Canada Send Leopards To Afghanistan

Ya I think our leoparda are 1A5s... not sure...

Our military, while small, is highly efficiant and profficiant... We have once again won raving reviews from our allies (ie: Yanks, Brits)...

Personally from experience in Afghanistan I know that our soldiers are reguarded as some of the fiercest toughest mo fos in that theatre... That was from a US LCol...

Also once again the Brits have given us the title "Stormtroopers of the Commonwealth"

As for our training, again my experience, we always find your noisey nuke boats, and sink them... Also your carriers hate it when our subs pop up in there battle group to say hello and your all dead... lol

Glad your on our team though because our quality has no chance against your numbers...

 

Who are you glad to be on who's side, Grabbers?
To CSP: What? We have 1/10 to 1/4 of the CF18 fleet grounded? And there's a lack of pilots? Oh come on, how worse could this get? Oh, right, it just got worse. Our armored forces are equipped with Leopard 1s with obsolete, underpowered 105mm excuses for main armament when everyone else is using 120mm shooters. Germany's 2A6s have L55 guns, and the M1s have the A3 round. Plus, our Leopards could get blown to pieces by 37mm chain guns on our LAVs! I learned that from an actual Canadain soldier.

 

I think the 37mm gun vs the leopard armour claim is worth looking into.

oh , and btw, our lav's have 25mm chain guns.

 

CSP, an actual soldier told me that!

 

I went on the canadian department of defence website and looked it up. My dad is in the military and he told me that. I also have a LAv shell in my room.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca

 

Sorry I ment Im glade the Yanks are on our side

 

Care to elaborate some on the Canadian subs that make monkeys out of the USN nuclear attack subs and carrier battle groups? I think we would all like to hear some more.

 

I think you are confused. You are on our side. Not vice versa

 

I think he's referring to the Canadian Lighthouse

 

Well our Oberon Class boats were masters at poping up in the middle of your carrier groups and taking snap shots of the fleet... Also your seawolf class had to go back to the yard because its was dispatched so easily buy our combine Air, Surface and Subsurface anti submarine work.

The US navy is well aware of our sub hunting abilities. This is why they like to play with us. Its gives them the ability to really test their metal so to speak.

Many a sub skipper has his pee pee slapped for that lil trick...

As for hunting your nuc boats thats our CPFs... Not our subs, as we all now our subs are having some teething problems...

Oh ya CPF is the Canadian Patrol Frigate probably the finest surface sub hunting platform built...

You know there is no reason to get offened becuase a smaller nation can do a few things better. Look at the US size. With somthing that big quality is bound to lost on some points, but overall no one can doubt the ability of the US military to kick @ss when it wants too...

 

Leopard 1A5 is weak armoured, the danish army tested the armour on a leopard 1A5 that had been damaged in Bosnia by a old mine (no crew were killed) they fired a 25 mm gun with modren armour-piecing round into it and through the side armour.....result: we now use leopard 2A5

 

Your probably right. But I doubt if in Afghnistan our boys will run into many T55s or 25mm guns as all...

I will bet dollars to doughnuts that the Leo will be used as a sort of close up mobile artillary... Wont see much head on fighting

The RPGs could pose a problem but then they have to get close enough.

 

So Canada does use Leopard 2s. Might only be 2A5s, but I think that's good enough. Canadian Air Force, START RECRUITING PILOTS!!!!

 

I love that one. :lol: :lol:

Well Candian subs make be pretty good but I think we've learned to make sure they float before bringing them home....remember the 2 Victoria class boats we bought from the Brits?

(somebody goofed on that one...parts had been stripped from one the make the other seaworthy)

 

No I think Jens means that Denmark now uses leapord 2's.

 

I'd be very careful using such examples as proof of anything when you don't know what the rules of the war games actually are. I've heard the same stories of Australian Oberons doing the same, the Dutch navy's Zwaardvis and Walrushave sunk the USS America and Theodore Roosevelt, the USN has even leased the Swedish HMS Gotland for extensive ASW practice and exercises, during which the Gotland apparently got hits on the carrier USS Ronald Reagan and probably others, and the Australian Collins class submarines HMAS Waller and Sheehan have racked up kills against USN Los Angeles class attack submarine, and a Collins class has got a USN Carrier. The Chilean submarine Simpson has even sank the USS Independence. But you rarely hear how many times these subs have been "killed" in the same games, only their sucesses.

I'm sure the Canadians did just fine, I just don't believe what this would seem to demonstrate, namely that eveyone is better than the Americans.

 

Maybe not. If it happens, so far we only have your word for it. Got a link to any of those claims?

 

Thanks for providing links Gryle. There is no doubt that when one engages in war games there will be times when you win and times when you lose. That's why they do it, to learn from their mistakes. But games are games. Rules of engagement and so forth in games set up roughly equal scenarios. In the real thing nobody sets up constraints that are designed to set a level playing field so that both sides start equal. Quite the contrary.

 

Denmark! Oh man!

 

Something should be pointed out that apparently some don't realize. Don't be too impressed that under controlled circumstances such as in war games maneuvers that ANY diesel/electric sub can come out on top when the main criteria is silence. ALL well made diesel/electric subs are quieter than nukes. It will always be that way. Nukes must have circulation pumps running at all times due to the requirements of the reactor. Diesel/electrics can be totally silent if they choose since they can cut off all machinery and sit perfectly still. That is why the nuclear forces prefer to test themselves against diesel/electric subs rather than other nukes.
So why, you ask has every nation with the capability to do so gone nuclear with their sub forces? Even the hunter killer subs? the answer is that the advantages of nuclear propulsion far outweigh the disadvantages.
For the most part the only nations fielding diesel/electrics are those that cannot afford or do not possess the technology to go nuclear.