The Canadian Armed Forces Requirements

[peter12]

It is a massive boon to have the insight of two military men when discussing these matters. Many thanks to the both of you.

Excellent point about the 900 deployed. Politicians being politicians.

[peter12]

Double post.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by peter12

Excellent point about the 900 deployed. Politicians being politicians.

Listening to the radio the other day, they were talking about how the Americans recently said they find "training missions" to be almost pointless and have basically stopped doing it. Glad to see that's exactly what our plan is. Nothing like spinning your wheels just for the sake of saying we are doing something.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think they spent $65 billion on it.

Frankly training doesn't work, especially with irregular forces like the Kurdish Groups. You can't train these groups to be the same kind of disciplined effective professional soldiers when they're not.

They're tough, and they're incredibly brave, but you're not going to train them on modern battlefield tactics and weapons deployment etc and see it used effectively.

[LChoy]

Sorry to derail, but any thoughts on how the new Russian T-14 tank stacks up against the modern US Abram? Would Canada even have anything to match against it?

The T-14 Armata is expected to enter service next year. The Russian army plans to deploy as many as 2,300 of these new tanks by 2020, although the IISS cautions that this “ambitious target is unlikely to be met.”


But the Armata possesses a more powerful gun than its British equivalent, the Challenger 2, and probably a surer ability to protect itself and survive on the battlefield. “Assuming Armata is successfully developed and enters service, Western land forces should be very concerned,” said Brigadier Ben Barry, a land warfare specialist at the IISS.

“Armata has two revolutionary elements: first of all it’s been designed from the outset with an unmanned turret and that turret may well have the capacity to accept a larger gun in future. Secondly, it’s been designed with an integral active protection system which shoots down incoming anti-tank missiles.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/wo...-blocking-tank

Thank you

LChoy

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Sorry to derail, but any thoughts on how the new Russian T-14 tank stacks up against the modern US Abram? Would Canada even have anything to match against it?



Thank you

LChoy

To Captain - why do nation invest in tanks? I would of thought air superiority would out weigh tank needs?

I am sure I am missing something obvious here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Sorry to derail, but any thoughts on how the new Russian T-14 tank stacks up against the modern US Abram? Would Canada even have anything to match against it?



Thank you

LChoy

think of the T-14 as an extension of where the American's wanted to go when they were developing their future combat system concept that was cancelled.

The T-14 is almost to be the lego of tanks becausee of the unmanned turret. They can easily produce a whole bunch of battle field weapons based around the chasis.

think of it this way. You can have a self propelled artillary piece, or a troop carrier or a anti-aircraft system all based around the same propulsion and crew training system. Its something that is very smart.

The T-14 is different from where the Russians were in terms of tank design. Their philosophy going back to the T-34 was to build simple tanks with big guns in overwhelming numbers to combat the American's technical superiority. The T-14 is built with enhanced crew protection, First of all with the un manned turret you don't have crew members surrounded by ammunition like you do in other tanks.

Its got state of the art passive armor and combines it with an reactive armor and then adds a active defense system that's designed to destroy incoming rounds and missiles before they strike the tank.

What I don't really like and I'm sure that anyone that's operated in tanks won't like is this tank is basically Nintendo controlled, because there's no one in the main turret, battlefield awareness is probably a little big compromised as they will depend on cameras and sensors.

The Russians have also been doing things a little different for a while. Not only can the main gun fire your standard anti-tank and anti-armor rounds like Heat and Sabot. The Russians can also fire an extremely long rang anti-tank rocket through their main gun for additional range.

The biggest problem for the Russian tanks has also been based around the use of an auto loader system, which tends to make its reload time a bit slower then the man operated loader on the M1 tank.

Supposedly the T-14 is twice as fast as the M1A2 and has a slightly better operational range.

The T-14 has a slightly harder punch with a 125 mm smooth bore as opposed to the M1's 120 mm smooth bore. The T-14 looks like it can carry more rounds.

What made the M1A1 really special, well there's two things. The sighting system was beyond anything that that anyone else had. Because it was so well stabilized it was and is hidiously accurate not only from long range, but while its moving. Its the tank that rarely misses. As well, its very well protected, with its depleted uranium armor on the A2's. It does have a active protective system, but that's more based around spoofing missiles, where the Russian system is based around destroying incoming rounds and missiles before they can reach the tank.

Right now the consensus thinking is that a tank battle comes down to who see's who first and can fire first.

It also comes down to surviving a hit and continuing to fire.

The Russian t-14 looks like its faster, it has a slightly longer range then the M1 series. I believe its protection systems are slightly more next generation.

We don't know much about how the sensors work on the T-14, the M1 series really depends more on crew awareness then anything else and being interlinked to other elements in theatre, we don't know if the T-14 has that kind of interoperability.

But the T-14 like the new generation of Russian submarines represents a huge un thought of leap forward away from traditional Russian thinking and it might be the tank that surpasses something like the current M1.

Currently the American's are working on the next generation of M1's which are the M3's but the main change with those is that they're lighter and faster. The Russians seem to have overcome the weight and heaviness problem with lighter next gen armor and active protection systems.

As far as the Leopards, the new generation leapards are very similar to the M1a2's in terms of speed, canon sighting and armor.

If I was to say anything that the T-14 is a next generation tank and they got there first.

[GoinAllTheWay]

That's an impressive tank. Mind you, Russians have been good at building armour for some time now.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

What made the M1A1 really special, well there's two things. The sighting system was beyond anything that that anyone else had. Because it was so well stabilized it was and is hidiously accurate not only from long range, but while its moving. Its the tank that rarely misses. As well, its very well protected, with its depleted uranium armor on the A2's. It does have a active protective system, but that's more based around spoofing missiles, where the Russian system is based around destroying incoming rounds and missiles before they can reach the tank.

Right now the consensus thinking is that a tank battle comes down to who see's who first and can fire first.

It also comes down to surviving a hit and continuing to fire.

The Russian t-14 looks like its faster, it has a slightly longer range then the M1 series. I believe its protection systems are slightly more next generation.

We don't know much about how the sensors work on the T-14, the M1 series really depends more on crew awareness then anything else and being interlinked to other elements in theatre, we don't know if the T-14 has that kind of interoperability.

But the T-14 like the new generation of Russian submarines represents a huge un thought of leap forward away from traditional Russian thinking and it might be the tank that surpasses something like the current M1.

Currently the American's are working on the next generation of M1's which are the M3's but the main change with those is that they're lighter and faster. The Russians seem to have overcome the weight and heaviness problem with lighter next gen armor and active protection systems.

As far as the Leopards, the new generation leapards are very similar to the M1a2's in terms of speed, canon sighting and armor.

If I was to say anything that the T-14 is a next generation tank and they got there first.

Also, the Abrams is a proven weapon. It works, and generally works pretty damn well.

Any new tank coming on the scene, still needs to prove itself in a conflict.

[LChoy]

Your explanation also brings back memories of the C&C games, where the allied team had the utility vehicle that function differently depending what ground unit you placed within it (infantry, rocket man,..)
http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Multigunner_IFV

Thanks Crunch for the info

LChoy

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

To Captain - why do nation invest in tanks? I would of thought air superiority would out weigh tank needs?

I am sure I am missing something obvious here.

You can't hold ground with air power, and you can't be sure that you've cleared an area with air power.

That's why you need forces on the ground.

With tanks they are the fastest and most efficient way to project ground power in combination with infantry.

You really are suppossed to use air power in conjunction with ground power, the Russians know this and they're the masters of combined arms throwing the kitchen sink approach to warfare a lesson that they were harshly taught by the Germans.

You really have four bubbles on the battlefield.

Infantry has a very small bubble, but it can effectively hold ground.

Armored fighting vehicles have a bigger bubble and because of their speed are incredibly good at intelligence gathering, Canada heavily invested in recce vehicles that can spot enemies and bring weapons to bear.

Tanks have a massive bubble, they can reach out and touch something a long ways away, and bring a lot of fire power to bear.

Artillary is a enormous bubble and can put fire power on one spot

Air power is like artillary.

So a couple of things.

In Afghanistan, Canada was very effective with the tanks that they used because their main gun could penatrate the thick walls that seemed to be prevalent in terms of ambushes that the Taliban put up, they would intentionally hide in these houses and storage bins that had thick stone and clay walls and they were safe from small arms fire or fire from out LAV III's, but the tanks could basically take them apart.

Tanks also turned out to be better at crew protection against IED's and ambushes then wheeled vehicles were, modern battle tanks are fairly invulnerable against weapons like the RPG-7s that are commonly used by insurgent forces, so the Tanks could shelter infantry, and fire back with what I would class as overwhelming firepower.

Airpower really works well against stationary targets btw, against logistic centers and bridges and key communication centers etc.

Tanks really work well when your facing a mobile force that you want to push out of the area and because of their speed and guns can be a great asset in holding areas and providing over support.

Tanks in conjunction with infantry, helicopters, AFV, artillary and aircraft is a perfect solution.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Also, the Abrams is a proven weapon. It works, and generally works pretty damn well.

Any new tank coming on the scene, still needs to prove itself in a conflict.

Yup, that's always the way.

The biggest problem also with Russians is their ability to go from the drawing board to mass production.

They have top notch engineers and battle field theory, but their manufacturing has never been good.

For example, when the Soviets designed the T-72 tank a lot of people were frightened of its capability, on paper, it was a great leap forward tank wise. But it was poorly produced.

The same can be said of the Mig-29, a fantastic plane and really a copy of a tried and true American design. but they had trouble manufacturing it and the flaws impacted performance.

[peter12]

As WWII showed, tactics, ease of maintenance, and combined arms support tend to ameliorate armour tech advantages.

Since then, our culture has also developed a myth of the invincible German armour, and the inadequacy of the Sherman to even dent a Tiger or a Panther. All untrue, of course. The heavy German tanks were mechanical nightmares.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Tanks are the infantry's big brother.

shortened your post.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by peter12

As WWII showed, tactics, ease of maintenance, and combined arms support tend to ameliorate armour tech advantages.

Since then, our culture has also developed a myth of the invincible German armour, and the inadequacy of the Sherman to even dent a Tiger or a Panther. All untrue, of course. The heavy German tanks were mechanical nightmares.

T-34 is still one of the greatest tanks ever made.

When I was in Yugo in '93, they Serbs were still using them in battle.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Your explanation also brings back memories of the C&C games, where the allied team had the utility vehicle that function differently depending what ground unit you placed within it (infantry, rocket man,..)
http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Multigunner_IFV

Thanks Crunch for the info

LChoy

I'd build about 20 of those and put Tesla Troopers and those guys with the time guns in them and nothing could stop me.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

T-34 is still one of the greatest tanks ever made.

When I was in Yugo in '93, they Serbs were still using them in battle.

At the height of the fighting in Stalingrad, the Soviets were rolling them off the assembly line - unpainted -and throwing them straight into combat.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

T-34 is still one of the greatest tanks ever made.

When I was in Yugo in '93, they Serbs were still using them in battle.

One of the biggest technical innovations on that tank was well besides the chasis was the simplest thing and that was angled armor.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by peter12

At the height of the fighting in Stalingrad, the Soviets were rolling them off the assembly line - unpainted -and throwing them straight into combat.

It was amazing to see that piece of military history still rolling and in a front line situation. They are much smaller than I thought.

I remember our position overlooked the T-34's positions. One day the Serbs fired them up to go for a spin, probably to go for a Slivovitz run. As the rolled out, the thing stalled in the open. The Croats were must have been drunk or asleep, but finally they got going, walking motars up on them. That tank crew work like men possessed to get it running and took off back to their hide.

It really was an afternoon of good comedy.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

One of the biggest technical innovations on that tank was well besides the chasis was the simplest thing and that was angled armor.

I to have a thick Glacis Plate.