Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

crazytrooper t1_j9wklvk wrote

Just send the whole dam fleet of leopards and have America give us discounts Abrams

16

NorthStarZero t1_j9x75ao wrote

As a Canadian tanker, no thank you.

Replacement Leopards or the new Panther plz.

38

quick4142 t1_j9x9seg wrote

Noob question but curious why? Are the Abrahams not good?

3

cudeLoguH t1_j9xeqw0 wrote

They dont work too well in the cold climates and from what i’ve heard are a pain to keep running in the winter compared to the leopard 2s

Also the Abrams are extremely overweight like the british challenger 2s and are overall not fit for our terrain

10

PumpkinManGuy t1_j9xhut3 wrote

They're a great tank, just not for the Canadian use case. Like most military equipment, a lot of the options are good, but your situation and needs will dictate the best option.

8

Tr3sp4ss3r t1_j9x9u2o wrote

Outsider perspective: Yes you are right. I mean if you had the logistics to keep the jet fuel in the tank for the Abrahms, maybe, but you would also have to be good at protecting the logistics... just stick with the conventional stuff, perfectly good tanks.

3

mindman5225 t1_j9xjx0d wrote

Abrams can run on multiple types of fuel.

5

Tr3sp4ss3r t1_j9ym8d1 wrote

>Abrams tanks run on a "gas turbine engine which needs jet fuel," Kirby said. "So there's a specific type of fuel that powers the Abrams, and we've got to make sure that pipeline—literally and figuratively—is available to Ukraine."

https://www.newsweek.com/us-abrams-tanks-fueling-problems-ukraine-1776639

The article goes on to mention that it can run on other types of fuel, but no one has done so to their knowledge. There is no "idle", the turbine runs continuously after ignition so, if/when they do use another fuel, the same problem arises only with a different fuel. The Abrahms is a HUGE fuel hog. That's the problem.

1

dyntaos t1_j9wp2wh wrote

I watched an interview with Anand (defense minister) and she was repeatedly asked how many of our Leopard 2s were in operational condition, but she avoided the question in such a way it was pretty clear the answer would be a small number. I'm all for sending our tanks, but they are only helpful to Ukraine if they are operational and reliable.

28

bluGill t1_j9wreo3 wrote

Part may be useful as well, but that is tricky and depends on what maintenance they have time todo and what parts are hard to get new '

4

mbmbmb01 t1_j9wwt6p wrote

They would be sending operational tanks.

3

Lemondish t1_j9xp4ft wrote

Last report I remember seeing was that the number was potentially as low as 15.

2

cowet t1_j9x6ih3 wrote

You can work with Germany to returbish them in the meantime

1

mschuster91 t1_j9ybchm wrote

What does Canada need tanks for anyway? I mean, outside of NATO assistance it's extremely unlikely that Canada is ever attacked in a land war - to the south there is only the USA and on the Eastern front there's Alaska (again USA) to protect against possibly dumb AF Russians.

Wouldn't it be better to use the money and staff for something like naval or aerial assets?

−3

crazytrooper t1_j9yc8bl wrote

Canada needs tanks for land deployments (like when we where in Afghanistan) but its something that has less value for us for sure then air or naval assets. So my 2cents is that even if all our leopards aren't working, send them all. Get broken ones repaired in Germany or use them for parts... we can get new tanks later(new leopards, panthers or w/e). Ukraine needs them now!

6

Logical-Amphibian-89 t1_j9ydhqx wrote

This has been the predominant view of canada This has been a topic of discussion since the end of the Great War. Fact is, we don’t know what might be asked of the Canadian Army in the future, but it’s been proven time and time again that tanks are a critical component of any combined arms force when the enemy knows their business and is even moderately well equipped. That’s why we are sending them and that’s why we need more to replace the ones we send… like now.

4