Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)

[FoverF]

A lot of the reason that the Canadian Forces and the USMC are mentioned in the same sentance is that the USMC seems to be the pre-eminent single branch combined arms force in the world. Since the CF (on paper, anyways) is also trying to be a single-branch combined arms force, it only makes sense that the CF would seek to emulate them.

But I do not think that Canada should have a specialized marine service, ala the American or British miliatries with their USMC/RM. Despite being a branch of the US military, the USMC makes it an absolute priority to be capable of operating in a combat theatre overseas with little or no support from other branches of the US military. Unfortunately (although some are perfectly happy with this) I would say that the USMC are more successful in being able to operate without the support of other American services than Her Majesty's Canadian Forces are.

So in that regard, I think the USMC is a valid role model for the CF in many ways (even though they do not concern themselves with many tasks essential to the CF, such as air-to-air combat, maritime patol, and operating surface combatants).

All of which is simply to say this: I think the CF are better served trying to BE more like the USMC in some respects, rather to HAVE a USMC-like organization within the CF.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Although relatively small specialized units for various environments (winter, marine, desert, jungle, mountain, etc) would allow for an affordable answer.  It would give the CF an upto date and advanced capability.  It would be a tall order to expect ,for example, an RCR soldier to be highly capable at rucking, skiing, mountaineering, swimming, canoeing, snowshoeing, shooting, winter survival, desert survival, jungle survival, etc, and in tune with all differences of working in each environment.  It overwhelming.

In the SAS they operate four troops in a squadron, tasked to excel in one of four different elements viz:

"Boat troop — are specialists in maritime skills using scuba diving, kayaks and Rigid-hulled inflatable boats and often train with the Special Boat Service.[51]

Air troop — are experts in free fall parachuting, High Altitude-Low Opening (HALO) and High Altitude-High Opening (HAHO) techniques.[51]

Mobility troop — are specialists in using vehicles and are experts in desert warfare;[52] they are also trained in an advanced level of motor mechanics to field-repair any vehicular breakdown.[53]

Mountain troop — are specialists in Arctic combat and survival, using specialist equipment such as skis, snowshoes and mountain climbing techniques.[51]

In 1980 R Squadron was formed which has since been renamed L Detachment; its members are all ex-regular SAS regiment soldiers who have a commitment to reserve service."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Air_Service


The theory is that if a certain operation calls for mountain expertise, mountain troop leads, and trains the other troops up to the required standard. Everyone in the squadron gets a basic training package that prepares them for operations in a mountain environment, they just don't do it all the time. The ramp up to the required skill level is therefore pretty quick because you're not starting from scratch.

Why not do something like this in the CF? For example, in addition to all the other things each infantry battalion has to do, each rifle company could specialize in a particular skill. We've already got a Jump Company in each Bn - there's your 'air' specialization. Task each of the other three with either boat, mobility and mountain specializations.

If there's a big drama in the maritime environment, for example, task a Bn to look after it and their 'boat company' can get them up to speed. If there's something really special required on a large scale, combine all the 'boat companies' in the infantry and off they go - as a 'marine battalion' or something.

 

[SevenSixTwo]

Do you have a source for this?

Source: Peter McKay

Granted it could have been just blowing smoke.

I can't give you a video or an article because it was during a speech he gave without media.

 

[Chilme]

In the SAS they operate four troops in a squadron, tasked to excel in one of four different elements viz:

"Boat troop — are specialists in maritime skills using scuba diving, kayaks and Rigid-hulled inflatable boats and often train with the Special Boat Service.[51]

Air troop — are experts in free fall parachuting, High Altitude-Low Opening (HALO) and High Altitude-High Opening (HAHO) techniques.[51]

Mobility troop — are specialists in using vehicles and are experts in desert warfare;[52] they are also trained in an advanced level of motor mechanics to field-repair any vehicular breakdown.[53]

Mountain troop — are specialists in Arctic combat and survival, using specialist equipment such as skis, snowshoes and mountain climbing techniques.[51]

In 1980 R Squadron was formed which has since been renamed L Detachment; its members are all ex-regular SAS regiment soldiers who have a commitment to reserve service."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Air_Service


The theory is that if a certain operation calls for mountain expertise, mountain troop leads, and trains the other troops up to the required standard. Everyone in the squadron gets a basic training package that prepares them for operations in a mountain environment, they just don't do it all the time. The ramp up to the required skill level is therefore pretty quick because you're not starting from scratch.

Why not do something like this in the CF? For example, in addition to all the other things each infantry battalion has to do, each rifle company could specialize in a particular skill. We've already got a Jump Company in each Bn - there's your 'air' specialization. Task each of the other three with either boat, mobility and mountain specializations.

If there's a big drama in the maritime environment, for example, task a Bn to look after it and their 'boat company' can get them up to speed. If there's something really special required on a large scale, combine all the 'boat companies' in the infantry and off they go - as a 'marine battalion' or something.

I agree 100% with you on this.  I believe the CF should adapt a model like that.

To the comment about 100,000 Canadian troops.  that number comes out of the Canada First Defence Strategy.  The goal of the strategy is projected to be 70,000 Reg and 30,000 Res by 2030.

 

[ArmyRick]

Here is an idea. To develop an amphibious capability why not add an extra squadron to 4ESR in Gagetown? We could add in something like 2 x British LCU MK 10 (7 man crew) and 4-6 x British LCVP (3 man crews), then add in some rigid raiders for fun (Each can be manned by 1-2 man). I am looking at a squadron total of like 60 some odd troops. Manning assault landing craft in our military would be an engieer task (To permit friendly forces to live, MOVE, fight on the battlefield).

The other idea would be to have the navy man such a unit. Their would not be a huge need for the infantry to do all kinds of extra training. I have done amphibious exercise with the devil dogs before and at the grunt level its a matter of being on the right craft at the right time (Helicopter, amtrack, Hovercraft, etc, etc).

My idea is not too costly and very much do-able (providing there is the will power to see it done) and it also depends on people not overthinking it and turning it into an all singing-dancing-creative new squadron or unit (We tend to have people take a simple thing too far and end up with nothing at times). Ideas? Thoughts?

 

[lethalLemon]

Here is an idea. To develop an amphibious capability why not add an extra squadron to 4ESR in Gagetown? We could add in something like 2 x British LCU MK 10 (7 man crew) and 4-6 x British LCVP (3 man crews), then add in some rigid raiders for fun (Each can be manned by 1-2 man). I am looking at a squadron total of like 60 some odd troops. Manning assault landing craft in our military would be an engieer task (To permit friendly forces to live, MOVE, fight on the battlefield).

The other idea would be to have the navy man such a unit. Their would not be a huge need for the infantry to do all kinds of extra training. I have done amphibious exercise with the devil dogs before and at the grunt level its a matter of being on the right craft at the right time (Helicopter, amtrack, Hovercraft, etc, etc).

My idea is not too costly and very much do-able (providing there is the will power to see it done) and it also depends on people not overthinking it and turning it into an all singing-dancing-creative new squadron or unit (We tend to have people take a simple thing too far and end up with nothing at times). Ideas? Thoughts?

I'd be down, that would rock my socks off!

 

[jollyjacktar]

If you are talking about the trg that took place last year, that event was part of work-up for the NEO Coy.

No, he saw the Truth Duty Valour episode that covered the exercises off Camp Lejeune in 06.  We rented/borrowed USS GUNSTON HALL in order to learn how to land a small force from the sea.  At this time we in the Navy were starting to make small steps towards getting into this capability.  You might remember General Rick's "Big Honking Ships"?  It was later set aside and put back into the tickle trunk for another time.  A shame as there were quite a number of us who were greatly interested in getting on board with that project.

Could we use this ability?  Yes, we damn well could.  I'm not talking about revisiting D Day either.  Humanitarian relief would be much easier if we had the gear, training and ships to land the necessary items from the sea to a place as hmmmm.... Haiti for starters.  Not everywhere will have a nice harbour and facility to come into and land gear ala JSS.

 

[lethalLemon]

No, he saw the Truth Duty Valour episode that covered the exercises off Camp Lejeune in 06.  We rented/borrowed USS GUNSTON HALL in order to learn how to land a small force from the sea.  At this time we in the Navy were starting to make small steps towards getting into this capability.  You might remember General Rick's "Big Honking Ships"?  It was later set aside and put back into the tickle trunk for another time.  A shame as there were quite a number of us who were greatly interested in getting on board with that project.

Could we use this ability?  Yes, we damn well could.  I'm not talking about revisiting D Day either.  Humanitarian relief would be much easier if we had the gear, training and ships to land the necessary items from the sea to a place as hmmmm.... Haiti for starters.  Not everywhere will have a nice harbour and facility to come into and land gear ala JSS.

That, and not every location in the world will have serviceable airfield to land the Globemasters on (although a Herc can pretty much land anywhere, anytime). So for large humanitarian projects like Earthquake relief in Haiti, Pakistan, Chile; amphibious capabilities would only increase your operational abilities by a minimum of tenfold.

 

[Haligonian]

I like this idea.  How would this work though with qualifications?  Would we need to create a new "Basic Marine Ops", and "Advanced Marine Ops" courses?  The mountain coys, would  every troop have to be basic mountain ops qualified with NCO's and maybe officers AMO qualified and if so do we begin to pigeon hole our troops into remaining in one coy for their whole careers iot maximise the use of their qualification?  How does this work with mech units and their all mighty PCF cycle?

 

[ArmyRick]

No, no, BIG NO to the idea of a Basic Marine Ops. As I have said, at the basic grunt level, there is very little thinking. In fact the ground level grunt does more in our current assault boat drills than he would with powered water craft. It would take a day or two of having rehearsals down pat and knowing the emergency water drills. The real thinking comes at the leadership level.
They have to break down the manifest (similar to loading hercs for a TALEX)
They have to decide how to secure beach, port, harbour, etc.
They have to decide actions on once on the ground.

Basically they would have to put into their estimate and I see WO and CSMs being busy planning the loading. Or you create a unit NCO similar to Unit emplanning NCO who would do up manifest. That manifest BTW would not just be troops but gear as well and deciding who /what goes in what waves.

DO NOT MAKE a basic qualification out of it or it will get retarded. I have done amphibious ops and there is very little ground pounder work to it but participating in rehearsals and knowing what drills they have to do and when. You start making yet another course/qualification and too many things will **** it up (money, standards, time, etc, etc).

I would reccomend a "Unit Amphibious Operations Advisor" Qualification because as I said, it the real thinking is at leadership levels not the troopy levels. We would also need to make a specialist course for engineers posted to my fictional squadron at 4ESR. So the engineers would need a qualification for it to operate the watercraft I am talking about.

The LCU MK10 can transport 120 troops or 1 x MBT or equivalent loads (So for combat or humanitarian releif, its got uses)
The LCVP can transport 35 troops or light vehicles or equivalent

The various models of the rigid raiders can lift anywhere from 8-16 troops and they are fairly fast.

Again, do not over think this or make it into something overly grand, Keep it simple and effective.

 

[Pusser]

I think that the RM and USMC continue to exist largely because they are old and established.  The RM was established because the Royal Navy saw a need for soldiers that the British Army could not provide (their history can be traced back to an era where the British were very reluctant to form a standing army).  Marines were first used for the hand to hand fighting when boarding enemy ships and as sharpshooters in the rigging).  Their role expanded to on board security and amphibious operations over time (and let's not forget the band).  The USMC was established because the USN was modeled on the RN, so marines were a logical component and, in 1797, they were still useful in their original role.  None of the later Royal navies (RCN, RAN, RNZN, etc.), which were all established in the age of steam, included marines and they've all done just fine without them.  We've always used the army for all amphibious operations and they've proved very capable.  In short, the British and the Americans have marines because they've always had them and to disband them would be start a huge fight with traditionalists (think what we went through with unification).  We've never had them and so we accomplish the same tasks with other units.  It's more a question of how we organize our armed forces than one of whether we have the "right kind" of forces.

On an interesting side note, the USMC has done some serious thinking lately as to whether they should continue with their amphibious role, at least as far as full on beach assaults are concerned.

 

[ArmyRick]

I don't think anyone is advocating the creation of an actual Canadian Marines but more the capability to the amphibious operations (not the full on D-Day landings either, we simply at this time do not have the threat nor the ability to match it).

 

[Kirkhill]

It must be the quality of scotch I'm drinking these days but I am starting to like the idea of ArmyRick for CDS.....Is there a write-in somewhere?

And Field Marshall Slim would agree with him.

If the Navy can't find the bodies to run small boats then the Engineers seem like a good option.  Don't the Engineers run those bumper boats use by the logging companies on the west coast when the army wants to hold a pontoon bridge in place?

LCUs and LCVPs (and perhaps, maybe, pretty please....some of those Swedish Combat Boats) operated by the naval reserve would still be a good option I think.

As far as big boats are concerned, as D&B points out we could always by Marine Atlantic a couple of spare Maersk ferries .... NATO has regularly used Maersk ferries in the Baltic and points beyond.

Daft.... Is there a shuffle board serial somewhere that one needs to sign up for?  Or is the training just what is expected of the well rounded bootie?

 

[Armymedic]

The theory is that if a certain operation calls for mountain expertise, mountain troop leads, and trains the other troops up to the required standard. Everyone in the squadron gets a basic training package that prepares them for operations in a mountain environment, they just don't do it all the time. The ramp up to the required skill level is therefore pretty quick because you're not starting from scratch.

Why not do something like this in the CF? For example, in addition to all the other things each infantry battalion has to do, each rifle company could specialize in a particular skill. We've already got a Jump Company in each Bn - there's your 'air' specialization. Task each of the other three with either boat, mobility and mountain specializations.

Once the CF is done with Afghanistan and actually spent time training for operations, and not just training to finish all the checkboxes for the one specific operation, we can let our Light Battalions ( if they even exist anymore) return to that function that was so well served by the old Airborne regiment model doing almost exactly what was described above.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Pusser makes an excellent point: Marines were never meant to exist as a full army model. They were protection force/raiders for the Navy as their core mission. In the UK, they still are: the RM commandos are just that - commandos. In the US it is only after WWII that they retained a bigger size that lets them do more than limited foreign ventures.

Historically, the largest amphibious assaults have been the purview of the armies, not marines, with the larger ships operated by the navies. Even today (little known fact) the largest amphibious assault fleet is operated by the US Army, not the marines.

The training required of the soldiers to carry out a landing is not so complicated that it can't be done within a few rehearsals and the underlying concept (the beach is a kill zone - when the door opens get off the beach asap and move inland) is straightforward for otherwise well trained soldiers.

As for the operation of landing crafts and boats, this is done by the Boatswain trade and it is part of their training already. Yes, because we have landing crafts: the AOR's each carry two and Provider's are on the beach on wood chucks somewhere (so I've been told).

The real talent involved in amphibious assault is logistical. Anyone who has seen "A Bridge Too Far" will recall the scene where the paratrooper rushes into no man's land to pick up a container of what they expect to be ammunition, only to be shot there and reveal that it was a container of berets. That is the trick with Amphibious assaults because loading and unloading a ship can only be done in a certain order and with a certain speed. Thus, you have to plan things just right so that when the troops on the beach need C4, that is what they get handed, not a typewriter!

That is a naval task however and the USMC has an excellent "Combat Logistics" course for Navy and Marines logistics officers and "Amphibious Operations Staff Officer" course for the navy line officers about to serve on board the amphibious assault ships. They are quite willing to train other nations in this and some Canadian naval officers have attended these courses in the past (even some naval reserve officers). Should we acquire the Big Honking Ships, it would be fairly easy to ensure that the Combat Officers and Sea Log officers serving on those are rotated through the USMC courses before their posting.

I agree with ArmyRick on the land side of things: Once training for Afg only is over, all that is needed is to assign each infantry Battalion a specific fighting environment in which to keep at least one Coy at readiness (be it mountain ops, desert ops, amphibious, etc) Should the need arise, this would provide one "ready" force to deploy in such environment right away while follow on forces get themselves trained up to it. 

This leaves only the acquisition of "the Ships". And on that count, there may be an opportunity coming up (just speculating here at this time based on leaks in England) for Canada if the government is bold enough to seize it: In the current British Military Budget Review going in the coalition government, the Navy has offered to lay up its amphibious fleet. This would render the two Albion class LPD available, possibly even HMS Ocean, the assault helicopter carrier. They all have lots of life left in them, especially if something could be negotiated BEFORE they are left along the wall for eight years to rot.

So do we need this capability? Well its not an essential one, but it would be a damn useful one. We could have used it in Haiti, in Newfoundland and Labrador  just weeks ago, in Somalia, when an AOR was all we had for troop support, to extract Canadian citizens from Lebanon a few years back (the government had to hire merchant ships), would be useful to have when the big one hits Vancouver, and it would most definitely be usefull in Arctic sovereignty operations. Any one who has been up there on ops knows that the most useful thing for the army support is helicopters and the most difficult thing to forward base and support there is ... helicopters! These type of ships would resolve that.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It also goes hand in hand with what kind of soldier Canada wants. (Using U.S. as example). Alright, your trained as a Humvee driver go do that for 4 years and then we'll talk OR as a Canadian soldier you could get a vast range of training to do multiple jobs. Now part of this reason is because our military isn't very large. So I think for any force specific environemnts (AKA: Marines) to exist we will need to reach our current Military #'s goal of 100,000 soldiers.

Friend of mine has been in for 4 years and has 2 years as a LAV driver.  He'd get a real kick out of your "vast amount of training" comment.

 

[George Wallace]

Friend of mine has been in for 4 years and has 2 years as a LAV driver.  He'd get a real kick out of your "vast amount of training" comment.

You and your "friend" don't have much time in do you?

 

[SevenSixTwo]

Friend of mine has been in for 4 years and has 2 years as a LAV driver.  He'd get a real kick out of your "vast amount of training" comment.

He'd also get a real kick out of how specific U.S. Military jobs are. What's that? You want to do laundry and fix clothes?

WELL, guess what! The U.S. Military has that too! The Laundry and Clothing Repair Specialist!

http://www.goarmy.com/content/goarmy/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/administrative-support/shower-laundry-and-clothing-repair-specialist.html


What's that young chap? You don't want to load the artillery gun you just want to do the data control which, would normally be a course in the Canadian Forces? Well guess what! That's too hard for everyone to learn so we made three seperate occupations just to manage one gun.

http://www.goarmy.com/content/goarmy/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/combat/field-artillery-automated-tactical-data-system-specialist.html

http://www.goarmy.com/content/goarmy/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/combat/field-artillery-firefinder-radar-operator.html

http://www.goarmy.com/content/goarmy/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/combat/fire-support-specialist.html


Do I need to illustrate myself more? In the Canadian Army one could be trained to eventually do all of these jobs.


You MAY NOT think your training is vast but when the U.S. Military trains a gunner in 15 weeks and the Canadian Military trains a gunner in 24 weeks (I don't know how long DP1 Artillery is). You don't think something is up?

 

[George Wallace]

Pusser makes an excellent point: Marines were never meant to exist as a full army model. They were protection force/raiders for the Navy as their core mission. In the UK, they still are: the RM commandos are just that - commandos. In the US it is only after WWII that they retained a bigger size that lets them do more than limited foreign ventures.

Historically, the largest amphibious assaults have been the purview of the armies, not marines, with the larger ships operated by the navies. Even today (little known fact) the largest amphibious assault fleet is operated by the US Army, not the marines.

If you are only looking at the European Theatre during WW II then I would agree with you.  The South Pacific, however, was not so.

 

[Jarnhamar]

You and your "friend" don't have much time in do you?

Nope not at all, we're a bunch of noobs.

George can you tell me about what kind of training and courses LAV drivers get in the battalion?