Canadian Forces negotiating for purchases of ex German / Swiss Leopard II's

[JasonSkald]

Very interesting, to say the least. Quite a departure from the wheeled light armour philosophy inherent in the LAV's.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/To.../20061031/canada_tanks_061031&showbyline=True

"The asking price for the tanks may be too good to pass up. While a brand new Leopard 2 can cost up to $6 million each, the Canadians may be able to purchase them for as little as $350,000 each."

 

[WaterBoy]

an interesting statement from the article above;

"The tank is the only vehicle in Canada that can forge through 1.5 metres of water without preparation. So if you had a major flood in a city and you wanted to ferry people through water over 6 feet, the tank is probably one of the best things going," Marsh said. "It also has a 20-tonne drawbar pull, so it can push and pull 20 tonnes of debris. It is an incredibly flexible vehicle that could be used when you get into extreme national emergencies and disasters,.."

I can't remember seeing too many M1 Abrams rolling through New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Were or have MBT's ever been used for these purposes in other than a warzone?

Regards,

WaterBoy

 

[old faithful]

i really wish Aust had have done the same....yeah i know about the logistic support that we gain from having the same platform as the yanks on deployment, i just cant resist a great deal on a great product!!

 

[Pursuit Curve]

At long last, Canada will now have a respectable MBT that is at least equal to the M1A1. As for raw firepower..hell yah! bring it on. I wonder what else we could get our hands on...hmmmm maybe some Marders or Gepards (Great mobile fire support.twin 35mm cannons!)

Oh well, better late then never eh! Now for the hard part, how do we ship em to Afghanistan..oh yeah, we are getting C17's!

Anyone out there know whether a C 17 can carry a Leopard 2? If so, one at a time or a pair?

 

[Rish]

The Leopard 2 is about 63 metric tons and the c17 could carry i think one abram so basically about one Leopard 2 with a good amount of space to add extra equipment

 

[Pursuit Curve]

The Leopard 2 is about 63 metric tons and the c17 could carry i think one abram so basically about one Leopard 2 with a good amount of space to add extra equipment

Thanks for that Rish, Has the C 17 been transporting M1a1's to Iraq, or were all those prepositioned in Theatre?

 

[Rish]

Well I'm not sure exactly, but I'm guessing that some of the m1a1's were already there (ie in saudi arabia, kuwait, turkey) and the rest were transported in using c17's. probably took a very long time considering taht they had to take one tank at a time. look at the first gulf war you see that the us built up for months before attacking. the actual building up of forces took longer then the whole war. personally i think that is extremely ineffective. either build bigger aircrafts or smaller tanks

 

[Sea Toby]

They were stationed in Kuwait after the first war. We also had some prepositioned on ships at Diego Garcia for both wars. As I recall the 23rd Mechanized Division had to be shipped from Savannah and the Second Armored Division had to be shipped from Houston for the first war. I saw a train running through Dallas with heavy self propelled artillery from Fort Sill before the first war. I presumed they were shipped from Houston too.

 

[Ths]

I find it a sensible solution as well - in fact Denmark used the opportunity during the period when Germany was reducing their forces due to international agreements: We got rid of the old Centurions and got freshly renovated Leo 1 at rock bottom prices. We got Leopard 2.

The point in my view is:

If there is again a major threat arising it is some years into the future - and we don't know the type of threat.

This brings us back to first principels, as you don't have a threat to write your requirements around.
If there is a war before the next great one, we will fight it with unsuitable weapon; but that is what soldiers have always done.

The important thing is that we can train the coaches on equipment that is reasonably modern.

The upside to the manufacturers is that even though they have to give away their equipment (one way or the other) they will still be supplying spares.
AND spares is very good money.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Good to see some common sense at last in Canada. The "anti-tank" brigade will always exist, but so will the role for a heavy armoured vehicle. Non-tankers only see the "tank on tank" role of tanks. They don't ever consider the need for fortified positions and "other" vehicles to be be fought.

The simple fact is that sometimes the "enemy" whoever that may be, needs to be fought "man on man" in close quarter battle. In our "casualty adverse" Western Armies, there is only one other way to guarantee a minimal amount of casualties and that is by the use of armour, and HEAVY armour at that.

Even systems like "Trophy" are not going to repel multiple RPG style weapons, yet modern tanks like Challenger II and M1A1/2 Abrams HAVE done so, operationally.

Are anti-tank weapons improving? Of course they are. So are armour systems. Unfortunately no-one has yet devised an assured way of withstanding multiple anti-armour strikes, beyond that which is extant within current MBT's.

A Leopard II A4/5/6 purchase would be a fantastic boost for the Canadian Armed forces. I wish, in a way that Australia had chosen that option as well...

 

[beleg]

an interesting statement from the article above;

"The tank is the only vehicle in Canada that can forge through 1.5 metres of water without preparation. So if you had a major flood in a city and you wanted to ferry people through water over 6 feet, the tank is probably one of the best things going," Marsh said. "It also has a 20-tonne drawbar pull, so it can push and pull 20 tonnes of debris. It is an incredibly flexible vehicle that could be used when you get into extreme national emergencies and disasters,.."

I can't remember seeing too many M1 Abrams rolling through New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Were or have MBT's ever been used for these purposes in other than a warzone?

Regards,

WaterBoy

Our ACV-300 IFVs and AAPCs (Based on M-113) have been used in the floods in Edirne last year thanks to their amphibious capabillities. We have tanks too but who would use a tank when you can send an amphibious APCs.

 

[JasonSkald]

an interesting statement from the article above;

"The tank is the only vehicle in Canada that can forge through 1.5 metres of water without preparation. So if you had a major flood in a city and you wanted to ferry people through water over 6 feet, the tank is probably one of the best things going," Marsh said. "It also has a 20-tonne drawbar pull, so it can push and pull 20 tonnes of debris. It is an incredibly flexible vehicle that could be used when you get into extreme national emergencies and disasters,.."

I can't remember seeing too many M1 Abrams rolling through New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Were or have MBT's ever been used for these purposes in other than a warzone?

Regards,

WaterBoy

You have to remember that in peace-loving Canada it helps to emphasize the non-combat nature of combat equipment in order to please the bleeding hearts.

ie) Transport ships and aircraft for humanitarian aid, medium/heavy lift helicopters can do SAR, engineers can build homes and schools in developing nations, etc etc.

 

[icelord]

Our ACV-300 IFVs and AAPCs (Based on M-113) have been used in the floods in Edirne last year thanks to their amphibious capabillities. We have tanks too but who would use a tank when you can send an amphibious APCs.

That and they copped a flogging for carrying rifles into the city cause a certain mayor told the press they were "raping babies"
Could you imagine the result of seeing a M1A2 driving through the city? People would think it was the executioner, and then all hell would break loose.:ar15

 

[Waylander]

At least the recovery vehicle on Leo II chassis was used by our army during floods.

 

[eckherl]

an interesting statement from the article above;

"The tank is the only vehicle in Canada that can forge through 1.5 metres of water without preparation. So if you had a major flood in a city and you wanted to ferry people through water over 6 feet, the tank is probably one of the best things going," Marsh said. "It also has a 20-tonne drawbar pull, so it can push and pull 20 tonnes of debris. It is an incredibly flexible vehicle that could be used when you get into extreme national emergencies and disasters,.."

I can't remember seeing too many M1 Abrams rolling through New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Were or have MBT's ever been used for these purposes in other than a warzone?

Regards,

WaterBoy

Wow! great justification to have better tanks.nfloorl:

 

[icelord]

Wow! great justification to have better tanks.nfloorl:

I think what he meant to say was that these tanks are really really kool and have bigger guns then the last one

 

[eckherl]

I think what he meant to say was that these tanks are really really kool and have bigger guns then the last one

Yea - Replacing the good old reliable Leo 1 has been a little long over due for them, it is good to see that they went to a good tank.

 

[PommeDeGuerre]

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=6239476b-51eb-4880-9553-e5ed8204e7a9&k=74104

Looks like they decided against it.

 

[icelord]

Hmm, see if a female officer had of gone, then been told it was a sale price, this would'nt have been knocked backnfloorl:

 

[contedicavour]

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=6239476b-51eb-4880-9553-e5ed8204e7a9&k=74104

Looks like they decided against it.

That's a shame. Any modern country deeply involved in dangerous overseas missions such as Afghanistan need heavy armour (as Iraq for example has proven) to protect convoys especially in urban environments ...
Having very good Leo2 A4/5 available for 350,000 USD each is an amazing opportunity that shouldn't be wasted.
Or otherwise Canadian troops will always have to rely on US help each time there's some opposition.

cheers