Canada's tanks

[KevinB]

The end of the day the M1A2 Abrams is the most successfully combat tested tank in the field currently.
Would the Leo 2A6+ d as well, probably, they just haven't seen the number of engagements that the Abrams has at this point.

I would argue that the T-XX USSR tanks are the most combat tested tanks, and clearly take gold in the turret throw event.

 

[suffolkowner]

Ukraine Situation Report: France Sends Howitzers, Polish Tanks Could Follow

More weaponry is pouring into Ukraine as Russia's eastern offensive picks up steam.

www.thedrive.com

Britain plans to send tanks to Poland in deal to help Ukraine

Britain is planning to send tanks to Poland in a significant escalation of its military support so that Ukraine can then be supplied by the Polish government wi

www.thetimes.co.uk

going to be a need for new tanks everywhere if this war keeps going. Perfect time to send our Leos over and get in line for some Abrams

If the UK can get Challengers over to Poland to facilitate a transfer of T-72. Crickets from Canada

 

[Dana381]

Thanks for the replies, interesting info on survivability. How do they compare on fuel consumption they are both listed at 1500hp. I think the turbine would be thirsty. Not that would be reason to not buy Abrams them but I'm just curious?

 

[suffolkowner]

Thanks for the replies, interesting info on survivability. How do they compare on fuel consumption they are both listed at 1500hp. I think the turbine would be thirsty. Not that would be reason to not buy Abrams them but I'm just curious?

Abrams Dieselization Project: Doing the Math | Defense Media Network

A news article about the Abrams dieselization project pitched by General Dynamics Land Systems at the 2013 AUSA Annual Meeting and Exposition.

www.defensemedianetwork.com

I think this was previously posted theres some value in the diesel for sure

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The turbine is distinctive, but I don't find M1s particularly loud. In the field we tend to wear headseats and have our own vehicle noise around us. As a tank crew commander, if I am relying on my sense of hearing to find enemy tanks then we've gone off-script. Although I suppose sound to find enemy tanks is better than smell, touch and taste? I'd still rather rely on my sense of sight, aided by good optics. Like those found on M1s and Leos.

Anyhoo.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Thanks for the replies, interesting info on survivability. How do they compare on fuel consumption they are both listed at 1500hp. I think the turbine would be thirsty. Not that would be reason to not buy Abrams them but I'm just curious?

It's improved greatly since they installed an APU on them (which they should have done from the beginning) To give you an idea, our 1100hp RR Gnome in a hovercraft consumed 50 gals at idle and about 70 at cruise. So bank on 60 gals per hour of movement.

 

[FJAG]

Whatever happened with that dieselization project?

Just based on stats, the Leo 2 and M1 weigh about the same and their engines produce about the same horsepower but at significant fuel savings for the diesel Leo.

It seems that the hull was built to take either engine. We're long past the Chrysler issue. Have there been any serious attempts to swap out a diesel engine and improve its fuel consumption?

 

[Underway]

the Abrams is likley the most survivable tank on the field right now

Challenger 2 (now 3) would like to have a word with you... lol

It used to be that NATO MBT's were relatively easily categorized by what they emphasized on the mobility, armour, and firepower triangle.

Leo's and Leclerks emphasized mobility both strategic and tactical (better milage, higher speed, lighter ground pressure etc...)
Challenger's were much better armoured then the others
Abrams had the best fire control and sensor systems

Not so much anymore as they are all taking the best from each other and implementing that in upgrade programs etc...

 

[Underway]

Although I suppose sound to find enemy tanks is better than smell, touch and taste?

Russian tanks probably don't taste so good...

 

[KevinB]

Whatever happened with that dieselization project?

Just based on stats, the Leo 2 and M1 weigh about the same and their engines produce about the same horsepower but at significant fuel savings for the diesel Leo.

It seems that the hull was built to take either engine. We're long past the Chrysler issue. Have there been any serious attempts to swap out a diesel engine and improve its fuel consumption?

Congress has constantly refused any Diesel engine changes.
I suspect any foreign military could swap them over if they wanted.

 

[Underway]

Congress has constantly refused any Diesel engine changes.
I suspect any foreign military could swap them over if they wanted.

Is that a pork barrel thing? Lots of electorial districts hinge on no diesel? Or is that because the engine is multifuel.

 

[KevinB]

Is that a pork barrel thing? Lots of electorial districts hinge on no diesel? Or is that because the engine is multifuel.

Multi fuel Pork Barrels

 

[armrdsoul77]

It's improved greatly since they installed an APU on them (which they should have done from the beginning) To give you an idea, our 1100hp RR Gnome in a hovercraft consumed 50 gals at idle and about 70 at cruise. So bank on 60 gals per hour of movement.

What hovercraft is that?

 

[Dana381]

Abrams Dieselization Project: Doing the Math | Defense Media Network

A news article about the Abrams dieselization project pitched by General Dynamics Land Systems at the 2013 AUSA Annual Meeting and Exposition.

www.defensemedianetwork.com

I think this was previously posted theres some value in the diesel for sure

Thanks, I didn't see that article before. If that article is accurate dieselization would be a great benefit to the Abrams. Maybe the environmental benefits of the lower fuel consumption will push it forward. You can also add a small diesel apu to save even more fuel. A 1-2L diesel can keep environmental and eletrical systems working for much less fuel and they don't take much room
With the other options available our current government is much to environmentally sensitive to buy the Abrams at those fuel consumption numbers.

The article mentions the Bradley. It uses an obsolete V-8 Cummins the VTA-903. Apparently Cummins has been hand building them for the army out of left over parts and charging crazy money for them. If they are keeping the Bradley a re-power would be a good idea.

 

[KevinB]

The article mentions the Bradley. It uses an obsolete V-8 Cummins the VTA-903. Apparently Cummins has been hand building them for the army out of left over parts and charging crazy money for them. If they are keeping the Bradley a re-power would be a good idea.

You cannot simply obsolete an Army part that is on contact.
The manufacturer needs to supply items and subcomponents for 5 years after the end date of any contract.

Ideally the manufacturer proposes an ECP (Engineering Change Proposal) to the Government to update older items.
This helps both the manufacturer (not having to keep old items in production or keep old stock) and the Government with newer/more economical etc items.

 

[Dana381]

You cannot simply obsolete an Army part that is on contact.
The manufacturer needs to supply items and subcomponents for 5 years after the end date of any contract.

Ideally the manufacturer proposes an ECP (Engineering Change Proposal) to the Government to update older items.
This helps both the manufacturer (not having to keep old items in production or keep old stock) and the Government with newer/more economical etc items.

Obsolete technology that is only being produced for the army thus driving the costs up. Rumor had it that Cummins is charging $130,000+ per engine. In comparison a Re-Mack MP10 600hp was $50,000cad when we replaced one a couple years ago.

Cummins stopped commercial production of the 903 back in the early 90's. Diesel technology has come a long way since then.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What hovercraft is that?

SRN 6 at the Sea Island Hovercraft base

 

[KevinB]

Obsolete technology that is only being produced for the army thus driving the costs up. Rumor had it that Cummins is charging $130,000+ per engine. In comparison a Re-Mack MP10 600hp was $50,000cad when we replaced one a couple years ago.

Cummins stopped commercial production of the 903 back in the early 90's. Diesel technology has come a long way since then.

I'd argue that is a fail on the OEM provider not to look into an ECP.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Questions re: the Leo fleet. @TangoTwoBravo
A. the 40 A4 training tanks, what are they actually used for?
Individual/crew training?
School/course training?
alternates for subunits to use on exercise so we don't have to ship theirs across the country?

B 1:1 training to gun tank ratio seems.. high. Can any of the answer to A be accomplished by the Regiments with their own equipment, reducing the training number? Or is it a minimum with any improvement to ratio requiring an expanded gun tank fleet?

Or am I out to lunch and 1:1 is normal?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Canada has its mixed fleet of Leopard 2s due to the successful if complicated program to acquire them during the war in Afghanistan. As the dust settled we had three variants of the same tank. I would rather have a squadron of Leopard 2A6Ms and two squadrons of Leopard 2A4Ms and Leopard 2A4s than three squadrons of Leopard 2A4s.

I don't want to go too deeply, but all three variants have a 120mm gun. The A6M has the longer 55 calibre barrel and some differences in FCS, but the other Leopards have the same 44 calibre 120mm as the M1 family. They are certainly "gun tanks." Protection is higher on the A6M and A4M, especially against the threats experienced in Kandahar.

I won't get into tank disposition here, but Sqns have the tanks they have and train with those tanks.

If there is an operation then the most suitable tanks will be identified and shipped. We have a managed readiness program for the squadrons. A crew could train on a given tank in Canada and deploy on a different one in theatre. Which is how Kandahar went, with the extra hurdle of Leopard 1 training in Canada, Leopard 2 training in Germany and then deploy onto the Leopard 2s in theatre. This is true of most other major combat systems. I was in a Recce Sqn that deployed to Afghanistan. Those were not our Coyotes and Bisons from Petawawa that we fell onto in theatre. Our personal weapons and CP "battle boxes" went with us, but the vehicles were sourced and delivered by others to theatre. There are folks that look after this for a living.

I recall when KFOR took form my tank troop in Petawawa had a panzer (my own) selected to go to Montreal for the operation that soldiers from another regiment would use (and then Dragoons). It went to Montreal for final checks by 202 Workshop and then shipping by the Depot there. I am not sure if that tank actually went past Montreal - I was posted ERE as this all went down and then the fleets had changed to Leopard C2s by the time I was back at the Regiment. But anyhoo.