Political Crossfire Forums

Boondoggle · Joined: 18 Oct 2004 Posts: 1276

The Russian wrote: I think it doesnt exactly have to do with which military surplus they buy from politicaly... it probably has to do with the notion of getting the most "bang for your buck" ... pun intended. The tanks theyre buying are for supression purposes only in missions like afghanistan, whereas these wouldnt cut it in a truly modern war as even the germans have better and are now selling these...

Since these tanks are not realy necessary to any currently ongoing military effort, they should take their time to assess the situation before diving in, so the libs are right. If theres no mil conflict involving canada in the next 10 years, whats the point of owning this rust pile now?... and considering canada's armed conflict record, war equipment might just be a waste of resources at this point and time.

I think you might be confusing the Leopard 2 with the Leopard 1. The Leopard 2 A5 is considered one of the best tanks out there - along with the Abrams and Challenger - and Germany still uses it. The Leopard 2 and the Abrams also entered service around the same time.

Germany is upgrading the A5 to A6 now, but from what I've read, that's to add extra features rather than redesign it, and the Canadian armed forces can easily modify them to add extra features too. The Coyote is a good example of that. It's a LAV that the Canadian armed forces added surveillance equipment to in order to make it a reconnaissance vehicle.

I think the Leopard 2 A5, Abrams and Challenger would all be good choices. I think the preference people have is often based on national pride. If you ask an American which tank would be best, the answer will likely be the Abrams. If you ask a German, the answer will probably be the Leopard 2. If you ask a Brit, the answer will probably be the Challenger. That aside, however, there are pros and cons to each.

Also, if you look closely, that which people take national pride in isn't always purely a product of that nation. For example, the gun design for the Abrams is based on the Leopard 2. According to this article, the fire control computer for the Abrams is Canadian. The job is put out for bid, and the company that can meet the specs at the lowest cost and within the given time frame generally wins the bid. In reality, it's more about what makes economic sense than national pride, or as you put it, bang for buck. :lol:

For Canada, I think the Leopard 2 A5s would be hard to beat, and with a good crew and the latest electronics, they'd be able to keep up. However, if they can get a good deal on some Abrams or Challengers, that'd be good too.

As to the question of whether or not it makes sense to have tanks, the Canadian government thought this way when they got rid of the Chinooks. They thought the Chinooks were unnecessary; therefore, a waste of money. So, they sold them off, and now they're wishing they still had them. The good news is that the Chinooks that they are buying now will be the new version that the US military is getting, but it'll be a couple years off, and I think there's a lesson to be learned in the whole experience.

Refrozen Seabass · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 2717

Reagan wrote: I suppose there is always our (U.S.) air defense network that they can rely upon.

Possibly because you are unaware of the facts. If you weren't unaware of the facts, you wouldn't suppose this at all.

http://www.norad.mil/about_us/canr.htm

I will consider your comments withdrawn.

Boondoggle · Joined: 18 Oct 2004 Posts: 1276

Reagan wrote: I have always pondered what a truly militarily secured North America would be like. I guess we will never know, as our our neighbors to the north are more focused on ineffective social programs rather than the defense of their country. I suppose there is always our (U.S.) air defense network that they can rely upon.

I know you're just trying to push buttons, but there is a US equivalent to virtually every social program that Canada has. Truth be told, the US probably inspired some of the Canadian social programs.

If anything, there seems to be more concern about maintaining a federal surplus. After nearly a decade of them, simply balancing the budget would probably be frowned on like a deficit. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have used surplus money to pay down debt. So, how is your federal budget these days? :think:

Reagan · Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject:

Refrozen Seabass wrote: Reagan wrote: I suppose there is always our (U.S.) air defense network that they can rely upon.

Possibly because you are unaware of the facts. If you weren't unaware of the facts, you wouldn't suppose this at all.

http://www.norad.mil/about_us/canr.htm

I will consider your comments withdrawn.

Agreed. I was unaware of the Canadian AF use of the f-18 hornet in the number they report. :!oops: Thank you for that link.

Reagan · Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject:

Boondoggle wrote: So, how is your federal budget these days? :think:

Not too bad. Running under forecast. :-D

Refrozen Seabass · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 2717

Reagan wrote: Refrozen Seabass wrote: Reagan wrote: I suppose there is always our (U.S.) air defense network that they can rely upon.

Possibly because you are unaware of the facts. If you weren't unaware of the facts, you wouldn't suppose this at all.

http://www.norad.mil/about_us/canr.htm

I will consider your comments withdrawn.

Agreed. I was unaware of the Canadian AF use of the f-18 hornet in the number they report. :!oops: Thank you for that link.

In that case, I apologize for my harsh tone.

[Bible]Monkey · Joined: 03 Jul 2004 Posts: 6675 Location: Alberta

Boondoggle wrote: The Canadian government is considering buying Leopard 2 A4 and A5s tanks from the Germans and Swiss, which would more than double the number of tanks that the Canadian military has.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061031/canada_tanks_061031/20061031?hub=TopStories

Your CTV article is under discussion at Army.ca Forums .

Some of the (ex) soldiers are correcting some errors in the news story, the author of the story-David Akin- makes a few posts. I thought it was worth a read.

I hope the Defense department bean-counters realize-at a minimum from a financial point- that it will cost a lot to replace wheeled armoured vehicles that get whacked by rocket propelled grenades ( not to mention the men inside) whereas a Tank-and the men inside -would survive rpg's.

=CNP= · Joined: 03 Sep 2006 Posts: 173 Location: Duncan BC Canada

Tanks are good, Canada use to have over a thousand tanks, but now , there are too many Kitty Cats, repeatily slashing military spending.

The Canadian Armored Core is the with out question, home to the best tank crews that ever existed. We owe it to these people to give them tanks that are at least from the cold war.

Boondoggle · Joined: 18 Oct 2004 Posts: 1276

[Bible]Monkey wrote: Boondoggle wrote: The Canadian government is considering buying Leopard 2 A4 and A5s tanks from the Germans and Swiss, which would more than double the number of tanks that the Canadian military has.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061031/canada_tanks_061031/20061031?hub=TopStories

Your CTV article is under discussion at Army.ca Forums .

Some of the (ex) soldiers are correcting some errors in the news story, the author of the story-David Akin- makes a few posts. I thought it was worth a read.

I hope the Defense department bean-counters realize-at a minimum from a financial point- that it will cost a lot to replace wheeled armoured vehicles that get whacked by rocket propelled grenades ( not to mention the men inside) whereas a Tank-and the men inside -would survive rpg's.

I've lurked those forums in the past to get the military point of view, but didn't know about that thread. Thanks for the link.

I don't know where CTV finds some of these people... I saw a report in which one argued that the Leopards wouldn't offer enough protection. They're using LAVs, but the Leopards aren't good enough? They also added armor to the Leopards, but the armchair critic probly wasn't aware of that, or it didn't fit his partisan point of view.

Personally, I think there should be no problem with buying about 500 new tanks. Even if they bought new Abrams at a cost of about $5 million each, about $4 billion should cover it after you include the cost of spare parts, etc. That's half of what they're spending on new planes for the air force, and it would be great for the army.

As for bean-counters and their reports on what's needed, it's not that hard to figure out. Does the army need light armor? They already have up to date LAV IIIs, Coyotes and Nyalas. How about small arms? The main weapon is the C7, which, from what I've read, is also the weapon of choice of British SAS. If SAS uses it, I'm willing to venture a guess that it's pretty good. The Conservatives have already spent a billion on new trucks for the army as well. So, I think it's glaringly obvious that new tanks would be the next logical step.

Why buy the Stryker, a light armor vehicle with a big gun, to do the job of a tank when you already have good light armor vehicles and could use new tanks? Mobility? The C-130J, the first of which is expected to arrive next summer, is designed to carry an Abrams.

I think reports have become a way of procrastinating.

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6289

DSwain wrote: Reagan wrote: ieatfood wrote: hmmmm--so canada wants to double its number of tanks, bringing the total number to 4.

That's hilarious. :-D

That you should be seeking to diminish an allied military that's holding down a very difficult and dangerous beat in Afghanistan? Yes, that's really mirthsome.

lighten up, mr grumble

Revenant · Joined: 16 Apr 2006 Posts: 16629 Location: Bliss

ieatfood wrote: DSwain wrote: Reagan wrote: ieatfood wrote: hmmmm--so canada wants to double its number of tanks, bringing the total number to 4.

That's hilarious. :-D

That you should be seeking to diminish an allied military that's holding down a very difficult and dangerous beat in Afghanistan? Yes, that's really mirthsome.

lighten up, mr grumble

Kind of a D-bag thing to do in my opinion. Especially when they're there of their own volition (anyone realize I used all 3 versions of "there", sweet).