Canada Goes Tankless

**Officer of Engineers** · 08 Jul 06, 19:37

And here we go on the merry go round

Saturday » July 8 » 2006

The return of the Leopard

Three years ago, Canada announced the demise of its fleet of tanks, saying that lighter, faster and more manoeuverable Stryker mobile gun systems were required if we were to be a viable, battlefield-ready force. But now, our experiences in Afghanistan suggest otherwise, and the army is asking the government to reconsider.

David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen

Saturday, July 08, 2006

CREDIT: Cplc. Serge Gouin, Citizen Special
Once considered a 'millstone' by Canada's military, the Leopard tank, shown on a training exercise at CFB Wainwright, Alta., may be making a comeback.

On Oct. 29, 2003, Liberal Defence Minister John McCallum and Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier assembled the Ottawa news media to announce the demise of the country's tank force. Canada was taking its fleet of Leopard tanks out of service and was going high-tech.

Mr. McCallum said the army had requested the government purchase the U.S. Stryker Mobile Gun System, better known as the MGS. That wheeled vehicle, also being bought by the American army, had less armour than a tank but could move faster and was more manoeuverable on the battlefield.

According to Lt.-Gen. Hillier, the army's Leopards had served their purpose and, despite recently undergoing a $145-million upgrade, were now of limited use. The vehicle of the future was instead the MGS, which the general, an armoured officer, dubbed state-of-the art and a "war-winner."

"A mobile gun system is the right vehicle for Canada's army and will provide an excellent capability on Canadian Forces operations," Lt.-Gen. Hillier said. "We are losing a millstone that has hamstrung our thinking for years," he added, referring to the Leopard.

The general dismissed concerns from some opposition politicians who warned the decision would put the lives of Canadian military personnel at risk and placed the country on par with Luxembourg and Iceland, two nations which also saw no need for heavier armoured vehicles.

The army's plan would instead see the MGS working in conjunction with another high-tech weapon, the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle or MMEV. Based on the army's existing air defence missile system called ADATS, the MMEV would be designed and built by the Quebec-based aerospace firm Oerlikon and be capable of shooting down aircraft or destroying ground targets.

But less than three years later, and in a major reversal of its plans, the army is now asking the Conservative government to cancel both the MGS and MMEV programs.

The MGS is no longer the right vehicle for the army and the Leopard is no longer seen as a millstone. A study is under way to determine how to keep the tank in service until at least 2015.

Army officials refuse to say why they want to cut the two programs which just a few years ago were heralded as evidence that Canada would be fielding a high-tech military.

The decision to buy the MGS and MMEV was at the heart of the army's decision to transform itself into a force that could be quickly sent overseas and, once there, rapidly move around the battlefield. Tanks took too long to get to a war zone, Canada's military leadership maintained, and the tracked behemoths were difficult to manoeuvre, particularly in places like Kabul. In fact, Canada wasn't sending its Leopards overseas all that much; the last time they had been used on an international mission was in Kosovo in 1999.

The army's plan, instead, called for using the MGS, the MMEV and another anti-tank missile system to form a "direct fire system" that would replace the Leopard.

The MMEV, according to the Canadian Forces, would be capable of shooting down aircraft as well as drones, knocking out armoured vehicles and destroying enemy forces hidden in hills and buildings.

Unlike the Leopard, the MGS would quickly drive into battle. Any needed additional firepower would come from other sources. "We now have a very different kind of battle space," Lt.-Col. Paul Fleury, then director of land strategic planning, told the Canadian Forces newspaper the Maple Leaf in 2004. "And in any major conflict now we'll have contact with aircraft up to and including B-52s that can drop ordnance wherever we need it."

But the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to new questions about how future conflicts will be fought. Insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades and using roadside bombs have proven to be a formidable enemy, knocking out lightly armoured vehicles and even tanks. Fielding vehicles with better protection, argue some commanders, is now the way of the future.

At the same time, other equipment is more urgently needed by the Canadian army for its future operations, particularly those in Afghanistan. The $3 billion to be spent on the MGS and MMEV, a price tag which included long-term maintenance contracts for the vehicles, could be put to better use elsewhere.

The MGS, in particular, has faced widespread criticism, particularly from soldiers in the U.S. Some American officers have argued that the move towards such lighter forces is dangerous. Wheeled vehicles, such as the Stryker, while good on roadways, lack the mobility for cross-country warfare, they maintain.

The other main argument against the MGS centres on the vehicle's light armour and its vulnerability to rocket-propelled grenades. "The Stryker was not ordered with the RPG in mind," noted a report written by U.S.-based analyst Victor O'Reilly, who described the vehicle as suited for light peacekeeping duties, but not combat.

Other critics in the U.S. pointed to tests by the U.S. military which revealed a series of problems with the main armament on the MGS. The blast from the gun was so powerful it damaged parts on the armoured vehicle. In addition, there have been problems with the weapon's loading system, and soldiers who tested the vehicle complained it was too cramped. Others noted that the MGS had just 18 rounds of ammunition compared to the 50 or 55 usually carried in many tanks.

Officials with General Dynamics, the U.S. defence firm building the Stryker family of vehicles, countered that such criticisms were no longer valid since improvements had taken care of any problems. The vehicle, they noted, was more than capable of surviving on the battlefield.

A similar but more limited debate in Canada's military took place largely behind closed doors. Those in the armoured corps were not happy with the MGS purchase, but they stayed loyal to the service and said nothing publicly. Studies done by the Canadian Forces in the late 1990s had already called into question replacing the Leopard tank with a lighter armoured vehicle, similar to the MGS. The outcome of one of those war game simulations warned that using such a vehicle would not only cost Canadian lives but would be "morally and ethically wrong."

Despite such concerns, there was a widespread acknowledgement in the Canadian army that the MGS purchase was a done deal.

A few officers, however, stepped forward to question the purchases in internal memos and professional publications. On Sept. 15, 2003, Major T.W. Melnyk wrote a report noting that while the MGS and MMEV improved the army's capability, that didn't mean they were needed for the future transformation of the force.

"Given the public commitment to MGS by senior leadership, any difference of opinion at the staff level is largely academic," the major wrote. "While the MGS is not considered to be required for transformation, the project must also be taken as a given."

The MMEV was another matter, though. "It is not clear that providing a wheeled 8 kilometre direct fire capability to the Army will contribute in a major way to transformation," his report pointed out. "The logic and value of spending $300-$400 million on an orphan fleet of 34 vehicles for which there is a minimal industrial support base must also be questioned."

That purchase should be re-evaluated, the report concluded. Maj. Melnyk added that the army disagreed with his assessment of the MGS and MMEV.

The report was controversial enough that the Defence department's Access to Information branch withheld its release to the Citizen for 16 months. When it was made public last year, the Defence department dismissed the document as an informal analysis by a planning officer that did not reflect the military's official view.

In late 2003, an even more pointed criticism of the MGS purchase emerged in the army's professional journal. In an article in The Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin, Lt.-Col. J.A. Summerfield warned that the MGS purchase wouldn't provide the Canadian Forces with any new capabilities, and instead could saddle it with a soon-to-be outdated vehicle.

He noted that the Stryker represented only a stop-gap measure for the U.S. before it started fielding a more futuristic family of armoured vehicles around 2015. Once that happened, the American military, with its large budget, could either continue using the Strykers in other roles or simply get rid of them.

But the budget-conscious Canadian Forces wouldn't have that option, according to Lt.-Col. Summerfield. It would have to operate the Strykers for more than 20 years and, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the vehicles, it would not likely have the funds to then purchase the futuristic system the Americans planned to field, he warned.

"This is especially disturbing when the (mobile gun) system in question does not provide a marked improvement over existing systems, including the Leopard tank," the lieutenant colonel wrote. But the army countered that the MGS did represent an improvement in technology. It intended to install more modern equipment on board the MGS, improving its ability to transmit and receive information well beyond what was capable with the Leopards.

In addition, the low profile turret of the MGS allowed the vehicle's crew to position themselves more safely inside the main body of the chassis. "That is new technology and it's a significant improvement in the protection of the crew," Col. Mike Kampman, the army's director of strategic planning, said in an interview at the time.

But it was a comment by a retired general that set off the most extensive and dogged defence of the MGS yet offered by the army leadership. Responding to a Canadian Forces report that showed tanks played a key role in the Iraq war, retired brigadier general Jim Hanson ridiculed the MGS purchase.

"The Americans drove their tanks into downtown Baghdad where RPGs bounced off their armour," said Brig.-Gen. Hanson. "Buying the Stryker -- that's insanity."

He also argued that Canada's Leopards could be upgraded at a lower cost than the MGS price tag and still provide the army with armour protection and firepower for years to come. He also questioned Gen. Hillier's claims that the army can't get its Leopards to war zones, noting that if the military had really wanted to use tanks on missions, it would not be a problem. The MGS would initially have to be transported to a war zone by ship, the same way that Leopards would be moved, added Brig.-Gen. Hanson.

Then-army commander Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier responded with a 1,000-word rebuttal in the Citizen. He called such comments "a distortion" and characterized critics of the MGS as "armchair strategists" who "preferred it the old way."

Warfare had changed. No longer was the Canadian Forces facing the Russians, Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote. Instead, it was up against "snakes," a reference to terrorists and insurgents.

"Tanks are a perfect example of extremely expensive systems that sit in Canada because they are inappropriate to the operations we conduct daily around the world," Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote. "The MGS, in conjunction with other combat systems, will give us a much greater capability on operations such as those being conducted in Kabul, and still give us options for high-intensity combat."

In addition, MGS armour would be improved to defend against rocket-propelled grenades.

Canada's Leopard tanks, noted Lt.-Gen. Hillier, could not be compared to main battle tanks in other western armies since they lacked the protection and firepower of those vehicles.

The general also directly linked the purchase of the MGS to the future transformation of Canada's army. "This transformational process to counter the Snakes that are prevalent around the world is unsettling to some," he wrote.

"They would appear to prefer that we stop the process of change irrespective of the dramatically different threat."

That, argued the general, would be illogical.

It will now be up to Gen. Hillier as the country's top soldier to recommend whether Defence Minister Gordon

O'Connor accepts the army's wish to shutdown the MGS and MMEV programs.

The decision to cut at least the MGS could be quickly embraced by Mr.

O'Connor, a former armoured corps officer. In the past, the Conservatives have been critical of the MGS purchase, and in June 2004, the party's defence policy called for the purchase of a more survivable main battle tank such as the U.S. M1A2 or the German Leopard 2.

As well, Mr. O'Connor's equipment adviser, retired Colonel Howie Marsh, has questioned the MGS purchase. Aaron Gairdner, Mr. O'Connor's chief of staff, is well versed with the ongoing concerns about the MGS and in his previous job as the Conservatives' defence researcher was instrumental in obtaining much of the information the party used to criticize the purchase.

Defence analyst David Rudd says he doesn't believe the decision to cancel the MGS and continue to keep the Leopards in service means Canada will go out and purchase a fleet of new tanks. "I think the army is looking at keeping a capability they can experiment with and maintain skills on," said Mr. Rudd, executive director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. "It means a reprieve for the tank, but that is not the same as a new life."

What will happen with the MMEV is another matter. The military's original plans called for using the weapon system to provide protection at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. In that job it would be used in its air defence role to shoot down any aircraft operated by terrorists.

Cancelling a contract potentially worth $1.5 billion for a Quebec-based firm might also not sit well with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government, which is hoping to win a substantial number of seats in that province in the next election.

Army spokesman Maj. Daryl Morrell noted that the existing ADATS system, which forms the basis of the MMEV, has never been upgraded. "You've got certain things you have to have," he added. "I would find it unlikely for us to go without some sort of ground-based air defence."

A decision on the two multibillion dollar programs is expected to be made by the fall.

Whatever the outcome, at stake could be the lives of Canadian troops on future battlefields.

- - -

A Brief History of the Leopard

The Defence department has blown up or sold off almost half of the army's fleet of 114 Leopard tanks. But further disposal of the tanks has been put on hold after the army requested the cancellation of the Mobile Gun System and the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle programs.

Army spokesman Maj. Daryl Morrell said the service is keeping 66 of its Leopards in service. Twenty-one are now being used on military firing ranges as targets and 23 were sold to companies in North America. An American firm bought some of the stripped-down tanks for use in forest fire-fighting.

Four other Leopards have been given to museums or earmarked for use as monuments.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2006

Copyright © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

**Canmoore** · 08 Jul 06, 21:40

You beat me to it Officer!

When i read that on the Ottawa Citizen, i was elated. Finally they are giving there heads a shake, and looking at reality.

However, the problem i see, and will more than likely de-rail any attempt to bring back the heavy tank, and scrap the MGS system, is that the majority of the vehicles were to be built by a quebec firm. Cancelling this would have the seperatist taking a ****-fit, and we all know that Harper is trying to please quebec so he can get that coveted majority government.

Do partisan politics trump the safety of Canadian soldiers? Im afraid i already know the answer to that question

**Officer of Engineers** · 08 Jul 06, 21:56

The MEFV (ie, ADATS (Anti-Air, Anti-Tank System) on a LAV III Chasis - get this, an artillery asset will belong to an armoured regiment but manned by the infantry) will still be made in Quebec. The MGS was to be made with the American batch in Windsor.

There is no replacement for the Leo C2. Most likely at the end of its life cycle, we'll pick up 2nd hand stuff from the US or Europe.

**Canmoore** · 08 Jul 06, 22:13

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The MEFV (ie, ADATS (Anti-Air, Anti-Tank System) on a LAV III Chasis - get this, an artillery asset will belong to an armoured regiment but manned by the infantry) will still be made in Quebec. The MGS was to be made with the American batch in Windsor.

oh ok. I thought that ADATS was already built? they have photos of it on the army website. And why cann the MEFV? its obviously an important piece of equipment, i agree with the proposed cancelation of the MGS, but not the MEFV.

Unless of course they were to be built to only work in conjuction with each other. Why not have the MEFV work with the leo's?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

There is no replacement for the Leo C2. Most likely at the end of its life cycle, we'll pick up 2nd hand stuff from the US or Europe.

well if we do pick up second hand stuff i hope its good hand-me-downs, not just cheap crap. Id hate to see us pick up leo2's when there is a leo3 around...

And why not just design out own armoured tank to fit to the needs of our military. It doesnt have to be as big as the Abrams, Leos, or Challengers of the world. But it can be like a medium sized tank, like what our leo's.
Im guessing cost would be a major stumbling block... But it would create alot of high tech jobs, and we could even make some money, by selling them to other mid-sized countries similar to Canada....

i dont know, im not an expert on this, im just throwing out ideas here

**Officer of Engineers** · 08 Jul 06, 22:58

Originally Posted by Canmoore

oh ok. I thought that ADATS was already built?

It is, it's part of the 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and the 1st and 18th Air Defence Regiments, Royal Canadian Artillery. This would be an updated version using a LAV III chasis and integrated with the COYOTE Battle Management System.

Originally Posted by Canmoore

And why cann the MEFV? its obviously an important piece of equipment, i agree with the proposed cancelation of the MGS, but not the MEFV.

Doesn't make sense to have the MEFV without the MGS. The MGS is an infantry assualt gun with the MEFV providing the AT protection at range. No MGS, no need for AT protection at range. Infantry AT and AD protection is already provided by TUAs (TOW Under Armour) and the JAVELIN S15 missile.

Originally Posted by Canmoore

Unless of course they were to be built to only work in conjuction with each other. Why not have the MEFV work with the leo's?

The Leos don't need the MEFV.

Originally Posted by Canmoore

well if we do pick up second hand stuff i hope its good hand-me-downs, not just cheap crap. Id hate to see us pick up leo2's when there is a leo3 around...

We were offerred 2nd hand M1A1s right after the Kuwait War for $1 a piece ... provided we pick up the maintenace contracts. We took one look and decided we can't afford them. The Australians recently pick up some rebuilt M1A1s. There's no reason why we could not do the same when the Leo C2s finally bite the dust.

Originally Posted by Canmoore

And why not just design out own armoured tank to fit to the needs of our military. It doesnt have to be as big as the Abrams, Leos, or Challengers of the world. But it can be like a medium sized tank, like what our leo's.
Im guessing cost would be a major stumbling block... But it would create alot of high tech jobs, and we could even make some money, by selling them to other mid-sized countries similar to Canada....

i dont know, im not an expert on this, im just throwing out ideas here

You've got the 1st one. Costs. The last independent system Canada designed was the ADAT and that was a marketting flop. Nobody else bought it and we're stuck with a very proprietary and a very expensive system that frankly other systems can do better and cheaper.

The East Block is currently the only ones making medium tanks and none of those would fit our fighting style. For whatever reasons, Land Force had developed a doctrine based upon a medium weight vehicle (mainly because that's all we had), we cannot substitute a heavier vehicle and expect the same kind of performances; especially in deployability.

**Canmoore** · 09 Jul 06, 01:32

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

It is, it's part of the 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and the 1st and 18th Air Defence Regiments, Royal Canadian Artillery. This would be an updated version using a LAV III chasis and integrated with the COYOTE Battle Management System.

oh ok, gotcha.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Doesn't make sense to have the MEFV without the MGS. The MGS is an infantry assualt gun with the MEFV providing the AT protection at range. No MGS, no need for AT protection at range. Infantry AT and AD protection is already provided by TUAs (TOW Under Armour) and the JAVELIN S15 missile.

gotcha

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The Leos don't need the MEFV.

gotcha

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

We were offerred 2nd hand M1A1s right after the Kuwait War for $1 a piece ... provided we pick up the maintenace contracts. We took one look and decided we can't afford them. The Australians recently pick up some rebuilt M1A1s. There's no reason why we could not do the same when the Leo C2s finally bite the dust.

I read somewhere, that the reason we didnt take the Abrams, was that the fuel effeciency on them is horrible. And that just fueling them alone would bleed us broke.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You've got the 1st one. Costs. The last independent system Canada designed was the ADAT and that was a marketting flop. Nobody else bought it and we're stuck with a very proprietary and a very expensive system that frankly other systems can do better and cheaper.

I have been doing a little googling. We offered ADATS to greece, but i cant find whether or not they bought it from us. Lockheed martin missles and fire control has a page that calls ADATS "the worlds premier low level air defence system. Complete with specs on the missles, and other information. Wicki tells me that The americans planned on buying it from us, but then cancelled in the early 90's due to the end of the cold war.
It seems that the ADATS was an advanved system, that just came around at a bad time, the end of the cold war.
Oh and Thailand is the only other nation who uses ADATS other than Canada.....according to wicki

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The East Block is currently the only ones making medium tanks and none of those would fit our fighting style. For whatever reasons, Land Force had developed a doctrine based upon a medium weight vehicle (mainly because that's all we had), we cannot substitute a heavier vehicle and expect the same kind of performances; especially in deployability.

So here is my question for you, once the Leo c2's go out of service, what would you recomend we replace them with? What platform? Leo 2, Abram, Challanger....

**Officer of Engineers** · 09 Jul 06, 07:01

Originally Posted by Canmoore

I read somewhere, that the reason we didnt take the Abrams, was that the fuel effeciency on them is horrible. And that just fueling them alone would bleed us broke.

That was an original concern but battery developments in 1995 eliminated that concern. The M1s (not the diesel version) burns 20 gallons of gasoline an hour sitting idel and you need to keep the engine running just to keep the electronics running. Otherwise, from a cold start, you need close to 20 minutes to get everything running, meaning you're a sitting duck during those 20 minutes. New batteries effectively means you can shut the engine off for 4 hours at a time and only run it for 1 hour to replenish the batteries.

Still, operational and maintenance costs were beyond our means.

Originally Posted by Canmoore

I have been doing a little googling. We offered ADATS to greece, but i cant find whether or not they bought it from us. Lockheed martin missles and fire control has a page that calls ADATS "the worlds premier low level air defence system. Complete with specs on the missles, and other information. Wicki tells me that The americans planned on buying it from us, but then cancelled in the early 90's due to the end of the cold war.
It seems that the ADATS was an advanved system, that just came around at a bad time, the end of the cold war.
Oh and Thailand is the only other nation who uses ADATS other than Canada.....according to wicki

Thai ADATs is sitting in their warehouse. We're the only country who is actively using it.

Originally Posted by Canmoore

So here is my question for you, once the Leo c2's go out of service, what would you recomend we replace them with? What platform? Leo 2, Abram, Challanger....

At this point, it's way too early to tell. The Leo C2s will see service until at least 2015, more likely 2020 if I know my army. We don't know what will be available then at what costs.

**-{SpoonmaN}-** · 09 Jul 06, 08:16

Well it looks likes Australia is definately turning away from heavy armour (to me it makes sense), since we're only bothering to buy 59 second hand M-1s from the USA to replace our leos. I guess it's the same problem; no one's coming here to fight a war so we have to take everything with us, and MBTs are too hard to move and possess too large a logistical footprint for us to be bothered with them most of the time.

**Canmoore** · 09 Jul 06, 19:57

i thought you guys already replaced your fleet with Leo 2's? why replace them with the abrams? unless your army wants to use both.

**dave angel** · 09 Jul 06, 20:32

kind of back to the OP, but the current British deployment in A'stan's Helmand province (16 Air Assault Brigade/3PARA BattleGroup) is having fun with the 'light and fast' equipment it has - Landrovers, 4-Tonne trucks etc.. - and there are calls for a mech inf battalion (Warrior AFV) to re-inforce the brigade, both because of numbers and heavier armour and fire-power.

no call for Chally 2's yet though.

dumping tanks may sound like a bad idea, but if you can't get them where you need them then you might as well not have them.

going from the experience of Iraq, Warrior AFV's seem able to handle all that has been thrown - or fired - at them. the only engagement where you really need a tank is when you are fighting an enemy with tanks, intimate support for infantry is great, but by all accounts Warrior can do it just as well at half the weight.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Jul 06, 01:39

Originally Posted by dave angel

dumping tanks may sound like a bad idea, but if you can't get them where you need them then you might as well not have them.

Captain, you need tanks if for no other reason than to know how they fight ... either with you or against you.

**dave angel** · 10 Jul 06, 10:28

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Captain, you need tanks if for no other reason than to know how they fight ... either with you or against you.

then have an exercise with the septics then!

more 'jointery' all round methinks, if armies are becoming smaller and more expensive all the time then they should specialise rather than becoming too little butter spread over too much bread.

it goes against the concept of a nation being able to engage in all forms of warfare on its own against any enemy it see's fit, and it means for instance that a nation might withdraw entirely from a sphere of warfare in order to concentrate on what it can do well, but i see no other option that allows a nation to consistantly send force overseas.

if Canada - for example - didn't punch well above its weight on overseas ops both traditional UN and NATO then it could afford to maintain a heavy armoured force to secure its own landmass as well as greater AD assets.

unpleasant decisions all round, none of which leave a nice taste in the mouth, but at least with sacrificing a fighting arm the rest of the body is able to continue operations - albeit with the assistance of others. were Canada to decide to keep current in all forms of warfare at the expence of going overseas then it would wither and die, both in morale terms and in expenditure terms - i mean the defence of Canadian territory, come on!

**-{SpoonmaN}-** · 10 Jul 06, 14:28

Like I keep saying, Australia is in a similar situation. Maybe an option could be to give reserve or territorial (not sure if you have them, we dont any more) units an armoured capability to build upon for the 'just in case' factor. I'd like to see Australia do that for air and coastal defences and distater relief work, since the regular forces are too small and pricey to rely on for that sort of work in a country this size.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Jul 06, 15:10

Originally Posted by dave angel

then have an exercise with the septics then!

Unless we can convince a NATO member to keep a permenant tank company in Canada for training purposes, it's a non-starter. US tank schools is busy enough with their own people and Canada is only invited once every 3-4 years.

We cannot and must not follow the Polish example of fielding only special forces or any single combat arms. That leaves incapable in one field that we will have to ask help for but not always available. Helo insert is the case I can draw here. We have to rely on the Brits and the Americans for that in Afghanistan. While co-operation is always present when it's time to deliver a punch, the regular milk run is not available.

We tried to reduce two combat arms (gunners and engineers) by reassigning them infantry roles (mortars and assault pioneers). We found their old assets wanting and re-arm them with new 155mm howitzers and increase engineer numbers.

This does not mean we must buy new tanks but it does mean we cannot abandon the armour role.

**dave angel** · 10 Jul 06, 19:22

on your first point Colonel, i would put forward BATUS as the obvious candidate - training areas in the UK and Germany are becoming both more crowded and more restricted and so more training is done at BATUS.

Poland is a good example of what not to do, but i think the analogy is taken too far. Canada can provide very highly skilled and motivated troops both light inf and mech inf with engineer and artilley spt - i'm not sure what your log services are like so i can't comment - and ok so some battlefield helicopter support and fixed wing heavy lift woulnd't go amiss - but basicly you can provide a product that the west is critically short of, that is a decent infantry battlegroup able to operate in pretty grim conditions.

TBH the yanks provide the 'shock' element in any western operation against reasonably well armed opponant and for log and command reasons we just get in the way - though i understand the political reasons that we have to take part in the initial operations - but the 'post shock' or 'non-shock' operations are ones the UK and Canada do superbly well - and arguably better than the Americans - so we should concentrate on what we do best, and what we do best at doesn't really need MBT's.

for the UK i'd sacrifice pretty much any army capability in order to keep the SLBM nuclear deterent, RN control of SLOC and to deny the ability to land enemy forces on the UK coast, as well as retaining RAF control of UK airspace. once those missions are accomplished other capabilities are more of a luxury.

Thread: Canada Goes Tankless

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Be Proud Canada

U.S. had secret 1930 plan to invade Canada

Unarmed and Defenseless in Canada

MiG-29 “FALCON HUNTER” Exclusive : THE WINNER

E.U. Dependence Theory: Blame Canada

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions