More than a decade ago, the army had a plan to rebuild. It went nowhere.

[Dougie93]

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's a wonder the US hasn't carpet-bombed us back into the stone-age for being such flagrant commie socialists.

stand by, Commies

with friends like Canada, who needs enemies ?

America is figuring it out

 

[Army Guy]

On 1/18/2023 at 10:55 PM, BeaverFever said:

Canada’s moral compass is as good or better than any other nato country when it comes to dealing with global events. We dont have crazy pro-Putin MAGAs rooting for the enemy like USA and we don’t have entrenched colonial interests like much of Europe.   That’s all I’m trying to say. 

It is one thing to have a good moral compass when it comes to judging world events, like Russia invading Ukraine for instance, Bad Russians... but it is not good moral's to treat our returning vets like we did and still do, it also takes good moral judgement to issues that we have here at home, like how we treat people, indigenous , protestors, vets, the list goes on, how can we have a systemically racist country as Justin says and still have a good moral compass, that is what I'm saying. It is time for a change, and it is coming...there needs to be balance brought back to our nation...

[BeaverFever]

7 hours ago, Army Guy said:

It is one thing to have a good moral compass when it comes to judging world events, like Russia invading Ukraine for instance, Bad Russians... but it is not good moral's to treat our returning vets like we did and still do, it also takes good moral judgement to issues that we have here at home, like how we treat people, indigenous , protestors, vets, the list goes on, how can we have a systemically racist country as Justin says and still have a good moral compass, that is what I'm saying. It is time for a change, and it is coming...there needs to be balance brought back to our nation...

I’m only referring to our moral compass as it relates to global affairs, not domestic policy. 

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I’m only referring to our moral compass as it relates to global affairs, not domestic policy. 

There are different moral compasses?

[Army Guy]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I’m only referring to our moral compass as it relates to global affairs, not domestic policy. 

Don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house... We have no right to talk about morale compasses, kind of two faced is it not. We are not the worse offenders, but we are far from perfect. 

[Army Guy]

Quote

 

Two academic papers published by the Canadian Forces College in 2018 and 2022 claim that our Leopard 2 tanks have rotted away and are barely usable.

Our Leopard 2 tanks have rotted away

The papers allege that the maintenance and repair needs of these tanks far exceed Canada’s current capacity and, consequently, most of the tanks are inoperable and cannot be deployed. Given a shortage of specialized components, some tanks have even been “cannibalized” for parts, making them totally useless.

 

Here is another example of the status of our military, lets start with a little perspective, we originally purchased only 80 tanks, 20 LeoIIA6M, 20 LeoIIa4M and 40 LeoIIA4( training Tanks) but we have forgotten to maintain them with adequate supply of parts and hard maintenance so now our numbers are almost non existent in regards to operational tanks.....

Just a note Main battle tanks are the tip of the spear for a mechanized Battle group, which we have 3 Brigade groups... so divide any tanks left by 3 and you'll get an idea how badly our troops are equipped...Each brigade is suppose to have 53 main battle tanks...we have less than 40 to start with and if this article is true well less than 20 or so...then divide by 3 for each brigade... On this forum we have touted ourselves as a mordern western industrialized country, and yet we can not even keep a few tanks up and running...and then we stand up in shock that we have a recruiting crises...

The tanks we did have are A6 and A4 to give you an idea, how out to date they are, Germany has developed the A5, A6, A7, A7V, and A7 plus, not to mention all the other sub variants, time wise it normally takes between 5 and 12 years of R&D per variant so our A4 models are really old. Go Canada...

Is Canada not sending its tanks to Ukraine because they're broken? | National Post

Canada's tank pledge is more about politics than Ukraine | Cold Lake Sun

Edited January 20 by Army Guy

[BeaverFever]

7 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Here is another example of the status of our military, lets start with a little perspective, we originally purchased only 80 tanks, 20 LeoIIA6M, 20 LeoIIa4M and 40 LeoIIA4( training Tanks) but we have forgotten to maintain them with adequate supply of parts and hard maintenance so now our numbers are almost non existent in regards to operational tanks.....

Just a note Main battle tanks are the tip of the spear for a mechanized Battle group, which we have 3 Brigade groups... so divide any tanks left by 3 and you'll get an idea how badly our troops are equipped...Each brigade is suppose to have 53 main battle tanks...we have less than 40 to start with and if this article is true well less than 20 or so...then divide by 3 for each brigade... On this forum we have touted ourselves as a mordern western industrialized country, and yet we can not even keep a few tanks up and running...and then we stand up in shock that we have a recruiting crises...

The tanks we did have are A6 and A4 to give you an idea, how out to date they are, Germany has developed the A5, A6, A7, A7V, and A7 plus, not to mention all the other sub variants, time wise it normally takes between 5 and 12 years of R&D per variant so our A4 models are really old. Go Canada...

Is Canada not sending its tanks to Ukraine because they're broken? | National Post

Canada's tank pledge is more about politics than Ukraine | Cold Lake Sun

1) My understanding is that all 2A7 variants are based on upgrades added on to the 2A6 base design and therefore any 2A6 can be upgraded afterwards to any 2A7 variant. I believe the 2A6M CAN variant is generally considered equivalent to 2A7 capabilities. The 2A4M CAN  received the same upgrades so has similar but slightly less capability given that it’s on a slightly older base platform (and  the A4’s shorter and therefore slightly less powerful gun).  Of note the 2A4 is the most common version of the leopard 2 in service and made as recently as 1992, it’s probably still more modern than most of what Russia is using in Ukraine 

 

2) I read this article as well. If true there’s no excuse for storing these tanks improperly and I think the army has to own this one. Countries have been sending Ukraine soviet era tanks that were in storage much longer than ours The Feds not funding an armoured corps is one thing but  improper storage and handling is something else and that’s someone in the CAF who messed that up (if true). 
 

3) Tanks seem to be one of those things where if you don’t have enough then you might as well not have any. Canada needs to think about what type of land force it wants and it may make more sense for land forces to evolve into more of “Stryker Brigade”type of force given the force is increasing LAV-based and all the tracked armour is being phased out.  The capability gap could be partially offset with ATGMs and mortar carriers  (and/or a LAV-based large gun if they can ever figure out how to make one that doesn’t easily tip over). For that matter we don’t need the NASAMS air defence that we bought Ukraine either. A LAV-based SHORAD system is more realistic for the types of threat scenarios we will face alone.   The US M-SHORAD is a good example (although IMO it would be cooler if it used IRIS-TSL missiles instead of stingers add had a minigun instead of a GPMG). 
 

I am not opposed to Canada maintaining a tank force but I don’t see how we could realistically keep enough of them to be useful to us or our allies. 

Edited January 21 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

5 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house... We have no right to talk about morale compasses, kind of two faced is it not. We are not the worse offenders, but we are far from perfect. 

I think we have a right to talk about whatever we want and I think Canada is morally superior to MAGAlandfor sure 

[BeaverFever]

10 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

There are different moral compasses?

Yes. The world is a complex place. 

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Yes. The world is a complex place. 

Only 4 cardinal points on a compass.

[Army Guy]

20 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

1) My understanding is that all 2A7 variants are based on upgrades added on to the 2A6 base design and therefore any 2A6 can be upgraded afterwards to any 2A7 variant. I believe the 2A6M CAN variant is generally considered equivalent to 2A7 capabilities. The 2A4M CAN  received the same upgrades so has similar but slightly less capability given that it’s on a slightly older base platform (and  the A4’s shorter and therefore slightly less powerful gun).  Of note the 2A4 is the most common version of the leopard 2 in service and made as recently as 1992, it’s probably still more modern than most of what Russia is using in Ukraine 

 

2) I read this article as well. If true there’s no excuse for storing these tanks improperly and I think the army has to own this one. Countries have been sending Ukraine soviet era tanks that were in storage much longer than ours The Feds not funding an armoured corps is one thing but  improper storage and handling is something else and that’s someone in the CAF who messed that up (if true). 
 

3) Tanks seem to be one of those things where if you don’t have enough then you might as well not have any. Canada needs to think about what type of land force it wants and it may make more sense for land forces to evolve into more of “Stryker Brigade”type of force given the force is increasing LAV-based and all the tracked armour is being phased out.  The capability gap could be partially offset with ATGMs and mortar carriers  (and/or a LAV-based large gun if they can ever figure out how to make one that doesn’t easily tip over). For that matter we don’t need the NASAMS air defence that we bought Ukraine either. A LAV-based SHORAD system is more realistic for the types of threat scenarios we will face alone.   The US M-SHORAD is a good example (although IMO it would be cooler if it used IRIS-TSL missiles instead of stingers add had a minigun instead of a GPMG). 
 

I am not opposed to Canada maintaining a tank force but I don’t see how we could realistically keep enough of them to be useful to us or our allies. 

1) actually the entire Leopard II tank is an upgraded LeoIIA4, with different upgrades added on, like additional armor, or better FCS, etc, some the larger upgrades are done at the manufacture plant in Germany, or done in home countries by Germany civilian mechanics flown in with the parts needed, here in Gagetown we had a German team do all our heavy maintenance or heavy modifications. 

You can have any of those tanks built at the manufacture with any or no upgrades depending on how much money you got to spend, much like a car...Yes from the LeoIIA5 on their is a slight difference in measurements, width and height the LeoII A7 Plus is the latest model, not counting the German/ Franco tank. 

LeoII6M is another modified LeoIIA6 tank m stands for "mine protected",  Afghanistan conflict the ones we had in Afghanistan were borrowed, after the conflict was over we kept the original x 20 LeoIIA6M, ( these tanks were blown up a few times...(used and put away wet) and purchased LeoIIA6 off the Dutch and had them modified in Germany back to the original LeoIIA6M standards.  Note the A6M we received where new A6 hulls and turrets modified to A6M standards.  

The gun on most early A4's was the L44 fired the same 120 Ammo just had a shorter barrel, which translates into nor as accurate or lacked some distance... after the A5 came out some countries looked at putting on the L55 gun which gave you the ability to use stronger ammo, that gave you better accuracy and much more distance, or punch. we have both types of guns....

The LeoIIA4 production started in 1985 and ended in 1992, so the majority are going to be made in the mid to late 80's...

Leopard 2 Family of Vehicles - Canada.ca

Is the LeoIIA4 better than Russian stuff, well research Turkish LeoIIA4 used in Syria, 

2....The tanks themselves are not stored improperly, they are stored inside a heated building when not in use, like a huge airplane it takes a massive amount of hours of driver maintenance , and even more mechanical maintenance just to keep them up and running for a few hours, DND places restriction on how many hours of operations they can do in a month, or year...once those hours are meet they go back in the barn, it is very costly to operate a tank, thousands of dollars an hour, not counting fuel, a 1500 lt tank gets you maybe 450/500 KMs it loves diesel. Funding for parts is the problem, and tanks eat a very large portion of the army budget, once that limit is meet there is no more, meaning they sit until funding is made available... Moving a 60 ton beast around in the boonies is a huge feat that costs lots of money, in parts and fuel...

Lets not forget these are the pointy end of the spear, and are used with all the armies' assets in combined warfare, that is meant to protect the Infantry from other tanks, or hard targets they don't or can't destroy...they are critical, so our troops don't die in great heaps like in WWI. So they are used to train often...add to that used on dog and pony shows like when the MND shows up or Justin wants to take a look they pull them out. 

3... No tanks despite everything on the intra net or even our own CDS have said tanks are now obsolete ask Ukraine how badly they need them.. tanks fad in and fad out depending on the conflict your using them in, in Afghanistan no enemy amour but they were invaluable to the grunt on the ground...

Lav's came into existence becasue anything that uses track is expensive to run, wheeled is 1/2 the price... it has nothing to do with what is better, Tracked vehicles are by far the better vehicle , better armor (means better protection), better and bigger gun, better cross country ability, can keep up to a tank in the mud, the list is long... but wheeled vehicles are cheaper... and we like cheaper it is cheaper to bury soldiers than give them the right equipment.

Lav based brigades are great for urban warfare, and on hard ground, but if you take a look at the new wheeled vehicles they are bigger and bad, etc...Track vehicles are the cream of the crop...US army is now getting ride of it's LAV based Assualts guns... and upgrading to a tracked vehicle

War in Ukraine is changing mobile warfare as we know it, new vehicles will be coming out, and we will see more drone carrying vehicles, more missile carrying vehicles, but those are in design phase, Tanks will never become obsolete any time soon, they may look different or carry extra wpn systems but they will always be there. 

Air defense is meant to be layered, each layer protecting for a different type of target. And only having one type like we used to have like ADDATS (which was a dual purpose system it could kill anything that flew, plus armor vehicles as well, but like everything we let it get old and cut funding ...or Javelin manpad anti air ( we let it go obsolete) and replaced it with nothing...  So se do need a patriot type system for area defense, we need a medium range system to protect high value targets like HQ's parliament, bridges etc...and a   SHORAD system to protect combat formations, LAV based system the us has designed is another multi purpose system, it can kill aircraft and armor so it would be perfect...it carries a 25 mm gun, stingers, and hellfire's, or (mavericks i think) we also need a manpad system like the stinger so the infantry and mobile assets can protect themselves.

Well I can tell you we need more than the 40 we have, plus a good training fleet... 

 

Edited January 21 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

20 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I think we have a right to talk about whatever we want and I think Canada is morally superior to MAGAlandfor sure 

Yes you do, you can express your opinions in any medium you want, But when you claim it as fact that is where the debate starts. 

[BeaverFever]

23 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Yes you do, you can express your opinions in any medium you want, But when you claim it as fact that is where the debate starts. 

I never claimed it as fact but most would agree we’re morally superior to MAGAs

[BeaverFever]

On 1/21/2023 at 3:02 PM, Army Guy said:

1) actually the entire Leopard II tank is an upgraded LeoIIA4, with different upgrades added on, like additional armor, or better FCS, etc, some the larger upgrades are done at the manufacture plant in Germany, or done in home countries by Germany civilian mechanics flown in with the parts needed, here in Gagetown we had a German team do all our heavy maintenance or heavy modifications. 

You can have any of those tanks built at the manufacture with any or no upgrades depending on how much money you got to spend, much like a car...Yes from the LeoIIA5 on their is a slight difference in measurements, width and height the LeoII A7 Plus is the latest model, not counting the German/ Franco tank. 

LeoII6M is another modified LeoIIA6 tank m stands for "mine protected",  Afghanistan conflict the ones we had in Afghanistan were borrowed, after the conflict was over we kept the original x 20 LeoIIA6M, ( these tanks were blown up a few times...(used and put away wet) and purchased LeoIIA6 off the Dutch and had them modified in Germany back to the original LeoIIA6M standards.  Note the A6M we received where new A6 hulls and turrets modified to A6M standards.  

The gun on most early A4's was the L44 fired the same 120 Ammo just had a shorter barrel, which translates into nor as accurate or lacked some distance... after the A5 came out some countries looked at putting on the L55 gun which gave you the ability to use stronger ammo, that gave you better accuracy and much more distance, or punch. we have both types of guns....

The LeoIIA4 production started in 1985 and ended in 1992, so the majority are going to be made in the mid to late 80's...

Leopard 2 Family of Vehicles - Canada.ca

Is the LeoIIA4 better than Russian stuff, well research Turkish LeoIIA4 used in Syria, 

2....The tanks themselves are not stored improperly, they are stored inside a heated building when not in use, like a huge airplane it takes a massive amount of hours of driver maintenance , and even more mechanical maintenance just to keep them up and running for a few hours, DND places restriction on how many hours of operations they can do in a month, or year...once those hours are meet they go back in the barn, it is very costly to operate a tank, thousands of dollars an hour, not counting fuel, a 1500 lt tank gets you maybe 450/500 KMs it loves diesel. Funding for parts is the problem, and tanks eat a very large portion of the army budget, once that limit is meet there is no more, meaning they sit until funding is made available... Moving a 60 ton beast around in the boonies is a huge feat that costs lots of money, in parts and fuel...

Lets not forget these are the pointy end of the spear, and are used with all the armies' assets in combined warfare, that is meant to protect the Infantry from other tanks, or hard targets they don't or can't destroy...they are critical, so our troops don't die in great heaps like in WWI. So they are used to train often...add to that used on dog and pony shows like when the MND shows up or Justin wants to take a look they pull them out. 

3... No tanks despite everything on the intra net or even our own CDS have said tanks are now obsolete ask Ukraine how badly they need them.. tanks fad in and fad out depending on the conflict your using them in, in Afghanistan no enemy amour but they were invaluable to the grunt on the ground...

Lav's came into existence becasue anything that uses track is expensive to run, wheeled is 1/2 the price... it has nothing to do with what is better, Tracked vehicles are by far the better vehicle , better armor (means better protection), better and bigger gun, better cross country ability, can keep up to a tank in the mud, the list is long... but wheeled vehicles are cheaper... and we like cheaper it is cheaper to bury soldiers than give them the right equipment.

Lav based brigades are great for urban warfare, and on hard ground, but if you take a look at the new wheeled vehicles they are bigger and bad, etc...Track vehicles are the cream of the crop...US army is now getting ride of it's LAV based Assualts guns... and upgrading to a tracked vehicle

War in Ukraine is changing mobile warfare as we know it, new vehicles will be coming out, and we will see more drone carrying vehicles, more missile carrying vehicles, but those are in design phase, Tanks will never become obsolete any time soon, they may look different or carry extra wpn systems but they will always be there. 

Air defense is meant to be layered, each layer protecting for a different type of target. And only having one type like we used to have like ADDATS (which was a dual purpose system it could kill anything that flew, plus armor vehicles as well, but like everything we let it get old and cut funding ...or Javelin manpad anti air ( we let it go obsolete) and replaced it with nothing...  So se do need a patriot type system for area defense, we need a medium range system to protect high value targets like HQ's parliament, bridges etc...and a   SHORAD system to protect combat formations, LAV based system the us has designed is another multi purpose system, it can kill aircraft and armor so it would be perfect...it carries a 25 mm gun, stingers, and hellfire's, or (mavericks i think) we also need a manpad system like the stinger so the infantry and mobile assets can protect themselves.

Well I can tell you we need more than the 40 we have, plus a good training fleet... 

 

So if the tanks are stored properly then they shouldn’t really be “ rotting” as the article reported 

I understand the purpose of tanks and tracked vehicles and never said tanks were obsolete in modern warfare.  I said we need to be realistic about what kinds of conflicts CANADA will participate in and what role CANADA will play in those conflicts.  We will never be fighting a war single handedly against Russia or another conventional army ams we will never have a tank force large enough enough to go toe to toe with another county’s tank forces.  AFAIK Afghanistan was the only time that Canadian tanks have been operationally deployed since the Korean war.  It doesn’t seem that Canadas military will ever be large enough to maintain separate wheeled and tracked mech brigades and the current practice of employing a mishmash of both vehicle types force-wide based on whatever is available is now being sorted in favour of wheeled, both for cost reasons and due to the fact that most still believe the future of conflicts for countries like Canada will be continue to be peacekeeping, low-medium intensity and counter-insurgency types that have dominated since the end of the Cold War. The Ukraine War and Chinese aggression is going to change that view somewhat but we don’t know to what extent and again what is CANADAs role in that context given that we will always be a small force that will need to embed in an allied military unit for those conventional wars in which tracks and tanks are preferable. In realistic Canadian military context where our forces would be operating more independently from allies (ie low intensity conflicts, peacekeeping COIN, etc) we need tanks for fire support only because nobody has yet figured out how to mount a 155mm gun on a wheeled platform. Our military will never be large enough to have everything 

 As for Air Defence again I understand the layers but our forces are always going to be operating from allied bases that will provide the larger layers. Our troops in Europe or overseas don’t need their own Patriot or NASAMS missiles, that’s the job of the European countries. Similar concept when we’re garrisoned on a US base somewhere in the world. Our forces only need to have their own TACTICAL air defence which is SHORAD (and MANPADS of course) which can still cover out to 10-15 km range if you believe manufacturer claims and the SHORAD version of IRIS-T appears to be able to reach up to almost 40,000 ft in altitude. I mostly like the Americans’ M-SHORAD strykers (they apparently ditched the Hellfires because they weigh 100lbs each and it wasn’t practical for soldiers to reload in combat conditions so the missiles are all stingers now). And given that its on the Canadian made LAV it would be hard for us to NOT buy it. But the German IRIS-T SLS if compatible w/ a LAV sounds like it could be a better missile as stingers only reach up to about 13,000ft.  I also feel there should be a minigun in the mix as the last line of defence for very close threats 

I’n not 100% sold that we need patriots or NASAMS to defend Canadian soil I don’t think the realistic threat is there. MAYBE. 

Edited January 22 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

On 1/21/2023 at 3:02 PM, Army Guy said:

1) actually the entire Leopard II tank is an upgraded LeoIIA4, with different upgrades added on, like additional armor, or better FCS, etc, some the larger upgrades are done at the manufacture plant in Germany, or done in home countries by Germany civilian mechanics flown in with the parts needed, here in Gagetown we had a German team do all our heavy maintenance or heavy modifications. 

You can have any of those tanks built at the manufacture with any or no upgrades depending on how much money you got to spend, much like a car...Yes from the LeoIIA5 on their is a slight difference in measurements, width and height the LeoII A7 Plus is the latest model, not counting the German/ Franco tank. 

LeoII6M is another modified LeoIIA6 tank m stands for "mine protected",  Afghanistan conflict the ones we had in Afghanistan were borrowed, after the conflict was over we kept the original x 20 LeoIIA6M, ( these tanks were blown up a few times...(used and put away wet) and purchased LeoIIA6 off the Dutch and had them modified in Germany back to the original LeoIIA6M standards.  Note the A6M we received where new A6 hulls and turrets modified to A6M standards.  

The gun on most early A4's was the L44 fired the same 120 Ammo just had a shorter barrel, which translates into nor as accurate or lacked some distance... after the A5 came out some countries looked at putting on the L55 gun which gave you the ability to use stronger ammo, that gave you better accuracy and much more distance, or punch. we have both types of guns....

The LeoIIA4 production started in 1985 and ended in 1992, so the majority are going to be made in the mid to late 80's...

Leopard 2 Family of Vehicles - Canada.ca

Is the LeoIIA4 better than Russian stuff, well research Turkish LeoIIA4 used in Syria, 

2....The tanks themselves are not stored improperly, they are stored inside a heated building when not in use, like a huge airplane it takes a massive amount of hours of driver maintenance , and even more mechanical maintenance just to keep them up and running for a few hours, DND places restriction on how many hours of operations they can do in a month, or year...once those hours are meet they go back in the barn, it is very costly to operate a tank, thousands of dollars an hour, not counting fuel, a 1500 lt tank gets you maybe 450/500 KMs it loves diesel. Funding for parts is the problem, and tanks eat a very large portion of the army budget, once that limit is meet there is no more, meaning they sit until funding is made available... Moving a 60 ton beast around in the boonies is a huge feat that costs lots of money, in parts and fuel...

Lets not forget these are the pointy end of the spear, and are used with all the armies' assets in combined warfare, that is meant to protect the Infantry from other tanks, or hard targets they don't or can't destroy...they are critical, so our troops don't die in great heaps like in WWI. So they are used to train often...add to that used on dog and pony shows like when the MND shows up or Justin wants to take a look they pull them out. 

3... No tanks despite everything on the intra net or even our own CDS have said tanks are now obsolete ask Ukraine how badly they need them.. tanks fad in and fad out depending on the conflict your using them in, in Afghanistan no enemy amour but they were invaluable to the grunt on the ground...

Lav's came into existence becasue anything that uses track is expensive to run, wheeled is 1/2 the price... it has nothing to do with what is better, Tracked vehicles are by far the better vehicle , better armor (means better protection), better and bigger gun, better cross country ability, can keep up to a tank in the mud, the list is long... but wheeled vehicles are cheaper... and we like cheaper it is cheaper to bury soldiers than give them the right equipment.

Lav based brigades are great for urban warfare, and on hard ground, but if you take a look at the new wheeled vehicles they are bigger and bad, etc...Track vehicles are the cream of the crop...US army is now getting ride of it's LAV based Assualts guns... and upgrading to a tracked vehicle

War in Ukraine is changing mobile warfare as we know it, new vehicles will be coming out, and we will see more drone carrying vehicles, more missile carrying vehicles, but those are in design phase, Tanks will never become obsolete any time soon, they may look different or carry extra wpn systems but they will always be there. 

Air defense is meant to be layered, each layer protecting for a different type of target. And only having one type like we used to have like ADDATS (which was a dual purpose system it could kill anything that flew, plus armor vehicles as well, but like everything we let it get old and cut funding ...or Javelin manpad anti air ( we let it go obsolete) and replaced it with nothing...  So se do need a patriot type system for area defense, we need a medium range system to protect high value targets like HQ's parliament, bridges etc...and a   SHORAD system to protect combat formations, LAV based system the us has designed is another multi purpose system, it can kill aircraft and armor so it would be perfect...it carries a 25 mm gun, stingers, and hellfire's, or (mavericks i think) we also need a manpad system like the stinger so the infantry and mobile assets can protect themselves.

Well I can tell you we need more than the 40 we have, plus a good training fleet... 

 

And to your forst point I was only stating that to my knowledge the Canadian M CAN tanks should be pretty comparable to the best available. Yes they’re almost 15 yrs old now and I’m sure new bells and whistles have since emerged but it’s unlikely that Russia our other adversaries have brand new tanks also. In fact Russia is is still fielding T-64s and I believe the bulk of their armour is T-72s and T-80s with highly variable degrees of modernization and many are still in their original tech. 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

I never claimed it as fact but most would agree we’re morally superior to MAGAs

Who is we, and in what way are we superior?

[Army Guy]

41 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

And to your forst point I was only stating that to my knowledge the Canadian M CAN tanks should be pretty comparable to the best available. Yes they’re almost 15 yrs old now and I’m sure new bells and whistles have since emerged but it’s unlikely that Russia our other adversaries have brand new tanks also. In fact Russia is is still fielding T-64s and I believe the bulk of their armour is T-72s and T-80s with highly variable degrees of modernization and many are still in their original tech. 

The LeoIIA6M are our latest and greatest tanks we have 20 of them, 20 that have already been in extended combat, and are 15 years old... The LeoIIA4M are much older production started 1985, and stopped in 1992, putting them in around from 38 years old to 30 years old, and the M stands for mine protected only....the remaining armor is standards as say the turkish LeoIIA4, which we see litter across the Syria desert, taken out by ground anti tank systems...

watch this video, it is of a 130mm gun Germanies Rheinmetall developed, i think it starts around 024 of the video it shows a series of metal plates all Harden RHA, along with solid blocks of RHA steel, watch as it slices through it like butter... 120 mm has similar has 1/2 the qualities this round has, Note not one tank in the world has this much armor surrounding it...so odds are yes a well placed shot from any semi modern tank will kill most NATO tanks, hence why they life span on the modern battle field is only 3 seconds... placing that well placed shot is another topic 

Yes but like the LeoII fleet the T-72 has also been highly modified, not to mention Russia never sell or exports the same quality of tanks to it's buyers they are always sub par... Russian tanks are smaller, faster, with a lot less safety features as western tanks, their advantage was they appear in numbers...and most shots will explode ammo in the auto loader, resulting in the turret popping off and a dead crew...

Rheinmetall Tests Of New 130 Mm Smoothbore Gun - MilitaryLeak

[BeaverFever]

47 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Who is we, and in what way are we superior?

Canada is we and we are superior in that we are not Putin-supporting election rigging MAGA conspiracy quacks. 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

So if the tanks are stored properly then they shouldn’t really be “ rotting” as the article reported 

I understand the purpose of tanks and tracked vehicles and never said tanks were obsolete in modern warfare.  I said we need to be realistic about what kinds of conflicts CANADA will participate in and what role CANADA will play in those conflicts.  We will never be fighting a war single handedly against Russia or another conventional army ams we will never have a tank force large enough enough to go toe to toe with another county’s tank forces.  AFAIK Afghanistan was the only time that Canadian tanks have been operationally deployed since the Korean war.  It doesn’t seem that Canadas military will ever be large enough to maintain separate wheeled and tracked mech brigades and the current practice of employing a mishmash of both vehicle types force-wide based on whatever is available is now being sorted in favour of wheeled, both for cost reasons and due to the fact that most still believe the future of conflicts for countries like Canada will be continue to be peacekeeping, low-medium intensity and counter-insurgency types that have dominated since the end of the Cold War. The Ukraine War and Chinese aggression is going to change that view somewhat but we don’t know to what extent and again what is CANADAs role in that context given that we will always be a small force that will need to embed in an allied military unit for those conventional wars in which tracks and tanks are preferable. In realistic Canadian military context where our forces would be operating more independently from allies (ie low intensity conflicts, peacekeeping COIN, etc) we need tanks for fire support only because nobody has yet figured out how to mount a 155mm gun on a wheeled platform. Our military will never be large enough to have everything 

 As for Air Defence again I understand the layers but our forces are always going to be operating from allied bases that will provide the larger layers. Our troops in Europe or overseas don’t need their own Patriot or NASAMS missiles, that’s the job of the European countries. Similar concept when we’re garrisoned on a US base somewhere in the world. Our forces only need to have their own TACTICAL air defence which is SHORAD (and MANPADS of course) which can still cover out to 10-15 km range if you believe manufacturer claims and the SHORAD version of IRIS-T appears to be able to reach up to almost 40,000 ft in altitude. I mostly like the Americans’ M-SHORAD strykers (they apparently ditched the Hellfires because they weigh 100lbs each and it wasn’t practical for soldiers to reload in combat conditions so the missiles are all stingers now). And given that its on the Canadian made LAV it would be hard for us to NOT buy it. But the German IRIS-T SLS if compatible w/ a LAV sounds like it could be a better missile as stingers only reach up to about 13,000ft.  I also feel there should be a minigun in the mix as the last line of defence for very close threats 

I’n not 100% sold that we need patriots or NASAMS to defend Canadian soil I don’t think the realistic threat is there. MAYBE. 

Rotting here means just that they are sitting inside in storage due to lack of parts and funding, anything made of Rubber will start to dry our and rot if it is not used all the time, park your car for a year and tell me you don't have mechanical problems after that. 

Our role in Germany and with NATO was exactly that, today we agree to do the same only in the later stages of the game, and not just in Europe, but where ever NATO is deployed. IE middle east, etc.

Gulf war I Canadian military sent a mobile field hospital, and Infantry protection into Iraq, if we had better equipment at the time I'm sure those elected officials would have sent that as well, Note at the time Iraqi Army had better equipment than we did, hence why we did not have a combat force involved, 

Tanks have made up almost every UN, or NATO deployment in the last 20 years...Like Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Canada sent it Cougars to Bosnia, a 76 MM tank "trainer" becasue we did not have enough Leopard C2s to spare... So history has shown out politicians do have the will to send it regardless on how good it is...

Todays military already has one Brigade that is suppose to be tracked 1 CMBG has Leopards, and TLAVS, with the infantry riding in LAV 6.0 note there is not enough 6.0 to outfit all the Infantry BN,s one BN is Light infantry,( code for school bus or truck) as for the rest the other two not all the Rifle companies have LAV 6.0 they also take trucks or school busses...The TLAV (M113 with grizzly turrents) were suppose to be replaced with another tracked vehicle, but was canceled...when i joined the Infantry the M113 was 30 years old then i spent 34 years in the military and in some places they are still being used....including Afghanistan...and still no replacement..

Having a tracked Heavy Mechanized Brigade gives you more options...ones we don't have any more. Considering we are a G-7 country, with the strong GDP, are you saying we can not financially keep some 60 k under arms, full time...we used to keep 4 full operational brigades...

Scratch Peacekeeping off the list, we have never been a peacekeeping nation that is a myth... most of the usage of our military has been combat, and since the liberals have come to power our UN peacekeeping forces have dropped off to almost nil....

Yes the last few conflicts have turned into counter insurgency ones, after ground forces went in and destroyed the enemy ability to fight leaving him only counter insurgency options. You can not equip our forces by the last conflict, what you need is one that can do it all. 

NATO has already changed it's doctrine and the way it equips a few years ago, when Russia took Crimea, now it is reverting back to high intensity warfare, with a twist, drones, Himars and air defense are the kings of the battle field...and today we have none of that , thats what keeps the CDS up at night or so he says.

Every NATO country needs to train with tanks, it is one of the basic building blocks of a combat force, one can not just have none then expect to fight along side another force that does, there is a massive learning curve...

Not sure if i am explain this right, Todays military, has lost "most" of it's capabilities, and we are in the last stages of losing some of the basic building blocks of a combat force...like tanks, we have NO SPA, NO air defense, less than 30 towed M777 that makes up our artillery forces, ....our Anti tank weapons' are obsolete, our Logistical wheel fleet is decimated sitting in field waiting disposal for the most part, we can't get parts, any more due to their age, and some entire fleets are no longer deemed safe for Canadas road ways...becasue they endanger Canadians civilians....and are restricted to training areas only...they replaced the 2 1/2 ton MLVW with a 10 ton plus truck, as a stop gap measure...LSVW fleet is almost completely gone, due to rusting out issues, HLVW fleets are almost gone as well. our military is on life support right now, it is why people are leaving in droves, and why no one wants to join, and don't fall for the governmental crap it is becasue of the culture bullshit...all of that is a distraction...

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and we have not discussed the navy or the air force...

 

 

[BeaverFever]

29 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The LeoIIA6M are our latest and greatest tanks we have 20 of them, 20 that have already been in extended combat, and are 15 years old... The LeoIIA4M are much older production started 1985, and stopped in 1992, putting them in around from 38 years old to 30 years old, and the M stands for mine protected only....the remaining armor is standards as say the turkish LeoIIA4, which we see litter across the Syria desert, taken out by ground anti tank systems...

The M is for the belly armour the CAN denotes the other modifications made to the Canadian variant, including additional add-on armour :

 

The improvements to the 2A4Ms that entered service were significant. In addition to modifications that allowed the crew to operate efficiently in the heat of Afghanistan, protection and ease of operation were greatly augmented, including mine protection belly armour that brought about the “M” designation. Appliqué armour, like that installed on the most recent German Leopard 2A7+, was adapted and fitted across the glacis, hull deck and lower hull behind the suspension. And running gear and side armour were enhanced.  

The tanks were also upgraded to the most current all-electric turret drive and a digital central logic and main distribution system with an improved electrical system was installed. The electric turret drive was a key change as it removed flammable hydraulic systems and replaced them with a technology that doesn’t add to the danger in the event of critical damage to the tank.

The remaining 2A4s and 2A6Ms only had an inspection, repairs as required, and minor improvements such as the driver’s viewing system. All the tanks were fitted with front and rear facing day and thermal cameras, unique Canadian equipment such as the communication system and machine guns. They were also modified to accept the tank’s mobility implements, which include dozer blades, mine plows and mine rollers  

 

https://canadianarmytoday.com/the-leopard-changes-some-of-its-spots/

[Army Guy]

9 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

The M is for the belly armour the CAN denotes the other modifications made to the Canadian variant, including additional add-on armour :

 

The improvements to the 2A4Ms that entered service were significant. In addition to modifications that allowed the crew to operate efficiently in the heat of Afghanistan, protection and ease of operation were greatly augmented, including mine protection belly armour that brought about the “M” designation. Appliqué armour, like that installed on the most recent German Leopard 2A7+, was adapted and fitted across the glacis, hull deck and lower hull behind the suspension. And running gear and side armour were enhanced.  

The tanks were also upgraded to the most current all-electric turret drive and a digital central logic and main distribution system with an improved electrical system was installed. The electric turret drive was a key change as it removed flammable hydraulic systems and replaced them with a technology that doesn’t add to the danger in the event of critical damage to the tank.

The remaining 2A4s and 2A6Ms only had an inspection, repairs as required, and minor improvements such as the driver’s viewing system. All the tanks were fitted with front and rear facing day and thermal cameras, unique Canadian equipment such as the communication system and machine guns. They were also modified to accept the tank’s mobility implements, which include dozer blades, mine plows and mine rollers  

 

https://canadianarmytoday.com/the-leopard-changes-some-of-its-spots/

That still does not negate that the LeoIIA4M are still 30 to 38 years old with some lipstick put on them, or the fact there is only 20 of them....of which they won't say pow many are still running...How long have you owned your car, and just becasue you add some new parts on it does not make it a modern main battle tank.  4 persons lives depend on this vehicle...not counting the grunts that are lined up behind it...

The current LeoIIA7 Plus has a lot more Amor added during the manufacture process, than just that applique and our A4M and A6M do not even come close to that standards, most of the modifications we had done was to the mine protection, or bottom of the tank...watch the video i sent and tell be some ceramic covering is going to stop that projectile. 

The regular A4 are training tanks, nothing more, outdated not for combat but are being stripped for parts. as the article suggests. 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Tanks have made up almost every UN, or NATO deployment in the last 20 years...Like Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Canada sent it Cougars to Bosnia, a 76 MM tank "trainer" becasue we did not have enough Leopard C2s to spare... So history has shown out politicians do have the will to send it regardless on how good it is...

Kosovo is the only one I can think of where there were tanks. I believe as a rule UN doesn’t send tanks on peacekeeping for a number of reasons although recall that for some reason Pakistan had some sort of “tank” (perhaps a misidentified IFV/APC) in Somalia that had to be called in during the Blackhawk Down incident.  I definitely don’t think the UN allowed tanks in Bosnia and IIRC General Mackenzie had to make some complex arguments just to get permission for TOW-equipped vehicles. Canada’s tanks weren’t even upgraded to C2 until after Kosovo conflict- up until 1999 or 2000 they were C1s which were pretty much  1970s original 1A3s  

 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Having a tracked Heavy Mechanized Brigade gives you more options...ones we don't have any more. Considering we are a G-7 country, with the strong GDP, are you saying we can not financially keep some 60 k under arms, full time...we used to keep 4 full operational brigades...

I’m saying between Canada’s anti-military peaceniks on the left and the tax-cut and austerity obsessed conservatives on the right, there’s little political will for increased defence spending   We need to make hay while the sun is shining right now  while’s there’s a temporarily increased appetite for procurement because soon enough we will return to the Canadian default position of neglect and disinterest  The problem with having only one heavy brigade is how do you rotate it out when tour is up but the mission continues?  It would have to be replaced with a lighter brigade anyway.   Light Infantry has value I would not make them mounted units. Maybe give them dedicated helicopters and officially make them airmobile if there’s a way they can wear both hats  

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Scratch Peacekeeping off the list, we have never been a peacekeeping nation that is a myth... most of the usage of our military has been combat, and since the liberals have come to power our UN peacekeeping forces have dropped off to almost nil....

Time will tell whether Putin is an anomaly or the new norm.  Personally I doubt we’ll ever be in a conventional war with a peer military in this globalized world 

 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Yes the last few conflicts have turned into counter insurgency ones, after ground forces went in and destroyed the enemy ability to fight leaving him only counter insurgency options. You can not equip our forces by the last conflict, what you need is one that can do it all. 

I would suggest that it was AIR forces that destroyed the enemy ability to fight. I wish Canada could have a military that does it all but I thinking we have to pick and specialize. We will never have aircraft carriers for example. We are already in the early stages of a major demographic crunch where the largest demographic will be elderly and retirees. There may not be enough people to fill all the vacated  jobs that the economy needs to function and grow plus there will be increased competition for government spending so a drastically expansed military is probably not realistic. 
 

Fortunately there are active procurement projects for the wheeled logistics and support vehicles they’re just the usual Canadian mess-up that takes forever because we’re terrible at procurement but we will get there.
 

For artillery Id like to see us go 100% self propelled 155mm with something like the French Cesar or Swedish Archer. The proliferation of artillery locating technology and tactics such as drones, Counter-battery radars and direct-finding acoustic sensors etc is apparently making shoot and scoot tactics more necessary in Ukraine and that’s probably something that will be everywhere soon

 

Edit:  also keep in mind the highly successful Ukrainian offensive in the second half of 2022 was carried out by forces moving amd assaulting fro HUMVEES and Toyota pick up trucks, not heavy armour. The Russians were expecting a herd of elephants to charge their front and instead what the fast moving vehicles wee swarms of killer bees coming in from all directions that stung them to death.  The US just gifted them a bunch of Strykers which expected to use not for frontal assaults but to exploit breaches and move troops to outmaneuver or encircle the enemy. Note that other fast moving forces like the US Marines also don’t use tanks anymore. 

Edited January 23 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

That still does not negate that the LeoIIA4M are still 30 to 38 years old with some lipstick put on them, or the fact there is only 20 of them....of which they won't say pow many are still running...How long have you owned your car, and just becasue you add some new parts on it does not make it a modern main battle tank.  4 persons lives depend on this vehicle...not counting the grunts that are lined up behind it...

The current LeoIIA7 Plus has a lot more Amor added during the manufacture process, than just that applique and our A4M and A6M do not even come close to that standards, most of the modifications we had done was to the mine protection, or bottom of the tank...watch the video i sent and tell be some ceramic covering is going to stop that projectile. 

The regular A4 are training tanks, nothing more, outdated not for combat but are being stripped for parts. as the article suggests. 

According to “Military Today”, the 2A7 is a “modular upgrade package” that allows any 2A6 to be converted to 2A7. And the first 2A7s were not new builds but 20 upgraded 2A6s from German stock and delivered in 2014  

Germany no longer builds new hulls for this tank, but instead refurbishes and upgrades existing Leopard 2 hulls from stocks to new standards. As far as all upgrades are modular any existing Leopard 2 tank can be upgraded to the latest standard. 
 

https://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2a7.htm#:~:text=The Leopard 2A7 is fitted,modern titanium and steel alloys.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Kosovo is the only one I can think of where there were tanks. I believe as a rule UN doesn’t send tanks on peacekeeping for a number of reasons although recall that for some reason Pakistan had some sort of “tank” (perhaps a misidentified IFV/APC) in Somalia that had to be called in during the Blackhawk Down incident.  I definitely don’t think the UN allowed tanks in Bosnia and IIRC General Mackenzie had to make some complex arguments just to get permission for TOW-equipped vehicles. Canada’s tanks weren’t even upgraded to C2 until after Kosovo conflict- up until 1999 or 2000 they were C1s which were pretty much  1970s original 1A3s  

 

I’m saying between Canada’s anti-military peaceniks on the left and the tax-cut and austerity obsessed conservatives on the right, there’s little political will for increased defence spending   We need to make hay while the sun is shining right now  while’s there’s a temporarily increased appetite for procurement because soon enough we will return to the Canadian default position of neglect and disinterest  The problem with having only one heavy brigade is how do you rotate it out when tour is up but the mission continues?  It would have to be replaced with a lighter brigade anyway.   Light Infantry has value I would not make them mounted units. Maybe give them dedicated helicopters and officially make them airmobile if there’s a way they can wear both hats  

Time will tell whether Putin is an anomaly or the new norm.  Personally I doubt we’ll ever be in a conventional war with a peer military in this globalized world 

 

I would suggest that it was AIR forces that destroyed the enemy ability to fight. I wish Canada could have a military that does it all but I thinking we have to pick and specialize. We will never have aircraft carriers for example. We are already in the early stages of a major demographic crunch where the largest demographic will be elderly and retirees. There may not be enough people to fill all the vacated  jobs that the economy needs to function and grow plus there will be increased competition for government spending so a drastically expansed military is probably not realistic. 
 

Fortunately there are active procurement projects for the wheeled logistics and support vehicles they’re just the usual Canadian mess-up that takes forever because we’re terrible at procurement but we will get there.
 

For artillery Id like to see us go 100% self propelled 155mm with something like the French Cesar or Swedish Archer. The proliferation of artillery locating technology and tactics such as drones, Counter-battery radars and direct-finding acoustic sensors etc is apparently making shoot and scoot tactics more necessary in Ukraine and that’s probably something that will be everywhere soon

British had tanks in Bosnia, along with SPA, when the SERBs had moved border posts that marked the exact location of the borders, Canadian battle group was tasked to force them to move them to the original position...SERBS said stuff it, we mobilized, and were joined by British tank and heavy arty... once we arrived and the Serbs seen they were outgunned they put them back...But during all UN mission it is both sides that have to agree with the composition of the UN force, in the early days when UN was in charge of Bosnia, we were lightly protected so they go do what ever they wanted, until one day they made a stand with the Croat's and dug in operation Medak pocket... after that NATO took over and NATO decided what we were going to use, and peace finally came ...we don't do much UN mission lately. UN mission were the worse and most dangerous...

Some of the equipment they want does not cost billions...but rather millions look at the pistol purchase, or tank purchase, a brand new leoIIa7plus is approx. 10 mil a copy... track IFV are far less...

You use the same process they have been, light units would train 6 to 8 month prior to their tour, in Lav's , i mean it is not uncommon to be cross trained on several different types of vehicles... just becasue they were light they had to be in the rotation for experience, and to give the others a rest remember each Brigade did 2 tours before passing it on to the other brigade...in Afghanistan 5 Brigade got a huge break in there becasue Quebecor's got tired of did French Canadians coming home...that and the French mafia as we called them stole everything including the sinks when they returned back to Canada...so for years it was 1 and 2 brigade that got all the tours...

As for making them Air mobile or airborne , we still don't have the helos or aircraft to move them.. nor do we have enough towed arty, or light armor to protect them, let alone attack helos, or even ground attack aircraft...at the time the airforce could not play in Afghanistan for some reason, i still do not know... Even after the US bombing the shit out of us, on more than one occasion...it would have been nice to have Canadian guys up there ... but we soon relied on US A-10 and F-16 and AH-64D to watch over us.  

High intensity warfare is the pinnacle, prepare for that and everything else is just a matter of tweaking force composition. 

We don't need a huge military, what we have now is a joke... less than 60 K for  a 38 million population...some where around 90 to 110 k would be good... 5 full brigade groups, a good size navy, and respectable air force.

it took 10 years to purchase 9 mm pistols worth maybe 10 million... and they are doing it in in 2 buys becasue it may be to complicated...i retired in 2014 LSVW replacement project was already 12 years old, nothing on the books now,  HLVW project was 10 years ...DND will always say the same thing they are coming soon...just don't hold your breath, 

As for Arty i like the German PZH200, but it is a parts eater, but it can put multiply rounds on target at the same time... South Korea's K-9, for the wheel 155mm you can not beat the Archer, for speed, or accuracy. Towed guns are a thing of the past unless your light like airborne or airmobile. 

[Army Guy]

13 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

According to “Military Today”, the 2A7 is a “modular upgrade package” that allows any 2A6 to be converted to 2A7. And the first 2A7s were not new builds but 20 upgraded 2A6s from German stock and delivered in 2014  

Germany no longer builds new hulls for this tank, but instead refurbishes and upgrades existing Leopard 2 hulls from stocks to new standards. As far as all upgrades are modular any existing Leopard 2 tank can be upgraded to the latest standard. 
 

https://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2a7.htm#:~:text=The Leopard 2A7 is fitted,modern titanium and steel alloys.

Germany does have a small stock of LeoA4 hulls but those stocks will run out soon, Poland signed a contract for 200 new leopards, which they are building now, Not to mention any they will send to Ukraine...they have to come from some where, and if they do fine in Ukraine i think there will be a run on them, like they found with our leopards in Afghanistan, it was based on our experience that the A7 came into existence, now they have 7V and 7 Plus 

And i did not know that German was not making hulls any more... but Greece is , so there maybe a chance of a totally new machine ...