Leo 2A6M CAN - are they in service?

[Kirkhill]

This article does a nice job of describing the development of the Plasan SandCat solution from it original 4 ton GVW to the latest Family of Vehicles.

Plasan SandCat specs and price

Plasan SandCat specs and price

www.drivingyourdream.com

	SandCat mk4	SandCat M-LPV	StormRider
Curb Weight [kg]	7200	8200	10500
GVWR [kg]	8845	9700	11900
Payload [kg]	1645	1500	1400
Length [mm]	5600	5900	6034
Width [mm]	2315	2315	2533
Height [mm]	2540	2540	2620
Seats	10	11	10
Protection	Stanag 2+	B7/Stanag 2a/2b	Stanag 2+/2a/2b
Engine	6.7L V8 330bhp, 1016Nm	6.7L V8 330bhp, 1016Nm	6.7L V8 330bhp, 1016Nm
Driveline	Selectable 4x4	Selectable 4x4	Permanent 4x4
Suspension	Solid Axles	Solid Axles	Independent

 

[NavyShooter]

If one considers the tanks of WW2.

As the story goes, Russia was pumping out T-34's that didn't have functional gun sights installed from the Tractor Factory which were basically driving straight to the front lines and surviving...hours or days in the fighting.

These tanks weren't even expected to last long enough for their first oil change. Apparently, when some did, they checked the oil sumps and found massive amounts of metal shavings that were deposited as the engines 'wore themselves into shape'.

At about the same time, Germany was starting production of Panther tanks - and interestingly, in some of the recent tank refurbishment shows, they are finding that the original bearings from WW2 are still suitable for re-use, and don't need replacement.

It's a question of how you plan to use the tanks - we bought our tanks (and Germany built them for us) in the mind-set that they needed to be built to last - and last decades of use/abuse.

There's a price to be paid for building with that level of quality - it usually comes at the cost of quantity.

~6K Panther vs ~ 57K T-34

Each Panther had to kill a lot of T-34's for that extra quality to be worthwhile.

 

[GR66]

If one considers the tanks of WW2.

As the story goes, Russia was pumping out T-34's that didn't have functional gun sights installed from the Tractor Factory which were basically driving straight to the front lines and surviving...hours or days in the fighting.

These tanks weren't even expected to last long enough for their first oil change. Apparently, when some did, they checked the oil sumps and found massive amounts of metal shavings that were deposited as the engines 'wore themselves into shape'.

At about the same time, Germany was starting production of Panther tanks - and interestingly, in some of the recent tank refurbishment shows, they are finding that the original bearings from WW2 are still suitable for re-use, and don't need replacement.

It's a question of how you plan to use the tanks - we bought our tanks (and Germany built them for us) in the mind-set that they needed to be built to last - and last decades of use/abuse.

There's a price to be paid for building with that level of quality - it usually comes at the cost of quantity.

~6K Panther vs ~ 57K T-34

Each Panther had to kill a lot of T-34's for that extra quality to be worthwhile.

And the quality for quantity tradeoff only works if you are actually able to maintaining your kit. Leopards may have been purchased with the expectation that they would "last decades of use/abuse" as you say, but reality unfortunately hasn't matched that expectation.

 

[Spencer100]

And the quality for quantity tradeoff only works if you are actually able to maintaining your kit. Leopards may have been purchased with the expectation that they would "last decades of use/abuse" as you say, but reality unfortunately hasn't matched that expectation.

It all about how you define Quality. In the Auto industry take the JD power Quality ratings. In the last few years (before Covid now things have gone down) The Car companies had closed the gap so much that they were measuring really weird stuff. I remember the Hummer would score very badly because new owner were upset that the truck got bad gas milage...you bought a Hummer! And then now its the info entertainment systems that kills the rating. The manufacturers get rated on the touch screens now.

Back to this the problem is the CAF (and others) when buying a weapon or truck its not a piece of the equipment its a "system" and its a once in a career thing for the people that are doing the project. So its has to be right. It can not fail. And it has to last a lifetime. It has to very bell and whistle because you get one kick at the can. Everyone gets input from the private to PM. Then the procurement rules kick in.

And I think a better word is not quality of modern weapons they are Exquisite. They require more care and very specialized training.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So an assortment of MILCOTS for in-Canada use, outfitted with necessary kit and ancillaries to allow for military use and meaningful training that can carry over to combat-suitable expeditionary equipment?

Pretty much. Keep in mind the amount of high end equipment the CAF has in a fight like this will last about 6 months (if we are lucky) and then you either be fighting on foot or in whatever you can scrounge up. It's clear the Reserves do not have the capacity to maintain LAV's at present and we not likely to see that change. A armoured vehicle based around a commercial chassis, can be maintained locally by commercial means and there will be little to no ITAR stuff in it to complicate security issues. This means higher vehicle readiness states and more training opportunities.
As suggested, keep a steady state production stream going on and get rid of vehicles 10+ years old, replacing them 1 for 1 for a change. These vehicles replace milcots, G-wagons and LSVW. The MSVS Milcots can be shifted to logistical support and proper tactical SMP bought to replace it in the forward roles. Have a plan to replace the MSVS Milcots with a newer version in the next 5 years. These will compliment the MSVS SMP's
Make a decision on whether we are staying with the Leopards or going the US tank route. If staying with the Leopards, do what Norway just did and order new A7's on a 1.25 for 1 basis. It will be a few years to get them, so time to fix our facilities to support them and resolve deployment issues. If going US equipment, lease 20 for now, to train the trainers and maintainers, Start at a US facility until a Canadian facility is ready and setup for them. The US will likley lend us the DU version for training, while we await the export version to be produces. Move our Leopards to Europe, maintain that force there as our QRF, until we are ready to bring over the M1, then sell our Leopards back to the manufacturer or Ukraine.
We also need to double our ARV and specialist engineering vehicle holdings, including bridging.
Then their is the IFV question.......

 

[Czech_pivo]

If one considers the tanks of WW2.

As the story goes, Russia was pumping out T-34's that didn't have functional gun sights installed from the Tractor Factory which were basically driving straight to the front lines and surviving...hours or days in the fighting.

These tanks weren't even expected to last long enough for their first oil change. Apparently, when some did, they checked the oil sumps and found massive amounts of metal shavings that were deposited as the engines 'wore themselves into shape'.

At about the same time, Germany was starting production of Panther tanks - and interestingly, in some of the recent tank refurbishment shows, they are finding that the original bearings from WW2 are still suitable for re-use, and don't need replacement.

It's a question of how you plan to use the tanks - we bought our tanks (and Germany built them for us) in the mind-set that they needed to be built to last - and last decades of use/abuse.

There's a price to be paid for building with that level of quality - it usually comes at the cost of quantity.

~6K Panther vs ~ 57K T-34

Each Panther had to kill a lot of T-34's for that extra quality to be worthwhile.

Does anyone have a sense of what the crew survivability for Russian tanks was in WWII vs what is currently going on today in Ukraine?
The same? Higher today? Lower today?

 

[KevinB]

Does anyone have a sense of what the crew survivability for Russian tanks was in WWII vs what is currently going on today in Ukraine?
The same? Higher today? Lower today?

Statistically it’s worse.
10 tanks today, is several hundred in WW2
Furthermore they can’t build them at the rate they did back then.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Statistically it’s worse.
10 tanks today, is several hundred in WW2
Furthermore they can’t build them at the rate they did back then.

I don't think I was clear in my wording/question.

Crew survivability - 4 crew in a T-34 and 4 crew in a T-72. When a tank is hit, on average how many of the crew survived in a T-34 vs how many survive today when a T-72 is hit?

Is there a difference today vs back in WWII?

 

[GK .Dundas]

I don't think I was clear in my wording/question.

Crew survivability - 4 crew in a T-34 and 4 crew in a T-72. When a tank is hit, on average how many of the crew survived in a T-34 vs how many survive today when a T-72 is hit?

Is there a difference today vs back in WWII?

Actually there are only three crewmen in a T 72 and I believe five in a T 34 .
I am not even sure you can compare crew survivability in those vehicle .
They are so different from each as to make the comparison meaningless.
Like comparing apples and eggs.

 

[Kirkhill]

Modern war is not WW2

The current manpower strengths are about 10% of what were being engaged.

The Winter War is particularly interesting to review wrt Casualties

In four months the Russian to Finn ratio of losses

Troops 5:1
Tanks 100:1
Aircraft 6:1

The 6 month Barbarossa estimate for troops losses was also about 5:1 (5 Russians for every Axis soldier)

Operation Barbarossa

Date	22 June 1941 – 7 January 1942 (6 months, 2 weeks and 2 days)

Casualties and losses
Strength
Units involved
show Axis armies:	show Soviet armies:
Frontline strength (22 June 1941) 3.8 million personnel[1][2] 3,350–3,795 tanks[3][1][4][5] 3,030–3,072 other AFVs[6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#cite_note-8 [*]2,770–5,369 aircraft[3][7] [*]7,200–23,435 artillery pieces[1][3][5] [*]17,081 mortars[5] [*]600,000 horses[8] [*]600,000 vehicles[8]

[TD]Frontline strength (22 June 1941)

• 2.6–2.9 million personnel[9][10][11]
• 11,000 tanks[12][13]
• 7,133–9,100 military aircraft[14][15][16]

[/TD]

[TR]
[TD]Total military casualties:
1,000,000+
show
Breakdown[/TD]

[TD]Total military casualties:
4,473,820
show
Breakdown[/TD]
[/TR]

Winter War

Date 30 November 1939 – 13 March 1940 (3 months, 1 week and 6 days) Location Eastern Finland

Casualties and losses
Strength
300,000–340,000 soldiers[F 1] 32 tanks[F 2] 114 aircraft[F 3]	425,000–760,000 soldiers[F 4] 2,514–6,541 tanks[F 5] 3,880 aircraft[10]
25,904 dead or missing[11] 43,557 wounded[12] 800–1,100 captured[13] 20–30 tanks 62 aircraft[14] 1 armed icebreaker damaged Finnish Ladoga Naval Detachment ceded to the Soviet Union 70,000 total casualties	126,875–167,976 dead or missing[15][16][17][18] 188,671–207,538 wounded or sick[15][16] (including at least 61,506 sick or frostbitten[19]) 5,572 captured[20] 1,200–3,543 tanks[21][22][23] 261–515 aircraft[23][24] 321,000–381,000 total casualties

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't think I was clear in my wording/question.

Crew survivability - 4 crew in a T-34 and 4 crew in a T-72. When a tank is hit, on average how many of the crew survived in a T-34 vs how many survive today when a T-72 is hit?

Is there a difference today vs back in WWII?

I have clambered around a T34/76 and T34/85, the co driver is toast as is the gunner. With the large hatches on the 76, TC and loader get out, if the driver hatch is jammed due to a hit on the glacis he is toast. Debatable if a loader will get out of a 85.

 

[GK .Dundas]

0n the other hand in a T-72 Crew Commander and gunner are sitting on top of thirty or forty rounds of semi combustible rounds. And the driver if memory serves has fuel cell all but enveloping him....
Yeah either way I suspect buying life insurance for crews of either tank might be problematic.

 

[quadrapiper]

Is the environment increasingly lethal for tanks? Would a WWII Soviet crew have been facing as many things likely to more or less immediately blow up the tank, or would they have been more likely to find their machine immobilized and broken (turret or gun jammed, e.g.) but more or less in one piece?

 

[Maxman1]

 

[KevinB]

I don't think I was clear in my wording/question.

Crew survivability - 4 crew in a T-34 and 4 crew in a T-72. When a tank is hit, on average how many of the crew survived in a T-34 vs how many survive today when a T-72 is hit?

Is there a difference today vs back in WWII?

Zero is still zero

 

[FJAG]

Does anyone have a sense of what the crew survivability for Russian tanks was in WWII vs what is currently going on today in Ukraine?
The same? Higher today? Lower today?

Had an uncle who got two Iron Crosses for knocking out 35 of them in two separate battles.

He didn't make it back though. I had more aunts than I had uncles.