A former Leopard 1 commander kindly agreed to an intervire. B. served in the Canadian Army during the Cold War in a Leopard 1, a tank that equipped many NATO Armies.
1) Hello S., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the Army of Canada?
I enrolled in the Canadian Army on graduation from high school in 1986 as an Officer Cadet.
In those days to be a combat arms officer you didn’t require a university degree.
After completing a generic all branches, Army Navy and Air Force Officer Candidate School
I went to the Royal Canadian Armour School to commence my training as an Armour Officer.
The school is a year long course focussed on leadership, armour tactics and combined arms operations. We spent most of the year on the Leo 1 but where qualified in the AVGP Cougar, think Lav 1 and the Lynx Command and Reconnaissance Vehicle as they served in our 4 regular Army Regiments.
On completion of the training I was commissioned and “badged” as an officer in the Royal Canadian Dragoons.
2) You served in a Leopard 1. What was your impression of the vehicle, and the strong/weak points?
I loved the vehicle. It was fast mobile and ergonomic.
In 1989 it was already being replaced in Germany by the Leo 2 and was outclassed by the M1 but against pear T-72 I think it would hold its own. The stabilisation system was excellent and in its time the fire control system was state of the art.
Weak points in my time was a very basic night fighting capability that used low light TV and a first gen thermal optics. We had a built in spotlight but that would be certain death to use in combat.
Leopard 1 s where always know to be lightly armoured giving up armour for speed and mobility.
The role of Armour is to defeat the enemy with shock action. Battlefield mobility and firepower. I think the Leopard 1 filled that role.
3) The reliability of components and ease of maintenance is typically pointed out as an advantage (quick engine change). Can you comment on this?
Tank maintenance is tough but Krauss Maffei obviously thought about crew maintenance. We could do a lot of the work ourselves without calling for support.
With the support and guidance of our maintenance team the crews would conduct power pack changes, repair torsion bars and final drives without a lot of experience .
Soldiers who had served on the Centurion told us how maintenance heavy that way compared to the Leopard
4) When training, at was the typical distance to the target and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?
Typically in gun camps we would fire from pads out at static targets and some movers.
With APFSDS-T typical engagements where from 1000 meters to 2500 max.
The TKL7A3 Was incredibly accurate. A rifled 105 mm gun. When bore sighting the gun, a good gunner would frequently keyhole TPDS round at 1000 m. I shot better groupings with the tank at 1000M than I could with my rifle at 100.
We would shoot on the move on a special range at a variety of targets, tank infantry etc using the main gun and the coaxial machine gun. Those where all done in the Battle Sabot range of 1000 m or less. Very direct fire. Typically on a “stab” run we would be rolling at 10-30 kmph.
For soft skin vehicles and bunkers we would use HESH.The goal with HESH was for gunners to get second round kills. The fire control system which is ancient buy todays standards would compute wind, temperature speed of the target etc and usually a good gunner could pull it off.
In the semi indirect mode, I.e using the sights but elevating the canon like an artillery piece ranges where out to 4000 meters. As luck would have it on one day where they put a brand new target on a hill at 4000m, a retired 2 ½ ton truck. Nailed it with a first round hit. Pure luck. Range control wasn’t happy as they hoped it would last longer than the first round fired on it.
5) How was the night firing conducted (IR sight/illumination flares)? Was there an approach more effective than the others? At what sort of distances could you open fire effectively?
As I mentioned the night fighting capability was first gen. The driver and loader had night optics.
The gunner had a really effective low light tv camera that both he and the commander could reference and there was the search light built into the turret. There was also a thermal capability that basically put a white cursor on anything hot but had no resolution to show shape and identify anything but a heat source. At that time though I doubt the opposition, a Soviet Motor Rifle Regiment, had as good as a capability. We where hover way behind our allies do to the Canadian government’s historic negligence of our Armed Forces.
It’s only the professionalism of our troops that keeps us relevant.
6) In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?
In the Canadian military we are always dealing with age in some component or another. We retired our Leo 1s after 35 years of service and pulled them out of mothballs for Afghanistan.
Largely because we had no internal air support in the form of attack helicopters or aircraft to support our troops. The old Leo’s did great service until replaced in the field with leased Leo 2’s.
7) What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APFDS/HE/Smoke)? Did you have specific rounds for certain targets (APFSDS for T-64/72/80)?
We generally carried a mix of Sabot APFSDS for tanks, Hesh for Other AFVs and targets and White Phosphorus for smoke. No Heat.
8) What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? How did it change as you went through the different bins?
You could probably get out six rounds in a minute but it would only be for show and inaccurate.
With a tank target the idea is a first round hit with Sabot then back off and move to an alternate firing position and reengage other targets. Against the numbers of the Soviet opposition you wouldn’t survive if you stuck around for a second shot so you had to make the first round count.
We had 12 rounds in a ready rack by the gun and another 40 in the hull beside the driver. Totally unarmoured so if a kinetic penetrator or heat round made it inside the hull it would be catastrophic.
9) What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Was the mobility suitable? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?
Normally 25-35 Km’s. The Tank was great and generally required just crew track maintenance and lubrication..
10) Did you train for NBQ scenarios? What was the procedure?
In the 80s and 90s NBCW was a big worry. We would train in our “bunny” suits. Charcoal lined coveralls gas masks and rubber boots and gloves. The Leopard had an over pressure system to keep contaminants out but with no air conditioning this was awful. Summer in Canada is generally hot in the 30s and well above that in the AFV.
We where frequently randomly gassed with CS grenades to simulate NBC attack. On one occasion in a hide I was hit with a CS generator that the training staff had snuck up on us. That could rapidly gas a grid square. It was impressive and immediate.
We would also train for the nuclear role as well. You might here over the command radio net that a nuke was imminent. We would take up a hide, disconnect the batteries and radios to protect from EMP and button up the hatches while donning protective gear.
11) In the mid 90s Canada upgraded the Leo 1 to the C2 variant. Do you think it was a good idea or it would have been better to buy a new type.
A new type would have been better. Procurement for military equipment is a disaster in Canada.
To give you an idea We are still fielding Browning Hi power side arms that where manufactured for WWII. How hard would it be for the government to just buy a few pallets of Glocks. There has been thirty years and a war in Afghanistan and they are still dithering and nothing new is in sight yet. The Canadian Army knows how to get the most out of their equipment however everything has a shelf life and our soldiers deserve decent equipment that would give them a chance to survive on the battlefield.
12) Did you have the opportunity to train with other Armies? What were your impressions? Did you like/dislike any specific equipment?
Canada has huge training areas that allow for excellent manoeuvre training. The British and Germans had full time battle groups training in Western Canada until recently. In my experience.
Personally I trained with American troops when I was a Recce officer in Fort Drum New York.
We where impressed by the Bradley Fighting Vehicle but thought it a bit large. The US Army had lots of resources and a different concept in that role. In their Cavalry with the Bradley they could fight for information. With us in our Lynx M113 Command and Reconnaissance Vehicle we focused a lot more on traditional observation and patrolling. Again we where limited by the equipment we had. Few thermal imagers but we had night observation and ground based radar.
It’s always good to train outside of your unit as you learn and see different concepts and approaches to similar problems.
13) Leopard 1 tanks were exported in large numbers. Did you get any feedback/information from other users?
We had exchange officers and NCOs from allied nations like the UK US and Australia.
The Aussies had Leopard 1 and loved it but upgraded to the M1 at the end of Leo 1 s service life.
It was a great tank in its time. Everyone I’ve talked since is totally enamoured with the Leopard 2.
14) Leopard 1 gave priority to mobility over armour. Do you think it was a good idea. Other NATO tanks (Chieftain) did the opposite.
It remained to be seen. Modern tanks are way more uparmoured than Leopard 1. It was found In Afghanistan to be very vulnerable to mines and IED’s. In its generation it was still lightly armoured compared to contemporary’s. What it gave up in armour it made up with speed and mobility. I thought at the time it could have had a longer service life if used in conjunction with reconnaissance units due to its outstanding manoeuvrability.
15) What is your opinion of Russian and Soviet T-64/72/80 tanks?
At the time we where scared of T-72 and 80. They where the biggest threat. The shear numbers of armour that the Soviets would push against us was daunting. We relied on our superior training and freedom of command to defeat them. As a tank troop leader we had a fairly simple mission but within that I had way more leeway to accomplish that than my Soviet counterpart.
We where confident that we could attrit them but knew any WWIII scenario we would have a life span of days.
16) Newer models of tanks have incorporated turbines and automatic loaders. What is your opinion of them?
Gas turbine engines are great because they are multi burners. Ideally you would use Jet fuel to run them but in an emergency they can run on Mogas, diesel and kerosene. The downside is the consumption and the heat produced which is hard to mask.
As to autoloaders I would prefer to have that extra crew member. An auto loader is complex and doesn’t give you that extra set of hands and eyes you need. The operator/loader in our tanks was an experienced crew member getting ready to become a crew commander. They would help with navigatio, radios and feed the gun.
A tank is a piece of heavy equipment and the whole crew needs to service it. In a hide we would have one crew member on sentry duty all the time the other three would be doing maintenance, resting or off getting orders or preparing them. With three crew only it would be way more fatiguing crewing a MBT in my opinion.
17) Is there an anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?
I think there is definitely a place in the modern world for MBT’s. But like all the combat arms none survives on its own. We need infantry especially in built up areas, artillery for on call support and suppression, air, coms, maintenance etc.
I’d hate to be going up against tanks with just shoulder launched anti armour weapons or in a tank in a city without infantry clearing the flanks. Afghanistan showed the Canadian Army that we still needed the capability and skills of Tankers and couldn’t survive in just a Cavalry and light infantry role without some heavy armour in support.
My time as a tanker fills me with great pride and I am still passionate about it even though I am no longer directly involved. Being a member of a tank crew was highly rewarding and great fun.
I am an airline Captain now but still get a thrill when I see a Tank on the news or in a display and think, I served on those. I guess I like big machines.
Other interviews:
I am always looking for more
veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to
accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be
happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me.
My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a
message in the comment sections.
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes
