Canada's purchase of the Leopard 2 MBT

[Franko]

I guess the Dragoons that were there don't get any notice....           

Regards

 

[ironduke57]

Another pic:

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Hopefully you can help me: Königstiger is German for "Bengal Tiger", no?

It's been a long time since I've used my german, but IIRC, Königstiger 'literally' translates to Kingtiger.

 

[Armynewsguy]

I guess the Dragoons that were there don't get any notice....           

Regards

My mistake, sorry to all the Dragoons that were there. :-[

Armynewsguy

 

[3rd Herd]

It's been a long time since I've used my German, but IIRC, Königstiger 'literally' translates to Kingtiger.

You both right  ;D
literial translation is king tiger as in the tank but if you use Zoologie(animal classification in German) then Bengal Tiger is Königstiger
"Suchergebnisse für 'bengal tiger': Bengal tiger -- der Königstiger (Zoologie)"

 

[vonGarvin]

It's been a long time since I've used my german, but IIRC, Königstiger 'literally' translates to Kingtiger.

EDIT: 3rd Herd beat me to the punch

 

[NovaScotiaNewfie]

Well the new Leo's still use the C6? Why not use the .50 cal? Tanks use to have them mounted didn't they?  I've only seen the C6 mounted on vehicles etc...is it because the .50 is to use on other vehicles (not on personel) etc and since in the mission in Afghanistan it' s unlikely they will face vehicles that would require a .50 cal round that there is no need to mouth them to vehicles?

 

[George Wallace]

Well the new Leo's still use the C6? Why not use the .50 cal? Tanks use to have them mounted didn't they?  I've only seen the C6 mounted on vehicles etc...is it because the .50 is to use on other vehicles (not on personel) etc and since in the mission in Afghanistan it' s unlikely they will face vehicles that would require a .50 cal round that there is no need to mouth them to vehicles?

There are several reasons:
1.  The .50 Cal doesn't fit the mounts. 
2.  The .50 Cal was removed from Service. 
3.  The .50 Cal is not in large enough quantities in the War Stock to equip the Tanks, should it be brought back out to equip other vehicles. 
4.  That would mean yet another type and quantity of ammo would have to be carried in already limited space. 
5.  Modifications to existing mounts would be costly. 
6.  Modifications to rented equipment would not be permitted. 
7.  Canadian tanks have not had .50 Cal mounted since the Ranging Gun on the Centurian Tank (which went out of Service in 1978). 
8.  Although the .50 Cal can be used against many vehicles, aircraft, fortifications, etc., the main gun is much better.
9.  The Laws of Armed Conflict, the Geneva Conventions, etc. frown on the use of the .50 Cal against dismounted troops, but then again, war is hell.

 

[Franko]

Why not use the .50 cal? Tanks use to have them mounted didn't they?  I've only seen the C6 mounted on vehicles etc...is it because the .50 is to use on other vehicles (not on personel) etc and since in the mission in Afghanistan it' s unlikely they will face vehicles that would require a .50 cal round that there is no need to mouth them to vehicles?

That weapon is too big for the turret. Then there is the problem of changing barrels, ammunition storage (rounds are bigger, therefore less space to stow it).

The other issue is common weapons use common ammo and loads.

In a tank troop this is taken into consideration so resupply is quick and efficient on the battle field.

50 cal may be big and impressive on the TV or movie screen, they don't work on today's modern tank that Canada employs.

Damnation George....beat me to it.

Regards

 

[Armymedic]

Further to the answers from above..

The 7.62 mm C6 can put a whole bunch more rounds down more accurately then the .50. if you need to shoot 10m to the side of the tank, or 1200m to the front, those little bullets do the job just fine.

Not to mention the C6 takes a alot less work to keep running than a .50.

 

[MJP]

9.  The Laws of Armed Conflict, the Geneva Conventions, etc. frown on the use of the .50 Cal against dismounted troops, but then again, war is hell.

Excellent points all.  George nothing in the Laws or the Geneva convention say anything about it being unlawful about using .50 on troops.  Very common myth but no shred of truth to it. 


Edited as I can't seem to spell common names........

 

[ironduke57]

It's been a long time since I've used my german, but IIRC, Königstiger 'literally' translates to Kingtiger.

You both right  ;D
literial translation is king tiger as in the tank but if you use Zoologie(animal classification in German) then Bengal Tiger is Königstiger
"Suchergebnisse für 'bengal tiger': Bengal tiger -- der Königstiger (Zoologie)"

That´s why I said if he mean´s the animal.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[George Wallace]

Excellent points all.  Goerge nothing in the Laws or the Geneva convention say anything about it being unlawful about using .50 on troops.  Very common myth but no shred of truth to it. 

That's why I said "frowns"....... ;D

PS.  I see you spell my name the same way I do in a rush..... ;D

 

[Red 6]

There are several reasons:
1.  The .50 Cal doesn't fit the mounts. 
2.  The .50 Cal was removed from Service. 
3.  The .50 Cal is not in large enough quantities in the War Stock to equip the Tanks, should it be brought back out to equip other vehicles. 
4.  That would mean yet another type and quantity of ammo would have to be carried in already limited space. 
5.  Modifications to existing mounts would be costly. 
6.  Modifications to rented equipment would not be permitted. 
7.  Canadian tanks have not had .50 Cal mounted since the Ranging Gun on the Centurian Tank (which went out of Service in 1978). 
8.  Although the .50 Cal can be used against many vehicles, aircraft, fortifications, etc., the main gun is much better.
9.  The Laws of Armed Conflict, the Geneva Conventions, etc. frown on the use of the .50 Cal against dismounted troops, but then again, war is hell.

No argument here with any of these except #9. Where do you get the idea that there's a prohibition against using a machine gun against dismounts?

 

[George Wallace]

;D  "frowns upon" doesn't mean "Prohibits", nor "unlawful".  What would they say about the 20mm Coax in the AMX 30 if we went down that path?

 

[vonGarvin]

There are several reasons:
1.  The .50 Cal doesn't fit the mounts. 
2.  The .50 Cal was removed from Service. 
3.  The .50 Cal is not in large enough quantities in the War Stock to equip the Tanks, should it be brought back out to equip other vehicles. 
4.  That would mean yet another type and quantity of ammo would have to be carried in already limited space. 
5.  Modifications to existing mounts would be costly. 
6.  Modifications to rented equipment would not be permitted. 
7.  Canadian tanks have not had .50 Cal mounted since the Ranging Gun on the Centurian Tank (which went out of Service in 1978). 
8.  Although the .50 Cal can be used against many vehicles, aircraft, fortifications, etc., the main gun is much better.
9.  The Laws of Armed Conflict, the Geneva Conventions, etc. frown on the use of the .50 Cal against dismounted troops, but then again, war is hell.

#2: .50 was removed from service, but is "back". (and therefore making #3 valid)
4: exactly
#9: it's been bnrought up.  One of the primary roles for the .50 is to "provide direct area neutralising fire" against infantry (or words to that effect)
FWIW, I understand that the MG 42...er..."MG 3" will be used vice C6 (at least in the "rent a tanks")

 

[MJP]

ack on the name...my bad

I just don't understand who or what agency frowns upon it.  We use a large range of munitions of various sorts against our enemies, some of them much larger than .50.  I know there has been a long standing myth surrounding the .50 (and larger weapons) against ground troops but all of them are groundless and without merit according to the Geneva Conventions.

I know I certainly like all sorts of big weapons railing on the enemy........

 

[HItorMiss]

The .50 is certainly in use with the CF in Afghanistan, The Nyala uses it with it's RWIS so did the Recce GWagons to great effect or so I have heard. I cannot see commonality of ammo an issue or that it is less effective then the C6 ( I personally preffer it to the C6, though the the C6 is a great weapon) I am sure there are many reasons for not using it on the new tanks, like it's too large for the pintol etc etc I just don't personally believe those other two reasons were valid from my experience with the weapon not with Tanks.

 

[vonGarvin]

The .50 is in wide use in the CF again, as HoM stated.  Now, I believe the Centurion used a .50 as a coax (to assist with ranging), but doesn't the M1 series have it as a pintle mount?  Just curious.  If so, that would make 3 calibres (or, more accurately, 4, if they have smoke dischargers).

 

[3rd Herd]

;D  "frowns upon" doesn't mean "Prohibits", nor "unlawful".  What would they say about the 20mm Coax in the AMX 30 if we went down that path?

All ready done George. 20 and 40 mm used in ground roles, .50 quads, 12.7. Went down this path with Micheal a while back and my ears are still ringing. However, the IHL bodies do prohibit certain types of ammunition which could be fired out of these guns. An interesting arguement though is what is the difference in using contact fused ammunition and an explosive round.