Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.

[Sewter]

Hello Warriors,

I have recently read something curious and thought to share. It concerns an interesting direction of tactics for the Canadian Army.

"Today the Canadian Armed Forces Leopard 1 fleet consists of 114 Leopard C1 MBTs, six AVLBs, eight ARVs and nine Badger AEVs. Subsequently, the whole fleet of Leopard C1 MBTs was fitted with the more recent Leopard 1A5 turret and the vehicle was designated Leopard C2.

The Leopard C2 will now be replaced by the 105 mm Mobile Gun System (MGS) variant of the Stryker (8 × 8) vehicle now in service with the US Army. It is expected that a total of 66 MGSs will be ordered to replace the current fleet of 114 Leopard C2 MBTs."

The quote is from an article on Janes Armor and Artillery (website). This seems to bring up the seemingly ageless (modern) debate over heavy tracked armor versus the lighter wheeled armor. This may have more to do with Canada's role in NATO 'peacekeeping', and the mobility of heavy firepower to remote locations IE: Afghanistan. There is a low threat of any invasion into Canada, I would imagine as well.

[JaM]

Doing this, will be the most stupid thing ever. Stryker MGS is the worst support gun vehicle ever. They will replace Leopard C2, tank with quite decent armor, capable of firing on the move with good cross-country ability, with vehicle with weak armor,capable moving only on good roads,(any heavier rain or artylery craters will block it),uncapable of firing on the move. Any resistance armed with even old RPG-7 will make quick end with it.( you cant add grill armor, becouse you will block a gun...) Much better alternative will be to buy XM8 Thunderbolt than this crap.

[thatguy96]

I'm going to restate my opinion looking at the matter from a larger point of view that most Canadian nationalists and tank-hungry armor traditionalists will.

Firstly, and most importantly, when if ever has Canada as an entity fought a conflict without being part of a large force? Whether their units operate independantly or not, Canada does not have a history of starting conflicts which is must fight itself.

Secondly, the current Canadian heavy transport structure does not have the capability to transport any of the Current Leopard C1/C2 fleet with any rapidity to any hotspot destination in the world.

Why not then, should the Canadian Army realize the truth of its predicament. It can either placate the staunch armor traditionalists and maintain tanks it will likely never have any real use for and that it cannot currently readily contribute to any of its deployments worldwide anyone, or it can use its unique situaiton to experiment with new types of mechanized/motorized warfare. It has the ability given its alliances and usual international obligations to experiment with a non-tank armored force in what is essentially a consequence free enviornment.

Why shouldn't Canadians toss their tank force which is costly and currently serves no purpose in their international deployment? While the Stryker MGS might not be a good replacement based on its merits as a vehicle, why shouldn't an idea be played upon by the Canadians? I say it is impossible to find a realistic scenario where Canadians would actually find need for a heavy armored force that couldn't be provided by a slew of allied forces.

[JaM]

M8 AGS is much more transportable than Stryker MGS and much better armored and mobile.

[PlasmaKrab]

JaM said:
M8 AGS is much more transportable than Stryker MGS and much better armored and mobile.

The point is that the LAV-III MGS is much more transportable and mobile than the old Leos.
OK, that's strategic mobility we are talking about here. Surely a full-fledged tank will behave better on rugged terrain once deployed, but as Mark said, you have to delpoy it first.
Canada hasn't and could barely afford the transport plane fleet to deploy 30-ton tanks.
Now that the Germany deployment is irrelevant, all Canadian forces have to be reformatted to more deployable standards.

Besides, because I know you could argue that the M8 is as deployable and more mobile than the MGS, remember that the LAV-III (Mowag Piranha-III) is already in extensive service in the Canadian forces, and domestically produced in Canada, while the Stingray isn't actually produced anywhere. Do you see where that leads us?

Not necessarily the best decision in procurment history, but there is definitely a rationale behind it.

[thatguy96]

I thought the Thais were using the Stingray? Not to mention I think the XM8 with all the applique armor wasn't very air transportable, at least not by C-130, and without it it wasn't very armored either.

[JaM]

M8 has 3 degree of protection. 1st. protect against heavy MG AP rounds.with this configuration it can be air dropped.
2nd. degree protect it against autocannons and 3rd. protect against RPGs and ATGMs. Is is not a problem transport few M8 in one plane and addon armor in other. Armor can be attached on place.

[PlasmaKrab]

So you cannot have at the same time an air-transportable and notably-armored track on the ground, right?

I know it would just take, what, 30 minutes with the crew and a 2-ton field crane to get the armour on, but that can be the 30 minutes between life and death in case of a hot airdrop on, say, an occupied airstrip.
Notionally even better than not being able to fit any uparmouring at all, if you ask me.

It all goes with different doctrines anyway, so yes, why not give it a try for a fully light-armored-standoff force?

As for "modular airtransportable" armor or whatever, it boils down to the decades-old C-130 requirement. If countries are willing to put up deployable forces, then where is the long-range, heavy-load, heavy-duty plane for them? I'll have to check the specs on the A400M, and the An-70 and An-74 could also be worth a look.

[JaM]

If you will deploy Stryker MGS as a Airdrop it will be dead meat much sooner than M8.BTW any wheeled vehicle that is dropped from plane will have serious problems with wheels after drop... If you are dropping a vehicle from Plane, crew is never inside, so it will take time to get into the vehicle... So you are limited to make land with plane and unload vehicles classical way, so then you can have uparmored M8 without problems with much better resistance than Stryker

[whdonnelly]

Another weakness of the Stryker is the small ammo loadout. How does the M8 compare?