Thread: Canada Goes Tankless

Deanna,

Maybe I'm not understanding you. Are you saying the concept of the MBT are past its years or that the LEO1C2s are past their operational status? Both are wrong.

There is simply no faster way to deliver that much force with that much fire with that much protection than the MBT. To deliver the equivelent force, the CF was envisioning an entire reduced battalion (an Assualt Gun company back by a mounted ATGM company) to do the job of a single tank company.

As for the second point, the fact that the LEO 1C2s are going over to Afghanistan shows that they still have life left in them.

Originally Posted by Canmoore

What? Who?

Im confused...what did who say?

A debate i was having with a former CF sailor on another board.

He was an idiot, don't worry yourself about him, lol.

Some nice pics from our boys during Operation Medusa

click

Sure apache's and A-10's can cream tanks, but can they take and hold ground?
Tanks move very fast bringing alot of armour and a hell of a punch along with them. So they can take ALOT of ground (something that Canada has alot of) with Infantry intail to hold that taken ground.

Hey the Leos made #1 on discovery channels top 10 tanks! I doubt they could stand toe to toe with an Abrams, Merkeva or Challenger but they are one of the best tanks in the world for sure.

Tanks if used correctly are potent, close in street fighting is deadly for any man or machine so to say that tanks are obsolete becase they can't fight street wars doesn't hold water.

Leo 2's.

Having been in a couple of the tanks can't remember if it was in Pet or Meaford, we were practicing Infantry tactics with the tankers I have to say I'd be somewhat concerned about their protection.

Few issues I remember:
- Optical sights
- Main gun ammo stored in the crew compartment
- No airconditioning this was fine in September in Meaford but dunno how I'd feel about it in Afganistian
- Armor looked to be just steel plate

Although as I understand it the C2 upgrade does add some armor and new sights to the tank? Adding some slat armor to the sides and mounting a fireproof box for the main gun ammo (even at the cost of some space) might be a good idea.

Originally Posted by canoe

Having been in a couple of the tanks can't remember if it was in Pet or Meaford, we were practicing Infantry tactics with the tankers I have to say I'd be somewhat concerned about their protection.

Few issues I remember:
- Optical sights
- Main gun ammo stored in the crew compartment
- No airconditioning this was fine in September in Meaford but dunno how I'd feel about it in Afganistian
- Armor looked to be just steel plate

Although as I understand it the C2 upgrade does add some armor and new sights to the tank? Adding some slat armor to the sides and mounting a fireproof box for the main gun ammo (even at the cost of some space) might be a good idea.

It is still an 40-year old obsolete design though. Harper needs to think about surplus M1's or Leo 2s

The army doesn't want them. Too big and too heavy. If we were to stick to 4 company size squadrons, then that's a different story but we're going with a two tank sqns and one recee sqn regiment which makes the tanks ability to travel with the infantry vital and necessary. It doesn't do us any good if all we can do is to arrange transport of two tanks when 15 is required.

I'm hoping for the M8 but that depends on the Americans.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The army doesn't want them. Too big and too heavy. If we were to stick to 4 company size squadrons, then that's a different story but we're going with a two tank sqns and one recee sqn regiment which makes the tanks ability to travel with the infantry vital and necessary. It doesn't do us any good if all we can do is to arrange transport of two tanks when 15 is required.

I'm hoping for the M8 but that depends on the Americans.

We do have another light tank for FMS Colonel.

http://www.systems.textron.com/index...dgagemain.html

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

We do have another light tank for FMS Colonel.

http://www.systems.textron.com/index...dgagemain.html

You link doesnt really have anything that Canada would be looking for.

"LAV series" Is that not the same thing as the Stryker? MGS according to the colonel is being thrown out the window.

"Stingray II" Here is a quote from Wickipedia.. "Unfortunately, the vehicle's armor is too thin for any real battlefield role, since it only protects the occupants of the tank against armor-piercing rounds up to 14.5 mm in size."

and the "Dingo 2" Canada already employs a very similar vehicle called the RG-31 Nyala

I have a question for you Officer.

I dug this up on Wicki

"On September 27, 2006 a suicide bomber drove a vehicle into a CF Nyala. The bomb damaged the Nyala, but it was able to drive away. None of the occupents were injured, but one civilian onlooker was injured. The bomber's vehicle was destroyed."

These vehicles can take a real wallop, so why did we replace the iltis with the G-wagon instead of replacing them with the Nyala? Is the cost per unit to much? or are they unable to fullfil the role that the G-wagon can?
Canada has 43 Nyala's, with 50 ordered and an option for extra 25.
The USA has 10 RG-31 Charger's and another 148 orderd.

I think i just answered my own question here!

No, you did not.

The real answer is that the suicide bomber didn't carry enough crap on him.

Originally Posted by Canmoore

You link doesnt really have anything that Canada would be looking for.

"LAV series" Is that not the same thing as the Stryker? MGS according to the colonel is being thrown out the window.

"Stingray II" Here is a quote from Wickipedia.. "Unfortunately, the vehicle's armor is too thin for any real battlefield role, since it only protects the occupants of the tank against armor-piercing rounds up to 14.5 mm in size."

and the "Dingo 2" Canada already employs a very similar vehicle called the RG-31 Nyala

The Stingray has the same up armor abilities as the M8. The reason it wasn't selected for AGS was because it could not be carried on C-130s.