Train as you fight...fight as you Train

[Baloo]

Precisely what a_majoor said.

Not using the Canadian Forces as an example, because we lack the sheer weight of ordnance that many nations such as the United States maintains, or the Russians for that matter, it can be summed up that artillery will continue to play a pivotal role. Drones cannot deliver numerous or sustained amounts of fire to blanket an area for a prolonged period of time, and the same can be said for mortars, who would lack the concentration necessary to maintain the full effect of an artillery barrage. While we are certainly not looking at duels like in WWI, or necessarily like the Pakistanis and Indians in Kashmir, we need to realize that the heavy fire support that can be called in, where planes would be unavailable to fly, is critical. At this time, we cannot match the potential for destruction given from a battery at long distances.

 

[pbi]

Long range, indirect fire weapons are still definitely useful. (whether they have to be worked by a dedicated cap badge branch is another question...) In Afgh, the bdes of CJTF76 regularly employed 105mm and 155mm towed guns, usually firing in elements below battery size. Plastering a grid square was usually not the preferred MO, but the guns were very useful in the counter mortar, counter rocket roles.

Cheers.

 

[Michael Shannon]

I'll grant that at times 105mm howitzers may have a use but the CF is a zero sum game and if you maintain what amounts to a regular force artillery brigade is it worth the cost?  2,000 regular gunners to field an occasional mortar platoon is bad economics. Since we only plan to deploy units on ops, we're only talking about a battery. So is the firepower of a 105mm battery so much more than a 81mm platoon that the logistics and manning burdens are worth having a battery along? Our Allies may employ gunners but they are employing people already needed for their other contingencies i.e. defeating conventional militarys.

    Canada has said we're not interested in going to serious wars so we're getting rid of tanks. If that's the case then the argument for maintaining 3 regular artillery regiments and scores of militia regiments & batteries seems pretty weak. 2,000 man years buys a lot of infantrymen, sappers, AFV crewmen and helicopter air crews. Given our threat and likely operations today if you were creating the New Canadian Army would you buy howitzers and recruit and train gunners?

 

[CH1]

What the brass hats fail to talk about is still the ability to fight a war on our own turf.  Every body can laugh at this or say this threat is non existent.  But all the major think tanks are saying this is a very real threat, due to the proximity of our southern neighbours, & our resource support to them.

We have the largest undefended land mass in the world.  Even the Russians had the infrastructure to support the remote areas of Siberia.  No matter what is said about the US defending us, I refuse to buy into that scenario.

So I guess to the point, my opinion is that although we may have to change the structure of support units, tanks long guns, sappers etc, will be required for a long time to come in this country.

For those of us that are some what dated, Remember the annual all arms concentrations.  Ppl & eqt moved all over the country to the Ex area.  Live fire ex's were conducted.  It worked ppl to the bone &
actually honed skills.  Ppl had to learn to work together.  Shilo & a few other places had some urban warfare trg sites, although limited.

Cheers

 

[Michael Shannon]

If you actually believe that Canada should prepare to defend itself against the US then I hope you'll be lobbying for return to the 1977 gun laws. If you want to prepare for peoples war the CF isn't even required or desirable. Simply encouraging widespread civilian gun ownership and marksmanship should dissuade, after Iraq, any military adventurism.

 

[CH1]

My comments are directed more toward other forces than the US.  Although it is a remote possibility, I couldn't foresee the US attacking us.  How ever the threat of a beligerent out flanking us on our own turf is very real.  In the present day it is too easy to enter Canada through normal means.

But if somebody wanted to cut the US off at the knees, eqt & ppl can easily transported across vast stretches of Canada, without much hoopla. We alredy have groups of "radicals" spread across the country.

A case in point is Wiebo Ludwig in the mid 90's. A very small group of ppl had the Alberta oil patch in a state of seige. He got off with relatively light charges, due to a variety of circumstances.  How ever it took a lot of manpower to catch up to him & 2 others.

Take this a step further, to somebody that is malicious, & voila!  Recipe for disaster.

Cheers

 

[c4th]

How ever the threat of a beligerent out flanking us on our own turf is very real.   In the present day it is too easy to enter Canada through normal means.

Which flank? The Pacific or the Atlantic?

A case in point is Wiebo Ludwig in the mid 90's. A very small group of ppl had the Alberta oil patch in a state of seige....a lot of manpower to catch up to him & 2 others.

This is an argument for more capable police not more MBT's and artillery.  The threat of a US/Canada war is long past.  The threat of a conventional airborne or amphibious invasion of North America is far fetched when one considers who are enemies might be.  If our enemies are small radical terrorist groups then the best weapon is intelligence. 

 

[Michael Shannon]

    You've hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of the CF has nothing to do with defending Canada. There is simply no threat to Canada that the CF can handle and the police/CSIS/Borders Services can't. The primary role of the CF is to send expeditionary forces abroad to get Canadian politicans and bureaucrats a seat at the table. We do just enough to get noticed and are able to pick and choose the operations we want to attend. The vast majority of money spent abroad is wasted and maintaining a large military force to support this waste compounds it.

    This is why I'm so sceptical of the light force/ strategic lift concept. I don't trust the government to produce the required cash and I don't think they really want a rapid reaction force. Possession of such a force might put them in the position of being unable to beg off an operation. For the time being promises of more cash shuts the Tory defence critic up and silences the senior officers speaking off camera. In three years Hillier will be gone, the promises forgotten and at least one federal election will be in the bag.

 

[CH1]

Gentlemen:

I agree with some of the points you are putting forth. But when I started in the Canadian Army, the primary role was the defense of Canada.  How ever this has been skewed over the years to what we have now.

If you think the police , CSIS, & border security have the resources to deal with a major terrorist incursion into Canada, I have some excellent farm land for sale in the south Florida Keys.  I am not knocking these organisations, but they have the same problems as the Forces have.  Too much to do & not enough resources & political motivation.

For a lot of years I had kept my head in the sand regarding terrorism on our soil or even the chance of attack.  Part of my job for a few years was dealing with such scenarios.  Gradually my views have changed especially since 911.

1 thing that was always drilled into my head in the early years was Expect the Unexpected.  We have a vast country, with the majority of the population in the southern 1/3.  The balance is sparsely populated.
Outside of a few flags planted here & there, we can not even protect the bottom 1/3 with any degree of confidence, let alone the rest.  The idea of a light RDF has been around as long as I can remember to address this problem.  Case in point is the time to mobilise as an aid to civil authority.

You gentlemen are right about political motives.  The politicians do just enough to garner their kudos, with out any long term planning.

If you look closely at the US & UK models, they maintain  well rounded forces, with MBT's, RDF's in some form, Arty Bty's, etc.  They can deploy within their own territories a lot faster than we can.  Albeit they have their own problems when they do.  They are also facing some of the same decay that we are.

The point being simply that they can mobilise & tpt their own gear.  Sorry to burst the bubble but when you have to hire foreign tpt & Book Air Canada to move eqt & troops, it is in my opinion, a very sad state of affairs.

And if you think that we have never had a beligerent on our soil or close to it, a good case is WWII.  The Japanese had more than a handful of troops in the Aleutians with some saying that there was probably some in nortwest BC.

Further more a good case of small groups of ppl keeping well equipped, trained forces hopping, is Iraq.  I strongly suspect that the terrorists over there do not equal 10% of the Coalition forces.  Are they safe in their beds?  I'll bet they don't sleep well as the beligerents have proven that they can hit where & when they want.  The US & UK have well equipped & trained forces with good intel networks.

Gentlemen, please do not take my comments personally.  I have put forth the ideas more to expand ppl's way of thinking.  The more we meddle in world affairs & the more closely we work with our allies, the more we are painted with the same brush.  Canada is slowly being viewed as part of the US, for good or bad.  We have a good reputation but it is slowly being tarnished both by forces within & external.

cheers

 

[Sandbag]

CH1,
I would like to wade in here if I can.  You say part of your job was dealing with terrorism scenarios, yet you advocate maintaining huge conventional forces.  What then is our threat?  If it is terrorism, conventional forces, as good as they are don't work.  My example, from where I am now, in 1996 a few guys from the other side visited and tied up 70,000 conventional and non-conventional forces hunting them down.  Here our friends have 3 Armies...no not Corps, Armies.  They face 100,000+ irregular and SF type foes.  So how do you propose that we arm and contribute to such a sit?  My friends here continually ask..so what is Canada's threat anyway?  I throw that out to you.  A proper evaluation of that threat should logically lead to how we should arm and fight IMO.

As an aside, even if we put our army together and could actually make it operate effectively on a conventional field, it would only be a light weight division.  One that would be thrown together with no long range arty, (I don't count 155, I mean missile and ATACMS), and shortly no tanks.

So in my opinion we need to s**t or get off the pot.  If we truly believe that we are not going to fight any high intensity, large scale land battles then let's truly specialize to fight "the snakes" as everyone likes to quote.  We need to defend our country from the most likely threat and be prepared to react to unlikely threats (aka invasion of Canada by a foreign country). In conjunction with that will the US assist in defense of N. America, of course it will.  It is and always will remain in their national interest to see a secure N America and a peaceful neighbour IMHO.

Anyone who knows me knows I am no way a light fighter (in more ways than one!).  I am also not akin to jumping on the latest buzzwords, but the sad reality is we have all we are going to have or likely get, so how do we defend our country? We have huge weakness, how do we compensate?  Our strength will lie in convincing our friends to let us use their toys, and convincing them that it is in their best interests to do so, as sad as that is.

 

[Michael Shannon]

    A large scale terrorist incursion? Canada is a great base for terrorists: large Islamic communities to hide in, relatively easy access to stolen explosives and black market guns, freedom of movement, goods comms, weak court system, poor border controls, foolish immigration laws and CLOSE TO THE US. Under what conditions would a terrorist cell, within 100 km of the Great Satan, launch an attack in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, instead of the States? It's possible but highly unlikely they would waste resources in an attack on Canada. Even then the defence against an attack is good intelliegence and police work not the army.

    If you believe it will come down to a shoot out with a terrorist cell the answer is to beef up the SWAT teams of the major cities not field 3 mechanized brigades. Perhaps all cops should carry a rifle in their car and train regularly for crisis first response.  Maybe the feds should pay for the biggest cities to man additional full time SWAT capabilities. What we don't need are billions of dollars of MBTs, guns and IFVs standing ready because of a threat from a handful of  psychopaths armed with a couple of pistols and an ANFO bomb.

 

[CH1]

Gentlemen

The idea is to have a well rounded army that can react in an appropriate manner.  Sorry if I am old school & I do not wish to depend on the US for my security.  My specialty is small unit tactics, & I am a very big proponent of them.

How ever they will not carry the day if you can not move them when you need them.  At some point, is it not conceivable, that even with a decent RDF, that you will have to support them with some heavier backup.  The Cold War models are definitly dated & I strongly advise ppl to dump them.

The military of today has to adapt a Helluva lot faster & I stand 100% behind Gen Hillier.  At least something is happening.

Although the future is changing, some things linger.  Look at the Coalition in Iraq.  They have RDF's backed by MBT's, heavy Arty, etc.

Canada has a long history of neglecting the military until the crap hits the fan & then rebuild.  Why is it so hard for ppl to expand their thoughts?  My idea is to rebuild the CF back to a very capable force. The path we have been on for the last 40 yrs has been  slowly pushing us to the point where if we do not recover soon, we will be a token laughing stock.

As for the US protecting us, I strongly urge you to rethink that comment.  Lately I have been working close enough to the silos again.  It reminded me that we are the sacrificial lambs.  Sure the big brother will be there if the going doesn't get too rough.  But if it does, the US will form their beachhead @ the border.

With all due respect, if the crap were to hit the fan, I have more trust in our selves for our defense.  Sure to some point for the fore seeable future, we have to rely on Big brother, for some of our defense.  I think defense of the homeland is a priority.  Yes we have to get out of the box & help stem some of the crap thats happening.

If all you want is the gravy fine, but at some time you are going to end up with meat & potatoes.  If the politicians want all the kudos, thats fine.  But you at some time will end up having to back up the RDF, & you had better be ready for that.  I guess it boils down to commitment.  Our fearless leaders have a nasty habit of wanting to play with the big boys.  It's time to ante up with the toys to do what they ask.

How many of our ppl are cross trained to a level that if they had to operate some one else's eqt, they could do it?  If you look at what is happening now, the Western world is fighting guerilla wars using conventional tactics.  I do not think we need the old style conventional force, what we do need is a force capable of deploying in weeks not months.  It has to be adaptable to the theatre of operation.
Not sending troops into the desert in artic gear.  We should not have to negotiate rail, air & ship space with foreign countries.

This means that a light RDF as the priority. But we still have to back that up.

As for large scale terrorism on our soil, it is just a matter of time.  Hopefully not in my time, or my kids.  The precedent was set on 9/11.  As we buy into globilization, we are being tied more closely to our neighbour in the eyes of terrorists.  If the radicals want to kick the US hard, they can easily take out power, oil & water pipelines, rail & roads in Canada as an opening salvo. How well do you think civil authority can respond to a well executed series of sabotage?  Not taking anything from them, but they are not set up to handle that type of scenario.  I personally know dozens of retired RCMP, that never took out their wpn except for the range & odd cleaning throughout their careers.

So in closing, I support an expanded military, with a RDF, RRF capability, but also I want to be able to back that force with a moderate sized heavy capability if it should require back up.  There should never be a 1 size fits all approach.

Cheers   

 

[pioneer 4ever]

The "old' system worked much better from an Infantry point of view ,as the support required was on hand and under control to a certain extent of the BN CO. Having built in fire support,Pioneers, Anti Armour was an effective and to put it in the simplest terms possible it worked.Couple the current problems in getting any of the other organizations to actually get together and train with the mess the "new" system has made of Infantry carreer progression,and you have a less capable organization. It is sad.

:threat: I still can't understand & sleep over the disbanding of my platoon  :crybaby: