Ukraine - Superthread

[rmc_wannabe]

Seems par for the course for the big cod. He tried to get rid or our tanks before.

Yeah, but those were simpler times. The Taliban didn't have an armoured corps, AD, or an Air Force. It was easy to be short sighted. Ibwould also posit no one had "Conventional Land War in Europe" on their 2020s Bingo Card.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think the will is there in the Cdn Army leadership, but they don’t have the funding. For vehicles. Fuel. Ammo. Pay.

Army National Guard

Army National Guard

www.nationalguard.com

Army National Guard

Army National Guard

www.nationalguard.com

Do you think that the CDS mentioned this directly to the DM when asked how many of the 112 Leopard 2's were available to be sent to Ukraine and the answer was a grand total of 4 - but only have after a few weeks of repairs/maintenance had occurred on them?

 

[MJP]

.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Do you think that the CDS mentioned this directly to the DM when asked how many of the 112 Leopard 2's were available to be sent to Ukraine and the answer was a grand total of 4 - but only have after a few weeks of repairs/maintenance had occurred on them?

He probably said “it’s Harper’s fault, truly”.

 

[ueo]

no it isn't. Need to study the issue first and bring in the consultants

Plus many high level conferances complete with multiple photo opss!

 

[Czech_pivo]

He probably said “it’s Harper’s fault, truly”.

Harper's been gone for 7yrs. That's like saying 'its Chretien's fault, truly'.

 

[MilEME09]

Do you think that the CDS mentioned this directly to the DM when asked how many of the 112 Leopard 2's were available to be sent to Ukraine and the answer was a grand total of 4 - but only have after a few weeks of repairs/maintenance had occurred on them?

Well when leadership doesn't fix the tech training problem, and maintenance budgets shrink, this is what you get. Seriously when we have people leave because they spend their entire first contract in PAT Pl in Borden instead of bring trained, thsts a failure of the system.

 

[YZT580]

I’d suggest if the HQ bloat and CAF rank inflation debacle wasn’t so crazy that you could have a lot more money for equipment and training.

or use some of the money that is given back every year

 

[IKnowNothing]

Beyond the immediate availability issue, while we'd like to see more the value of the contribution isnt completely out of line on a per capita basis. Low but not intolerably so.

What I think is more concerning is that we're seeing a clear inflection point where we deciding to send what we can without chamging the status quo (other than further stretching an already stretched fleet) rather than face the situation head on and make some big decisions

 

[The Bread Guy]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1618684819642413056

The actual announcement

I know anything is better than nothing, but still ...

 

[CBH99]

Let me posit this question...

What if we just got out of the MBT game altogether? And focused the armoured corps on armoured recce?


Now don't lump me in with Hillier just yet, I'm not trying to sound short sighted. I know there are many problems with my question...

But in terms of NATO and what NATO's primary function has been over the last several decades...

If we can only deploy hypothetically 4 to 12 MBT's to an urgent NATO tasking, and it would take us quite some time to get them to where they need to be anyway...why bother keeping that capability at all?

4 tanks showing up in Poland, for example, 1 or 2 months after they've been deemed needed...isn't going go do anything. It won't change the direction of a conflict at all.

Take the PY's from those dedicated tank crews, and use them to flesh out the armoured recently troops if need be. And if those are fleshed out, use them to flesh out the infantry units.


Tanks are clearly not a thing of the past, as we've all seen for the last year or so.

But if we can't deploy the tanks we have, what is the point of spending all that money to train crews, ammo, simulators, spare parts, etc??

Instead of spending money on a capability we can't deploy or use, why not take that same money and put it towards AD systems or reinforcing the infantry units + buying more LAV's for them to use?



Ideally I would like to see more money put into making sure they are maintained at a higher state of readiness than this.

But I also don't see a point in spending money to maintain a capability which can't be used.

 

[Maxman1]

Or here's a crazy idea. Just get new tanks and proper parts and maintenance support.

 

[MilEME09]

Or here's a crazy idea. Just get new tanks and proper parts and maintenance support.

How about just proper maintenance and support for the army entirely? Short techs? Contract the manufacturer once a year to go to each unit to help do deep maintenance and train troops, as well as start paying to send techs to the manufacturer to get trained

 

[GR66]

I'd love 300, keep the extras in wainwright, gagetown, or maybe Suffield. Reroll 1/2 of reserve armour to tank crews who then go to the bases and use them. Such a plan would require an expansion of RCEME training to build more capacity to maintain these vehicles.

We have 82 tanks currently with which we are struggling to be able to deploy a single squadron. At the same time the CAF is around 10,000 pers short already. There are multiple serious problems with being able to achieve the goal of seriously expanding our armoured capability.

1. Political will to do so (Public, Government and internal to the CAF...what other capabilities will we give up to expand our armour?)
2. Money - lots of very big ticket items already on the go or pending for the CAF to compete with the budget (CSC, F-35, NORAD, GBAD, ATGM)
3. Personnel - We're already struggling to get and keep people for our existing positions. How much not only to solve our current recruiting and retention issues but also to expand the RCAC?
4. Facilities - What bases are suitable for expanded tank operations? Facilities, training areas, maintenance equipment, etc. If we want to tap into significant Reserve personnel to man the tank force we ideally need to locate our tanks close to our largest population centers so we can maximize training time (and expand the recruiting pool)...what bases offer that?
5. Long term maintenance - How do we prevent an expanded fleet of tanks from rusting out the same way that our current fleet has? Can we maintain a large tank fleet long term without a major maintenance and refurbishment facility/facilities being set up by the OEM in Canada to handle much of the major maintenance tasks? Even at 300 tanks is that a large enough fleet to justify the cost to the government to support such a facility long term as the RCAC would be the sole customer for the facility?

Let me posit this question...

What if we just got out of the MBT game altogether? And focused the armoured corps on armoured recce?


Now don't lump me in with Hillier just yet, I'm not trying to sound short sighted. I know there are many problems with my question...

But in terms of NATO and what NATO's primary function has been over the last several decades...

If we can only deploy hypothetically 4 to 12 MBT's to an urgent NATO tasking, and it would take us quite some time to get them to where they need to be anyway...why bother keeping that capability at all?

4 tanks showing up in Poland, for example, 1 or 2 months after they've been deemed needed...isn't going go do anything. It won't change the direction of a conflict at all.

Take the PY's from those dedicated tank crews, and use them to flesh out the armoured recently troops if need be. And if those are fleshed out, use them to flesh out the infantry units.


Tanks are clearly not a thing of the past, as we've all seen for the last year or so.

But if we can't deploy the tanks we have, what is the point of spending all that money to train crews, ammo, simulators, spare parts, etc??

Instead of spending money on a capability we can't deploy or use, why not take that same money and put it towards AD systems or reinforcing the infantry units + buying more LAV's for them to use?



Ideally I would like to see more money put into making sure they are maintained at a higher state of readiness than this.

But I also don't see a point in spending money to maintain a capability which can't be used.

The highlighted part is exactly why members like @FJAG and many others here keep suggesting that we need to pre-position our heavy forces in Europe where they are most likely to be needed.

A government and military that were serious about a heavy force commitment to NATO would do that. But there is a cost to that. Both in the facilities and in forward deploying maintainers to a location overseas (when we already have issues with maintenance here at home).

Unfortunately it's becoming more and more obvious with every bit of news we hear about the state of the CAF that we are NOT a serious country/military.

 

[daftandbarmy]

1. Personnel - We're already struggling to get and keep people for our existing positions. How much not only to solve our current recruiting and retention issues but also to expand the RCAC?
2. Facilities - What bases are suitable for expanded tank operations? Facilities, training areas, maintenance equipment, etc. If we want to tap into significant Reserve personnel to man the tank force we ideally need to locate our tanks close to our largest population centers so we can maximize training time (and expand the recruiting pool)...what bases offer that?

We already have Reserve Armd/Cav units co-located, or almost co-located, with Reg F Armd units in some cases. This shouldn't be difficult to arrange.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The fact that we can only manage 4 tanks should lead to the sacking of several GOFO's, ADM's and some others.

 

[Quirky]

The fact that we can only manage 4 tanks should lead to the sacking of several GOFO's, ADM's and some others.

Zero accountability in the CAF, so I doubt it.

 

[MilEME09]

Zero accountability in the CAF, so I doubt it.

Sad but true, and we see it all the time.

 

[Kirkhill]

Do we know that we can only field 4 tanks? Or is it just that we can only find 4 tanks we want to give away?

If we wanted to send 19 tanks manned by Canadians to Latvia could we find them?

 

[FJAG]

We have 82 tanks currently with which we are struggling to be able to deploy a single squadron. At the same time the CAF is around 10,000 pers short already. There are multiple serious problems with being able to achieve the goal of seriously expanding our armoured capability.

1. Political will to do so (Public, Government and internal to the CAF...what other capabilities will we give up to expand our armour?)
2. Money - lots of very big ticket items already on the go or pending for the CAF to compete with the budget (CSC, F-35, NORAD, GBAD, ATGM)
3. Personnel - We're already struggling to get and keep people for our existing positions. How much not only to solve our current recruiting and retention issues but also to expand the RCAC?
4. Facilities - What bases are suitable for expanded tank operations? Facilities, training areas, maintenance equipment, etc. If we want to tap into significant Reserve personnel to man the tank force we ideally need to locate our tanks close to our largest population centers so we can maximize training time (and expand the recruiting pool)...what bases offer that?

I've been thinking and came up with Shilo. No, really. Hear me out.

Back in the 70s and 80s the Germans did all their training there for a full battle group so there are five adequate battle runs which can be used regularly for training. I expect the Leo 2 has different range templates from the Leo 1 but I expect that there are munitions which would fit within the existing ones there.

1 RCHA had a service/training facility built to handle a dozen M109s and other tracks which now holds just eight M777s. I expect with a bit of reshuffling on base, a squadron of Leos would be easily accommodated. There are a few additional storage facilities that are underutilized if you're looking for a place to hide away a few dozen more tanks in storage.

2PPCLI is there with a Mech battalion making it possible to do combined arms training in house and conduct such things as combat team commanders courses. 1 RCHA is there and has the FOOs and guns to support that as well.

There are plenty of PMQs.

There are two relatively close reserve units to work with. The FGH in Winnipeg and the SaskD's in Moose Jaw. Brandon Airport can easily handle Hercs so other reserve armoured squadrons could be easily flown in for something as simple as a weekend, especially from southern Ontario. There's a solid highway and rail line structure out of there. (There simply are no large population centres anywhere that have any suitable ranges. One needs a different solution such as stationary and non-tracked tank trainers with fly-in exercises and a permanent training facility. Shilo is considerably less busy that Gagetown - maybe the CAS should move its tank cell to Shilo)

1. Long term maintenance - How do we prevent an expanded fleet of tanks from rusting out the same way that our current fleet has? Can we maintain a large tank fleet long term without a major maintenance and refurbishment facility/facilities being set up by the OEM in Canada to handle much of the major maintenance tasks? Even at 300 tanks is that a large enough fleet to justify the cost to the government to support such a facility long term as the RCAC would be the sole customer for the facility?

The highlighted part is exactly why members like @FJAG and many others here keep suggesting that we need to pre-position our heavy forces in Europe where they are most likely to be needed.

Yup. I still think that.

Deterrence is of value when you have a large enough force deployed so that you merit your own national military map symbol on the NATO Orbat. Use Shilo as the main combined arms training facility and Europe for annual flyover exercises. - Make it a mech brigade with a Type 44 regiment for Europe and a 14-tank training squadron (plus spares ) in Shilo with 1 CMBG as the primary agency for flyover training and force generation - hell make Europe an extension of 1 CMBG. Give 1 CMBG in Canada just enough of everything to be able to run courses but do its exercises in Europe. While I'm dreaming, make 38 Svc Bn in Winnipeg a Heavy Equipment Transport company and an adjunct of 1 Svc Bn so stuff can occasionally be moved to Suffield or Wainwright for exercises.

A government and military that were serious about a heavy force commitment to NATO would do that. But there is a cost to that. Both in the facilities and in forward deploying maintainers to a location overseas (when we already have issues with maintenance here at home).

Unfortunately it's becoming more and more obvious with every bit of news we hear about the state of the CAF that we are NOT a serious country/military.

Man, its easy to come up with plans.