# What Regiments Would You Like To See Back?



## Gorgo (18 Aug 2002)

Hello, everyone,

I was dancing around a few sites and I came upon a very interesting webpage concerning people in Nova Scotia lobbying DND to have the Halifax Rifles brought back to the active order of battle.

Thus, I pose a question to all of you who read the War Diary:

What regiments (regardless of type) would you like to see brought back to active service (Regular Force or Militia)?  Where were they traditionally based?  And where would you like them to be based if reactivated?

And finally, WHY would you want to see them restored to active serivce?

To start it off, here‘s my suggestion:

UNIT:
The 2nd/10th Dragoons (RCAC) (2/10 D)

BASE:
Niagara Region, Ontario (put RHQ in Niagara Falls with detached squadrons/troops at Fort Erie and Welland).  The Niagara Region was where 2/10 D, as the 57th Field Regiment RCA, was based before it was put on the supplimentary list.

REASON:
One of the big things that took me by surprise in reading the article on the Halifax Rifles (though I hope the webmaster would be kind enough to fix the site up so it could be read a LOT better) was that, beyond the deep historical significance of the Regiment in question, the brigade based in Nova Scotia has no armoured capability IN THE PROVINCE whatsoever!

The only armoured unit assigned to that brigade is in PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, for heaven‘s sake!

And the only other armoured regiment in all of LFAA, the 8th Canadian Hussars, is based in NEW BRUNSWICK!

And given how much of a coastline Nova Scotia has, that there‘s no on-site recce capabilities available in case ANYTHING might happen that DND would want investigated...?

Why can‘t we apply the same logic to the Niagara frontier between Ontario and New York?

If I remember unit deployments correctly, there is no recce or armoured unit anywhere within close range of the Niagara Region.  The Windsor Regiment and 1st Hussars are better poised to cover the Detroit/Saint Clair River area.  The Governor-General‘s Horse Guards and the Ontario Regiment are based in the Toronto area.

And given how much trade is done over the Niagara river crossings...?

Cheers!

Fred


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (18 Aug 2002)

AIRBORNE!!! WE WANT AIRBORNE!!!


----------



## Jungle (18 Aug 2002)

I agree with SOF, my vote goes to the Canadian Airborne Regiment (I guess none of you will be surprised...) 
Fred, your post strangely suggests you are preparing to fight the War of 1812...


----------



## Harry (18 Aug 2002)

My first vote is for the CAR and my second for an Artillery unit in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I hate it when I see Log Wogs or Grunts firing imported guns for Salutes.

Ubique


----------



## logistik (18 Aug 2002)

CAR


----------



## silverhorse86 (18 Aug 2002)

CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR  CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR
its all about the CAR  :warstory:


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Aug 2002)

Does anyone have any idea how many regiments have been renamed/amalgamated/disbanded over the years?

Several dozen, to put it conservatively.

In all of Calgary we can‘t find enough people for two companies of infantry and two squadrons of armour - why on earth does anyone think that we need even more regiments?  We can‘t staff the ones we have now.


----------



## silverhorse86 (18 Aug 2002)

we need more special forces units


----------



## Art Johnson (19 Aug 2002)

Right On Michael. Why dont some of the Dough Heeds on this board get their noses out of the suds and really see what is going on.


----------



## Harry (19 Aug 2002)

I thought this post was quit innocuous, but MD is right.  And no I don‘t have my nose in the suds.

The shortfall nation wide is there; units are having a hard time with recruiting with a few exceptions.

However some of the responses here, are what I have come to expect here and I guess that’s why I am gradually loosing interest in the site    :boring:   .   The hard or sensitive issues are barely touched       and there is a great plethora of discussion on relatively inconsequential topics that in all reality no one here has any say in or over.        If I see another post on the LAV, I will need some suds.

To those with TI, no matter how accumulated, good on ya’.  For the remainder, keep at it and in a couple cases.     :rage:   Get a life.

There, that feels better.

UBIQUE (too much)


----------



## portcullisguy (19 Aug 2002)

I might just be a crap-hat, and not one of those fancy-nancy poofy red berets (<wink>) but I would still vote for the CAR.

It is a shame that we do not have an equivalent to the Paras.  Having a jump coy in each reg regiment isn‘t the same.

It‘s not even for the jumping, really... in the Falklands, the Paras were relied upon to make the first move.  They trained mostly for offensive operations, and were devastating to the Argies, even in the face of drastic losses.  I am not sure the RM units could have accomplished what the Paras did.

That being said, I‘d still keep my distance from those nutters.


----------



## Harry (19 Aug 2002)

> I might just be a crap-hat, and not one of those fancy-nancy poofy red berets (<wink>) but I would still vote for the CAR.


Portscullisguy, they wear Raspberry Berets, red is for the MP‘s. Tsch Tsch.


----------



## portcullisguy (19 Aug 2002)

Surprised they don‘t call it "fuscia"!  lol!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (19 Aug 2002)

I am not sure I understand the need for an entire battalion of airborne qualified troops; the jump companies seem to be well disposed to take care of any parachute landing tasks.  A quick reaction force would be great, but we don‘t have the aircraft for that, nor the ability to follow up an airborne drop of an entire battalion with follow up troops - we just don‘t have the lift capacity, do we?

The Airborne Regiment did act as a goal for soldiers in the regs to aspire to; a great honour for a junior NCO to be selected.  But there are ways of doing that in the line infantry, as well.   Perhaps if we had enough equipment (ie helicopters) to make the line battalions airmobile, the need for para capability (and those expensive C-130s) would be less?

I see the Gryphons are developing wear and tear on the rotors - is that true?  All this equipment is great if you can afford to maintain it.  Unfortunately, with the current financial situation, I don‘t see any move to airmobility, or greater ability to deploy and supply  our troops abroad.

This may change if the balloon goes up over Iraq, but I suspect our limited liability outlook will prevent us from doing the right thing there, either.

For now, more important our PPCLI, RCR and Van Doos train as light infantry - if they go to war in Korea or Iraq, that is what they will be doing.  Para training is very much beside the point right now.

Hopefully the Patricias of the 2nd/3rd battalion back from Khandahar will be able to spread their recent experience through the ranks should we decide to send a battalion or even a brigade in with the Yanks.

Given our paucity of armoured vehicles, though, how likely is that to be?  Have we even exercised a mechanized brigade in the last five years?

I am talking out of my ***  (sorry, Harry!) and would love to see some real answers and corrections to the points I just raised.

If we were to send troops to Iraq, I would suspect they would be dismounted light infantry; if it turned out to be a sweeping armoured assault on Baghdad, there might be very little for light infantry to do in Iraq - short of using us for deadly street fighting in Baghdad itself.  Not a nice proposition.  Maybe we ought to be doing FIBUA training too.


----------



## Harry (19 Aug 2002)

Hey MD, never worry about the point of view,     .  At least you are reasoned and insightful in your response(s).

You hit on the key tenant of why we as a country needn’t get back into the Airborne business.  We could drop them, but we could never support them, let alone effectively reinforce them with sufficient ground elements to hold whatever objective they may have seized with elan and zeal.  As it stands, maneuver and relief in place ops would stretch our already depleted re-supply lines to the point of failure.

That or we could ask the ASD people if they would mind driving through indian country to support ground ops.

You touched on the Griffons, I made ref to the max outs on these birds in the post regarding the crash in Goose Bay.  In essence, we bought the civvie version of the Bell 412.  Then we installed a military avionics package to the existing hardware, electronics and airframe.  Follow up with a military paint job and voila, the Griffon.  

The only problem is the military package has upped the aircraft’s gross weight and degraded the payload ability.  Quintessentially, the birds are rated from between 900 to 1200 lbs. maximum payload, depending on the bird.  This load lift has to include the crew and any additional equipment such as hoist’s, FLIR, coffee cups etc.

Now to put it into perspective, It isn‘t that they can‘t handle the loads they have, it is that they are ALWAYS operating within their near max design limits.  Take an Iltis, you can get away with overloading it every now and then on Ex. But keep it maxed out and it will fail. Same with the Griffon.

And to equate this to airmobile ops, how can you move a battalion, let alone a regiment when you have birds that can barely lift a five man section (lightly equipped).

MD you also pointed out the current reg force Inf Bn’s and alluded to their current status.  In the same vein as your initial response to reforming some units, I remember when I first joined and 3 VP was in Victoria.   They were so undermanned that they sometimes were lucky to have a driver and crew commander in each vehicle during a major Ex.

1 CMBG exercised as a Battle Group back in 1998 under Leslie, but correct me if I am wrong, I don’t believe any major Ex’s of this nature have occurred since.

You are optimistic about our troops being involved in a ground offensive should Iraq become an area of operations.  I have a feeling we will supply dismounted troops for Defense and Security Ops on airfields and rear ech locations with some mobile asset’s integrated into their recce units, such as the Coyote.

If you follow the majority of our deployments with the US, we predominantly conduct D&S duties.  We got lucky in Afghanistan, but in all reality, one major op is not a mission raison dete.

UBIQUE


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Aug 2002)

I have no doubts you are right on all counts, Harry and I appreciate the info on the Griffons.

I‘ve driven an overloaded Iltis or two and know what you mean.  Frequency of use is also an issue; we still road march vehicles from Wainwright to Calgary on occasion; I can‘t help but feel those 5 hour drives aren‘t all that good for them. I know for a fact they aren‘t good for me!

Sadly, I suppose any role we play in future military operations will be limited to the tasks you describe.  Not that I relish the thought of putting our troops in harm‘s way (or the path of American pilots!) again but we do have a stake in this thing, too.


----------



## combat_medic (3 Sep 2002)

I‘m with the rest of you guys about the CAR, but perhaps rather than having the CAR the way it used to be, why not make them more like the Rangers in the States? Have a battalion of elite (NOT special) forces who are all specialized in light infantry: mountain ops, air mobile, para, amhibious and jungle training. This way, it would still be something for everyone in the regs to aspire to, have them be very well trained, and something useful in a place like Afghanistan. Have all infantrymen join a mechanised infantry unit, then have to APPLY for light infantry. That way you get the cream of the crop in the light battalions, and the people in light infantry, all will still know their mechanised ops.

Yes, this would be a bit of an expense, but if they were based out of a place like Trenton, it would be a lot more feasable, since the aircraft are already there. Besides, these kind of skills still exist within the CF currently, but are too spread out around the country to be of much use to anyone. 

Thoughts about this?


----------



## ArmyAl (3 Sep 2002)

Hmm how about the 17th lancers cap badge, I would join that unit just for the badge.

it‘s a skull with cross bones with a banner that states "or Glory"
very cool


----------



## Jungle (4 Sep 2002)

In response to cbt-medic, the CAR was like a ranger Batt, and was specialized in light infantry: mountain ops, air mobile, para, amhibious and jungle training (this is how I got my nickname, but i‘ll save the details). The biggest problem with the CAR was personnel selection. There should have been mechanisms in place to weed out the few bad apples that spoiled the show for everyone else. The mechanized Batt‘s need people who have very technical qualifications, and once qualified the unit would not like to see the person go. For that reason, people should be either all sent to a light inf batt after QL-3, or selection for service in light or mech Inf be done during or immediately after QL-3.


----------



## Doug VT (4 Sep 2002)

I completely agree with you Jungle.  Now we just need someone up above who can understand and see the sense of the matter.  Preferably someone who can do something about it.

AIRBORNE!


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (4 Sep 2002)

Why exactly did they disband the CAR? I haven‘t been able to find an explanation other than something along the lines of "stupid Liberal government." Was there even a stated reason?


----------



## Linc (5 Sep 2002)

Uh..well...this is kind of a touchy subject...let‘s just say there was a high-profile ‘incident‘ involving some individuals from the CAR and the gov‘t, intent on downsizing the military and covering up its own neglect of the Forces found it convenient to use this as an excuse to disband the CAR.  The politically engineered term "rogue regiment" was frequently used in the press,  and the end result was that the unit was stood down.

That‘s not exactly a complete story, but I will leave it to the jumpers on this site to further elaborate if they wish to do so.


----------



## Doug VT (5 Sep 2002)

Waste of space government and a punish the group mentality.  They couldn‘t weed out the few and repair the damage because the "Public" DEMANDED action.  However, the majority of the population thought that disbandment was too harsh a verdict.  Disbanding the Regiment took the heat off of other "things" and made political life a little easier for the government and higher military officials.  It was a cowardly move and I‘m sure that in the future this mistake will be repaired......but when?


----------



## sgt.shmedly102 (5 Sep 2002)

hmm... That sounds unfortunate. Anywhere I can find the whole story?

As for regiments to bring back, how ‘bout the 1st Special Service Force?      :evil:


----------



## logistik (5 Sep 2002)

www.commando.org


----------

