News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 29K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.8K     0 

vic

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
1,378
Reaction score
1,698

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
12,131
City:
Toronto

Bjays92

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,145
Reaction score
3,103

Russia blames Ukraine. Ukraine won't confirm or deny it.
Ukraine is now denying it though it would be completely illogical for Russia to strike one of the main fuel depots used to support the invasion as a false flag. So far Russian false flags have been confined to meaningless targets, so I suspect this was indeed Ukraine as strategically it makes sense for them.

Also this is the second (or possibly 3rd Ukrainian strike in Russian territory)

They struck the Millerovo airbase in Rostov on Feb 25th, and possibly a munitions depot in the Belegorod region the other day though there are conflicting reports as to whether it was an attack or a human error at the depot.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
31,831
Reaction score
25,335
City:
Toronto

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,066
Reaction score
6,065
@kEiThZ at what point will Canada deploy its Leopard IIs to Europe? They’re doing us no good here in Canada and surely the circumstances in Europe justify their deployment.

When we find a host country that wants them and are ready to keep them there a while. Right now there's no real need for them. And there's capable platforms, from allies, in theatre already.

Also, going forward, we'll need a whole discussion on the value of heavy armour for Canada. Very hard to deploy them. A much more limited use case, due to increasing vulnerability to anti-tank weapons. There's a reason the US Marine Corps is ditching tanks entirely. We'll need to have a lot of doctrinal review after this conflict. And also a new foreign and defence policy before plonking down billions in new spending.
 

Admiral Beez

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
10,624
Reaction score
4,512
When we find a host country that wants them and are ready to keep them there a while. Right now there's no real need for them. And there's capable platforms, from allies, in theatre already.

Also, going forward, we'll need a whole discussion on the value of heavy armour for Canada. Very hard to deploy them. A much more limited use case, due to increasing vulnerability to anti-tank weapons. There's a reason the US Marine Corps is ditching tanks entirely. We'll need to have a lot of doctrinal review after this conflict. And also a new foreign and defence policy before plonking down billions in new spending.
Good point. Donate the Leo 2s to Ukraine. Focus the CAF on what we need.
 

Bjays92

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,145
Reaction score
3,103
When we find a host country that wants them and are ready to keep them there a while. Right now there's no real need for them. And there's capable platforms, from allies, in theatre already.

Also, going forward, we'll need a whole discussion on the value of heavy armour for Canada. Very hard to deploy them. A much more limited use case, due to increasing vulnerability to anti-tank weapons. There's a reason the US Marine Corps is ditching tanks entirely. We'll need to have a lot of doctrinal review after this conflict. And also a new foreign and defence policy before plonking down billions in new spending.
Yup. Canada is a geographic fortress with abundant natural resources for in hour production of many vital materials. Our focus should be on further fortifying the country based on our existing geographic advantage and shoring up critical resources and infrastructure.

Better air defense systems, air force, and navy/coast gaurd should be the Canadian priorities imo.
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,066
Reaction score
6,065
Good point. Donate the Leo 2s to Ukraine. Focus the CAF on what we need.

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.
 

Lennox970

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 13, 2019
Messages
91
Reaction score
62
When we find a host country that wants them and are ready to keep them there a while. Right now there's no real need for them. And there's capable platforms, from allies, in theatre already.

Also, going forward, we'll need a whole discussion on the value of heavy armour for Canada. Very hard to deploy them. A much more limited use case, due to increasing vulnerability to anti-tank weapons. There's a reason the US Marine Corps is ditching tanks entirely. We'll need to have a lot of doctrinal review after this conflict. And also a new foreign and defence policy before plonking down billions in new spending.
First and foremost, I would welcome a Foreign and Defence Policy-led review of required force structures any day of the week. Normally it is Treasury led (how much money do have left over from bribing the taxpayer...).

But a reminder that Canada currently has a battlegroup as part of Operation REASSURANCE in Latvia as part of NATO's Enhance Forward Presence in the Baltic states and Poland. If Canada wishes to play a role in operations like this then perhaps re-examining our armoured capability to two battlegroups with MBTs, IFVs and armoured SP guns may be the way forward. It may be a posture of committing forces in the context of high intensity armoured/mechanised warfare, or it may not. And the utility of armoured vehicles and MBTs were found also in Bosnia, 1992-95. The Canadian 1950s era M113 were shockingly poor in comparison to the British Warrior (1980s era). And UK Warriors, US Bradleys and other IFVs (e.g. CV9030s) were also deployed in context of Afghanistan. Conventional war, hostile peacekeeping and COIN. Three for the price of one.

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.
 

Top