Stryker vs. Leopard
I don't think the JSSs will be available in time to be very relevant to any decision. An earlier post on the subject.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 3:27 p.m.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
The Torch is a group weblog focusing on the Canadian military.
Contributors:
- Damian - Babbling Brooks
- Mark from Ottawa
- Paul Synnott - BBS
- The Monarchist
- The Phantom Observer
- Tony - Milnews.ca
Damian's Afghanistan Posts
- Welcome to the two-way range
- The winning percentage
- Tac Hel
- Compatriots
- On the boardwalk
- Patrol, pt.1 - headed to Double K
- Patrol, pt.2 - Dand District Centre
- Corrections: thankless and rewarding
- Canada/Afghanistan (and me)
- A little goes a long way
- Photo Album
The opinions expressed in each blog post at The Torch are those of the specific post's contributor, and should not be attributed to any other group, organization or individual with which any of the contributors is affiliated, including each other. Neither do others' comments to these posts represent the contributors' opinions. Furthermore, any links provided to other websites are for information purposes only, and don't imply any endorsement on the part of the contributors.
This website is not endorsed by the Department of National Defence, the Government of Canada, or any other group or organization.
LCol John McCrae
Maps
Afghanistan pol/topo
Afghanistan ethnolinguistic
SW Asia ethnolinguistic
Afghanistan ISAF RC & PRT
Kandahar districts
Previous Posts
- There were worms in that can of whoop-ass
- Another northern exercise
- Liberal defence critic tells a porkie
- Afstan: NATO ISAF commander hopes for results soon
- Stupid Conservative defence promises
- Canadian Forces recruiting up
- Daily Afstan update
- Politics is politics
- Threat from Taliban
- Sub woes (cont.)
5 Comments:
I guess I can see that, but does it have to be heavy armor? I mean this seriously, in the kinds of conflicts we're likely to send our soldiers to, is there a role for heavy armor?
fred, ok medium. I guess my line is "wheeled=light" vs "tracked= heavy"
Part of the reason for moving away from the Leo's was the leaning towards UN peacekeeping that was happening in the 90's. Tracked armour is considered an offensive weapon and therefore is not allowed under UN mandates.
Times have changed and deployments are happening outside of the UN and in a more robust role. Leo's can take the battle to the enemy on our terms, without the fear of IED's and RPG's. Its off road capabilities would allow for increased tactical flexibility and would not restrict movement to predictable avenues of attack.
At the same time, though, we do not have the recce capabilities to keep up. With the retirement of the Lynx, the CF became dependent on wheeled recce, which suffers the same liabilities as the Stryker.
On the flip side, the Leo's are not suited to patrolling the narrow streets and alleyways of villages and cities. Its large size limits where it can go and buildings greatly reduce the ability of the Leo to traverse the turret. Tanks of this sort are suited to open ground fighting not urban encounters.
As I said in your previous post, the idea of bringing back the Leo's is a politically astute concept. The money allocated to the purchase of the MGS (contract still not signed) can be re-allocated for the upgrade of the Leo's to incorporate new technology and defensive capabilities. No political party is going to grouse about the killing of a capital procurement project and the CF regains a direct fire capability.
Ultimately, though, I doubt the decision will be as black and white as Stryker vs. Leopard but a more multi-faceted approach as we struggle to ensure fighting capability as well as rear area security. Even with their susceptibility to RPG and IED attack, the LAV is still an excellent vehicle for rear area security with the ability to bring its 25mm to bear on any threat in very cramped areas.
Tanks of this sort are suited to open ground fighting not urban encounters.
I understand what you're getting at, Robb, but have you read this report? (pdf file)
There's a good argument to be made that the usefulness of heavy armour in an urban environment was one of the biggest surprises to army-types of the past forty years.
To BB
Yes, I have read that report and you will notice it refers mainly to the use of tanks in a highly mobile assault against conventional forces. Further, the focus is on the use of armour in the more open areas and main thoroughfares. The report also points out the drawbacks when it comes to counter insurgency missions.
Viewing the footage of Canadian engagements in Afghanistan shows some of the areas that armour would be beneficial. Breaching Taliban strongholds, direct fire on compounds, etc. can only enhance our operational capabilities. At the same time, for them to be effective in dealing with Taliban ambushes, the Leo's would have to be used to for convoy escorts, leading patrols, etc. The number of tanks that would take would be extremely restrictive.
In addition, Leo's effectiveness would also be limited by the surrounding areas. It could only operate on main streets and could be a liability in the narrow alleyways and lanes that crisscross places like Kandahar City. Another minor consideration would also have to be the destruction that a tank, by its very nature, can wreak on roads. The PRT's are currently trying to rebuild and pave roadways in Afghanistan, tank grousers massacre roads.
We, in fact, may need to take a second look at a short barrel derivative of the MGS to compliment the use of MBT's in theatre. As useful as the Leo's would be they are not a panacea and need is merely another tool in an all round modern battlefield concept.
Post a Comment
<< Home