Tanks, again

Vincent J. Curtis

29 May 2026

Just because the Germans invented the Tiger, Panther, and Leopard tanks, it doesn’t mean that they know everything about building a good tank.  In WWII, the British stuffed a 17 pdr into the turret of a Sherman tank, and produced a fighting vehicle that was lethal to both Tiger and Panther at respectable ranges, and also mechanically far more reliable.

The Americans tried something similar with a 76 mm to up-gun the Sherman, but it was not as successful. The Americans therefore came up with an entirely new tank, the T-26 Pershing, with a 90 mm gun, that could reliably defeat Panther and Tiger tanks. The Pershing was also mechanically far more reliable than its German counterparts. The British built the Centurion, but it appeared too late to see combat against Germany.  This famous tank was purchased by many countries, and Canada had a fleet of 347 of them as late as the early 1970s, when they were replaced by Leopard Is.

The tank that succeeded the Pershing was the Patton series of tanks, which saw service in Korea and even Vietnam. When they encountered Russian T-34s in Korea, the Russian tanks had trouble keeping their turrets on in the course of the engagements, and American armour-piercing shells could shoot right through the T-34, prompting the Russians to develop the T-54/55.

By the 1960s, the typical NATO tank gun was 105 mm, and the standard American battle tank was the M-60.  The British Centurion was succeeded by the Chieftain, which featured the extremely effective Chobham armour, and later the by Challenger series of tanks.

In the 1970s, American tank designers started with a clean sheet, and came up with what was to become the M-1 Abrams.  It was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who selected the turbine engine option to power the new tank, and it was with a sense of irony that Rumsfeld saw the tank he approved in 1975 lead the charge into Iraq in 2003.

In my May 2002 paper on phase IV mobilization, I wrote the following:

“Canada does not presently manufacture tanks, and it is unlikely that in the pressure of a rapid mobilization Canada could create the capacity to build a good modern one.  Therefore, one of Canada’s allies would have to have the surplus manufacturing capacity to make tanks not only for their own use but also for sale to and resupply of Canada’s army.  Quickly one comes to the conclusion that there is only one ally who can be relied upon to supply tanks to the Canadian army that also fulfils the requirements of security of supply and of interoperability.  That ally is the United States, and the tank in question is the M1 Abrams, the only tank the US makes for its army.  No matter how good the Leopard might be, Canadian army cannot count upon the supply of them in the location and numbers the mass army might require, as our experience in the Gulf war proved.  Therefore, Canadian tactical doctrine for its expeditionary army ought to account for the fact that it will likely be armed with the Abrams tank, not the Leopard, or whatever American equipment is current.  This means that in a major war the Canada would likely field a heavyweight force, not a medium weight force.”

In choosing a new tank, Canada has three options: the Leopard II A8, an Abrams M1E3, and the British Challenger III. All three feature the same 120 mm smoothbore gun made by Rheinmetall. So, the question is, which chassis is better? Certainly, the Leopard II is well known to Canadian tankers, but we should give serious consideration to the British Challenger III, as well as the Abrams. There may be production and supply problems with the Challenger III, and it is slower and heavier than the Leopard and the M1E3; but its armour protection is superb and the all-new digital turret gives the crew commander a wide view of the battlefield independent of the gun-aimer’s weapon sights. A Canadian purchase of the Challenger III could save the British tank manufacturing industry from extinction.

A purchase of Abrams tanks is politically difficult, given the current state of relations between the respective governments, but a purchase by Canada of American equipment could salve sore feelings, and also provide the Army with the equipment they can be certain will be available to them if the balloon should go up, again.

-30-

 

Navy Logistics

Vincent J. Curtis

30 Apr 2026

Let’s say that the Canadian government wanted to support the United States war against Iran, but wished to do so in a pusillanimous manner. What do I mean? I mean that Canada wants credit with the US government for joining the war effort, but not doing anything offensive against Iran. It’s trying to thread a diplomatic needle.

How could it do so? Two answers present themselves: the first is to support the logistics effort at sea.  Fighting an air and sea war and maintaining a blockade on the other side of the world requires a lot of logistical support, and Canada could contribute to the logistical operations of the war. A second area in which Canada could support the United States war against Iran would be in mine sweeping. The Straits of Hormuz were kept effectively closed by Iran claiming it had mined the international shipping lanes that run through Omani waters.  The mere threat of mines compelled commercial vessels to sail through Iranian waters, which exposed them to attack by Iran’s fleet of speed boats.  Canada could gain a lot of credit with the world if her minesweepers opened a free channel to commercial shipping.

But let’s focus on logistics.  Canada has one supply ship, MV Asterix, which, at 26,000 tons, is inadequate for the task in view.  The war against Iran required three principal types of logistic ships: oilers, so-called AKE ships, and Fast Combat Stores ships. US Naval logistics are organized under the Military Sealift Command, or MSC, and their ships are prefaced USNS, for United States Naval Ships. Typically, these are crewed by civilian merchant seamen, not members of the US Navy. If weaponry, such as a Phalanx CIWS or SeaRAM systems are added to the ship for its own defense, these systems are usually crewed by US Naval Reservists who are activated for the purpose.

The most current fleet replenishment oiler design is the John L. Lewis class, and these carry both JP5 aviation fuel and DFM, or diesel fuel marine.  The aviation fuel is meant to keep the fuel stores on the big fleet carriers replenished, while the DFM is used to refuel the non-nuclear powered ships, such as the Arliegh Burke class destroyers. A Lewis class oiler displaces just under 50,000 tons, has a complement of 125, a top speed of 20 kt and a range of 6,150 nmi. Although the Lewis class can carry dry stores, the amount is limited, and dry stores are carried by the AKE replenishment ship.

The second type of replenishment vessel is the AKE, which stands for Auxiliary Cargo and Explosives. The lead ship of this class of design is the Lewis and Clark. These ships carry bullets, beans, band-aides, as well mundane goods such as toilet paper.  F/A-18s expend a lot of ordinance.  The Lewis and Clark class vessel displaces just over 45,000 tons, have a top speed of 21 kts, 1,39 million cubic feet of cargo space, as well as room for 23,500 barrels of fuel cargo. The ship has a completement of 124 civilian mariners and 11 naval personnel. Cargo transfer rigs are used to transfer containers of goods from the replenishment vessel to the naval vessel.

The last class of logistics vessel is the Fast Combat Stores ships, as represented by the USNS Arctic.  These ships were designed to keep up with a Carrier Strike Group moving at high speeds. The Arctic displaces just under 50,000 tones, has a top speed of 26 kts, a complement of 176 civilians and 59 military personnel. She can carry nearly 2 million US gallons of DFM, 2.6 million gallons of JP5 jet fuel, 1,000 tons of ordinance storage, 400 tons of frozen storage, and 20,000 gallons of fresh water. The refuelers can pump fuel at a rate of 3,000 gallons per minute. This is a combination ship, carrying fuel, dry stores, and ammunition.

Sea logistics is a business the RCN could get into in a big way.

-30-