Canada has messed around with tanks for decades. At one point we were getting rid of them altogether and weren’t to mention them again. The, in a blizzard of activity, we deployed the old Leopard C2s to Kandahar, followed by obtaining Leopard 2A6Ms from Germany especially for that mission. We eventually replaced those, assuming all we’d ever need was a squadron for deployment. The A4s we bought used from the Dutch as a “training fleet” - now being modernized.
Why this history? Because the Army has been afraid for decades to insist on *new*, proper tanks, so there’s always a manoeuvre. And why is that? Because politicians in Ottawa view tanks as an “offensive weapon” and somehow not in keeping with Canadian values. So the Army settles, manoeuvres, upgrades, and buys used junk.
So now we’re stuck. The Army’s revitalization plan cannot reach fruition without tanks - and many more of them than what we have. They’re needed to complete a tank regiment *for each brigade* in the first division. The argument that somehow indirect fire can replace a manoeuvre arm or that drones can do the same are based on a profound misreading of the lessons of the war in Ukraine. Tanks, along with infantry, remain the only means of taking and holding ground. There is no substitute.
This means 200ish tanks, including those for the Armour School. Are we ready for that? To many other countries, this is a tiny number. Poland is managing to sort this out very quickly; why can’t Canada? No more talk of rail guns, or hybrid drives. There are good tanks out there now. We need to get on with it.
LOL I forgot you were in armour. I was gonna do a broader history section, but decided against it. I had a very fun MGS joke that I now have to keep in reserve for next time.
To the rest I agree. I stress the need to not take the wrong lessons from Ukraine, and to not merely assume that the enviornment we see there is what we will face. Its one of the things I think, along with the overfocus on UAS that really makes this conversation a bit poisoned. There is so much focus on these two topics that often times it drowns out the other issues and discussions related to it.
Part of the reason I try to stave away from drones in this discussion. It's overdone, beat to death a million times over, and at the end of the day I don't think that the era of the tank is over in the slgihtest. The role they play atill very much exists, and still requires a dedicated platform to perform.
Although I still wanna keep the conversation open to as many solutions as possible. Sadly, I dont think we can really get in to the platforms themselves very well at this time. Not until more details come out. Some like the K3 might still not be available when we actually see a tender released, so its a wait and see for me.
The Army seems to be focussed on indirect fire as a priority. I think this is a good thing, but if they’re thinking to use it as a substitute for manoeuvre, I’m deeply concerned. This is Russian thinking.
I’ve been making the same point for years now: while there are many things we can learn from Ukraine, we must be very careful. Ukraine has never shifted to the Western way of war and the frontlines have settled into a static state as a result. These are ripe conditions for drones and artillery. At one time, Ukraine’s expenditure of artillery ammo was insane.
I’m glad you didn’t mention MGS. I was around for that debacle…it wasn’t funny at the time!
Agree that the Army/CAF uas heen allergic to firepower & lethality since the end of the Cold War. Good to see they are thinking about lethality beyond IFM & dismounted AT.
We certainly need Heavy Cav... & A lot more than what we have. That being said, I remain convinced that buying Medium Tanks (e.g. CV90-120) in quantity, would get us a more agile, deployable & sustainable tank & more capability overall than any of the heavy MBTs. Tracked Heavy Cav, whether in a CV90-120 or KF-51 will be able to manoeuvre tactically for advantage & apply firepower where needed to win the close fight. While a lighter tank will be a bit more vulnerable to enemey direct fire, it isn&t reaply any less vulnerable to indirect fire, LMs, or even being M-killed by an AT mine... I think the combination of APS & UAS/LMs will provide any tank sufficient protection, situational awareness & ability to strike at long range (supplementing the canon) to be effective in finding, manoeuvering for advantage & destroying the enemy (& taking ground...).
I just did the math using the number of Regular Force armoured regiments, plus a squadron for the school. We’d need a couple for Borden too (to train maintainers).
Whatever direction we choose, I think some consideration needs to be given to domestic production. Both the Leo 2 and K2 have seen license production outside of their home country, and there are already plans for the KF51 to follow suit. If things continue to heat up, replacements and parts are going to be even harder to come by. This is something that could hypothetically be paired with the MEDCAV selection to provide sufficient work to justify standing up new production lines. If we were smart about it.
Personally speaking, I don't even think the M1E3/A3 is worth consideration given the deterioration in international relations and domestic stability, and the US tendency withhold the best armour packages to foreign customers.
Also, small quibble, but none of the above tanks will have turbines... Plans for the M1A3 are to go diesel.
What jumped out at me was the $10 billion price tag Noah mentioned for the Heavy Direct Fire Modernization project. That’s an enormous figure in Canadian defence terms. For comparison, it’s roughly what Ottawa spent on the National Shipbuilding Strategy’s first Arctic patrol ships, and more than double the navy’s new surface combatant budget per unit.
It really drives home how rare it is for the Army to get a procurement this large. The key question isn’t only “which tank,” but “what is Canada actually buying with $10 billion?” A classic heavy fleet fits NATO’s European posture, but Canada’s main bottleneck is moving heavy armour overseas. Without major investment in sealift or pre‑positioning equipment in Latvia, new tanks risk being beautiful but stranded.
The alternative Noah hints at—medium armour tied to MEDCAV—might make more sense for expeditionary mobility and cost. Paired with pre‑deployed heavy elements, that could balance deterrence and practicality. I’d be curious if DND’s updated Army modernization papers even model transport timelines or sustainment costs for each option.
Part of the $10 billion price tag, I hope, is that the CA has realized the tanks are relatively the cheap part. The infrastructure and maintanance costs are what make tanks expensive and im hoping we've learned from the Leopard 2 debacle that we can't just buy a tank and figure the rest out after.
One thing to always stress is that for projects like tis the vast majority of the money is going into the lifetime costs of the platform. Maintinence is very much important, and im hopeful this program takes the lessons learned from the saga of the Leopards.
sustainment cost unknown on new equipment. Assumptions based on old equipment can cause problems especially when going to highly integrated information systems. Doubtful its the track causing the maintenance ballooning
Replacing main battle tanks with MEDCAV would result in a serious downgrade in Canadian capabilities, leaving us to again depend only on operating with allies that do have them. MEDCAV is the survivability solution for sending troops along with the main battle tanks. Definitely not to replace them. In fact I'd argue without the escort of main battle tanks to clear the way, the MEDCAVs would be far easier to target and therefore less survivable. We are supposed to be in the process of increasing Canada's Defense capabilities not finding excuses to continue to rely on others to provide what we are to cheap to buy for ourselves. We need to just buy modern main battle tanks and many more of them before even thinking of the MEDCAVs they'd have to escort.
I say we replace the Leopard 2 tanks with the K2/K3(leaning more towards the K3). Not only is the K3 a next gen platform, it will also run on hydrogen (an eco-friendly tank)!!!
K3 looks great... on paper. And that's the problem, it's vapourware at the moment. That comes with some inherent risks (doesn't live up to expectations, teething problems that cost time/money, ideas that seem good but turn out to be dead ends etc). Could be a worldbeater, could be a lemon.
One reason I didnt wanna talk deep on playforms this early. Almost all the potential options are either in the prototype phase or entirely on paper. That makes it really hard to accurately and fairly compare them at this time.
I think the logistics of having the only tank in NATO where we'd be required to move large amounts of easily targeted Hydrogen on our own wouldn't be worth the extra cost and effort. Not to mention with a cut supply line, leave us without the use of tanks in battle entirely. Deisel is easy to aquire shared by our European allies in quantity, sometimes can even be aquired behind enemy lines by taking from their sources. South Korea in the other hand doesn't plan on placing tanks in other Countries and are using them on a much smaller territory for their own defense. Initially atleast they'd have no problem with logistics there.
2027 last i saw although it said at the time that the first would not have the italian powerplant. things may have changed. i cant copy it to here for some reason
I’ve never been in the armed forces, so take my perspective with that in mind. I think the observation that Canadas tanks are operating solely for the Europe context is exactly right, and should compel us away from a large number of heavy tanks. One way to deter and defeat a Russian invasion is to deny them the opportunity to safely mass armour for a major assault, and then deny them the ability to coordinate that assault. This could be done through extensive remote sensing, EW/EA, indirect fires, ground launched anti-tank missiles, air lunched missiles, and of course attack drones - basically, a distributed anti-armour ecosystem. Crucially, these systems are likely lighter and quicker to cross an ocean than several dozen tanks. Keep in mind Germany and Poland are ramping up their tank fleets significantly. Will our few dozen vehicles really tip the balance? $10 billion can buy a lot of artillery, Javelins, hellfires, drones - even helicopters. I appreciate that infantry needs armoured heavy guns to do their jobs, but medium tanks might be able to provide that service.
Medium tanks can’t be used to take and hold ground. Modern warfare is all about manoeuvre. Defence is mobile. Counter attacks are part of the defence.
Indirect fire cannot do this. Only tanks and infantry can, working as a combined arms team. Everything else is in support. We must be careful not to take the wrong lessons from Ukraine.
Medium tanks have much lighter armoured protection and typically mount a 105 mm gun.
The role of tanks in the defence (holding ground) is to (1) support the infantry and other arms with direct fire and (2) counter attack. Defence is mobile and extremely aggressive = tanks that are fast, heavily armed, and well protected. People get caught up on direct fire support and forget the rest.
Thanks. In my mind we could get a 120mm on a medium tank, 40-50 tons, have it highly maneuverable, partially because of this reduced weight and it could help hold ground in a combined arms scenario even against heavy tank assaults. No? Also, whatever happened to the Tank Destroyer role?
You’re nearing heavy tank country at 50 tonnes. A base Leopard 2 weighs 55. To get the weight down, you’re sacrificing protection, but gaining very little.
Canada has never used tank destroyers per se (although I believe we used Archers in the Second World War). The weight drops because there’s no turret, thus reducing flexibility. No one makes these anymore.
Why can't you manoeuvre with attack helicopters? Isn't that pretty much American doctrine. Use Apaches for deep manoeuvre?
$10B is a lot of moolah. So naturally the question has to be if this the best way to achieve the desired effect. I'll note here, the RCAF is planning Attack-Recon helos as part of nTACS Phase II.
Again, helicopters can’t take and hold ground. That’s the only thing that wins battles and wars. Everything besides armour and infantry (and only infantry can hold ground for long periods) is in support, including drones and attack aviation.
Aviation can dramatically enhance firepower and battlefield mobility but they’re no substitute for what happens on the ground.
I still find it concerning how many people dismiss the possibility that in a future world war Canada would be needing to defend our own territory with Tanks etc.. or risk the US moving in through annexation to do it for us. We can't take forgranted that we cannot expect to participate in armed conflict against peer nations on their territory without the possibility they will do the same. The balance of military power isn't what it was in the 90's. We need to stop thinking this way. Walking softly with a big stick is better than not having one when someone comes wacking us with theirs next time we have our pants down.
Great article. One point, a "medium" or "lighter" tank formation would still need to be transported by sealift to Europe just as a "heavy" tank (unless prepositioned of course). Saving a few hundred tons in tank weight makes little difference to a sealift vessel(s) sized to transport a fighting formation.
No Challenger 3 heresy but you’ve redeemed yourself with stating the Centurion is the greatest tank of the Cold War. (Haha jk Noah)
All things aside this was a very well done article which provides allot of insight from bigger picture that will eventually go into actual selection.
Now it wouldn’t be a comment section on tanks if I didn’t say what could be the best option for CA and i wouldn’t go as far to say SK armour might be coming our way with Bluetooth speakers blaring K-pop.
Hi! Former senior Armour officer here!
Canada has messed around with tanks for decades. At one point we were getting rid of them altogether and weren’t to mention them again. The, in a blizzard of activity, we deployed the old Leopard C2s to Kandahar, followed by obtaining Leopard 2A6Ms from Germany especially for that mission. We eventually replaced those, assuming all we’d ever need was a squadron for deployment. The A4s we bought used from the Dutch as a “training fleet” - now being modernized.
Why this history? Because the Army has been afraid for decades to insist on *new*, proper tanks, so there’s always a manoeuvre. And why is that? Because politicians in Ottawa view tanks as an “offensive weapon” and somehow not in keeping with Canadian values. So the Army settles, manoeuvres, upgrades, and buys used junk.
So now we’re stuck. The Army’s revitalization plan cannot reach fruition without tanks - and many more of them than what we have. They’re needed to complete a tank regiment *for each brigade* in the first division. The argument that somehow indirect fire can replace a manoeuvre arm or that drones can do the same are based on a profound misreading of the lessons of the war in Ukraine. Tanks, along with infantry, remain the only means of taking and holding ground. There is no substitute.
This means 200ish tanks, including those for the Armour School. Are we ready for that? To many other countries, this is a tiny number. Poland is managing to sort this out very quickly; why can’t Canada? No more talk of rail guns, or hybrid drives. There are good tanks out there now. We need to get on with it.
LOL I forgot you were in armour. I was gonna do a broader history section, but decided against it. I had a very fun MGS joke that I now have to keep in reserve for next time.
To the rest I agree. I stress the need to not take the wrong lessons from Ukraine, and to not merely assume that the enviornment we see there is what we will face. Its one of the things I think, along with the overfocus on UAS that really makes this conversation a bit poisoned. There is so much focus on these two topics that often times it drowns out the other issues and discussions related to it.
Part of the reason I try to stave away from drones in this discussion. It's overdone, beat to death a million times over, and at the end of the day I don't think that the era of the tank is over in the slgihtest. The role they play atill very much exists, and still requires a dedicated platform to perform.
Although I still wanna keep the conversation open to as many solutions as possible. Sadly, I dont think we can really get in to the platforms themselves very well at this time. Not until more details come out. Some like the K3 might still not be available when we actually see a tender released, so its a wait and see for me.
The Army seems to be focussed on indirect fire as a priority. I think this is a good thing, but if they’re thinking to use it as a substitute for manoeuvre, I’m deeply concerned. This is Russian thinking.
I’ve been making the same point for years now: while there are many things we can learn from Ukraine, we must be very careful. Ukraine has never shifted to the Western way of war and the frontlines have settled into a static state as a result. These are ripe conditions for drones and artillery. At one time, Ukraine’s expenditure of artillery ammo was insane.
I’m glad you didn’t mention MGS. I was around for that debacle…it wasn’t funny at the time!
Agree that the Army/CAF uas heen allergic to firepower & lethality since the end of the Cold War. Good to see they are thinking about lethality beyond IFM & dismounted AT.
We certainly need Heavy Cav... & A lot more than what we have. That being said, I remain convinced that buying Medium Tanks (e.g. CV90-120) in quantity, would get us a more agile, deployable & sustainable tank & more capability overall than any of the heavy MBTs. Tracked Heavy Cav, whether in a CV90-120 or KF-51 will be able to manoeuvre tactically for advantage & apply firepower where needed to win the close fight. While a lighter tank will be a bit more vulnerable to enemey direct fire, it isn&t reaply any less vulnerable to indirect fire, LMs, or even being M-killed by an AT mine... I think the combination of APS & UAS/LMs will provide any tank sufficient protection, situational awareness & ability to strike at long range (supplementing the canon) to be effective in finding, manoeuvering for advantage & destroying the enemy (& taking ground...).
I was thinking closer to 300 as a minimum, but your number is probably closer to our unfortunate reality.
I just did the math using the number of Regular Force armoured regiments, plus a squadron for the school. We’d need a couple for Borden too (to train maintainers).
Whatever direction we choose, I think some consideration needs to be given to domestic production. Both the Leo 2 and K2 have seen license production outside of their home country, and there are already plans for the KF51 to follow suit. If things continue to heat up, replacements and parts are going to be even harder to come by. This is something that could hypothetically be paired with the MEDCAV selection to provide sufficient work to justify standing up new production lines. If we were smart about it.
Personally speaking, I don't even think the M1E3/A3 is worth consideration given the deterioration in international relations and domestic stability, and the US tendency withhold the best armour packages to foreign customers.
Also, small quibble, but none of the above tanks will have turbines... Plans for the M1A3 are to go diesel.
I was thinking the same thing as well. KNDS/Rheinmetall have shown they cant scale up production quick enough, open more production in Canada.
What jumped out at me was the $10 billion price tag Noah mentioned for the Heavy Direct Fire Modernization project. That’s an enormous figure in Canadian defence terms. For comparison, it’s roughly what Ottawa spent on the National Shipbuilding Strategy’s first Arctic patrol ships, and more than double the navy’s new surface combatant budget per unit.
It really drives home how rare it is for the Army to get a procurement this large. The key question isn’t only “which tank,” but “what is Canada actually buying with $10 billion?” A classic heavy fleet fits NATO’s European posture, but Canada’s main bottleneck is moving heavy armour overseas. Without major investment in sealift or pre‑positioning equipment in Latvia, new tanks risk being beautiful but stranded.
The alternative Noah hints at—medium armour tied to MEDCAV—might make more sense for expeditionary mobility and cost. Paired with pre‑deployed heavy elements, that could balance deterrence and practicality. I’d be curious if DND’s updated Army modernization papers even model transport timelines or sustainment costs for each option.
To your last sentence, not a chance, but your point is well taken.
And medium armour doesn’t take ground.
Part of the $10 billion price tag, I hope, is that the CA has realized the tanks are relatively the cheap part. The infrastructure and maintanance costs are what make tanks expensive and im hoping we've learned from the Leopard 2 debacle that we can't just buy a tank and figure the rest out after.
One thing to always stress is that for projects like tis the vast majority of the money is going into the lifetime costs of the platform. Maintinence is very much important, and im hopeful this program takes the lessons learned from the saga of the Leopards.
sustainment cost unknown on new equipment. Assumptions based on old equipment can cause problems especially when going to highly integrated information systems. Doubtful its the track causing the maintenance ballooning
Replacing main battle tanks with MEDCAV would result in a serious downgrade in Canadian capabilities, leaving us to again depend only on operating with allies that do have them. MEDCAV is the survivability solution for sending troops along with the main battle tanks. Definitely not to replace them. In fact I'd argue without the escort of main battle tanks to clear the way, the MEDCAVs would be far easier to target and therefore less survivable. We are supposed to be in the process of increasing Canada's Defense capabilities not finding excuses to continue to rely on others to provide what we are to cheap to buy for ourselves. We need to just buy modern main battle tanks and many more of them before even thinking of the MEDCAVs they'd have to escort.
I say we replace the Leopard 2 tanks with the K2/K3(leaning more towards the K3). Not only is the K3 a next gen platform, it will also run on hydrogen (an eco-friendly tank)!!!
K3 looks great... on paper. And that's the problem, it's vapourware at the moment. That comes with some inherent risks (doesn't live up to expectations, teething problems that cost time/money, ideas that seem good but turn out to be dead ends etc). Could be a worldbeater, could be a lemon.
One reason I didnt wanna talk deep on playforms this early. Almost all the potential options are either in the prototype phase or entirely on paper. That makes it really hard to accurately and fairly compare them at this time.
Add on no requirements? Yeah...
I think the logistics of having the only tank in NATO where we'd be required to move large amounts of easily targeted Hydrogen on our own wouldn't be worth the extra cost and effort. Not to mention with a cut supply line, leave us without the use of tanks in battle entirely. Deisel is easy to aquire shared by our European allies in quantity, sometimes can even be aquired behind enemy lines by taking from their sources. South Korea in the other hand doesn't plan on placing tanks in other Countries and are using them on a much smaller territory for their own defense. Initially atleast they'd have no problem with logistics there.
KF51 should be going into production in Italy soon
Soonish. Although the Italian variant does swap a few things from the German production.
2027 last i saw although it said at the time that the first would not have the italian powerplant. things may have changed. i cant copy it to here for some reason
https://x.com/NichoConcu/status/1887083786933829959?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1887083786933829959%7Ctwgr%5E610b92f0ee6445888ba63954bec7043f7b8333a9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Farmy.ca%2Fforums%2Fthreads%2Fcanadas-tanks.134892%2Fpage-96
I’ve never been in the armed forces, so take my perspective with that in mind. I think the observation that Canadas tanks are operating solely for the Europe context is exactly right, and should compel us away from a large number of heavy tanks. One way to deter and defeat a Russian invasion is to deny them the opportunity to safely mass armour for a major assault, and then deny them the ability to coordinate that assault. This could be done through extensive remote sensing, EW/EA, indirect fires, ground launched anti-tank missiles, air lunched missiles, and of course attack drones - basically, a distributed anti-armour ecosystem. Crucially, these systems are likely lighter and quicker to cross an ocean than several dozen tanks. Keep in mind Germany and Poland are ramping up their tank fleets significantly. Will our few dozen vehicles really tip the balance? $10 billion can buy a lot of artillery, Javelins, hellfires, drones - even helicopters. I appreciate that infantry needs armoured heavy guns to do their jobs, but medium tanks might be able to provide that service.
Medium tanks can’t be used to take and hold ground. Modern warfare is all about manoeuvre. Defence is mobile. Counter attacks are part of the defence.
Indirect fire cannot do this. Only tanks and infantry can, working as a combined arms team. Everything else is in support. We must be careful not to take the wrong lessons from Ukraine.
Very interesting insights. I stand corrected.
Appreciate your perspective. Can you elaborate on say why medium tank with a 120mm can't hold ground?
A tank packing a 120 isn’t going to be medium.
Medium tanks have much lighter armoured protection and typically mount a 105 mm gun.
The role of tanks in the defence (holding ground) is to (1) support the infantry and other arms with direct fire and (2) counter attack. Defence is mobile and extremely aggressive = tanks that are fast, heavily armed, and well protected. People get caught up on direct fire support and forget the rest.
Thanks. In my mind we could get a 120mm on a medium tank, 40-50 tons, have it highly maneuverable, partially because of this reduced weight and it could help hold ground in a combined arms scenario even against heavy tank assaults. No? Also, whatever happened to the Tank Destroyer role?
You’re nearing heavy tank country at 50 tonnes. A base Leopard 2 weighs 55. To get the weight down, you’re sacrificing protection, but gaining very little.
Canada has never used tank destroyers per se (although I believe we used Archers in the Second World War). The weight drops because there’s no turret, thus reducing flexibility. No one makes these anymore.
Thanks. too much Hearts of Iron for this guy
from the new models out there the weight reduction seems to be primarily a function of the unmanned turret
Why can't you manoeuvre with attack helicopters? Isn't that pretty much American doctrine. Use Apaches for deep manoeuvre?
$10B is a lot of moolah. So naturally the question has to be if this the best way to achieve the desired effect. I'll note here, the RCAF is planning Attack-Recon helos as part of nTACS Phase II.
Again, helicopters can’t take and hold ground. That’s the only thing that wins battles and wars. Everything besides armour and infantry (and only infantry can hold ground for long periods) is in support, including drones and attack aviation.
Aviation can dramatically enhance firepower and battlefield mobility but they’re no substitute for what happens on the ground.
I still find it concerning how many people dismiss the possibility that in a future world war Canada would be needing to defend our own territory with Tanks etc.. or risk the US moving in through annexation to do it for us. We can't take forgranted that we cannot expect to participate in armed conflict against peer nations on their territory without the possibility they will do the same. The balance of military power isn't what it was in the 90's. We need to stop thinking this way. Walking softly with a big stick is better than not having one when someone comes wacking us with theirs next time we have our pants down.
Great article. One point, a "medium" or "lighter" tank formation would still need to be transported by sealift to Europe just as a "heavy" tank (unless prepositioned of course). Saving a few hundred tons in tank weight makes little difference to a sealift vessel(s) sized to transport a fighting formation.
Why no mention of the Leopard 2A8
No Challenger 3 heresy but you’ve redeemed yourself with stating the Centurion is the greatest tank of the Cold War. (Haha jk Noah)
All things aside this was a very well done article which provides allot of insight from bigger picture that will eventually go into actual selection.
Now it wouldn’t be a comment section on tanks if I didn’t say what could be the best option for CA and i wouldn’t go as far to say SK armour might be coming our way with Bluetooth speakers blaring K-pop.
I know as much about tanks as a psychologist can map out Trump’s brain but it was a great article!
Can't map what you can't find
Absolutely!