DND's second-hand tanks on idle

This is fucking retarded. We haven't put the neccisary changes onto these yet because of the same reasons we never bought Hummers from the USA. Should have been dealt with when we originally bought the things.

From what I recall, the refit couldn't be dine here and I do imagine the Canadian forces has a hell of as lot on it's plate right now. Time to push some money for another inferstructure program.

And having tanks sitting idle in a warehouse in Montreal doesn't help. Having vehicles ready to domestically train on is what we need right now. Can't just keep sending the same guys voer. they get injured, get PTSD, get killed, etc. Not to mention the destroyed vehicles overseas that need to be replaced.

OMG now we're wide open if the 7th Taliban Panzer Division mounts an attack!!!!

Huh I guess herbie missed the news article that was all about how important tanks have been for the mission in the last years.

Some people just don't care. For them it's Military = Bad.

Well if you go back a little in history, German Panzar divisions, like our Armooured divisions, originally came from calvaly.

Taliban riding camels and using donkey's for kit transport are a form of Calvary... The Taliban Panzar Divisions you are reffering too.

So in a sense, yes, we are leaving ourselves exposed to Taliban Calvary armed with RPGs, IEDs, and all sorts of other little do-dads, all of which kill our guys overseas at random. Aside from the now limited air capability we have, tanks provide the best support. And unfortunately we leave ourselves vulnerable when we have to train people overseas to use our rented kit overseas because the stuff we bought is Non-Serviceable. It means we have to send over less guys at a greater cost in dollars to train them, more often. Example being 32 guys do a 6 month tour per year (16 each tour) at a cost of 100-150 thousand CAD per individual to train ( 3.2 to 4.8 million dollars total) vs 48 guys doing one tour every 18 months or 64 guys doing tour once every 24 months for about 20 thousand CAD per individual when trained doestically (960 thousand to 1.28 million dollars total).

What makes more sense financially?

And what would you personally rather see, a few guys that are overworked and that are easily killed off due to insufficient kit, or more guys that have a better workload and the kit neccisary to keep them alive?

Ultimately it is all your call.

We are fighting insurgents who don't have tanks. Forget me if I am wrong but aren't tanks mainly used for tank vs tank battles and giving a advantage over a anemy that is in regular combat? We are fighting a whole new battle unlike other ones where the enemy hides in civilian buildings and amung civilians.

I don't really see how we need tanks in this one. They can be a big help and advantage but I would much prefer more additional Fighting APC's to carry and protect troops in. They can carry and armor protect troops, they can fight but unlike tanks have less splash damage which is great for civilian areas. They are just the same when fighting infantry which is all we ever fight.

Tanks litteraly scare the shit out of people, if you have an RPG7 and a 105 HESH lands 30m from you, you are going to drop the RPG and run. Also tanks are the hardest thing to blow up with an IED. It is because of these reasons tanks lead and close up most patrols. If I had a choice between 1 tank or 3 LAVs to go with me on patrol, I would pick the tank.

It's also direct fire support that's a hell of a lot more accurate and controllable than air support.
I was waiting for the folks who had experience to chime in on this one.

Excellent point RR, Bacardi4206 talked about splash damage, but 105 a round is going to have the same effect if it�s fired from a several km away or 200 meters. The only difference is accuracy. I would rather a tank fire into a grape hut with me next to the tank, rather than call in arty to drop rounds in around my head.

Not to mention the tank can sit there all night, using their main gun or coax and theres very little the enemy can do to move them. Infantry and tanks are a very strong team.
Isn't Bacardi an army cadet or something? I thought he'd know this stuff.
Time to get a copy of Thunder Run by David Zucching.

No I am not in the Army yet, still trying to finish school.
If I was however I don't see how I would directly know that stuff unless I was apart of working with those vehicles.

I am not disputing the use of a tank, I think they are useful but the war we are fighting calls for more infantry use and I'd rather be safe inside a APC rolling to my next objective than in a less protected vehicle fighting beside a tank.

You are right that tanks are scary and are really hard to kill, insurgents would have to be idiots to try and take it on. Even with RPG's but if the tank is accompanied by infantry in a lesser vehicle. Wouldn't they target that vehicle if they had the chance?

I don't think the CF uses Tanks in Urban Envirements much, so if the CF has to go in a Urban City and get's ambushed. There would be no tank present to help them.

We still got a lot of soldiers who do foot patrols, I would just rather that the next time they have to do a foot patrol they can be riding/accompanied by a APC so if needed they can duck inside if they are taking heavy fire or evac quickly and safely. Something you could not do with a tank unless they started developing APC options for tanks.

I didn't mean that as an insult or a slight so forgive me if it came off like that. I've always been a huge armor fan so I often assume that others are too.