Dame Vera back in the day. Apologies for the grainy pic. Australians, I assume?
![]()
666, the sign of the Beast.
Grizz
666, the sign of the Beast.
Grizz
The 106mm on a "shoot and scoot" jeep mount wasn't guaranteed a long survival. There was a huge firing signature and no protection meaning a quick displacement to avoid retaliation. It was an 800 metre weapon at best.
Leopard 1? A tradeoff of armor protection for speed and agility. We pretended they were good to go up against the Soviets in NATO for 15 yrs. Then Gulf war 1 came along and suddenly it was too risky to put them up against Iraqi T72s.![]()
The 106mm on a "shoot and scoot" jeep mount wasn't guaranteed a long survival. There was a huge firing signature and no protection meaning a quick displacement to avoid retaliation. It was an 800 metre weapon at best.
Leopard 1? A tradeoff of armor protection for speed and agility. We pretended they were good to go up against the Soviets in NATO for 15 yrs. Then Gulf war 1 came along and suddenly it was too risky to put them up against Iraqi T72s.![]()
I happen to have a good deal of experience with both the Leopard 1 AND the T 72-M1 tanks and hence I can, and will, call you on your belief the T 72 was the better of the two.
I didn't say the T-72 was better. My point is that both the Cdn govt and the military spent years playing an ornamental role in Europe and then declined to send 4CMBG to Iraq for political reasons and also claiming that our equipment, incl Leo 1s, weren't up to the mark. I was involved with contingencies for the Gulf War, one of which looked at the possibility of acquiring M1 tanks because of concerns about the capabilities of the Leo 1.
I think we should and could have participated in a "come as you are" basis. Everybody else in NATO did. We played it safe with a naval and CF18 presence while others went in to do the heavy lifting. Watching us weasel out of this was a very demoralizing experience.