• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Heavys roll into Afghanistan

Silver

Well-known member
For the first time since the Soviets were in Afghanistan, heavy tanks are on patrol. Canada has rolled out the mighty Leopard, and let's hope it protects those boys over there and puts the fear of God into the enemy. They've spent a pile of money refitting these tanks specifically for this mission, I hope they did 'em up right.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Silver said:
For the first time since the Soviets were in Afghanistan, heavy tanks are on patrol. Canada has rolled out the mighty Leopard, and let's hope it protects those boys over there and puts the fear of God into the enemy. They've spent a pile of money refitting these tanks specifically for this mission, I hope they did 'em up right.

Those are not old refited junk either. They are 3rd generation Leapords, arguable the most modern tanks made. Even better than the M1 Abrams.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Silver said:
For the first time since the Soviets were in Afghanistan, heavy tanks are on patrol. Canada has rolled out the mighty Leopard, and let's hope it protects those boys over there and puts the fear of God into the enemy. They've spent a pile of money refitting these tanks specifically for this mission, I hope they did 'em up right.

Those are not old refited junk either. They are 3rd generation Leapords, arguable the most modern tanks made. Even better than the M1 Abrams.

I'd like to see one. The Abrams is an impressive weapon.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
You should have seen the documentary on the military channel on the Soviet's use of tanks in Afghanistan. I sure hope the lessons were learned and are not having to be repeated. It seems the mountains in Afghanistan give a definite advantage to destroying tanks. Lets hope they have figured a way around that problem or stay out of the mountains.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
You should have seen the documentary on the military channel on the Soviet's use of tanks in Afghanistan. I sure hope the lessons were learned and are not having to be repeated. It seems the mountains in Afghanistan give a definite advantage to destroying tanks. Lets hope they have figured a way around that problem or stay out of the mountains.

How were they taking out tanks, missiles, landmines or both?
I bet the where taking out the soviet tanks with American weapons? I wonder if they used them all on the soviets> Guess we will find out.
These Leapords have armor <made partly from depleted uranium>. Behind the armour are explosive charges that actually blow the armor away from the tank when its hit by a missile. As long as it doesnt take two hits in the same spot one right after another it should be okay???
The landmines im guessing will be a problem for disabling the tanks.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Disagreeable said:
RoperAB said:
Silver said:
For the first time since the Soviets were in Afghanistan, heavy tanks are on patrol. Canada has rolled out the mighty Leopard, and let's hope it protects those boys over there and puts the fear of God into the enemy. They've spent a pile of money refitting these tanks specifically for this mission, I hope they did 'em up right.

Those are not old refited junk either. They are 3rd generation Leapords, arguable the most modern tanks made. Even better than the M1 Abrams.

I'd like to see one. The Abrams is an impressive weapon.

My limited understanding on this subject is that the Leapord will do everything that the Abrams will do except its more reliable, has more fuel range/mileage and its cheaper to run.
Now im just guessing here but I think another problem with the Abrams is size and weight. Been awhile since I have talked to anybody about this so I might be wrong.
The M1 Abrams Dragon of Liberty is one hell of a tank though but those Germans just seem to have the nack when it comes to tanks.
Nobody except you guys to my knowledge uses the Abrams.
BTW The Leapord uses the same Gyro gun that the Abrams uses. The gun will lock on and stay on the target regardless if the tank is moving 70mph at night over rough terrian. The accuracy of these new tanks and helicopter gunships are just mind bogling. Haha Thts why I have to laugh at these militia groups in the States who think they can take on your military in a fair fight.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RoperAB said:
The accuracy of these new tanks and helicopter gunships are just mind bogling. Haha Thts why I have to laugh at these militia groups in the States who think they can take on your military in a fair fight.

The Abrams is impressive- but there is nothing more impressive than to be sitting out there on a hilltop and have one of those Apache helicopters rise up from below the horizon and be a few feet away staring down your throat without you even having any pre knowledge...

If I was a militant or terrorist- and still alive after seeing that- and after cleaning and drying my britches- I'd be surrendering and recanting my misgressions.......
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
RoperAB said:
The accuracy of these new tanks and helicopter gunships are just mind bogling. Haha Thts why I have to laugh at these militia groups in the States who think they can take on your military in a fair fight.

The Abrams is impressive- but there is nothing more impressive than to be sitting out there on a hilltop and have one of those Apache helicopters rise up from below the horizon and be a few feet away staring down your throat without you even having any pre knowledge...

If I was a militant or terrorist- and still alive after seeing that- and after cleaning and drying my britches- I'd be surrendering and recanting my misgressions.......

Thats right OT, low altitude behind a hill and you cant hear them. Plus both the Abrams and Apache are just as accurate at night.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
You should have seen the documentary on the military channel on the Soviet's use of tanks in Afghanistan. I sure hope the lessons were learned and are not having to be repeated. It seems the mountains in Afghanistan give a definite advantage to destroying tanks. Lets hope they have figured a way around that problem or stay out of the mountains.

One of the big disadvantages of the Soviet tanks was their lack of horsepower. The leopard has oodles of it and that bodes well for its upcoming tasks in mountainous terrain. The guns are way bigger too, which will allow them to be much more usefull at a distance. The best part of the Canadian Leopard though is it has the best night sighting systems in the world, second to absolutely nobody. It's pretty amazing what they can do.
 

cowsense

Well-known member
The leapards had their first fire mission today......................just what our forces need when they want to reach out and touch someone!!!! 8)
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Well can someone tell me if these are 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation Leapord tanks?
A while back I was talking to a tank crew that had a display at Spruce Meadows. At that time they still had the out dated 1st generation Leapords.
What they told me was that they were expecting to get 3rd generation Leapords and they were very excited about it. There is a world of difference between 1st,2nd and 3rd generation Leapord tanks.
I did a bunch of web searches this morning and I cant find any info about what they are useing. I was just assumeing they got their new tanks.
Also how did they get the tanks over there?
Thirdly this has me wondering if the CF-18s will be going over there next? The parliment and DNC was denying the would be sending tanks over there and now we have them there.
Since they have been denying that the CF 18s will go im starting to think they will send them because it sort of seems like they do what they deny there going to do.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Silver said:
Econ101 said:
You should have seen the documentary on the military channel on the Soviet's use of tanks in Afghanistan. I sure hope the lessons were learned and are not having to be repeated. It seems the mountains in Afghanistan give a definite advantage to destroying tanks. Lets hope they have figured a way around that problem or stay out of the mountains.

One of the big disadvantages of the Soviet tanks was their lack of horsepower. The leopard has oodles of it and that bodes well for its upcoming tasks in mountainous terrain. The guns are way bigger too, which will allow them to be much more usefull at a distance. The best part of the Canadian Leopard though is it has the best night sighting systems in the world, second to absolutely nobody. It's pretty amazing what they can do.

I sure hope you are right. We have to find ways of bringing the battle to them, not the other way around. I think the lead tank was hit and the others were sitting ducks on the mountain roads. The soviets knew they had to ditch the tank when that happened and did so.

You can't compare technologically advanced U.S. or Canadian tanks to that of the Soviet Union. I sure hope they can do the job and kudos to the Canadians for developing a superior tank used in deployment.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Silver said:
Econ101 said:
You should have seen the documentary on the military channel on the Soviet's use of tanks in Afghanistan. I sure hope the lessons were learned and are not having to be repeated. It seems the mountains in Afghanistan give a definite advantage to destroying tanks. Lets hope they have figured a way around that problem or stay out of the mountains.

One of the big disadvantages of the Soviet tanks was their lack of horsepower. The leopard has oodles of it and that bodes well for its upcoming tasks in mountainous terrain. The guns are way bigger too, which will allow them to be much more usefull at a distance. The best part of the Canadian Leopard though is it has the best night sighting systems in the world, second to absolutely nobody. It's pretty amazing what they can do.

I sure hope you are right. We have to find ways of bringing the battle to them, not the other way around. I think the lead tank was hit and the others were sitting ducks on the mountain roads. The soviets knew they had to ditch the tank when that happened and did so.

You can't compare technologically advanced U.S. or Canadian tanks to that of the Soviet Union. I sure hope they can do the job and kudos to the Canadians for developing a superior tank used in deployment.

There really isnt any difference between American tech and Canadian or NATO tech. Everything is availible to everybody. Everything is intergrated, shared.
Example im pretty sure the computer/communications,night vision, gunnery gyro tech is the same between the German made 3rd generation Leapord and the US Abrams tank.
Example most of your missle componets are actually made in Manitoba, your nuclear bombs have a lot of Canadians working ion them. Your Adam bombs wouldnt have happened in 1945 if it wasnt for Canadians. I guess what im tryiong to say is our countrys dont keep secrets as far as military tech goes from one another.
My limited understanding is that worst thing about the Abrams is the reliabilty and fuel consumption. Not that the military is worried about the price of fuel. Its the logistics to get the fuel to the battlefield. Its the operating range of the tank. Dont forget the Abrams basically has a jet engine in it. In Gulf War 1 they had a heck of a lot of engine problems.
Even the Hummers havnt done so well in the gulf. Its over heating with the Hummers. Im not so sure what the problem is with the tanks but I know they had lots of troubles.
You know I suspect Liberty Bell could tell us more about this because I think she has relatives over there that service the tanks?
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Disagreeable said:
RoperAB said:
Those are not old refited junk either. They are 3rd generation Leapords, arguable the most modern tanks made. Even better than the M1 Abrams.

I'd like to see one. The Abrams is an impressive weapon.

My limited understanding on this subject is that the Leapord will do everything that the Abrams will do except its more reliable, has more fuel range/mileage and its cheaper to run.
Now im just guessing here but I think another problem with the Abrams is size and weight. Been awhile since I have talked to anybody about this so I might be wrong.
The M1 Abrams Dragon of Liberty is one hell of a tank though but those Germans just seem to have the nack when it comes to tanks.
Nobody except you guys to my knowledge uses the Abrams.
BTW The Leapord uses the same Gyro gun that the Abrams uses. The gun will lock on and stay on the target regardless if the tank is moving 70mph at night over rough terrian. The accuracy of these new tanks and helicopter gunships are just mind bogling. Haha Thts why I have to laugh at these militia groups in the States who think they can take on your military in a fair fight.

Well, the Abrams is about 25 years old, I'd hope by now you guys would have come up with improvemnts. :p
 

DaleK

Well-known member
Roper I THINK they had to send them over by freighter. They rent the big Antonov from the Ukraine to do heavy payloads but I think they found it was too expensive for the Leopards. I live 20km from CFB Trenton (airlift headquarters) and I've seen the Ukrainians coming in and out with the Antonov pretty regularly lately. Sounds like a dozen freight trains going over your head. The engines smoke like crazy too.
 

Silver

Well-known member
The Abrahms tank has some real advantages over the Leopard, it is better in run and gun battles. The problem they have with the Abrahms is that those turbines don't much like desert dust. On the up side it only takes a couple of hours to swap the engine out of them.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
:mad: :( Bad news
Those Leapords are just updated 1st generation Leapords with 105mm guns.They are nop way near in the same class as the Abrams. It doesnt have the firepower or the armor.Considered but rejected for cost reasons were TED (Turret Electric Drive) and a Hunter Killer Commanders sight. As well, our tank CAN mount a 120mm gun. A tank was produced and modelled for us in Kassel, dubbed the Leopard 1A6, this tank had an independent commanders sight, a 120mm L44 cannon, TED and an improved power plant. All of these upgrades can be done but were not .
Out of the 100 old Leapords we have, 44 have been used to provide parts for the remaining 66 that are operational.


http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_display.asp?product=55&more=55
Here is an article compareng our Leapord to wheeled assualt vehicles, apparently there is no comparison between it and a modern main battle tank.

Major J.A. Atkins writes...
THE LEOPARD C2 IS NOT A TANK
Dear Editor:
In his article â Å“The Medium Gun System is Coming!...Now What?â ?1 Major Senft continues to
perpetuate the myth that the Leopard C2 is capable of armour tasks on the modern battlefield.
The article repeatedly refers to heavy capability, ability to manoeuvre in the face of the enemy
and close with and destroy the enemy, all in the context of the Leopard C2. Meanwhile, it is
emphasized that the Mobile Gun System (MGS) is not a tank. The argument is summed up in
the statement, â Å“The MGS is not a tank killer, it does not have the armoured protection or stand
off range of a modern MBT to undertake this task.â ?2 I agree. Indeed, I have not met anyone
who disagrees, but the Leopard C2 is equally deficient in the role of tank killer. A modern main
battle tank is one that can effectively engage high-end threat tanks (e.g. T80/90 mounting a
125 mm gun). All western tanks in this category have a 120 mm gun and weigh more than
55 tonnes. The Leopard C2 is a medium weight vehicle effective in the role of the direct fire
weapons platforms as described in LCol Sherrard's article â Å“The Future Battlegroup in
Operations.â ?3 It cannot perform the tank tasks identified in the same article.4 Any differences
in firepower, survivability or mobility are insignificant and, taken as packages, the MGS and the
Leopard have very similar operational capabilities.
I have concluded that the mind-numbing track-versus-wheeled debate boils down to this: a
modern wheeled combat vehicle has very good cross country mobility, and our soldiers are
becoming expert at maximizing what the capability has to offer. Tracks do provide better
mobility in marginal terrain and have the edge in tactical mobility; advantage goes to wheels for
operational mobility. I have not seen any evidence that the difference in mobility between
wheeled or tracks is a decisive factor in the outcome of combat operations.
Firepower and survivability are the critical factors that should be discussed. Firepower is
equivalent: the MGS and Leopard have virtually the same gun. Having stated that the MGS and
Leopard C2 are not tank killers, the 105 mm gun is capable of defeating many in-service tanks
(T55, T62 and early T72s) at normal combat ranges. More modern tanks (T80/90), if
encountered, will be engaged by other elements of the direct fire systemâ â€￾light armoured
vehicle TOW under armour (LAV TUA) and multi mission effect vehicle (MMEV).
Most of the misconceptions have to do with survivability. The differences in protection levels
of the MGS and Leopard are not dramatic. The MGS will be fielded with rocket propelled
grenade (RPG) protection. The performance will be very similar to the Leopard protection
levels. Design features of the MGS that help improve survivability, such as a crew of three (one
less person at risk), low profile turret which puts the crew and ammunition low in the vehicle,
narrower turret and ammunition encased in a spall liner, all contribute to closing any survivability
gaps. The most important point, however, is that the Leopard C2 is as vulnerable to tank
rounds as the MGS.
The operational research war game CARRÉ DE FER,5 the favourite reference of MGS bashers, is
a study designed to examine and quantify the differences between a main battle tank, the M1A2
Abrams, and an armour combat vehicle (ACV), a wheeled vehicle with a 105 mm gun, in high
intensity engagements against a capable enemy equipped with T80Us and BMPs. Valuable
lessons were learned and are being applied in the development of appropriate doctrine for the
MGS and the direct fire system of systems. Often these studies are used to run â Å“what ifâ ?
scenarios. One such excursion in CARRÉ DE FER asked what if the ACV had more armour. The
model was adjusted to give the ACV enough protection to stop a 125 mm round fired at ranges
greater than 1000 m, a level of protection much higher than available on the Leopard C2. This
is the conclusion:
ô ‚? The improved armour protection proved insignificant because the ACV was still â Å“out
gunnedâ ? by the 125 mm sabot or the ATGMs [antitank guided missiles]. The extra armour was
inadequate and did not allow it to survive long enough to defeat the T80. Losses were similar
to those experienced by the baseline ACV, resulting in only marginal improvement in Loss
Exchange Ratio (1.1 vs 1.0). 6
The Leopard C2 does not have the required firepower or protection to be employed as a main
battle tank. Major Senft calls for a paradigm shift when the MGS is fielded. We should have had
a paradigm shifts years ago. The Canadian Army is, and has been for over ten years, a medium
weight army. We continue to go on exercise using doctrine and tactics inappropriate for the
weapon platform and the operations our army is expected to conduct, comforted by the fact
that the Leopard would rarely go on operations. I will take the liberty of paraphrasing the
infamous line from the CARRÉ DE FER Executive Summary: To employ the Leopard C2 â Å“as an
alternative to the MBT in warfighting would be morally and ethically wrong and courts defeat.â ?7
The Canadian Forces cannot continue to invest in an outdated piece of kit unsuitable for the role
it was originally designed for. The MGS is being brought into service and will be used in an
appropriate role: that of a direct fire weapon platform. It will be used on operations often,
employed in accordance with the Commander's intent for a transformed Army
If one wants to induce a paradigm shift, take Leopard out of service and field the Mobile Gun
System.
Major J.A. Atkins
Project Director, Mobile Gun System Project
http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/adtb/vol_7/CAJ_vol7.1_e.pdf
 

Silver

Well-known member
ahhhh... interesting. BUT every year we send tanks to the US for a competition against the Abrahm, and have only lost twice in about 10 years. Canadian night sighting systems give them the edge. So I guess we'll make do with the old clunkers for a while yet.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Silver said:
ahhhh... interesting. BUT every year we send tanks to the US for a competition against the Abrahm, and have only lost twice in about 10 years. Canadian night sighting systems give them the edge. So I guess we'll make do with the old clunkers for a while yet.

We did or used to actually make the night sighting system for the Abrams. Or atleast thats one of the things I found in my research.
It really upsets me that we are not providing them with better gear. Problem is new latest tech tanks have to be ordered which takes time. Then you need facilities and equipement to service/transport the tanks.
Then its the cost. If you can buy almost as good stuff at a fraction of the cost you know what the government is going to do.
 
Top