Canada would be much wiser to embrace the the interim combat brigade groups that the US is scrambling to create and has just recently ordered 2000 plus LAV III from Canada based Diesel Division General Motors to equip three brigade groups plus spares for training and attrition. These brigades fast and highly mobile, although in some area's tracked vehicle's enjoy advantages such as in severly swampy terrain. They are essentially modern day cavalry brigades supported by substantial numbers of infantry and combat support units such as artillery. These brigades are of use in all war scenarios, even high intensity conflict where they are able to act as quick strike brigades. Although they aren not able to go toe-to-toe with a heavy armour brigade equipped with modern MBTs and AIFV's they can easily run away if they meet stiff opposition. Yes, Canada loses the capabilty to fight even in a very limited heavy armour battle, but is it likely that Canada ever would and since we aren't equipped to do so what person would want to. When or if MBTs are not utilized by the CF, it is even more unlikely that any politician or officer would ever put the military into a situation where they must go toe-to-toe with a well-equipped mechanized armour brigade group.

However, with the manpower saved in this reorganization, Canada should form a single, small, Armoured Cavalry Regiment-equipped exclusively with MBTs, tracked RECCE, and tracked SP howitzers. this forces main goal would be to retain a core heavy armour formation for the CAF LFs, should the need ever arise to reconstitute a heavy armour capability. A secondary (or primary) purpose for such a unit would be to allow the mainstay light armour brigades to train against heavy armour units, and develop and hone tactics for successfully engaging such. It could act as a regular OPFOR at Shilo or Petawawa, and allied heavy and light armour formations could train against them, for a user fee. This fee would be used to fund the maintenence of the ACR.

Composition could be as follows:

3 squadrons of 36 MBTs (Leo 1C2s for now, perhaps surplus M-1s or Leopard 2s in future)

Each squadron would have a troop of say 12 M-113 equipped for RECCE-with Delco 25TOW turret, or just a simulated weapon-the idea here is training, not actual combat.

Support-use the Taurus, Beaver and Badger LEO variants for comabt service support, engineers, etc.

ID Fire Support-one battalion of the M-109s, sell the rest.

Basically, the CAF ACR would be a slightly scaled down version of the US ACR. It would retain the core heavy armour function of the CAF, 2000-2500 men, it would be available for an emegency, but its main purpose would be to train our reg Brigades in counter heavy armour warfare, and retain a MBT capability.

The real issue behind giving up MBTs is that we some think that once it is gone, it is gone. This is true to a degree. But if we aren't going to use MBTs, and can't afford a army which will utilize MBTs for its primary mission, then why attempt to retain them in an operational capacity? For the Reg force brigades, go all wheeled, rapid response capability. Give the navy and air force the ability to transport these forces strategically. If money is left, and these missions are covered first, maintain a small cadre of MBT and heavy armour for training/reconstitutive purposes.

Opinions?

Regards,

For what its worth , if LFC are going to keep tanks then it must do so wholeheartly. The military maxium is mass x velocity and single Armoured regts or a comined brigade isn't going to cut it. Not enough mass. To organize (with tanks) we must be looking at Div sized units organized with 2 x CMBG and 1 x Armoured Brigade Group as the punch. Seeing how the economics of today's forces are ,this isn't llikely.

So the question remains keep tanks so as not to lose those skills or move to a LAV III concept and lose our armoured capability completely. Those of us who aren't zipperheads it is easy to move towards this doctrine, but for our tanker bretheren, a bitter pill to swallow.

Reading some of the above, you see the Armoured Corps as gloried infantry support, (shades of the Brits prior to WWII.) This is not their role nor should it be.

There will be no easy solution and it will probably be a politcal one that pleases no one. My feelings is that we should move towards the American Armoured Cav Regt (3 or 4 of them) concept (relacing CMBGs) wihch are self contained Battle Groups that can operate indepedantly or as part of task groups (this Arm Cav can either be wheeled ie LAV III based [prefererable] or tracked). Add 1 x Armoured Brigade and we have a multi-capable combat force.

Ubique

Nate, I like the LAV25-TOW idea, but I would rather see them employed on operational vehicles. We should buy the turret for the LAV III, and put its LAV25 turret on the Cougars for the reserves to train in (as a "Coyote Trainer").

Chimo!

Lots of variables at work here. Put away all MBT's in favour of all wheel? Maybe in this country as they won't spend the money to properly equip us. Still, the tank is a wonderfully intimidating weapon that strikes fear into people on the ground. If you have ever been witness to a Sqn of tanks doing an armoured hasty attack, it makes every one spectating walk away in awe. Yes, there are many weapons that will defeat an MBT (the old, "I can take one out with a Carl G" argument) but they never travel alone. And personally I don't want to be the first to draw the attention of the other three tanks! The same arguments can be put forward against all armoured vehs. The old maxim (and no disrespect intended here) that a single tank can do more damage in 15 minutes than an entire company of infantry can in a day, still holds true. I've made comments in other posts about the offers given to Canada by other countries, ref: availability of more tanks for Canada. Remember, we work on the concept of combat teams, I'll cover your ass crossing the field, you watch mine in town. This includes all arms, incl the air defence guys to cover us all from fast air and helos. So without being for or against the following statements, I offer you this article that was sent to me. Thought you may be interested. Pay special attention to what the veteran Infantry officer has to say.

THE age of the heavy battle tank is over, says the senior officer in charge of
the British Army's weapons.

Has the mighty, 70-ton, Challenger main battle tank had its day?

Since its introduction on the Somme in 1916, the tank has been regarded as
the master of the battlefield. But with the increasing sophistication of modern
weapons, especially the attack helicopter, its influence has declined, according
to military experts.

A different political climate, including the end of the Cold War, has also influenced strategic thinking on its future. Maj-Gen Peter Gilchrist, master general of ordnance, made his comments to an international group of officers and defence industrialists at the Royal Military College of Science in Shrivenham, Wiltshire.

He said: "In the long term, we expect technology to allow us to deliver a better capability than current forces from a significantly lighter platform. We believe that the 70-ton tank, manifested in Challenger 2 and other Nato main battle tanks, will have had its day. It will be replaced by a lighter system with greater protection and firepower."

Christopher Foss, editor of Jane's Armour and Artillery magazine, said: "The chances of having an East-West war have gone and, with it, the need for a huge stock of tanks." The shelf-life of Britain's 386 Challenger 2 tanks, which cost �4 million each, comes to an end in 2025.

Britain, America and Sweden are looking at a 20-ton replacement that will be
air-transportable but retain its firepower and protection. Electric engines would make them smaller and quieter with the average crew reduced from four to two. Stealth technology, including building tanks from plastic which is being developed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, could be used to defend it against "intelligent" weapons.

An MoD spokesman said: "We are looking at what will happen when the Challenger finishes service. We are considering technology that might allow us to have the same punch a tank has but in a lighter form that is air-transportable. This is not the death of the tank but its evolution."

A former infantry officer, who was among the first to enter Kosovo in 1999, argued that the tank was still an important asset. He said: "We knew the Serbs had a significant tank element in Kosovo and we would have to fight like with like."

He said: "The American Apache helicopters kept crashing and would have been very limited in mountainous terrain where the Serbs were well dug in. If it had come to a fight, we would have got nowhere without tanks. When we finally did deploy into Kosovo, putting a tank on a road junction was rather like having a bouncer on the door at a nightclub."

While some still regard tanks as the best anti-tank weapons, it is argued that their size and lack of speed make them vulnerable. Attack helicopters travel at 200mph and their missiles have a range of three miles, allowing them to threaten flanks of armoured formations moving at 50mph.

But Brig Andrew Gadsby, a former cavalry officer now marketing manager at Vickers, said: "From one point of view the tank is dead. The 70-ton monster will be replaced by something that has the exact same characteristics." David Fletcher, of the Tank Museum in Bovington, Dorset, said: "They have been sounding the death-knell of the tank since bazookas were introduced in the Second World War."

17 March 2001: [International] Germany sends tanks into Macedonia
3 March 2001: [International] Taliban tanks and artillery fire on Buddhas 25 February 2001: [City] Rolls-Royce wins �200m tank deal
16 February 2001: [International] India signs deal to buy 310 tanks from Russia
11 February 2001: Villagers fight MoD over tank firing on fells

As for going toe-to-toe, well, you have to know something about your enemy. Just because they have T-80's doesn't make them good. Chad defeated Libya with almost no armor. They used Toyota pick-ups with anti-tank guns and heavy MG's. When interviewed and asked if their tactics would work against a first-class army, a Chadanian General replied:"No, probably not. But then we weren't fighting a first-class army, were we?" Canada has a much better level and quality of training. That puts them at an advantage over most world forces.

A.R.G.