Alternate Canadian Armed Forces procurement 1970s

GK. Dundas said:
I think the Kidds would be a marvelous addition to the RCN . I am however very cynical where Canadian military procurement is concerned.
We have over politicized procurement while also burying it under red tape .
Click to expand...

That's the potential beauty of the Kidds, getting very high end assets without all the time and political interference which would end up with much lower capability ships.
 
It would have given you four task group flagships and an Airdefence capabilities.
The Tribals would have then received a midlife rebuild that didn't increase their already top heaviness problem. In short they would have remained a pure ASW vessel.
And the City class probably would have been built much the way they were.
 
Last edited:
I keep looking at the all those M551A1 Sheridan AFVs slowly rusting away in desert boneyards in the late 70s .
That's a waste of good hulls .
Round about 1980 or so a couple are quietly purchased as part of of a test programme.
The turret containing the M81 152 mm gun /launcher is removed and adapter is installed and the Delco turret currently being manufactured for the LAV 25 is dropped in .
After a year or two of intensive testing close to a thousand Sheridans are purchased with minimal to no fanfare. For pennies on the dollar.
Still playing with the concept using the above vehicles alongside the lynx and the rest of the M113 family.
 
GK. Dundas said:
I keep looking at the all those M551A1 Sheridan AFVs slowly rusting away in desert boneyards in the late 70s .
That's a waste of good hulls .
Round about 1980 or so a couple are quietly purchased as part of of a test programme.
The turret containing the M81 152 mm gun /launcher is removed and adapter is installed and the Delco turret currently being manufactured for the LAV 25 is dropped in .
After a year or two of intensive testing close to a thousand Sheridans are purchased with minimal to no fanfare. For pennies on the dollar.
Still playing with the concept using the above vehicles alongside the lynx and the rest of the M113 family.
Click to expand...
Honestly, for like 90% of the work the M551s do, that big 152mm launcher is the preferred weapon anyways. Just not for the missiles. "Is that a bunker? Let's see how well it likes a 152mm HEAT round" or "Oh, look, we've been ambushed by a mass of infantry. Gunner, crunchies, flechette!"

IIRC in Vietnam the Sheridans normally drove around with a flechette round loaded as the immediate response to an ambush and a couple of HEAT rounds in the ready rack for bunker blasting. But the issue was how easily breached the hull was by land mines or RPG-7s, and any hull breach would likely see the combustible cases in the ready rack getting ignited.
 
Scott Kenny said:
But the issue was how easily breached the hull was by land mines or RPG-7s, and any hull breach would likely see the combustible cases in the ready rack getting ignited.
Click to expand...

This was also an issue for the M113 in Vietnam, Australia were bandits for using M113s as light tanks and they suffered accordingly.
 
GK. Dundas said:
I keep looking at the all those M551A1 Sheridan AFVs slowly rusting away in desert boneyards in the late 70s .
That's a waste of good hulls ...
Click to expand...

A minor note, dictated by its air-portability, the M551A1 hull was constructed of welded aluminum - the same 7039 alloy used to make M113s.

So, the Sheridan was armoured like an APC or an SP gun - proofed from small arms and splinters ... but not much more. Bolt-on steel armour proved essential for any degree of mine protection on the 13 mm hull bottom.
 
Apophenia said:
A minor note, dictated by its air-portability, the M551A1 hull was constructed of welded aluminum - the same 7039 alloy used to make M113s.

So, the Sheridan was armoured like an APC or an SP gun - proofed from small arms and splinters ... but not much more. Bolt-on steel armour proved essential for any degree of mine protection on the 13 mm hull bottom.
Click to expand...
Turrets were steel.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Turrets were steel.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. But @GK. Dundas was postulating a tracked recce vehicle (presumably) which 'recycled' those retired aluminum hulls by arming them with Delco's LAV-25 two-man turret. That Delco turret is also made of steel ... but only 7mm thick.

So, the LAV-25 turret's level of protection is about the same as the M551's aluminum hull (or about half that of the thinnest portions of the M551's original turret).

As an alternative 'recycling' approach, perhaps a DFSV derivative? Keep the original M551 turret but rebuild it to take a medium-calibre autocannon (Bofors 40mm L/70 or 57mm gun comes to mind). Then clad that aluminum hull with add-on steel armour panels and track covers (with, eventually, MEXAS-L replacing that steel).
 
Something like the British 76mm gun in the Scorpion tracked recce AFV in the Sheridan's steel turret might be a good compromise. Dish out enough hitting power to win the recce battle but not enough to be confused with a tank destroyer.
 
Rule of cool said:
Something like the British 76mm gun in the Scorpion tracked recce AFV in the Sheridan's steel turret might be a good compromise. Dish out enough hitting power to win the recce battle but not enough to be confused with a tank destroyer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would be an option - and the 'pumpkin launcher' is also lighter than a Bofors.

Another possibility would be going with one of John Cockerill's low-pressure 90mm guns.
 
Apophenia said:
Yeah, that would be an option - and the 'pumpkin launcher' is also lighter than a Bofors.

Another possibility would be going with one of John Cockerill's low-pressure 90mm guns.
Click to expand...

In my mind the gun must be too small to be confused with something that might be able to take on a tank. Once that threshold is reached all sorts of dilemmas ensue with pollies, top brass and others who don't know or won't acknowledge the difference.
 
Rule of cool said:
In my mind the gun must be too small to be confused with something that might be able to take on a tank. Once that threshold is reached all sorts of dilemmas ensue with pollies, top brass and others who don't know or won't acknowledge the difference.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can certainly see the value in that. Beyond those you mention, you also don't want those performing 'sabre recce' to engage enemy armour when they don't have to.

On other armament options, I was struck by just how light the RARDEN is (115 kg or so if my source is accurate). A few 'out there' possibilities emerge from that:
- 1: Restore the fully automatic capability of the starting point ADEN (196 kg?);
- 2: Stick with lighter clips but scale up the piece to fire NATO 35x228mm rounds.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom