Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

My sentiments exactly.



That's a really good idea. The Afghan National Army has been complaining about lack of protection. They ride around in Chevy pick up trucks while we ride behind inches of armour.

   

Winnipegger : Give it a rest.
It's going to take decades before LOSATs are as common as RPGs and by then, the active defences, that tanks already are fielding will be much more mature and effective.

All the calls for the death of the tank have been false and big armor still remains one of the infantry's best friends.

   

Nope, as a concept we need ground forces to conduct peace keeping missions, soldiers on the ground with the mark 1 eyeball. You can't get involved with activity around you if you're in a tank. If there's a fortified position, just bomb the shit out of it with a high-speed stand-off weapons platform.

Which brings me to a larger issue: we went in to Afghanistan to take out Al-Qaeda and help Afghanistan with a peace keeping mission. We didn't go in to take sides in internal politics. The Taliban are hardly saints, but they're a political force that was elected to power. The Taliban offered to hand over Al Qaeda on the sole condition that the US provide evidence they were guilty, George W. showed the evidence to everyone who didn't matter. By attacking the Taliban we turn our peace keeping mission into an occupation. Whenever you get involved in the internal politics of another country you lose. It's already becoming the same quagmire as Iraq.

Simple policy: we need peace keepers with APCs and assault rifles, and we need aircraft that can take out an organized opponent quickly. When military intervention is necessary, going and take them out quick, then get the hell out. Don't ever, ever, EVER get stuck occupying a country.

   

Please provide me details when John Chretien's Liberals put us there.
You'd get extra points if you can dig up the terms and conditions from NATO that he agreed to.
Bonus points for the big, grueling press conference when Chretien announced that "Canada was going to war"

You're just playing political games with Canadian soldiers lives.
Go away.

   

This is simply awesome news. I couldn't be happy with Harper's stand on this. The liberal retort I heard was this confirms we will be staying past 2009. I guess that means they are ok with it as they had nothing bad to say about the leo's themselves.

The idea that there should be more close air support should be addressed as well. I hope that's next on the shopping list.

   

I wrote a letter to the MP I supported asking him to stay out of Iraq. But Al Qaeda attacked the U.S., our ally, so they had to be taken out. Iraq no, Afghanistan yes. I know, there were many people who wrote similar letters to their MP, but I feel partially responsible. It wasn't my intention to get us involved in an occupation.

I don't want to stray off topic, but the question of our role in Afghanistan greatly affects these tanks. We purchased Leopard 1 tanks 30 years ago, but Afghanistan is the first time they've been used in combat and the politicians want to replace them already. Now they want to buy more tanks, the new model Leopard? Uh huh. What are the chances they'll ever be used after we pull out in 2009?

   

Considering how messed up the world's getting, it's quite likely.

   

Last time I checked it was onboard a 747 and this lasers needs a lot of chemical fuel and needs to be refilled each flight.



Have you seen the size of that laser.... This is an experimental weapon... not a mass produced one.



On a last note-> you seen to forget that Afghanistan is very mountainous terrain, and airplanes are limited on what they can do. Tanks is a more suitable vehicle for the job. The Americans already have birds on theater. The French just added a few their latest and greatest birds for support. It would not be to far fetched to see our Auroras and CF-18 back in theater, in a not so far future. But for the moment... after loosing 8 soldiers in a week, 100 heavily armored vehicle is a great acquisition for our soldiers.

-Mario-

   

The Airborne Laser (ABL) is a giant beast, a "megawatt class laser" (they don't say exactly how much power) that completely fills a 747-400. The Advanced Tactical Laser is a lot smaller, just 100kW and carried by a Hercules. The ATL also has equipment to regenerate the chemicals onboard, so as long as you have electrical power to run the equipment it recycles the chemicals. The US military is also looking at a 100kW COIL for use on the F-35C, with a generator in place of the lift fan. The 'B' version is vertical take-off and landing, the 'C' version is carrier based. This fighter laser would also have equipment to recycle chemicals onboard. If it's small enough for a fighter, it can be used for the other applications I mentioned. The big ABL has a range greater than 100 miles and can cut down a SCUD missile, the ATL is smaller and shorter range. The ultimate is a solid state laser, operating on electricity directly/no chemicals, however they don't have a working version yet. The ATL has already been demonstrated.

   

Well, as crazy as he sounds, I kind of agree with Winnipegger on some points.

I also think the best days of tanks are behind them. Even the US Army agrees, it isn't building heavy tank divisions anymore, but repadily deployable Stryker brigades. The days of Kursk type tank battles are in the past. There is a reason that half a dozen or more NATO countries are trying to divest themselves of their surplus tanks. If there was a reason for them, do you really think Germany would offer to loan us some (for free) or the Netherlands to sell them? We've never done that with any equipment that we haven't considered surplus (Cougars for the West African Union to use in Darfur for example, or CF-104s sold to Turkey after we bought CF-18s).

Who knows, maybe in 30 years, if China/India/Muslim Caliphate/etc decides to take on the West, we'll need them again, but the battlefield for the next decade or two will be an asymmetric one, meaning special ops troops, helos, close air support, etc. The US used special ops troops on horseback working in close conjunction with Tac Air to disrupt and destroy the Taliban 'Army' only a few years ago.

I also think we need a squadron or two of attack helos, either Apaches or Tigers. And yes, helos do get shot down, but tanks get blown up too. Tanks are fine for moving across open areas and killing anything that moves, but they are still vulnerable to mines and ambushes in built-up areas. If the Taliban can place a mine and wipe out an LAV III, why not place two and take out a tank. The concussion alone will kill the troops inside, even if the tank isn't destroyed.

If tanks are the right weapon for use in Afghanistan, why is Canada the only nation using them there? Why aren't the Dutch, who already have state-of-the-art Leo 2A6s using them? Or why hasn't the US Army deployed even one M1A2? I don't have a problem that we've deployed them, but sometimes I wonder why we are the only nation to deploy them and I'm leaning to an attempt to lower casualties to keep public support in favour of Afghanistan.

I do think it will be a while before lasers are deployed on the battlefield as he suggests though. Unless there is a breakthrough in energy cells or batteries, they simply use far too much energy for use on anything smaller than a capital ship or a building.

   

Canada has a mix of UAV, light towed howitzers, LAV-III, armored cars and Leopards in close intimidate support. Air support is on call already but which would you rather take to a fight a knife and a cell phone or a gun? The knife (infantry) and cell to call for back up (air support) will be effective but not there when you need it, the gun (tank) is.

Other countries are not using tanks because they are not focused on being there. The US is in Iraq and we see the Abrams in full effect there and the rest of NATO that is in A-stan with us has been frankly lending tepid support at best. There are exceptions but for the most part they don't want to look like they are there for a long time for political reasons not tactical or strategic ones.

   

Well said.

Also the tank can have a very demoralizing effect on the enemy.

   

Tanks can blast holes through walls LAVs can't in Afghanistan. They can withstand more damage aswell. They also don't have to keep flying back to base to refuel and are a lot cheaper.

Also, Canada doesn't own attack helicopters. Even when we had AH support over seas they got called away time and time again for missions elsewhere for other countries. No ones fault, really. They just had to spread the love. If we had tanks on the other hand ... A few well placed rounds to blast through those frigin walls woulda helped.

They both have their place. Maybe it's not the tank that is obsolete but the way people keep thinking about using them?

   

I agree that fast air is no replacement for large calibre direct fire.

We've had this discussion before, I think.

I agree that the likelyhood of another "Kursk" is gone. But note the word I put in bold. There is a place for armour in a well balanced military. Shedding the tank because of limited employment in a current operation would be a mistake. I'll illustrate my point with the ad-hoc EOD response to IED's. The branch responsible canned it in the mid 90's. Six years later the threat is back. In spades.

As for giving the Afghans our Leo's, there is a major problem. No spare parts in a couple years.

   

"As for giving the Afghans our Leo's, there is a major problem. No spare parts in a couple years."

I do realize our Leopards are old but I sure wish this country would pass some equipment down to militia units for training and extend the practical training life of these vehicles. Sure beats the shit out of giving them away or blowing them up on a gun range.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next