AllTheSingleCheeses t1_j9ycv3h wrote
Reply to comment by Lemondish in Canada pledges more tanks to Ukraine, imposes new Russia sanctions by Tei-ren
Canada does not have a great need for armored forces. I understand the reasons it maintains an armored force, but there won't be a "caught with their pants down" situation because of some missing tanks
1dererLives t1_j9yv8jk wrote
>Canada does not have a great need for armored forces.
Yes, yes we do. The idea that we don't is the sort of conclusion that people with no defence or security policy background come to when they think about the situation. It does not represent an informed perspective.
In reality, not having strong armoured forces already got us caught with our pants down in Afghanistan--resulting in dead Canadian soldiers--and in any event in which we immediately have to deploy overseas, we will immediately be caught with our pants down again.
And while the effects of not having tanks in Afghanistan were bad, but the effects of not having tanks against an actual military force would be horrible. Canada's ground forces as a whole would be crippled.
And of course, depending on the size and scope of the conflict, Canada's ability to import tanks at any given time could be extremely limited---meaning that the country's would be unable to rapidly replenish its defensive capabilities in a time where they are desperately needed.
And this of course doesn't even factor in the need to defend against attacks on domestic soil, which we do in-fact need, even with the U.S. right next to us. "Unlikely but possible" scenarios still need to be defended against.
AllTheSingleCheeses t1_j9yzgwl wrote
> not having strong armoured forces already got us caught with our pants down in Afghanistan
Tanks played a small role in Afghanistan. It was a fight for light infantry supported by air power. The only way tanks saved soldier's lives is by being armored against roadside bombs, a job done better (and more cheaply) by MRAP-style vehicles. There was no need for the treads or main cannon in Afghanistan
> in any event in which we immediately have to deploy overseas
That's something a tank can't do. They are too heavy and logistics-heavy to be quickly deployed. The armored forces Canada had in Afghanistan were reliant on US logistics as well as loaned equipment from countries like Germany and the Netherlands. An agile force is better off without too much weight
> Canada's ability to import tanks at any given time could be extremely limited
Are you calling for Canada to build its own tanks? And being able to build your own tanks means not just building your own tanks, but continuing to build new tanks for generations or else you lose the capability. This is why Canada buys jets, but it builds non-tank armored vehicles itself
> the effects of not having tanks against an actual military force would be horrible
I'm not calling for Canada to throw out its armored units. I'm saying they can send their current inventory to Ukraine without sacrificing security in any real way. The Canadian land, sea, and air units are more than capable of defending Canada. Any kind of overseas contingency that Canada would go to would be with other allies (when has Canada fought alone?) and couldn't have tanks in-theater quickly anyway
A_Bored_Canadian t1_j9yvev5 wrote
Not tanks no. We could sure beef up the navy though
AllTheSingleCheeses t1_j9ywvc3 wrote
Why, to steal islands from Denmark?
A_Bored_Canadian t1_j9z2d02 wrote
Those sneaky Danish bastards and the peaceful transfer of territory. But no really just cause we border 3 oceans so our navy shouldn't suck.
SteelCrow t1_j9ywy5c wrote
> Canada does not have a great need for armored forces
We have treaty commitments and national defense. We cannot rely on the USA. Particularly if they get another Trump idiot in office.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments