I'd definately have to agree with mike_golf, I simply don't understand the bonus of having hollow armour on a modern MBT. It is useless against a long-rod penetrator, and its effects against tandem HEAT warheads would be negligible. It would work pretty well against an older HEAT warhead, but modern western armour would totally defeat such a round anyway. I think it makes much more sense if it were filled with a honeycomb of sorts...... Just a thought, Kontakt-5 provides a tank with a 200-250mm boost in protection vs KE ammunition while weighing only 3-4 tons for the entire vehicle. Why not slap some of that on the Leo or Abrams, it couldn't hurt...:) I know it wouldn't happen because of political reasons, but it's a thought....

I have my reasons to be so sure about the ''hallow'' armor,but i can't tell you about that thing,maybe the Dutch goverment is listening right now :P

The armor of the Leo 2A4 is not 900mm thick, that's the equivelent protection it provides.

How can i place a picture here?

Jeffrey - to post pictures/articles etc, it's best just to post a link to it, StrategyPage has automatic hypertext. Canuck Tankie: Australia was looking at some Canadian Leo upgrade kits after the Krauts has some embolism about something to do security (gf0012-aust can tell you more), but apparently a negotiater or some bloke who was in charge of procurement totally f*^&ed it up, so we didn't get them. They recently got new NV and Electronics, before the decision to get new MBTs (10 bloody years to late IMO). Our main problems with them are wear and tear - simple attrition, inadeqaute funding and where they're on exercises up the top end of Australia (Tropical and Sub Tropic, desert and generally really inhospitable terrain) and the 1st Armoured Boys, I have heard really thrash the Sh&t out of them, even for Tankies. Basically, great tanks, just worn out. Something like 30% of them are not used - Structural problems, etc. I think they're being cannibalised. BTW - What was Canada's troop levels and how big was your armoured force? Post WW2, our Armoured force at peak, was around 100 tanks in one Regiment, and the rest at Puckapunyal, where the Armour School is (my name derives from there). I think we could use at least 200 all up - 2 Regiments, IMO. Our Centurions were really effective in Vietnam. The LeopardAS1 we currently have just have never had the chance to be deployed, although they were on standby for East Timor if the Indos Arked up. Finally, what are your thoughts on going the Stryker option? IMO, it roles are adeqautely covered by the numerous LAV/ASLAV variant already, along with the M113s. Cheers, Pucka P.S: I've been to Vancouver - utterly beautiful. Calgary is fantastic too - it's where Elisha Cuthbert is from, hehe.

... http://www.defensieforum.nl/index.php?board=50;action=display;threadid=3477;start=0 Take a look at the 5 picture...

Let's see. Post WW2, we of course had thousands of Shermans of various marks and makes. A lot of them were junked, or left behind, we kept most of the diesel variants, and, I believe, almost all of the fireflys. At any rate, come the early 50's, our idiotic government decided that our forces would use nothing but American equipmnt, but it had to be produced in Canada. Thank goodness that fell apart, for we ended up getting 330 Centurion tanks, instead of the M46 our government wanted. The US, scared by Korea, didn't want to sell any tanks for a few years. Can you imagine? The M46, or even the M47, just cannot compare with the Cent. Oh, sorry, getting carried away. The 330 Centurions were divided up amongst 5 Regiments, with some in reserve. Come the late 70's, the Cent was totally worn out. The only totally modernized ones were the ones we had in Europe, which were upgraded to the Mk13 standard, additional armour, 105mm gun, infrared searchlight and headlights, .50 RMG, and so on. Any way, we ended up buying a total of 114 leopard 1A3, modified and called the C1. Australia was part of that buy, the tanks were produced at near the same time. The big difference was that we mounted a night sight in place of where you mounted the searchlight. These tanks were committed to Europe, four squadrons of 19 tanks each, plus two in RHQ, the Armour School in Gagetown, and a couple in Borden to train the techies. After we left Europe, the tanks were re-distributed to our surviving four regiments, 19 to each. Then we disbanded one unit, and the tanks were absorbed in to the school. Now, we are in the process of parking them all. As a sidenote, in the mid 90's, it was readily apparent that we could not fight at night, and the tanks required thermal sights. After much anguish, it was decided to replace our turrets with A2 turrets, which would be rebuilt to the A5 standard. We ended up buying 114 tanks, replacing our turrets, and keeping most of the hulls to replace our worn out ones, and for more parts. We sold something like 60 turrets to Australia for parts to keep their tanks running. Now, between the school and the Units, we are running about 60 Leo's. The rest are parked.

Now for part two of my answer, which is the LAV MGS option. BTW, while the Americans are calling the LAV 3 family the Styker family, I don't believe any one else is. At least, we're not. We have the Coyote, which is basically a Lav 2 with a high tech surveillance suite, with a Detroit Diesel, and the Delco turret. The LAV 3 is our APC variant, with the CAT engine and Delco turret. The MGS is going to end up with a low profile turret and a 105 gun.It looks like we'll be buying the MGS to replace the Leo. Sigh. The powers that be have decided that Canada is going to base it's army on the new US "Light Brigade" concept. In other words, no tracks. At all. Period. I'm of two minds. Our politicians lack the fortitude to send the Leo anywhere, we deployed it to Bosnia, but they weren't allowed to move much, and wheels aren't seen to be the same category of tanks. So, if we are not going to deploy tanks, I like the idea of having some kind of direct fire vehicle out there to support the boys. I mean, the 25mm is OK for a big machine gun, but it is not going to scare away the big boys. The MGS might. The downside to all of this restructuring is that, at least for the short term, our infantry Units, which are on wheels, do not have TUA, or even Mortars, as both were mounted in M113's. Yes, it's true, are boys fighting in Afghanistan and Bosnia do not have TOW, mortars, or direct fire support. They have light artillery (105), 25 mm, and small arms. Pretty sad. So, if the MGS is going to fill that shortfall, then let's buy it and get it into theatre. On the other hand, I hate the idea of totally giving up on the "heavy brigade" concept. No more tanks, no more self-propelled arty, no more ADATS,...............

Have to agree with you there, RetiredCdnTanker, I think the idea of 'lightening up' is utter BS. I'll clarify that. Basically, there is nothing out there currently that can provide the Firepower, Heavy Hitting capability combined with survivability and mobility that a tank can. Maybe in the future, but for now, nothing. I think Australia and Canada are in the same boat, albiet for different reasons. 1) Both our countries are seen as peacekeepers (the two best, IMO), by mainly our citizens (the majority whom have no idea) and our policy makers (even worse than the citizens), and therefore, our forces should be configured as such. 2) The need for heavy stuff (MBTs, Heavy Arty, and such) is seen as minor or negligable, for Canada, it's largely to do with the proximity to the US of A, and NATO, for Australia, the region in which we are likely to be operating - jungle tropics, etc. From what I gather - there is the thought that leave the heavy stuff to the Brits/Yanks, etc. since our involvement is usually with them. I honestly feel that the less heavy stuff is deployed, the better - when the tanks are activated, the dung has hit the proverbial rotor. But having the option/capability if needed is reason enough in itself. Also, countries like Australia and Canada, without the sweeping armoured formations that the Yanks, Brits and Krauts are capable of, are quite adaptable in thier use. A perfect example in the Australian Centurions in 'nam. I'll see if I can find some links for you on that, anyway check out the tank museum at: http://www.armytankmuseum.com.au I admit, I'm an armour enthusiast, but I honestly believe that even a hundred or so MBTs are a viable force element, that given the proper support, can win operations and campaigns. The light brigade concept like you described sounds alright for quick deployments, but they should not be at the cost of heavy assets. The same idea is being mooted here in Australia. I don't like the idea of pinning your assets/defence to a 'big brother', we should be as independent as possible, not just what is fashionable and politically expedient. Pucka

Despite fears by many, the US Stryker brigade concept is not a direct replacement for heavy brigades, but a complement to it, bridging the gap between our light and heavy brigades (the former fast to get there and "too light to fight," the latter slow to deploy). Replacing heavy units with medium ones is not the answer -- but as noted, Canada is doing so in the expectation that US/UK/NATO heavy brigades will fill the heavy armor role in any fight Canada is likely to get into. Personally I'd see the medium weight units as a luxury to be sacrified to maintain quality light and heavy units, or as a partial replacement for light units (the US approach if you look at the actual order of battle and what units are converting) rather than the direction heavy units should be going.