It’s weird that they keep calling out the Leopard 2A4 (or, correctly, the Leopard 2A4M CAN, but the article doesn’t call it that) when talking about outdated equipment.
Like, yeah, the Leopard 2 is a design from the eighties. So is every modern main battle tank in widespread usage. The Abrams, the Leopard, the Challenger, the LeClerc; they’re all from the eighties and nineties, because the basic frame still works as long as you continually update the equipment. And those updates have been made; the reason why the correct designation is 2A4M CAN is because that denotes the multiple equipment upgrade packages those vehicles have received.
In fact, every Leopard in Canadian service would be designated as a 2A6M CAN (functionally, a 2A7, the differences are very minor) if not for the fact that the 2A4s fail to meet exactly one criteria; they have the wrong gun. This is because the 2A6 Leopard mounts an L55 gun, while the 2A4 mounts the shorter L44. Why do we still have the shorter gun? Because the crews preferred it that. The shorter gun was better for maneuvering in Afghanistan. So they kept the shorter guns knowing they can upgrade to the L55 any time they like. Swapping it out basically takes a day. It’s a very small change.
Does Canada have serious problems with outdated or lacking equipment? Yes, absolutely. But our tanks aren’t exactly a prime example of that. The Leopard 2 continues to be the best battle tank in the world and we have a very well equipped version of one. They could use active protection systems, but those aren’t exactly widespread in any military (at least, not if you want a version that doesn’t vaporize any friendly infantry near the tank) and I’m sure there’s a wishlist of other things tankers would love to have, but all in all what we’ve got is very good.
What really needs attention is our lack of air defense, our outdated helicopters, our lack of attack helicopters, rocket artillery and mobile artillery, the fact that our night vision is on loan from the US, the fact that we’re still using the M72 LAW, the fact that our only ATGM is the TOW, the fact that way too many of our LAVs are in poor repair, or the fact that two thirds of our armour divisions don’t actually have tanks at all and are instead riding around in TAPVs.
I just wish journalists would take the time to talk to people in the military and find out what the real logistics issues are, instead of just going “Hurr durr tank from eighties.” Do you know what the number piece of equipment I hear soldiers complain about is? Wrenches. They literally can’t keep their AFVs running, because they don’t have the budget to replace basic tools that go missing. That’s where the money needs to be spent.
It’s weird that they keep calling out the Leopard 2A4 (or, correctly, the Leopard 2A4M CAN, but the article doesn’t call it that) when talking about outdated equipment.
Like, yeah, the Leopard 2 is a design from the eighties. So is every modern main battle tank in widespread usage. The Abrams, the Leopard, the Challenger, the LeClerc; they’re all from the eighties and nineties, because the basic frame still works as long as you continually update the equipment. And those updates have been made; the reason why the correct designation is 2A4M CAN is because that denotes the multiple equipment upgrade packages those vehicles have received.
In fact, every Leopard in Canadian service would be designated as a 2A6M CAN (functionally, a 2A7, the differences are very minor) if not for the fact that the 2A4s fail to meet exactly one criteria; they have the wrong gun. This is because the 2A6 Leopard mounts an L55 gun, while the 2A4 mounts the shorter L44. Why do we still have the shorter gun? Because the crews preferred it that. The shorter gun was better for maneuvering in Afghanistan. So they kept the shorter guns knowing they can upgrade to the L55 any time they like. Swapping it out basically takes a day. It’s a very small change.
Does Canada have serious problems with outdated or lacking equipment? Yes, absolutely. But our tanks aren’t exactly a prime example of that. The Leopard 2 continues to be the best battle tank in the world and we have a very well equipped version of one. They could use active protection systems, but those aren’t exactly widespread in any military (at least, not if you want a version that doesn’t vaporize any friendly infantry near the tank) and I’m sure there’s a wishlist of other things tankers would love to have, but all in all what we’ve got is very good.
What really needs attention is our lack of air defense, our outdated helicopters, our lack of attack helicopters, rocket artillery and mobile artillery, the fact that our night vision is on loan from the US, the fact that we’re still using the M72 LAW, the fact that our only ATGM is the TOW, the fact that way too many of our LAVs are in poor repair, or the fact that two thirds of our armour divisions don’t actually have tanks at all and are instead riding around in TAPVs.
I just wish journalists would take the time to talk to people in the military and find out what the real logistics issues are, instead of just going “Hurr durr tank from eighties.” Do you know what the number piece of equipment I hear soldiers complain about is? Wrenches. They literally can’t keep their AFVs running, because they don’t have the budget to replace basic tools that go missing. That’s where the money needs to be spent.
Good take on the situation.