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-