Can Canada be depended on in a crisis? (Page 2/9)
Patrick JAN 25, 04:03 PM

quote
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:

Canada's military has become a joke. There are plenty of willing guys in the country, but the libs have turned it into an elitist day-camp.



MEM only sees what he wants to see. Since 1984, the Liberals have been in power federally for 21 years. The Conservatives have been in power for 19 years. Ya, it's all the Liberals fault. For sure.

MEM, let's hear how Stephen Harper, Conservative Prime Minister from Feb '06 to Nov '15 beefed up Canada's military. I'm sure you can make up some baloney!
82-T/A [At Work] JAN 25, 04:58 PM
I concur with MJ on this. Tanks are very old technology. They are very expensive to ship (requires C-17s) and I don't even really know what the point is. What exactly are they going to shoot at that a person with a shoulder-mounted rocket couldn't... or that a drone couldn't very easily do the same job. Tanks are good against other tanks, or against an outdated military. They tend to use them as a show of force, and a means to assist in blockade. They can be used to plow through (or over) roadblocks, and when grouped together, can help enforce a sense of border... but they don't really do a whole lot in a modern era with drones.

All of that said, Canada is a mess. I'm not going to hold back. I like the Canadians, and I've worked with their military many times over the years. They are basically a shell of their former selves. But can you blame them? With the United States directly beneath them... 34 trillion dollars in debt, with 1/3rd of that being spent on military... why WOULD they spend their money on military? It's easy to train troops and outfit them... but ships, planes, tanks, and automobiles is a different story. Don't even get me started on cyber. There's like... 10 people trying to do the job that the US Government has 500 people doing, which should be triple that.

They used to have numerous military academies, and last I checked, they've eliminated almost all of them. They have... 2, maybe 1 left? One of which is Royal Military College, which is a nice school, rather small... and underfunded... crumbling buildings. This is their combined military academy in Ontario, and I think there is one in Quebec. But htat's it... there used to be a different academy for each military branch, but they combine them all now.

It's not like Canadians are any less capable... but the Canadian government (whomever is at fault... liberals or conservatives) has chosen to NOT spend money on their military. I don't think they ever will fund their military so long as they know the United States is here and can defend them.
Patrick JAN 25, 05:21 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

All of that said, Canada is a mess.



That's a rather wide brushstroke, Todd. Do you watch your own newscasts?
blackrams JAN 25, 05:53 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
They are very expensive to ship (requires C-17s) and I don't even really know what the point is. What exactly are they going to shoot at that a person with a shoulder-mounted rocket couldn't... or that a drone couldn't very easily do the same job. Tanks are good against other tanks, or against an outdated military. They tend to use them as a show of force, and a means to assist in blockade. They can be used to plow through (or over) roadblocks, and when grouped together, can help enforce a sense of border... but they don't really do a whole lot in a modern era with drones.

All of that said, Canada is a mess.



Expensive to ship, agreed but, we already have some there should it be decided to give them up.
The point is, the Ukrainians asked for tanks, I'm not about to suggest our Abrams is the answer to their wet dreams but, that's what they asked for. I'm not sure I would have given them up but, what i would have probably done is given Abrams to one of our allies (like Poland or another) that wanted them so they could give up their German tanks. Who knows if that idea would have floated or sank,

I tend to agree with you on the use of armor but, I'm also not sitting in a trench in Ukraine hoping someone with a big gun is gonna kill opposing tanks. and I agree that today's drones can take out anyone's tanks.

Reference Canada, can't say much other than what I read but, knowing that they aren't prepared to defend us, much less themselves based on their equipment status, it is as I said previously, disconcerting.

Rams
MidEngineManiac JAN 25, 06:08 PM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

MEM only sees what he wants to see. Since 1984, the Liberals have been in power federally for 21 years. The Conservatives have been in power for 19 years. Ya, it's all the Liberals fault. For sure.

MEM, let's hear how Stephen Harper, Conservative Prime Minister from Feb '06 to Nov '15 beefed up Canada's military. I'm sure you can make up some baloney!



Libs get in and dig a hole.

Cons get in and partially fill it.

Libs get back in and start digging again.

The cycle repeats....and repeats....and repeats. Ad nauseum.

Nuttin that cant be cured with death camps for democrats and lynch mobs for lieberals.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 01-25-2023).]

Patrick JAN 25, 06:50 PM

quote
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:

Libs get in and dig a hole.

Cons get in and partially fill it.



And there you have it, the baloney I was referring to.


quote
Originally posted by Patrick Here:

I'm sure you can make up some baloney!





quote
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:

Nuttin that cant be cured with death camps for democrats and lynch mobs for lieberals.



MEM, maybe you should save this crap for the P&R section where there are a few ignorant members who'll delightfully swallow it.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 01-25-2023).]

maryjane JAN 25, 07:04 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

I concur with MJ on this. Tanks are very old technology. They are very expensive to ship (requires C-17s) and I don't even really know what the point is. What exactly are they going to shoot at that a person with a shoulder-mounted rocket couldn't... or that a drone couldn't very easily do the same job. Tanks are good against other tanks, or against an outdated military. They tend to use them as a show of force, and a means to assist in blockade. They can be used to plow through (or over) roadblocks, and when grouped together, can help enforce a sense of border... but they don't really do a whole lot in a modern era with drones.




All that depends....on where and terrain. In Europe (Ukraine) tanks bring a lot to the battlefield, and it's not just their main gun. Modern tank companies are comprised of a number of tracked or wheeled vehicles with a big gun and some with Hellfire type missiles, as well as Strykers with hellfires and 60mm. and TOW . Anti missile tanks and there is Lockheed's MAPS that jams and diverts incoming drone and ground fired missiles. There are others as well. Modern armor divisions aren't just MBTs any more.

In open terrain, infantry movement has to be supported by something, and that's usually armor. Armor is jointly protected by infantry, which nowadays is in a fighting vehicle of some kind.

Javelin is a great anti-armor system, but it has to be transported. Ready to fire, it weighs 50lbs. You aren't carrying it on your back very far in combat conditions.

From Ft Hood Texas. Most of this train (and this is just a very small portion of it), was tow and hellfire vehicles with only about 1/8 of the cars carrying Abrams.



4 Helfires, 2 AIM 9X sidewinders and a Bushmaster 30mm chain gun.
This is part of a modern battlefield's armor brigade.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-25-2023).]

Patrick JAN 25, 07:25 PM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

CLICK FOR FULL SIZE



Don, are the tires on that vehicle pneumatic or solid or what? I imagine they must have some way of avoiding going "flat" from being pierced.
82-T/A [At Work] JAN 25, 07:26 PM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

That's a rather wide brushstroke, Todd. Do you watch your own newscasts?




You quoted that one thing... I don't know if you intended to take it out of context, but I was talking about their military readiness. As it stands, more than half the world's armies could invade Canada right now, and they wouldn't be able to repel an attack. This says nothing about a Canadian's will to fight, or love of country, it simply speaks to the fact that they've disbanded most of their military from really every perspective you could conceive. To be quite honest, they know the United States would step in and assist, so why WOULD they even bother?

This isn't a measuring contest, it's simply a point of fact on the current state of their military. When their government meets to discuss funding military... they probably ask themselves, what is the point? The most powerful nation in the world is directly beneath us. Who would we (they) even go to war with?
82-T/A [At Work] JAN 25, 07:36 PM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

All that depends....on where and terrain. In Europe (Ukraine) tanks bring a lot to the battlefield, and it's not just their main gun. Modern tank companies are comprised of a number of tracked or wheeled vehicles with a big gun and some with Hellfire type missiles, as well as Strykers with hellfires and 60mm. and TOW . Anti missile tanks and there is Lockheed's MAPS that jams and diverts incoming drone and ground fired missiles. There are others as well. Modern armor divisions aren't just MBTs any more.






I mean, I get it... I absolutely see a use for something like that (what you posted above)... just as I would an MRAP. Very useful for combat because it's nimble and not huge.




But I'm not really seeing much of a need for an A1M1... which is what I think they're asking for?




I just imagine something like that not being incredibly useful in rural combat, and even less-so in urban combat, and being something of a target... like all the Russian tanks have basically been.