Army opts to stick with Leopard tanks
 

EXTRA!!EXTRA!! Read all about it.
This just in from The Montreal Gazette headline Saturday,July 08,2006.
Army looking to keep their last 65 Leopards.
The article is lengthy so search the thread .Type in The Montreal Gazette,todays' date to get the full story..

This has been an MLU Public Service Bulletin.

We now return you to normal programming,some of which may be in progress :salute:

Re: Army opts to stick with Leopard tanks
 

Gonna need 'em in Afghanistan!

Re: Re: Army opts to stick with Leopard tanks
 

You got it Pontiac.Apparently the new MGS or the MMEV vehicles won't stop an RPG.So,go back to square one.I personally think that now we're getting the C-17 Globemaster heavy lift aircraft,they've finally have a platform to get the Leopards into Afghanistan.What say you?? :salute:

Re: Re: Re: Army opts to stick with Leopard tanks
 

The LAV body stops RPGs quite well, particularly if they are up-armoured. Nonetheless, a lucky shot with an RPG will even brew up a main battle tank - the US is looking at a few of their tank casualties that were taken out by various rockets.

Don't write off either vehicle just yet...

Point noted R.H.
 

But.I'd rather be in a Leopard than a wheeled softski vehicle.Wouldn't you ?? :salute:

the M-1s that were taken out by rockets (NOT SHOULDER FIRED) were normaly mobility kills followed up by petrol bombs. one tank stoped under a overpass for a bit of shade. next thing they know they had 40 ltrs of fuel poured down on them then ignited. that would do it.

as for RPG-7s one M1A1 recived over 20 hits without anything more than a scratch durring the first gulf war.

Armour AIN'T armour without tracks and a big gun. I may be a grunt at heart, but I do understand those hard-headed armoured pukes, and I'm on their side. We need them.

On the other hand:

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...36-2336437.php

As for choice of vehicle - the tactical situation would dictate this...in any case, I will take speed over weight anyday.

It would seem that the troops in AStan are more than happy with the LAV variants...not to say that a few tanks wouldn't get some RPG gunner's pulse quickening.

the great armoured debate
 

its all a big comprmise, speed ,protection and offence. you cant have it all. each situation decrees which vehicle you should use. a lav is not a tank or a tank killer, a tank is not a good recon vehicle so the poor old grunt or trooper has to make do with what our wonderful goverments grasiously give us. i just wish some times our political members had the chance to ride in the vehicles, in a hot zone just to see the fruits of their desisions in action!!

Hi

Smile when you say that, Grunt. ;)

Oh, wouldn't say that. Depends on what type of Recee you want done. The Coyote LAV is fine for overwatch but it still has thin armour (add on kit strains the powerplant) and a much smaller gun (no cannister round either!!). And the LAV III we're using there now is actually taller than our Leo I C2. :eek:

At least someone is thinking in that they're using Armoured Crewman in the turrets of Engineer etc LAVs. Straight from the horse's mouth; only Zipperheads do the turret job well. :salute:

As far as the Leos go; they've been extended to 2015 which is only five more years than planned when the MGS was still on the books. What happens after that is anyone's guess but I somehow doubt it'll be new tanks. I hope and I pray I'm wrong but my gut is telling me different. :(

regards
Darrell
(Zipperhead)

Re: Re: Re: Army opts to stick with Leopard tanks
 

My thoughts exactly! The C17 is exactly what we need to get ass and trash to Astan. We're going to see a lot of our CC 130's there also, now that the Polaris is set up for air to air refueling. Here's a question for any 8 Wing types out there. What happened to our plan to lengthen the fuselages of our Hercs to increase carge volume? I know that at least one was lengthened...did it prove too much of a strain on the airframes? Most of our Hercs are older than the pilots flying them, in fact Lockheed pays close attention to our planes as Canada keeps flying some of the highest time airframes on the planet!

The Good ole Leo
 

Which mark of the leo are we talking about? The Leopard
Ive seen will do the job.But Im sure that ya'll up north
would prefer your own Armor,I side with you on that
issue. Three finest pieces of armor on the planet now
are the Abrams,the challenger and the leopard.
Hard Headed Armor pukes??? Yeah. It takes a thin
skin engineer to pull them out of the mud
Patrick

the herc is a great aircraft, but it is a reginal AC. and the big problem is not the leingth of the aircraft, but how wide and tall the cargo area is in the aircraft . that is the killer when it comes to uploading most tanks into the herc. there is no way to fix that problem.

the leos that canada has are upgraded loe 1s. it was a great tank for its time but you can only bolt on so much armor befor the suspension gives out. it did not start out life as a 70 ton MBT and im not sure that it could be fitted to be one. also you are going to run into spair parts problems. some parts im sure have not been made for years, altho im sure you could purchas the aussi tanks for parts vehicles.

When I talked to the LCMMs for the Leopards a coupel years back, they had indicated that we bought a hundred or so Leos from the Germans so we could use the upgraded turrets off them. We paid a $10,000 deposit on the hulls, which we kept, rather than transporting them halfway around the return for the refund. They have been stripped for parts, and many of the hulls have found their way to the ranges (we have a couple here, along with some of the old turrets). If we can buy complete tanks for $25,000 apiece, that is sure a lot more economical than buying new parts for any military piece of equipment.
Only problem with using used parts is that it requires more labour to remove them in the first place, and they may not last as long as a new. Labour is precious asset in the CF these days.

rob that sounds great, but as im sure you know from restoring old military equipment lots of components are broken or found to be unusable when removing from one vehicle and installing on another. i would NOT like to be on a battlefield with a tank made up of U-PULL-IT parts from a mil junk yard. when the tanks crew is on the line its better to be shiny and new. and yes battle proven too. :cheers:

Dave
If you don't like recycled, then the Canadian Forces would not have been for you. When we phased out our M113-1/2 Lynx recce vehicles, the packs were pulled and re-issued through the supply chain for use with the standard M113A2s.. I recall reading a TFR on one received in Bosnian theater in an unserviceable condition.
In the CF you will be re-issued used clothing, used boots (as long as a permanent imprint from the previous user wasn't impressed in the bottom), salveged food (when you find short pieces of spaghetti in your chili, it's cause it was yesterdays spaghetti sauce right off the steamline), and plenty of used autoparts. Ever notice that few to none of the surplus Iltis trailers come with taillights? Ever hear about our nearly new surplus British submarines? The one that caught fire is now to be used for parts to keep the other three going.
When you work in an organisation that has endured Liberal cutbacks for decades, you learn to make do.

I can vouch for Rob's comments. B.C. was at the end of a very long...and thin supply chain, especially after they closed CFB Chilliwack. We had to go all the way to Edmonton, via commercial aircraft to get kitted out before we could be deployed. When we went on exercise in B.C., it was cheaper to have our meals catered in the field than purchasing I.M.P.'s that quite often were already T.X.'d. We bought civilian pattern boots when C.F. issue combat boots were impossible to come by, and our vehicles were leased civilian pattern trucks and vans! The metal buildings on our base were scavenged from Chilliwack...we had to painstakingly disassemble them, transport them to Abbotsford before reassembling them. Waste not, want not!


:salute: CHIMO! :salute:

Oh My
 

I didnt understand how poorly your military has been
underfunded.You all have the right to be upset at that
treatment.On the other hand you have to be proud
at the job they are doing especially in combat conditions.
Patrick

i just dont think i would like to crew a tank that most of the world would use as a hard target on a range. M-60s, cheiftans, T-62s and yes leopard 1s need to go to the museums and yes collectors.

It is surprizing
 

Its been surprizing to find out how many of the
above listed tanks are still main battle tanks,across the world.
Our military still has some M60's in its stocks
of course they have been updated ( the Blazer)
Some are being used by The Corps Of Engineers.
Still I would not want to crew one.The 60 was ok
during the 70's but were really out dated even then
Patrick

you are useing some old data. nearly all the US army M-60s were dumped off the coast of florida about 5 years ago. the CEV version of the M-60s from the 1st cav, 4th ID, 49th AD, and 36th ID are long gone here in texas just like the rest of the army. they were used on the range here at ft hood as targets for hellfires about 7 years ago. the blazer was only addapted for use by the marines but were dumped in favor of 2nd hand army M1s in 1991 at the port yards in saudi arabia. the only M-60s left are afew for targets, for giving to the VFW, and for use as museum pices. the last version of the M-60s in service are the AVLBs and the M-88. the AVLBs are being phased out as fast as the new M1 based bridge layer can be built (the end of this year) and the new M-88 has few M-60 parts left on the hull after rebuilding to herculease configuration.

Yes
 

Yes I knew that info was out of date,but didnt know
how out of date it was. The last 60 I was in 79
and it was a wheezer that barely start let alone
run...
Patrick