Play balance...turkey shoot?

[Blofeld]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If things to as I would like, we'll have Modules that cover USMC, British (probably a mix of unit types), and "Mixed". By the latter I mean the plethora of nations that are built using pretty much stock equipment from the UK, Germany, and the US.

Any chance Canadian troops may make it in?

[Lee]

When making reference to what happened in the recent war between Israel and hezbollah and how that might reflect the "difficulties" of such an operation, bear in mind that Israel would have suffered far fewer losses and been much more effective if they would have went in there and ruthlessly smashed all resistance, leveling every village where the enemy was firing from (as opposed to sending guys through doors to get shot by ak's...).

If they had used crushing force anywhere their infantry was encountering hezbollah (2,000 lb. HE bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, massive crushing artillery strikes, their tanks firing HE rounds into anything and everything that was a threat, etc.), it would have been much easier for the Israeli soldiers on the ground. That's what I would have done, the lives of your soldiers should take top priority while accomplishing the mission. I suspect Netanyahu will get back in as Prime Minister now after the surprisingly weak and half-measure response by the current government to having thousands of rockets rained down on Israeli cities. And with Netanyahu in charge, the next time hezbollah or anyone else attacks, they are in for a hellish counter attack that will make the recent fighting look like nothing.

[C'Rogers]

And with Netanyahu in charge, the next time hezbollah or anyone else attacks, they are in for a hellish counter attack that will make the recent fighting look like nothing

And then the thread spun wildly out of control into an off topic political discussion

[Battlefront.com]

First Sergeant,

Any chance Canadian troops may make it in?

Wel, if an Arid CADPAT set in size 7044 jacket and 7034 trousers came my way... who knows what doors that would open Seriously though, I'm hoping that the 2nd Module will be stuffed full of German equipment, which will mean that the Canadians should be pretty easy (relatively speaking) to cover. CMSF, as is, already has most of what we'd need to simulate Canadian forces.

Lee,

When making reference to what happened in the recent war between Israel and hezbollah and how that might reflect the "difficulties" of such an operation, bear in mind that Israel would have suffered far fewer losses and been much more effective if they would have went in there and ruthlessly smashed all resistance, leveling every village where the enemy was firing from

If you want to defeat unconventional fanatic forces, don't fight them conventionally. It only ups their recruiting, pisses off potential allies, and gets other players even more involved. Then, when mired in an insurgency that thinks blowing people up is better than sex, with the national coffers running empty, the majority of the public against the initial action and the follow up clumsy response, the government topples and the new one has to scrap everything and try all over again from an even worse starting position. And just think of how it would go for Israel!

Steve

[flamingknives]

Steve, what do the Germans use these days that the Canadians also use?

I can't think of a single thing. Small arms, support weapons, armour in all varieties and other vehicles are all different, with the possible exception of the G wagon. Pimp my army jeep.

US and canadians, however, have lots of similarities. Small arms are visually similar, vehicles have some similarities (some are based on similar chassis), support weapons are very similar.

Leo 1s are fairly unusual, ADATS is, AFAIK, unique, so they'd need some dedicated stuff too.

Also, on both sides of the argument, it's Grog Dorosh's favorite subject.

If the second module is stuffed full of Germanic hardware (militarily speaking) and the first module is full to the gunwales with the USMC, where do the Brits come in. I want my 120mm HESH goodness, damnit! Javelins, Milans, CVR(T)s racing about the place, brassing up the landscape, and WMIKs for the obligatory gamey jeep rushes...

[Blofeld]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Any chance Canadian troops may make it in?

Wel, if an Arid CADPAT set in size 7044 jacket and 7034 trousers came my way... who knows what doors that would open </font>

[Battlefront.com]

flamingknives,

Leos I think they were even built in Canada under license. However, I am not sure what the state of this is. At one point I believe they decided to ditch their tanks and go medium weight only. So it might be that there isn't anything German and we could use mostly modified US TO&E to make the Canadian stuff happen.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I'll see what I can do about setting up a donation fund.

And I have a PO Box that can accept donations from our Neighbors to the North. Sounds like a good match

Steve

[flamingknives]

Steve,

Leo 1s. AFAIK the Bundeswehr only operates Leo 2s

I'll get my anorak

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Steve,

Leo 1s. AFAIK the Bundeswehr only operates Leo 2s

I'll get my anorak

They still had a few 1s when I left.

Mostly training and reserves but a few were still rolling.

[Lee]

Steve: Who said anything about Israel sticking around to a fight a terrorist insurgency? I'm talking about going in and obliterating all enemy opposition through overwhelming firepower and then leaving right away. The mission is accomplished, and you've crushed those that started the war on Israel with minimal losses to your own soldiers. And the message is clear; you don't have to like us, but don't dare start a war with us, because you'll lose and you'll pay a hideous price in the process. Leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone. It's that simple.

Sure, there are some real crazy types in these muslim countries that apparently enjoy the idea of getting blown up (or blowing themselves up in a pizza shop and mass murdering civilians), but most of the people, even if they lean toward sympathy with these nut jobs, don't want to see their country in ashes. And so they'll be forced to stop the terrorists themselves, lest they get them into yet another ruinous war which they will lose and suffer even more from.

And by the way, I'm not talking politics, I'm talking military strategy.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Lee:

Steve: Who said anything about Israel sticking around to a fight a terrorist insurgency? I'm talking about going in and obliterating all enemy opposition through overwhelming firepower and then leaving right away. The mission is accomplished, and you've crushed those that started the war on Israel with minimal losses to your own soldiers. And the message is clear; you don't have to like us, but don't dare start a war with us, because you'll lose and you'll pay a hideous price in the process. Leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone. It's that simple.

Sure, there are some real crazy types in these muslim countries that apparently enjoy the idea of getting blown up (or blowing themselves up in a pizza shop and mass murdering civilians), but most of the people, even if they lean toward sympathy with these nut jobs, don't want to see their country in ashes. And so they'll be forced to stop the terrorists themselves, lest they get them into yet another ruinous war which they will lose and suffer even more from.

And by the way, I'm not talking politics, I'm talking military strategy.

I think you have shown you know little about warfare and even less about politics and nothing at all about good common sense.

It simply does not work like that.

Isreal is heavily dependent on foreign aid.

If they killed several thousand civilians in a very short time span then their would be serious cuts in what was given or sold to them.

That right there would be enough to have lost them the long time war against their neighbours.

But lets continue.

Secondly Israel has made strides to lessen the number of enemies that surround it.

Eygpt and Israel are at peace and Israel and Jordan while not formally at peace are not going to go to war any time soon.

If Israel leveled the southern half of Lebanon then that situation would change very quickly.

Syria would go from all bluster to actually lauching a full scale attack.

The passive Arab countries would go from shunning their northern neighbours to all out assistance and perhaps even declaring war.

Thousands of foreign fighters would flock to the area to join in the defense or terrorize Israel for years to come.

In short the entire situation would become alot worse than it already is.

It MIGHT remove Lebanon from the situation but would create a dozen more enemies to take their place.

It would make no military sense at all and even less than no political sense.

Killing thousands is not a way to get people to 'leave you alone'

It would do the exact opposite. It would get people who have no interest in the conflict to take notice and turn against you.

You obviously have no military knowledge what so ever and travel about the internet spouting off the wall military 'stratagies' in hopes of impressing other internet wargamers with your manliness and new concepts on how to win at asymetrical warfare.

So stop embarassing yourself, your not fooling anyone and only serving to make a bigger ass of yourself.

[Yair Iny]

Rudel, et al.

Firstly I agree that Lee is talking a whole lot of rubbish. However, I think the main reason that his proposals are not possible is simply because the Israeli public would not allow it. I for one, would refuse to serve in the reserves if the militray went around killing thousands of civilians indiscreiminantly and most everyone I know would too.

Secondly, and this is Mr. Picky speaking, not me, Jordan IS formally at peace with Israel.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

Arrggghhhh...goddam...sssshhhhhiiiiiitttttt.

I can't take it anymore. Your posts seem very reasonable. Well thought out, well spoken.

Hans Rudel was arguably a good German, who did the best he could for his country in a time of war. 'Sepp' Dietrich arguably did the same, but he was unquestionably a Nazi feck.

I absolutely bloody well hate, with all my being, arseholes who take their screenames from Nazis.

So, right now, as it stands, your screen name is giving me the red ass. Perhaps you could tell me, in all honesty, that your screen name is based on your father's family name, and your mother's maiden name?

If not, I'm sure you can give me a wonderful socio-political travelogue on why your screen name is completely appropriate?

Because BFC has a charming 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy on this sort of thing.

But I am so fecking tired of Nazis. And I rather like your posts.

Don't be afraid of speaking the Truth. I'm no one. I could be banned tomorrow without raising an eyebrow. Well, actually, there would be applause.

Rudel.Dietrich. I wouldn't post under that name for any money.

Why did you?

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

Isreal is heavily dependent on foreign aid.

If they killed several thousand civilians in a very short time span then their would be serious cuts in what was given or sold to them.

No, there would not be. Aid to Israel from the United States is almost completely bullet-proof. Short of actually using a nuclear device on American soil, there is no way that Israel would ever have to worry about the huge and unending payments of US support.

There wasn't even the slightest flagging of monetary, military or political support for Israel after the attack on the USS Liberty. Israel barely bothered to apologize. There was no question of suspending military or monetary support after it was discovered that Israel had illegally transferred 'cluster bomb' artillery shells to South Africa during the period when all Western Nations were boycotting arms sales to the 'Apartheid Nation'. There has never, in the history of US-Israeli relations, been any serious attempt to curtail American military, monetary, or political support to Israel.

Nothing. Nada. Nichts.

It is laughable to claim, at this point in history, that Israel has to do anything more than make a very slight apologetic noise and disclaimer about civilian deaths in order to retain US support.

The exchange in terms of Lebanese civilian deaths in terms of Israeli civilians deaths over the latest 'unpleasantness' is brutally in favour of Israel. And, while the Hezbollah arseholes fired rockets (with rather minimal effectiveness) into Israel, and Israel retaliated with air, naval and artillery bombardment (with much greater effect), into southern Lebanon, the fact remains that no one ever asked the victims in southern Lebanon what their politics are, or were.

There's a sort of blanket assumption that, because some group of radical extremists that are heavily armed show up and launch rockets from your front yard, you are morally culpable for their actions, and, because you chose not to argue with them and catch a bullet for your efforts, you deserve to have your livelihood destroyed and family killed by massive retaliation from people who despise you and don't acknowledge your right to live in your own country, in any case.

Rudel,dietrich: in the current political climate, Israel could kill a million Lebanese civilians and have nothing worse to deal with than 'bad press'. They would not suffer the loss of one penny of 'foreign aid' (which comes, almost exclusively, from the US). They would not be denied one iota of 'military aid', which either comes from the US, or which they purchase themselves from companies that aren't anymore concerned about public opinion than they are over whether angels dance on the head of a pin.

Two suicide bombers in Tel Aviv that killed 30 people would completely obscure the bombardment deaths of 200 Lebanese civilians that never voiced any political opinions for one side or the other.

The number of Lebanese children whose deaths America has been willing to shrug off while coming all over stern about 'Hezbollah Terrorists' has been shocking.

Cause you know what? When we start to shrug off the death of children...

The Terrorists win.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

Why did you?

Because it is my actual name

There have been Germans named Rudel and Dietrich long before the war and will be long afterwards.

Adolf is still a somewhat popular name and believe it or not some famlies still use Hitler as a family name, even moreso in Austria.

It is unfortunate that some with non Germanic bloodlines have taken their fascination a little too far and and then entered the wargame community.

They mar anyone with an actual interest in the subject and create myths about the 'invincibility' army.

Even worse some are not actually creating wargame and letting their bias slip into their work.

[ September 09, 2006, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: rudel.dietrich ]

[Kineas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Kineas, the engine can handle it no problem. It's just that we aren't sticking in T-80s and T-90s to make it unrealistically more interesting. So you'll see the same sort of "Turkey Shoot" matchups between Abrams and aged Soviet stuff that was seen in both wars against Iraq.

Great! So we can have our scenarios, especially in blue vs blue, red vs red setups.

Speaking of the 'modules', I suppose each will cover a different era and countries, using the same engine. How often do you plan to release modules? Will there be fictional modules too? Somewhere - maybe in an interview? - I read you might release a 'space lobsters' version

I think this engine/genre could host a lot more games, at least I wouldn't mind...

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Seanachai:

Why did you?

Because it is my actual name

There have been Germans named Rudel and Dietrich long before the war and will be long afterwards.

Adolf is still a somewhat popular name and believe it or not some famlies still use Hitler as a family name, even moreso in Austria.

It is unfortunate that some with non Germanic bloodlines have taken their fascination a little too far and and then entered the wargame community.

They mar anyone with an actual interest in the subject and create myths about the 'invincibility' army.

Even worse some are not actually creating wargame and letting their bias slip into their work. </font>

[chris talpas]

Speaking of Leo's, there are reports (Globe & Mail) that Canada is preparing to send at least 10 Leo C2's over to Afghanistan to support operations there.

Chris

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Kineas:

Great! So we can have our scenarios, especially in blue vs blue, red vs red setups.

Speaking of the 'modules', I suppose each will cover a different era and countries, using the same engine. How often do you plan to release modules? Will there be fictional modules too? Somewhere - maybe in an interview? - I read you might release a 'space lobsters' version

I think this engine/genre could host a lot more games, at least I wouldn't mind...

You might want to read the threads linked to in the "Consolidated CM:SF Topics of Note" at the top of the page. Covers this sort of thing.

Basically, there is the CMX2 engine, on which the CM:SF game is based. There will be other games, covering other theatres and eras. Modules are add-ons to games, adding more forces and such.

So 'Space Lobsters of Doom' would be a new game

[Kineas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

You might want to read the threads linked to in the "Consolidated CM:SF Topics of Note" at the top of the page. Covers this sort of thing.

Yes! That was the article, thanks, I wasn't able to find it again. So we can expect (well, in tehory) a lot of new titles coming in this genre.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by chris talpas:

Speaking of Leo's, there are reports (Globe & Mail) that Canada is preparing to send at least 10 Leo C2's over to Afghanistan to support operations there.

Chris

some more info here:

web page canadian armourred fanatics online

The original Leo buy was 114 gun tanks and 26 variants (Taurus, Badger, Beaver). There are 44 gun tanks and the 26 variants in service at Wainwright, which were to be phased out with delivery of the mobile gun system (MGS). The anticipated cancellation of MGS has prompted the re-commissioning of 22 more gun tanks, bringing the fleet to 66—the exact quantity of the MGS purchase. The remaining 48 gun tanks are surplus and have been donated as monuments or to museums. The remainder will likely be used as hard targets. Leo is now expected to remain in service until 2015.

[aka_tom_w]

Saturday » July 8 » 2006

The return of the Leopard

Three years ago, Canada announced the demise of its fleet of tanks, saying that lighter, faster and more manoeuverable Stryker mobile gun systems were required if we were to be a viable, battlefield-ready force. But now, our experiences in Afghanistan suggest otherwise, and the army is asking the government to reconsider.

David Pugliese

The Ottawa Citizen

Saturday, July 08, 2006

CREDIT: Cplc. Serge Gouin, Citizen Special

Once considered a 'millstone' by Canada's military, the Leopard tank, shown on a training exercise at CFB Wainwright, Alta., may be making a comeback.

On Oct. 29, 2003, Liberal Defence Minister John McCallum and Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier assembled the Ottawa news media to announce the demise of the country's tank force. Canada was taking its fleet of Leopard tanks out of service and was going high-tech.

Mr. McCallum said the army had requested the government purchase the U.S. Stryker Mobile Gun System, better known as the MGS. That wheeled vehicle, also being bought by the American army, had less armour than a tank but could move faster and was more manoeuverable on the battlefield.

According to Lt.-Gen. Hillier, the army's Leopards had served their purpose and, despite recently undergoing a $145-million upgrade, were now of limited use. The vehicle of the future was instead the MGS, which the general, an armoured officer, dubbed state-of-the art and a "war-winner."

"A mobile gun system is the right vehicle for Canada's army and will provide an excellent capability on Canadian Forces operations," Lt.-Gen. Hillier said. "We are losing a millstone that has hamstrung our thinking for years," he added, referring to the Leopard.

The general dismissed concerns from some opposition politicians who warned the decision would put the lives of Canadian military personnel at risk and placed the country on par with Luxembourg and Iceland, two nations which also saw no need for heavier armoured vehicles.

The army's plan would instead see the MGS working in conjunction with another high-tech weapon, the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle or MMEV. Based on the army's existing air defence missile system called ADATS, the MMEV would be designed and built by the Quebec-based aerospace firm Oerlikon and be capable of shooting down aircraft or destroying ground targets.

But less than three years later, and in a major reversal of its plans, the army is now asking the Conservative government to cancel both the MGS and MMEV programs.

The MGS is no longer the right vehicle for the army and the Leopard is no longer seen as a millstone. A study is under way to determine how to keep the tank in service until at least 2015.

Army officials refuse to say why they want to cut the two programs which just a few years ago were heralded as evidence that Canada would be fielding a high-tech military.

The decision to buy the MGS and MMEV was at the heart of the army's decision to transform itself into a force that could be quickly sent overseas and, once there, rapidly move around the battlefield. Tanks took too long to get to a war zone, Canada's military leadership maintained, and the tracked behemoths were difficult to manoeuvre, particularly in places like Kabul. In fact, Canada wasn't sending its Leopards overseas all that much; the last time they had been used on an international mission was in Kosovo in 1999.

The army's plan, instead, called for using the MGS, the MMEV and another anti-tank missile system to form a "direct fire system" that would replace the Leopard.

The MMEV, according to the Canadian Forces, would be capable of shooting down aircraft as well as drones, knocking out armoured vehicles and destroying enemy forces hidden in hills and buildings.

Unlike the Leopard, the MGS would quickly drive into battle. Any needed additional firepower would come from other sources. "We now have a very different kind of battle space," Lt.-Col. Paul Fleury, then director of land strategic planning, told the Canadian Forces newspaper the Maple Leaf in 2004. "And in any major conflict now we'll have contact with aircraft up to and including B-52s that can drop ordnance wherever we need it."

But the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to new questions about how future conflicts will be fought. Insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades and using roadside bombs have proven to be a formidable enemy, knocking out lightly armoured vehicles and even tanks. Fielding vehicles with better protection, argue some commanders, is now the way of the future.

At the same time, other equipment is more urgently needed by the Canadian army for its future operations, particularly those in Afghanistan. The $3 billion to be spent on the MGS and MMEV, a price tag which included long-term maintenance contracts for the vehicles, could be put to better use elsewhere.

The MGS, in particular, has faced widespread criticism, particularly from soldiers in the U.S. Some American officers have argued that the move towards such lighter forces is dangerous. Wheeled vehicles, such as the Stryker, while good on roadways, lack the mobility for cross-country warfare, they maintain.

The other main argument against the MGS centres on the vehicle's light armour and its vulnerability to rocket-propelled grenades. "The Stryker was not ordered with the RPG in mind," noted a report written by U.S.-based analyst Victor O'Reilly, who described the vehicle as suited for light peacekeeping duties, but not combat.

Other critics in the U.S. pointed to tests by the U.S. military which revealed a series of problems with the main armament on the MGS. The blast from the gun was so powerful it damaged parts on the armoured vehicle. In addition, there have been problems with the weapon's loading system, and soldiers who tested the vehicle complained it was too cramped. Others noted that the MGS had just 18 rounds of ammunition compared to the 50 or 55 usually carried in many tanks.

Officials with General Dynamics, the U.S. defence firm building the Stryker family of vehicles, countered that such criticisms were no longer valid since improvements had taken care of any problems. The vehicle, they noted, was more than capable of surviving on the battlefield.

A similar but more limited debate in Canada's military took place largely behind closed doors. Those in the armoured corps were not happy with the MGS purchase, but they stayed loyal to the service and said nothing publicly. Studies done by the Canadian Forces in the late 1990s had already called into question replacing the Leopard tank with a lighter armoured vehicle, similar to the MGS. The outcome of one of those war game simulations warned that using such a vehicle would not only cost Canadian lives but would be "morally and ethically wrong."

Despite such concerns, there was a widespread acknowledgement in the Canadian army that the MGS purchase was a done deal.

A few officers, however, stepped forward to question the purchases in internal memos and professional publications. On Sept. 15, 2003, Major T.W. Melnyk wrote a report noting that while the MGS and MMEV improved the army's capability, that didn't mean they were needed for the future transformation of the force.

"Given the public commitment to MGS by senior leadership, any difference of opinion at the staff level is largely academic," the major wrote. "While the MGS is not considered to be required for transformation, the project must also be taken as a given."

The MMEV was another matter, though. "It is not clear that providing a wheeled 8 kilometre direct fire capability to the Army will contribute in a major way to transformation," his report pointed out. "The logic and value of spending $300-$400 million on an orphan fleet of 34 vehicles for which there is a minimal industrial support base must also be questioned."

That purchase should be re-evaluated, the report concluded. Maj. Melnyk added that the army disagreed with his assessment of the MGS and MMEV.

The report was controversial enough that the Defence department's Access to Information branch withheld its release to the Citizen for 16 months. When it was made public last year, the Defence department dismissed the document as an informal analysis by a planning officer that did not reflect the military's official view.

In late 2003, an even more pointed criticism of the MGS purchase emerged in the army's professional journal. In an article in The Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin, Lt.-Col. J.A. Summerfield warned that the MGS purchase wouldn't provide the Canadian Forces with any new capabilities, and instead could saddle it with a soon-to-be outdated vehicle.

He noted that the Stryker represented only a stop-gap measure for the U.S. before it started fielding a more futuristic family of armoured vehicles around 2015. Once that happened, the American military, with its large budget, could either continue using the Strykers in other roles or simply get rid of them.

But the budget-conscious Canadian Forces wouldn't have that option, according to Lt.-Col. Summerfield. It would have to operate the Strykers for more than 20 years and, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the vehicles, it would not likely have the funds to then purchase the futuristic system the Americans planned to field, he warned.

"This is especially disturbing when the (mobile gun) system in question does not provide a marked improvement over existing systems, including the Leopard tank," the lieutenant colonel wrote. But the army countered that the MGS did represent an improvement in technology. It intended to install more modern equipment on board the MGS, improving its ability to transmit and receive information well beyond what was capable with the Leopards.

In addition, the low profile turret of the MGS allowed the vehicle's crew to position themselves more safely inside the main body of the chassis. "That is new technology and it's a significant improvement in the protection of the crew," Col. Mike Kampman, the army's director of strategic planning, said in an interview at the time.

But it was a comment by a retired general that set off the most extensive and dogged defence of the MGS yet offered by the army leadership. Responding to a Canadian Forces report that showed tanks played a key role in the Iraq war, retired brigadier general Jim Hanson ridiculed the MGS purchase.

"The Americans drove their tanks into downtown Baghdad where RPGs bounced off their armour," said Brig.-Gen. Hanson. "Buying the Stryker -- that's insanity."

He also argued that Canada's Leopards could be upgraded at a lower cost than the MGS price tag and still provide the army with armour protection and firepower for years to come. He also questioned Gen. Hillier's claims that the army can't get its Leopards to war zones, noting that if the military had really wanted to use tanks on missions, it would not be a problem. The MGS would initially have to be transported to a war zone by ship, the same way that Leopards would be moved, added Brig.-Gen. Hanson.

Then-army commander Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier responded with a 1,000-word rebuttal in the Citizen. He called such comments "a distortion" and characterized critics of the MGS as "armchair strategists" who "preferred it the old way."

Warfare had changed. No longer was the Canadian Forces facing the Russians, Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote. Instead, it was up against "snakes," a reference to terrorists and insurgents.

"Tanks are a perfect example of extremely expensive systems that sit in Canada because they are inappropriate to the operations we conduct daily around the world," Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote. "The MGS, in conjunction with other combat systems, will give us a much greater capability on operations such as those being conducted in Kabul, and still give us options for high-intensity combat."

In addition, MGS armour would be improved to defend against rocket-propelled grenades.

Canada's Leopard tanks, noted Lt.-Gen. Hillier, could not be compared to main battle tanks in other western armies since they lacked the protection and firepower of those vehicles.

The general also directly linked the purchase of the MGS to the future transformation of Canada's army. "This transformational process to counter the Snakes that are prevalent around the world is unsettling to some," he wrote.

"They would appear to prefer that we stop the process of change irrespective of the dramatically different threat."

That, argued the general, would be illogical.

It will now be up to Gen. Hillier as the country's top soldier to recommend whether Defence Minister Gordon

O'Connor accepts the army's wish to shutdown the MGS and MMEV programs.

The decision to cut at least the MGS could be quickly embraced by Mr.

O'Connor, a former armoured corps officer. In the past, the Conservatives have been critical of the MGS purchase, and in June 2004, the party's defence policy called for the purchase of a more survivable main battle tank such as the U.S. M1A2 or the German Leopard 2.

As well, Mr. O'Connor's equipment adviser, retired Colonel Howie Marsh, has questioned the MGS purchase. Aaron Gairdner, Mr. O'Connor's chief of staff, is well versed with the ongoing concerns about the MGS and in his previous job as the Conservatives' defence researcher was instrumental in obtaining much of the information the party used to criticize the purchase.

Defence analyst David Rudd says he doesn't believe the decision to cancel the MGS and continue to keep the Leopards in service means Canada will go out and purchase a fleet of new tanks. "I think the army is looking at keeping a capability they can experiment with and maintain skills on," said Mr. Rudd, executive director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. "It means a reprieve for the tank, but that is not the same as a new life."

What will happen with the MMEV is another matter. The military's original plans called for using the weapon system to provide protection at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. In that job it would be used in its air defence role to shoot down any aircraft operated by terrorists.

Cancelling a contract potentially worth $1.5 billion for a Quebec-based firm might also not sit well with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government, which is hoping to win a substantial number of seats in that province in the next election.

Army spokesman Maj. Daryl Morrell noted that the existing ADATS system, which forms the basis of the MMEV, has never been upgraded. "You've got certain things you have to have," he added. "I would find it unlikely for us to go without some sort of ground-based air defence."

A decision on the two multibillion dollar programs is expected to be made by the fall.

Whatever the outcome, at stake could be the lives of Canadian troops on future battlefields.

- - -

A Brief History of the Leopard

The Defence department has blown up or sold off almost half of the army's fleet of 114 Leopard tanks. But further disposal of the tanks has been put on hold after the army requested the cancellation of the Mobile Gun System and the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle programs.

Army spokesman Maj. Daryl Morrell said the service is keeping 66 of its Leopards in service. Twenty-one are now being used on military firing ranges as targets and 23 were sold to companies in North America. An American firm bought some of the stripped-down tanks for use in forest fire-fighting.

Four other Leopards have been given to museums or earmarked for use as monuments.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2006

[aka_tom_w]

current news:

web page world affairs web forum news

Canada sends tanks to Afghanistan

Officials had said Leopards were readied for exercises; move marks first time vehicles will be sent into combat

David Pugliese

The Ottawa Citizen

Saturday, September 09, 2006

CREDIT: The Canadian Press

Canada's fleet of Leopard tanks, like this one shown at CFB Edmonton, underwent a $145-million upgrade in the late 1990s to equip the vehicles with new computers and heat-sensing gear to help improve their fighting capability.

Less than three weeks after it denied it was sending Leopard tanks to Afghanistan, the Canadian military is set to ship as many as 20 of the heavy-tracked armoured vehicles to Kandahar to provide additional protection for its troops.

Although the tanks have been used once overseas on a peace support mission in Kosovo in the 1990s, this is the first time they will be sent into an actual combat situation.

A warning order was issued earlier this week to the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) in Edmonton to prepare for the deployment. Twenty tanks are being readied for the operation and about 300 personnel will be heading to Afghanistan.

The Leopards will be used for escort duty for Canadian convoys, which have continually come under attack by the Taliban, government sources said.

In addition, some soldiers have suggested the presence of tanks would make insurgents think twice about attacking Canadian convoys.

The decision to ratchet up Canada's force comes as military officers acknowledge they underestimated the resilience of the Taliban. NATO has been asking for more equipment and soldiers from its allies to deal with the increasing threat in southern Afghanistan.

But government sources said the decision behind sending the tanks to Afghanistan is to provide more protection for Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Teams, rather than use the armoured vehicles directly in combat against the Taliban.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has said he plans to put more emphasis on the teams that provide medical and humanitarian help to Afghan civilians. Part of that is increasing the protection for those teams that use light-armoured vehicles and armoured trucks called G-Wagons.

"The protection levels aren't adequate over there," said one source.

Besides convoy escort, the tanks would be used to rush to the aid of light-armoured vehicles that have been ambushed by the Taliban.

Canada has more than 2,000 military personnel in Afghanistan.

It will take at least a month to get the Leopards over to Afghanistan, but that deployment could be sped up if the U.S. military ships the vehicles using its large transport aircraft. Otherwise, the tanks will be sent by ship.

In the late 1990s, the Canadian military spent $145 million to upgrade its 114 Leopards with new computers and heat-sensing equipment to improve their fighting capability.

On Aug. 24, the Citizen reported that military maintenance crews were working overtime to prepare the service's Leopard tanks for deployment and several soldiers told the newspaper the vehicles were headed to Afghanistan. The Canadian Forces, however, said the tanks were destined for an exercise in Canadian Forces Base Wainwright, Alta.

Besides having heavier armour than the existing Canadian vehicles in Afghanistan, the Leopards are equipped to mount devices and plows capable of clearing mines.

The Leopards, capable of a maximum speed of 65 km/h, will not have trouble keeping up with the convoys. The Canadian tanks have a crew of four and were built in Germany. They are armed with a 105-millimetre gun.

The tank has made a comeback in the army, which had been in the process of switching over to an entirely wheeled fleet of armoured vehicles. Army commander Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie has made it clear he wants troops to retain their skills in working with tanks.

The Leopards were in the process of being mothballed or sold off, but with the Afghan war heating up, army commanders put a halt to that process in May.

Canadian and NATO troops, along with the Afghan army, are currently in battle with an estimated 700 Taliban near Kandahar City. According to NATO officials, the force taking part in Operation Medusa is closing the circle around the besieged insurgents. There have, however, been reports that fresh reinforcements of Taliban are moving into the area to fight the Canadians.

Five Canadian soldiers were killed over the Labour Day long weekend during Operation Medusa. One died when U.S. warplanes mistakenly opened fire on a group of Canadian troops. Four others were killed in battles with the Taliban.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2006

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Seanachai:

Why did you?

Because it is my actual name

</font>