(click to view full)
Even since Gen. Shinseki began pushing wheeled armored vehicles in the 1990s, the USA has shifted away from tracked carriers - and a number of European countries are moving toward all-wheeled forces. Canada was on that road, too - but it would seem that they are taking some of the lessons re-learned during Operation Medusa in Afghanistan to heart. Canada's DND:
"The heavily protected direct fire capability of a main battle tank is an invaluable tool in the arsenal of any military. The intensity of recent conflicts in Central Asia and the Middle East has shown western militaries that tanks provide protection that cannot be matched by more lightly armoured wheeled vehicles.... [Canada's existing Leopard C2/1A5] tanks have also provided the Canadian Forces (CF) with the capability to travel to locations that would otherwise be inaccessible to wheeled light armoured vehicles, including Taliban defensive positions."
In October 2003, Canada was set to buy the Styker/LAV-III 105mm Mobile Gun system to replace its Leopard C2 tanks. In the end, however, the lessons of war have taken Canada down a very different path - one that now has them renewing the very tank fleet they were once intent on scrapping, and backing away from the wheeled vehicles that were once the cornerstone of the Canadian Army transformation plan.
And so it goes... Read the rest at Defense Industry Daily.
100 new Leopard 2 MBTs from Holland and 20 on lease/loan from Germany.
Why not Abrams? What is in Leopard that is not in Abrams?
Winston - It's the difference in cost per unit. This data is from Wikipedia's article on the M1 Abrams tank:
"Over 8,800 M1 and M1A1 tanks have been produced at a cost of $2,350,000-4,300,000 per unit, depending on the variant."
The article in DID that Joe links to talks about the low prices that the Germans and the Dutch (Netherlands) are charging for their used Leopard 2 tanks. Both countries are reducing their heavy armored forces and Canada is taking advantage of this.
The Leopard 2's probably aren't as good as the Abrams' M1A1 model, and they're certainly not as good as the M1A2, BUT they're a lot cheaper right now.
understood
Is there any plan in Canadian DND to buy new American Cougar LAVs ?
Winston, I don't know anything about that. The Canadian forces use LAV-IIIs now as an infantry carrier link and for some other roles.
There is also a Coyote version of the LAV that is a reconnaissance model.
Joe, do you have any info about Winston's queston?
Well it took awhile, when I was in the army we were lusting for Leo II's, they are an excellent piece of kit. The question was asked why didn't Canada buy Abrams. I suspect for many reasons.
1. We are already familiar with the Leo's and can transition to them quickly.
2. The Abrams has a voracious fuel appetite which means increased logistic support. The Leo uses diesel and doesn't need to be refueled as often.
3. My own belief is that a gas turbine engine in a desert environment is not ideal as sand and dust will reduce turbine blade life, an already unbelievably hot engine will be that much more. The engine in the Leo is a military version of a very common commercial engine, you can find parts for it anywhere, not so with the gas turbine in the Abrams.
4. I believe that the Abrams is no longer in production (new tanks) but is currently rebuilding existing hulls and I suspect the US Army really wants to keep those for themselves.
5. Finally Canada's army is always in a virtual famine, has been since the 1960's and Abrams tanks would probably be twice as expensive as buying surplus tanks, we get more bang for our buck and there ain't to many bucks even with the Conservatives in power.
In regards to LAV's well we are finding out they are not the whole answer, yes they have speed and mobility, but protection is lacking and to date you can't mount a 120 mm on them. The bottom line is that in the new reality we are going to have to maintain both tracked and wheeled forces to be able to undertake a wide range of operations that are completely different from the last.