[grainfedprairieboy]

Shortly after my above post I ran across this Hillier quote posted by ridenrain in the Canada buys German tanks thread:

"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,"

[george123]

So why are we buying new, state of the art German super tanks, and sending them to Afghanistan? Just a question.

[george123]

It seems to me there is a big arms race in heavy armour right now. Russians, Europeans and now Asians are trying to make smaller, better and stronger tanks. What is with this new resurgence of better battlefield heavy vehicles?

[toothpick]

grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

Shortly after my above post I ran across this Hillier quote posted by ridenrain in the Canada buys German tanks thread:

"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,"

Generals are always perpared to fight the last war.

[SprCForr]

George123 George123:

So why are we buying new, state of the art German super tanks, and sending them to Afghanistan? Just a question.

Go talk to a Grunt/Thumperhead/Zip about the benefits of large calibre direct fire capability.

GFPB GFPB:

Sorry but the tank is done. Most countries have moved replacement dates for their current technology forward by decades like the US who was to originally replace its Abrahms by 2000, or indefinitely like Canada who is still trying to determine what role (if any) a tank will play in future operations.

I disagree that the tank is done for. I think the west is still in a doctrinal shift (3 Block War +?). I'd wait to see where it fits in with a newer Cdn/NATO/West concepts. It'll still be on the Combined Arms concept because there isn't anything yet than can beat it and that alone should mean they'll remain. Exact employment? Who knows. The Stryker concept does have it's disadvantages and they were illustrated in Afghanistan with the LAV's.

[SprCForr]

toothpick toothpick:

Generals are always perpared to fight the last war.

Profound.

Care to elaborate?

[ridenrain]

Tanks have been passing away since the sagger missiles of the Arab Isreali wars. and everything since. Sorry to say that a resonably large and mobile lump of heavy fire support is just as handy now in the streets of Bagdad as it was in ww2. Sure, we'll never see Kursk again but the US could never have taken Kuait or Iraq as fast as it did without that direct, close support.

Maybe that comment from Hillier says more about the operations CDN forces are doing, rather than the weapon system itself.

If we're discussing weapon systems that haven't lived up to advertisement, my vote would be for the gunships. They broke ground in the 70-80's and were splendid support platforms but since then, they've lost their diection.
If it's not the weather that keeps them it's the constant threat of Man-portable air-defence systems (MANPADS). Now they find that they need to fly at 3000 feet to avoid ground fire and only the Longbow radar works well at these distances.

[Knoss]

$1:

South Korean: "BWAHAHAHA! HERE WE COME AMERIKA!"

*drives tank slowly and menacingly towards the United States under the Pacific Ocean*

South Korean: "Shit, this may take a while..."

But South Korea's our ally.

[Arctic_Menace]

Fun Fact:

If South Korea goes to war with North Korea again, we are obligated to help the South Koreans...

[Delwin]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

Fun Fact:

If South Korea goes to war with North Korea again, we are obligated to help the South Koreans...

Another Interesting Fact:

Technically, North Korea is still at war with the south and the U.S, their was never a peace treaty sighned only an armistice

$1:

The Korean War ended with an armistice in 1953 - not a peace treaty.

This means that the peninsula is still technically at war. The border between the north and the south is one of the world's most heavily armed.

In theory, if the North withdrew from the armistice it would mean resuming the war, but in practice, it is not clear whether North Korea would actually resume the fighting, says the BBC's Washington correspondent Jon Leyne.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2774003.stm.

[toothpick]

SprCForr SprCForr:

toothpick toothpick:

Generals are always perpared to fight the last war.

Profound.

Care to elaborate?

It's an observation on the fact that the tactics and equiptment of an army are generally ill suited to fight the wars countries end up in. Most of the time those in charge of preparing an army for war look at the past, at what kind of fights they *have been* in to determine its requirements as opposed to what capabilities the army *might* need. They develop an army to counter all the threats of past conflicts without searching for ways to counter threats the army has not faced in recent history.

[SprCForr]

toothpick toothpick:

It's an observation on the fact that the tactics and equiptment of an army are generally ill suited to fight the wars countries end up in. Most of the time those in charge of preparing an army for war look at the past, at what kind of fights they *have been* in to determine its requirements as opposed to what capabilities the army *might* need.

Can you provide a specific example? Our adoption of the "3 Block War" contradicts your comment.
It seems to me that it's been a problem for any organization or person for that matter to predict the future. While that simplistic maxim may have applied in the past, I don't think it's applicable today.
Going back to '96, would anyone have been able to predict the rise of AQ and the Taliban to where it is today? I'd say no. Go back to '89. The Cold War was in full swing. Did anyone see the collapse (it seemed like overnight) of the USSR? No again. Who will be the "enemy" in 15 years?

$1:

They develop an army to counter all the threats of past conflicts without searching for ways to counter threats the army has not faced in recent history.

So we develop the means to fight an entrenched, continuous line of enemy? Or a cavalry charge? We haven't had to do that in recent history.

[SprCForr]

I'm suprised you guys didn't know that about Korea.

[Mr_Canada old]

Knoss Knoss:

$1:

South Korean: "BWAHAHAHA! HERE WE COME AMERIKA!"

*drives tank slowly and menacingly towards the United States under the Pacific Ocean*

South Korean: "Shit, this may take a while..."

But South Korea's our ally.

Yes, I know that, But I here tremendous Anti-Americanism from South Koreans,

I'm saying as the South Korean civilian nutcase getting ahold of one of these tanks and doing some kind of one man messed up Anti-American invasion.

[toothpick]

SprCForr SprCForr:

Can you provide a specific example?

WWI
- command on all sides conceptualizing the war (contrary to all available evidence) like the wars of the past.

WWII
- Most of American Pacific Naval command flat out denying the value of aircraft. Overvaluing battleships like those that naval battles in WWI were fought with.
- undervaluation of heavy armor until it was rolling through France.
- much of the docterine at the time was based on the experiences of trench warfare and thus woefully inadequate to deal with blitzkreig (a form of which *was* practiced in the last part of WWI).

The Iraq war
-assumption by many that it would be won like the first gulf war was won when a little forethought told anyone that there would be a signifigant and prolonged urban conflict. The US is just now buying some Golan urban combat vehicles from Israel. They don't need Bradleys or Abrams to patrol the streets, but that's what they had because that's what the last war there was fought with.

SprCForr SprCForr:

It seems to me that it's been a problem for any organization or person for that matter to predict the future. While that simplistic maxim may have applied in the past, I don't think it's applicable today. Going back to '96, would anyone have been able to predict the rise of AQ and the Taliban to where it is today? I'd say no. Go back to '89. The Cold War was in full swing. Did anyone see the collapse (it seemed like overnight) of the USSR? No again. Who will be the "enemy" in 15 years?

It's not so much that things change, it's that command dosent. With the collape of the soviet union it took over a decade for programs like the Comache helicoptor to be cancelled. The Comache had one purpose: to help destroy Soviet armor in the event of an invasion of Western Europe. That's what that was geared for, yet it took over ten years after the fall of the USSR for that program to be scrapped.

$1:

So we develop the means to fight an entrenched, continuous line of enemy? Or a cavalry charge? We haven't had to do that in recent history.

See, that's the exact thinking that causes the problem. "Havent faced in recent history" != "have faced in history waaaay back". That's still thinking in terms of the past.

Hiller said Canada dosent need tanks because we don't do anything that requires them. How does he know we won't need them? He dosen't, he said that because he was ready to fight the last war/conflct Canada was in.