Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.

thatguy96 · #1 June 13th, 2006, 06:35 PM

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?

Zipuli · #2 June 15th, 2006, 02:11 AM

Russians drop BMD's with crews inside...

Cameronius · #3 June 15th, 2006, 03:05 AM

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.

JaM · #4 June 15th, 2006, 08:06 AM

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...

Randy · #5 June 18th, 2006, 04:26 AM

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.

JaM · #6 June 18th, 2006, 11:23 AM

Exactly. By the way Im very suprised how they wanna airdrop Stryker MGSs directly to the road...

thatguy96 · #7 June 18th, 2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Randy said:
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.

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.

Randy · #8 June 18th, 2006, 01:38 PM

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?

Cameronius · #9 June 20th, 2006, 05:01 PM

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.

thatguy96 · #10 June 20th, 2006, 05:20 PM

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.