[Canadian_Mind]

I can't get into tactics as far as urban warfare is concerned, but it does happen, and it happens very effectively.

As for when you have an infantry-tank mix vs. just infantry in an APC, with the infantry tank mix, the APC is the lesser vehicle compared to the tank. A LAV III is not ver well armoured at all. Thats why it is called a LIGHT Armoured Vehicle, and why it weighs only 16 tonnes empty.

If we had something in the 20-30 tonne range with; equivilent mobility and speed (atleast 120kph), a 30mm Bushmaster II, integrated TOW missles (2 loaded, 8 stored, easy reloading), can carry a full section (8 guys), plus the vehicle crew, with greatly enhanced armour all around... Then I'd feel that tanks aren't entirely neccisary, as TOW missles are almost as effective at fucking up Grape huts as HESH rounds. But we don't have a vehicle like that.

[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

From what I recall, the refit couldn't be dine here and I do imagine the Canadian forces has a hell of as lot on it's plate right now. Time to push some money for another inferstructure program.

Too bad MacKay is so busy trying to become NATO SecGen that he doens't have time to do his real job....

[RUEZ]

bootlegga bootlegga:

ridenrain ridenrain:

From what I recall, the refit couldn't be dine here and I do imagine the Canadian forces has a hell of as lot on it's plate right now. Time to push some money for another inferstructure program.

Too bad MacKay is so busy trying to become NATO SecGen that he doens't have time to do his real job....

How do you figure?

[bootlegga]

We rushed out and bought these tanks almost 2 year ago, and yet the majority of them won't be ready until 2011. By the time they are ready for deployment to Afghanistan, we'll be leaving.

All these tanks have been doing is sit and collect dust (either here on in Europe). Somebody isn't doing his job. As Defence minister, it's ultimately his responsibilty to get things done in the defence portfolio.

[Akhenaten]

It'll be this way until Canada reconizes that the measly amount of funds the military gets and we still complain about is actually more expensive when you consider you're not getting anything by going 'cheap'. I mean here we have 40 tanks but they aren't working so...are they still tanks? No we wasted our money. I mean seriously: Second hand previous generation tanks from the Neitherlands? What? The warmongering Dutch are too militeristic for us to keep up with in terms of arms? What's next? Submarines with screen doors?



Still waiting for Canadians to grow up and accept that there is no $0B/year military budget option. There is only bare minimum of $40B/year under NATO or $60-80B/year if we opt out of NATO.

[ridenrain]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I can't get into tactics as far as urban warfare is concerned, but it does happen, and it happens very effectively.

As for when you have an infantry-tank mix vs. just infantry in an APC, with the infantry tank mix, the APC is the lesser vehicle compared to the tank. A LAV III is not ver well armoured at all. Thats why it is called a LIGHT Armoured Vehicle, and why it weighs only 16 tonnes empty.

If we had something in the 20-30 tonne range with; equivilent mobility and speed (atleast 120kph), a 30mm Bushmaster II, integrated TOW missles (2 loaded, 8 stored, easy reloading), can carry a full section (8 guys), plus the vehicle crew, with greatly enhanced armour all around... Then I'd feel that tanks aren't entirely neccisary, as TOW missles are almost as effective at fucking up Grape huts as HESH rounds. But we don't have a vehicle like that.

Something like a Bradley perhaps?
There's still a big difference in armor protection and the cost of a 105-120 shell is a pittance compared to a TOW.

These tanks need a retrofit to get into service, and they are needed but this is no where close to our submarine fiasco.

[Canadian_Mind]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Something like a Bradley perhaps?
There's still a big difference in armor protection and the cost of a 105-120 shell is a pittance compared to a TOW.

These tanks need a retrofit to get into service, and they are needed but this is no where close to our submarine fiasco.

Pretty much. But instead of room for only 7 people, give the vehicle capacity for 8 plus (a full section) plus room for kit, breathing room, etc. LAV IIIs are cramped.

I'd also like to keep the vehicle wheeled. Much faster in urban environments and out in the dessert.

Having experiance with wheeled vehicles, like the LAV III, I know that they aren't as prone to getting stuck as the pro-track naysayers make them out to be. It's usually bad drivers or commanders who are the fault of getting a vehicle stuck, and the same bad crew would get T-LAVs or tanks stuck. the reason they don't get stuck is because only the best wheeled vehicle drivers get to drive tracked vehicles, as we have over 1000 wheeled armoured vehicles and only a couple hundred tracked vehicles.

As for the tank rounds vs. sabots, you're right, but unless we are willing to do what the Russians did and mount a 120mm maingun and a 25mm coax in the same turret, which would increase the vehicle weight by a solid 5 tonnes, and force the use of tracks, abandoment of transport by anything but a CC-177 or C-5, etc, we wont get it. I greatly liek the idea, because then we would have a tank that carries and shits out infantry as needed, but can hold it's own with the 25mm against dismounted troops, helocoptors, etc.

Oh, and I wouldn't call this a sub fiasco at all. We have vehicles that work, we just can't do the upgrades we want domestically, which is the same reason we didn't buy Hummers from the American's for Afghanistan.

[Scape]

bootlegga bootlegga:

We rushed out and bought these tanks almost 2 year ago, and yet the majority of them won't be ready until 2011. By the time they are ready for deployment to Afghanistan, we'll be leaving.

All these tanks have been doing is sit and collect dust (either here on in Europe). Somebody isn't doing his job. As Defence minister, it's ultimately his responsibilty to get things done in the defence portfolio.

We need tanks. Full stop. That mission is winding down but we still need the kit and the chances we will be going to other missions where they have hot conditions these tanks were sound investments. We can't use Leo 1's from the 1960's anymore and think it will be enough to get by.

[bootlegga]

Scape Scape:

bootlegga bootlegga:

We rushed out and bought these tanks almost 2 year ago, and yet the majority of them won't be ready until 2011. By the time they are ready for deployment to Afghanistan, we'll be leaving.

All these tanks have been doing is sit and collect dust (either here on in Europe). Somebody isn't doing his job. As Defence minister, it's ultimately his responsibilty to get things done in the defence portfolio.

We need tanks. Full stop. That mission is winding down but we still need the kit and the chances we will be going to other missions where they have hot conditions these tanks were sound investments. We can't use Leo 1's from the 1960's anymore and think it will be enough to get by.

My point was more that somebody needs to be accountable for buying tanks, and then letting them sit in a warehouse. Now, it will be until 2011 until they are in service. Why rush out and buy them if we can't use them for four years? It sounds like we would have been better just to lease those German tanks and wait to buy the Dutch ones.

Canadian Mind has said several times that people sit around waiting for chances to drive the real deal. Having 3/4 of our tanks sitting in a warehouse exacerbates this problem.

[ridenrain]

These were a great deal at a great price so I have no squabble about buying them. I agree that they should be put on-line as soon as possible but military funding is tight, with a war on and all.

Now that this is getting more attention, maybe they could push this through as some form of inferstructure spending. Does anyone know exactly what needs to be done here? I can't see we need special equipment or specialists simply to change over radios.

[bootlegga]

From the gist of the article, it has nothing to do with funding, but rather a lack of follow through on getting them refitted. I'm sure someone else in Europe or North America could have done it sooner. If it costs a few million more somewhere else, then they should have done it. I'm sure MacKay could have gotten a few extra bucks for the Conservatives favourite department.

My understanding is better armour is also being added, as well as cooling systems, so they can operate in hot climates, like Afghanistan. If we plan on using them in Afghanistan, then those add-ons are necessary.

[Canadian_Mind]

ridenrain ridenrain:

These were a great deal at a great price so I have no squabble about buying them. I agree that they should be put on-line as soon as possible but military funding is tight, with a war on and all.

Now that this is getting more attention, maybe they could push this through as some form of inferstructure spending. Does anyone know exactly what needs to be done here? I can't see we need special equipment or specialists simply to change over radios.

Need a company qualified to produce and attach the composite belly armour, seat harnesses, a new suspension package, and new radio's. The first three can only be done by Rhiemetall.

I also don't know if these tanks are also 2A4s instead of 2A6s, cause the media can't decide, and I personally haven't seen them. If they are, then they are going to need about an additional 4 tonnes of turrent armour, a re-worked turret hull to mount the new weapons sights, the longer L55 gun vs the L44 gun, different ammo stowage, different NBC system, new night vision system... the list goes on.

Eiher way, I can imagine there is an honest amount of work to be done to get them up to the 2A6M-Can standards.