daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,232
- Points
- 1,160
You should have three.You're wrong.
The money spent on a Heavy Brigade could be used otherwise. And our single Heavy Brigade will neither last long nor can it be used widely.
1 poorly equipped Heavium Bde isn’t going to make anyone happy.The best that will happen is that it keeps you or the Brits happy, or maybe the Germans.
Even more important expensive FWIW.Meanwhile, maybe we could try our luck in riverine warfare in the islands of the South China seas and Indo-China with the USMC and the Aussies.
If anyone wanted parts of Canada (eg. for resources), there's no way we could defend it all. We have a "magical rapier" - the US, provided we make enough effort to be a good neighbour.That is the heart of our disagreement.
I am unwilling to entrust the defence of our nation to a single magical rapier.
If anyone wanted parts of Canada (eg. for resources), there's no way we could defend it all. We have a "magical rapier" - the US, provided we make enough effort to be a good neighbour.
The irony is we have people in our governing classes who work to maintain good relationships with antagonists (eg. China) while enjoying occasionally pissing off the US for what mostly seems to be their own personal satisfaction - and I dislike people who spend any kind of Canada's "capital" on their own behalf.
Sounds fantastic until Enemies EW Capabilities are turned to 11…
What we provide is diplomatic/political support, which is worth more than our likely military capability. But in order to look credible while participating in any given coalition-of-the-willing, we should be able to provide larger contributions than we usually scrape together.We are only 10% of them. We are not asked to provide nuclear forces. Nor even strategic bombers.
What we provide is diplomatic/political support, which is worth more than our likely military capability. But in order to look credible while participating in any given coalition-of-the-willing, we should be able to provide larger contributions than we usually scrape together.
Fair comment on the US
But since 1945 (42 if we accept the original Devil's Brigade as a Joint Force designed for North American usage) the Americans have been asking for us to put up a brigade or two dedicated to the defence of our north. They even offered to defend Newfoundland and Labrador when they were not part of Canada.
"Offered to defend"?. That phrasing somewhat suggests that their "offer" was based on magnanimity. While the value of American bases in Newfoundland during the war was significant in both the Battle of the Atlantic as well as contributed greatly to Newfoundland's economic and social improvements, they were there because they recognized the military importance of the Rock's location. Additionally, they got basing rights on the cheap.
Some comments extracted from a 1946 US Army CGSC study, "Regional Survey of Canada and Newfoundland" provides a bit of insight into some contemporary opinion of the US military with regard to Newfoundland.
18. Economically Newfoundland and Labrador are not too important. Their principal industry is fishing. They are rich in lumber and minerals but the resources have not been exploited to any extent, principally because of inaccessibility. The entire country is operated at a loss and, in 1933, relinquished it's Dominion status and became a Crown Colony.
16. Newfoundland is important only because of its suitability as an advanced bomber or rocket base on the Great Circle air 'route between North America and Europe.
9, Newfoundland and Labrador do not have as high a standard of livi.ng as Canada. The population of about 300,000, all but 5000 of which are in Newfoundland, are predominately of British descent. Compared to Canadians, they live a rather primitive life, have inferior educational facilities, and suffer from deficiency diseases, However, the wartime boom may improve living standards. In any case, their social' shortcomings are of little consequence, since both Canada and the United States will take over their defense in the event of war.
Would this not fit on the TAPV?
Or add them to armoured pick up trucks.
Sorta looks like Bagdad, Somalia etc!If EW were the solution then these technicals probably wouldn't be as popular - heavy machine guns with high rate of fire, lots of ready rounds and good sights.
Light Anti Aircraft Guns are recovering their popularity. And they are also very effective in the ground role against infantry and light vehicles.
The Netherlands to finance the production of mobile air defense systems for Ukraine
The Netherlands will pay for the production of mobile anti-aircraft systems for air defense of Ukrainemil.in.ua
Marry that with this
Or add them to armoured pick up trucks.
Would this not fit on the TAPV?
Perhaps if the ride height were lowered?
EW is often a double edge sword.If EW were the solution then these technicals probably wouldn't be as popular - heavy machine guns with high rate of fire, lots of ready rounds and good sights.
EW, like most comms based warfare, moves like a game of Cat and Mouse.EW is often a double edge sword.
The Russians found that out.
The Ukrainians don’t have significant EW options, and we aren’t about to provide them with our cutting edge stuff.
But I’d argue that the Gerpard and dedicated AD guns are infinitely more effective than those technicals in terms of actual shooting down enemy systems.
The issue is that often people want an illusion of effectiveness, so that is what the gun trucks do.
I think a Porsche would have rolled in that situation.Like, lowered to ditch level?
The AD system looks smaller and lighter than the remote weapon stations that some have installed.Perhaps if the ride height were lowered?
Tow it on a trailer?Perhaps if the ride height were lowered?