>

How about no
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 >

Canada needs those Leopard battle tanks, to protect against a land invasion from... uh... >

Truckers. >

Ministers did discuss deploying tanks against them, in leaked transcripts. >

Good.  How else should violent thugs be treated? With kid gloves? >

Calm yourself mr Tiananmen Square. >

I too demand that my govt give them to Ukraine. No one is invading Canada any time soon. >

We also have the USA to protect us. >

Look, if you want to sell Canada to the US then run for office, until then screw if with that anti-sovereignty rhetoric. >

How is that anti-sovereignty rhetoric in the slightest? We cooperate with the states on defense at every level. Relying on Americans for defending us isn’t selling the country, it’s literally why we’re in NATO. >

Please cooperate then and pay your fair share according to the NATO agreement >

Maybe don't get rid of nafta and steal our natural resources and we would have more money to spend on things that go boom. >

Agree on nafta, you’ll have to be more specific on your other point >

They're great tanks, made even better by the patio sets we installed for deployment to Afghanistan
(What can I say? We're a northern people, who don't do well in heat....) >

That’s absurdly hilarious with the music. >

You're the only ones that can overthrow him. All the years of tyranny, this is the only time they've been challenged. The only ones that have stood up to this monster.
"Much has changed since then. Smolyaninov is in exile and in a recent interview said he was prepared to fight on Ukraine’s side and kill Russian soldiers. He told Novaya Gazeta last week: “I feel nothing but hatred to the people on the other (Russian) side of the frontline. And if I were there on the ground, there’d be no mercy.”
"He said a former colleague had gone to fight on the Russian side. “Would I shoot him? Without any doubt! Do I keep my options to go fight for Ukraine open? Absolutely! This is the only way for me. And if I were to go to this war, I would only fight for Ukraine.”" >

Upgrade
Abrams
Upgrade
Abrams + Leopard
upgrade upgrade upgrade upgrade upgr- >

Our active tank fleet isn’t large enough to hand out ‘some’ tanks, so it’s better for us to exchange them all for Abrams while handing the entire tank fleet over to Ukraine. >

Give them all our junk so we can get some new stuff. >

The one thing the Canadian Army has going for it is state of the art armour- Leopard 2A6’s and LAV 6.  Canada has 80 main battle tanks but needs 120 to fill out its tank regiments, so it’s already 1/3 light on tanks.
The best “equivalent” tank we would get is the Abrams 1A2.  The Abrams has a less powerful L/44 gun than Canada’s L/55 gun in its Leopards because the Americans use depleted uranium shells whereas Canada (and most of Europe) use tungsten shells.   The Abrams is also notoriously challenging to maintain but it’s very effective (obviously).
But if Canada donates its tanks, there had better be a deal made with the US for a bunch of Abrams 1A2’s, otherwise the Canadian Army would be crippled. >

Vietnam and Iraq were non-nuclear regional wars. >

Let's go Canada 🇨🇦 💙 💛 >

We’ve got like a dozen that work at any given point, might as well, right? >

I would love to as a Canadian but we barely have a platoon worth ourselves >

I think the decision will be made quickly to send them.  Canada and the US as part of NATO are 100% at war with Russia at this time.  If we are not going to deploy to Ukraine then let the Ukraines kill as many Russians as they can for us. >

Dumbest statement ever. Sure, let's provoke a nuclear war over.... ukraine.... >

We should just let Putin have his way? This war is because we kept letting Putin have his way. >

Let me make my point clear: This is not a "we" problem. This is a European problem. I don't care who wins the war so long as it isn't fought using US tax-payer money or US military assets. 
America is fine if Russia comes knocking, and up until 10 months ago, most Ukrainians couldn't find Miami nor Chicago on a map. this does not involve us. I repeat, this does not involve us. >

You think this is a we problem it always starts as a war on someone else’s boarders. Then the refugee crisis when millions end up displaced as Putin continues his expansion first the old Soviet block then the rest of Europe. Will it be your problem when hundreds of millions and are forced to flee here to the west. Will it be your problem in generation when a galvanized Russia starts considering invading North America. >

Before any of that can happen, all of Europe has to fall. Do you have no faith in our European allies? Yeah, me neither. If this eventuality is that scary, don't you think all of Europe should prepare for it? Why is it America's job to stop this? Why can't Germany, France, the UK band together to stop this? If Putin comes knocking, America will be fine, I have no worries of that. >

They already claim we own Alaska illegally, and last I check Europe isn't between Russia and Alaska >

And yet, they haven't made a move. America is fine. It's Europe that has issue. It's Europe that has to be ready. >

This Canuck says yes, send Ukraine the fucking tanks