[ridenrain]

SprCForr SprCForr:

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

How do you overlook 120mm of lip smacking, fin stablized goodness.

[sasquatch2]

Winnipegger

$1:

We need APCs such as the LAV III, not tanks. As the article states, everytime a soldier died from an IED there was a call to buy tanks, but tanks can't carry infantry so they're useless to protect infantry from IEDs.

We have some old Leopard 1 tanks. From the time we purchased them, they were never used. If we purchase a weapon system that can't be used in Afghanistan, why do you think they'll ever be relevant? If tanks are so great, why don't we send our old Leopard 1 tanks?

I say we need to send our Griffin helicopters, use the borrowed Leopard II tanks, and send our old Leopard 1 tanks. If the old tanks can't be used in Afghanistan, get rid of them.

Translation:

The word has come down from the LIBRANO Mount Sinai and anyone who disagrees is an ignorant, uneducated, anti-social poopyhead. .

[bootlegga]

CanadianTrucker CanadianTrucker:

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.

Actually, new tanks were kiboshed by Mulroney (along with 6 frigates, nuke subs, and a Class 8 icebreaker). His White Paper of 1987 or 88 called for replacements for the C2s.

[CanadianTrucker]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

We need APCs such as the LAV III, not tanks. As the article states, everytime a soldier died from an IED there was a call to buy tanks, but tanks can't carry infantry so they're useless to protect infantry from IEDs.

We have some old Leopard 1 tanks. From the time we purchased them, they were never used. If we purchase a weapon system that can't be used in Afghanistan, why do you think they'll ever be relevant? If tanks are so great, why don't we send our old Leopard 1 tanks?

I say we need to send our Griffin helicopters, use the borrowed Leopard II tanks, and send our old Leopard 1 tanks. If the old tanks can't be used in Afghanistan, get rid of them.

Soldiers have died in LAV's too, they're a great piece of kit but not infallable. The tanks are supposed to work hand in hand with the infantry. A 105mm HESH round hitting a mud hut with 2 foot thick walls is gonna do a hell of a lot more than a 25mm round. The tank exists to provide combat support, remember what I said, force multiplier.

We did send the Leo 1's over, they're still there in fact, but they don't have an A/C system so our tankers were burning up in there. Which leads me as I flow into my next point to think that you need to research a little more.

We can't send our Griffon's, they're ineffective in the high elevations of Afghanistan. In Canada they are limited in the amount of soldiers with kit they can carry, in Afghanistan that number would be cut in half. Oh and at risk of repeating myself, the Leo 1's are there, were used, and are still being used.

[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

How do you overlook 120mm of lip smacking, fin stablized goodness.

APFSDS (Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot) rounds are useless against our current batch of enemies (the Taliban and Al Qeada) mainly because they don't have tanks. I believe the preferred ammunition in Afghanistan is the HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) round, used to knock down walls.

[CanadianTrucker]

bootlegga bootlegga:

CanadianTrucker CanadianTrucker:

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.

Actually, new tanks were kiboshed by Mulroney (along with 6 frigates, nuke subs, and a Class 8 icebreaker). His White Paper of 1987 or 88 called for replacements for the C2s.

Dang nabbit!!! I was on a roll and you pointed out the one flaw in my argument. HOW DARE YOU!!! *gives evil munkey stare* Yes, you're correct, Mulroney cancelled the tanks under mounting pressure and a quickly increasing deficit. Not to mention he was calling for a replacement of 400 tanks, which even in that time was kind of over kill. Fortunately we did get the frigates, still need the subs, and 2 icebreakers... armed, along with arming the Coast Guard, but I'll leave that can of worms for another day.

[ridenrain]

bootlegga bootlegga:

ridenrain ridenrain:

How do you overlook 120mm of lip smacking, fin stablized goodness.

APFSDS (Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot) rounds are useless against our current batch of enemies (the Taliban and Al Qeada) mainly because they don't have tanks. I believe the preferred ammunition in Afghanistan is the HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) round, used to knock down walls.

You could probably guess that wasn't a serious comment by the lip smacking part..

[Joe_Stalin]

Damn Harper's government. Thinking of the troops again. Weren't those tinny French made buckets good enough? They were light enough not to trip the mines I think?

That 1.3 billion could be better spent with that other billion the Liberals gave Russia for nothing. I guess it was called carbon credits.

[Winnipegger]

The continuing excuse for tanks has been to protect solders driving on Afghan roads. But tanks can't carry soldiers, they're useless for that job. A tank is a big cannon on tracks, there's no room for infantry; that may seem obvious but I'm amazed at how many people don't understand that. Tanks are used to attack fortified positions, you don't need a tank to attack a mud hut.

The Leopard II tanks we borrowed don't have A/C either.

[CanadianTrucker]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

The continuing excuse for tanks has been to protect solders driving on Afghan roads. But tanks can't carry soldiers, they're useless for that job. A tank is a big cannon on tracks, there's no room for infantry; that may seem obvious but I'm amazed at how many people don't understand that. Tanks are used to attack fortified positions, you don't need a tank to attack a mud hut.

The Leopard II tanks we borrowed don't have A/C either.

I know I'm definitely not making the reason we need tanks is to protect soldiers. However, they do. Not in the troop carrying capacity, but the firepower they bring to the battlefield does assist in the protection of soldiers.

No, you don't need a tank to attack a mud hut, but it damn sure helps to have one. I don't think a lot of the Canadian public understand just how thick these grape huts' walls are at times. They can take an absolute sh*t kicking and remain standing. Some of my NCO's have said a direct bomb strike from a plane only did partial damage and at least half of the hut was left standing and the Taliban inside could keep firing.

And the Leo II tanks do have A/C, that's one of the reasons we're getting them so our zipperhead buddies can fight in the cool.

[Scape]

Not to mention the turbines create far less heat than the leo I's we have now.

As a former ground pounder I can attest to the physiological advantage it is to have these metal behemoths on your side and in a guerrilla war it is 99.999% physiological. That aside we are not fighting the soviet hordes here and I note that some had concerns that the tank is not that great of a platform vs. fast air or gunships. Newsflash, the Taliban don't have them. Also, it should also be pointed out that the Leo is a tracked platform that has better mobility over obstacles then its wheeled counterparts. The tank, although can fill the role of support, is really a primary component and has the ability to take and hold objectives making the task of securing an area that much easier. The tank is not the be all end all holy grail here but it makes the all important difference that can mean success or failure. Besides is there any sweeter sound of the rumble of the 12-cylinder diesel?

[Regina]

Great post Scape.

[sasquatch2]

Winnipegger

$1:

Tanks are used to attack fortified positions, you don't need a tank to attack a mud hut.

Well mud/adobe walls are really resiliant.....

$1:

"Using a steamroller to crack walnuts may sound excessive.....
But if a steamroller is handy and you don't care about the walnuts...
It's a great way to crack walnuts."

Lord Louis Mountbatten