PM's New Bde of Peacekeepers (5,000 new soldiers), could it be a SOC Light Force?
- Thread starter bossi
- Start date
S
Storm
Guest
GGboy said:
Do my eyes deceive me? Can this be true? Something that makes sense finally: fixing current problems before creating more.
- Reaction score
- 10,346
- Points
- 1,260
Increasing our Army by 5,000 will not lead to a "North Korean" one. Rather, it is meant to prevent the over-deployment of our most important resource, our professional soldiers.
An acceptable frequency of deployments due to an extra Brigade would go far in "increasing our capabilities by 2 or folds."
An acceptable frequency of deployments due to an extra Brigade would go far in "increasing our capabilities by 2 or folds."
N
NavyGrunt
Guest
And yet here I wait on month 9 of my transfer...to the Army that is "crying for guys"......still a year away from getting in sigh. Talk talk talk they'll do this for 4 years and then dangle the carrot in front of our noses in the next election.....Im so sick of the talk.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Anyone here think that reopening Germany might be an idea? I guess it wouldn't use the new ships, but the air and rail heads are there, maybe we could try and re lease one of the old bases we got rid of mid 90's. Moving a bunch of equipment 400km's closer to where we are currently operating might save some wear and tear. And we would then have the "new" brigade, 4 CMBG maybe?
- Reaction score
- 8,295
- Points
- 1,160
If you couldn't get the old Canadian ones back you might be able to secure one of the ones that the Americans or the Brits are giving up. Might even get it at a good price. Store some kit there. Fly troops over for exercises. Demonstrate a tie in with Europe. Maybe Poland would be a better location - apparently better training areas and the Government is more Atlanticist in outlook. It would align us more with Britain, and the US as well as Denmark, Holland, Hungary and the Czechs amongst others, vs the French, Germans and Belgians - not an inconsequential consideration if Europe comes apart again in a few years.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Many people have already pointed out that "peacekeeper" is something of a semantic issue. I found it ironic based on the CF deployments of the 1990s, with units being greeted by mortar fire, our "peacekeepers" being targeted and killed by mines and anti tank missiles, entire OPs being surrounded by tanks and captured prior to the Croatian "Op Storm"...
To be an effective "peacekeeping" brigade, the soldiers would need to have protection and mobility, making an armoured combat team using tanks and tracked IFV's a "must". To operate as an expeditionary force (and by definition it will be, unless Paul Martin thinks peacekeeping forces are needed in Calgary), they will need a very robust CSS train, including a large proportion of armoured or protected transport vehicles. To be able to function effectively in a foreign environment, this brigade will need a large slice of Int, CIMIC and ISTAR assets, as well as a big reachback to national level assets as well. The headquarters will need to be an effective "Joint HQ" environment in order to effectively use air and sea assets for logistics and support.
In other words, Paul Martin is proposing to create the premier fighting formation of the CF! If we want or need it quickly, the government should be prepared to fork over about $10 billion....
To be an effective "peacekeeping" brigade, the soldiers would need to have protection and mobility, making an armoured combat team using tanks and tracked IFV's a "must". To operate as an expeditionary force (and by definition it will be, unless Paul Martin thinks peacekeeping forces are needed in Calgary), they will need a very robust CSS train, including a large proportion of armoured or protected transport vehicles. To be able to function effectively in a foreign environment, this brigade will need a large slice of Int, CIMIC and ISTAR assets, as well as a big reachback to national level assets as well. The headquarters will need to be an effective "Joint HQ" environment in order to effectively use air and sea assets for logistics and support.
In other words, Paul Martin is proposing to create the premier fighting formation of the CF! If we want or need it quickly, the government should be prepared to fork over about $10 billion....
- Reaction score
- 8,295
- Points
- 1,160
Agreed on all points a_ majoor.
Now if somebody could just itemize that 10 Billion, cost it out, explain how much of the money goes to hard expenses and how much is mandated by government policy constraints, compare it to the cost of buying kit offshore and operating it under US, UK or Aussie accounting practices instead of our own and then PUBLISH the findings then Canadians could start to have a rational, well-founded debate.
Cheers.
Now if somebody could just itemize that 10 Billion, cost it out, explain how much of the money goes to hard expenses and how much is mandated by government policy constraints, compare it to the cost of buying kit offshore and operating it under US, UK or Aussie accounting practices instead of our own and then PUBLISH the findings then Canadians could start to have a rational, well-founded debate.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 4,291
- Points
- 1,260
This is the kind of contention that gets us in trouble. Why exactly do we need tanks? We need to articulate our demands in terms of capabilities and effects on the enemy, rather than on platforms, or we run the risk of apeearing to be asking for "toys for the boys".
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,738
- Points
- 1,040
Capability: any manoeuvre element of the brigade (up to and including the brigade) can defend against and defeat an attacking mechanized or armoured force of one higher echelon size in terrain favourable to the attacker.
Capability: any manoeuvre element (etc) can attack and defeat a defending mech or armd force of one lower echelon size in terrain favourable to the defender.
Capability: any manoeuvre element (etc) can defeat a mech or armd force of equivalent size in an encounter battle in any terrain.
Capability: formation information dominance within a bubble of minimum 20km radius.
Capability: close support CSS self-sufficiency for a minimum of 96 hours.
Now go shopping.
Capability: any manoeuvre element (etc) can attack and defeat a defending mech or armd force of one lower echelon size in terrain favourable to the defender.
Capability: any manoeuvre element (etc) can defeat a mech or armd force of equivalent size in an encounter battle in any terrain.
Capability: formation information dominance within a bubble of minimum 20km radius.
Capability: close support CSS self-sufficiency for a minimum of 96 hours.
Now go shopping.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I think it would be better to have tanks and not need them then to need them and not have them vs that POS MGS system that isn't been proven and can't do any of the jobs the tank could nearly as well.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,738
- Points
- 1,040
On the bright side, at least the topic title isn't "Brigade of Peacekeepers Announces New PM".
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
The short answer is we need tanks and all the other kit of a "real" peacekeeping brigade to overmatch any possible adversary, protect our forces and project power to accomplish the mission objectives.
Our inability to do so means "peacekeeping" Peace support operations or any other intervention of that sort will be totally ineffective,as you can see by looking at recent history. Canadian troops in the Balkens provided about as much muscle as was possible in the early 1990s, without really changing the overall situation. One reason the ROEs were so restrictive was to keep our guys from being sucked into firefights with superior Serb, Croat or Muslim formations. Without the muscle to back effective ROEs, our troops were mostly spectators to a ghastly dance of death, and if the Serbs or Croats felt we were in the way, why taking hostages or pushing troops out of OPs was laughably easy. When President Clinton finally decided to intervene, the Americans came in with a "hard power" force capable of overmatching any feasible opposition, which is why we are in Bosnia supervising the Dayton Peace Accord, rather than the Montreal or Toronto Peace accord....
I'm a bit surprised our talking heads never seem to get that point.
As for PPCLI guy, it is true you can't get it all, but we in the military community need to make our point at every opportunity to open people's eyes and let them see what they need to spend to get the results they expect. Effective "peacekeeping" will be very expensive, and Canadians will have to make a real choice: pony up the cash, or get out of the game.
In the end, I wouldn't mind if we were told to get out of the game by an informed public opinion, at least they will have made a choice and will know what the potential consequences are. Being cut here and there on a constant basis means leaving the game by default, and I am not sure if the Canadian public is really aware of the dangers they could (may, will) face if that happens
Our inability to do so means "peacekeeping" Peace support operations or any other intervention of that sort will be totally ineffective,as you can see by looking at recent history. Canadian troops in the Balkens provided about as much muscle as was possible in the early 1990s, without really changing the overall situation. One reason the ROEs were so restrictive was to keep our guys from being sucked into firefights with superior Serb, Croat or Muslim formations. Without the muscle to back effective ROEs, our troops were mostly spectators to a ghastly dance of death, and if the Serbs or Croats felt we were in the way, why taking hostages or pushing troops out of OPs was laughably easy. When President Clinton finally decided to intervene, the Americans came in with a "hard power" force capable of overmatching any feasible opposition, which is why we are in Bosnia supervising the Dayton Peace Accord, rather than the Montreal or Toronto Peace accord....
I'm a bit surprised our talking heads never seem to get that point.
As for PPCLI guy, it is true you can't get it all, but we in the military community need to make our point at every opportunity to open people's eyes and let them see what they need to spend to get the results they expect. Effective "peacekeeping" will be very expensive, and Canadians will have to make a real choice: pony up the cash, or get out of the game.
In the end, I wouldn't mind if we were told to get out of the game by an informed public opinion, at least they will have made a choice and will know what the potential consequences are. Being cut here and there on a constant basis means leaving the game by default, and I am not sure if the Canadian public is really aware of the dangers they could (may, will) face if that happens
- Reaction score
- 4,291
- Points
- 1,260
(emphasis is mine)
I think that is where we get ourselves into trouble. Are we really talking about a peer or near peer enemy (within a coalition context of course)? The scaled approach suggested by Kirkhill would get our point across much better:
For this much money, we can defeat the following types of adversaries...
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
A scaled approach is probably more feasable in both political and economic terms, but thing we need to consider are the "just in case" scenarios. The Croats had lots of M-84 and T-72 tanks, as well as lots of artillery some air power and SF capabilities. I remember reading that Canadian troops found a tank park of T-55's under control of a local warlord in Somalia. NATO wouldn't move into Kosovo with ground troops because the Serbs could fight back with a fairly large military and paramilitary apparatus. Polish soldiers in Iraq apparently found one IED rigged out of a Sarin filled artillery shell (nerve gas).
We need to tell the public and decision makers that this is the environment we will be facing, probably for decades to come. If the bad guys con't use that sort of kit effectively when we first get there, they will be motivated to learn how once we start interfering with their plans. A robust expeditionary force is what is required to operate under these conditions.
The worst of all possible worlds will be a classic lightly armed and equipped "Peacekeeping Brigade". It will take up precious resources, add no capability and we will be treated to the spectacle of driving past their shiny base in Trenton as we deploy to the airhead to do the missions they are not trained and equipped to do.
We need to tell the public and decision makers that this is the environment we will be facing, probably for decades to come. If the bad guys con't use that sort of kit effectively when we first get there, they will be motivated to learn how once we start interfering with their plans. A robust expeditionary force is what is required to operate under these conditions.
The worst of all possible worlds will be a classic lightly armed and equipped "Peacekeeping Brigade". It will take up precious resources, add no capability and we will be treated to the spectacle of driving past their shiny base in Trenton as we deploy to the airhead to do the missions they are not trained and equipped to do.
- Reaction score
- 4,291
- Points
- 1,260
On this we agree totally. I am just trying to make sure that we understand our audience when we identify our needs. It is not the defence policy wonk in DND, It is not Granatstein et al :
, nor even the PCO. It is the public, and our own internal audience that we need to speak to.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Well if they come out with a white paper that states (and follows) that we will not be put into harms way (to the best of their int) then the MGS will suit our needs just fine. I think this system is flawed and one dimensional. Israel, US and UK have proven its use in Iraq and Israel/West Bank. Granted we probably never be put into that harms way (which well lessen our effort to our allies) but these MGS can be easily taken out by some guy in Africa with an RPG (ie Black Hawk Down). Less survivability, less mobility, less accuracy. Way to go. What are your numbers that stated because of tanks we don't have flak vests, C 17's etc. I realize we can't have everything we want but the MGS is a piece of crap and everyone knows it. Also they can't be carried in the C 130 battle ready. Sorry for the MGS tangent.
Similar threads
