- Reaction score
- 21,930
- Points
- 1,260
Or maybe just nothing useful to send there anyway...In fairness, we are supposed to be reconstituting, so attending exercises like that would be on the chopping block.
Or maybe just nothing useful to send there anyway...In fairness, we are supposed to be reconstituting, so attending exercises like that would be on the chopping block.
There are more and more things that I find it very difficult to be fair about. The Army's ever shrinking relevance is one of those. Cynicism has become my default attitude.In fairness, we are supposed to be reconstituting, so attending exercises like that would be on the chopping block.
I think the Brits are waking up to the idea that the key to peace is a strong military, and help is an ocean away.
Same for Canada for homeland defence.The key for England is a strong Navy and RAF.
Same for Canada for homeland defence.
But those do not provide the credibility one needs to be seen as an effective team player in an allied security coalition where a strong unified force is the major element for a viable deterrence posture. Canada keeps forgetting that which is why our general relevance as a nation has slipped as quickly as the Army's has.
Sure. I'm used to that.
You canāt get anywhere without a Navy, but you canāt do anything once you are there without an Army.
You also need the Air Force to provide valuable hotel recommendations when you get there.
The Burp gun was the PpSH-41ā¦I dunno...
In WW2 our overwhelimng air superiority helped us defeat an army full of 'Burp Guns' and 88s using WW1 era bolt guns and puttees
The Burp gun was the PpSH-41ā¦
Russian
Same for Canada for homeland defence.
But those do not provide the credibility one needs to be seen as an effective team player in an allied security coalition where a strong unified force is the major element for a viable deterrence posture. Canada keeps forgetting that which is why our general relevance as a nation has slipped as quickly as the Army's has.
It (1CAD) consisted of four wings of twelve fighter squadrons located at four bases. Two bases were located in France (RCAF Station Marville (No. 1 Wing) and RCAF Station Grostenquin (No. 2 Wing)) and two were located in West Germany (RCAF Station ZweibrĆ¼cken (No. 3 Wing) and RCAF Station Baden-Soellingen (No. 4 Wing)).
People generally respect boots on the ground. It meanās commitmentā¦Sorry but I can't agree with that.
In the 1950s which was more respected in Germany? The Canadian Brigade Group or 1 Canadian Air Division?
And the Navy is measured by its willingness to stand into harm's way. More BaltOps with the locals.
People generally respect boots on the ground. It meanās commitmentā¦
While I strongly believe that the RCN and RCAF (including NORAD facilities) should be the primary focus of our defence policy and spending, I agree with @FJAG and @KevinB that "boots on the ground" are a very important political signal to both our allies and potential enemies. That effect is impossible in many situations to achieve with air or naval forces.People generally respect boots on the ground. It meanās commitmentā¦
People generally respect boots on the ground. It meanās commitmentā¦
And how many Artillery-type systems does Canada have? Something like 39, less 4 sent to the Ukraine. Hardly a footprint, more of a small toe print. C3 Replacement?Other types of forces (including many of the artillery-type systems being discussed in this thread) could also potentially achieve a similar political effect while at the same time being more relevant to the defence of Canada.
I meant for Defensive purposes in an Alliance partners land.And then there's Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan et al ...
Lots of commitment, questionable purposes.
Absolutely correct. Whatever type of forces we propose to commit to supporting our allies....armour, artillery, aircraft, ships, whatever...it has to be a credible force. That means that whatever force structure we decide on it must be properly and fully equipped, and that includes enough spares and munitions available to sustain the force and be an effective contributor to an allied effort.And how many Artillery-type systems does Canada have? Something like 39, less 4 sent to the Ukraine. Hardly a footprint, more of a small toe print. C3 Replacement?
Second World War, Arty Regt had 24 guns.