>

Canada needs those Leopard battle tanks, to protect against a land invasion from... uh...
IMHO, we should be sending them the LAVs that were built for the Saudis. We should not be sending weapons systems to despotic regimes who condone murdering journalists in their embassies. >

I agree with the sentiment but they need heavy armor, the LAV's are not going to cut it for the armor and caliber they use. They are aiming for a massive push >

The LAVs Canada is building for the Saudis are not just the IFV variant but also include the tank destroyer variant that have the 105mm cannon which can also fire missiles that should easily penetrate Russian armour from 5km away. >

wonder if they are any good. we are giving them strykers that have the 105 on it, i guess the army didn't like them very much. >

The Strykers are just essentially LAV 6s, even built in Canada. And yea, the USA bought a bunch, Canada almost followed through on a similar purchase, but the USA ended up hating them because the tank destroyers couldn't carry any infantry and were unbalanced and cramped. 
However, I don't think the Ukrainians will complain be given something that has the potential to knock out a Russian MBT.  Especially given that the newer ceramic armour on the LAV 6 is resistant to 30mm AP rounds that the Russian BTRs or BMPs could potentially use. >

TIL we have Leopard tanks. >

Of course. The mistake is thinking they are fully operational. >

From what I’ve heard from friends in the army only around 7 work >

As I Canadian I 100% support giving our tanks to Ukraine in their time of need. The quicker they get the the quick the war ends.
Canada, which has 82 Leopard-2s that it purchased from Germany in 2007, will be asked to do the same.
Mr. Podolyak said that if Ukraine receives the heavy armour it is seeking “the war will be faster, because there will be a hard and concentrated push on the temporarily occupied territory and Russia won’t be able to manoeuvre elsewhere. … It can shorten the war.” >


As I Canadian I 100% support giving our tanks to Ukraine in their time of need. The quicker they get the the quick the war ends.

I think we should cut a deal with the US to either exchange them for some of those mothballed American Abrams tanks or at least buy some of them at a discount. Just do a complete switch over to the tanks our biggest ally uses and has too many of. Any war we are in will involve the US anyway, our logistics tails might as well match up. Also once Ukraine has 82 of them it becomes so much easier for other nations to pile on, 20 here, 30 there and so on. >


I think we should cut a deal with the US to either exchange them for some of those mothballed American Abrams tanks

Canadian tanker here.
No thank you. >

Why? Can you explain for the ignorant? >



A major step backwards in capability, particularly the fire control system;


Predatory maintenance contracts and other political considerations - remember Trump’s tariffs? That could easily have been a ban on spare parts; and


Given that we are most likely to need the tanks in Europe, there are sustainment advantages to being in the same equipment ecosystem as the rest of Europe. Leopard parts can be sourced from most of NATO, Abrams parts from the US and maybe Australia. That’s a long boat ride to get to where they are needed. >

How is the Abrams FCS a major step back? >

Amongst other issues, a poor implementation of dynamic lead.
Lead is only calculated and applied when the LRF is fired, where a Leo can calculate dynamic lead without needing to lase at all. >

does the leo use image recognition instead of laser to calculate lead? sounds kinda interesting >

It uses the range value in the computer, plus the angular rate of change in the turret traverse. The gunner holds down the dynamic lead button and tracks the target, and the computer uses the range value to continuously adjust lead.
Normally, that range value comes from the laser, but it doesn't have to - it can be input manually. 
More importantly though, the Abrams only applies lead after a lase - "lase and blaze". If you miss - or if the target changes direction or speed after it is lased - you have to dump lead, retrack, and relase. Whereas with the Leopard, you just keep holding the dynamic lead button down and tracking.
If the target is extending/closing distance, there might be a little range error without a relase, but with the flat trajectory of APFSDS range error doesn't hurt that much.
If you were, say, ambushing a vehicle convoy from the flank, you could lase the road embankment ahead of time (to set range) and then engage the convoy with dynamic lead without ever needing to fire the laser.
That's a little less important than I'm making it sound; it's more about the dynamics of applying dynamic lead than lasing or not. It's just easier in the Leopard and more tolerant of target speed/direction changes. >

ah ok, so the initial range in input by laser or manual, but after that it uses turret traverse to calculate lead dynamically.
neat