Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Canadian AFV

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Canadian AFV

    Hey all,

    Canadian Government just bought 60 some MGS Stryker vehicles to replace our 140ish real tanks. Do the math. Any one who doesnt know this is a LAV III with a 105mm gun on top. Our own army said in 1998 trials that it was a piece of junk. Leave it to the government, after decades of gross neglect, to buy us something on the cheap just before an election.

    I imagine that something that can be taken out quite easily by an RPG (can anybody say Afganistan)would be only infantry support.

    Iam calling it the Sturmgeshitz C1
    Good Luck on the Battlefield

  • #2
    Yeahreally. I think they're still halfway through their "Leopord modernization" program which includes replacing turrets with turrets purchased from Germany and adding armor. Whoever is calling the shots for military acquisitions needs to make up their mind.
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Stubble Jumper
      Hey all,

      Canadian Government just bought 60 some MGS Stryker vehicles to replace our 140ish real tanks. Do the math. Any one who doesnt know this is a LAV III with a 105mm gun on top. Our own army said in 1998 trials that it was a piece of junk. Leave it to the government, after decades of gross neglect, to buy us something on the cheap just before an election.

      I imagine that something that can be taken out quite easily by an RPG (can anybody say Afganistan)would be only infantry support.

      The problem my friend with these Leopards is that they're stuck in Canada unless some kind and well-known ally (the US) accepts to give us a lift since we do not have airlift capacity for them or even sufficient naval capacity to transport them in sufficient numbers.

      It's not tomorrow that they will see an Afghan RPG fired on them...

      Comment


      • #4
        Hey Tzar,

        Quess what else isn't transportable by C-130. Ill give you 3 quesses.

        Answer: Stryker MGS vehicle.

        As far as Afagnistan and RPG's, well seeing as we are most likely going to be there for the next 10-15 years (mark my words), I think this vehicle will make it over there for a few missions.
        Good Luck on the Battlefield

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Stubble Jumper
          Hey Tzar,

          Quess what else isn't transportable by C-130. Ill give you 3 quesses.

          Answer: Stryker MGS vehicle.

          As far as Afagnistan and RPG's, well seeing as we are most likely going to be there for the next 10-15 years (mark my words), I think this vehicle will make it over there for a few missions.
          I thought they were airliftable...

          I guess it comes down to the fact that we are really too cheap to buy new MBTs...

          Comment


          • #6
            Hello Stubbe Jumper,

            I feel it is my duty as an American to nose in and interfere with Canadian affairs!

            Seriously, Stykers can be transported by air, it's just that they can only go short distance, perhaps 100 miles or less.

            Dan :flag:
            Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

            "Aim small, miss small."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tzar
              The problem my friend with these Leopards is that they're stuck in Canada unless some kind and well-known ally (the US) accepts to give us a lift since we do not have airlift capacity for them or even sufficient naval capacity to transport them in sufficient numbers.

              It's not tomorrow that they will see an Afghan RPG fired on them...
              We did get a handfull of Leos to Kosovo, IIRC. Surely the Armed Forces could easily lease civilian naval transport to get the heavies overseas?

              Edit: I suppose the only question is if there is the political/military will to send then overseas, which I don't think there is.
              Last edited by Martin Schenkel; 07 Nov 03, 21:04.

              Comment


              • #8
                Can somebody make list of the pros and cons of this new Stryker? It's pluses and minuses. I heard it does cost a fortune.

                "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Stubble Jumper
                  Hey Tzar,

                  Quess what else isn't transportable by C-130. Ill give you 3 quesses.

                  Answer: Stryker MGS vehicle.

                  As far as Afagnistan and RPG's, well seeing as we are most likely going to be there for the next 10-15 years (mark my words), I think this vehicle will make it over there for a few missions.
                  Well, the plan for NATO leasing a fleet of C-17s or A-400s for an airlift pool isn't dead yet.
                  The idea is that several of them(6-8) would be based in Canada.
                  With the condition our Herc fleet is in, it might be the way to go.
                  Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cheetah772
                    Hello Stubbe Jumper,

                    I feel it is my duty as an American to nose in and interfere with Canadian affairs!

                    Seriously, Stykers can be transported by air, it's just that they can only go short distance, perhaps 100 miles or less.

                    Dan :flag:
                    Well for Canada you might as well say not air transportable. Given the size of our country, distances between bases, and distances to potential theatres. And the fact that we dont have any thing bigger than a C-130. Guess we might do what we have always do, like a gypsie hitchhiker army, and bum rides to places we have to go.

                    I quess we could alwys air lift it from Fredericton airport just northwest of training area to the Blissville Airfield in the south of the training area in Camp Gagetown. Or mabey back and forth across CFB Suffield.
                    Good Luck on the Battlefield

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cheetah772
                      Hello Stubbe Jumper,

                      I feel it is my duty as an American to nose in and interfere with Canadian affairs!

                      Seriously, Stykers can be transported by air, it's just that they can only go short distance, perhaps 100 miles or less.

                      Dan :flag:
                      Yes sure the Stryker is air transportable. However, Canada only has a Tactical Airlift capability with the CC-130. Which means that it would take 20+ Hercs to move one Company.

                      It`s just sad that we have to get rides or contract out the transport needed to go overseas. Go, Liberals! (Just Kidding)
                      Currently Reading: RMC Course PSE 402: Leadership and Ethics.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Birdgunner
                        Which means that it would take 20+ Hercs to move one Company.
                        ...And we don't have 20 Hercs, do we?.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Martin Schenkel
                          ...And we don't have 20 Hercs, do we?.
                          We have about 32 Hercs, but they're....... shall we say........ somewhat fragile maintenance wise. A handful(5-6) of them have over 40 000 airframe hours. Serviceability rates for the Herc fleet are not what they used to be.
                          That's why there is push in the Air Force for an improved airlift capability.
                          Last edited by tigersqn; 09 Nov 03, 17:07.
                          Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            First off, the Leopard 1s are just as vulnerable to RPG-7s, as are most tanks unless they have ERA (explosive reactive armor) installed or have thick composite armor (which the Leopards don't have).

                            The bottom line - why do the Canadian military need tanks?

                            It is not for defence of Canada. For any threat short of the Americans, the Americans will step in to intervene before allowing a hostile power to take over Canada. And if it is the Americans themselves, some 130+ Leopards are not going to offer any resistance short of one battle.

                            The tanks were bought mainly for the Canadian committment to NATO to fight the Warsaw Pact. Except the Warsaw Pact is not more. And there is no 4th CMBG in Germany anymore.

                            Tanks are frowned upon in peacekeeping operations by the UN. They are deemed too 'aggressive' for peacekeeping duty, are of limited utility in built-up areas and require heavy maintenance.

                            On the other hand, you can sell a Stryker MGS as a vehicle for peacekeeping since it is, essentially, similar to the Grizzly and Coyote (already used in peacekeeping) with a 105mm gun instead of a 25mm gun. And it is not considered a tank, so it is more palatable as a vehicle for peacekeeping operations.

                            Bottom line - what is more likely for these vehicles: Fighting a conventional armor vs armor war or being used in peacekeeping operations now or in the near future.

                            The answer is - peacekeeping duty. And for that role, you don't need tanks. And if the it requires tanks, it isn't peacekeeping anymore - its peacemaking and that is a cat of a different stripe.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I agree with you on most things dude. However an army isnt an army without tanks. Without em your just a heavy constabulary.

                              That type of vehicle is suited for peace support ops, but I just think it is the wrong vehicle.
                              Good Luck on the Battlefield

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X