Canadians to get Leopard 2s?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Sprayber



Mention the War of 1812 and see what you get.

War of 1812? What?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Seems like a waste of money to me, and you guys don't have a ton to throw around like we do...

Since your budget is full of red ink and we are having surpluses year over year, I think we can manage. I thought you folks would have been happy to see us beefing up our forces

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't care one way or the other. Just doesn't seem very useful given Canada's place in the world.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

For things like fighting in Afghanistan?

What role do Canadian tanks perform in Afghanistan that couldn't be performed by a cheaper, wheeled armored vehicle?

Apparently the tanks heavier armour is much more effective against the roadside and suicide bombers--- plus the tanks could crush through the mud walls the Taliban constructed much more easily

Add in immediate and accurate fire support and I understand the tanks were a hit with our troops

[Drake Tungsten]

The Strykers in Iraq have performed pretty well against IEDs; I don't see why a LAV III would be any more vulnerable. They also provide "immediate and accurate fire support", just like a tank. Seems like the only advantage the tank has is improved ability to break through mud walls. Is that really worth the extra money and logistical hassle?

[GePap]

Canada is part of NATO and has a tradition of sending forces over to figh in the major wars of the last century. It makes sense then for them to have a force capable of providing support to its allies in any significant ground battle, and modern armor is crucial for such a mission.

Modern Armor is not particulalrly worthwhile for a place like afghanistan, not because they are "overkill", but because they are too confined by the terrain. On the other hand, if for example, Canada had decided to be part of the "coolition of the willing" and had decided to send troops for the initial invasion of Iraq, it would certainly be more worthwhile for those forces to have been heavily mechanized and armored forces, not just light infantry.

[Patroklos]

Correct.

It would be foolish for Canada to tailor its forces to one specific form or warfare. And lets not forget that the first step in the force continuum is PRESENCE, if you look like a hard target then the enemy might just go look for an easier one. Heavy armor still has its place in conflicts like Afghanistan.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The Strykers in Iraq have performed pretty well against IEDs; I don't see why a LAV III would be any more vulnerable. They also provide "immediate and accurate fire support", just like a tank. Seems like the only advantage the tank has is improved ability to break through mud walls. Is that really worth the extra money and logistical hassle?

hmmm

While the Stryker has its supporters, there are many inside and outside the military who say the vehicle has no place on the battlefield.

Victor O'Reilly, a defence consultant who this year wrote an extensive study on the Stryker, said the vehicle is vulnerable to rocket propelled grenades (RPG).

"The weapon of choice of most terrorists and, frankly, probably the commonest weapon in the Third World today is the RPG. And the Stryker is just not RPG resistant. An RPG will go right through it," he said.

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=15109

Is this guy wrong??

[Patroklos]

Somewhat. Not all RPGs are the same. Not all are armor peircing more importantly.

But this is the same critisism that they made of the Humvee and it is just as ridiculous. The humvee was nothing more than a transport vehicle on the model of the WWII jeep. Now obviously they made some effort to make it better with a little armor and weapons upgrades, but that is about it. It wasn't designed or supposed to repel RPGs.

Same with the Stryker. It isn't a tank nore was it designed to be, so why does peole get all up in arms when it doesn't have the capabilites of a tank. What the Stryker does do is give you speed, mobility, and versitility.

[Dinner]

The regular aluminium armor of the Stryker would be opened up like a tin can by an RPG. The Army has reacted by putting lots of steal reactive armor and RPG wires on the Stryker (basically it's similiar to really strong chicken wire designed to set off the RPG before it actually hits the vehicle) so that it is better armored.

The big problem is with this extra armor the Stryker is no longer the light fast personnel carrier it was claimed to be. In fact it's just over priced junk.

[Kuciwalker]

Hm, how to judge.

On one hand, Oerdin is an army guy and Patty is navy.

OTOH, Oerdin is crazy.

But then, consider that Oerdin was a science major and Patty is one of those liberal artsy flakes.

Damn. Decisions decisions.

[Dinner]

Kuci makes his typical post.

[Patroklos]

Hm, how to judge.

On one hand, Oerdin is an army guy and Patty is navy.

OTOH, Oerdin is crazy.

But then, consider that Oerdin was a science major and Patty is one of those liberal artsy flakes.

Damn. Decisions decisions.

In any case, I used to not like the Stryker because initially they wanted to replace the heavy vehicles, ie the Abrahms, with Stykers. Thats not what happened.

My resistance continued until my old school roommate, an Army Captain in a Styker battalion, came back from both of his Iraq tours singing their praises. It came mostly because of weapons package not the armor. A 120 millimeter cannon is nice but 40mm grenades and .50 cals are more useful in the environment they are in. They use alot less fuel as well.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

For things like fighting in Afghanistan?

What role do Canadian tanks perform in Afghanistan that couldn't be performed by a cheaper, wheeled armored vehicle?

Wheeled vehicles cannot roll through the marijuana forests that the Taliban hides in.


(I'm not joking)

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The regular aluminium armor of the Stryker would be opened up like a tin can by an RPG. The Army has reacted by putting lots of steal reactive armor and RPG wires on the Stryker (basically it's similiar to really strong chicken wire designed to set off the RPG before it actually hits the vehicle) so that it is better armored.

The big problem is with this extra armor the Stryker is no longer the light fast personnel carrier it was claimed to be. In fact it's just over priced junk.

You know, they could have just bought some LAV IIIs, but the army hates copying the Marines. Would have been cheaper, and the performance would have been the same.

Instead "ZOMG NETCENTRIC APC KEKEKEKEKE"