with deployment as a 2ndary concern.

That and I must admit we got a nice deal for the Abrams tanks and their respective Hercules recovery vehicles. I'm not complaining about the logic behind buying up some cheap used tanks of a proven design like the Abrams while they're going, indeed I would have bought at least 100 instead of our current 59, and assigned most of them to reserve units since they're currently not slated to be delpoyed overseas so I dont see the point of operating them fulltime. As I advocated in my CV90 thread I figure we should go for a family of tracked AFVs that are lighter and come in variants capable of recon, infantry assault and fire support/anti-tank missions for our heavier battlegroups with the ASLAVs for the light battlegroups, so with two families of AFV we can accomplish a wider range of missions as part of this coalition doctrine, or operate more effectively in smaller independent operations.
Anyway that was just a thought, like I said I can't gripe with seizing the opportunity with the Abrams.

**Joker** · 05 Nov 06,, 09:35

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Well, get it right. We're riding around in dog sleds with hockey sticks going from igloo to igloo, trying to stay ****ing warm by eating beaver and going "EHHHHH!!!!!!!!"

With apologies to any ladies out there for those sexist remarks.

I wonder how many of you guys get it.

I'm sure the ladies won't take offence as long as the benefits of sucking on a slim Jim are also extolled.

Actually, I don't see why they'd have any problem with the first one

. Maybe it's a 'political correctness' thing...

**Officer of Engineers** · 12 Apr 07,, 04:17

Canada Gets Green Light for 20 New Tanks (LeoA6Ms)
CP exclusive: Canada to lease new tanks for Afghanistan

By MURRAY BREWSTER

OTTAWA (CP) - A federal cabinet committee has given the green light to the lease of 20 state-of-the-art tanks to replace aging armoured vehicles in Afghanistan, The Canadian Press has learned.

The cabinet priorities and planning committee approved the lease of the German-built Leopard A6M tanks last week, said a Defence Department source, who asked not to be named.

The recommendation, which is unlikely to be overturned, is now on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's desk for final approval.

The news Tuesday came as Gen. Andrew Leslie, the country's top army officer, said he might have to consider pulling existing tanks - which don't have air conditioning - out of service in Afghanistan this summer because of the heat.

He also told troops in Kandahar to expect a decision from the prime minister on the new tanks within a week.

The new tanks have air conditioning, as well as improved protection against road-side bombs and suicide vehicles, both of which have been packing progressively bigger punches lately.

The army has a handful of older Leopard tanks, which are currently doing duty in western Kandahar as part of NATO's Operation Achilles.

The deal, which apparently includes access to ample spare parts, also gives Canada the option to purchase an unspecified number of additional tanks at a later date.

Reports last winter suggested that in addition to a lease, the army wanted to purchase 80 new Leopards, but the source said that number is likely to be scaled back.

Harper wouldn't bite on questions about the future of the vehicles.

"Cabinet has been discussing the tank issue and we'll have an announcement on that shortly," he said in Kitchener, Ont.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, in Montreal for a speech, said he wasn't aware the issue was resolved.

A Defence Department spokesman didn't deny that a lease arrangement has been struck.

"We are exploring a number of options to address an operational requirement," said Lt. Adam Thomson. "However, we have nothing to announce at this moment."

The defence source could not say how much the arrangement was worth, but brand new Leopard tanks cost roughly US $6 million each.

Currently, the army has 17 of its old 45-tonne tanks patrolling the desert and dirt roadways of rural Kandahar. The biggest drawback to the vehicles is their lack of air conditioning in a climate where daytime summer temperatures soar above 50C.

Defence Department researchers have looked at installing air conditioners in the vehicles but that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per vehicle.

Another idea proposes to give tank crew cooling vests - the same kind used by professional race car drivers - but they would be cumbersome when layered along with existing body armour.

Aside from the comfort factor, the lease of new tanks is seen as a more cost-effective solution, said the defence source.

Alex Morrison of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies said buying new equipment is better than retrofitting.

"It just makes more sense," he said. "This is a decision that's been in the mill for at least the last seven months."

New Democrat defence critic Dawn Black said she's not opposed to the lease arrangement, but only because it means tank crews won't have to roast.

"I think it was irresponsible to deploy them, knowing they weren't suitable for the climate," she said.

In February, a policy think-tank produced a report that criticized Canada's deployment of tanks to Afghanistan, saying the 1970s vintage Leopard-C2 vehicles were vulnerable to insurgent attacks.

Researcher Michael Wallace, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, argued that new Leopard A6Ms would also be vulnerable to road-side bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. He said the introduction of tanks had the potential to spark an "arms race" with insurgents, prompting the Taliban to build bigger bombs.

Morrison dismissed the arguments, calling them ridiculous.

"What would they have us do?" he asked. "Take the tanks home and then the insurgents won't use whatever weapon they have? What will happen in the end is the insurgents would control the whole country."

**Blademaster** · 12 Apr 07,, 06:48

What is the current size of Canadian Force's land component?

How many frontline soldiers as compared to combat support echelons?

**Officer of Engineers** · 12 Apr 07,, 07:02

12 maneuver battalions, 4 fire support battalions, 4 engineers battalions, 4 service battalions, 1 Joint Force HQ, 4 Area HQs, 3 Brigade HQs.

The militia on paper represent about 12 times this force but in actually flushing out field units about the same as the regforce.