Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Hello Warriors,

I have recently read something curious and thought to share. It concerns an interesting direction of tactics for the Canadian Army.

"Today the Canadian Armed Forces Leopard 1 fleet consists of 114 Leopard C1 MBTs, six AVLBs, eight ARVs and nine Badger AEVs. Subsequently, the whole fleet of Leopard C1 MBTs was fitted with the more recent Leopard 1A5 turret and the vehicle was designated Leopard C2.

The Leopard C2 will now be replaced by the 105 mm Mobile Gun System (MGS) variant of the Stryker (8 × 8) vehicle now in service with the US Army. It is expected that a total of 66 MGSs will be ordered to replace the current fleet of 114 Leopard C2 MBTs."

The quote is from an article on Janes Armor and Artillery (website). This seems to bring up the seemingly ageless (modern) debate over heavy tracked armor versus the lighter wheeled armor. This may have more to do with Canada's role in NATO 'peacekeeping', and the mobility of heavy firepower to remote locations IE: Afghanistan. There is a low threat of any invasion into Canada, I would imagine as well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Doing this, will be the most stupid thing ever. Stryker MGS is the worst support gun vehicle ever. They will replace Leopard C2, tank with quite decent armor, capable of firing on the move with good cross-country ability, with vehicle with weak armor,capable moving only on good roads,(any heavier rain or artylery craters will block it),uncapable of firing on the move. Any resistance armed with even old RPG-7 will make quick end with it.( you cant add grill armor, becouse you will block a gun...) Much better alternative will be to buy XM8 Thunderbolt than this crap.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

I'm going to restate my opinion looking at the matter from a larger point of view that most Canadian nationalists and tank-hungry armor traditionalists will.

Firstly, and most importantly, when if ever has Canada as an entity fought a conflict without being part of a large force? Whether their units operate independantly or not, Canada does not have a history of starting conflicts which is must fight itself.

Secondly, the current Canadian heavy transport structure does not have the capability to transport any of the Current Leopard C1/C2 fleet with any rapidity to any hotspot destination in the world.

Why not then, should the Canadian Army realize the truth of its predicament. It can either placate the staunch armor traditionalists and maintain tanks it will likely never have any real use for and that it cannot currently readily contribute to any of its deployments worldwide anyone, or it can use its unique situaiton to experiment with new types of mechanized/motorized warfare. It has the ability given its alliances and usual international obligations to experiment with a non-tank armored force in what is essentially a consequence free enviornment.

Why shouldn't Canadians toss their tank force which is costly and currently serves no purpose in their international deployment? While the Stryker MGS might not be a good replacement based on its merits as a vehicle, why shouldn't an idea be played upon by the Canadians? I say it is impossible to find a realistic scenario where Canadians would actually find need for a heavy armored force that couldn't be provided by a slew of allied forces.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

M8 AGS is much more transportable than Stryker MGS and much better armored and mobile.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

The point is that the LAV-III MGS is much more transportable and mobile than the old Leos.
OK, that's strategic mobility we are talking about here. Surely a full-fledged tank will behave better on rugged terrain once deployed, but as Mark said, you have to delpoy it first.
Canada hasn't and could barely afford the transport plane fleet to deploy 30-ton tanks.
Now that the Germany deployment is irrelevant, all Canadian forces have to be reformatted to more deployable standards.

Besides, because I know you could argue that the M8 is as deployable and more mobile than the MGS, remember that the LAV-III (Mowag Piranha-III) is already in extensive service in the Canadian forces, and domestically produced in Canada, while the Stingray isn't actually produced anywhere. Do you see where that leads us? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Not necessarily the best decision in procurment history, but there is definitely a rationale behind it.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

I thought the Thais were using the Stingray? Not to mention I think the XM8 with all the applique armor wasn't very air transportable, at least not by C-130, and without it it wasn't very armored either.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

M8 has 3 degree of protection. 1st. protect against heavy MG AP rounds.with this configuration it can be air dropped.
2nd. degree protect it against autocannons and 3rd. protect against RPGs and ATGMs. Is is not a problem transport few M8 in one plane and addon armor in other. Armor can be attached on place.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

So you cannot have at the same time an air-transportable and notably-armored track on the ground, right?

I know it would just take, what, 30 minutes with the crew and a 2-ton field crane to get the armour on, but that can be the 30 minutes between life and death in case of a hot airdrop on, say, an occupied airstrip.
Notionally even better than not being able to fit any uparmouring at all, if you ask me.

It all goes with different doctrines anyway, so yes, why not give it a try for a fully light-armored-standoff force?

As for "modular airtransportable" armor or whatever, it boils down to the decades-old C-130 requirement. If countries are willing to put up deployable forces, then where is the long-range, heavy-load, heavy-duty plane for them? I'll have to check the specs on the A400M, and the An-70 and An-74 could also be worth a look.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

If you will deploy Stryker MGS as a Airdrop it will be dead meat much sooner than M8.BTW any wheeled vehicle that is dropped from plane will have serious problems with wheels after drop... If you are dropping a vehicle from Plane, crew is never inside, so it will take time to get into the vehicle... So you are limited to make land with plane and unload vehicles classical way, so then you can have uparmored M8 without problems with much better resistance than Stryker

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Another weakness of the Stryker is the small ammo loadout. How does the M8 compare?

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

I don't understand how wheeled vehicles have problems after a drop. Wheeled vehicles are airdropped all the time, this doesn't make any sense. How many countries with vehicle drop capabilities drop crews in vehicles anyways? I don't see how an XM8 with protection only from machine guns is any less vulnerable than a Stryker either. Do you have any reputable sources to back these complaints up?

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Russians drop BMD's with crews inside...

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

The XM8 will never be an option. Any vehicles produced domestically will always be given the contracts, no matter how inadequate they are on the battlefield. The Cougar and Grizzly are prime examples of this. Too much defense spending abroad=political suicide.
Also I think that the consideration is more for air-transportablity rather than air-dropablity.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Sorry guys, Did you ever tryed drive through nice plowed field after rain in wheeled vehicle? I did. In SKOT APC and we stopped after 15m, and we needed a tracked egineer vehicle to got out... BMP-2s had no such problems... So imagine how long will Stryker MGS survive... you can lower pressure in wheels, but then you will be unable to fire your main gun becouse whole vehicle will be unstable...

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

By getting rid of the Leopards the Canadians have just limited their options about their deployments. With heavy armor and light armor they would be able to tailor their deployments. Now they are just limited to peace keeping/stability operations.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Exactly. By the way Im very suprised how they wanna airdrop Stryker MGSs directly to the road... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

As I said before, show me a situation where the Canadians are going to get into a conventional conflict without major allied participation and I think this would be a concern. Why spend money you don't have to when you know someone with heavy armor (and the ability to actually get it places) is almost assuredly going to come along for the ride? The Canadians are not the Americans. They haven't fought a war by themselves since they were formed as a British colony (to my knowledge, easily accept being wrong on that one), and they definitly haven't been involved in a major land war by themselves post war. I also fail to see this limiting Canadian options as Canada had rarely deployed her existing Leopard C1/C2s in any operation anyhow. The Canadians do not currently have the necessary lift capability to move them as it is. These things sat around and participated in North American exercises. Sounds like a waste of money to me.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

All that you said is true, however it still places a limit on their flexibility. During the Gulf War the French had to beef up their 6th Light Armor unit with AMX 30s. As a military commander, I would rather have equipment and not need it than need equipment and not have it. I wonder how the Canadian tankers feel?

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

They're pissed, but to be perfectly honest, they've had 0 chances to show themselves since Korea. The French present a totally different scenario from the Canadians, even more so within NATO. French NATO forces cannot be places under a command from another nation, nor are they required to participate in NATO operations. Canadian forces participating in NATO operations can be placed under the command of whoever the NATO high command decides, and NATO forces committed to NATO high command can be deployed where ever that command decides.

Canada also doesn't have areas of previous colonial influence and does not deloy itself unilaterally to stabilize situations in places like Cote D Ivoire. They are a North American Army without the ability to move their heavy armor rapidly via air and have declined to deloy it consistantly since Korea. It is a budgetary hindrance in my opinion and has served no operational purpose in nearing 50 years. The Canadians provide a unique example to experiment with an all wheeled forces as I have said before, and the tankers will fume, but at the end of the day they're soldiers and they'll do what they're told.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

FYI, The Canadian Army has also dropped the M-109 in favour of a new towed 155 howitzer. Another serious downgrade in capability IMO. M-109s are already in base museums.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Serious downgrade only in terms of mobility most likely. The M777 definitly isn't any less effective than the M285 155mm howitzer of the late M109 series.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Yes, the loss is only in mobility and protection. It indicates that concern about taking counter-battery fire in future engagements is small. The Canadian Army's unique stratigic position may make these changes logical, however in game terms it lowers the playablity of the Canadian OOB after 2005, IMO.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

What about the M777 on a LAV-III body?

I think BAe was considering something like that some years ago. I don't know how far it went, but there are chances that they dumped the marketing on that one in favor of the new NLOS cannon for the FCS program.

That sort of systems would make sense for a force like what the CF are trying to shape up.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

If war were to break out on the ground in Iran or North Korea and a multinational contingent was needed to address it, it's a fairly sure bet Canada will be asked to participate.

Going with a light, all-wheeled force (as Canada has now) definitely does the ability to function within such an environment.

Such a force composition would relegate Canadian forces to a rear-echelon security role or going on mop-up operations against weak or bypassed enemy units. Without the presence of allied/coalition heavy weapons systems (like tanks and attack helos), even missions like these could be fraught with danger if an enemy counterattack is launched to save those weak/bypassed units.

Canada had an opportunity to send combat troops to Iraq in the first Gulf War. The plan was to have Canadian troops deal with bypassed Iraqi units.

In the end, Canada was unable to participate. It was not operationally ready to do so, because its obsolescent Leopard 1 tanks, M113 and Grizzly wheeled APC's were deemed incapable of doing the job without undue risk. Long-standing resupply and transport problems originating in Canada also prevented Canadian forces from being ready in a timely manner. Finally, the politicians did not like the casualty estimates (an election was pending) and drastically down-scaled Canada's role.

The greatest irony was that the Canadian troops to be deployed to Iraq were stationed in Germany, and were at least nominally trained to deal with a large-scale enemy force (whose general ORBAT and T&OE then was what Iraqi forces were based on).

None of us can predict what the future will bring. What is certain is that Canada's military, in its current state, is only marginally ready for that uncertainty.

Simply saying that Canada will never participate again in a major conflict is a pretty weak excuse to explain away the fact that Canada has the wealth and the potential to do more.

As an aside, it is worth noting that the transition to a wheeled force was driven by three things. 1. The desire to maintain a small army on the cheap; 2. The belief that Canada could continue to get away with letting others do the heavy lifting; 3. The desire of politicians to continue catering to the Canadian public's desire to to cast Canada's military into a constabulary/peacekeeping role, even when the real world showed that peacekeeping was essentially a dead horse.

I'll switch off now since this is turning into a political rant.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

The Belgian army seems to be going the same way, but even worse. It may also be replacing all (or almost all) of its Leopard 1 Tanks with a modified Piranha III with a 90mm(!) turret.
All the heavy tracked APCs will be replaced by Dingo IIs and Piranha IIIs. And they also recently bought the Iveco Panther MLVs.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Maybe war isn´t going to roam in Europe anymore. So this might be a wise choice, money spent on heavy military vehicles in a country like Belgium is better spent on something else. Besides, considering the limited capability of Leo 1, the phasing out of such heavy vehicles of limited use is wise.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Canada is sending their Leopards to Afghanistan to kill the taliban now; also the Dutch are deploying their Jægerkorpset (JGK) commandos to A-Stan to kill the taliban bothering the Dutch base(s) there.

The dutch have also deployed 5~ 155mm SP Howitzers to help support the Canadians in A-Stan.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Has that been confirmed? The last I heard Canadian Ministry of Defense (or whatever the relevant orgnization is actually called) had claimed that those rumors were false, and that the Canadian Leopards were being readied for exercises within Canada.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Linka

Saturday, September 09, 2006

OTTAWA -- Less than three weeks after denying it was sending Leopard tanks to Afghanistan, the Canadian military is set to ship as many as 20 of the heavy tracked armoured vehicles to Kandahar.

Although the tanks have been used once overseas on a peace support mission in Kosovo in the 1990s, this is the first time they will be sent into an actual combat situation.

A warning order was issued earlier this week to the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) in Edmonton to prepare for the deployment. Twenty tanks are being readied for the operation and about 300 personnel will be heading to Afghanistan.

The Leopards will be used for escort duty for Canadian convoys, which have continually come under attack by the Taliban, government sources said. In addition, some soldiers have suggested the presence of tanks would make insurgents think twice about attacking Canadian convoys.

The decision to ratchet up Canada's force in Afghanistan comes as military officers acknowledge they underestimated the resilience of the Taliban. NATO has been asking for more equipment and soldiers from its allies to deal with the increasing threat in southern Afghanistan.

But government sources said the decision behind sending the tanks to Afghanistan is to provide Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Teams more protection rather than to use the armoured vehicles directly in combat against the Taliban.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has said he plans to put more emphasis on the teams, which provide medical and humanitarian help to Afghan civilians. Part of that is increasing the protection for those teams, which use light armored vehicles and armored trucks called G-Wagons.

"The protection levels aren't adequate over there," said one source. Besides convoy escort, the tanks would be used to rush to the aid of light armored vehicles that have been ambushed by the Taliban.

Canada currently has more than 2,000 military personnel in Afghanistan.

It will take at least a month to get the Leopards over to Afghanistan but that deployment could speed up if the U.S. military ships the vehicles using its large transport aircraft. Otherwise the tanks will be sent by ship.

In the late 1990s, the Canadian Forces spent $145 million to upgrade its 114 Leopards with new computers and heat-sensing equipment to improve their fighting capability.

On Aug. 24 the Ottawa Citizen reported military maintenance crews were working overtime to prepare the service's Leopard tanks for deployment and several soldiers told the newspaper the vehicles were headed to Afghanistan. The Canadian Forces, however, said the tanks were destined for an exercise at Canadian Forces Base Wainwright, Alta.

The tank has made a comeback in the army, which had been switching over to an entirely wheeled fleet of armored vehicles.

Army commander Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie has made it clear he wants troops to retain their skills in working with tanks.

The Leopards were in the process of being mothballed or sold off but with the Afghan war heating up army commanders put a halt to that process in May.

Canadian and NATO troops, along with the Afghan army, are currently in battle with an estimated 700 Taliban near Kandahar city.

According to NATO officials, the force taking part in Operation Medusa is closing the circle around the besieged insurgents. There, have, however, been reports that fresh reinforcements of Taliban are moving into the area to fight the Canadians.

Five Canadian soldiers were killed over the Labour Day long weekend during the operation. One died when U.S. warplanes mistakenly opened fire. Four others were killed in battles with the Taliban.

Ottawa Citizen
© CanWest News Service 2006

Copyright © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

I just read an article in this months Jane's International Review regarding the Canadian LAV MGS. While the Canadian government had a requirement for 66 MGSs "after evaluating the performance of the US version (the Stryker) in Iraq, the Canadian Army is concerned that the lightly armoured vehicle may not be the right choice for urban operations against asymmetric forces. It is now looking at retaining the tank in service until 2015."

In the same article General Dynamics Land Systems (makers of the Stryker/LAV) have indicated that the Marine Corps has placed an order for 130 LAV A-2s.

I think using the LAV/Styker for a recon vehicle/APC is one thing, but using it as a surrogate tank is something else. At least this is continued food for thought.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Food for thought, fodder for RPGs.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

The C2 Leopard has been deployed to Afganistan. The Canadian government paid to have them shipped air cargo. It is likely that the striker program will be re-thought based upon recient combat experiences.

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Now that Hizbolla, North Korea, Syria ,Iran...etc... have a lot of Kornet and Metis it doesn't make any difference: neither the C2 nor the Stryker are able to stand against that: it'seems clear to me that the problem should not be considered on an armor basis...

Re: Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.
 

Yup, because the soviets had lot´s of armor and more forces in A´stan. Result was ? And don´t post, that we (the western nations) are better than the soviets. At least we are occupieres for most of the population. Neither in Iraq nor in A´stan the ppl. like western occupation.