[dog77_1999]

I do wonder if the tank purchase was wise. I am one of those people who believes the tank's role has been replaced with other technologies.

On, the open battlefield, I don't see how useful it could be against rocket batteries or artillary since they will still have more range.

Helicopters and aircraft are another thing. They can completly rip up tanks with no risk to themselves.

In an urban situation, personal rockets launchers(like the TOW) can cause severe damage. Multiple attacks and you have problems.

They weigh and incredible amount. You could transport alot of other stuff on cargo planes.

I would rather see a beefer APC or its role replaced with ground support aircraft. I just don't see the use these Lepards are going to be.

[CanadianTrucker]

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

I do wonder if the tank purchase was wise. I am one of those people who believes the tank's role has been replaced with other technologies.

On, the open battlefield, I don't see how useful it could be against rocket batteries or artillary since they will still have more range.

Helicopters and aircraft are another thing. They can completly rip up tanks with no risk to themselves.

In an urban situation, personal rockets launchers(like the TOW) can cause severe damage. Multiple attacks and you have problems.

They weigh and incredible amount. You could transport alot of other stuff on cargo planes.

I would rather see a beefer APC or its role replaced with ground support aircraft. I just don't see the use these Lepards are going to be.

Just to correct you on a few issues.
1-Tanks vs Artillery, Artillery is only truly effective on a stationary target. Because of the distance the round has to travel in the air, with the time of flight it's very very hard to try and calculate where a target will be while moving in order to get artillery rounds onto it. Ditto for rocket batteries.

2-Helo's and Aircraft vs tanks, yep, tank gonna lose. But then again infantry vs. helo or aircraft and us groundpounders are not gonna win that coin toss either, doesn't mean we should get rid of the infantry.

3-In an urban situation tanks are actually quite effective, as long as they have proper infantry support. A tank is a force multiplier, the amount of firepower and protection it brings to the battlefield is unprecedented when compared with other vehicles. The marines in Fallujah learned this when their tanks were taking multiple (sometimes up to 15 in one case) RPG rounds and were still staying in the fight. No tank in the world however can stand up to a TOW or JAVELIN, as those weapon systems are designed to penetrate any armour existing right now. However RPG's which our current enemies around the world use, can be stopped.

4-LAV's aren't light either, they weight 13+ tons. Does that mean we should leave them at home in favour of going back to using Iltis jeeps which are only about 2,500lbs?

5-LAV III is about the best APC you can get these days and it's use has been proven time and again in Afghanistan. Doesn't mean we can't improve it, but we do have some awesome equipment. The tank is there as something that can bring that extra punch when required. It's shock and awe against the Taliban cannot be underestimated. They call the LAV III the dragon that sh*ts Canadians, so what would they call the Leo, the super dragon?

Anyway, my argument is that tanks are not a technology relegated to the past. They do have a place on the modern battlefield and that shouldn't be underestimated.

Also, that article was flawed and constantly used incorrect information. We're not borrowing 20 used tanks and buying 100 new. We're leasing 20 brand new Leo 2A6's and buying 100 used Leo 2A4's. As well the article is clearly biased when it states we simply sent our existing fleet of Leopard C2 tanks over as a ploy to prove we needed new ones. They were sent there to increase our firepower. And the argument about how we said we needed tanks everytime a Canadian was killed, but we're still driving in LAV's. Ofcourse we are, you want the infantry soldiers to sit on the tops of the tanks and use them as shuttles or something? And the amount of tanks we were going to purchase was never just 20, it was always going to be at least 100. Our current fleet is 30 years old, we were going to buy new ones in the early 90's but that was scrapped along with the Sea King replacement project. I have difficulty putting 100% faith in such a biased article, that clearly comes from a biased anti-military site as well.

-A soldiers point of view

[Tricks]

CanadianTrucker CanadianTrucker:

I have difficulty putting 100% faith in such a biased article, that clearly comes from a biased anti-military site as well.

-A soldiers point of view

Streaker posted something with an anti-military feel? NO WAY!?


Welcome to the forum Trucker, seem like a smart guy.

[CanadianTrucker]

Appearances can be deceiving!

[ridenrain]

Tricks Tricks:

CanadianTrucker CanadianTrucker:

I have difficulty putting 100% faith in such a biased article, that clearly comes from a biased anti-military site as well.

-A soldiers point of view

Streaker posted something with an anti-military feel? NO WAY!?


Welcome to the forum Trucker, seem like a smart guy.

$1:

HarperIndex.ca is an online information service dedicated to analyzing the background and the persuasion tactics of Canada's Conservative minority government. It also offers responses in the name of public values, common good, equality and openness.

I'm suprised that you bothered to read it. Who would have guessed that surenderboy would have posted such shite and called it ice cream.

CanadianTrucker : Nice primer on why the tank is still around these days.

[Tricks]

CanadianTrucker CanadianTrucker:

Appearances can be deceiving!

Haha, true that. Welcome none the less. Can never hurt to have another Soldier on the board

[Tricks]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Tricks Tricks:

CanadianTrucker CanadianTrucker:

I have difficulty putting 100% faith in such a biased article, that clearly comes from a biased anti-military site as well.

-A soldiers point of view

Streaker posted something with an anti-military feel? NO WAY!?


Welcome to the forum Trucker, seem like a smart guy.

$1:

HarperIndex.ca is an online information service dedicated to analyzing the background and the persuasion tactics of Canada's Conservative minority government. It also offers responses in the name of public values, common good, equality and openness.

I'm suprised that you bothered to read it. Who would have guessed that surenderboy would have posted such shite and called it ice cream.

Good point.

[tritium]

I think Canada should quadruple it's military might.

The tanks are a great start.

The United States commissions Lockheed-Martin and Boeing to build fighter jets.

Bombardier a strong Canadian plan manufacturer could do the same for Canada's military.

We built the Avro, why can't we do it again.

Harper has plans for 1 base in the North, I would personally like to see 3 or 4 deep water ports and military bases on our Northern Shores.

[Numure]

Tanks are so usefull as a purshase for a military that has a straped budget. More LAV's could of been a better expense. Tanks arnt useful in Afghanistan. If they arnt useful there, where the hell do they plan to use them?

Tanks are something of past.

[Tricks]

Numure Numure:

Tanks are so usefull as a purshase for a military that has a straped budget. More LAV's could of been a better expense. Tanks arnt useful in Afghanistan. If they arnt useful there, where the hell do they plan to use them?

Tanks are something of past.

Wasn't aware you are an expert on the combat situations in Afghanistan. Care to explain why they aren't useful?

[sasquatch2]

For the last 50 years I have had to listen to this crap about how the tank is now obsolete.

50 years back the same self appointed experts announced that manned aircraft were obsolete. Both Tories and LIBRANOs accepted this and then had to buy aircraft from the US who were foolishly still building and deploying them.

The "six-day War" was heralded as the swan-song of the tank----meanwhile not that much later the NVA stormed Saigon with tanks-----the PRC engaged in a month punishing North vietnam using tanks on NVA tanks. Both NATO and the WARSAW PACT continued to upgrade and design newer and better tanks.

Desert Storm and Gulf II both involved tank extensively.....

And now these armchair pacifists express their opinions on matters military.

Canadian Trucker

$1:

Helo's and Aircraft vs tanks, yep, tank gonna lose. But then again infantry vs. helo or aircraft and us groundpounders are not gonna win that coin toss either,

Even fairly unsophistocated hostiles are now capable of giving both fast movers(jet fighter-bombers) and attack helos a bloody nose....thanks to stringers, strellas etc.

European attack helos have their sight mounted above the rotor hub to improve their survivability by adopting a "hull down" ambush position behind a hill or structure.

I still find it amusing when i read or hear the anti-nuke twits sounding off about how potent nukes are. During the ABLE/BAKER H-bomb tests the ex-Kriegsmarine heavy cruiser "PRINZ EUGEN" was anchored close to ground zero. It was only damaged superficially and had to been towed to deep water and sunk by naval gunfire (it was just a bit radioactive although it's interior was not).

[dog77_1999]

Just to correct you on a few issues.
1-Tanks vs Artillery, Artillery is only truly effective on a stationary target. Because of the distance the round has to travel in the air, with the time of flight it's very very hard to try and calculate where a target will be while moving in order to get artillery rounds onto it. Ditto for rocket batteries.

From what I gather the targeting systems on both pieces are essentially the same. An artillary can be guided by lasers to the target. The same is true for rocket or missile systems.

2-Helo's and Aircraft vs tanks, yep, tank gonna lose. But then again infantry vs. helo or aircraft and us groundpounders are not gonna win that coin toss either, doesn't mean we should get rid of the infantry.

Infantry can hide alot better than a tank can. A good position with cover can launch an RPG and disable a helicopter. I'll give you the aircraft arguement though, but infantry play a vital role in securing structures(though a tank could secure the structure by running over it)

3-In an urban situation tanks are actually quite effective, as long as they have proper infantry support. A tank is a force multiplier, the amount of firepower and protection it brings to the battlefield is unprecedented when compared with other vehicles. The marines in Fallujah learned this when their tanks were taking multiple (sometimes up to 15 in one case) RPG rounds and were still staying in the fight. No tank in the world however can stand up to a TOW or JAVELIN, as those weapon systems are designed to penetrate any armour existing right now. However RPG's which our current enemies around the world use, can be stopped.

Very good point. Perhaps I was thinking alittle ahead because I was considering if the Leos had to fight against more advance launchers. I still think this should be a case because Canada may not always be fighting insurgents or terrorists.

4-LAV's aren't light either, they weight 13+ tons. Does that mean we should leave them at home in favour of going back to using Iltis jeeps which are only about 2,500lbs?

Yes, but you can carry 3 of them and only 1 Leopard. If they are able to do the job, then why wouldn't we go with this?

5-LAV III is about the best APC you can get these days and it's use has been proven time and again in Afghanistan. Doesn't mean we can't improve it, but we do have some awesome equipment. The tank is there as something that can bring that extra punch when required. It's shock and awe against the Taliban cannot be underestimated. They call the LAV III the dragon that sh*ts Canadians, so what would they call the Leo, the super dragon?

Again, there are other things which could bring in that extra punch. Though I will say nothing will ever replace the pyscological fear which a tank brings (maybe mechs ).

With that being said, I have never been in combat, so despite my responses, I'll trust a soldiers word over my opinion anyday. If you guys want the tanks, then you should get tanks.

[ridenrain]

Tanks are as dead as the infantry was suposed to be after WW1, but it's still the poor bloody infantry, supported by the poor bloody armor.

tritium: Can we please let the arrow finally die?
If we're dedicated to getting to that cutting edge, I'd rather we start with combat UAV's.

[SprCForr]

He hasn't mentioned the large calibre direct fire capability. That's an advantage often overlooked by most people.

[sasquatch2]

LAVIII are potent and the US has adopted them as the Stryker.....I notice that they have modified them with very extensive standoff burster bars to prematurely detonate RPGs.

Without the burster bars the Stryker would suffer the same fate as our M113s and AMTRAKs did in NAM. Every notice the grunts riding on top the M113's like mexican buses.

The lefties gleefully point to the Isreali tank losses in the recent Lebanon scrap with Hezbollah. They cite the increased potency of the advanced RPGs but overlook that Hezbollah was defending from prepared concrete positions resembling the ATLANTIC WALL and that the Isrealis despite this gained the Litani river anyhoo.