[Lennox970]

A Leopard 2 is not like a Honda Civic you can just loan out. Tanks require training and support to operate. This is hard to do in the middle of a war (a lesson for those who think defence spending can be put off till a war). The Ukrainians are better off using captured Russian and donated Eastern Bloc kit that they are familiar with and have parts for.

Exactly that. Better augmenting existing capabilities or providing low tariff (training/integration) new capabilities. Training, maintenance, spares may sap Ukrainian capacity when they can least afford it.

Here explained in detail by retired US 4-star.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1510341553520361472

 

[kEiThZ]

We've been going around this buoy since 1991, and the discussion goes on but the utility of the main battle tank, as part of an all arms capability, remains.

The tank is dead. Long live the tank.

Tanks can have utility and still not be for us. A smaller military and country needs to be strategic in its spending. We should be seeking to invest where we can create the greatest effect. Replicating some capabilities that our allies would bring, is not going to help us make a noticeable impact.

For example, I'd rather have two amphibious carriers or a squadron of ELINT aircraft over 2-3 tank regiments.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Exactly that. Better augmenting existing capabilities or providing low tariff (training/integration) new capabilities. Training, maintenance, spares may sap Ukrainian capacity when they can least afford it.

Here explained in detail by retired US 4-star.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1510341553520361472

Well said, but what they need is offensive weapons. Holding the line against Russia won’t push them out of Ukraine.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Tanks can have utility and still not be for us. A smaller military and country needs to be strategic in its spending. We should be seeking to invest where we can create the greatest effect. Replicating some capabilities that our allies would bring, is not going to help us make a noticeable impact.

For example, I'd rather have two amphibious carriers or a squadron of ELINT aircraft over 2-3 tank regiments.

New Zealand essentially eliminated much of its air force because they deemed it unnecessary. Instead they’re investing more money on the navy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Royal_New_Zealand_Navy

Perhaps we need to question why Canada needs much of any army. Can we meet our NATO obligations, deploy on the occasional UN third world mission, and handle domestic disasters with a smaller army? Instead it’s navy and Air Force that may need to be our focus.

 

[Lennox970]

Tanks can have utility and still not be for us. A smaller military and country needs to be strategic in its spending. We should be seeking to invest where we can create the greatest effect. Replicating some capabilities that our allies would bring, is not going to help us make a noticeable impact.

For example, I'd rather have two amphibious carriers or a squadron of ELINT aircraft over 2-3 tank regiments.

Yes, to a point. If we are going to have a proper defence review then let's have a proper funding review alongside.

And it is not a case of either/or. We need a well balanced force that has utility both to defend Canada, as part of a commitment with the US, as well as contribute to international peace and security through multi-lateral organsiations. No matter how much we wish it away, armour still has utility within the context of a well rounded all arms capability.

If Canada wants to only be a niche capability nation (despite being 7 times Denmark's size??) then we need a proper policy to back that up.

When I think of Canadian defence requirements and capabilities, I don't look to the US, a nation we can never compete with. Rather, I look to Australia. A country in a slightly different geo-political position, but one with very similar global outlook that is about 80% of our size but has about 150% of our defence capability. And, more often than not, cross-party consensus on defence policy and procurement.

 

[Lennox970]

New Zealand essentially eliminated much of its air force because they deemed it unnecessary. Instead they’re investing more money on the navy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Royal_New_Zealand_Navy

Perhaps we need to question why Canada needs much of any army. Can we meet our NATO obligations, deploy on the occasional UN third world mission, and handle domestic disasters with a smaller army? Instead it’s navy and Air Force that may need to be our focus.

What NZ did with its forces is well known in my profession. Speak softly and carry no stick....

But after 1989 all war was finished. Then Kuwait. Then Somalia. Then Rwanda. Then Croatia. Then Bosnia. Then Afghanistan. Etc. Armed forces are like an insurance policy, and we really cashed in our peace dividend in the early 90s and never looked back.

 

[Lennox970]

Well said, but what they need is offensive weapons. Holding the line against Russia won’t push them out of Ukraine.

You are correct. MBTs good at offense and defence too. But also ATGW can be useful. Small scale surveillance a force multiplier. Encrypted communications, suicide drones, etc. Anti-ship missiles maybe. A mixture of both. But I think they may need strong defensive if Russia starts to advance in SE shortly. But then go to offence when possible.

 

[lenaitch]

Quite a discussion, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to take a definitive stance, let alone get into a debate about a particular piece of kit. My problem with the way we do things is, even if we come up with a cohesive defence and security policy that everybody is happy with, by the time we fund and equip it into reality, it is out of date and the world has moved on. Rather than do incremental or generational modernization, we keep out infrastructure until a wholesale replacement is necessary, and the attendant price tag and timeline causes everyone to run for cover, demand more studies and reviews and otherwise generally poo themselves. It's all about votes - and the general public generally doesn't care.

Taking a stand that, for example, we don't need tanks, strategic lift or heavy lift rotary is fine - until a political or foreign policy decision is made where we do. Military leadership speaking truth to power should be listened to, but at the end of the day they serve the Crown and will go into the fight with what they have, not what they want. Gone are the days where we can take some prairie farm boys and turn them into sailors on board ships that were built in a month.

Do we need a large standing army or a smaller core supplemented by reserves? If there is to be a greater reliance of reserves, they still need access to and be trained on modern equipment. The government and population has to accept that good money will be spent on buying and maintaining expensive stuff that largely sits around outside of training, and may well be tossed out someday. If it is decided that we will continue to supply formations to NATO and/or peacekeeping or peacemaking missions, said reserves need better legislated employment protections. If 'no' to main battle tanks, then what else to project fire and protect ground forces?

Maybe it makes sense that we pick niches or specialties to work with our allies but, as mentioned, what is the industrial impact. Do we just determine our specialties and expect our allegiances to simply deal with it or should it be done in a more collaborative way ('ok Canada, you're bringing the napkins so nobody else has to'. But we [country x] have our own napkins and we like them better). May concern with allowing ourselves to pick the niche is that we will pick 'safe stuff' because it is relatively safe and cheap, doesn't have Canadian actually committing violence, or have them come home in caskets. King originally thought that by offering to be the major host of the Commonwealth Aircrew Training Program, our allies would be satisfied with our contribution and allow us to stay out of much of the fighting in Europe. More recently, apparently to our Global Affairs Minister, we are convenors, not warriors. We could excel in strategic air or sealift, but would we be viewed by the world as protecting the vulnerable or ensuring peace and security by having a very efficient way of repatriating the bodies of others to their home nations?

 

[Lennox970]

Taking a stand that, for example, we don't need tanks, strategic lift or heavy lift rotary is fine - until a political or foreign policy decision is made where we do.

And there is the rock that the military will founder upon. Politicians that have no good reason to move defence spending any higher than bare minimum (NATO policy = 2% GDP, Canada ~1-1.5%) will be the self-same politicians who will volunteer Canadian Forces for missions that for which we do not have the proper equipment. In 2002, do you remember, we didn't even have desert camouflage uniforms? Troops got a khaki cape to put over their woodland pattern combats.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Satellite images show bodies lay in Bucha for weeks, despite Russian claims.​

From link.

An analysis of satellite images by The New York Times refutes claims by Russia that the killing of civilians in Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv, occurred after its soldiers had left the town.

When images emerged over the weekend of the dead civilians lying on the streets of Bucha — some with their hands bound, some with gunshot wounds to the head — Russia’s Ministry of Defense denied responsibility. In a Telegram post on Sunday, the ministry suggested that the bodies had been recently placed on the streets after “all Russian units withdrew completely from Bucha” around March 30.

Russia claimed that the images were “another hoax” and called for an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting on what it called “provocations of Ukrainian radicals” in Bucha.

But a review of videos and satellite imagery by The Times shows that many of the civilians were killed more than three weeks ago, when Russia’s military was in control of the town.

One video filmed by a local council member on April 2 shows multiple bodies scattered along Yablonska Street in Bucha. Satellite images provided to The Times by Maxar Technologies show that at least 11 of those had been on the street since March 11, when Russia, by its own account, occupied the town

To confirm when the bodies appeared, and when the victims were likely killed, the Visual Investigations team at The Times conducted a before-and-after analysis of satellite imagery. The images show dark objects of similar size to a human body appearing on Yablonska Street between March 9 and March 11. The objects appear in the precise positions in which the bodies were found after Ukrainian forces reclaimed Bucha, as the footage from April 2 shows.

Further analysis shows that the objects remained in those position for over three weeks.

The causes of death are unclear. Some of the dead lay beside what appears to be an impact crater. Others were near abandoned cars. Three of the dead lay beside bicycles. Some have their hands bound behind their backs with white cloth. The victims were scattered over more than half a mile of Yablonska Street.

A second video taken on Yablonska Street shows three more bodies. One lies beside a bicycle, another near an abandoned car. Satellite imagery shows that the abandoned cars and the nearby body appear between March 20 and 21.

These are just some of the civilian victims discovered since Saturday. The Associated Press published images of at least six dead men lying together in the rear of an office building, some with hands tied behind their backs. The building is one mile west of the other victims found along Yablonska Street.

Another mile further along, a photographer with The Times discovered a man with a gunshot wound to his head lying beside a bicycle.

 

[W. K. Lis]

 

[lenaitch]

And there is the rock that the military will founder upon. Politicians that have no good reason to move defence spending any higher than bare minimum (NATO policy = 2% GDP, Canada ~1-1.5%) will be the self-same politicians who will volunteer Canadian Forces for missions that for which we do not have the proper equipment. In 2002, do you remember, we didn't even have desert camouflage uniforms? Troops got a khaki cape to put over their woodland pattern combats.

And operated G-Wagens (well, at least it wasn't the Iltis.

BTW, the discussion has moved:

Canada and the World

Thought I would create a thread where we can discuss Canada's place in the world. As the Russo-Ukrainian war rages on and upsets a lot of apple carts, it's clear that our foreign and defence policies and outlooks have to evolve. We can discuss what we think our place is, and should be in the...

urbantoronto.ca

 

[Lone Primate]

I cannot possibly fathom NATO or Europe letting attacks on their land slide simply because they were launched from within Russia proper.

We're dealing with hypotheticals here of course, but let's say Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine,

Yeah, and? Ukraine is not in NATO. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a big deal, but strictly speaking, it doesn't involve NATO or trigger an Article 5 response. It would be the end of the world we've lived in since 1945 or so, but not necessarily WWIII.

 

[Bjays92]

Yeah, and? Ukraine is not in NATO. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a big deal, but strictly speaking, it doesn't involve NATO or trigger an Article 5 response. It would be the end of the world we've lived in since 1945 or so, but not necessarily WWIII.

No it doesn't but from a realpolitik sense it would. The current global leaders cannot allow any countries to use nukes in any context, that opens a can of worms that can never be shut.

Countries like North Korea and Iran would be overjoyed should a tactical nuke be able to use without provoking a full scale war. I can see no way in which it would be allowed to happen without going to war with Russia, because not doing so is arguably more dangerous.

 

[SkylineHorizon]

So Russia uses a tactical Nuke in Ukraine

Where is the benefit? The Ukriane army/military doesn't seem to fight in large battalion sized groups. I'm sure their military is probably composed of such groups structurally but they certainly don't seem to fight on mass like the Russians do. Maybe I'm missing something but I've litterally never see a single video of their forces moving in large columns like the Russians do, which makes for easy ambush targets when performing offensive maneuvers. It seems pretty obvious that they avoiding moving en massw like that to avoid being easy targets for Russian air and missile strikes.

A tactical nuke is most useful when facing and outnumbered by a large mass of troops and armor. As awe-inspiring as nuclear weapons are I don't see a how single nuclear bomb, especially only a smaller tactical one changes the overall course or narrative of the war in any situation for the Russians. Yet the use of one is a huge provocation and is much more likely to be crossing Nato's red line as well as losing the support of Russia's few uncoerced allies. Would China and India just be total fine and ok with Russia lobbing nuclear bombs around? It seems like such a play and the reverberating effects of it is a much more riskier propostion than its worth, and makes no sense while Russia thinks it can still win conventionally. That's disregarding all the negative on-field effects, it would render the area uninhabitable from a strategic stand point for some time and worse yet Russian forces or cities might actually suffer the brunt of the radiological effect depending on how close such an attack is to their positions/land and which direction the wind is blowing. The contested regions seem much too close in both respects for that action.