Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.

[Randy]

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]

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

[thatguy96]

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]

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?

[thatguy96]

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.

[Cameronius]

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]

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.

[Cameronius]

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.

[PlasmaKrab]

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.

[1Hussar]

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.