Canada's tanks

[MilEME09]

Unless it plans on carrying 20 ATGMs, it isn't that useful on the assault, the raison d'être of a tank. Armour dies if it stops, and this thing would need to stop a lot to rebomb. Where a vehicle like this might make sense is in a brigade ordivisional recce role as a firepower troop or two per squadron to fix targets until the main body can arrive and destroy the enemy.

gotta remember on the battle field, the roll of a light tank isn't to engage other tanks head on, light tanks are meant to give fire support to the infantry, recce in force, etc, not engage in a Battle of 73 easting direct engagement

 

[foresterab]

Well, the Canadian Army defines an Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) as a vehicle with cross country mobility, armour protection and a weapon system for close combat. We then add new definitions for light, medium and heavy (tank).

The definition does allow for a broad range of vehicles, but I think that the ability to go across a typical field, protect against small arms and shell fragments and a machine gun would be the entry qualifications for a light AFV meant to move troops around in or near contact.

If the point of the article you posted is that the West should have deep stocks of AFVs and the means to produce more then sure. Hard to argue with that. Does this mean we go with economy models? Not sure. With tanks, we've seen in recent times (and less recent times) where smaller numbers of tanks can utterly dominate larger numbers of tanks who were a half-generation behind or lacked in protection and/or firepower. In some cases, things like optics, communications and ergonomics made a big difference (France 1940, Iraq 1991). Supporting arms can try to make this difference up, but going cheap can be a false economy. Having said that, keeping things to the essential to allow for greater production is a thing. Determining that is the key.

For instance, is an MRS with a top-line fire control computer a luxury or a requirement for a tank? I think its a requirement. Is Thermal a luxury or a requirement? I think its a requirement.

Protection is probably an area where there will lots of debate. Protection against which threats and to what degree.

Anyhoo.

Civilian side looking in but this is one area I wonder about two streams of AFV's....and what Canada can produce

1) LAV6. And I'm only choosing these as they are produced in Canada. Increase production so that you have not just Latvia fully stocked with spares but the entire Regular Force + Spares for expansion. 2 Divisions worth (1 Reg and 1 Reserve) is the rough thinking. If the current fleet is 976 total (616 currently + 360 ordered according to Wikipedia) doubling the order might be a starting point. Aware it's not just numbers but also the split on different sub-variants I don't fully understand but it's a start.

2) Assuming there is enough AFV's to allow the Reserve Force to man the 2nd Division there is then the lower maintenance/rear echelon type roles which raise a different discussion. I think of the CAF Army Reserves and ponder the value of the use of something like a Roshel Senator - based upon a civilian chassis that can be serviced at the local Ford dealership - as the daily vehicle. 18,500 Reservists at 4/vehicle gives an initial order of 4,625 trucks. Spread it out over time and you've got a valid rear echelon semi-protected vehicle that avoids burning out your Tier 1 war fleet. If the Ukraine has found a use for over 1,000 of these there might be something there.

3) This is less of a protection fleet as described but I would also look heavily at a major investment into Haglgund Bv 206/ BvS 10 carriers for Artic Operations. Used around the world the CAF apparently has 78 of them. I've seen almost that many deployed on a single wildfire in Canada from civilian sources. But they are excellent for use in artic/northern swampland where larger units may not operate as easily and would be a good pool to stage at key locations for deployment. For context the Norwegian Army has 1,000 and the Swedish Army 4,500 vehicles (numbers taken from Wikipedia). Some of these might be the BvS 10 model which has more protection than the base model. But again some serious numbers would be needed and may be available for Canadian production options. I think of 5,000 men at 4/vehicle gives 1,200 as a starting point.

Armour and artillery I still maintain should be bought "off the shelf" from NATO partners. Supplies for the equipment (munitions etc.) should be Canadian produced.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Civilian side looking in but this is one area I wonder about two streams of AFV's....and what Canada can produce

1) LAV6. And I'm only choosing these as they are produced in Canada. Increase production so that you have not just Latvia fully stocked with spares but the entire Regular Force + Spares for expansion. 2 Divisions worth (1 Reg and 1 Reserve) is the rough thinking. If the current fleet is 976 total (616 currently + 360 ordered according to Wikipedia) doubling the order might be a starting point. Aware it's not just numbers but also the split on different sub-variants I don't fully understand but it's a start.

2) Assuming there is enough AFV's to allow the Reserve Force to man the 2nd Division there is then the lower maintenance/rear echelon type roles which raise a different discussion. I think of the CAF Army Reserves and ponder the value of the use of something like a Roshel Senator - based upon a civilian chassis that can be serviced at the local Ford dealership - as the daily vehicle. 18,500 Reservists at 4/vehicle gives an initial order of 4,625 trucks. Spread it out over time and you've got a valid rear echelon semi-protected vehicle that avoids burning out your Tier 1 war fleet. If the Ukraine has found a use for over 1,000 of these there might be something there.

3) This is less of a protection fleet as described but I would also look heavily at a major investment into Haglgund Bv 206/ BvS 10 carriers for Artic Operations. Used around the world the CAF apparently has 78 of them. I've seen almost that many deployed on a single wildfire in Canada from civilian sources. But they are excellent for use in artic/northern swampland where larger units may not operate as easily and would be a good pool to stage at key locations for deployment. For context the Norwegian Army has 1,000 and the Swedish Army 4,500 vehicles (numbers taken from Wikipedia). Some of these might be the BvS 10 model which has more protection than the base model. But again some serious numbers would be needed and may be available for Canadian production options. I think of 5,000 men at 4/vehicle gives 1,200 as a starting point.

Armour and artillery I still maintain should be bought "off the shelf" from NATO partners. Supplies for the equipment (munitions etc.) should be Canadian produced.

We do have several sources of AFV. Our Leopards, for instance, were built in Germany. The General Dynamics Land Systems facility in London is quite impressive and produces a variety of AFVs. It is an important national asset. We have AFVs from other manufacturers and we also have soft-skinned vehicles from a number of sources.

We have the DAME (Domestic Arctic Mobility Enhancement) project on the books. I don't think it has been awarded yet, but we will acquire vehicles for use in the arctic.

 

[GR66]

We do have several sources of AFV. Our Leopards, for instance, were built in Germany. The General Dynamics Land Systems facility in London is quite impressive and produces a variety of AFVs. It is an important national asset. We have AFVs from other manufacturers and we also have soft-skinned vehicles from a number of sources.

We have the DAME (Domestic Arctic Mobility Enhancement) project on the books. I don't think it has been awarded yet, but we will acquire vehicles for use in the arctic.

If we were willing to take some risk we could have GDLS build us the Abrams-X (or something close to the prototype using off-the-shelf components where possible to reduce the development risk) and while they are ramping up production to supply our Armoured Regiments they could work on developing the AEV, ARV and Bridge-layer variants. Next could be matching the Abrams-X chassis with a MLRS launcher and a 155mm L-52 turret. Finally they could use the same hull for a HAPC variant to replace our LAVs.

There would be enough numbers there to keep the plant in production for a good many years and there could be the potential for export customers as well. By the time they are done with all those orders we'd be ready to start ordering replacements (in addition to ongoing OEM maintenance contracts).

 

[PrairieFella]

gotta remember on the battle field, the roll of a light tank isn't to engage other tanks head on, light tanks are meant to give fire support to the infantry, recce in force, etc, not engage in a Battle of 73 easting direct engagement

I agree, I just mean that in the Canadian context we can ill afford tanks like these as we can hardly run proper tanks.

 

[quadrapiper]

Meanwhile the South Koreans just unveiled a new light tank design, 105mm main gun, ATGM, APS, and STANAG level 4 armor, all in a just over 30t package.

That looks either quite tall or quite narrow: is it a Peninsula-specific design driven by a need to work around local limitations, like a plethora of narrow roads through otherwise impassable terrain (urban or rural) and bridges where even 30t might be pushing it?

 

[KevinB]

Italy itching to drop $24 billion on Lynx, Panther tanks, with amore

Italy's defense chief has urged contractors Rheinmetall and Leonardo to make haste in building and delivering hundreds of vehicles.

www.defensenews.com