±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6645

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 410
Total: 410
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Community Forums
03: Community Forums
04: Home
05: Community Forums
06: Member Screenshots
07: Community Forums
08: Photo Gallery
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Photo Gallery
12: Community Forums
13: Community Forums
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Downloads
17: Home
18: Community Forums
19: Member Screenshots
20: Community Forums
21: Photo Gallery
22: Photo Gallery
23: Community Forums
24: Photo Gallery
25: CPGlang
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Downloads
29: Community Forums
30: Downloads
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Community Forums
34: Community Forums
35: Downloads
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Community Forums
39: Home
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Community Forums
43: Photo Gallery
44: Community Forums
45: Community Forums
46: Photo Gallery
47: Photo Gallery
48: Photo Gallery
49: Your Account
50: Community Forums
51: Community Forums
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Community Forums
55: Home
56: Downloads
57: Community Forums
58: Community Forums
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Home
62: Community Forums
63: Photo Gallery
64: Photo Gallery
65: Community Forums
66: Home
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Community Forums
70: Search
71: CPGlang
72: Community Forums
73: Community Forums
74: Community Forums
75: Statistics
76: Community Forums
77: Community Forums
78: Photo Gallery
79: Community Forums
80: Photo Gallery
81: Community Forums
82: Community Forums
83: Community Forums
84: Home
85: Photo Gallery
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Community Forums
89: Community Forums
90: Community Forums
91: Photo Gallery
92: Community Forums
93: Photo Gallery
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: Photo Gallery
99: Community Forums
100: Photo Gallery
101: Community Forums
102: Community Forums
103: Community Forums
104: Photo Gallery
105: Photo Gallery
106: Photo Gallery
107: Community Forums
108: Downloads
109: Community Forums
110: Downloads
111: Home
112: Community Forums
113: Community Forums
114: Home
115: Home
116: Community Forums
117: Community Forums
118: Photo Gallery
119: Member Screenshots
120: Photo Gallery
121: Photo Gallery
122: Community Forums
123: Community Forums
124: Home
125: Your Account
126: Photo Gallery
127: Community Forums
128: Community Forums
129: Community Forums
130: Community Forums
131: Photo Gallery
132: Community Forums
133: Community Forums
134: Community Forums
135: Photo Gallery
136: Community Forums
137: Community Forums
138: Your Account
139: Member Screenshots
140: Photo Gallery
141: Community Forums
142: Home
143: Downloads
144: Downloads
145: Home
146: Community Forums
147: Community Forums
148: Your Account
149: Home
150: Photo Gallery
151: Photo Gallery
152: Community Forums
153: Community Forums
154: Home
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: Photo Gallery
158: Community Forums
159: Community Forums
160: Community Forums
161: Community Forums
162: Community Forums
163: Photo Gallery
164: Photo Gallery
165: Photo Gallery
166: Photo Gallery
167: Community Forums
168: Community Forums
169: Home
170: Community Forums
171: Community Forums
172: Community Forums
173: Community Forums
174: Downloads
175: Community Forums
176: Community Forums
177: Photo Gallery
178: Home
179: Community Forums
180: Community Forums
181: Downloads
182: Community Forums
183: Home
184: Photo Gallery
185: News
186: Community Forums
187: Photo Gallery
188: Community Forums
189: Community Forums
190: Community Forums
191: Community Forums
192: Community Forums
193: Community Forums
194: Community Forums
195: Member Screenshots
196: Home
197: Photo Gallery
198: Community Forums
199: Your Account
200: Community Forums
201: Community Forums
202: Downloads
203: Photo Gallery
204: Community Forums
205: Community Forums
206: Community Forums
207: Community Forums
208: Community Forums
209: Photo Gallery
210: Photo Gallery
211: Community Forums
212: Community Forums
213: Photo Gallery
214: Home
215: Community Forums
216: Your Account
217: Photo Gallery
218: Community Forums
219: Home
220: Community Forums
221: Photo Gallery
222: Community Forums
223: Community Forums
224: Community Forums
225: Downloads
226: Community Forums
227: Photo Gallery
228: Community Forums
229: Home
230: Community Forums
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: Community Forums
234: Photo Gallery
235: Community Forums
236: Community Forums
237: Community Forums
238: Community Forums
239: Home
240: Your Account
241: Community Forums
242: Community Forums
243: Community Forums
244: Community Forums
245: Community Forums
246: Community Forums
247: Community Forums
248: Community Forums
249: Community Forums
250: Community Forums
251: Home
252: News
253: Photo Gallery
254: Downloads
255: Community Forums
256: Community Forums
257: Home
258: Member Screenshots
259: Home
260: Member Screenshots
261: Community Forums
262: Home
263: Community Forums
264: Community Forums
265: Community Forums
266: News
267: Home
268: Community Forums
269: Community Forums
270: Community Forums
271: Community Forums
272: Photo Gallery
273: Contact
274: Community Forums
275: Community Forums
276: Photo Gallery
277: Home
278: Community Forums
279: Community Forums
280: Community Forums
281: Statistics
282: Photo Gallery
283: Community Forums
284: Downloads
285: Community Forums
286: CPGlang
287: Community Forums
288: Community Forums
289: Community Forums
290: Community Forums
291: Community Forums
292: Community Forums
293: Member Screenshots
294: Community Forums
295: Community Forums
296: Downloads
297: Photo Gallery
298: Downloads
299: Statistics
300: Community Forums
301: Community Forums
302: Community Forums
303: Your Account
304: Downloads
305: Community Forums
306: Downloads
307: Community Forums
308: Photo Gallery
309: Community Forums
310: Photo Gallery
311: Community Forums
312: Downloads
313: Community Forums
314: Downloads
315: Your Account
316: Community Forums
317: Community Forums
318: Photo Gallery
319: Photo Gallery
320: Community Forums
321: Downloads
322: Community Forums
323: Downloads
324: Photo Gallery
325: Community Forums
326: Photo Gallery
327: Community Forums
328: Photo Gallery
329: Community Forums
330: Community Forums
331: Community Forums
332: Community Forums
333: Home
334: Home
335: Community Forums
336: Community Forums
337: Community Forums
338: Community Forums
339: Community Forums
340: Community Forums
341: Community Forums
342: Tell a Friend
343: Photo Gallery
344: Home
345: Photo Gallery
346: Community Forums
347: Community Forums
348: Community Forums
349: Statistics
350: Community Forums
351: Community Forums
352: Photo Gallery
353: Community Forums
354: Community Forums
355: Community Forums
356: Community Forums
357: Home
358: Community Forums
359: Community Forums
360: Community Forums
361: Home
362: Community Forums
363: Your Account
364: Community Forums
365: Community Forums
366: Photo Gallery
367: Community Forums
368: Photo Gallery
369: Community Forums
370: Community Forums
371: Community Forums
372: Community Forums
373: Community Forums
374: Community Forums
375: Community Forums
376: Downloads
377: Community Forums
378: Community Forums
379: Photo Gallery
380: Photo Gallery
381: News
382: Community Forums
383: Photo Gallery
384: Photo Gallery
385: Community Forums
386: Community Forums
387: Community Forums
388: Community Forums
389: Photo Gallery
390: Community Forums
391: CPGlang
392: Community Forums
393: Photo Gallery
394: Photo Gallery
395: Community Forums
396: Community Forums
397: Community Forums
398: Community Forums
399: Community Forums
400: Photo Gallery
401: Community Forums
402: Photo Gallery
403: Your Account
404: Community Forums
405: Community Forums
406: Community Forums
407: Photo Gallery
408: Community Forums
409: Community Forums
410: Photo Gallery

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Canuck Armor
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
blair
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 87

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:15 am
Post subject: Canuck Armor

As a Canadian I'm confused as to why our governemnt thought it prudent to purchase the Leo Tank as opposed to the M1. If the Australians got such a good deal then why didn't our brothers across the border cut us the same slack?

I know we have an existing history with the Leopard, but when you consider the cost of having that armor shipped back to Canada and the logistics of spare parts wouldn't the price difference per unit be closer?

Also, by having the same system as the Americans, wouldn't the cost of ammunition and transportation of the original units and spare parts be considerably less than a Transoceanic supply "line"?

Did our government somehow decide that the Leo was far more capable in the Canadian Tundra than the M1?

I mean we dropped our FN's for the C+ versions of the M16, so why wouldn't we do the same for armor?
Back to top
View user's profile
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2066
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:58 am
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

Blair,
Have you ever wondered why there are more users of the Leopard II than the M1 series ?? Until Austrailia got the M1 the only foreign users were Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Same thing applies to automobiles. Unless the buyer has some incentive to puchase from a particular maker, they usually go with what best suits their needs and within their budget. Budget usually winning out. In my personal opinion for what it's worth, I believe the M1 would have been exported in greater numbers if it had a diesel engine.

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:37 am
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

Aren't the Canadian tanks coming from excess stocks of NATO allies? If so it may have been a very sweet deal. I agree that there may be reluctance to go to a vehicle with a turbine instead of diesel when you won't have enough units to justify the extra training and support structure.

But I would not discount the 'We want to prove we are not subserviant to the U.S. in our procurement choices' line of thought either

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

I think I would agree with Joe D - I suspect support costs (ie fuel) for the M1 Abrams' turbine engine may have been too much for the Canadian army. A diesel is much cheaper...

Otherwise the US can probably offer just as sweet a deal, if not better, on used Abrams than anyone can on used Leopard 2s... In fact, US foreign military sales and excess defense article transfers usually have a big advantage in terms with the extremely large support & spare parts packages that come with them...

Abrams would also have the advantage of coming with some of the neater whizzbang tech like FBCB2 that wont come with Leos... Thats a big reason why the Australians bought Abrams IMO... But then again the Australians probably see a bigger requirement to possibly fight alongside the US Army in the future than the Canadian army does...

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

- Neil_Baumgardner
I think I would agree with Joe D - I suspect support costs (ie fuel) for the M1 Abrams' turbine engine may have been too much for the Canadian army. A diesel is much cheaper...

Otherwise the US can probably offer just as sweet a deal, if not better, on used Abrams than anyone can on used Leopard 2s... In fact, US foreign military sales and excess defense article transfers usually have a big advantage in terms with the extremely large support & spare parts packages that come with them...


I agree about support costs but also I wonder how many non DU armor M1s there are available for FMS? Wasn't that a requirement for Australia? I could see that being a requirement (or at least a desire to keep down fringe media stories)


Abrams would also have the advantage of coming with some of the neater whizzbang tech like FBCB2 that wont come with Leos... Thats a big reason why the Australians bought Abrams IMO... But then again the Australians probably see a bigger requirement to possibly fight alongside the US Army in the future than the Canadian army does...

Neil


The Canadians won't be fighting alongside the U.S.?? Are you hinting that we need to watch out for leopards rolling out of Saskatchewan and Manitoba into Montana & North Dakota??? Shocked Smile

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

Nah, I'm just hinting that Australia appears to see itself as a coalition partner for the US for almost whereever it goes. Australian strategy is undergoing a change from the post-Vietnam focus on continental defense to expeditionary operations alongside or in cooperation with the US. The ability to fight alongside the US is a big reason why they are mechanizing their forces and they're in Iraq today... And interoperability drives requirements for equipment...

For better or worse, Canada does not see the same purpose or have the same objectives for its military. Its focus has and is on peacekeeping operations... Warfighting (especially alongside the US) tends not to be a primary objective, although the current CDS has decried that somewhat...

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

Hi Folks!

I agree with the 'cost of support' idea but I think there maybe another issue that was also factored in. The Leo 2s are surplus and available now.

From what I am seeing, there are not a lot of surplus Abrams waiting for someone to buy or rent. The Army is transfering rebuild Abrams to the USMC to replace high mileage vehicles that need to be overhauled.

It sounds like the Canadians want the first batch in time for their next rotation. That means delays only for training and minor upgrades.

The news here at Ft. Bliss is the FCS test BCT is facing delays in receiving Abrams and Bradleys because there are none available due to overhaul/rebuild schedule and funding crunch.

My guess is there are at least three reasons to go with that group of Leos. The Leo 2s are cheaper to use, a group of vehicles that have not been ran into the ground are available and factory space for upgrading is available to support the Canadain time line for deployment and training.

You can also add to the above the fact that almost everytime a group of international AFV experts rank the worlds MBTs, the Leo 2 is rated number one and the Abrams as second best. As a retired member of the US military, that fact is hard to take, but it is a fact.
My pocket full of pennies.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2066
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

Roy,
As an M1 Tanker (Former unfortunately) I hate to admit it but I agree with you. One tank that I think does not get enough recognition is the UK's Challenger II. I spent about 5 hours with a British Master Gunner in the Udari Desert in early 2003 getting a full tour and an honest ( I believe ) Pro's and Con's of the tank. I was very impressed. Some things made so much more sense in maintenance, reliability and simplicity. They also seem to have the APU problem well covered, something we have yet to fix.

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Jason_Bobrowich
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Aug 09, 2006
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

Blair,

Being an ex-Canadian Leopard commander I am still very much in contact with Armoured Corps members who are in the know about the Leopard 2 purchase.

The Abrams was looked at and considered to replace the Leopard C2. The deal that was struck with the Dutch and the Germans at Kraus-Maffei was far better than anything as far as cost, availablility, and long term servicing the US could offer for the Abrams. The deal includes not only the tanks, but state of the art upgrades, and parts, training, and extras for five years.

All of the tanks purchased will be upgraded to the Leopard 2A6 version as I previously had posted. The 2A5/2A6 has already been tested by the Germans for further upgrades such as:

-IFF Identification Friend/Foe system
-Europower pack to increase the 1500 hp to 1800 hp and reduce fuel consumption...this will make the Leopard 2 the most powerful tank in the world.
-active defence systems to defeat both RPG and guided weapons

The LKE II DM 53 120 mm round used by the Germans in the Leopard 2A6 can penetrate double reactive armour up to 4000 meters....this is without the use of a DU penetrator.

Ammunition transport is not an issue. All of the Leopard C1 and C2 ammunition was made in Quebec. This has been done for years. It will be easy for them to convert to producing 120 mm ammunition....after the technology is passed from the Germans to the Canadian company. The 120 mm is also capable of firing US made rounds also so more ammunition can be bought from them....no problems that I can see.

You also have to see the bigger picture too. Canada is buying the Leopard 2 not only as its new main battle tank but every heavy armoured support AFV will also be based on the Leopard 2 chassis.

-Leopard 2 Buffel ARV
-Armoured Engineer Vehicle...likely the Kodiak AEV-3
-Leguan or PSB-2 AVLB

This is very very smart for logistics, common parts, and training.

Not even the US forces can boast that. They are spread out with different vehicles for different uses. They have to train techs, crews, and maintainers on multiple vehicles.....M1A1, M1A2, M88A2, M104 Wolverine AVLB, M1 Panther 2, M60 AVLB, M9 ACE....and they don't even have an AEV except for the Assault Breacher Vehicle that will enter service in 2007 with the USMC.

You cannot compare the purchase of rifles to the purchase of tanks. But if you want to...the Canadian C7 is produced in Canada by Diemaco/Colt Canada. The C7 was based on the US M16A2 but had many improvements. The C7/C8 is now produced in Canada for the Canadian Forces, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, and British SAS.

The Royal Canadian Armoured Corps Master Instructors made the recommendation to their chain of command and on to the government that the Leopard 2 was the better tank overall when compared to the Abrams as far as cost, future upgrades, armour protection, and user friendliness. The US could not match all of this with any deal they offered.

Neil, I have to disagree that the Canadian Forces are focused on Peacekeeping operations now or in the future. Things have changed since 9-11. Canadian Forces primary mandate has always been to maintain an overall combat capability and the "peacekeeping/peacemaking" operations are just a testament to how flexible the forces can be to be able to go into a foreign nation and be neutral yet tough and not bring its political agenda.

Why does any nation that will "fight" alongside the US have to have the same equipment? The British don't have a bit of US equipment yet they did just fine in both Gulf wars. The chances of Canada deploying to another mission on foreign soil and "fighting" along side another Leopard 2 user nation are far greater than with the Abrams. The Danish have some of their Leopard 2A5DKs on standby for Afghanistan.

Look at the UNPROFOR, IFOR, SFOR, and KFOR missions and the use of both the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2:

UNPROFOR-Danish Leopard 1A5DK, Canadian Badger AEV
IFOR- Canadian Leopard C1, Danish Leopard 1A5DK, Italian Leopard 1A5IT, Dutch Leopard 2A4
SFOR- Danish Leopard 1DK, Italian Leopard 1A5IT, Dutch Leopard 2A5
KFOR- German Leopard 2A5, German Leopard 2A4, Canadian Leopard C1, Danish Leopard 1A5DK-1, Belgium Leopard 1A5BE, Norway Leopard 1 Bergepanzer, Norway Leopard 1 AEV, Norway Leopard 1 Leguan AVLB, Italian Leopard 1A5IT

Those are just off the top of my head there may be more users...only the US used the Abrams in the Balkans.

With the purchase of the four C-17 Globemaster aircraft Canada will be able to transport its new tanks anywhere in the world...no reliance on the US for this anymore.

The German loaned Leopard 2A6Ms will be in Afghanistan for the fall 2007 rotation. The first Canadian modified Leopard 2A6Ms will go to Afghanistan and replace the German loaned tanks in 2008.
Back to top
View user's profile
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:12 pm
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

- Jason_Bobrowich
Blair,

Neil, I have to disagree that the Canadian Forces are focused on Peacekeeping operations now or in the future. Things have changed since 9-11. Canadian Forces primary mandate has always been to maintain an overall combat capability and the "peacekeeping/peacemaking" operations are just a testament to how flexible the forces can be to be able to go into a foreign nation and be neutral yet tough and not bring its political agenda.

Why does any nation that will "fight" alongside the US have to have the same equipment? The British don't have a bit of US equipment yet they did just fine in both Gulf wars. The chances of Canada deploying to another mission on foreign soil and "fighting" along side another Leopard 2 user nation are far greater than with the Abrams. The Danish have some of their Leopard 2A5DKs on standby for Afghanistan.


Yeah, I figured I'd get in trouble for that somehow Wink However, General Hillier, even post 9/11, has commented on how the Canadian military has been too focused on peacekeeping rather than warfighting. But I will grant that has started to change...

The missions you mentioned are all very good examples of peacekeeping missions... Look at ODS, OIF, you'll see a different mix of systems - and no Leopards...

Of course not every nation needs to have the same platforms, but rather what comes inside - battle management, comms, etc - is what counts in terms of interoperability. Its easier to get those systems if you get Abrams rather than something else. Although its not impossible to get them otherwise of course - the Brits got some, but not a lot, of BFT systems during the initial combat ops of OIF. But even then, look at the different roles & responsibilities that were taken during those initial combat ops & the drive to Baghdad...

At the very least, you have to admit there is a pretty big difference in how Australia and Canada see their future military capabilities and warfighting requirements vis-a-vi the United States. IMO, JMHO, that influences the procurements that each has made... You made an excellent point that more often than not the Canadian army will be deploying alongside Leopard users and not Abrams...

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
Jason_Bobrowich
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Aug 09, 2006
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

Canada wanted to send an Armoured Battlegroup to the 1991 Gulf War...it was called Operation Broadsword and would have included the 8CH in the Leopard C1....logistics proved to be the failing point of the operation....not the crews or tanks.

I think Canada has a realistic way of looking at how to maintain a new main battle tank and work side by side with NATO forces over the next couple of decades...the Germans plan to keep the Leopard 2A6, with further upgrades for the next 25+ years.

The Canadian, US, British, Dutch, and Australian forces are all fighting side by side in Afghanistan without integrated battlefield management systems...and doing a fine job too.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for US, Australian, Egyptian, Kuwaiti, and Saudi Arabian Abrams to go into battle along side each other compared to the Leopard 2 user forces.
Back to top
View user's profile
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

Jason, some very good points. But I think we're talking about a different kind of "fighting." The United States, Australia and UK seek to have a "full-spectrum" military capability - from peacekeeping through low-intensity conflict, small-scale contingencies and counter-insurgency all the way right up to large-scale conventional warfare - and are making procurement decisions that support that objective. Not many countries aspire to have that complete range of capabilities, and you may not need integrated battle management systems for the lower end.

In terms of "going into battle," will we ever see a record of engagement of Leopard 2 tanks against other tanks? Maybe... The Abrams & Challenger 2 already do... And I dont think thats so much a statement upon the tanks, but rather on the users and their foreign policy and military choices & objectives... Not to say that Leopard 2s arent useful for other situations & missions, but they were designed primarily to fight other tanks...

But as I said, Hillier and others would apparently like to see a more balanced mix in the Canadian military - and the Leopard 2s are part of that...

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

- Roy_A_Lingle
Hi Folks!
You can also add to the above the fact that almost everytime a group of international AFV experts rank the worlds MBTs, the Leo 2 is rated number one and the Abrams as second best. As a retired member of the US military, that fact is hard to take, but it is a fact.
My pocket full of pennies.
Sgt, Scouts Out!


Thats only if you measure the tanks by very traditional, static measures such as armor, firepower (gun), and mobility... But IMO, those arent even competitive discriminators anymore. Tank development has been stagnant for almost a decade now... They all have sufficient levels of protection for most warfighting requirements, they all have 120mm guns with similar ranges, ammo & firepower, and they all have at least enough mobility for modern requirements.

Again, IMO, its what inside that counts as the real discriminators right now- O&S costs for turbine engines not withstanding. Look at the engagement ranges in Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom - what really set the US and its allies aside was the capability to detect, acquire and destroy enemy armor at greater ranges. In most cases in the initial combat ops of OIF, Iraqi armor (the little that there was that did fight) didnt even know where it was being engaged from, let alone able to fire upon their opponents. For those engagements, what counted was blue force tracking, radios & optics... In most cases, US armor protection wasnt even tested by Iraqi tank rounds...

Similarly, what were the real discriminators in 1940? Was it armor, firepower and mobility? Those factors appear to have mattered relatively little for the French S35s and Char Bs vs the German Pz Is and IIs, and precious few IIIs and IVs. Rather, what mattered was doctrine, maneuver and the ability to coordinate forces - by which radios (which the French tanks lacked) that were a critical element. Certainly, the static measures mattered more in 1944 - but I dont think the Leopard 2 has a Tiger-scale of advantages over the Abrams... And they all had radios at that point to level that part of the playing field...

Frankly, if you intend to fight full-up large-scale warfare - against other tanks - its what comes _with_ the Abrams tank that matters a lot more than the "advantages" that the Leopard 2 has... But thats just MHO...

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
Jason_Bobrowich
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Aug 09, 2006
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

I personally wouldn't say that Australia is going for a "full-spectrum" military capability. They only bought 59 M1A1 AIMs and only 45 or so of them will be in Regimental service the rest are for training. They still use M113s as APCs, it can't keep up with the Abrams...are they going to buy Bradleys too?

I don't see a rush to get Aussie tankers to Iraq in loaned or leased or purchased Abrams....where's the heavy support for the objective? There is about 850 total Australians involved in the operation in Iraq. This includes Navy, Airforce, and HQ related members. They have one Squadron (strength of 90 men) of ASLAVs to provide diplomatic escorts in Baghdad. They have about 700 troops in Afghanistan and will be adding 300 more SF troops. A commitment yes, but not even as much as Canada has in Afghanistan(2500 deployed)...and Canada already has tanks over there.

I don't think full up large scale warfare has been fought for a very long time. It is great that the Coalition and allies had victory in the Gulf and you are right that no tanks there were really tested against equal tanks or well trained crews. But the lessons learned in the Gulf wars is why Germany developed the Leopard 2A6 so it could engage and destroy the enemy at ranges up to 4000 metres. Only the Israelis have fought large scale tank against tank battles....they have learned lessons the hard way.

There are new rounds under development by the Israelis (120 MM APAM) which will give the Leopard 2 a huge cabability to engage any type of threat. Both the US and Germans already use a 120 mm HEAT Multi-purpose rounds to engage targets that aren't tanks.

Foreign policy and military choices & objectives...ah yes, where are those weapons of mass destruction again? Actually, I don't really care about the foreign policy because when the bullets start flying it's your tank crew that matters and you do your job.

Were the Abrams and Challenger not primarily designed to fight and destroy other tanks? They were designed during the cold war to battle the Warsaw Pact tank hoards not to fight against non uniformed insurgents. All tanks crews' primary threat is enemy tanks...the rest is just gravy.

The Canadian Forces with the Leopard 2A6 will be fully capable of any operation also. However, Canada is limited to Combat Team Battlegroup deployments simply because of the size of the combat forces....the same as Australia with the Abrams.

To me, I think the M1A1 Abrams and the Leopard 2A6 are pretty much equal. Yup, the Abrams has fully integrated battlefield managements systems but that doesn't mean that the Leopards can't be upgraded. All the systems in the world don't help when an enemy is using IEDs and simple RPG-7 to disable the Abrams.

Maybe we will see full up large scale warfare when Iran is invaded or how about North Korea as an opponent?
Back to top
View user's profile
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:27 am
Post subject: Re: Canuck Armor

I agree with many of your points Jason...

As for Australia, they have LAVs (like Canada) in addition to the M113s and are currently looking at buying self-propelled howitzers... IMO, you dont buy SPHs unless you're planning to be able to fight on the high end of conflict.

I certainly didnt want to turn this into a discussion of the politics and merits of Iraq, never mind Iran or North Korea... But I would observe that, regardless of the merits of any particular conflict, certain countries are making the investments to be able to fight on the high end of conflict.

Requirements for conducting different kinds of military operations drive procurement decisions... As you pointed out, its more likely that the Canadian army will be operating Leo 2s alongside other Leo 2s in operations like Afghanistan rather than alongside Abrams or Challenger in large-scale military operations (which admittedly may be few & far between). In operations like Afghanistan, or even Iraq right now, where protection against IEDs and RPGs is what counts most, there probably is very little difference...

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 2
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page 1, 2  Next



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum