# CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia



## observor 69 (30 Jun 2016)

Canada to send troops to Latvia for new NATO brigade

The Trudeau government has decided it will send troops to join a NATO high-readiness brigade preparing to deploy in Eastern Europe.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion issued a joint statement today saying Canada will take up a leadership role and establish one of the battle group formations requested by the alliance.

"As a responsible partner in the world, Canada stands side by side with its NATO allies working to deter aggression and assure peace and stability in Europe," Sajjan said in a statement.

"I am tremendously proud that we are taking a leadership role as a NATO framework nation. I know our men and women in uniform will represent the best that Canada has to offer."

The official announcement comes just one day after U.S. President Barack Obama challenged Canada to do more to support the military alliance.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-canadian-troops-baltics-1.3659814

This should help relieve some of the complaints of boredom from the troops.   >


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Jun 2016)

I think POTUS probably poked JT in the chest with the 50 cal finger......


----------



## cavalryman (30 Jun 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I think POTUS probably poked JT in the chest with the 50 cal finger......


"Listen Justin, either you put out, or our bromance is over."  [


----------



## Ostrozac (30 Jun 2016)

And the fine tradition of announcing news right before a long weekend continues! It's good to see continuity in policy between governments.

Enjoy your tours in Latvia, everyone. And if anyone needs an officer to command the R&R centre in Riga, I'm only a CFTPO away!


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jun 2016)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> This should help relieve some of the complaints of boredom from the troops.   >


Like those calling for peacekeeping in Africa, be careful what you wish for ...


			
				Ostrozac said:
			
		

> And the fine tradition of announcing news right before a long weekend continues! It's good to see continuity in policy between governments.


It's actually a bit early in the day for a Friday ann't  ;D  Still nothing from the Info-machine as of this post ...

_P.S. - I'm moving the thread to give it a bit more visibility as the story breaks and develops.  *Staff*_


----------



## Ostrozac (30 Jun 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It's actually a bit early in the day for a Friday ann't  ;D


When Friday is a Stat Holiday, Thursday is the new Friday!


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jun 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> When Friday is a Stat Holiday, Thursday is the new Friday!


True dat!


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Still nothing from the Info-machine as of this post ...


I lied ...


> Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan and Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion today announced that Canada will take on a leadership role within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to support the Alliance’s strengthened deterrence and defence posture in Eastern and Central Europe.
> 
> As one of four Framework Nations Canada will establish and lead a rotational multinational NATO battlegroup which will contribute to NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence in Eastern and Central Europe along with the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (30 Jun 2016)

Sounds like marching in place......


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Jun 2016)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> "As a responsible partner in the world, Canada stands side by side with its NATO allies working to deter aggression and assure peace and stability in Europe," Sajjan said in a statement.   :blah:
> 
> "I am tremendously proud that we are taking a leadership role as a NATO framework nation. I know our men and women in uniform will represent the best that Canada has to offer."



From the article in the quote...

_It would require the army to rotate one of its infantry battalions and a headquarters — perhaps as many as 500 troops — into the position once every six months_

But...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//news/national/canada-expected-to-send-troops-to-latvia-to-deter-russia/article30699088/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globefb

Sources say the federal cabinet has authorized Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan ‎to provide up to a battalion of Canadian troops, which is about 1,000 soldiers.

At least that article was corrected some...earlier in the day, according to it, Canada had 9 infantry divisions.

 :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jun 2016)

Maybe LAV's, No artillery, no mortars, no boots, no HMG, no ATGM's, no mines and by the way meet the peer army you will be facing off.....


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jun 2016)

"If you couldn't get enough of MAPLE RESOLVE, does MND have a deal for you! 6 whole months of MAPLE RESOLVE! Now with foreign service pay to boost you into the next tax bracket!"


----------



## CBH99 (30 Jun 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Maybe LAV's, No artillery, no mortars, no boots, no HMG, no ATGM's, no mines and by the way meet the peer army you will be facing off.....




Peer army?  Ha!   The odds aren't even close to being a "peer vs peer" fight - and sadly, I'm saying that in favour of our Russian friends.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Jun 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I think POTUS probably poked JT in the chest with the 50 cal finger......



That briefs well and confirms plenty of biases, but I believe that the decision was made some time ago, but that release was meant to coincide with the NATO Conf......


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Jun 2016)

A trip-wire is a trip-wire is a...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325 (30 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> "If you couldn't get enough of MAPLE RESOLVE, does MND have a deal for you! 6 whole months of MAPLE RESOLVE! Now with foreign service pay to boost you into the next tax bracket!"



You'd still make more money.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jun 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You'd still make more money.



Perhaps even bring home a "war bride".   [


----------



## dimsum (30 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> "If you couldn't get enough of MAPLE RESOLVE, does MND have a deal for you! 6 whole months of MAPLE RESOLVE! Now with foreign service pay to boost you into the next tax bracket!"



To be fair, I'd suspect the Latvian bars are more happenin' than Wainwright   :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jun 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Peer army?  Ha!   The odds aren't even close to being a "peer vs peer" fight - and sadly, I'm saying that in favour of our Russian friends.



oh yea trucks, but hey the Germans have a good train system.....


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jun 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> To be fair, I'd suspect the Latvian bars are more happenin' than Wainwright   :nod:


Until some asshat gets drunk and punches someone out, confining everyone to base with a no alcohol policy.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Jun 2016)

So no Columbia UN peacekeeping mission then?


----------



## Altair (30 Jun 2016)

Thank you trudeau...I mean god.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Jun 2016)

You know... I may not be the world's biggest optimist, but listening to some of this discussion is like Marvin talking to Eeyore about the the prospects for supper.

Jus' sayin'.

 [


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jun 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> _It would require the army to rotate one of its infantry battalions and a headquarters — perhaps as many as 500 troops — into the position once every six months_
> 
> Sources say the federal cabinet has authorized Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan ‎to provide up to a battalion of Canadian troops, which is about 1,000 soldiers.



I sincerely hope that they mean the Bn headquarters Coy, and not some excuse to employ 1 Can Div HQ.... then again, we've never been good with scaling command oversight to the actual amount of troops on the ground.


----------



## Altair (30 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope that they mean the Bn headquarters Coy, and not some excuse to employ 1 Can Div HQ.... then again, we've never been good with scaling command oversight to the actual amount of troops on the ground.


Knowing what you do, would you bet against it?

If you would let me know, I like easy money


----------



## blacktriangle (30 Jun 2016)

Have fun with that one guys.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jun 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> K ow what you do, would you bet against it?
> 
> If you would let me know, I like easy money



We should start an over/under pool on how many staff officers get deployed.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Jun 2016)

:trainwreck:

Written all over it.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jun 2016)

If JOINTEX, MAPLE RESOLVE managed to have a child, with 4CMBG delivering the baby, that baby would be named whatever this "mission" is named.


----------



## medicineman (30 Jun 2016)

Well, they did say we're taking a leadership role, so I suspect a 10:1 tail to tooth ratio...

MM


----------



## Old EO Tech (30 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We should start an over/under pool on how many staff officers get deployed.



Ya I see Somalia level staff officer deployment :-/  All the new guys need a gong after all :-/


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jun 2016)

Don't forget the "Tail".  How much Service Support will be required?


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jun 2016)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Ya I see Somalia level staff officer deployment :-/  All the new guys need a gong after all :-/



Only took 1.5 pages to mention medals (not that you care), but guaranteed that's the first thing someone thinks of at NDHQ.

How much service support required? 6:1 ratio, but troops still have to buy their own boots, slings and fighting rigs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jun 2016)

The ones who are going to suffer are the troops away from their family for 6 months eating shitty food, crammed in shitty living conditions and paraded around in dog and pony shows. The "I just want to deploy!" crowd will get tired of the 14 hour forced bus trips and maple resolve- Europe training in +/- 3 weeks.   March 20kms. The general didn't get to fly over and see you, march another 20km so he can.

We should deploy to smash ISIS and assholes murdering their way across Africa. 

If I'm going to be given food with animal and insect parts sticking out (like a rats foot) then I at least want to be making a difference.


----------



## cavalryman (30 Jun 2016)

Will the Winnipeg Grenadiers be reactivated for this tasking?


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jun 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The ones who are going to suffer are the troops away from their family for 6 months eating shitty food, crammed in shitty living conditions and paraded around in dog and pony shows. The "I just want to deploy!" crowd will get tired of the 14 hour forced bus trips and maple resolve- Europe training in +/- 3 weeks.   March 20kms. The general didn't get to fly over and see you, march another 20km so he can.
> 
> We should deploy to smash ISIS and assholes murdering their way across Africa.
> 
> If I'm going to be given food with animal and insect parts sticking out (like a rats foot) then I at least want to be making a difference.



But FSP, Jarn!!!


----------



## Altair (30 Jun 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The ones who are going to suffer are the troops away from their family for 6 months eating shitty food, crammed in shitty living conditions and paraded around in dog and pony shows. The "I just want to deploy!" crowd will get tired of the 14 hour forced bus trips and maple resolve- Europe training in +/- 3 weeks.   March 20kms. The general didn't get to fly over and see you, march another 20km so he can.
> 
> We should deploy to smash ISIS and assholes murdering their way across Africa.
> 
> If I'm going to be given food with animal and insect parts sticking out (like a rats foot) then I at least want to be making a difference.


beggars can't be choosers.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jun 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> beggars can't be choosers.



If you joined at 18 you wouldn't have missed the cool tours.  8)


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you joined at 18 you wouldn't have missed the cool tours.  8)



Or you would have been in a position where your boss said you were too important to let deploy, and would have been stuck back in Canada anyways.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jun 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or you would have been in a position where your boss said you were too important to let deploy, and would have been stuck back in Canada anyways.



Not with Sigs at a Brigade. If you had a heartbeat and could spell Signals, you went.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Not with Sigs at a Brigade. If you had a heartbeat and could spell Signals, you went.



Got to 1 Sigs in 07. Missed out on 1-08, 5-09, 3-09, and gave up hope. 

Got posted to Svc Bn and thrown on MTTF out of the blue. The tours haven't stopped since then.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jun 2016)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Got to 1 Sigs in 07. Missed out on 1-08, 5-09, 3-09, and gave up hope.
> 
> Got posted to Svc Bn and thrown on MTTF out of the blue. The tours haven't stopped since then.



You unfortunately got screwed. There's Sigs guys with 4 bars on their GCS-SWA. You're in a good spot now, any larger sustained mission will have those MT dets rolling. Officers love DWAN.


----------



## Altair (1 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you joined at 18 you wouldn't have missed the cool tours.  8)


didn't want to die a virgin.


----------



## medicineman (1 Jul 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> didn't want to die a virgin.



Then you should have tried harder to get laid

MM


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Jul 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Will the Winnipeg Grenadiers be reactivated for this tasking?



That was supposed to OUR secret! But I get the historical link.....


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (1 Jul 2016)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Ya I see Somalia level staff officer deployment :-/  All the new guys need a gong after all :-/



Hopefully this turns out better than that mission...

Serious question though, being, "What is the point of this mission"? We're sending a basically notional amount of soldiers with no/little equipment to "protect" NATO states with must larger armies and better equipment? We're also sending them to defend against a country with little to no ability to project force. 

We pulled the CF-18's that we "whipped out" to attack ISIS, a real enemy, but can deploy troops to defend larger countries against a realistically non-existent threat?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope that they mean the Bn headquarters Coy, and not some excuse to employ 1 Can Div HQ.... then again, we've never been good with scaling command oversight to the actual amount of troops on the ground.



I'm sure there is a 300 slide powerpoint somewhere followed by a spreadsheet that took 400 hours to make detailing why there will be more tail than tooth.   ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Jul 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Hopefully this turns out better than that mission...
> 
> Serious question though, being, "What is the point of this mission"? We're sending a basically notional amount of soldiers with no/little equipment to "protect" NATO states with must larger armies and better equipment? We're also sending them to defend against a country with little to no ability to project force.
> 
> We pulled the CF-18's that we "whipped out" to attack ISIS, a real enemy, but can deploy troops to defend larger countries against a realistically non-existent threat?



Didn`t you hear?  We are not at war with ISIS!

Maybe the point of the mission is to 'be seen to be doing something', which may be the only thing to actually do.  Making a stance, all that stuff.

Wonder how badly the infrastructure in places like Lahr has faired out the past few decades.  Might be soon putting a fresh coat of paint on some of it?


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jul 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> We pulled the CF-18's that we "whipped out" to attack ISIS, a real enemy, but can deploy troops to defend larger countries against *a realistically non-existent threat?*


Tell that to the Ukrainians, the Moldovans and the Georgians - or the Baltics, for that matter, where Russia appears to STILL be trying to sanction what they're considering former Soviet deserters.

Meanwhile, a bit of initial RUS media reaction ...

*"The deployment of Canadian troops to support NATO force in Eastern Europe is not aimed at provoking conflict, but rather at ensuring peace and stability in the region, the head of the Canadian delegation to the OSCE PA told Sputnik* Friday ..."*
*"Canada to send 1,000 troops to E. Europe to boost NATO presence at Russia’s doorstep"* (via RT****)

*** - Web presence of RIA Novosti, Russia's state-operated news agency
**** - RT, formerly Russia Today, is _"a Russian government-funded television network that runs cable and satellite television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia"_


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Jul 2016)

;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ;D


Interestingly enough, guess how you spell "Putin" in French?  ;D


----------



## medicineman (1 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, guess how you spell "Putin" in French?  ;D



In English, it is a homonym of a gardening implement

MM


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Only took 1.5 pages to mention medals (not that you care), but guaranteed that's the first thing someone thinks of at NDHQ.


Yup. As well as some 32 day CFTPO tasks



> How much service support required? 6:1 ratio, but troops still have to buy their own boots, slings and fighting rigs.



And then be told issued slings and tacvest only.   ;D


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Wonder how badly the infrastructure in places like Lahr has faired out the past few decades.  Might be soon putting a fresh coat of paint on some of it?



Lahr is now the Black Forest Airport, was converted back to a civilian airport after we left, probably in much better condition then when we left. Though with the British Army coming home from Germany, we might be able to score a deal on a well kept base.


Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Journeyman (1 Jul 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yup. As well as some 32 day CFTPO tasks


   :nod:   Let the "Staff Annoyance Visits" begin.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Lahr is now the Black Forest Airport, was converted back to a civilian airport after we left, probably in much better condition then when we left. Though with the British Army coming home from Germany, we might be able to score a deal on a well kept base.
> 
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk



Lahr Flugplatz is in someways modernized, and at the same time still has remnants of 4 CMBG facilities, either in use or derelict.  It is easily searchable.

Did we not set up a small AMU and supply facility with a tiny staff in Bonn to provide the CAF with an airhead and support on a limited scale back in the late 2000's?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (1 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Tell that to the Ukrainians, the Moldovans and the Georgians - or the Baltics, for that matter, where Russia appears to STILL be trying to sanction what they're considering former Soviet deserters.
> 
> Meanwhile, a bit of initial RUS media reaction ...
> 
> ...



If Russia had any real strength or ability to project power it wouldn't be fighting a proxy war in Ukraine or made a half hearted attempt at invading Georgia. The fact of the matter is that Russia cannot project power inside it's sphere of influence, let alone rival NATO. Any show of Russian force is smoke and mirrors similar to Saddam's military post Gulf War 1. NATO sending troops into Eastern Europe, to me, is more about trying to keep NATO relevant and united after an ineffective Afghan mission than actually trying to dissuade Russia from doing something.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Jul 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> If Russia had any real strength or ability to project power it wouldn't be fighting a proxy war in Ukraine or made a half hearted attempt at invading Georgia. The fact of the matter is that Russia cannot project power inside it's sphere of influence, let alone rival NATO. Any show of Russian force is smoke and mirrors similar to Saddam's military post Gulf War 1. NATO sending troops into Eastern Europe, to me, is more about trying to keep NATO relevant and united after an ineffective Afghan mission than actually trying to dissuade Russia from doing something.



If a clash happened and Russia deployed it's artillery, I think we would be shocked at the carnage on our side. It would not last long but the conflict would have a causality rate that rivals Iraq and Afghanistan combined. NATO will stumble in the first week, followed by a counter offensive that would stop the Russian offensive. It would be very short and very bloody with a lot of dead AFV's and aircraft on both sides. Expect heavy causalities within various field headquarters caused by their lack of EW, light discipline and failure to secure the perimeters.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jul 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> NATO sending troops into Eastern Europe, to me, is more about trying to keep NATO relevant and united after an ineffective Afghan mission than actually trying to dissuade Russia from doing something.


In a world of nuance, I do have to agree that this is registering at a more-than-zero level for some decision makers.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> If Russia had any real strength or ability to project power it wouldn't be fighting a proxy war in Ukraine or made a half hearted attempt at invading Georgia.


Assuming, of course, that Russia's goal is to take these territories once & for all, as opposed to, say, keeping the "other guys" off balance.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (1 Jul 2016)

Two questions:
1.  For those that know more than me, what should an optimal battlegroup for Latvia look like?  
2.  Is there any chance that this deployment could be used to justify of some new kit that is currently missing in the Army's quiver:  ATGM's?  Self-propelled howitzers?  SAM system of some sort?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (1 Jul 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> If a clash happened and Russia deployed it's artillery, I think we would be shocked at the carnage on our side. It would not last long but the conflict would have a causality rate that rivals Iraq and Afghanistan combined. NATO will stumble in the first week, followed by a counter offensive that would stop the Russian offensive. It would be very short and very bloody with a lot of dead AFV's and aircraft on both sides. Expect heavy causalities within various field headquarters caused by their lack of EW, light discipline and failure to secure the perimeters.



I agree that Russia is likely a tougher nut to crack than what we give it credit for, but the overarching point is that any victory they achieved would be phyrric in nature and short lasting (like the Iraqi attack on Khafji in Gulf War 1). Russia's bigger problems include a horrible economy, massive social issues (Aging population, mass alcoholism, etc), and internal terrorist threat. No to mention the issue they have on their Chinese border with a Chinese nation that would love nothing more than to rid itself of Russia on its doorstep and replace it with smaller and weaker satellite states. Even attacking a nation like Latvia, in 2016, would only result in further international isolation, international resolve to rid the world of Putin, and the creation of another internal problem in the HIGHLY unlikely scenario that the Russians fight to a draw and were allowed to keep Latvia.

The point, then, is that there is absolutely nothing for the Russians to gain by attacking a NATO nation (or actually attacking any nation) and absolutely everything to lose. NATO having a high readiness Brigade in Latvia will accomplish the square root of F all while costing us money that we could use elsewhere. 

The decision smacks of knee jerk reactions to pretend problems with the goal of making Russia seem like a bad guy. it's basically watching the movie "Canadian Bacon" with Canada replaced with Russia.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Jul 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> You know... I may not be the world's biggest optimist, but listening to some of this discussion is like Marvin talking to Eeyore about the the prospects for supper.
> 
> Jus' sayin'.
> 
> [



I agree completely.  This is a strong response to a clear requirement in accordance with our obligations to NATO.....and to our key Allies.  It also does not rule out continued engagement in the fight against Da'esh in Iraq and Syria (or more importantly, the stabilisation effort upon their defeat), contributing to the effort in Columbia, or even in the Sahel.  

It is difficult to pick your spots with a small but competent and respected military, because the opportunity cost of any commitment is so high.  It is also difficult to meet all ones obligations (treaty and otherwise, including political) with a small military.  How about we hear what the plan is before we all jump up from our armchairs to call it down?  Or we could just continue with knee-jerk bashing of our own military, indulging our predilection for auto-flagellation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Jul 2016)

There was nothing to gain by supporting and helping the Donetsk separatists or even in Georgia. The Western public was more than willing to concede Crimea, particularly considering how well they orchestrated it. Don't apply pure logic or your way of thinking to your opposition political decisions, because chances are you be wrong.


----------



## sandyson (1 Jul 2016)

My guess is that sending over the troops has more to do with the US election and the US defence budgetary cuts than a need by NATO.  A 'European threat' will be an American excuse to acquire military  equipment and therefore industrial profit in congressional districts.  It will allow  politicians--presidential and congressional to beat their chests.  It will be with a reliable enemy who can always use a foreign bad guy to maintain support at home but knows how to avoid serious casualties.  I suspect this will all fade considerably in late 2017 after politicians are in place and budgets have been awarded.  Like the Mark One who had to buy tanks, the Mark Two is being compelled to 'reinforce' NATO (or Canadian trade relations will be in serious trouble.) If Trudeau for one minute  thinks he is reinforcing NATO we have a serious national defence flaw.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Jul 2016)

Sanderson said:
			
		

> My guess is that sending over the troops has more to do with the US election and the US defence budgetary cuts than a need by NATO.  A 'European threat' will be an American excuse to acquire military  equipment and therefore industrial profit in congressional districts.  It will allow  politicians--presidential and congressional to beat their chests.  It will be with a reliable enemy who can always use a foreign bad guy to maintain support at home but knows how to avoid serious casualties.  I suspect this will all fade considerably in late 2017 after politicians are in place and budgets have been awarded.  Like the Mark One who had to buy tanks, the Mark Two is being compelled to 'reinforce' NATO (or Canadian trade relations will be in serious trouble.) If Trudeau for one minute  thinks he is reinforcing NATO we have a serious national defence flaw.



It has zero to do with the US election.Its all about NATO and sending a signal to Russia.For Trudeau defense is his weakness,so sending a unit to serve in an NATO brigade has zero risk and he is seen to be strong on defense,which he is not.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> It has zero to do with the US election.Its all about NATO and sending a signal to Russia.For Trudeau defense is his weakness,so sending a unit to serve in an NATO brigade has zero risk and he is seen to be strong on defense,which he is not.



And his buddy Obama asked him to do it. If anyone else asked, we'd thumb our noses at it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Jul 2016)

Rotating a battalion every 6 months to Latvia is doable ?


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If anyone else asked, we'd thumb our noses at it.


Just like some might say it was the greatest thing since sliced bread if anyone _else_ sent the same contingent to the same place?


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Rotating a battalion every 6 months to Latvia is doable ?



Afghanistan was "doable", but all those trucks we blew up didn't get replaced. At least the guys on high readiness have something to train for now.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> It has zero to do with the US election.Its all about NATO and sending a signal to Russia.For Trudeau defense is his weakness,so sending a unit to serve in an NATO brigade has zero risk and he is seen to be strong on defense,which he is not.



Shades of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.  NATO forced his hand and pushed him to increase Canada's involvement in Europe.

Seems History is repeating itself, in a way.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ... sending a unit to serve in an NATO brigade has *zero risk* ...


One hopes, anyway ...


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Jul 2016)

Sanderson said:
			
		

> My guess is that sending over the troops has more to do with the US election and the US defence budgetary cuts than a need by NATO.  A 'European threat' will be an American excuse to acquire military  equipment and therefore industrial profit in congressional districts.  It will allow  politicians--presidential and congressional to beat their chests.  It will be with a reliable enemy who can always use a foreign bad guy to maintain support at home but knows how to avoid serious casualties.  I suspect this will all fade considerably in late 2017 after politicians are in place and budgets have been awarded.  Like the Mark One who had to buy tanks, the Mark Two is being compelled to 'reinforce' NATO (or Canadian trade relations will be in serious trouble.) If Trudeau for one minute  thinks he is reinforcing NATO we have a serious national defence flaw.


Ill agree with the part of the US defense budget, a US on claw backs should be a wake up to NATO that the free ride the past two decades is coming to a close and weight must be pulled

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## brihard (2 Jul 2016)

On the whole medals issue- if there si gnashing of teeth over a medal for this (of course there is), any compelling reason not to simply begin a new window of eligible service for the SSM-NATO bar? It seems that that particular medal/bar was created for essentially the same thing.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jul 2016)

Sounds about right, or authorize the wear of whatever medal NATO awards (they gave out the Art5 medal for Afghan I believe). No need to reinvent the wheel, although we're real good at it.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (2 Jul 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I agree completely.  This is a strong response to a clear requirement in accordance with our obligations to NATO.....and to our key Allies.  It also does not rule out continued engagement in the fight against Da'esh in Iraq and Syria (or more importantly, the stabilisation effort upon their defeat), contributing to the effort in Columbia, or even in the Sahel.
> 
> It is difficult to pick your spots with a small but competent and respected military, because the opportunity cost of any commitment is so high.  It is also difficult to meet all ones obligations (treaty and otherwise, including political) with a small military.  How about we hear what the plan is before we all jump up from our armchairs to call it down?  Or we could just continue with knee-jerk bashing of our own military, indulging our predilection for auto-flagellation.



A strong response? It's quite literally the least we could do to support a mission. That said, I think that "auto-flagellation", discussion on the validity of policies/missions, and professional discussion is a critical element of our development as a force. I'd much prefer people discussion issues such as why we need to have a shield force against russia, or bomb Daesh, or go on any other mission than 60,000 yes men. 

To each their own though.


----------



## dimsum (2 Jul 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> On the whole medals issue- if there si gnashing of teeth over a medal for this (of course there is), any compelling reason not to simply begin a new window of eligible service for the SSM-NATO bar? It seems that that particular medal/bar was created for essentially the same thing.



Because people need to immediately know that you've been on OP XYZ, not "some NATO mission that can be seen as OP XYZ when you look real close".

 :sarcasm:


----------



## brihard (2 Jul 2016)

Alright. Well, we'll just name it Op Superfly and make sure the medal is suitably phallic.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jul 2016)

We need to answer the important question; will clerks get the same danger pay as infantry?


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jul 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We need to answer the important question; will clerks get the same danger pay as infantry?



And how long will the line at Tim Horton's will be?!


----------



## medicineman (2 Jul 2016)

You don't get a gong for Maple Resolve, so why would you get one for NATO Resolve - I mean, really, six month working vacation away from Pet, Edmonton, The Traz or Kingston.

MM


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jul 2016)

I suspect the Operational Service Medal (Expedition) will be retroactively issued for all Op REASSURANCE deployments as well as for the upcoming participation in this NATO Brigade.  It fits the criteria of the award and, with the 30 day threshold, will be better applicable than the 6 month requirement for the SSM(NATO).

I think it is entirely fair and worthwhile in issuing this.  Operational service decorations are not issued for any specific degree of risk - I'd venture that a majority of the UN/NATO medals worn by service members involve tours without getting shot at (I have one myself).  This deployment represents fulfilling an important service in support of our national policies, just as much as a Cyprus or 4 CMBG tour (both which were appropriately recognized with medals).  As well, I think it is good for morale and recognition for our soldiers in light of the lack of deployments since 2014 - as a buddy of mine said, we're better off without a whole bunch of guys looking like bus drivers in nice suits.  The way some of you talk, you'd only be happy if nobody had a medal unless they were shot at or blown up.

As well, I think this mission will be a good opportunity for the Army.  I can speak from a position of authority in saying that a good percentage of soldiers releasing in the last few years is due to lack of opportunity to deploy somewhere and see something beyond Wainwright or Petawawa.  A six month deployment allowing soldiers to participate in some excellent NATO training opportunities while also seeing a different part of the world will be good for our troops.


----------



## brihard (2 Jul 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I suspect the Operational Service Medal (Expedition) will be retroactively issued for all Op REASSURANCE deployments as well as for the upcoming participation in this NATO Brigade.  It fits the criteria of the award and, with the 30 day threshold, will be better applicable than the 6 month requirement for the SSM(NATO).
> 
> I think it is entirely fair and worthwhile in issuing this.  Operational service decorations are not issued for any specific degree of risk - I'd venture that a majority of the UN/NATO medals worn by service members involve tours without getting shot at (I have one myself).  This deployment represents fulfilling an important service in support of our national policies, just as much as a Cyprus or 4 CMBG tour (both which were appropriately recognized with medals).  As well, I think it is good for morale and recognition for our soldiers in light of the lack of deployments since 2014 - as a buddy of mine said, we're better off without a whole bunch of guys looking like bus drivers in nice suits.  The way some of you talk, you'd only be happy if nobody had a medal unless they were shot at or blown up.
> 
> As well, I think this mission will be a good opportunity for the Army.  I can speak from a position of authority in saying that a good percentage of soldiers releasing in the last few years is due to lack of opportunity to deploy somewhere and see something beyond Wainwright or Petawawa.  A six month deployment allowing soldiers to participate in some excellent NATO training opportunities while also seeing a different part of the world will be good for our troops.



Nope, I think that this is an excellent opportunity for the army- arguably, moreso than the latter part of Afghanistan, as we desperately need to reconstitute our capacity for conventional warfare. We got too used to a third rate enemy. I don't actually have an issue with a medal being awarded, hence my pondering of the SSM-Nato. It fits essentially the same purpose and risks as our erstwhile NATO commitments. I have a very modest rack that I earned, and am not competitive over it. Obviously the combat arms cannot refrain from dick measuring, so there will me medal angst over this. Whether it's SSM-Nato, or OSM-Exp, or whatever, all good with me.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (3 Jul 2016)

I think that it is a good mission. We show our resolve to support our NATO allies and our troops have the chance to train and serve away from home  in a realistic multi-national environment. I hope that the troops who conduct this mission get some form of recognition such as the SSM NATO or some other medal.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jul 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I suspect the Operational Service Medal (Expedition) will be retroactively issued for all Op REASSURANCE deployments as well as for the upcoming participation in this NATO Brigade.  It fits the criteria of the award and, with the 30 day threshold, will be better applicable than the 6 month requirement for the SSM(NATO).



I'd trade all of those medals for some good Medium Range LLAD and a battery of MLRS.


----------



## RocketRichard (3 Jul 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I suspect the Operational Service Medal (Expedition) will be retroactively issued for all Op REASSURANCE deployments as well as for the upcoming participation in this NATO Brigade.  It fits the criteria of the award and, with the 30 day threshold, will be better applicable than the 6 month requirement for the SSM(NATO).
> 
> I think it is entirely fair and worthwhile in issuing this.  Operational service decorations are not issued for any specific degree of risk - I'd venture that a majority of the UN/NATO medals worn by service members involve tours without getting shot at (I have one myself).  This deployment represents fulfilling an important service in support of our national policies, just as much as a Cyprus or 4 CMBG tour (both which were appropriately recognized with medals).  As well, I think it is good for morale and recognition for our soldiers in light of the lack of deployments since 2014 - as a buddy of mine said, we're better off without a whole bunch of guys looking like bus drivers in nice suits.  The way some of you talk, you'd only be happy if nobody had a medal unless they were shot at or blown up.
> 
> As well, I think this mission will be a good opportunity for the Army.  I can speak from a position of authority in saying that a good percentage of soldiers releasing in the last few years is due to lack of opportunity to deploy somewhere and see something beyond Wainwright or Petawawa.  A six month deployment allowing soldiers to participate in some excellent NATO training opportunities while also seeing a different part of the world will be good for our troops.


Wholeheartedly concur. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Castus (3 Jul 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'd trade all of those medals for some good Medium Range LLAD and a battery of MLRS.



Throw some ATGM to the battalions and brigades and I'm in for this.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Jul 2016)

The OSM(E) is being issued for other operations, how would you distinguish between them for someone who might end up with being on multiple ops?  I have seen someone with two Article 5 ribbons side by side.  Very American.  Would a bar to accompany the medal not be a good idea to show where you've been etc?


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jul 2016)

OSM-EXP has about 5 missions listed, none of them related. Who cares if we added another?

That being said, the system is designed to be able to add theatre ribbons, so if this is a long term mission, create the OSM-NATO using the same medal and new ribbon to denote the service to MAPLE RESOLVE.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (3 Jul 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'd trade all of those medals for some good Medium Range LLAD and a battery of MLRS.



I am sure that everybody would do that, but our lack of air defence and MLRS has nothing to do with medals. 

I do believe that air defence is high on the priority list right now for the army. For a battalion-sized element, though, things like integral anti-armour and mortars are more pressing. Air defence and long range rockets should be provided by the higher formation.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Jul 2016)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> For a battalion-sized element, though, things like integral anti-armour and mortars are more pressing.


Maybe build, say, an integral company-sized element....that could provide some basic engineering functions, maybe some anti-armour, a bit of indirect fire support, hell, maybe throw some recce and sniper folks in there.....

Nah, that would never work.  Madness.   


/tangent


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jul 2016)

I am curious, why you don't consider the SSM-NATO to be adequate?  Is it just not to be associated with the old "Cold Warriors", or that you don't feel it has any similarity to what 4 CMBG, the Nato Standing Fleet and ACE Mobile Forces did?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jul 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Maybe build, say, an integral company-sized element....that could provide some basic engineering functions, maybe some anti-armour, a bit of indirect fire support, hell, maybe throw some recce and sniper folks in there.....
> 
> Nah, that would never work.  Madness.
> 
> ...




But....That would mean that we would have to bring back the M2......AGAIN.   [


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am curious, why you don't consider the SSM-NATO to be adequate?  Is it just not to be associated with the old "Cold Warriors", or that you don't feel it has any similarity to what 4 CMBG, the Nato Standing Fleet and ACE Mobile Forces did?



This sounds about right (from SSM-NATO description):



> 4. NATO
> 
> (Authorized by PC 2006-0810)
> 
> ...



Also, considering OP REASSURANCE is eligible service for SSM-NATO, no need for OSM-EXP.



> 647 	NATO Standing Defence Plan deployed to Turkey 	2012-12-04 	Present 	OP ACTIVE FENCE
> 648 	TF Iceland 	2013-03-18 	Present 	OP IGNITION
> 649 	Service of CAF members who deployed to campia Turzii, Romania, Lithuania and Spangdahlem airbase in Germany as part of the air task force (ATF). 	2014-04-29 	Present 	OP REASSURANCE
> 650 	Service of CAF members who deployed to eastern and central Europe as part of the Land Task Force (LTF). 	2014-04-29 	Present 	OP REASSURANCE
> 651 	Service à bord des navires canadiens de Sa Majesté déployés dans le cadre du groupe maritime permanent OTAN 2 (SNMG 2) à condition que le service ne soit pas reconnu par une médaille de l'OTAN. Seul le temps passé sous commandement de l'OTAN est admissible - temps de transit ne compte pas.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am curious, why you don't consider the SSM-NATO to be adequate?  Is it just not to be associated with the old "Cold Warriors", or that you don't feel it has any similarity to what 4 CMBG, the Nato Standing Fleet and ACE Mobile Forces did?



Actually, I believe they were too hasty with closing out the SSM-NATO.  The navy, in particular, still does NATO fleet deployments which in the past was recognised with the SSM.  With this being a NATO mission to Latvia then I suppose it could go either way.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jul 2016)

Breaking news - recently appointed to review deployments.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> But....That would mean that we would have to bring back the M2......AGAIN.   [


Not to mention giving mortars back to the infantry ...


----------



## Furniture (3 Jul 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Actually, I believe they were too hasty with closing out the SSM-NATO.  The navy, in particular, still does NATO fleet deployments which in the past was recognised with the SSM.  With this being a NATO mission to Latvia then I suppose it could go either way.



Time as a member of SNMG 1 and 2 still counts toward the SSM-NATO as long as that time doesn't count toward another Op like Active Endeavor. The thing is you don't get the time unless you belong to the SNMG, so sailing for a few exercises in the fall doesn't count.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (3 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> This sounds about right (from SSM-NATO description):
> 
> Also, considering OP REASSURANCE is eligible service for SSM-NATO, no need for OSM-EXP.



Wait for it. The SSM-NATO for OP REASSURANCE was recinded by CDS Directive FRAG 001. AFC is looking to roll Op REASSURANCE and Op UNIFIER under the same medal. And as UNIFIER is not a NATO mission, it look like the Cold War 2 medal will be something along the lines of a GSM or OSM with a theatre specific ribbon.


----------



## fake penguin (3 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Not to mention giving mortars back to the infantry ...



Did they take away the 60mm motor?


----------



## LightFighter (3 Jul 2016)

fake penguin said:
			
		

> Did they take away the 60mm motor?



Yes

https://youtube.com/watch?v=VTsMljMXzeI


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jul 2016)

Rather than worry about medals, I'd be more concerned how the Trudeau Grits and VAC are going to treat our soldiers if SHTF and they come home injured. They should really sort out that mess before putting any more of our troops into harms way.  Soldiers shouldn't have think about shit like that when deployed as an extention of the government, quite possibly in harms way.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jul 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Rather than worry about medals, I'd be more concerned how the Trudeau Grits and VAC are going to treat our soldiers if SHTF and they come home injured. *They should really sort out that mess before putting any more of our troops into harm's way.*


Given the system wasn't fixed over ten years under Team Blue, and it'll still take a _*LOAD*_ of $ to fix under Team Red that they'd rather spend elsewhere, it would be a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time before any new deployments would happen under those circimstances.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (3 Jul 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Rather than worry about medals, I'd be more concerned how the Trudeau Grits and VAC are going to treat our soldiers if SHTF and they come home injured. They should really sort out that mess before putting any more of our troops into harms way.  Soldiers shouldn't have think about crap like that when deployed as an extention of the government, quite possibly in harms way.



If Afghanistan (and the ensuing debacle after the fact) was any indication, we have the answer already. Blue or Red, we're disposable to the government de jure.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Given the system wasn't fixed over ten years under Team Blue, and it'll still take a _*LOAD*_ of $ to fix under Team Red that they'd rather spend elsewhere, it would be a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time before any new deployments would happen under those circimstances.



Nobody gets injured on non-combat missions, right? Right?! Willing to bet this was the most risk-adverse option of "doing something" after Trudeau saw the INTREPs from the various "peacekeeping" debacles around the world.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Nobody gets injured on non-combat missions, right? Right?!


1)  Until there's combat  :nod:
2)  Still beats sending troops into combat _knowing_ the system wasn't working, right?



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Willing to bet this was the most risk-adverse option of "doing something" after Trudeau saw the INTREPs from the various "peacekeeping" debacles around the world.


Well, I'll give Prince Valiant's people credit for at least READING the material _if_ that's the case ...


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jul 2016)

They were probably trying to find a line that linked the rise of Islamic terrorism to climate change to justify the billions they spent immediately on taking office.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Jul 2016)

Either way,  I'm sure it's all Alberta's fault.   Fracking or Tar Sands...


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am curious, why you don't consider the SSM-NATO to be adequate?  Is it just not to be associated with the old "Cold Warriors", or that you don't feel it has any similarity to what 4 CMBG, the Nato Standing Fleet and ACE Mobile Forces did?



The 180-day requirement does not recognize many of the earlier deployments, which were shorter in nature.  I suspect this is what triggered the recent decision to move away from the SSM to a new form of recognition.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jul 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The 180-day requirement does not recognize many of the earlier deployments, which were shorter in nature.  I suspect this is what triggered the recent decision to move away from the SSM to a new form of recognition.



Which doesn't make any sense, because on the eligibility chart you have entries like this:



> UN Force in Cyprus - UNFICYP. 	1964-03-27 	1965-03-26 	service days are multiplied by six



http://forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-awards/ssm.page

Which could easily negate the issue with shorter deployments. As long as they put the SAV, TAV and SIV rider that those days do not count as qualifying service, we'd be good to go with SSM-NATO.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jul 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The 180-day requirement does not recognize many of the earlier deployments, which were shorter in nature.  I suspect this is what triggered the recent decision to move away from the SSM to a new form of recognition.



How is this different from any other medal that has similar criteria?  If you don't meet the criteria, you are not entitled.  We all know that.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (4 Jul 2016)

I am sure that the medal issue will be worked out. It would seem to be an SSM-NATO style of mission, but perhaps with the timeframe set to ensure that folks who deploy for more than three months but less than six still get the medal.

More interesting will be the work-up training requirements. Will the troops going to Latvia go through a whole "road to war" before deployment or will they use the deployment itself as collective training? One option to keep the troops sharp might be to conduct a thorough admin DAG and IBTS in Canada with perhaps collective training up to Level 3. They would then conduct the rest of their collective training in Europe, using those good training areas.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jul 2016)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I am sure that the medal issue will be worked out. It would seem to be an SSM-NATO style of mission, but perhaps with the timeframe set to ensure that folks who deploy for more than three months but less than six still get the medal.



The criteria of 180 days does not specify "consecutive days".  It could be cumulative, as stated: "An aggregate of 180 days of honourable service".   As this is to be a six month deployment, it should not be a problem.  If people are so set on getting a gong, perhaps a couple deployments may be necessary to meet the criteria.  No need to degrade it lower to be a "gimme" medal.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Jul 2016)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I am sure that the medal issue will be worked out. It would seem to be an SSM-NATO style of mission, but perhaps with the timeframe set to ensure that folks who deploy for more than three months but less than six still get the medal.
> 
> More interesting will be the work-up training requirements. Will the troops going to Latvia go through a whole "road to war" before deployment or will they use the deployment itself as collective training? One option to keep the troops sharp might be to conduct a thorough admin DAG and IBTS in Canada with perhaps collective training up to Level 3. They would then conduct the rest of their collective training in Europe, using those good training areas.



They should watch this video a lot. The Bridge Demolition Guards will likely be 'all the rage' given NATO timidity on the face of Russian obnoxiousness: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kspwZdqqCjg


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (4 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The criteria of 180 days does not specify "consecutive days".  It could be cumulative, as stated: "An aggregate of 180 days of honourable service".   As this is to be a six month deployment, it should not be a problem.  If people are so set on getting a gong, perhaps a couple deployments may be necessary to meet the criteria.  No need to degrade it lower to be a "gimme" medal.



I don't think that going under 180 days makes it a "gimme" medal, although to be honest I am not sure what you mean by "gimme" medal. My  understanding of the SSM-NATO medal was that it was brought in the 90s to recognize the Germany folks. They probably went over 180 days to exclude "flyovers" and others not posted to Germany. This mission may well be 180 days, but it could be just under that limit for some folks. I do not see the point in being so strict - go with 90 days. If the SSM NATO is so sacred then by all means make a new medal. I do think, however, that troops who go abroad for this duration as part of the demonstration of national resolve should be recognized. Nobody would admit to this being important, but I figure that it should be ironed out.

Regarding the Bridge Demolition Guard video, the Brits always had the best training videos. I remember watching that one in the early 90s. I might just make my students watch it on the next Tut 2!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jul 2016)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I don't think that going under 180 days makes it a "gimme" medal, although to be honest I am not sure what you mean by "gimme" medal. My  understanding of the SSM-NATO medal was that it was brought in the 90s to recognize the Germany folks. They probably went over 180 days to exclude "flyovers" and others not posted to Germany. This mission may well be 180 days, but it could be just under that limit for some folks. I do not see the point in being so strict - go with 90 days. If the SSM NATO is so sacred then by all means make a new medal. I do think, however, that troops who go abroad for this duration as part of the demonstration of national resolve should be recognized. Nobody would admit to this being important, but I figure that it should be ironed out.
> 
> Regarding the Bridge Demolition Guard video, the Brits always had the best training videos. I remember watching that one in the early 90s. I might just make my students watch it on the next Tut 2!



If we make the gongs big enough, you can plant them as faux AT mines on the roads in an attempt to slow down their armour.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (4 Jul 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> If we make the gongs big enough, you can plant them as faux AT mines on the roads in an attempt to slow down their armour.



The point is that there should be some form of recognition - its about morale. Its not something that keeps me awake at night, but its something that should be considered. 

This deployment should be a great opportunity for training and showing our resolve to our NATO allies. We might even learn something along the way and end up with an even more capable army.


----------



## medicineman (4 Jul 2016)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> The point is that there should be some form of recognition - its about morale. Its not something that keeps me awake at night, but its something that should be considered.



I'm sure the Army Sgt Maj will have a badge for that soon enough...  ;D

MM


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Jul 2016)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I'm sure the Army Sgt Maj will have a badge for that soon enough...  ;D
> 
> MM



Because that obviously was more important than reviewing all the pesky little details of deploying into a potentially hostile environment.

I know that's not fair, but the army has made itself into an easy target.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Jul 2016)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I am sure that the medal issue will be worked out. It would seem to be an SSM-NATO style of mission, but perhaps with the timeframe set to ensure that folks who deploy for more than three months but less than six still get the medal.



If IMPACT is any indication of the 'medal issue', I wouldn't hold my breath.

Important stuff;  what about the equipment side...how many serviceable LAVs and stuff are floating around these days?  Tanks going to beef up the India C/Ss?  Stuff like that...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (5 Jul 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Because that obviously was more important than reviewing all the pesky little details of deploying into a potentially hostile environment.
> 
> I know that's not fair, but the army has made itself into an easy target.



Do you really think that the Army's first concern about this is the medal? I am sure that the CJOC and Army staff folks are working on the key issues of what force to send, how to send it, how to sustain it etc.


----------



## CBH99 (5 Jul 2016)

I was going to say - I'm surprised a majority of the conversation so far has revolved around what medal will be awarded, and not the size & composition of the force.

I'd imagine we actually do have more than enough equipment to send a rather highly equipped battalion sized force.  


The Army has quite a few more M777's now than it did in Afghanistan.  The LAV's are upgraded.

Is TOW actually back?  I've heard different things, but all of the things I've heard have been from credible people - which makes it even more confusing.  (There is a chap on here, can't remember his nickname - who did a TOW shoot recently and had pictures to prove it.)

This deployment might be a *FANTASTIC* opportunity for the military to showcase to the public just what it doesn't have.  Trucks.  Air defence platforms of any kind.  ATGM capability.  All things that are relatively easy to acquire & integrate back into our forces, and wouldn't cost much.

With this force only being a battalion sized force, I think we will be fine in sending a pretty good looking force.  Minus some key capabilities that our allies will have to bring to the table.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Jul 2016)

I think I read on CBC (can't find the article just now) that the force will include tanks, artillery, infantry, engineers, armoured reconnaissance totalling about 1000 personnel and that all of this is in addition to a separate "leadership" role (whatever that means).


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jul 2016)

Sounds like it will be a standard Infantry-based Battle Group with Canadians also filling in what will undoubtedly be a large Bde HQ (seems to be the rule with multinational HQs).


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jul 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I was going to say - I'm surprised a majority of the conversation so far has revolved around what medal will be awarded, and not the size & composition of the force.
> 
> I'd imagine we actually do have more than enough equipment to send a rather highly equipped battalion sized force.
> 
> ...



Don't forget the full sized digging tools and SKOP kits, fer Gawd's sake man!


----------



## CBH99 (5 Jul 2016)

How could I have forgotten such essential tools!?  My bad, my bad...


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jul 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I was going to say - I'm surprised a majority of the conversation so far has revolved around what medal will be awarded, and not the size & composition of the force.



You'd be surprised on what meaning a little piece of ribbon can have, and why it is probably worth the discussion.


----------



## CBH99 (5 Jul 2016)

I wouldn't be surprised.  I was in for a wee while, remember??   

Not saying it isn't worth the discussion.  Just surprised that the size, structure, assets, etc being deployed wasn't being discussed with more concern/enthusiasm.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Sounds like it will be a standard Infantry-based Battle Group with Canadians also filling in what will undoubtedly be a large Bde HQ (seems to be the rule with multinational HQs).



Sounds like a few more than 500. Just sayin'


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be surprised.  I was in for a wee while, remember??
> 
> Not saying it isn't worth the discussion.  Just surprised that the size, structure, assets, etc being deployed wasn't being discussed with more concern/enthusiasm.


Well,hate to be the pessimist but what are the chances these assets get used in their intended role? Secondly, if used, how long do they last?

Answers, very unlike and if they do not long.

Might as well talk about medals.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jul 2016)

Russian state media:  no firm confirmation via the Latvian def ministry ...


> Canada may become one of the countries, whose soldiers will be stationed in Latvia after the NATO summit in Warsaw but this does not mean that there will be 1,000 troops deployed, Latvian Chief of Defense Raimonds Graube said Monday.
> 
> "There won't be 1,000 soldiers from the same country on Latvian soil because, not only NATO, but we are also interested in many states participating in the exercises in Latvia," Graube said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lightguns (5 Jul 2016)

My daughter is in a high readiness unit right now, the last thing they are talking is medals and ribbons.


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> My daughter is in a high readiness unit right now, the last thing they are talking is medals and ribbons.


I can personally tell you I don't give a damn about medals, nor do I really care about what assets are deployed.

I just want to go somewhere.


----------



## Lightguns (5 Jul 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I can personally tell you I don't give a damn about medals, nor do I really care about what assets are deployed.
> 
> I just want to go somewhere.



Nail meet head.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (5 Jul 2016)

I conducted a couple of liaison visits with the Latvian/Estonian/Lithuanian and Polish armies a few years ago and have served with troops from those armies on two missions abroad. This should be a very good mission for our army in terms of the experience that the troops will gain. Our troops should get to conduct realistic training with NATO partners (the Baltic NATO folks plus the US, Brits, Germans etc) in some new areas while supporting our allies. I imagine that battle groups will rotate through the vehicles that deploy which will likely involve some angst, but I suppose that is part of being in the army.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Jul 2016)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I conducted a couple of liaison visits with the Latvian/Estonian/Lithuanian and Polish armies a few years ago and have served with troops from those armies on two missions abroad. This should be a very good mission for our army in terms of the experience that the troops will gain. Our troops should get to conduct realistic training with NATO partners (the Baltic NATO folks plus the US, Brits, Germans etc) in some new areas while supporting our allies. I imagine that battle groups will rotate through the vehicles that deploy which will likely involve some angst, but I suppose that is part of being in the army.



You mean things like noise discipline, light discipline, etc are going to come back in style?  [


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jul 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sounds like a few more than 500. Just sayin'



Yes, probably closer to the "up to a 1000" number mentioned in the articles.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Jul 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> You mean things like noise discipline, light discipline, etc are going to come back in style?  [



Yep!

As Roman (the cartoonist) once said: "This chicken-sh** outfit is the only place they make you drive with your lights on during the day, and off during the night."  [


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jul 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> My daughter is in a high readiness unit right now, the last thing they are talking is medals and ribbons.



I've commanded soldiers through the high-readiness ringer a couple times in the last few years, and nor did we.  However, I've seen insufficient or extremely tardy recognition for soldiers come through the pipeline for both individual and group achievements, and it does get discussed.  There is nothing wrong in ensuring soldiers receive appropriate recognition for their actions, hence why the discussion likely came about.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yep!
> 
> As Roman (the cartoonist) once said: "This chicken-sh** outfit is the only place they make you drive with your lights on during the day, and off during the night."  [



Ummmm?  That is what we used to do.  It worked well.  

Of course we were (4 CMBG) Recce and were always a thorn in the side of our opponents.


----------



## Lightguns (5 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ummmm?  That is what we used to do.  It worked well.
> 
> Of course we were (4 CMBG) Recce and were always a thorn in the side of our opponents.



By opponents, you mean 4CMBG HQ, right?


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jul 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I can personally tell you I don't give a damn about medals, nor do I really care about what assets are deployed.
> 
> I just want to go somewhere.(other than Wainwright, Gagetown etc etc)



FTFY


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yep!
> 
> As Roman (the cartoonist) once said: "This chicken-sh** outfit is the only place they make you drive with your lights on during the day, and off during the night."  [



and "Take away your watch when you retire"  [


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> FTFY


I do not consider the middle of nowhere somewhere.


----------



## medicineman (5 Jul 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I do not consider the middle of nowhere somewhere.



You really are a glass half empty kinda guy aren't you :?  Wainwright is in the middle of the Canadian prairies and Gagetown is in the middle of New Brunswick - if you've been to both, you've seen more of Canada than about 90% of Canadians.  I used to work in a place where people considered "going away" to be driving an hour in either direction down the Trans Canada; they had a hard time believing that due to being in the CAF and where I've been in my life, that I've literally lived in, worked or visited all three territories and eight out of ten provinces.  As the vast majority of a soldier's life is spent training, I'd get used to those places, since you're not going to be on deployment for your whole life, and certainly not going to get to go where you want to and when.  

BTW, just a simple observation, but I get the impression that no matter where you end up, you probably won't be happy, deployment or otherwise, unless you stop feeling sorry for yourself and look for the silver lining in what you do have...first and foremost, one of the best jobs you can get in this country.

MM


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2016)

medicineman said:
			
		

> You really are a glass half empty kinda guy aren't you :?  Wainwright is in the middle of the Canadian prairies and Gagetown is in the middle of New Brunswick - if you've been to both, you've seen more of Canada than about 90% of Canadians.  I used to work in a place where people considered "going away" to be driving an hour in either direction down the Trans Canada; they had a hard time believing that due to being in the CAF and where I've been in my life, that I've literally lived in, worked or visited all three territories and eight out of ten provinces.  As the vast majority of a soldier's life is spent training, I'd get used to those places, since you're not going to be on deployment for your whole life, and certainly not going to get to go where you want to and when.
> 
> BTW, just a simple observation, but I get the impression that no matter where you end up, you probably won't be happy, deployment or otherwise, unless you stop feeling sorry for yourself and look for the silver lining in what you do have...first and foremost, one of the best jobs you can get in this country.
> 
> MM


They were kind of nice the first two or three times. I've been to them more than two or three times.

And I didn't get med tech, I got sigs [lol:


----------



## medicineman (5 Jul 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> They were kind of nice the first two or three times. I've been to them more than two or three times.
> 
> And I didn't get med tech, I got sigs [lol:



You're still being negative - you're in the CAF and you're getting paid...start with that.  And I've been to Wainwright more than just 2 or 3 times in my life and I spent 4 years in Gagetown - watch the birds, watch the suicidal ground squirrels get run over, bet on how many vehicles will dodge them or they'll dodge, etc.  Feel greatful you're getting LDA and such.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Jul 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yep!
> 
> As Roman (the cartoonist) once said: "This chicken-sh** outfit is the only place they make you drive with your lights on during the day, and off during the night."  [



Oh and lets not forget "why things are seen" aka Cam and Concealment. :camo:


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2016)

medicineman said:
			
		

> You're still being negative - you're in the CAF and you're getting paid...start with that.  And I've been to Wainwright more than just 2 or 3 times in my life and I spent 4 years in Gagetown - watch the birds, watch the suicidal ground squirrels get run over, bet on how many vehicles will dodge them or they'll dodge, etc.  Feel greatful you're getting LDA and such.
> 
> MM


I didn't join the forces for the money. I joined for the travel, excitement and the feeling that I was making a difference.

I'm happy that the forces make/made you happy by satisfying your expectations. Maybe one day soon I can join you being happy as well.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Jul 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I didn't join the forces for the money. I joined for the travel, excitement and the feeling that I was making a difference.
> 
> I'm happy that the forces make/made you happy by satisfying your expectations. Maybe one day soon I can join you being happy as well.



In my 16 years, I found that you make your own happiness (or misery) largely by the attitude you have when confronted with challenges.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (5 Jul 2016)

So.........back to the topic at hand:

I wonder if this mass deployment will be enough to slay the JOINTEX dragon we dread every 2 years. One can hope right? ;D


----------



## Ludoc (5 Jul 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I do not consider the middle of nowhere somewhere.


Then I don't think you are going to like Latvia.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jul 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I didn't join the forces for the money. I joined for the travel, excitement and the feeling that I was making a difference.
> 
> I'm happy that the forces make/made you happy by satisfying your expectations. Maybe one day soon I can join you being happy as well.



The other side of the coin with deploying and "making a difference" is getting into a trade/unit you are gone a lot from your postal code.  It's neat and all that at first, but the novelty wears off when you are out the door more often than you'd like to be.  Short term, fast ball things that have you missing other parts of your life.  So far this year, the only month I've been home the whole time?  April...because I was on post-deployment leave.  I'm including July in that...

So the grass is greener, in some ways, whether you are at either end of the spear.   I'd rather be having my morning coffee in my house tomorrow, but that ain't happening.  :2c:

Russia is starting to turn the clock back in more ways than one...https://www.rt.com/usa/345380-us-navy-russian-subs/


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Jul 2016)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> So.........back to the topic at hand:
> 
> I wonder if this mass deployment will be enough to slay the JOINTEX dragon we dread every 2 years. One can hope right? ;D



Doubtful... if anything it'll make JOINTEX more relevant. JOINTEX, Ex MAPLE RESOLVE, etc aren't bad by themselves and are necessary evils. If we're going to re-start the Cold War we may as well jump in with 2 feet. Though I still think the need to shield Russia is pointless, it does provide a good Joint training opportunity that we should try to leverage. Perhaps it'll lead to GBAMD, AT, STA assets that work, etc and training opportunities that have an actual end state (prep a BG to work within a Multi-National Bde/Div).


----------



## Castus (5 Jul 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Doubtful... if anything it'll make JOINTEX more relevant. JOINTEX, Ex MAPLE RESOLVE, etc aren't bad by themselves and are necessary evils. If we're going to re-start the Cold War we may as well jump in with 2 feet. Though I still think the need to shield Russia is pointless, it does provide a good Joint training opportunity that we should try to leverage. Perhaps it'll lead to GBAMD, AT, STA assets that work, etc and training opportunities that have an actual end state (prep a BG to work within a Multi-National Bde/Div).



It will certainly highlight the Army's lack of integral and important assets in its OOB. Whether or not the government of the day recognises this and decides to fix it is an entirely different problem. I am not sanguine, judging by historical precedent.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jul 2016)

Castus said:
			
		

> It will certainly highlight the Army's lack of integral and important assets in its OOB. Whether or not the government of the day recognises this and decides to fix it is an entirely different problem. I am not sanguine, judging by historical precedent.



Since "capability gap" is the new political word of the week.... You're right, none of us should hold our breath.


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> In my 16 years, I found that you make your own happiness (or misery) largely by the attitude you have when confronted with challenges.


If by finding my own happiness by doing some other noble calling such as policing or firefighting where I feel that I can contribute and make a difference, the thoughts have crossed my mind.

Thank you for the suggestion though, it is a good one.


----------



## cupper (5 Jul 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I do not consider the middle of nowhere somewhere.



That could severely limit your options.  [


----------



## dimsum (6 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So the grass is greener, in some ways, whether you are at either end of the spear.   I'd rather be having my morning coffee in my house tomorrow, but that ain't happening.  :2c:



Me too, but sipping on 100% Kona (or so they tell me) in a hotel room in Waikiki isn't that shabby either  

And how is being in Sigs not contributing?  Isn't the saying "No Comms, No Bombs"?


----------



## CBH99 (6 Jul 2016)

Altair, 

I think you hit the nail on the head (as I think I've stated before in a different thread)

People join the military to make a difference & do it in an interesting way.  Whether it is peacekeeping in some region with a lot of ethnic or political unrest, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, warfighting, security work in foreign countries, etc - people join the military because they genuinely want to make a difference in the world.

In our recruiting campaigns, that is what we promise people.  A chance to serve their communities, see the world, help people in foreign lands, and make a difference of some kind.  What we fail to tell people in the recruiting campaigns (and understandably so) - is that those opportunities don't come up very often, depending on what element/trade you are in.

Some trades, you are gone all the time.  Always something interesting going on.  And while that can be tiring after a while, it can be a dream job for many.  In other trades, you are lucky if you get to do anything more than the odd foreign training exercise.

It is hard to blame people for wanting to leave the military & pursue a career in the emergency services.  Stable career, more excitement, you actually get to DO your job every single shift, and you KNOW you are making a difference in your community.  It is also hard to blame people for jumping ship when many emergency services tend to prioritize ex-military folks when hiring.  

**Sorry mods - was responding to what Altair was saying.  I probably should have put this in a different thread.**


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jul 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> In my 16 years, I found that you make your own happiness (or misery) largely by the attitude *you* have when confronted with challenges.


   :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jul 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Me too, but sipping on 100% Kona (or so they tell me) in a hotel room in Waikiki isn't that shabby either



My location isn't that bad, it's the _'gone again, not sure until when' _part combined with the _'had to cancel leave I had planned with Mrs EITS' _ for a fastball only a few days after finding out I had to cancel leave later in the summer that we had planned, plus the Ready X weekends where you can't make plans, plus the deployments and exercises  :blah:.  The 'fun' of being away can lose its luster...

Not sure you'll get any "awww, there there" now that people know where you are 'suffering' at!   >


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jul 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Altair,
> 
> I think you hit the nail on the head (as I think I've stated before in a different thread)
> 
> ...



It has relevance indirectly.  Some people will find out they are going out the door for this and be like "f**k ya!"  and others will be "f**k me...really?".

When I was joining, the main reason I wanted to was to get to Germany as was common back in the day.  Shortly after I did, it was shut down.  Latvia isn't Germany, but it isn't the Lawfield Corridor either.


----------



## Lightguns (6 Jul 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Altair,
> 
> I think you hit the nail on the head (as I think I've stated before in a different thread)
> 
> ...



A lot of them folks quickly become disappointed.  When I joined, myself and everyone around me in TQ3 infantry was a maritimer.  Almost all joined because the local plant went under and there was nothing else because Trudeau V1 had rigged the oil and gas industry.  We joined to eat and get paid.  That being said most of them stayed for the full 20 or in some case 32 and 34 years.   I have met the dreamers that wanted to save the world, they were very motivated to that one task but not so much so to sweeping the gun park floor.  The worst I ever met was the military photographer who thought she would be taking pictures of starving Africans to tell their story to the world, she left on a medical release over the stress of being on an army base taking pictures of "war mongering" equipment.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Jul 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> The worst I ever met was the military photographer who thought she would be taking pictures of starving Africans to tell their story to the world, she left on a medical release over the stress of being on an army base taking pictures of "war mongering" equipment.



 :  not the first and I'm sure not the last bonehead to make it through the system.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Jul 2016)

You misunderstand her, JJT.

She was an artiste, and therefore had to be seen to embrace a social cause in the exercise of her art. She was sooooo misunderstood in the CF.  :nod:

You also have the reverse: Realistic members of the artistic community. One of my EOOW was actually a McGill Music school grad. She now works as a shift manager in a call centre for Bell Canada. She always knew music is nice, but eating and having a roof over your head is better.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Jul 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You misunderstand her, JJT.
> 
> She was an artiste, and therefore had to be seen to embrace a social cause in the exercise of her art. She was sooooo misunderstood in the CF.  :nod:
> I've always been an insensitive bastard, so I'm told.
> ...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (6 Jul 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Altair,
> 
> I think you hit the nail on the head (as I think I've stated before in a different thread)
> 
> ...



Why blame anyone for leaving?  As long as they finish their contract and leave honourably then who really cares?  When I joined (2005), the number one reason anyone was joining was because of Afghanistan.  In fact, For Combat Arms types, it was the only reason.  Once the war ended, we had a large number of folks leave because that opportunity was no longer there.  

Peacetime soldiering is boring, especially in the combat arms because all the training money dries up and the powers that be start to focus on other things, namely pomp and ceremony.  For those who still find enjoyment from it, good on you, you're helping maintain a vital national institution.  For everyone else though, if you're unhappy, make a plan and get out.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Jul 2016)

Back on track (by the way: track mileage... has anyone complained about not having enough of that yet?  )

I watched this episode of 'Hard Talk' on BBC and thought it was very good:

US Nato general fears rapid Russian troop deployments

The commander of US troops in Europe says Nato cannot rapidly deploy large forces to Eastern Europe in the way that Russia can.

Lt-Gen Ben Hodges was speaking to the BBC's Hardtalk programme during large Nato exercises in north-western Poland.

"The Russians are able to move huge formations and lots of equipment a long distance very fast," he said.

Nato needs to have that speed too, he said. "Three days' notification, we ought to be able to do that," he said. 

More than 31,000 troops from 24 nations took part in Nato's Anaconda-16 exercises in Poland, from 7 to 17 June. 

The day after they ended, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned Nato against "sabre-rattling and warmongering", calling for exercises to be replaced with more dialogue and co-operation with Russia. "Whoever believes that symbolic tank parades in Eastern Europe bring more security, is mistaken," he told Bild newspaper.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36575180


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Jul 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Back on track (by the way: track mileage... has anyone complained about not having enough of that yet?  )
> 
> I watched this episode of 'Hard Talk' on BBC and thought it was very good:
> 
> ...



Interior lines is a Russian advantage,but could they invade their former East bloc neighbors ? I doubt it.They took what they wanted in the Ukraine but were unable to seize the country.


----------



## Altair (6 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Interior lines is a Russian advantage,but could they invade their former East bloc neighbors ? I doubt it.They took what they wanted in the Ukraine but were unable to seize the country.


unable or unwilling?


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Interior lines is a Russian advantage,but could they invade their former East bloc neighbors ? I doubt it.They took what they wanted in the Ukraine but were unable to seize the country.



I'm guessing that, because the Euro-trash have no traction with Ivan, Uncle Sam said 'back off or else' through covert channels.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jul 2016)

Crimea was a carefully planned operation, Donetsk appears to have been an adhoc operation that was an opportunity that presented itself. However the same Ukrainian issues we have to deal with, I believe they struggle with as well. Putin I think does not see a lot of value in increasing exposure to Russian troops for what he might get. I suspect there are other areas that might be more worthwhile and currently Syria is being productive from a PR, training and providing diplomatic playing cards.


----------



## observor 69 (6 Jul 2016)

Not Lativa but very interesting reporting.
Watched this last night on PBS Newshour:

Desire to break free keeps Donetsk fighting​

10:46Video duration: 10:46 Aired: 07/05/16 Rating: NR

In Eastern Ukraine, there’s supposed to be a cease-fire, but the fighting starts again every night. For two years, soldiers for the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic -- with the backing of Russia -- have fought the Ukrainian government to gain autonomy. Special correspondent Nick Schifrin reports from the front lines, in partnership with the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting

http://www.pbs.org/video/2365796715/


----------



## CBH99 (6 Jul 2016)

Fantastic video on the link, Baden Guy.

It really puts parts of that situation in perspective.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jul 2016)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> In Eastern Ukraine, there’s supposed to be a cease-fire, but the fighting starts again every night. For two years, soldiers for the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic -- *with the backing of Russia * ...


... but not QUITE to the point of saying, "we want Donetsk to be its own country" (that would have to be supported by RUS, no doubt) -- more like "backing to the point of keeping Donbas a royal pain in the butt for Ukraine, or to get Ukraine to set up a federalist regime that'll be easy to keep off balance."


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jul 2016)

<allied sidebar>
Look who else may be deploying where ...


> Germany's decision to deploy a battalion of troops to Lithuania under a NATO initiative marks a "mindset breakthrough" for Berlin towards taking a leading role in European defence, the Lithuanian president said Thursday.
> 
> "I think we are at a historic turning point," Dalia Grybauskaite said in an interview with AFP in Vilnius on the eve of a key NATO summit, which will to seal its biggest revamp since the Cold War to counter a resurgent Russia.
> 
> ...



</allied sidebar>


----------



## cavalryman (7 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> <allied sidebar>
> Look who else may be deploying where ...
> </allied sidebar>


Time to dust off the Litauer Einzugs Marsch  >


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jul 2016)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Not Lativa but very interesting reporting.
> Watched this last night on PBS Newshour:
> 
> Desire to break free keeps Donetsk fighting​
> ...


And here's someone with a bit of experience in info-ops saying this and a companion piece maaaaaaaaaaaaaay have been a bit ... Russo-supportive


----------



## Altair (7 Jul 2016)

https://www.google.ca/amp/news.nationalpost.com/news/world/putins-manoeuvres-make-man-of-peace-trudeau-into-warmonger-against-all-his-inclinations/amp?client=ms-android-rogers-ca#



> What Canada does in Latvia will, perforce, slow down, at least a bit, what the government wants to do with blue helmets in Africa. But a mission is definitely coming, most likely in French West Africa, and sooner than later. Another consideration is simple arithmetic. When the armed forces simultaneously run two similarly-sized missions in dangerous places, it costs the treasury double. It also puts far greater stress on the troops, the gear they depend on and their families.



This part caught my eye, can we handle two missions at once?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jul 2016)

3 missions;  don't forget about OP IMPACT.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jul 2016)

We better buy that C-17 white tail, the hours going on those 5 airframes supporting 3 continents.... yikes.


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 3 missions;  don't forget about OP IMPACT.



The forgotten mission...  I actually had several family members look at me in awe when I was talking about the work tempo on the wing and I mentioned how this Op was wearing guys out.  They had no idea we were still there.

Fact remains that the LRP community is very small and people don't realize it is the same people going over, again and again.  Yet not one of us has received any sort of recognition, not that we do it for recognition, but when guys are going over on their 3rd adventure it can be a bit demoralizing.

This Latvia mission will definitely put any useless U.N. mission on hold.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (7 Jul 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The forgotten mission...  I actually had several family members look at me in awe when I was talking about the work tempo on the wing and I mentioned how this Op was wearing guys out.  They had no idea we were still there.
> 
> Fact remains that the LRP community is very small and people don't realize it is the same people going over, again and again.  Yet not one of us has received any sort of recognition, not that we do it for recognition, but when guys are going over on their 3rd adventure it can be a bit demoralizing.
> 
> This Latvia mission will definitely put any useless U.N. mission on hold.



We have pers in the Regiment slated for Roto 4....plus the TAV for the MTT.... A lot of these guys it's their 3rd kick at the cat for IMPACT. We feel your pain in the Comms world


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jul 2016)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> We have pers in the Regiment slated for Roto 4....plus the TAV for the MTT.... A lot of these guys it's their 3rd kick at the cat for IMPACT. We feel your pain in the Comms world



With a huge number of Sigs pers posted to JSR, that's more likely a DAG issue, than being overtasked. If its the same guys constantly going, in a unit that big, people are dodging tours or the CoC isn't getting enough people qualified for those spots.

Very different from the LRP guys who have extremely limited crews and have to cover both domestic and IMPACT.


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Jul 2016)

I'll be curious to see how this plays out.  The transport guys are going to be driven into the ground trying to support the Middle East, Latvia, Ukraine and not to mention all the domestic operations and international exercises they support as well.  Throw in a UN mission in Africa and we will have to go on a "mental health professional" hiring spree.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jul 2016)

Like Chretien, Trudeau will run the CAF into the ground while bleeding money from the budget to make himself look good. The only available mission in West Africa is Mali (MINUSMA), which has seen UN peacekeepers targeted by al-Qaeda/ISIL recently. The rose coloured glasses are going to shatter when we take our first casualty there wearing blue berets. MINUSMA has lost 68 peacekeepers to malicious actions since it started 3 years ago.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jul 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I'll be curious to see how this plays out.  The transport guys are going to be driven into the ground trying to support the Middle East, Latvia, Ukraine and not to mention all the domestic operations and international exercises they support as well.  Throw in a UN mission in Africa and we will have to go on a "mental health professional" hiring spree.



Once again, I wonder what happened to that facility that was supposed to be set up in Bonn as an Airhead, with just under thirty pers manning it?


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With a huge number of Sigs pers posted to JSR, that's more likely a DAG issue, than being overtasked. If its the same guys constantly going, in a unit that big, people are dodging tours or the CoC isn't getting enough people qualified for those spots.
> 
> Very different from the LRP guys who have extremely limited crews and have to cover both domestic and IMPACT.



The JSR may be a big organization, but the pers required on these deployments all come from a small segment of the unit.  Your LRP guys are one such example.


----------



## FSTO (7 Jul 2016)

Our minister, who should have some experience in these matters, should be pointing out to the Dauphin and his handlers (Mr. Butts) terms like op tempo, burn out, equipment issues, etc. But will they care? Or has he succumbed to the media whoring like his boss and concentrating more on the photo-op?






http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/sajjan-takes-his-tiniest-fan-on-a-tour-of-parliament-1.2977234


----------



## cavalryman (7 Jul 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> But will they care?


No.  

Trudeau and his puppeteers are focused on a two year stint as a useless member of the UNSC, and they'll burn out as many troops as they have to, so long as it gets them there.  The CAF isn't so much an instrument of national policy as it is one of party politics.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Like Chretien, Trudeau will run the CAF into the ground while bleeding money from the budget to make himself look good.



Proof.


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Trudeau Defends Canada's Military Spending Record By Pointing To New Mission
> CP  |  By	Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
> Posted: 07/05/2016 3:33 pm EDT Updated: 07/05/2016 3:59 pm EDT
> 
> ...



More on LINK.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jul 2016)

The sleeping bear is waking up;  politicians can try to ignore it and do things like the UK did, sacking their Nimrod fleet.  For the past several years, they've had to call up their friends to come over when Ivan decides to play.  They won't see their own MPA again until at least 2019...

Or they can be responsible and make informed, forward-looking decisions.  Unfortunately, in Canada, the average person cares more about their next hair appointment and "insert reality TV show name" than they do about national and international security and our political masters know it.  Our political masters care first and foremost about getting re-elected.  This reality tells me the MLCOA means "status quo" for equipment and the like.

23rd in NATO;  embarrassing.  Don't get me wrong, I am a proud Canadian...but not about that fact.


----------



## medicineman (7 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 23rd in NATO;  embarrassing.  Don't get me wrong, I am a proud Canadian...but not about that fact.



Back in the day, apparently Luxemburg and even Iceland (which really has NO military to speak of) spent relatively higher on defence than we did/do...and I bet it hasn't changed.  It's pretty apathetic actually.

MM


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 23rd in NATO;  embarrassing.  Don't get me wrong, I am a proud Canadian...but not about that fact.



We're a G7 country. I'd be happy if we were Top 10. At least that'd put us ahead of Croatia. Good on Croatia though. It was only 20 years ago we were there stopping ethnic cleansing. Now look at them! Better than us!


----------



## dimsum (7 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We're a G7 country. I'd be happy if we were Top 10. At least that'd put us ahead of Croatia. Good on Croatia though. It was only 20 years ago we were there stopping ethnic cleansing. Now look at them! Better than us!



I'd love for us to at least spend the 2% baseline, but part of me questions whether just $ allocated to Defence is a good indication of a nation's military.  If a nation spends 3% but 1.5% of it is on frivolous "buttons/bows" stuff, is it any better than another nation that just spends 1.5% but on more concrete aspects?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (7 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 23rd in NATO;  embarrassing.  Don't get me wrong, I am a proud Canadian...but not about that fact.



We're a a founding f@&king member too!

I agree with your sentiment.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jul 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'd love for us to at least spend the 2% baseline, but part of me questions whether just $ allocated to Defence is a good indication of a nation's military.  If a nation spends 3% but 1.5% of it is on frivolous "buttons/bows" stuff, is it any better than another nation that just spends 1.5% but on more concrete aspects?



Come on, when was the last time Canada's military spent money on frivolities like rank changes for DEUs and stuff... :rofl:

I did hear that the current 'Canadian average green rank slip-on with blue thread' the AF uses is changing to "Canadian average green with pearl grey [same thread as our new DEU slip-ons] for CADPAT and flight suits.  Awesome!  Because that was one of my FIRST concerns.  8)


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jul 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Our minister, who should have some experience in these matters, should be pointing out to the Dauphin and his handlers (Mr. Butts) terms like op tempo, burn out, equipment issues, etc. But will they care?


1)  We don't know how much or how little he's said to Prince Valiant and/or his cabinet colleagues about the issue, or what he's doing to bring them on side.
2)  That said, if he is pushing one way, and the PM/cabinet only wants to move the other way, he has the option of stepping down.  And according to this list, resigning because of disagreement doesn't happen veeeeeeeery often - 10 times since 1867 (including 2 x Def Min's in 1944 for _"Disagree(ing) with the government's policy concerning the National Resources Mobilization Act"_ and _"Advised the Prime Minister to depart from the policy of the voluntary system because of a shortage of reinforcements overseas. Advice rejected."_)


			
				medicineman said:
			
		

> Back in the day, apparently Luxemburg and even Iceland (which really has NO military to speak of) spent relatively higher on defence than we did/do...and I bet it hasn't changed.  It's pretty apathetic actually.
> 
> MM


Recent NATO figures (source) attached - we appear to have been running ~1.2% GDP in the mid-late 1990's, and now down to ~1% - World Bank data also attached, showing peak of 2% in 1988 and down, down, down, then 2005-2009 increases, followed by mo' drops.


			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ... in Canada, the average person cares more about their next hair appointment and "insert reality TV show name" than they do about national and international security and our political masters know it.  Our political masters care first and foremost about getting re-elected ...


This.  Right.  Here.  And this applies no matter what colour jersey they wear - voters or politicians.


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... At least that'd put us ahead of Croatia. Good on Croatia though. It was only 20 years ago we were there stopping ethnic cleansing. Now look at them! Better than us!


Does their spending more on their military make it better than ours -- or even 40% better than ours (based on the difference between GDP % spending)?


----------



## Castus (7 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Does their spending more on their military make it better than ours -- or even 40% better than ours (based on the difference between GDP % spending)?



Obviously not, but at least they are making the effort that is ostensibly a requisite behaviour for members of the Alliance. There are a great many issues that would be resolved by having the cash necessary to conduct training, recruit the right amount of people, procure the right equipment and have a healthy contingency reserve.

AND some leftover for the "bows", as this forum is fond of deriding them. Fortunately, in the context of the military these cost very little.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jul 2016)

And a few more broad-stroke details from the Info-machine (also attached in case link doesn't work for you) - highlights mine...


> Canada is a leading member of NATO that has always deployed our troops and equipment when and where they are needed most. The Government of Canada is committed to taking concrete action so that Canadians – and people around the world – can feel safe and secure in their communities.
> 
> Today, the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, announced Canada’s largest sustained military presence in Europe in more than a decade. *Canada will lead a robust multinational NATO battlegroup in Latvia, becoming one of four Framework Nations, as part of the Alliance’s enhanced Forward Presence in Eastern Europe.
> 
> ...


More on Op REASSURANCE here.


----------



## Lightguns (8 Jul 2016)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Back in the day, apparently Luxemburg and even Iceland (which really has NO military to speak of) spent relatively higher on defence than we did/do...and I bet it hasn't changed.  It's pretty apathetic actually.
> 
> MM



We were always ahead of Luxemburg and Iceland only counted ahead of use when you throw in their fisheries patrol.  This is Canada and it has always been Canada, almost everyone within 50 miles of me is on some form of government assistance and that is a huge national bill.  There simply isn't enough money to have our social safety net and a military.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2016)

Canada is actually in the top 25% of NATO spending, if you look at dollars and not percentage of GDP.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Jul 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Canada is actually in the top 25% of NATO spending, if you look at dollars and not percentage of GDP.



Percent of GDP is a poor indication of actual capability which is why I hate hearing that argument.

We're a rich country, one of the richest i fact.  Our 1% goes a hell of a lot further than others 2%.

How many NATO countries could deploy a mech battlegroup with an ATF across an ocean, indefinitely?


----------



## jmt18325 (8 Jul 2016)

I'm tired of hearing how little we spend.  We have the 16th largest military budget in the world.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm tired of hearing how little we spend.  We have the 16th largest military budget in the world.



AH!  Statistics.  We all know what "statistics" are.

It really doesn't matter, truthfully, what we spend on our military; but how we spend it.  How much of that budget is not "WASTED" money; money that actually had little or no affect, or benefit to our military?


----------



## Journeyman (8 Jul 2016)

Castus said:
			
		

> AND some leftover for the "bows", as this forum is fond of deriding them. Fortunately, in the context of the military these cost very little.


In financial terms, they cost little; in terms of staff hours, wasted QM time, reinforcing what the ever-changing badges mean to junior soldiers.....are all opportunity costs pissed away.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Canada will also deploy an Air Task Force – which will include up to six CF-18 fighter aircraft


 So Canada's going to "whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are." 
 - Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.  Oct 2, 2014


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jul 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm tired of hearing how little we spend.  We have the 16th largest military budget in the world.


Pretty good for one of the seven richest countries, with one of the largest air spaces and coastlines to defend, right?


----------



## jmt18325 (8 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Pretty good for one of the seven richest countries, with one of the largest air spaces and coastlines to defend, right?



10th actually.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm tired of hearing how little we spend.  We have the 16th largest military budget in the world.


You have to admit, we could do much better than we do regardless.  There could always be more, whether it comes from more available funds or less wasteful spending.


----------



## jmt18325 (8 Jul 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> You have to admit, we could do much better than we do regardless.  There could always be more, whether it comes from more available funds or less wasteful spending.



Less wasteful spending is the place we should start.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jul 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 10th actually.


Good, we only have to climb 6 spaces on spending instead of 8.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Jul 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Less wasteful spending is the place we should start.



Correct. Ruthless steps must be asked about some of the ridiculous inefficiencies and mismanagement, with an objective of more feet in the mud, less bums in office chairs, more ATGM tubes and less tubes of lubricant for the reaming the forces have undergone since 2009. 

BTW, what does a "robust multinational NATO battlegroup" mean? And does our number strength of 1000 include the ship and the air get? if so, that frees up a lot of troops for other useless missions rather than taking the fight to ISIL. Also, in November 2015, Trudeau promised France a "robust" contribution from Canada to fight ISIL. Then he pulled the fighters. This man is all over the map and doesn't seem to get called out on it strong enough by allies. He reminds me of a lucky racoon that always manages to cross the highway.


----------



## Altair (8 Jul 2016)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Correct. Ruthless steps must be asked about some of the ridiculous inefficiencies and mismanagement, with an objective of more feet in the mud, less bums in office chairs, more ATGM tubes and less tubes of lubricant for the reaming the forces have undergone since 2009.
> 
> BTW, what does a "robust multinational NATO battlegroup" mean? And does our number strength of 1000 include the ship and the air get? if so, that frees up a lot of troops for other useless missions rather than taking the fight to ISIL. Also, in November 2015, Trudeau promised France a "robust" contribution from Canada to fight ISIL. Then he pulled the fighters. This man is all over the map and doesn't seem to get called out on it strong enough by allies. He reminds me of a lucky racoon that always manages to cross the highway.


Sounding like he plans to do both.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2016)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> He reminds me of a lucky racoon that always manages to cross the highway.



Even that Racoon will find a loaded cylinder has come up one day in Road Roulette.


----------



## jmt18325 (8 Jul 2016)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> BTW, what does a "robust multinational NATO battlegroup" mean? And does our number strength of 1000 include the ship and the air get?



There will only be ~450 people on the ground.  The rest of the 1000 will be from other countries.  The air and naval assets are apart from that number.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jul 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> There will only be ~450 people on the ground.  The rest of the 1000 will be from other countries.  The air and naval assets are apart from that number.



So he's basically reannounced OP REASSURANCE, but this time its an open ended commitment?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jul 2016)

I wonder if the money counted as spent on defense has taken in account monies returned at the end of fiscal or our they taken early budget figures only?


----------



## jmt18325 (8 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So he's basically reannounced OP REASSURANCE, but this time its an open ended commitment?



Well, the air detachment was discontinued in the past.  It will not be a constant present though, apparently.

What's different this time is that the CF will be in a leadership position on the ground in Eastern Europe, and will bring armour with them.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jul 2016)

It seems to me that the rationale for the 2% of GDP on defence is simple:

The Club agreed that the annual dues would be a tithe of 2% of GDP.   From each according to their ability to each according to their need.  A basic flat tax.

On the other hand, that could be seen as being regressive.  A progressive solution would be for those countries in good financial shape to give more than those in poor shape.  In which case Canada would be contributing more to the collective defence than, for example, Poland.

As to efficiency - having done a few studies - I have never seen a flexible organization with overall efficiencies much better than about 70%.  I have seen line efficiencies of 95% when the parameters are tightly defined but I have not seen overall numbers that approach those kinds of levels.

Waste, like the poor, will always be with us.


----------



## CBH99 (8 Jul 2016)

It seems to be that a country that DOESN'T spend 2% of GDP on defence, but pulls its weight and shows up for operations -- is far more valuable than a country that DOES spend the 2%, but won't allow its forces to deploy.  Or, if they do deploy, are constrained to the point where it is difficult to accomplish their objective.

Canada doesn't spend 2%, we all know that.  BUT...we constantly have ships deployed, aircraft deployed, soldiers deployed, in support of NATO objectives.  Whether it is combating ISIL, supporting the Ukraine military, training the Afghans, or providing naval vessels to standing task forces, or helping out the UK with LRP aircraft in times of need - we, as an organization, pull more than our fair share.

I would actually be okay with us spending less than 2% -- ON THE CONDITION that capital procurement was done in a more streamlined manner that didn't affect the DND budget.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jul 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> It seems to be that a country that DOESN'T spend 2% of GDP on defence, but pulls its weight and shows up for operations -- is far more valuable than a country that DOES spend the 2%, but won't allow its forces to deploy.  Or, if they do deploy, are constrained to the point where it is difficult to accomplish their objective.
> 
> Canada doesn't spend 2%, we all know that.  BUT...we constantly have ships deployed, aircraft deployed, soldiers deployed, in support of NATO objectives.  Whether it is combating ISIL, supporting the Ukraine military, training the Afghans, or providing naval vessels to standing task forces, or helping out the UK with LRP aircraft in times of need - we, as an organization, pull more than our fair share.
> 
> I would actually be okay with us spending less than 2% -- ON THE CONDITION that capital procurement was done in a more streamlined manner that didn't affect the DND budget.



That may be .... but the Club rules, agreed by its members, call for 2%.  Some of those members are essentially permanent FOBs and deployment is in their backyard.   Latvia deploying to Afghanistan or the Congo when Russia is knocking at their back door may not be the best use of the Club's resources.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> AH!  Statistics.  We all know what "statistics" are.


Like bikinis:  interesting in what they reveal, but vital in what they conceal.


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ... A progressive solution would be for those countries in good financial shape to give more than those in poor shape.  In which case Canada would be contributing more to the collective defence than, for example, Poland ...


THAT would be an interesting way to see the real commitment to "The Club" by the big spenders helping out the littler spenders ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Canada is actually in the top 25% of NATO spending, if you look at dollars and not percentage of GDP.



Great.  BUT...the 'agreement' is 2% of GDP.  Which we aren't doing.  So.  Thats' the point.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Jul 2016)

If I read this thread correctly (and I probably won't bother again), all of the usual suspects who complained about lack of deployments, rust out, Prime Minister <insert childish name-calling here> not willing to step up etc are now complaining that we are incapable of deploying, that doing the job that we are paid to do is somehow demeaning and that the military is only used to score political points?

 :facepalm:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2016)

I might have missed it;  is there an official announcement about the ATF composition and tanks being part of the ORBAT?


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I might have missed it;  is there an official announcement about the ATF composition and tanks being part of the ORBAT?



I don't think there's been an official ORBAT for anything yet, just ambiguous press releases.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> It seems to be that a country that DOESN'T spend 2% of GDP on defence, but pulls its weight and shows up for operations -- is far more valuable than a country that DOES spend the 2%, but won't allow its forces to deploy.  Or, if they do deploy, are constrained to the point where it is difficult to accomplish their objective.
> 
> Canada doesn't spend 2%, we all know that.  BUT...we constantly have ships deployed, aircraft deployed, soldiers deployed, in support of NATO objectives.  Whether it is combating ISIL, supporting the Ukraine military, training the Afghans, or providing naval vessels to standing task forces, or helping out the UK with LRP aircraft in times of need - we, as an organization, pull more than our fair share.
> 
> I would actually be okay with us spending less than 2% -- ON THE CONDITION that capital procurement was done in a more streamlined manner that didn't affect the DND budget.



On the other side of the coin, maybe Latvia + UN blue beret bullshit + OP IMPACT means we are spreading our butter too thin.  We are far too fat on tail and not big enough on tail (IMO).  We've known this for years, of course, but the # and size of HQs and the way we do Ops (example, the size of JTFSC in Camp Canada for what it supported) with inflated amounts of, specifically, Snr Officers on the ground for no good reason has not and seemingly will never change (for the better).  

There was no room on the CFTPO for SERE SMEs in theatre, but there was Official Visits Officers.  Don't care what anyone says, that is fucked.

If the SME expertise we can offer is HQs and not bayonets...that's indicative of 'what' we specialize in;  inflated HQ orgs.

More tooth.  Less tail.  We are too small to be able to afford more fat for less muscle.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> On the other side of the coin, maybe Latvia + UN blue beret bullshit + OP IMPACT means we are spreading our butter too thin.  We are far too fat on tail and not big enough on tail (IMO).  We've known this for years, of course, but the # and size of HQs and the way we do Ops (example, the size of JTFSC in Camp Canada for what it supported) with inflated amounts of, specifically, Snr Officers on the ground for no good reason has not and seemingly will never change (for the better).
> 
> There was no room on the CFTPO for SERE SMEs in theatre, but there was Official Visits Officers.  Don't care what anyone says, that is ****ed.
> 
> ...



I'm guessing that if you freed up the Class C contracts you can fill just about any formation, up to Division size, from the Royal Canadian Temp Agency (a.k.a: the Reserves).


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> If I read this thread correctly (and I probably won't bother again), all of the usual suspects who complained about lack of deployments, rust out, Prime Minister <insert childish name-calling here> not willing to step up etc are now complaining that we are incapable of deploying, that doing the job that we are paid to do is somehow demeaning and that the military is only used to score political points?
> 
> :facepalm:



I see a recruiting slogan out of this:  The Canadian Armed Forces: We're not happy unless we're not happy.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that if you freed up the Class C contracts you can fill just about any formation, up to Division size, from the Royal Canadian Temp Agency (a.k.a: the Reserves).



Why?  If the Reg F can manage the tempo, then have then do what they're paid to do... but at the same time, increase readiness for the Reserves so they are better prepared in the event that the scope of what's requested grows.


As for filling a Division with Reservists: The Army mandates the Reserves to train platoons in a company context.  You'd likely be hard-pressed to find company-grade and above leadership of sufficient quality for such a task.  (Quality defined by training, knowledge and experience - "Two weeks in Aldershot one summer in the 1990s" does not, to me, qualify as sufficient experience to command a Brigade in operations in the field)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that if you freed up the Class C contracts you can fill just about any formation, up to Division size, from the Royal Canadian Temp Agency (a.k.a: the Reserves).



An actual division or one of our 'Divisions'.   >


----------



## jmt18325 (8 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think there's been an official ORBAT for anything yet, just ambiguous press releases.



I would assume that what we bring will depend on who we can get to agree to go with us (the other 550 people).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jul 2016)

We can establish a Zulu Battery again over there, except with no gunners and no guns, but it will look good on a power point slide.


----------



## Altair (8 Jul 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I see a recruiting slogan out of this:  The Canadian Armed Forces: We're not happy unless we're not happy.


I'm ridiculously happy.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Jul 2016)

I am personally excited by this.  I think it's a great opportunity for the Army to sharpen the conventional warfighting blade while conducting some quality training we would never be able to replicate in Canada.

Will we have issues at first?  Sure but what new operation doesn't?


----------



## Altair (8 Jul 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I am personally excited by this.  I think it's a great opportunitu for the Army to sharpen the conventional warfighting blade while conducting some quality training we would never be able to replicate in Canada.
> 
> Will we have issues at first?  Sure but what new operation doesn't?


And given the small size of the deployment ( I was expecting 600) it leads me to believe the the liberals do in fact plan to do UN peacekeeping at the same time.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I am personally excited by this.  I think it's a great opportunitu for the Army to sharpen the conventional warfighting blade while conducting some quality training we would never be able to replicate in Canada.
> 
> Will we have issues at first?  Sure but what new operation doesn't?



Agreed.

That was one of the main reasons that I hated Mulroney for closing down CFE: the no cost experience that we, the individual soldiers, got from working in a foreign land with our allies and becoming intimately familiar with their uniforms, rank, equipment, ORBATS and SOPs and tactics.  PRICELESS!

Of course maintaining a CMBG and air Wing in Europe was expensive.  At the same time it provided a convenient Airhead to operate other missions out of.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think there's been an official ORBAT for anything yet, just ambiguous press releases.



My read on the press release maybe vaguely intended this- there will be a battalion of 450 soldiers with armoured vehicles as a component in a battle group. I'm guessing the armoured vehicles are LAV 6.0, so this sounds like a mech inf BN to me? There must also be a plan for support element, I cannot see how this group could function properly by relying on other NATO partners for the basic supports- engineers, supply, maintenance, sigs, medical, etc. Rely on NATO partners for other things,- yes, but surely not the basics??? The CF 18's are a bonus, hopefully the role will not just be air defence but also training for air-ground operations.

What would be really cool is if the Army had way better EW gear to send over. This would be a great opportunity to come close to Ivan and start fingerprinting and cataloging some of their units, equipment and emitters into our own drives. You can  bet the Reds will be doing the same to us, right down to the IMEI and IMSI of your smartphone....


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jul 2016)

The Arny's EW gear is what happens when you have cold war dinosaurs in civilian positions you can't fire them from, who haven't collected on a real enemy since early 1990s Bosnia. Would be awesome to have a sensor or 2 there, but everyone and their uncle will be trying to bolt their capabilities on, and a small battle group has enough to worry about than trying to bring a 50 person EW Sqn that really can't achieve goals in training environments.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2016)

No TAC SIGINT in Afghanistan?


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> No TAC SIGINT in Afghanistan?



I'm guessing that discussion on that sort of topic is frowned upon on public message boards.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2016)

Good point.  Not sure how to rephrase to make it more suitable.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jul 2016)

Then let's not talk about it


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Good point.  Not sure how to rephrase to make it more suitable.



Did the folks we can't talk about with the kit that's not allowed to be described go somewhere we can't mention and do things we're not allowed to know?


----------



## sidemount (8 Jul 2016)

I have no recollection of the events in question nor would I be at liberty to discuss said events if they did, in fact, occur


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Did the folks we can't talk about with the kit that's not allowed to be described go somewhere we can't mention and do things we're not allowed to know?



Nailed it!

But, no one can or can't answer that question, if there was in fact a question, or folks.  Or kit.  Or somewhere.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jul 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> If I read this thread correctly (and I probably won't bother again), all of the usual suspects who complained about lack of deployments, rust out, Prime Minister <insert childish name-calling here> not willing to step up etc are now complaining that we are incapable of deploying, that doing the job that we are paid to do is somehow demeaning and that the military is only used to score political points?
> 
> :facepalm:



I'm most likely one of those usual suspects.

I get what you're saying about people who complain about no deployments then complain about deployments. 

Guilty. 

I want to be sent on a meaningful deployment, not feel like Maple Resolve for 6 months where I'm paraded around in what feels like a dog and pony show if I'm being honest.  I'm getting paid so I'll do what I'm told and go hang out for half a year but we're so undermanned I know I won't be deploying with my section, platoon or even company proper. 
Our deployments are a smorgasbord of whoever is healthy and fit to go.  I can see troops getting burned out because they'll be doing multiple rotations in short order just to meet this commitment.


----------



## QV (8 Jul 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> That may be .... but the Club rules, agreed by its members, call for 2%.  Some of those members are essentially permanent FOBs and deployment is in their backyard.   Latvia deploying to Afghanistan or the Congo when Russia is knocking at their back door may not be the best use of the Club's resources.



And 2% is the floor not the ceiling.


----------



## Furniture (9 Jul 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm most likely one of those usual suspects.
> 
> I get what you're saying about people who complain about no deployments then complain about deployments.
> 
> ...



I think too many people discount the value of dog and pony shows at home and abroad. We need to be seen, it doesn't matter how good we are at what we do if nobody knows we exist. JTF2 gets away with it because they are SF, but the rest of us need to be content to march/sail/fly around waving the flag and being seen from time to time. 

The world needs to know that Canada is engaged, politically and militarily all over the world. They also need to know that Canada isn't alone, and our friends are also engaged across the globe. Sometimes we get to go to the big game and make the plays, other times we go to the pancake breakfast and sign autographs while posing for pics...


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jul 2016)

:goodpost:


----------



## CBH99 (9 Jul 2016)

Pancake breakfasts & community relations were THE BEST GIGS I ever had!  Tim Horton's Camp Day, always a blast      :nod:


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jul 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I want to be sent on a meaningful deployment,



So, shoring up NATOs eastern flank is meaningless?

What is meaningful?  Putting on a blue beret and watching some group in Africa slaughter another group?  Or how about endless rotations in an insurgency?


----------



## dapaterson (9 Jul 2016)

Six months as an incremental instructor in Meaford!


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 Jul 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, shoring up NATOs eastern flank is meaningless?
> 
> What is meaningful?  Putting on a blue beret and watching some group in Africa slaughter another group?  Or how about endless rotations in an insurgency?



I agree it's a "meaningless" mission in that I dont believe that Russia is a real threat to NATO nor do I believe that a MN bde would have actually stopped a determined russia from attacking anything. The whole thing is essentially just Maple Resolve x 6 months x Europe. 

However, in terms of training value I think it's great that we're actually going back to higher level MN training, even if we do it a BG at a time. Heck, perhaps even our Div HQ will get a legitimate workout with real troops (and not just sims every 2 years). Finally, looking forward to a trip to Europe every 3 years or so isn't the worst thing either (unless some sort of more substantial mission (COIN, conventional, whatever the government decides....)


----------



## Altair (9 Jul 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, shoring up NATOs eastern flank is meaningless?
> 
> What is meaningful?  Putting on a blue beret and watching some group in Africa slaughter another group?  Or how about endless rotations in an insurgency?


If a real conflict were to breakout,  we all know that these 4 000 men and women would be destroyed in place before NATO could respond.

So in that sense it is kind of useless.

I'm still excited if I get to go.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, shoring up NATOs eastern flank is meaningless?
> 
> What is meaningful?  Putting on a blue beret and watching some group in Africa slaughter another group?  Or how about endless rotations in an insurgency?


  

In hindsight maybe there would be some pretty cool high end training or possibly lots of courses run but yes I still feel the idea of us shoring up NATO's eastern flank is meaningless. 
Meaningful to me would be targeting insurgents and other people murdering civilians yes.  Kicking turkey out of NATO would be nice too. 

If we're putting a training spin on it 3 month rotations would be better.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jul 2016)

A few more details from the CDS (partial transcript of Canadian Press video) ...


> ... we're working on a deployment of approximately 450.  That will form the nucleus, consisting of command & control, the support, some of the intelligence functions and providing a rifle company equipped with LAV, as the nucleus for other nations, which we encourage to contribute to form the partnership, an enduring, sustained partnership for the long-term presence in Latvia ...


More, from the print version - highlights mine:


> ... Speaking on the sidelines of the summit, defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance revealed that Canada will send about 450 soldiers along with armoured vehicles to the Baltic state as part of an "enduring" NATO presence in Eastern Europe.
> 
> The Canadians will form the "nucleus" of a battle group in Latvia, Vance said, that with the addition of forces from other allies, is expected to grow to about 1,000 troops. Germany, the United States and Britain are leading similar forces in Lithuania, Poland and Estonia.
> 
> *Allies are expected to begin announcing contributions at a conference next week, while officials indicated the first Canadian troops could begin arriving in Latvia early next year* ...


Not _quite_ the full battalion that's been suggested/talked about upthread - _sounds_ more like a rifle company + a BN HQ.  It'll be interesting to see who'll donate a company or so to Canada's team.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jul 2016)

Further details of the whole bundle of land/air/sea assets from The Canadian Press:


> ...Troop deployment to Latvia:
> 
> Canada will contribute around 450 troops as well as light armoured vehicles and other equipment to a multinational force in the former Soviet republic of Latvia. Defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance says the Canadian contingent will form the "nucleus" of what will eventually be a 1,000-strong battle group that will act as a deterrent against Russian aggression in the region. Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States are making similar contributions in Lithuania, Estonia and Poland, respectively. NATO officials insist the force is purely defensive, though Russia has condemned it as an encroachment. The mission has been described as "open-ended," meaning there is no time frame for when it will end.
> 
> ...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Jul 2016)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> I think too many people discount the value of dog and pony shows at home and abroad. We need to be seen, it doesn't matter how good we are at what we do if nobody knows we exist. JTF2 gets away with it because they are SF, but the rest of us need to be content to march/sail/fly around waving the flag and being seen from time to time.
> 
> The world needs to know that Canada is engaged, politically and militarily all over the world. They also need to know that Canada isn't alone, and our friends are also engaged across the globe. Sometimes we get to go to the big game and make the plays, other times we go to the pancake breakfast and sign autographs while posing for pics...



Not even JTF2 is immune from dog and pony shows.

Back on topic though, slightly disappointed the commitment isn't a little larger.  I'd like to see an Armour Squadron and 2x infantry companies but I'm ok with baby steps.  

I'm sure the govt has other plans.

This is also a good opportunity for some good old fashioned industrial marketing.  Who in Eastern Europe wants to buy some LAV 6.0  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jul 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Back on topic though, slightly disappointed the commitment isn't a little larger.  I'd like to see an Armour Squadron and 2x infantry companies but I'm ok with baby steps.


I guess that's where NATO allies get a chance to pony up - like Belgium has with (what sounds like about) a company for Lithuania.

Or will it be like when Canada needed helping Kandahar?

Time will tell ...


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jul 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Pancake breakfasts & community relations were THE BEST GIGS I ever had!  Tim Horton's Camp Day, always a blast      :nod:



That's a deployment !


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jul 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Not even JTF2 is immune from dog and pony shows.


Indeed ...







			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I'm sure the govt has other plans.


Yup ...


> *The Trudeau government says Canada is still in the market for a United Nations peacekeeping mission despite plans to send a sizeable military contingent to Eastern Europe.*
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2016)

"in the market"  

 :


----------



## medicineman (11 Jul 2016)

A buyer's or seller's market?

I can't think of any good that can come out of a blue hat mission anywhere in Africa off the top of my head...

MM


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> "in the market"
> 
> :



EITS, don't you know that, to paraphrase an opposition party leader now PM, the Government of Canada just "Wants to whip out its CG634's just to show how blue they are".


----------



## YZT580 (11 Jul 2016)

"It's terribly unfortunate that Canada has to deploy its forces in Latvia instead of having peacekeeping in Africa or in an area of the world where it's much more needed," Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion told the Canadian Press on the sidelines of the summit Saturday.  Put this together with the government's comments on the F18's. It implies that there is no capability within the armed forces anywhere to meet our commitments should more than one request come in at a time. It appears as though they may be forced to spend more money by their own rhetoric (wisely one would hope) and this would be good.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2016)

They won't spend the money until someone is killed because they don't have the right equipment to do the job. I'll be surprised if we don't end up in 2 major missions in blue berets, plus IMPACT, REASSURANCE and UNIFIER. The deployments will be there, just don't lose your mental health because of it, Real Change didn't extend to VAC giving a crap about you.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Jul 2016)

I've been thinking about this for a few days. Putin is pretty much isolated from anyone and everyone who want
to isolate him. The numbers are not that large, the effects minimize by the day. 
Just spit balling a scenario here...
His military is modernizing quickly, is far more skilled than even 5 years ago. His Air Force IS an air power on the border.  His ground forces ARE experienced, well equipped and apparently motivated. He has the ability to rally ethnic tensions and cause divisiveness in former east block states.
His Navy is probably the predominant naval force (with its land based supporting air cover) in the Baltic. When Kuznetsov completes the ISIL mission in January (maybe earlier) she will return for refit in her Baltic home port. She is now currently loaded with 2 full regiments of the much improved MIG29k. She will have  or meet up with a substantial surface and submarine escort in the Baltic, and will be approaching NATO East, from the west!  He may choose this as an opportune time to bloody a few noses in a "drive by shooting" prempted by some unfortunate border skirmishes to be blamed on NATO, and perhaps torch a few Typhoons, Tornado's, Hornets and Falcons on the ground, crater a few runways etc. If the Kuznetsov battle group ( let's call it that), hits quickly and then dashes for Russian water, he will have given the west some sobering thoughts and if successful enough, drive up nationalism at home even further. It won't take much for the Russians to figure a way to put the blame on NATO. The only thing that might genuinely give him pause about doing that would be if Trump was elected... 
Anyway, just a thought. He may meet the NATO "threat" with a solid sucker punch...purely defensive, of course.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jul 2016)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> "It's terribly unfortunate that Canada has to deploy its forces in Latvia instead of having peacekeeping in Africa or in an area of the world where it's much more needed," Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion told the Canadian Press on the sidelines of the summit Saturday.  Put this together with the government's comments on the F18's. It implies that there is no capability within the armed forces anywhere to meet our commitments should more than one request come in at a time. It appears as though they may be forced to spend more money by their own rhetoric (wisely one would hope) and this would be good.




Let's be clear, we saw this, the desire to do baby-blue beret style peacekeeping Africa, coming nine months ago, but we also have seen the rise, the real threat, of Russian opportunistic adventurism since Crimea. Many people, including me, will say that Putin had _some_ strategic justification for seizing Crimea but we do need to draw the line at his evident desire to reconnect Kaliningrad to "friendly" territory.

My _guess_ is that Prime Minister Trudeau has been under intense pressure from NATO, the EU and the USA to "step up" since he was elected. He may think that Paul Heinbecker and his friends have the key to much desired, but really quite worthless, second class seat at the UNSC table but the Europeans and Americans can, effectively stop it ... no matter what the Arabs and Africans might say.

This commitment - if it can be help to a small_ish_ (less than, say 750 all ranks) task  - can be sustained along with two or even three small_ish_ (100-250 all ranks) engineers, signals, logistics, police tasks in Africa and Latin America.

It's those pesky "events" again ... getting in the way of political flights of fancy.

I also _suspect_ that Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Dion (and Team Trudeau in the PMO) have learned, by now, that the baby-blue beret missions about which they dreamed are dead and gone ... replaced with missions in which Canadian soldiers might not be welcome or with which Canadian voters might not be comfortable.

Welcome to the real world, Prime Minister.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Jul 2016)

The majority of the African missions seem to involve fighting and suffering casualties from Islamic insurgents and Al Queda/ISIL knock offs.  There is no opportunity for white, Christian UN forces to be captured without facing some serious personal difficulty, if they live very long at all. So the ROE had better be strong.....


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (11 Jul 2016)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I've been thinking about this for a few days. Putin is pretty much isolated from anyone and everyone who want
> to isolate him. The numbers are not that large, the effects minimize by the day.
> Just spit balling a scenario here...
> His military is modernizing quickly, is far more skilled than even 5 years ago. His Air Force IS an air power on the border.  His ground forces ARE experienced, well equipped and apparently motivated. He has the ability to rally ethnic tensions and cause divisiveness in former east block states.
> ...



What would the point be for your "drive by shooting?" Are you being serious here?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Jul 2016)

Of course he is serious: He's bored and wants to start WWIII.  :nod:


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Jul 2016)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I've been thinking about this for a few days. Putin is pretty much isolated from anyone and everyone who want
> to isolate him. The numbers are not that large, the effects minimize by the day.
> Just spit balling a scenario here...
> His military is modernizing quickly, is far more skilled than even 5 years ago. His Air Force IS an air power on the border.  His ground forces ARE experienced, well equipped and apparently motivated. He has the ability to rally ethnic tensions and cause divisiveness in former east block states.
> ...



Especially since the oil crash Russia (the world's largest oil producer) is on the skids. What do you do in Russia when you are a defacto dictator and things look bad a home? Blame it on the other guys and beef up your military, of course.

No surprises here. Show of force must be matched by show of force, but we can't give Putin a justification for his hubris.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jul 2016)

This story by Murray Brewster stating that Canada was a late substitution to head one of the NATO battle groups is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copy Right Act.

French attacks help propel Canada to NATO front line

France, not Canada, had planned to be among NATO deterrence leaders until mass killings intervened
By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Jul 18, 2016 3:26 PM ET Last Updated: Jul 18, 2016 3:26 PM ET

Canadian troops have been thrust into a leadership position with one NATO's framework battalions in the Baltic states largely because the French have been tied down with military operations at home, CBC News has learned.

Canada announced at the recent Warsaw Summit that it would deploy at least 450 soldiers to Latvia, becoming one-of-four "framework" nations in a 4,000 person, high-readiness multinational brigade.

'France has signaled its intention to serve as a 'framework nation' for the Very High Readiness Task Force in the longer term.'
- Briefing notes for former defence minister Jason Kenney, June 5, 2015
But a series of government, defence and diplomatic sources tell CBC News that — until just recently — many discussions at NATO involved France joining the U.S., Britain and Germany as a lead nation in the combat unit, whose purpose is to deter Russian expansionism in eastern Europe.

Canada originally intended to play only a supporting role in one of those battalions, according to the sources and documents obtained by CBC News under access to information legislation.

The records show the issue was discussed by former defence minister Jason Kenney and his French counterpart in a telephone call prior to a NATO ministers meeting just over a year ago.

"France has signalled its intention to serve as a 'framework nation' for the Very High Readiness Task Force in the longer term," Kenney was told on June 5, 2015.

The documents say France was planning be in the role until at least 2020.

Canada was, at the time the note was written, still "examining how best to contribute" to both the task force and other alliance measures.

Sources say that remained the position when the Liberals came to power last fall.

The idea of Canada taking the lead only emerged last spring as it became clear the French military was becoming increasingly stretched — both at home and abroad — following repeated domestic attacks, including the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the slaughter of concert-goers and restaurant patrons in Paris last November.

The state of emergency in France, which had been expected to end later this month, was extended following the attack last week on Bastille Day revellers in Nice.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressed his solidarity with the victims of the latest attack on Monday by signing a book of condolence at French embassy.

France has approximately 7,000 troops deployed domestically on the counter-terror operation known as Op Sentinelle, a heavy burden that has placed "significant strain" on the country's military, the briefer told Kenney last year.

It became clear last winter that the French were only interested in taking up a supporting role at NATO, and sources say chief of defence staff, Gen. Jonathan Vance, saw an opportunity for Canada a leadership role.

The discussions took place among the military, but quickly elevated to the diplomatic level where both the U.S. and Britain turned to Canada to head up the fourth battalion.

"This wasn't on our radar until just a couple of months ago," said one Canadian official, who is familiar with the file, but only authorized to speak on background.

Canada is currently searching for partner nations to fill out its battle group to the estimated strength of 1,000 troops.

Italy, Slovakia, Croatia, Poland, and a combined Portuguese and Spanish contingent, are among the potential troop contributors, according to the sources.

Canadian officials, briefing at the Warsaw summit last week, described the brigade that will be stitched along Russia's western border, as "a trip wire" that would set off alarms should Moscow attempt to interfere in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania — or even Poland and Romania.

The idea, they said, was to buy time for NATO to mobilize a full response.

Russia could isolate Baltics

But a recent study by the Centre for European and North Atlantic Affairs, an independent non-governmental agency in Bratislava, Slovakia, raised questions about how quickly and effectively the Russian military could surround and cut off each of the NATO battle groups, in the event of a crisis.

Moscow will soon have the capacity to call out 240,000 troops — roughly 60 brigades — almost at moment's notice, said the report.   

Since 2008, the Russian military has had the stated intention of being able to deploy at least 65,000 troops over a radius of 3,000 kilometres within 72 hours. In theory, all of the country's highly trained airborne troops could be moving within 24 hours.

'I think it's pure speculation, at this point.' 

- Lt.-Gen. Paul Wynnyk, newly appointed commander of the Canadian Army.
"It is a speed and scale which de facto nobody is able to react to, not even NATO Scandinavian countries or NATO as such itself,"

Perhaps even of more interest to the Canadian military is Russia's intention to install sophisticated anti-aircraft and anti-shipping systems in Kaliningrad, a tiny spigot of land sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania along the Baltic Coast.

The deployment of Anti-Access/Area Denial capabilities, especially the S-400 surface-to-air missiles, would not  only "terminate NATO's ability to reinforce its units in the region, but also enable it to gain control over almost half of Polish airspace, and huge part of Baltic states' airspace by creating no-fly zones."

The new commander of the Canadian Army downplayed the notion NATO troops could be cut-off in the event of heightened tensions, or even a limited conflict with Russia.

"I think it's pure speculation, at this point, " said Lt.-Gen. Paul Wynnyk.  

"It's been quite clear, right from the beginning; right from the (NATO) secretary general down, down to our minister that we're deploying troops forward as part of these composite battalions as a deterrent effect."

Conservative defence critic James Bezan said he believes no one should dismiss the report out hand. It documents Russia's ability to rapidly mobilize and project power, and the Liberal government should take note considering how long it takes NATO and Canada themselves organized with vastly smaller deployments.

"It seems Russia can stand up a fighting capable force…in a matter of days, not months" he said.

"We have to go into this with eyes wide open."

Parliamentarians, Bezan said, want to know as soon as possible which allies will be joining Canada in Latvia, what equipment they'll be bringing, and what the plan might be in the event of a crisis.

"All of the i's need to be dotted and t's crossed, so we know exactly what we're getting into here," he said.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jul 2016)

"and that's the rest of the story, good day"


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Jul 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This story by Murray Brewster stating that Canada was a late substitution to head one of the NATO battle groups is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copy Right Act.
> 
> French attacks help propel Canada to NATO front line
> 
> ...



"Events, dear boy, events". 

Harold Macmillan's response to a journalist when asked what is most likely to blow governments off course


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jul 2016)

???

When did France rejoin NATO?

France participates in the EU Bde, and as far as I know that is about it for French participation in Europe with any NATO nations.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (18 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> When did France rejoin NATO?
> 
> France participates in the EU Bde, and as far as I know that is about it for French participation in Europe with any NATO nations.



April 4, 2009.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7937666.stm


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Jul 2016)

France rejoined in 2009:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7937666.stm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jul 2016)

Sorry to say....I had to have slept through that one.  Rather important event that I totally paid no attention to.   [:-[


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (18 Jul 2016)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> France rejoined in 2009:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7937666.stm
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



George- NP, it happens.

Mark- I see your Google-fu is as strong as mine  [


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jul 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> "and that's NOW you know ... the REST of the story -- good day"


</paulharveygeek>   ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> </paulharveygeek>   ;D



Yes, you got me there.  I realized after I posted and didn't bother to edit it.  I always liked hearing his radio broadcasts.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2016)

The latest from Latvian public media, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ - highlights mine ...


> *The Canadian-led multinational battalion earmarked for deployment to Latvia will include heavy weaponry, and the first soldiers are expected to arrive in Latvia at the beginning of next year, Defense Minister Raimonds Bergmanis told the LETA news agency September 7.*
> 
> Overall there will be a large contingent of allied forces deployed to Latvia, as there will also be soldiers stationed here which are not a part of this battalion,
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Sep 2016)

Maybe they'll add an LRP Det.  A much nicer location for sustained ops.  We're tired of dust and sand.   :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2016)

A couple of updates courtesy of Latvian public media ...


> *The Canadian-led multinational battalion in Latvia will receive 455 Canadian troops who'll start arriving around spring 2017, Canada's Chief of Defense General Jonathan Vance told the press Thursday.*
> 
> Other countries forming the battalion will be able to decide on the number of troops to be sent to Latvia.
> 
> ...


(source)


> During a meeting September 14 with Italian President Sergio Mattarella, *Latvian President Raimonds Vejonis expressed hope that Italy will join the Canadian-led multinational NATO battalion which will be deployed to Latvia, *reported LETA.
> 
> During the meeting, which took place at a conference in Bulgaria, the two sides praised their cooperation on security matters, which is important in implementing the decisions made during the recent NATO Summit in Warsaw.
> 
> ...


(source)


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Oct 2016)

Rand's best guess:  no more than 60 hours for Force Putin to reach _"the outskirts of the Estonian and/or Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga"_ ...


> *Research Questions*
> 
> --  What might the consequences be if Russia decided to reclaim the territory of the three Baltic republics — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — which are NATO members?
> --  What might be done to prevent or mitigate such a scenario?
> ...


You can download the whole paper (16 page PDF) here.


----------



## Altair (17 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Rand's best guess:  no more than 60 hours for Force Putin to reach _"the outskirts of the Estonian and/or Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga"_ ...You can download the whole paper (16 page PDF) here.


How difficult would it be to take back the Baltics from a entrenched Russian military is probably the better question to be asking.

I don't think anyone expecting the Baltics to hold if Russia decides to play nasty.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> How difficult would it be to take back the Baltics from a entrenched Russian military is probably the better question to be asking.


I wish I could say something different, but if the Russians made it to the 'burbs of the Baltic capitals, unless the Baltic militaries are pressing a hard, continued fight, I'm guessing the West won't have the moral fibre/political will to blow the shit out of occupied territory as it faces a nuclear-armed Russia.  Best to keep them out of the house than to have to evict them.


----------



## Lightguns (18 Oct 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> How difficult would it be to take back the Baltics from a entrenched Russian military is probably the better question to be asking.
> 
> I don't think anyone expecting the Baltics to hold if Russia decides to play nasty.



Extremely difficult last time, but we didn't have the moral fibre to even drop weapons and ammo to insurgents who fought the Soviets from 1945 to 1959 while hoping we would come.  Personally, if I was an Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian I wouldn't smoke the shit that NATO is serving unless they stationed troops in my country.  As for NATO stationing troops there is like being cut off, the land bridge from Poland to Lithuania is narrow and easily interdicted unless you are willing to spend a lot of pilots to keep it open.


----------



## GR66 (18 Oct 2016)

In Latvia and Estonia in particular I'd be more concerned with unconventional support for the significant Russian populations in those countries (26-28% Russian in each from what I can see).  Internal ethnic strife would be a much more difficult thing for NATO to intervene in than a full-fledged military invasion.  Any heavy handed responses to ethnic Russian activities (supported by "little green men") could give Russia a political excuse to intervene with military forces to defend the ethnic minority.

From their point of view I'd think that little bites from the Baltic states and sewing political disunity would be a much smarter approach than a very risky direct invasion.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> In Latvia and Estonia in particular I'd be more concerned with unconventional support for the significant Russian populations in those countries (26-28% Russian in each from what I can see).  *Internal ethnic strife* would be a much more difficult thing for NATO to intervene in than a full-fledged military invasion.  Any *heavy handed responses to ethnic Russian activities* (supported by "little green men") could give Russia a political excuse to intervene with military forces to defend the ethnic minority.
> 
> From their point of view I'd think that little bites from the Baltic states and *seowing political disunity would be a much smarter approach* than a very risky direct invasion.


Although we _may_ be less likely to see "the polite ones" in the Baltics (given that the Russians don't have bases on Baltic soil - which made the appearance of "local defence militias" easy & quick in Crimea)***, I agree with you about the bits in yellow.

*** - Unless, of course, Putin & Co. funds/uniformly equips Baltic Local Defence Militias within the Russophone communities.


----------



## Altair (18 Oct 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> In Latvia and Estonia in particular I'd be more concerned with unconventional support for the significant Russian populations in those countries (26-28% Russian in each from what I can see).  Internal ethnic strife would be a much more difficult thing for NATO to intervene in than a full-fledged military invasion.  Any heavy handed responses to ethnic Russian activities (supported by "little green men") could give Russia a political excuse to intervene with military forces to defend the ethnic minority.
> 
> From their point of view I'd think that little bites from the Baltic states and sewing political disunity would be a much smarter approach than a very risky direct invasion.


Isn't that the point of the trip wire forces?

Any heavy handed response to our heavy handed response would end up killing NATO soldiers, Americans, Canadians, Germans, etc.

That's a slow building situation with very little in terms of tactical surprise. I would imagine that would be easier to plan for and handle.

A sudden Russian push through the Baltics that would have them occupied in 60 hours would be a far more devastating because like Crimea, NATO would be presented with a fair accompli. How many alliance members are going to want to try to push a dug in Russia out of the Baltics?

How long would NATO survive if it didn't?


----------



## quadrapiper (18 Oct 2016)

Are any of NATO's eastern members making attempts at fostering or creating "stay behind" and guerilla/militia forces, as a low-cost deterrent to Russian occupation?


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Oct 2016)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Are any of NATO's eastern members making attempts at fostering or creating "stay behind" and guerilla/militia forces, as a low-cost deterrent to Russian occupation?



Yes. It's called 'Poland'.


----------



## Ostrozac (18 Oct 2016)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Are any of NATO's eastern members making attempts at fostering or creating "stay behind" and guerilla/militia forces, as a low-cost deterrent to Russian occupation?



Poland is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Defence_Force_(Poland)

Of course, Poland is in a better position geographically than Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Poland has time and space (and rivers) on its side on the defence, the Baltic states are in a much more difficult position. In addition, Poland has a very small ethnic Russian population -- the Baltic states have significant numbers of ethnic Russians.

A worst case scenario for NATO in the Baltics would probably be some kind of attempted coup in one of the Baltic countries -- a coup attempt in a member nation isn't supposed to trigger NATO involvement (see our allies in Turkey) and by time the dust settles a pro-Russian regime could be in power. The other option being that NATO intervenes, prevents the coup, and is then painted by the Russian propaganda machine as interfering in a member state's internal politics without any legal backing.

Interesting times ahead for the new Cold War. I hope everyone's brushing up on their conversational Latvian.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Defence_League
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Defence_troops_(Finland)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_(Sweden)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_(Norway)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_(Denmark)


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Oct 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> A worst case scenario for NATO in the Baltics would probably be some kind of attempted coup in one of the Baltic countries -- a coup attempt in a member nation isn't supposed to trigger NATO involvement (see our allies in Turkey) and by time the dust settles a pro-Russian regime could be in power. The other option being that NATO intervenes, prevents the coup, and is then painted by the Russian propaganda machine as interfering in a member state's internal politics without any legal backing.


Or, as mentioned in _"Yes, Prime Minister"_, "salami tactics" at the borders - since the YouTube video's no longer available, here's the script - even though they talk about nukes, same with intervention:


> ... Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA):  if they try anything, it will be salami tactics.
> 
> Prime Minister (PM - Salami tactics?
> 
> ...


----------



## Lightguns (19 Oct 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Defence_League
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Defence_troops_(Finland)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_(Sweden)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_(Norway)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_(Denmark)



Many Estonian gun clubs have a stock of AKs and offer training and shooting practice to club members with government provided ammo.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Oct 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Many Estonian gun clubs have a stock of AKs and offer training and shooting practice to club members with government provided ammo.



And all that without the 2nd amendment? Amazing....


----------



## dimsum (19 Oct 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And all that without the 2nd amendment? Amazing....



It's socialist, commie ammo!   :blotto:


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And all that without the 2nd amendment? Amazing....



D&B:

What do you reckon impact on recruiting and retention would be of "Free Bullets Every Saturday!"?


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Oct 2016)

Canadian-led Latvia battalion looks a bit of a dog's breakfast:



> NATO: “Albania, Italy, Poland and Slovenia will contribute to the Canadian-led battalion in Latvia”
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/mark-collins-nato-albania-italy-poland-and-slovenia-will-contribute-to-the-canadian-led-battalion-in-latvia/



Edit--the map:







Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (26 Oct 2016)

> Albania, Italy, Poland and Slovenia will contribute to the Canadian-led battalion in Latvia




That is an interesting mix.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Oct 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> D&B:
> 
> What do you reckon impact on recruiting and retention would be of "Free Bullets Every Saturday!"?



They would likely have less recruits, and fewer innocent bystanders too


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is an interesting mix.


Eclectic, but there's potential for access to some decent wine, sausage and plum brandy, though ...


----------



## Lightguns (27 Oct 2016)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Canadian-led Latvia battalion looks a bit of a dog's breakfast:
> 
> Edit--the map:
> 
> ...



Well, we picked a good spot for quick evacuation!  GerBat and USBat could be quickly cut off.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Oct 2016)

Well at least we aren't sitting on the relief route for Kalingrad


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Oct 2016)

George Wallace:



> That is an interesting mix.



Indeed--Italy invaded Albania in April 1939 and occupied it until 1943; Italy also invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941 and occupied much of Slovenia until 1943 (when Italy surrendered to the Allies and the Germans took over Italian-occupied territories).

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Altair (27 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is an interesting mix.


I'm just curious as to why they decided to make some nations pull double duty. 

The French are supporting two separate battalions and the Brits are leading one and supporting another.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Oct 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> The French are supporting two separate battalions ....


France is supporting only one battalion at a time; hence the dates.


----------



## Altair (27 Oct 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> France is supporting only one battalion at a time; hence the dates.


Makes sense.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Oct 2016)

Is Latvia nicer than Estonia?


----------



## Lightguns (27 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is Latvia nicer than Estonia?



Estonia celebrates their short NAZI past as freedom fighters, Latvians not so much.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Oct 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Estonia celebrates their short NAZI past as freedom fighters, Latvians not so much.


That's an interesting read - the same _could_ be said about _some_ Ukrainians, too.  Both EST & LVA had pro-German auxiliaries and Waffen SS units, so how do you see the difference now?

And if you mean these guys, here's how the EST info-machine plays that out...


> ... The Erna Raid commemorates the actions of the Erna long-range reconnaissance group in the summer of 1941. The Erna group, consisting of Estonian volunteers, had participated in the Finnish-Russian Winter War of 1939-1940, helping their Finnish “cousins” to fight against Soviet aggression. The members of this reconnaissance unit had sworn allegiance to Finland and its military commander, General Mannerheim. Despite German pressure, they refused to swear allegiance to Hitler, and were not part of the Nazi armed forces. In the summer of 1941, the Erna reconnaissance group landed behind Soviet lines on the northern coast of Estonia. At the end of July they held a fierce battle against numerically superior Soviet forces, in the process helping thousands of local civilians to avoid falling victim to Soviet persecution ...


----------



## Lightguns (27 Oct 2016)

There is a granite memorial to the 23th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS in Navria I believe.  The plaque is an German type soldier in helmet, M43 tunic, German Infantry Assault badge carrying an MP40, missing is the runes on the helmet and the eagle on the right breast but the Estonian SS collar dog is there.  Also all Estonia SS veterans dying recently received a military funeral.  Latvia on the other hand is more low key about it, with private funerals and banning expositions of their NAZI past.  

Those guys of which you speak are celebrated as well but equally with the later SS units and the post war Forest Brothers who were made of SS and SS police units that stayed behind. Read an interesting book published by SS Estonian Veterans living in ..... Canada.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Oct 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Read an interesting book published by SS Estonian Veterans living in ..... Canada.


Any reading recommendations welcome - thanks for the further backgrounding.

Living in a community with a lot of post-WW2 immigration from Ukraine and Croatia, I get a sense of what you mean there.


----------



## Lightguns (27 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Any reading recommendations welcome - thanks for the further backgrounding.
> 
> Living in a community with a lot of post-WW2 immigration from Ukraine and Croatia, I get a sense of what you mean there.



The big thing to remember with the occupied territory SS units and police is that they started out as Foreigner units recruited and equipped under the Army.  In 1943 Himmler ordered that all occupied territory ethnic units under the Army and the Field Police would be converted to SS control.  The Estonia military units became Waffen SS BUT refused to wear runes, wearing the old Estonian Army "Armoured Arm with raised Sword" in place. The police unit came under the Regional SS Police Commander, they had a less stellar reputation.  The 23th division was never off the frontline until parts of it evacuated to Germany.  It surrendered to the Americans and because the Yanks diplomatically refused to recognize Soviet control of Estonia, they got to be treated as refugees instead of SS.


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Oct 2016)

So a company of Italians for the Canadian-led Latvia "battle group"--what about Poles, Slovenes, Albanians (platoons from last two?   ):

...
Canada will deploy 450 troops as well as light armoured vehicles and other military equipment to the force while Italy has said it will send 140 soldiers.

It wasn’t immediately clear what the other countries will contribute, though media reports have indicated the Polish contribution will include tanks...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/four-countries-promise-to-join-canadian-led-battle-group-in-latvia/article32547760/

Plus:



> ...
> NATO's plan is to set up four battle groups with a total of some 4,000 troops from early next year, backed by a 40,000-strong rapid-reaction force, and if need be, follow-on forces.
> 
> As part of that, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced a "battle-ready battalion task force" of about 900 soldiers would be sent to eastern Poland, as well as another, separate force equipped with tanks and other heavy equipment to move across eastern Europe.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## rmc_wannabe (27 Oct 2016)

Good thing we've been working with the Poles for the past 2 yearsl... Seems like it was planned or something  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Oct 2016)

A small, yet brightly (shrill?) glowing splinter, of the Russian info-ops machine pipes in from separatist Ukraine on the announced deployment:


> *Terrorist Organization NATO And It’s Military Massing On The Russian Border, Including Albanian And Croatian Ustashi Forces !*
> 
> A day after reports terrorist organization NATO was soliciting even more ground troops for their deployment into Eastern Europe, officials are reporting “progress” in recruiting more troops from more member nations to participate in the deployment, intended to be around 40,000 troops along the Baltic states, near Russia’s border.
> 
> ...


These guys use a lot of exclamation points in their headlines ...


----------



## dimsum (27 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> These guys use a lot of exclamation points in their headlines



I generally find that there's an inverse relationship between the number of exclamation points (or ALL CAPS) in headlines, and my chances of believing them.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Oct 2016)

I see that "Radio Moscow" has found a niche on the internet.  During the Cold War listening to them was as entertaining, if not more so, than listening to the Royal Canadian Air Farce or todays This Hour has 22 Minutes.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I see that "Radio Moscow" has found a niche on the internet.


And that old propaganda warhorse Pravda (Russian for "truth") is still busy online, too.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2016)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> So a company of Italians for the Canadian-led Latvia "battle group"--what about Poles, Slovenes, Albanians (platoons from last two?   ):


Platoon-ish from the Slovenians (50), ~150 from the Poles, and no public word yet on how much Albania's throwing into the stew.

So, according to English-language open sources, we have ~800'ish accounted for so far for *CANLATBAT****.

*** - Note to Info-machine:  feel free to use that (or LATCANBAT if you want to play up the host country more, or CANITAPOLSLVALBLATBAT if you want to be truly inclusive) royalty-free as my modest contribution to Cold War 2.0  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (28 Oct 2016)

So?  Does that mean that we must bring back the CFE Comd Badge?

(Just sticking with TLA's for now.)

 [


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  Does that mean that we must bring back the CFE Comd Badge?
> 
> (Just sticking with TLA's for now.)
> 
> [


Only if they create another HQ -- which is _COMPLETELY_ outside the realm of possibility, right?


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Only if they create another HQ -- which is _COMPLETELY_ outside the realm of possibility, right?


Stop that you! The good idea fairies are everywhere. Seriously though if this becomes permament you might as well stand up 4 CMBG again.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Oct 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Stop that you! The good idea fairies are everywhere. Seriously though if this becomes permament you might as well stand up 4 CMBG again.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk



Only if they recreate 3 Mech Commando. Nothing like paratroopers in armoured vehicles to scare... well.... everyone....


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Oct 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Only if they recreate 3 Mech Commando. Nothing like paratroopers in armoured vehicles to scare... well.... everyone....


Is that because they're shitty drivers?   >


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Only if they recreate 3 Mech Commando. Nothing like paratroopers in armoured vehicles to scare... well.... everyone....


Especially those on _our_ side ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A small, yet brightly (shrill?) glowing splinter, of the Russian info-ops machine pipes in from separatist Ukraine on the announced deployment:
> 
> 
> > *Terrorist Organization NATO And It’s Military Massing On The Russian Border, Including Albanian And Croatian Ustashi Forces !* ...


The same outlet, dragging out a few more tropes (but not "Nazi") ...
_*"Fascist Regime Of Poland, One Of The Largest Army’s In NATO Is Setting Up A New Force ” Territorial Defence Force ”* To Combat Russia !"*_

*** - That would be these guys.


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Oct 2016)

CF-18s to alternate between Latvia and Romania?

July 8:



> Canada makes commitment to NATO Defence and deterrence measures
> 
> ...Canada will lead a robust multinational NATO battlegroup in Latvia..
> 
> ...



Oct. 31:



> Romania and Bulgaria to Host Greater NATO Presence in the Black Sea Region
> ...
> Canada and Poland will also send aircraft to Romania. The aircraft would be hosted in the southeastern Mihail Kogalniceanu military airport and will police NATO’s southeast flank...
> http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/romania-and-bulgaria-to-host-greater-nato-presence-in-the-black-sea-region



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Blackadder1916 (31 Oct 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Only if they recreate 3 Mech Commando. Nothing like paratroopers *soldiers in maroon berets and airborne cap badges regardless of jump status* in armoured vehicles to scare... well.... everyone....



FTFY


Scary!

http://canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/relaxing-e1390372920268.png


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2016)

Info-machine, stand by ...


> As Canadian soldiers prepare to deploy to lead a NATO contingent along the Russian border in Latvia, one of the country’s top military intelligence officials hinted that parliamentarians should brace for a smear campaign targeting Canadian and NATO troops by Russian actors.
> 
> “I don’t think there’s any question as we deploy troops into Latvia and put assets in and around Eastern Europe that the Russians will take an interest in that and it will at times be an aggressive effort at undermining those efforts,” said Stephen Burt, assistant chief of defence intelligence with the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command.
> 
> ...



Maybe along those lines?  _*"British soldiers 'targeted in Russian propaganda plot' * ... Two unnamed members of the Grenadier Guards were eating in a McDonalds in Riga at around 6pm when they were attacked and a brawl ensued.  A film crew appeared to be already in position to film the brawl. When the fighting was over, a Latvian accompanying the soldiers followed the film crew and saw them go into a media outlet known to be sympathetic to Russia.  One defence source said: “Our assessment is that this is clearly a set up: ‘Lets go and make these guys look like thugs and film it.’” ..."_

Also, RUS state media RIA Novosti's already appears to be paying more attention, in general, to Canada in its English-language coverage.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Info-machine, stand by ...
> Maybe along those lines?  _*"British soldiers 'targeted in Russian propaganda plot' * ... Two unnamed members of the Grenadier Guards were eating in a McDonalds in Riga at around 6pm when they were attacked and a brawl ensued.  A film crew appeared to be already in position to film the brawl. When the fighting was over, a Latvian accompanying the soldiers followed the film crew and saw them go into a media outlet known to be sympathetic to Russia.  One defence source said: “Our assessment is that this is clearly a set up: ‘Lets go and make these guys look like thugs and film it.’” ..."_
> 
> Also, RUS state media RIA Novosti's already appears to be paying more attention, in general, to Canada in its English-language coverage.



More poof that Alice has passed through the looking glass into unknown territory... on many levels...


----------



## Kilne (9 Nov 2016)

Will be interesting to see what happens now.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Nov 2016)

Kilne said:
			
		

> Will be interesting to see what happens now.



I'm guessing that Putin wants to attract our attention to the 'Central Front' so he can do what he wants elsewhere, like Syria etc.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Nov 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that Putin wants to attract our attention to the 'Central Front' so he can do what he wants elsewhere, like Syria etc.


From a Putin parody (?) Twitter feed:

_*"To celebrate Trump's inauguration the Russian army will hold a parade through Kiev"*_
_*"To celebrate Trump's win, the Russian navy has arranged a fireworks display for the citizens of Aleppo to enjoy."*_
_*"Before he is inaugurated I will meet Trump in the Saint Petersburg suburb of Estonia."*_


----------



## Inspir (19 Nov 2016)

*Trump presidency increases risk for Canadian troops headed to Latvia, Howard Dean says*

OTTAWA -- A top Democratic politician says Russian President Vladimir Putin will undoubtedly test U.S. president-elect Donald Trump by moving troops into a former Soviet country - including one where Canadian troops will be operating in 2017.

Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and former chair of the Democratic National Committee, says Trump talked during the presidential race as if he would undermine the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and warned Putin will try to test him.

"Who knows how, but I think it'll involve troops, it'll involve Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine or even Latvia," Dean said in an interview with Evan Solomon, host of CTV's Question Period.

That's a significant prediction for Canada, which has 450 Canadian soldiers deploying to Latvia in early 2017 as part of a NATO force. NATO has been beefing up its presence in eastern Europe in response to recent Russian action, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced last summer that the Canadian Armed Forces will lead a 1,000-person battle group and supply armoured vehicles for the open-ended mission.

Asked whether those soldiers are in a more dangerous situation now, with Putin likely to test to the U.S. president-elect, Dean warned there's danger any time there's uncertainty in foreign policy.

"We don't know what he's going to do... but I think the foreign policy stuff is really scary because a couple of words out of place, you can give people the impression that they can go ahead and do something that you don't want them to do. That is very frightening," Dean said.

*'More dangerous'*

"Is the world more dangerous or less dangerous now that Donald Trump is the president elect?" Solomon asked.

"It's much more dangerous. Because uncertainty breeds danger and Donald Trump is uncertainty," Dean said.

Trump has praised Putin as a strong leader, downplayed the impact of Russian aggression in Ukraine, and threatened to withhold American support for NATO missions if member countries don't meet promised defence spending targets.

A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan didn't answer a question about whether Sajjan agreed with Dean on the potential for increased risk to Canadian soldiers.

"The minister looks forward to a productive working relationship with the new U.S. secretary of defence, whenever he or she is named, just as he enjoys a strong relationship with the current administration and Secretary [Ashton] Carter," Jordan Owens wrote in an email to CTV News.

"Now more than ever Canada remains committed to NATO and to the promises we have made to our NATO allies, and we expect the same principles of ‎solidarity and collective defence will continue to guide NATO into the future."

*Trump advisor Steve Bannon 'a Nazi'*

Dean said Trump is a complicated person, pointing out he named Republican stalwart Reince Priebus to be chief of staff, but Steve Bannon, CEO of the far-right website Breitbart News, as chief strategist. Dean says Priebus is "a reasonable person," while Bannon is "a Nazi."

"It's a big word and I don't usually use it unless somebody's really anti-Semitic and really misogynist and really anti-Black," Dean said.

"It makes me very nervous. I mean it calls into question Donald Trump's judgement and that's the problem. So we don't know what to expect from Donald Trump," he added.

At the same time, Trump's daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism following her marriage to Jared Kushner, and the couple are raising their children in the Orthodox faith. Dean admits he doesn't understand how Trump "squares the circle," and said minority communities should be fearful.

"When you run a campaign based on hate, which is what he did, you run a terrible risk of somehow liberating people's worst instincts and that's just what's happened," Dean said.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/trump-presidency-increases-risk-for-canadian-troops-headed-to-latvia-howard-dean-says-1.3167496


----------



## QV (19 Nov 2016)

What a terrible article. 

NATO is weak because countries like Canada are not contributing.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Nov 2016)

Inspir said:
			
		

> *Trump presidency increases risk for Canadian troops headed to Latvia, Howard Dean says*


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Dec 2016)

Russia's latest ...


> Russia’s ambassador to Canada says the upcoming NATO deployment in Latvia – that Canadian soldiers will lead to deter Moscow’s aggression in eastern Europe – will be bad for regional security and an unwise diversion of resources from fighting the biggest menace: terrorism.
> 
> Alexander Darchiev’s comments follow high-profile terror attacks Monday in which an assassin killed Russia’s envoy to Turkey and a truck plowed into a Christmas market in Berlin.
> 
> ...


большое спасибо, Ambassador Darchiev, for your valued input into Canada's foreign policy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jan 2017)

The incoming First Lady's homeland approves 50 troops for Canada's battalion in Latvia (link in Slovenian, quote from Google Translate) ...


> Government referral to do 50 soldiers against NATO battalion against Latvia
> 
> Ljubljana, 19 January - The government adopted at its session today the intention to Slovenia's participation in NATO's enhanced presence in Latvia, the government service on Twitter. The battalion under Canadian command, to be counted among the 1000. 1200 members will participate to make 50 members of the Slovenian Armed Forces against several rotations, added the Government.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Feb 2017)

On the next ROTO's prep ...


> Canadian troops preparing to deploy to Latvia are bracing for a Russian campaign of misinformation meant to undercut the credibility of their mission, part of a NATO operation to counter Moscow’s aggression in Europe, Canada’s top general says.
> 
> Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, says the many preparations for the coming deployment include a “sophisticated” communications strategy to push back against expected Russian moves to turn public sentiment against the Canadians and the deployment.
> 
> “I think Russia will certainly see this as something to interfere with so we will take all the precautions we can,” Vance told reporters Friday ...


... and a bit more from CBC.ca:


> ... Vance told attendees at a security conference in Ottawa he anticipates Moscow will attempt — at the very least — to discredit the Canadian force, as it has tried to do with other allies.
> 
> The U.S., Britain and Germany are leading the other three battalions, which have already begun moving into Estonia, Lithuania and Poland. Those eastern European countries have been nervous since Russia annexed Crimea and war erupted in eastern Ukraine in the spring of 2014.
> Canadian battle group last in
> ...


Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Baltics ...


> Lithuanian prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into a false report of rape by German soldiers stationed there as part of NATO a mission to deter Russia.
> 
> The investigation comes among fears that Russia is using disinformation campaigns to influence opinion and elections in the West.
> 
> ...


----------



## dimsum (18 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> On the next ROTO's prep ...... and a bit more from CBC.ca:Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Baltics ...



Hell, judging from the comments on the CBC articles on FB, one would think the disinformation campaign has already started.


----------



## McG (21 Feb 2017)

The deployment to Latvia is not Op UNIFIER let alone the next roto of UNIFIER.  So, I have split this to its own thread.

I don't know if this deployment will become a named mission or not.  I don't believe Canada's Cold War presence in Germany was ever a named mission, so the precedent is set that this does not need to be a named mission.  But, we will see.


----------



## dimsum (21 Feb 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> The deployment to Latvia is not Op UNIFIER let alone the next roto of UNIFIER.  So, I have split this to its own thread.
> 
> I don't know if this deployment will become a named mission or not.  I don't believe Canada's Cold War presence in Germany was ever a named mission, so the precedent is set that this does not need to be a named mission.  But, we will see.



So...Canadian Forces Europe?


----------



## Haggis (21 Feb 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So...Canadian *Armed* Forces Europe?



FTFY.  Get with the times.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> The deployment to Latvia is not Op UNIFIER let alone the next roto of UNIFIER.  So, I have split this to its own thread.
> 
> I don't know if this deployment will become a named mission or not.  I don't believe Canada's Cold War presence in Germany was ever a named mission, so the precedent is set that this does not need to be a named mission.  But, we will see.


DOHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Thanks for the split over my mistake, MCG


----------



## McG (21 Feb 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> FTFY.  Get with the times.


It was "CFE" back in the '80s when we preferred "CAF" to "CF".
I don't see why it would have to be different if brought back today when we again prefer "CAF".


----------



## dapaterson (21 Feb 2017)

Or call it "Canadian Forces Baltic", or CFB for short


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Feb 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> It was "CFE" back in the '80s when we preferred "CAF" to "CF".
> I don't see why it would have to be different if brought back today when we again prefer "CAF".



And when we were part of BAOR, it was a component of the Canadian Army that had the unpublicized status of a command known as the Canadian Army National Force Europe (CANFE.)


----------



## RedcapCrusader (21 Feb 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> FTFY.  Get with the times.



CAFE?

I love me a good cappuccino!


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Feb 2017)

Well if you want to continue our trend of over inflated HQ's, making the HQ element 4 CMBG, under the command of 1 Div (you know, to give them something to do) that could great a fair number of Major+ positions to fill up >


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2017)

From MSN News: 


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Canadian troops to find permanent home in Latvia to deter Russian aggression
> Edmonton Journal
> Juris Graney
> 6 hrs ago
> ...



LINK

Edmonton Journal LINK.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Feb 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Return to Europe - *Permanent* Posting - Latvia


Can we suggest names for that posting plot?


----------



## dimsum (27 Feb 2017)

Baltic country...3-4 year postings...

Nah, I can't see any new Latvian-Canadians brought back to Canada at all  >


----------



## Journeyman (27 Feb 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Nah, I can't see any new Latvian-Canadians brought back to Canada at all  >


That can only be beneficial to the gene pool of places like Shilo.   :nod:


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Feb 2017)

Dust off the 4 CMBG flags? If we are there for the long run I suspect we could see this ramp up. Maybe all those super hornets for the baltic air policing mission

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Feb 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> That can only be beneficial to the gene pool of places like Shilo.   :nod:



Quite https://www.google.ca/search?q=latvian+women&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipreOa37DSAhWi5IMKHf2kBzsQ_AUICCgB&biw=1902&bih=919


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Feb 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Dust off the 4 CMBG flags?



NDHQ is super excited at the prospect of an entire Bde HQ they can staff.

Post 1 Can Div HQ to Lativa permanently, so they can do something other than man the DART and conduct exercises in parking lots.


----------



## GAP (27 Feb 2017)

If this is the prospects


			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Quite https://www.google.ca/search?q=latvian+women&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipreOa37DSAhWi5IMKHf2kBzsQ_AUICCgB&biw=1902&bih=919






			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> That can only be beneficial to the gene pool of places like Shilo.   :nod:



Then Shilo will be overwhelmed....


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> NDHQ is super excited at the prospect of an entire Bde HQ they can staff.
> 
> Post 1 Can Div HQ to Lativa permanently, so they can do something other than man the DART and conduct exercises in parking lots.



They would still be conducting exercises in parking lots.......Just not in Canada.


----------



## Quirky (27 Feb 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> That can only be beneficial to the gene pool of places like Shilo.   :nod:



No Eastern European girl would want to live in Shilo.  :rofl:


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2017)

Quirky said:
			
		

> No Eastern European girl would want to live in Shilo.  :rofl:



 ???

Lots of Eastern Europeans in that region......Ukrainians abound there.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Feb 2017)

Different generations


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Feb 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Can we suggest names for that posting plot?



Whatever you do, don't call it 'Task Force Smith' like a previous, completely failed experiment in 'superficial presence keeping intended as meaningful deterrence':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Osan


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (28 Feb 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Whatever you do, don't call it 'Task Force Smith' like a previous, completely failed experiment in 'superficial presence keeping intended as meaningful deterrence':
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Osan



Task Force Smith deployed to South Korea from Japan _after_ the North Korean invasion of the South. While Task Force Smith offers lessons regarding army readiness, they were neither a presence nor a deterrence force.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Mar 2017)

Spain is sending tanks for NATO force in Latvia,



> Spain to send six Leopard tanks and several armored vehicles to Latvia
> http://www.baltictimes.com/spain_to_send_six_leopard_tanks_and_several_armored_vehicles_to_latvia/



and Poland is sending some too:



> Polish “Twardy” Main Battle Tanks Headed to Latvia
> http://www.defence24.com/496118,polish-twardy-main-battle-tanks-headed-to-latvia



but there are no indications I've seen that any Canadian Army Leopard 2s will be deployed.  I find that embarrassing in a force we are supposed to be leading.  If not now why have the things?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GK .Dundas (5 Mar 2017)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Spain is sending tanks for NATO force in Latvia,
> 
> and Poland is sending some two:
> 
> ...


 Well you know they make such great paperweights.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Mar 2017)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> I find that embarrassing in a force we are supposed to be leading.  If not now why have the things?


Maybe someone upstairs is taking the HQ bit too literally?


----------



## dapaterson (5 Mar 2017)

Lack of gravy in Latvia?


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Mar 2017)

Because we dont want to whip out our tanks any chance we get?

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Mar 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Lack of gravy in Latvia?


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Mar 2017)

Graphic on twitter,
https://twitter.com/cezarysta/status/838399312136704001






by:



> Cezary Stachniak
> @cezarysta follows you
> 
> Logistician on NATO's Eastern Flank / Logistyk na wschodniej flance NATO / Poland & Baltic States defence issues / “Nothing happens until something moves”
> https://twitter.com/cezarysta



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325 (6 Mar 2017)

I would imagine that Canada's contribution will change from time to time, based on what our allies bring.  Now if only we could get some kind of air defence....

I mean, it's a lot easier for Poland and Spain to throw some tanks on a train than for us to ship and or fly them there.


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Mar 2017)

I know that list is only AFV's, but whats the battle groups arty situation like? would a Canadian M777 battery be a great asset? given with an Excalibur round you could touch Russia.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Mar 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I mean, it's a lot easier for Poland and Spain to throw some tanks on a train than for us to ship and or fly them there.



Then again, it would be just as fast to buy them direct off the shelf from the factory..... [


----------



## George Wallace (6 Mar 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I know that list is only AFV's, but whats the battle groups arty situation like? would a Canadian M777 battery be a great asset? given with an Excalibur round you could touch Russia.



And Soviet artillery would flatten that Grid Square and all the surrounding Grid Squares just as easily.   [:'(


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Mar 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I know that list is only AFV's, but whats the battle groups arty situation like? would a Canadian M777 battery be a great asset? given with an Excalibur round you could touch Russia.


I have been told the guns are coming from one of the other contributing nations, although we are providing the BC, FSCC and FOO parties.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (6 Mar 2017)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Graphic on twitter,
> https://twitter.com/cezarysta/status/838399312136704001
> 
> 
> ...



What a cluster

It's an Armoured Vehicle Dog and Pony!

I love how the Poles have sent T72s and left their LEOs at home.  I can picture a Polish Officer saying the following:  "Charity begins at home"  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Mar 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Then again, it would be just as fast to buy them direct off the shelf from the factory..... [


Drop-shipping tanks - LOVE it!


			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> What a cluster
> 
> It's an Armoured Vehicle Dog and Pony!


Any former "CF in Germany" hands out there -- was there this broad a mix in the old Fulda-Gap-watching days?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (6 Mar 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> What a cluster
> 
> It's an Armoured Vehicle Dog and Pony!
> 
> I love how the Poles have sent T72s and left their LEOs at home.  I can picture a Polish Officer saying the following:  "Charity begins at home"  ;D



Its a multinational force - its going to have a mix of equipment.

As for your comment on the Poles leaving Leos "at home", I suggest that you have a look at a map of Europe to place your comment in a meaningful context.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Mar 2017)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Its a multinational force - its going to have a mix of equipment.
> 
> As for your comment on the Poles leaving Leos "at home", I suggest that you have a look at a map of Europe to place your comment in a meaningful context.



It does add to the Logistics Nightmare.  Common Ammo and Spare Parts would be a major concern, would it not?


----------



## George Wallace (6 Mar 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...... -- was there this broad a mix in the old Fulda-Gap-watching days?



Actually, not so much.

Even the Germanys had American equipment, along with their Leopards (which several other nations shared commonality with, including us.) and their Marders.  The M-113 family of vehicles were widely used among all the nations.  Common Ammo calibres were shared among the various nations, as well as many of the weapons systems.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (6 Mar 2017)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Its a multinational force - its going to have a mix of equipment.



I'm sure it looks great on someone's political briefing note.  I wouldn't want to be running C/S 8 for this one.  It's doctrinally unsound. 

You've got a Brigade sized force with, 5 different MBTs, 8 different variants of APCs/IFVs, 4 different recce variants.



> As for your comment on the Poles leaving Leos "at home", I suggest that you have a look at a map of Europe to place your comment in a meaningful context.



It was a joke, chill  8)

If I was Poland, I wouldn't be sending LEOs to Latvia either, keep them at home where they will actually be of use.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Mar 2017)

I would prefer we did a long term lease of some of the Paladins that the US has parked in storage. I would not want to be in a towed artillery unit facing off the Russians. As for tanks, not sure how many spare Leopards are left, but Canada could lease/buy 20 or so upgraded ones that stay in Europe and units are rotated through them. As ADA, buy into a existing Manpads that are in use and in production and have training troop in Canada and a active one in Lativa. Eventually work towards a larger vehicle based system as well. Also a tracked mounted 120mm mortar battery would good.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Mar 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would prefer we did a long term lease of some of the Paladins that the US has parked in storage. I would not want to be in a towed artillery unit facing off the Russians. As for tanks, not sure how many spare Leopards are left, but Canada could lease/buy 20 or so upgraded ones that stay in Europe and units are rotated through them. As ADA, buy into a existing Manpads that are in use and in production and have training troop in Canada and a active one in Lativa. Eventually work towards a larger vehicle based system as well. Also a tracked mounted 120mm mortar battery would good.



We only have some 40 odd Leo 2's so not many to go around, which is why we still have some 1's in service. If you are going to buy an existing manpad system why not the polish Grom? it's proven effective against the russians.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Mar 2017)

We purchased 100 Leo 2s. A number have been modified to AEVs and ARVs, but well over 40 remain; your source is wrong.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (7 Mar 2017)

We have roughly 80 gun tanks in three variants. 

Sustainment for a multi-national force is always challenging, as is every other operational function. Ammunition, parts and technician qualifications pose problems for nation-specific equipment. The good news is that these are known factors that can be accounted for. I served in a NATO multi-national brigade in an operational environment with six major contingents, all with their own vehicles and weapons systems not to mention languages and communications gear. I recently served in a multi-national division with an amazing mixture of equipment and nationalities. It can work. 

Churchill is quoted as saying "There is only thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them."


----------



## jeffb (7 Mar 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would prefer we did a long term lease of some of the Paladins that the US has parked in storage. I would not want to be in a towed artillery unit facing off the Russians. As for tanks, not sure how many spare Leopards are left, but Canada could lease/buy 20 or so upgraded ones that stay in Europe and units are rotated through them. As ADA, buy into a existing Manpads that are in use and in production and have training troop in Canada and a active one in Lativa. Eventually work towards a larger vehicle based system as well. Also a tracked mounted 120mm mortar battery would good.



Or even some PzH2000's from our German friends. I'm sure they'd have a Bty worth of guns we could pick up fairly cheaply. The only people in the close support Regiments that served on the M109s are pretty few and far between and are mostly very senior. We'd almost be standing up the SPG capability from scratch so going Paladin versus some other system is probably a wash from a training perspective. At least the PzHs are already on the continent. 

As for ADA, I'm a believer that we should try and focus to a niche capability such as counter UAV. Paired with the RADARs that we have now, a shooter that is optimized for engaging SUAVs and smaller would be a good fit and a real value added within an IADS.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Mar 2017)

jeffb said:
			
		

> Or even some PzH2000's from our German friends. I'm sure they'd have a Bty worth of guns we could pick up fairly cheaply. The only people in the close support Regiments that served on the M109s are pretty few and far between and are mostly very senior. We'd almost be standing up the SPG capability from scratch so going Paladin versus some other system is probably a wash from a training perspective. At least the PzHs are already on the continent.
> 
> As for ADA, I'm a believer that we should try and focus to a niche capability such as counter UAV. Paired with the RADARs that we have now, a shooter that is optimized for engaging SUAVs and smaller would be a good fit and a real value added within an IADS.



 :SOF:

Ummm?  In the SPG sense, we would still have some experience on the Paladin, whereas the PzH 2000 would be a completely new SPG to learn on.  (Not that I don't think that we would be well served having PzH 2000's, and maintained the SPG capabilities.)


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Mar 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We purchased 100 Leo 2s. A number have been modified to AEVs and ARVs, but well over 40 remain; your source is wrong.



112 to be exact, 12 of which converted to ARV's, another 18 into AEV's, leaving 82 actual tanks, my sources might be wrong and I hope they are but an estimated 42 are actually in circulation for training, leaving 40 tanks, our 20 A6MCAN's and our A4MCAN's free for operations.


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Mar 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> 112 to be exact, 12 of which converted to ARV's, another 18 into AEV's, leaving 82 actual tanks, my sources might be wrong and I hope they are but an estimated 42 are actually in circulation for training, leaving 40 tanks, our 20 A6MCAN's and our A4MCAN's free for operations.



Survival time of 40 Leos against the Russian hoards ?


----------



## George Wallace (7 Mar 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Survival time of 40 Leos against the Russian hoards ?



Well..... [  ...For us Cold War Warriors in Recce Sqn, it was 7 seconds on crossing the Start Line.   

If you survived that first 7 seconds, you may have had a chance.  :warstory:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Mar 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :SOF:
> 
> Ummm?  In the SPG sense, we would still have some experience on the Paladin, whereas the PzH 2000 would be a completely new SPG to learn on.  (Not that I don't think that we would be well served having PzH 2000's, and maintained the SPG capabilities.)



The PzH 2000 appears to have some issues, lots of moving bits that need TLC. The Paladin is basically a M109 with upgraded/new drivetrain from the Bradley. One website says it is in low rate production, not sure if that means completely new vehicles or production of rebuilds?

M109A7 (2013)

_Due to the cancellation of new programs like the Crusader and Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon, the former M109A6 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) was reactivated and extended to a full-blown modernization. Commonality of components with the Bradley IFV such as the engine, transmission, and tracks was part of this upgrade for costs-savings in production and maintenance personnel. The on-board power systems are completely overhauled with a much faster electric drive system for the turret traverse, better automatic rammer (1 rpm, max 4 rpm) and better accuracy overall.

There is also an additional power for future upgrades with a 600-volt on-board system. It is also 35 tonnes (4,5 tonne heavier) but the engine improvements meant it can travel 38 mph (61 km/h) and is more maneuverable, even than a Bradley. By 2013 after testing of prototypes, production was approved with a procurement of 580 M109A7 and M992A3 ammunition support vehicles. The FY 2014 budget called for $340.8 million ($14.4 million per vehicle) The test phase is not yet even closed. The full-rate production decision is therefore planned for February 2017. BAE started a low-rate delivery April 2015._


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Mar 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well..... [  ...For us Cold War Warriors in Recce Sqn, it was 7 seconds on crossing the Start Line.
> 
> If you survived that first 7 seconds, you may have had a chance.  :warstory:


That sounds like WW1 flying ace odds ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Mar 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That sounds like WW1 flying ace odds ...



Or 'Valley of Tears' odds.... 

The 7th Brigade, including reinforcements, totaled some twenty tanks. It began to pursue the Syrians but stopped at the anti-tank ditch. About 260 tanks were lying in the valley.[47] The Syrians lost over 500 tanks and APCs and the Israelis lost 60 to 80 armored vehicles. One brigade from the 7th Division was taken out of action for three days and then reorganized as a battalion.[50] Eitan told the 7th Brigade over the radio: "You have saved the people of Israel". Ben Gal told Kahalani: "You are the true savior of the people of Israel".[51] In the afternoon, the brigade's tanks pulled back a few at a time for ammunition and fuel. Ben Gal told Kahalani that the brigade has been ordered to counterattack into Syria. Eitan asked him to attack the next day, so as not to allow the Syrians time to reorganize, but Ben Gal asked for a day to allow his men to rest and refill the ranks.[49] Kahalani was later awarded the Medal of Valor for his performance in the battle.[52]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_Tears


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Mar 2017)

Brit-led force well ahead of Canadian-led EFP (not til June http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-latvia-deployment-1.3988719 )



> NATO battalion battle group to start moving to Estonia
> 
> The personnel, arms and equipment of one of the battle groups of the multinational NATO battalion will be moving to Estonia over the next six weeks.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Mar 2017)

Fellow in Polish army on twitter,



> @cezarysta follows you
> 
> Logistician on NATO's Eastern Flank / Logistyk na wschodniej flance NATO / Poland & Baltic States defence issues / “Nothing happens until something moves”
> https://twitter.com/cezarysta



seems well-informed--wish our gov't would tell us details of Canadian deployment to Latvia:



> @cezarysta
> 
> @Mark3Ds There is any [think he means no] delay for #CAN-led 🇨🇦 #eFP #battlegroup. Everything is planned and deployment dates are already on the table. No need to rush.
> https://twitter.com/cezarysta/status/839227666066780161



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (7 Mar 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> 112 to be exact, 12 of which converted to ARV's, another 18 into AEV's, leaving 82 actual tanks, my sources might be wrong and I hope they are but an estimated 42 are actually in circulation for training, leaving 40 tanks, our 20 A6MCAN's and our A4MCAN's free for operations.



I think I looked this up last year:
20 A6MCAN
20 A4MCAN (same except with shorter main gun)
40 A4 - Not updated recently

Could have changed.....

Was kind of hoping they were going to upgrade the 40 A4's to at least the A4MCAN standard, but haven't seen anything indicating any progress in that respect.


----------



## suffolkowner (7 Mar 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I think I looked this up last year:
> 20 A6MCAN
> 20 A4MCAN (same except with shorter main gun)
> 40 A4 - Not updated recently
> ...



I'm curious is there a benefit to both the 2A4's and 2A6's? To having the two different size guns?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (7 Mar 2017)

The tank project worked wonders within their constraints. The Leo2A6M is arguably the best tank in the world, but simply getting 80 of those was not on the table. The project did very well to get at least 20 A4s upgraded with the protection package. That work requires some fairly specialized equipment not readily available.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Mar 2017)

The longer barrel L55 gun of the A6 is suited for tank on tank engagements more then the L44 is because it can achieve higher muzzle velocity. The FCS and a few other minor things are also different between the A4 and the A6. If we want to have one common fleet A6 would be the standard for anti armour warfare,    otherwise an A4 or a5 is fine. If you wanna get super fancy you can upgrade to A7 like the Germans are slowly doing. Remember those tanks they loaned us? They were the first to be upgraded to the new A7 configuration.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## suffolkowner (7 Mar 2017)

Thanks, obviously no shortage of things to spend the new increased budget on :rofl:


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Mar 2017)

Should also be noted the Germans are taking an interest in. Reviving the leo 2 140 program. Due to recent threats from russian armour advancements the idea is a 140mm 55 caliber smoothbore gun has been tested in a A5 model.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (8 Mar 2017)

We are well off-topic now, but the Leopard 2A6Ms that we leased for use in Afghanistan are now the Leo2A6Ms that we have in Canada. We gave Germany the Leo2A6s that we bought from the Netherlands and those became the ones that were upgraded for the German army. Tank development has been fairly static since the end of the Cold War, but we'll see what develops now. 

The Leo2A6M has the fully independent hunter-killer sight in addition to the L55 barrel. Considering that we were getting out the tank business in 2003 we are looking pretty good right now!

As for the Enhanced Forward Presence, this is a great opportunity to practice interoperability.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Mar 2017)

Not sure if any spare Leo 2’s are left to be leased, I have no doubt a deal could be made at reasonable costs to have upgraded M1’s fielded there for Canadians and others to use as there is about 2,000 in storage, however that brings up significant training challenges.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (8 Mar 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Should also be noted the Germans are taking an interest in. Reviving the leo 2 140 program. Due to recent threats from russian armour advancements the idea is a 140mm 55 caliber smoothbore gun has been tested in a A5 model.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk



I think I read that there was also an upgrade on the L55 Gun which allowed ammunition with higher pressures which could be an option....


----------



## suffolkowner (8 Mar 2017)

To continue the Leopard 2 improvement discussions

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.ca/2016/07/future-leopard-2-improvments.html


----------



## MilEME09 (9 Mar 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I think I read that there was also an upgrade on the L55 Gun which allowed ammunition with higher pressures which could be an option....


Also an upgrade to enable the firing of the LAHAT ATGM which would effectively double the engagement range of the leo. All great options canada should consider if we move armour to latvia, or buy some of those german tanks still in storage. Also dont forget the conventional forces in europe treaty applies here.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Also an upgrade to enable the firing of the LAHAT ATGM which would effectively double the engagement range of the leo. All great options canada should consider if we move armour to latvia, or buy some of those german tanks still in storage. Also dont forget the conventional forces in europe treaty applies here.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk



A consideration here is the ammo outload that the tank would have.  Would that drastically reduce the number of rounds that the tank would carry?


----------



## MilEME09 (9 Mar 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A consideration here is the ammo outload that the tank would have.  Would that drastically reduce the number of rounds that the tank would carry?


My understanding is it would take up relatively the same amount of space. So its just what loadout you want.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## McG (9 Mar 2017)

It is a battalion, not a brigade that NATO will put in Latvia.   Canada is sending a battalion HQ and an infantry company (not a battle group or even a combat team).  It is there to deter, not to defeat, a Russian invasion.  

My take on it?  If we put our limited fleet of Leopard 2 into Latvia and a war actually happens, we can expect to quickly lose all the tanks and crews to no strategic gain.  If a war happens, we will want our tanks for the push from Western Europe to take back what has been overrun.  



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I'm curious is there a benefit to both the 2A4's and 2A6's? To having the two different size guns?


No. Different tanks mean lower capital costs up front, but higher lifecycle costs and more ass pain through the life of the fleet.  We have different tanks because that is how we could afford to purchase the determined quantity requirement with the budget profile.   With a <1% defence budget you get 80 tanks in three tiers of capability (one of which is below operational). With a 2% budget, you could get those 80 tanks all at the top tier of capability so that they are all deployable to war, they do not require conversion training for any crew or maintainer, and they all benefit from completely common parts.


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Mar 2017)

MCG:



> ...If a war happens, we will want our tanks for the push from Western Europe to take back what has been overrun...



Then the war will a lot longer indeed that one suspects anyone thinks for Canadian tanks to arrive--and not nuclear.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Mar 2017)

Maybe the UN will request Canadian tanks for Mali :rofl:--on the other hand now that MINUSMA has Bundeswehr attack helos...
http://www.janes.com/article/67329/germany-airlifts-nh90s-and-tigers-to-mali

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Mar 2017)

Mali is perfect for the LAV's and helicopters. Look at how the French operate.


----------



## MJP (9 Mar 2017)

Maybe a split for all the LEO 2 and Mali talk is in order?


----------



## George Wallace (10 Mar 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I think I read that there was also an upgrade on the L55 Gun which allowed ammunition with higher pressures which could be an option....



Just saw this:


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Apr 2017)

Polish BGEN to command NATO Enhanced Forward Presence forces in Baltics and Poland--a tweet:
https://twitter.com/cezarysta/status/850765800382320640



> Cez Arysta‏ @cezarysta
> 
> .@NATO Multinational Division North-East #MNDNE
> ☑task: coordinate #eFP #battlegroups
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just saw this:



Holy Jeebus.... that thing looks like the main gun on the Missouri.

Now all we need is a proper establishment of ATGMs.


----------



## McG (8 Apr 2017)

So when the Canadian mission first launches out the door, it will be Op REASURANCE roto 8.


----------



## medicineman (9 Apr 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Holy Jeebus.... that thing looks like the main gun on the Missouri.
> 
> Now all we need is a proper establishment of ATGMs.



Wonder how fast it is to reload that beast...

MM


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 Apr 2017)

Did I miss It?

Is no one in the battlegroup providing artillery support?

As that's a massive deficiency in the Latvian ground forces, it seems like a rather large omission.


----------



## McG (9 Apr 2017)

At least one contributing nation (and maybe a second) has mortars in their company.  Canada does not have this in our company.


----------



## MilEME09 (9 Apr 2017)

Would a battery of M777s be worth it though? Conflict breaks out and that battery is a write off sorry to say. 

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## jmt18325 (9 Apr 2017)

I tend to agree - it's better to keep what we have here to push back.  We're there as a trip wire and a deterrence, not to actually fight.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 Apr 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I tend to agree - it's better to keep what we have here to push back.  We're there as a trip wire and a deterrence, not to actually fight.



I don't think it is reasonable to ask our acting serving men and women, their spouses and children to accept that should a conflict break out, we have planned that the force to be wiped out in it's entirety.  But good news we've held back forces to eventually re-take that land later. 

Either build a defensible position or don't go...


----------



## McG (9 Apr 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I don't think it is reasonable to ask our acting serving men and women, their spouses and children to accept that should a conflict break out, we have planned that the force to be wiped out in it's entirety.  But good news we've held back forces to eventually re-take that land later.


Welcome to the only profession where you can be ordered to do something that will get you killed because that is what the mission requires.


----------



## dimsum (9 Apr 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> Welcome to the only profession where you can be ordered to do something that will get you killed because that is what the mission requires.



I agree with the sentiment, but I thought police and fire services were obligated to do the same?


----------



## chrisf (10 Apr 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I agree with the sentiment, but I thought police and fire services were obligated to do the same?



No, they, and all civilian workers, have the right to refuse unsafe working conditions.

They're only expected to deal with a "normal" hazard of their job.

For example, a police officer can't refuse to work because criminals may be armed.

They can refuse to work if the brakes in their cruiser aren't in good working condition.


----------



## MilEME09 (11 Apr 2017)

I'm not saying those troops don't deserve arty support but realistically, we have 37 M777's, lets say five are used as training aids at the various schools. 32 guns is only 8 batteries to cover 3 CMBG's, the math doesn't sound like we have assets we can afford to loose.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Apr 2017)

MilEME09: Any more than any other "assets", including people, that "we can afford to lose"? 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Pikache (11 Apr 2017)

All,

Just a reminder about OPSEC. Some posts are straying close.

-Army.ca Staff


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Apr 2017)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> MilEME09: Any more than any other "assets", including people, that "we can afford to lose"?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Given the size and equipment the CF does have, we can't afford any loses in a peer to peer engagement, and I fear if we get into a shooting war thats serious, by the time the government actually gets into it's usually reactionary action when it comes to defense, it may be too late.


----------



## Lightguns (12 Apr 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Given the size and equipment the CF does have, we can't afford any loses in a peer to peer engagement, and I fear if we get into a shooting war thats serious, by the time the government actually gets into it's usually reactionary action when it comes to defense, it may be too late.



its a political show, there is no intent to make a defense of it or even to reply right away if the balloon goes up, just a NATO national sized pinky swear.  Russia says "I want Latvia but I got to shoot up Yanks, Canucks, and Poles, do I want that?"  Pinky swear.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 Apr 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> its a political show, there is no intent to make a defense of it or even to reply right away if the balloon goes up, just a NATO national sized pinky swear.  Russia says "I want Latvia but I got to shoot up Yanks, Canucks, and Poles, do I want that?"  Pinky swear.




Kind of like Hong Kong with the Japanese....

Hmmmm....I wonder if there was a lesson that should've been learned from that?


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Apr 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Kind of like Hong Kong with the Japanese....
> 
> Hmmmm....I wonder if there was a lesson that should've been learned from that?



unfortunately everyone who learned those lesson's was out of influence by the late 1960's, then in the 70's we signed up for CAST, Hong Kong 2.0 waiting to happen, now it's latvia.


----------



## McG (12 Apr 2017)

The comparison to Hong Kong is only fitting at the tactical level.  The Japanese were not worried about starting a war with the Commonwealth because they were already at war.  The eFP means that Russia cannot start a war in one of the countries without starting a fight with many other NATO countries.


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Apr 2017)

Given Article 7, having allied troops in place should not be required, that said from a political point of view it does help.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Apr 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Given Article 7...


Article 5.  7 just says that NATO doesn't supersede the UN.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Apr 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I'm not saying those troops don't deserve arty support but realistically, we have 37 M777's, lets say five are used as training aids at the various schools. 32 guns is only 8 batteries to cover 3 CMBG's, the math doesn't sound like we have assets we can afford to loose.



 ???

You reasoning is all fucked up in my mind - kit shouldn't sit around *state-side* that should be deployed into a theatre/mission.  Mission is what we are supposed to be about.  Home and garrison/hanger/jetty life is about training for the mission (where ever it may be).  We have a small navy, and a small LRP fleet for the size of the country and coasts we have, yet (some of) those assets are deployed outside Canada almost continuously.


----------



## Lightguns (13 Apr 2017)

If the balloon goes up, we will have two choices: join the coalition to liberate Latvia or; negotiate for the release of our troops being held in a gulag in Siberia.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> If the balloon goes up, we will have two choices: join the coalition to liberate Latvia or; negotiate for the release of our troops being held in a gulag in Siberia.



"So, Canadian soldiers.  We have freed you from prison in Siberia, just in time to get you back to Wainwright for Maple Resolve '19."

"Umm... do we have to leave Siberia?"


----------



## MilEME09 (13 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> You reasoning is all ****ed up in my mind - kit shouldn't sit around *state-side* that should be deployed into a theatre/mission.  Mission is what we are supposed to be about.  Home and garrison/hanger/jetty life is about training for the mission (where ever it may be).  We have a small navy, and a small LRP fleet for the size of the country and coasts we have, yet (some of) those assets are deployed outside Canada almost continuously.



All I'm saying is that battery would be more useful in my opinion in the follow up force, that said I am not an expert on strategic military planning.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Apr 2017)

What "follow-up" force from Canada? How/when might it ever arrive?  Where would it deploy? Not likely Latvia.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Apr 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> All I'm saying is that battery would be more useful in my opinion in the follow up force, that said I am not an expert on strategic military planning.



But, this isn't a "Canada only" operation right?  Part of the strength of NATO, or any coalition, is all the smaller parts each country contributes all combined into the big machine.  So, it might only be *1 battery*, or heck, even a Regiment isn't much in the BIG scheme of things but every little bit counts.  If / when the SHTF in any kind of op area, the guys and gals there will be HAPPY to have battery fire, vice "sorry, we got nothin' '"!   :2c:


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Apr 2017)

Two tweets:

1) Reinforcing:



> V @cezarysta-#NATO #EFP in #Baltics tripwire indeed
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Base on RAND study:



> The Abilities of the British, French, and German Armies to Generate and Sustain Armored Brigades in the Baltics
> https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1629.html



2) How fast to go nuclear (decades-old question):
https://twitter.com/jdcushman/status/852618868904349697



> Jeremiah Cushman‏ @jdcushman
> 
> Jeremiah Cushman Retweeted Tuomo Rusila
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09 (14 Apr 2017)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> What "follow-up" force from Canada? How/when might it ever arrive?  Where would it deploy? Not likely Latvia.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Where really would depend on the situation on the ground once forces from Canada arrive. Assuming it's full on war said follow up force would be what ever high readiness CMBG is on call while we call up everything else.


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Apr 2017)

MilEME09: One fears that's rather a cloud cuckoo land scenario.  

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580 (14 Apr 2017)

The odds of a follow-on group from Canada range from remote to non-existent.  How would we get them there?  On our C-17s you say, so who flies escort?  By ship, you say?  Whose, says I?  And what will the opposing subs be doing in the meantime.  We don't have a merchant navy to draw on and we don't have the navy to protect them.  You had better hope that the Brits, French and Germans can do better in getting reinforcements on scene than they say they can because that Canadian group on site will be the only Canucks on site for a significant length of time.


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Apr 2017)

YZT580: BZ 
:bowing:

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The odds of a follow-on group from Canada range from remote to non-existent.  How would we get them there?  On our C-17s you say, so who flies escort?  By ship, you say?  Whose, says I?  And what will the opposing subs be doing in the meantime.  We don't have a merchant navy to draw on and we don't have the navy to protect them.  You had better hope that the Brits, French and Germans can do better in getting reinforcements on scene than they say they can because that Canadian group on site will be the only Canucks on site for a significant length of time.



Why we would "RENT" them of course......from our European NATO allies.   [

I am sure that is what all our 'Leaders' with no military experience, nor any study of history and economics, seem to think.  :dunno:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Apr 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The odds of a follow-on group from Canada range from remote to non-existent.  How would we get them there?  On our C-17s you say, so who flies escort?  By ship, you say?  Whose, says I?  And what will the opposing subs be doing in the meantime.  We don't have a merchant navy to draw on and we don't have the navy to protect them.  You had better hope that the Brits, French and Germans can do better in getting reinforcements on scene than they say they can because that Canadian group on site will be the only Canucks on site for a significant length of time.



*Red Storm Rising* Battle of the Atlantic scenario;  USN and NATO work to keep the SLOCs open so reinforcements can make it.  Better reinforce Iceland quick.   :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2017)

There is enough airliners and cargo carriers to get the troops and some supplies to France quickly and the UK could provide fighter escort for the Eastern part. But they will have no heavy equipment. In a perfect world you would have equipment stored at numerous bases including tanks, trucks and APC's, and you would have similar in Canada for training and the incoming troops could fall unto that equipment that has been maintained by contractors and a small number of troops. That equipment could be held there on a lease basis, with a caveat that if Canada does not commit the troops in a crisis, the leaser can hand over the equipment to someone who will.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> *Red Storm Rising* Battle of the Atlantic scenario;  USN and NATO work to keep the SLOCs open so reinforcements can make it.  Better reinforce Iceland quick.   :nod:



I was deployed to Arctic Norway with UK AMF (L) when Canada cancelled it's sealift reinforcement option, in 1986 I think? 

Yeah, we had a great reputation about that time. I think that was the year I changed my accent.

Edited following some Google-fu to add the wiki about the CAST debacle. Sad reading, indeed! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Air-Sea_Transportable_Brigade_Group


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2017)

This on how the troops can spend down time & what to expect - highlights mine ...


> As Canada prepares to stand up a multi-national NATO battle group here this summer, army commanders have come up with a plan to prevent their soldiers being exploited by the Kremlin via “honey pots,” “gentlemen’s clubs” and other such temptations: hockey, hockey and more hockey.
> 
> The plan is for the 450 Canadian troops bound for Latvia as part of a tripwire against Russian aggression to be confined to their base, about a half-hour drive northeast of Riga, for the first few months after they arrive. This is partly because there will be much work to be done before the unit can be declared combat-ready. But there are also grave concerns that Russia will try to undermine the Canadian mission by attacking it with “kompromat” and “dezinformatsiya,” as it has already done with a similar NATO enhanced forward-presence battle group from Germany which is up and running in neighbouring Lithuania.
> 
> ...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 May 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This on how the troops can spend down time & what to expect - highlights mine ...



It's going to be a long six months  ;D.  Basically, a six month long MAPLE RESOLVE!  

Sounds like the troops will need regular milk runs to Poland, they hate the Russians so any fisticuffs would probably be welcome.


----------



## Fabius (9 May 2017)

I am very skeptical of what the military is trying to achieve by confining the Cdn portion of the BG to the base.  
If they think that will halt the Russian IO attempts, they will, I believe, be proven badly wrong.  The IO campaign is not based in facts so what does it matter from a Russian perspective if the Canadians are or are not confined to the base.  The best that can be achieved in this context is the Canadian military saying “Nope, not us. All our troops were confined to base.”  Not sure that is actually something that should be counted as an effective counter.

I believe that confining the troops to the base and not allowing them to socialize with the population they are there to protect is actually counterproductive.  First let’s remember that Latvia is a modern European country and they are a stable, fairly prosperous NATO ally. They are not hostile, even if a segment of their population may hold pro-Russian sentiments.  To move our forces in and establish a FOB mentality given that context seems stupid and incredibility risk adverse to the point of self-defeating.  An effective counter to the IO campaign is having the troops involved and present doing routine things that people do so that the population sees Canadian soldiers going about their affairs (official or otherwise).  In doing so the population would get to know the Canadians to various degrees and would then in their own social networks discount and discredit the Russian IO.  However that concept is not tidy or clean and does come with its own risks. Sadly it’s apparently not something that we are able to accept or implement.

I wonder what the other contributing countries to the Latvian BG are doing in this area.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 May 2017)

Fabius said:
			
		

> I am very skeptical of what the military is trying to achieve by confining the Cdn portion of the BG to the base.
> If they think that will halt the Russian IO attempts, they will, I believe, be proven badly wrong.  The IO campaign is not based in facts so what does it matter from a Russian perspective if the Canadians are or are not confined to the base.  The best that can be achieved in this context is the Canadian military saying “Nope, not us. All our troops were confined to base.”  Not sure that is actually something that should be counted as an effective counter.
> 
> I believe that confining the troops to the base and not allowing them to socialize with the population they are there to protect is actually counterproductive.  First let’s remember that Latvia is a modern European country and they are a stable, fairly prosperous NATO ally. They are not hostile, even if a segment of their population may hold pro-Russian sentiments.  To move our forces in and establish a FOB mentality given that context seems stupid and incredibility risk adverse to the point of self-defeating.  An effective counter to the IO campaign is having the troops involved and present doing routine things that people do so that the population sees Canadian soldiers going about their affairs (official or otherwise).  In doing so the population would get to know the Canadians to various degrees and would then in their own social networks discount and discredit the Russian IO.  However that concept is not tidy or clean and does come with its own risks. Sadly it’s apparently not something that we are able to accept or implement.
> ...



The irony is, we let soldiers roam around freely in places of infinitely greater danger than Latvia (it's not dangerous at all).  Think of all the UN Observers who live off the economy in beautiful places like The Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Lebanon, Haiti, etc. 

I remember being in Jamaica and a Company from 2 RCR showed up for a month of training, there were no restrictions concerning remaining on base.  This was funny considering Jamaica is one of the most dangerous countries in the Caribbean with usually two to three murders DAILY.  I was there for nearly six months and was free to roam around as I wished.  I drove around the entire island and visited Kingston weekly.  Of course, part of my country indoc involved receiving a very detailed intelligence brief from a Jamaican Intelligence Officer concerning where to avoid, including a nice detailed map with areas of danger highlighted, detailed briefs on criminal organizations, political issues, etc.  

This decision is purely for domestic consumption, i.e. avoid any Op HONOUR/Disorderly Conduct that could paint the CAF in a negative light that our national media can grab a hold of.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ... This decision is purely for domestic consumption, i.e. avoid any Op HONOUR/Disorderly Conduct that could paint the CAF in a negative light that our national media can grab a hold of.


Given that *the Russian Foreign Ministry* has already lied provided alternative facts about Canada providing ammunition to Ukraine (Google translation below)...


> ... With serious concern, they took Canada's decision to extend for a period of two years its military mission in Ukraine. Within its framework, Canadian instructors are engaged in the so-called Ukrainian polygons. "Training" Ukrainian soldiers for subsequent shipment to the Donbass.
> 
> We consider such decisions and actions of the Government of Canada to be extremely dangerous. They interfere with the political settlement of the ongoing confrontation caused by the Kiev authorities. Moreover, according to the information available to us, the instructors are not limited to instructors - the Canadians began to supply ammunition for the Ukrainian armed forces, which will undoubtedly fall into the conflict zone ...


... and recent "the Germans are raping Lithuanian women" narratives, I don't know it it may be a bit much, but I think there's a reasonable risk of being worried about more than _just_ adverse domestic Canadian media coverage.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 May 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Given that *the Russian Foreign Ministry* has already lied provided alternative facts about Canada providing ammunition to Ukraine (Google translation below)...... and recent "the Germans are raping Lithuanian women" narratives, I don't know it it may be a bit much, but I think there's a reasonable risk of being worried about more than _just_ adverse domestic Canadian media coverage.



I would argue their media releases are also for domestic consumption, domestic being Russian.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 May 2017)

Will the troops be allowed to have a beer on base?


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I would argue their media releases are also for domestic consumption, domestic being Russian.


True, but that doesn't change the fact that a public statement, spoken to reporters by a government foreign ministry spokesperson, and repeated on an externally-available web page (with the same allegation appearing in the English-language version - which I'm guessing isn't aimed at domestic audiences) is _*still*_ "*Russia Says* Canada Selling or Giving Ammunition to Ukraine"***

And their English-language, RUS-state-funded media is aimed at who, exactly?


> ... Canada has begun to supply the Ukrainian military with ammunition that is sure to be delivered to the conflict zone, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova pointed out ...


*** - Sorta like this making it look like Canada says "He was THE Archtitect" ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 May 2017)

This from Latvian media, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> Part of the Canada-led multinational NATO battalion arriving to bolster Latvia's defense will have to live in tents until the fall, as reconstruction of barracks at the Adazi military base will not be completed for several months, the LETA newswire reported May 17.
> 
> The matter was discussed at a closed meeting of the Defense Ministry's officials and Saeima Defense, Internal Affairs and Corruption Prevention Committee members May 17.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 May 2017)

More on the infrastructure issues, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> *Reconstruction of barracks continues in Adazi, part of NATO battalion soldiers will have to live in tents until fall*
> 
> RIGA, May 17 (LETA) - Part of the Canada-led multinational NATO battalion will have to live in tents until the fall, which is when reconstruction of barracks at the Adazi military will be completed.
> 
> ...


----------



## MilEME09 (18 May 2017)

They are really going to long lengths to make it feel like a 6 month long maple resolve


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 May 2017)

More details from the Latvian military info-machine on Canada's 


> *Composition of NATO battlegroup in Latvia laid out*
> 
> The total number and composition of the NATO battalion under Canadian command that will be on duty in Latvia from June has been specified by Latvia's National Armed Forces information portal www.sargs.lv.
> 
> ...


Table of breakdown (including Austria's Latvia's flag instead of Canada's) attached.

*** - This links to the original source article in Latvian -- Google translation to English of that one here (beware weird reformatting w/the Google Translate).

_OP edit to fix lack-of-flag-recognition-skills mistake._


----------



## NEM3sis (22 May 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> More details from the Latvian military info-machine on Canada's Table of breakdown (including Austria's flag instead of Canada's) attached.
> 
> *** - This links to the original source article in Latvian -- Google translation to English of that one here (beware weird reformatting w/the Google Translate).



Latvia flag, not Austria


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 May 2017)

NEM3sis said:
			
		

> Latvia flag, not Austria


Well, I'll let Jack Nicholson say it for me ...  :facepalm:  Thanks for that - much appreciated.


----------



## Journeyman (22 May 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> > Latvia flag, not Austria
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'll let Jack Nicholson say it for me ...  :facepalm:  Thanks for that - much appreciated.


It's a poor representation of either flag.  For Austria, the white and dark red bands are all the same width;  they're not in that graphic, so it's not Austria's flag.  The white band on Latvia's flag is half the width of the dark red bands; it's not quite that narrow, but it's close.

So no need to apologize to those picking fly-feces out of the pepper.  

Now, posting a link to "Jack Nicholson," when it's clearly Will Smith in _Hancock_.......   ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Jun 2017)

Polish tanks arriving in Latvia, via Twitter May 31:



> Cez Arysta
> 🔫‏ @cezarysta
> 
> .@NATO #Polish 🇵🇱 #PT91 tanks, contribution to #CAN-led 🇨🇦 #eFP #battlegroup arrived to #Latvia 🇱🇻 #PMCLatvia (pics: @Latvijas_armija)
> https://twitter.com/cezarysta/status/869807529873866752



















No Canadian Army tanks going--Spanish also deploying tanks:
https://www.neweurope.eu/article/spanish-nato-troops-deploy-latvia-first-time-since-wwii/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Jun 2017)

Tanks cost money to maintain, transport to the area.  Rumour is they aren't very fuel efficient as well.  They also _cause pollution and stuff_.  Despite having fairly new tanks, its not like we can you know, just whip them out or something.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> More details from the Latvian military info-machine on Canada's Table of breakdown (including Austria's Latvia's flag instead of Canada's) attached.
> 
> *** - This links to the original source article in Latvian -- Google translation to English of that one here (beware weird reformatting w/the Google Translate).
> 
> _OP edit to fix lack-of-flag-recognition-skills mistake._



Seeing the tanks along with a battalion made up of IFVs from three countries (LAVs, ASCODs or BMRs or Piranhas (if Spanish Marines), Dardos or Freccias or Pumas)....... Who is managing the Service Coy?  (I assume it will only be a company seeing as how we are only looking at a battalion - or will we need a Service Bde?)


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jun 2017)

Meanwhile, in neighbouring Lithuania, Russian-state media is keeping the world informed about the REAL threats ...


> That awkward moment when those famous for discipline and charged with securing your country pick a drunken fistfight and get a spanking - this is what happened in Lithuania to four NATO soldiers from Germany.
> 
> "Four drunken German servicemen deployed to Lithuania were harmed in a scuffle in [the town of] Jonava," local police said in a statement.***
> 
> ...


*** -- Here's what Google Translate was able to piece together from the Kaunas cop shop blotter:  _"Public nuisance -- 2017-06-03 about 03:30 pm. Jonava Rally g., The conflict and a fight during the German victims of NATO soldiers R. V., born. 1981, Mr S. was born. 1989 S. D., was born. In 1990 and D. S., born. 1989. For persons who present injuries to hospital."_


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Jun 2017)

Fact sheet from a logistician worth following on twitter, note armour:



> Cez Arysta
> 🔫‏ @cezarysta
> 
> .@NATO 📋 Quick fact sheet about #CAN-led 🇨🇦 #eFP #battlegroup which will be soon operating in #Adazi, #Latvia 🇱🇻 #BGLVA #WeAreNATO
> ...



More on Spanish armour:



> Cez Arysta
> 🔫‏ @cezarysta
> 
> .@NATO #ESP 🇪🇸 vehicles, including #Leopard2E & #ASCOD #Pizarro arrived at #Riga 🇱🇻 in support of #eFP #battlegroup (pics: @Latvijas_armija)
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jun 2017)

Aaaaand sure enough ...


> Russian-language propagandists are taking aim at Canada's military mission to Latvia by linking the troops to the army's most disgraced commander.
> 
> A website with the same name as a prominent Russian news program has re-published infamous photos of convicted killer Russell Williams wearing women's underwear, suggesting the Canadian army is full of homosexuals and shouldn't be counted on by Latvians.
> 
> ...


Here's the article in question in Russian -- Google English version below:


> *The "Blue Division" of NATO has been entrenched in Latvia. Waiting for reinforcements*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And before discounting this as "just some crap web page," keep in mind people smarter than me out there say Russian-language speakers in Latvia consume very little Latvian- or English-language media, meaning what they see/hear/read may be pretty much all they know about the Canadian mission.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jun 2017)

Another earth-shattering development shared with the world by Russian state-funded media!

_*"A US Army soldier has been fined after getting caught urinating on the building of the Lithuanian Ministry of the Interior in Vilnius, Lithuania. The incident is the latest in what seems like a never-ending series of unpleasant situations involving NATO troops in the Baltic countries in recent weeks ..."*_

Original source for story:  a Lithuanian news page (essentially) owned by RIA Novosti (RUS-funded media) which also runs sputniknews.com ...
#ActiveMeasuresRule!


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jul 2017)

This from Alicia Wanless, (strategic comms practitioner), via CBC.ca, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> As Canadian troops begin their mission in Latvia — a deterrence operation, intended to send a strong message to Russia about interfering in neighbouring NATO member countries — an invisible battle for hearts and minds will be happening back at home.
> 
> The goal: destroy public support for the mission in Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Jul 2017)

And this came down Thursday on the regimental net.

Deployment of a 1RCHA M777 Battery to Latvia	

The Chief of Defence Staff has directed the deployment of a M777 Battery from the Canadian Army in support of the Enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group (eFP BG), specifically for bi-lateral training with U.S. units in September 2017, and Exercise SILVER ARROW, occurring in October 2017. 1 RCHA has been tasked to generate a 4 gun M777 Bty. Equipment will be shipped from Canada in late July and our soldiers will deploy under command of BC Z Bty, Maj Keith Woodill in Late Aug or Early Sep. Maj Woodill's Tac HQ along with FSCC and one FOO Party are already in Latvia and providing Fire support advice and coordination to the 1 PPCLI eFP BG. The 1 PPCLI eFP BG is comprised of approx. 450 Canadians and soldiers from Albania, Italy, Poland Slovenia and Spain.


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Jul 2017)

Now maybe im crazy but Old sweat is that info in public domain right now or should it be deleted as OPSEC?


----------



## suffolkowner (18 Jul 2017)

its public


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Aug 2017)

Interesting graphic at a tweet--other than tanks French seem to get a lot of equipment bang for their bucks:
https://twitter.com/cezarysta/status/871440681910272003







Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Aug 2017)

Graphic above appears in this piece:



> Europe Reckons With Its Depleted Armies
> _As European NATO members confront rampant materiel shortages, officials acknowledge Trump has a point in calling for more military spending _
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-reckons-with-its-depleted-armies-1496444305



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Aug 2017)

Message via Russian-language media in Latvia:  _*"Not only are Canadian troops driving up rents in Riga, our tax dollars are going towards taking care of these guys!"*_

Link to original article in Russian - screen capture of article text & Google English Translation version attached


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Aug 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Message via Russian-language media in Latvia:  _*"Not only are Canadian troops driving up rents in Riga, our tax dollars are going towards taking care of these guys!"*_
> 
> Link to original article in Russian - screen capture of article text & Google English Translation version attached



Didn't know the rental rates of old soviet bases affecting the housing market so much, huh learn something new everyday


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Aug 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Didn't know the rental rates of old soviet bases affecting the housing market so much, huh learn something new everyday


 :nod:  Somehow, though, even if some Canadians are living on the economy, I don't believe those that read this & want to believe it will be swayed by that detail #ConfirmationBiasRulz


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Aug 2017)

Some of the latest ...


> *Propaganda and provocation: Russia scoffs at Canada's Baltic war games*
> _Canada-led NATO battle group goes through first major exercise to test battle-readiness_
> By Chris Brown, CBC News Posted: Aug 26, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 26, 2017 5:00 AM ET
> 
> ...


*More @ link*


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Aug 2017)

NATO's info-machine:  Multi-nat BG's good to go in Baltics/Poland ...


> *NATO battlegroups in Baltic nations and Poland fully operational*
> 28 Aug. 2017 | Last updated: 28 Aug. 2017 17:19
> 
> NATO’s four multinational battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are now fully operational. This milestone comes after the Canadian-led battlegroup based at Camp Ādaži in Latvia became the fourth battlegroup to complete its Certification Exercise.
> ...


----------



## Quirky (29 Aug 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> They send a clear message that an attack on one Ally would be met by troops from across the Alliance the United States.



 :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Sep 2017)

Interview with the boss via Latvia's military info-machine -- also attached in case link doesn't work ...


> *Chief Editor of Latvian Military Magazine “Tēvijas Sargs” Līga Lakuča’s interview with LCol Wade Rutland,
> Commander of NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroup in Latvia.*
> sargs.lv, 13 Sept 2017
> 
> ...


*More @ link*


----------



## TQMS (26 Apr 2018)

Little addition coming to eFP in Latvia.

Slovakia to Deploy 152 Troops in Baltics to Join NATO Forces
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-04-25/slovakia-to-deploy-152-troops-in-baltics-to-join-nato-forces
(AP, 25 April 18) Slovakia's government has approved a plan to deploy 152 troops in the Baltics as part of NATO forces amid growing tensions between Russia and the West.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Jul 2018)

Somehow I don't think this tweet very likely to have much deterrent effect on Russkies:
https://twitter.com/CFOperations/status/1014880818710433793




> CAF Operations
> ‏Verified account @CFOperations
> 
> After a year of training, exercises, and community outreach, NATO’s #eFP Battle Group Latvia is better, faster, and stronger. We‘re proud to continue working with our #NATO allies. #WeAreNATO
> http://bit.ly/2lV43yY



Based on this article in _The Maple Leaf_:



> One year in, NATO’s Canada-led eFP Battle Group Latvia is better, faster, and stronger
> https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2018/07/15545



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2018)

Better.  Stronger.  Faster.

Where have I heard that before?


----------



## Remius (9 Jul 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Better.  Stronger.  Faster.
> 
> Where have I heard that before?



Six million dollar man.  Which ironically is 6 times more than our current bionics project gets... and that is just for the knees.

 http://natoassociation.ca/canadian-forces-enter-the-bionic-age/


----------



## GK .Dundas (9 Jul 2018)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/latvia-nato-trudeau-trump-1.4737690    


Hmm. English is such an interesting language and flexible too. 
What used to referred to as an Forlorn Hope is now called a Leadership role or at least according to the CBC .


----------



## MARS (9 Jul 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Better.  Stronger.  Faster.
> 
> Where have I heard that before?



 ;D I was thinking about this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDpmVUEjagg


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Jul 2018)

NATO, you old hegemonist you....  :


Interfax:

http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=486697

Russia will take measures in response to drawing Sweden and Finland into NATO – Shoigu
7/24/2018 16:23:34

Moscow. 24 July. Interfax-AVN-RF will take measures in response to active cooperation between Sweden and Finland with NATO, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said. 

"The involvement of NATO in Finland and Sweden is worrying, and in May a treaty was signed that provides for their full participation in the exercises of the alliance and the possibility of using its command and control systems for troops and weapons." In exchange, NATO received unhindered access to the airspace and territorial waters of these countries, "said Minister at the collegium of the department on Tuesday.

"Such steps by Western colleagues lead to the destruction of the existing security system in the world, generate even greater mistrust, forcing us to take retaliatory measures," S. Shoigu stressed. 

He said that the NATO contingents in Eastern Europe are continuing to grow: since 2014 their number has increased from 2 to 15 thousand servicemen. 
In his opinion, the intensity of the preparations for the alliance is constantly increasing. 

"Over 100 exercises have been conducted since the beginning of the year, in which up to 80,000 servicemen participated, while the number of personnel annually attracted to the series of exercises increased 10-fold over five years, and the number of combat aviation increased from 11 units to 101," said the Minister.

He noted that "with the help of the United States in Europe deployed five centres of cyber operations - in Finland, Estonia, Poland, Germany and France."


----------



## Ashkan08 (31 Aug 2018)

CAF to replace the RAF in patrolling the black sea. Will be interesting to see how our CF-18's compare to Su 30's. Might even cause the government to be more serious in looking for a new fighter jet.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_157836.htm


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Aug 2018)

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> Might even cause the government to be more serious in looking for a new fighter jet.



 :rofl:

Oh, you were serious.....


----------



## CBH99 (1 Sep 2018)

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> Will be interesting to see how our CF-18's compare to Su 30's. Might even cause the government to be more serious in looking for a new fighter jet.
> https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_157836.htm




The RCAF is a regular contributor to air policing missions over Iceland, Romania, and other countries that NATO provides fighter aircraft to help police their own airspace.  (Why on earth Romania can't just get some post-SLEP F-16's is beyond me...unless their MIGs are so low maintenance that they just prefer them?  Which honestly wouldn't surprise me.)

RCAF aircraft intercepting modern Russian aircraft isn't anything new.  The government won't move any faster on this project than they already are...elections, NAFTA up in the air, the value of Canadian currency being very much up in the air along with NAFTA - which has a huge affect on our buying power, etc.

A snail picking up the pace is still a snail...


----------



## McG (1 Sep 2018)

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> CAF to replace the RAF in patrolling the black sea.


And while these will be Op REASURANCE, they will not be a part of the eFP (which this current thread is supposed to be about).


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Feb 2019)

Bumped with this latest tidbit from Latvian state media -- shared with the usual "fair dealing" caveats from the Copyright Act ...


> *Well-prepared and locally invested: Interview with commander of NATO's Latvia-based battle group*
> Yesterday, 12:10
> Authors: eng.lsm.lv (Latvian Public Broadcasting), Jānis Rancāns (LSM.lv ziņu redaktors)
> 
> ...


----------



## GR66 (29 Apr 2020)

Posting a random thought here based on discussions on the "C3 Howitzer Replacement" thread (https://army.ca/forums/threads/122373.300.html) rather than further derailing that topic.

Basically there was discussion about the difficulty in quickly transporting heavy equipment like SPGs (and tanks) to Europe in time to counter a rapid Russian invasion of the Baltic States.  The suggestion was made to either pre-position vehicles/equipment in theatre or have them on ships so that you can just fly the troops over to man them rather than have to try to quickly move a whole bunch of heavy equipment from Canada.

In light of that, would it make any sense to group all of our tanks into a single regiment and deploy that to the Baltics in place of our current infantry battalion commitment to OP Reassurance?  

Here's my reasoning:
- Russia is the most likely opponent that we'd have to quickly deploy our tanks en masse for combat (conflict with China will be mainly an air and sea conflict)
- IF Russia were to attack the Baltics we wouldn't have time to deploy our tanks in time to defend (estimates are that the Russians could reach the capitals of Latvia and Estonia in approx. 72 hours)
- Armoured forces are a much greater deterrent to Russian invasion than lightly-armed infantry, so deploying our tanks there would better meet the political goal of the deployment.
- Being on the ground in advance would give our tankers better opportunity to know the terrain they would be defending and also a chance to work directly in advance with the troops they would likely fight beside.
- Not sure what the training situation on the ground in Latvia is like, but I'd imagine that based on the situation it would be a great place for our tanks to get a chance to practice combined arms operations.
- Having our tanks specifically as part of our commitment to NATO would help protect them from (again) being divested from the CAF inventory.

Thoughts?


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Apr 2020)

Given that if war breaks out Latvia has about 63 hours to hold out before over run. I do not think having all our tanks there is a good idea, with the infantry and arty already there, if the tanks were too and fighting broke out the Canadian Army would be combat ineffective after 72 hours because we would have no tanks left, a battery of m777s gone, plus everything else. We would be out of the fight for awhile.


----------



## GR66 (29 Apr 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Given that if war breaks out Latvia has about 63 hours to hold out before over run. I do not think having all our tanks there is a good idea, with the infantry and arty already there, if the tanks were too and fighting broke out the Canadian Army would be combat ineffective after 72 hours because we would have no tanks left, a battery of m777s gone, plus everything else. We would be out of the fight for awhile.



Isn't the ultimate purpose though of OP Reassurance to DETER the Russians from attacking in the first place?  Which better fulfills that role, a regiment of tanks or a battalion of infantry without any serious Anti-armour capability.  And if Russia did invade and take the Baltic States in 72-hours would there be any use for our regiment of tanks sitting in Canada in face of a Russian fait accompli?  

I honestly have my doubts that NATO would launch a counter attack against an already victorious Russian army if the Russians were to take the limited win then stop.  Especially if the Russians laid the political grounds for the invasion properly in advance (a persecuted Russian minority population, etc.).  Not sure if the political will would be there in the West for a potential nuclear conflict for the sake of the Baltics. Call me cynical.

In that case we'd save the combat power of our tanks for what?  The next failed deterrence?


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Apr 2020)

The infantry have dismounted TOW launchers again, so they have actual anti armour capabilities beyond the Carl G, I would argue we need to haul the TUA turrets out of storage and get them on LAV 6's as well. Deterrence is great until it doesnt work, our allies have a lot of armour in Latvia already. I'd argue we should have our tanks and a secondary force in Poland or Germany ready to counterattack. We have to plan for the what it's after all.


----------



## MJP (29 Apr 2020)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Isn't the ultimate purpose though of OP Reassurance to DETER the Russians from attacking in the first place?  Which better fulfills that role, a regiment of tanks or a battalion of infantry without any serious Anti-armour capability.



Presence not equipment fills that role, hence the Enhanced Forward Presence name for all four of the NATO BGs.  



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> - Not sure what the training situation on the ground in Latvia is like, but I'd imagine that based on the situation it would be a great place for our tanks to get a chance to practice combined arms operations.
> - Having our tanks specifically as part of our commitment to NATO would help protect them from (again) being divested from the CAF inventory.



Some very quick thoughts
- Training area(s) are extremely limited and not conducive to tank ops/trg
- Tanks or any other equipment doesn't have to be in a specific area to be "pegged" against a NATO commitment 
- We can barely keep the tanks off VOR (for a variety of reasons) moving them to Latvia will not help that situation


----------



## Dale Denton (29 Apr 2020)

Interesting thread, makes for a good read.

Slightly off-topic, but i'm not a fan of the discrepancy between our commitment to NATO vs. our commitment to our pacific friends. Where is the cooperation in Australia, ROK, or Japan on the Army side? 

Would we be over-extended if we had a similar "Forward Presence" working in Australia? Would enable us to keep some equipment there, experience, etc... should things flare up in the pacific? Access to jungle environment and amphib training as well.


----------



## blacktriangle (29 Apr 2020)

How would we move our equipment from Australia to somewhere it was actually needed? I suppose we'd be begging for a lift from our allies? Sounds like more a burden than anything else. 

Maybe better to send ships, aircraft etc (which we have done)


----------



## GR66 (29 Apr 2020)

At least there is a consistent response to postings on the website.  I've yet to see an idea floated to in some way make the Army more effective/better equipped/better organized without it being declared as impossible because:

- we don't have the right equipment "X" for that
- we don't have enough equipment "X" to do that
- the equipment "X" we do have isn't serviceable
- we don't have the maintainers to keep equipment "X" serviceable
- we have no way of getting equipment "X" there
- we can't buy equipment "X" because we don't have "Y"
- we can't buy equipment "X" because the government/CAF/public will never go for that
- we don't have the PY available for that
- we don't have enough trained people in trade "Z" for that
- we can't train enough people in trade "Z" to do that because the recruiting and/or training system is broken
- everyone in trade "Z" will quit if we do that because they don't want to be there/do that
- Reserves can't do that because they don't have enough training hours to learn/maintain that skill

It's a wonder the Army is able to do anything!   ;D

[/sarcasm]

Just kidding (a bit...).  

MJP - could you please explain for us civies what VOR is?  (I'm assuming it's not Voluntary Occupational Reassignment)

MilEME09 - Not sure if a handful of TOWs will put much of a dent in a Russian armoured attack.  

In the RAND articles quoted in the "C3 Howitzer Replacement" thread they are suggesting that at least 3 x Armoured Brigades would be required to defeat a Russian invasion of the Baltics



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> Here are a few more to pique your interest:
> 
> A 2017 RAND paper discussing what is needed "to win in the Baltic":
> 
> ...



As for pre-positioning ground forces in Australia, what ground combat do you expect to see happening in that theatre?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Apr 2020)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Slightly off-topic, but i'm not a fan of the discrepancy between our commitment to NATO vs. our commitment to our pacific friends. Where is the cooperation in Australia, ROK, or Japan on the Army side?



Unlike our NATO defence obligations required as a signatory to the North Atlantic Treaty, Canada has no mutual defence treaties with any country  on the other side of the Pacific.  Though we are part of the Five Eyes with Australia and New Zealand, that agreement does not bind us to respond in defence of attack on their territory.


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Apr 2020)

GR66 said:
			
		

> MilEME09 - Not sure if a handful of TOWs will put much of a dent in a Russian armoured attack.
> 
> As for pre-positioning ground forces in Australia, what ground combat do you expect to see happening in that theatre?



On it's own maybe not, depends how many we have, the cold war era tank hunting platoon tactic is still valid, combined with allied armour can work. I have also heard the army wants to upgrade al our Carl Gès to the new M4 model replacing all M2 and M3's. While being lighter, the M4 has a new family of ammo, including a new Guided munition. It's armour penetration is much higher now compared to the older family of munitions.


As for australia, pre-postioning makes more sense to put our airforce or navy in Guam, sending some light infantry to work with Australia might be a good idea. However working in the asian theatre would also mean recognizing China as a threat, something or government seems unwilling to do.


----------



## YZT580 (30 Apr 2020)

Everything old is new again.  My mind may be confused and if it is I am sure there is at least one other oldie on line to post an amendment. 
 But I seem to recall that way back in I believe the late 60's when Trudeau senior was downsizing I believe our commitment to NATO involved positioning a tank regiment in Norway with only a maintenance squad permanently deployed to maintain readiness.  The rest of the troops were to remain here in Canada.


----------



## MilEME09 (30 Apr 2020)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Everything old is new again.  My mind may be confused and if it is I am sure there is at least one other oldie on line to post an amendment.
> But I seem to recall that way back in I believe the late 60's when Trudeau senior was downsizing I believe our commitment to NATO involved positioning a tank regiment in Norway with only a maintenance squad permanently deployed to maintain readiness.  The rest of the troops were to remain here in Canada.



ah yes the CAST brigade, unfortunately they promised, and never actually followed through with anything meaningful. Here is a CBC investigative report from back then, really in depth look at our NATO promises vs reality. Really our problems are the same even today, they just change what the problem looks like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_XYb3AWK58


----------



## MJP (30 Apr 2020)

GR66 said:
			
		

> MJP - could you please explain for us civies what VOR is?  (I'm assuming it's not Voluntary Occupational Reassignment)



Vehicle off road = Broken

The entire fleet, like most tanks is very labour intensive in terms of corrective and preventative/pre-determined (inspections schedules essentially).  We have a low density of everything (tanks, parts, tech, infra, tooling) so every new place you put tanks stretches already thin resources further.


----------



## FJAG (25 Jul 2020)

Just doing some research on Armored Brigade Combat Teams and came across an interesting student paper from the US Army Command and General Staff College written by a Ukrainian LCol in 2017 titled: "THE U.S. ARMORED BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM VERSUS CURRENT HYBRID THREAT: HOW SHOULD THE U.S. ABCT BE ORGANIZED AND EQUIPPED TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT HYBRID THREAT

While this addresses the US Army ABCT, its pretty much applicable to a Mech force such as we have in the eFP in Latvia.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1039542.pdf

 :cheers:


----------



## Dale Denton (27 Jul 2020)

Sums up with website a tad too well...



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> At least there is a consistent response to postings on the website.  I've yet to see an idea floated to in some way make the Army more effective/better equipped/better organized without it being declared as impossible because:
> 
> - we don't have the right equipment "X" for that
> - we don't have enough equipment "X" to do that
> ...



Learning more about the Battle of Hong Kong, this reminds me of that situation.

The set up, numbers, however you want to put it - isn't more than a garrison. Pessimistically, I view it as a reason for NATO civilians to get up and demand something if each nation had a few dozen captured soldiers within 2 days of battle if Russia did storm the Baltics. 

Realistically, by the time we even got something armoured onto a leased (as our Navy has nothing to move the small amount of stuff we do own to the places we'd actually use said stuff), we would've lost our baltic foothold.

If we took it seriously, we'd have something else there. _Not _that our EFPs dozen or so tanks speaking Spanish and Polish to each other wouldn't be able to hold down a few Russian divisions...

Prototype some anti-tank missile launching add-ons to some of the LAV 6s and make them a 'Canadian' IFV. Send a squadron of tanks to train with the different european LEO2s, rush anti-armour stuff and things.


----------



## FJAG (27 Nov 2020)

For anyone interested, NATO HQ JFC Brunsum's magazine Northern Star is running a series of articles on the various Enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroups in it's Oct 2020 edition which can be accessed here.

 :cheers:


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Nov 2020)

The CAF-led NATO force in Latvia is the most nationally, er, diverse of all four eFP forces (perhaps because ours is the smallest and least-equipped one from a "lead" nation; that must makes its limited capability vs the Russkies even more minimal:







Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Weinie (27 Nov 2020)

The EfP's are largely symbolic, most pundits agree that any substantive metal on metal conflict that Russia initiates in the Baltic states would result in a fairly decisive and quick victory for their forces. But then what?

If you have spent any time in these countries, the level of anti-Russian sentiment is palpable and visceral. Yes, the armed forces would lose, and quickly, but the ensuing opposition and counter-insurgency from these countries, especially Latvia and Estonia, would make Grozny look like a walk in the park for Russian forces. I am pretty sure Russian strategists are aware of this and factor that in. Far easier, and far more resource-intensive and nerve-wracking for NATO, to appear to consider it as an option.


----------



## Pikache (25 Dec 2020)

NATO Defence College paper on eFP experience (not just Canadian)


----------



## medic5 (25 Dec 2020)

I read the report and mostly agree with it. Basically a forward presence can be either a tripwire, or a combat credible force. Currently eFP Latvia is nothing more than a tripwire, since it is practically certain that it would be overrun in hours even with significant reinforcement. That's why it makes sense to not commit armor/155s, which would undoubtedly be lost. If we were to decide to make the forward presence both a tripwire and a combat credible force (eg South Korea), we'd need a hell of a lot more troops than just a reinforced battalion.


----------



## MilEME09 (25 Dec 2020)

medik05 said:


> I read the report and mostly agree with it. Basically a forward presence can be either a tripwire, or a combat credible force. Currently eFP Latvia is nothing more than a tripwire, since it is practically certain that it would be overrun in hours even with significant reinforcement. That's why it makes sense to not commit armor/155s, which would undoubtedly be lost. If we were to decide to make the forward presence both a tripwire and a combat credible force (eg South Korea), we'd need a hell of a lot more troops than just a reinforced battalion.


I have my doubts even a full brigade would make an impact right now. As we won't be taken seriously any way if we have no way of getting significant reinforcements to the front quickly.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Dec 2020)

medik05 said:


> I read the report and mostly agree with it. Basically a forward presence can be either a tripwire, or a combat credible force. Currently eFP Latvia is nothing more than a tripwire, since it is practically certain that it would be overrun in hours even with significant reinforcement. That's why it makes sense to not commit armor/155s, which would undoubtedly be lost. If we were to decide to make the forward presence both a tripwire and a combat credible force (eg South Korea), we'd need a hell of a lot more troops than just a reinforced battalion.


That's a fairly standard NATO 'tripwire' approach: make sure that at east one soldier from each member country is killed by the Russians so that those countires can't deny that they should join the US, UK and Germany in a counter-attack


----------



## FJAG (25 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:


> I have my doubts even a full brigade would make an impact right now. As we won't be taken seriously any way if we have no way of getting significant reinforcements to the front quickly.


RAND has wargamed the scenario many times and one of their reports from 2017 states the following:



> RAND analysis indicates that a force of about seven brigades, including, importantly three armor-heavy brigades—armor brigade combat teams (ABCTs), in U.S. Army parlance—in addition to the national defense forces of the Baltic states, and properly supported with fires, fixed- and rotary-wing aviation, engineering, logistics, and other enablers, and with adequate headquarters capacity for planning and command can prevent the fait accompli.
> 
> To be very specific, this force—present and ready to fight at the outset of hostilities—can, if properly employed, enforce an operational pause on a Russian ground force of up to 40–50 battalion tactical groups (BTGs), while retaining sufficiently large lodgments outside Tallinn and Riga to protect them from the bulk of Russian
> artillery.  Our assessment is that this force could sustain itself on the defensive against the Russian offensive for up to 28 days.


Note here that the seven brigades  (in addition to the national forces of the three Baltic states would need to be there at the commencement of hostilities (either from being permanently stationed there or flyover onto prepositioned equipment) and would need reinforcement/relief after 28 days.  That calls for a plan for expeditionary projection which we don't have much less the actual force to project.

🍻


----------



## FJAG (25 Dec 2020)

Sorry for the double post. The first was in the process of being edited when I was told time was up (after 5 minutes) and it was left in a half edited state. Please ignore the first post which I can't seem to delete either. Mods please delete it and this post when you have a moment.


----------



## GR66 (26 Dec 2020)

While the RAND report is likely fairly accurate in terms of the military situation in the Baltic States, I'm not sure it pays enough attention to the political dimension.  What would be the political implications of a Russian invasion?  They might be able to seize the territory, but would they be better off for it in the long run?  

Crimea and the Donbass both have majority Russian populations and Russia was likely pretty confident that there wouldn't be any major resistance by the locals to their "liberation".  I don't think the situation in the Baltic States would be the same.  And as others here have mentioned, the NATO tripwire defence is more about forcing Russia to kill a bunch of NATO soldiers in order to take the territory.  

The Russian Army 2020 isn't the Red Army of 1980.  I don't have any fear of Russian tanks driving through the Fulda Gap.  What is the end game for Russia if they go to war with NATO?  They're not going to defeat NATO.  There is no great economic benefit to Russia in taking the Baltic States.  They would be in occupation of a hostile territory that they would have to hold/suppress.  They would be in a state of war with an alliance that has a significantly larger population, much stronger economy and overall more powerful military.  

They would at the very least face major economic sanctions and loss of a major source of income as Europe scrambles to find alternate sources of energy other than Russian natural gas.  Potentially they could face a blockade of their maritime trade and military attacks on their energy infrastructure.  Even in the absence of a NATO counter-attack to retake the Baltic States, Europe would almost certainly be forced to take defence much more seriously.  As a result, Russia would be forced to significantly increase their military spending in order to fortify their long borders with NATO.  

Don't get me wrong.  I'm in favour of having a presence in the Baltic States to show our political solidarity as a deterrence to any potential Russian aggression.  I'm also in favour of making whatever force we have there as militarily effective as possible.  But I don't see the Canadian public or government supporting a full Brigade Group deployment, and frankly I don't think having one there would be much more of a deterrent than the force we already have there.  

A better investment in my mind would be to provide civil and economic support to strengthen the Baltic States.  If the people of these countries (especially the Russian minorities there) feel they have a better life within the existing system then they would under Russian rule, then Moscow will have little opportunity to try and spark some kind of hybrid intrusion into the Baltics.


----------



## MSmith (26 Dec 2020)

The RAND report doesn't paint a pretty picture, but I think it's worth considering the other side of the coin. The authors of the paper on the EFP BGs dont seem to totally agree in their introduction (page 6):

"Finally, even though Russian forces positioned near the Baltic countries dwarf NATO forces in the Baltic countries, the military utility of the battlegroups is greater than the tripwire moniker might imply. Contrary to early assessments that Russia could take local national capitals in a matter of days, sundry geographical and logistical constraints would hamper any large-scale attempt at territorial conquest."

Now, I haven't yet read in entirety the papers they've cited in the footnote (which names the RAND report as well), but consider the following from Conventional Deterrance and Landpower in Northeastern Europe (2019):

1. "Chapter 1 begins by assessing Russian intentions. Since intentions are hard to divine, it instead offers two plausible ways to think about Russia’s goals and motivations: 1) Russia is a revisionist actor, motivated by imperial ambitions; and, 2) Russia is a defensive actor, motivated by fear and insecurity. Both viewpoints are consistent with Russia’s recent behavior, but they yield contradictory strategic prescriptions. The United States needs a robust deterrence posture to stop a revisionist Russia, but such measures will provoke a defensive Russia. Conversely, the United States should try to assure a defensive Russia, but a revisionist Russia will perceive assurances as a signal of weakness. Without definitive intelligence on Russian intentions, the U.S. Army must thread the needle between two contrasting deterrent postures"

Committing the amount of equipment and manpower that the RAND report calls for would certainly antagonize Russia, and I can't imagine a way to justify that within the parameters of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act that prevents us from permanently stationing troops there. 

2. "In all four cases, full territorial conquest appears improbable. This is especially true of Poland, as Russia would have to traverse Baltic and Belarusian territories to invade Polish territory. The Baltic States are more vulnerable, but Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian defense experts are more concerned about a limited incursion aimed at grabbing small portions of their territory as a test of NATO’s resolve."

Russia certainly does not want to invoke an Article 5 response, so I truly doubt we'd see a full scale invasion of Latvia. Rather, I bet it would be more similar to Crimea/Donetsk, where little green men would attempt to seize Russian majority areas. 

Full report in PDF here: https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/3686.pdf


----------



## medic5 (26 Dec 2020)

I'd say the Russians have plenty of motive to do so, such as linking up with Kaliningrad and building up a sort of buffer between them and the rest of Europe. If they were to mount a full scale invasion, cut off the Suwalki Gap, and destroy the now trapped forces in the Baltics, now what? Does NATO escalate and launch a ground assault against what is now Russian territory? I am aware that Article 5 requires some sort of response, but the position that NATO would be in after such a move would be extremely weak with no good options outside of full scale war. Do we really think that we would launch anything more than a half hearted counterattack? Even if NATO were willing to commit to an attack, I imagine the casualties would be horrendous and politically untolerable for the west, attacking prepared Russian positions covered by air defence. 

If NATO did not use nuclear weapons in the initial invasion (which I doubt they would, no president would risk New York for Riga), then it is pretty obvious that they would not use them afterward, making any threats very empty. The clock is ticking for the Russians, with weakening population demographics and no real successor to Putin. If the Kremlin made such a gamble, is there a scenario where NATO comes out on top?


----------



## Weinie (26 Dec 2020)

medik05 said:


> I'd say the Russians have plenty of motive to do so, such as linking up with Kaliningrad and building up a sort of buffer between them and the rest of Europe. If they were to mount a full scale invasion, cut off the Suwalki Gap, and destroy the now trapped forces in the Baltics, now what? Does NATO escalate and launch a ground assault against what is now Russian territory? I am aware that Article 5 requires some sort of response, but the position that NATO would be in after such a move would be extremely weak with no good options outside of full scale war. Do we really think that we would launch anything more than a half hearted counterattack? Even if NATO were willing to commit to an attack, I imagine the casualties would be horrendous and politically untolerable for the west, attacking prepared Russian positions covered by air defence.
> 
> If NATO did not use nuclear weapons in the initial invasion (which I doubt they would, no president would risk New York for Riga), then it is pretty obvious that they would not use them afterward, making any threats very empty. The clock is ticking for the Russians, with weakening population demographics and no real successor to Putin. If the Kremlin made such a gamble, is there a scenario where NATO comes out on top?


There is no long term gain for Russia in the scenario you posit above. Linking Kaliningrad would be a Pyrrhic victory; the cost of subduing/managing/administering the Baltics over the long term would bleed Russian dry, in blood and treasure. And no need for nukes, the ensuing economic pressures alone would cripple Russia.
They have likely gone as far as they are able to. They will still meddle where it makes strategic sense, whether to protect force projection capabilities (Syria) or where a little application of effort results in a disproportionate amount of response from the West (Libya, Middle East, Turkey). They weigh the calculus every bit as much as we do.


----------



## GR66 (26 Dec 2020)

If Russia DID seize the Baltic States, what would THEIR next move be? 

Here's a comparison of Russian vs European NATO military expenditures (excludes US and Canada):



And here's a comparison of the GDP and population differences between European NATO and Russia:


So what would the Russian end game be for initiating a war with NATO?   A more secure gateway to Kaliningrad?  Is there currently any realistic fear that NATO is planning to initiate a war with Russia by seizing Kaliningrad?  Do the Baltic States provide Russia with some great hoard of natural resources that will make a huge difference to it economically?

I'll agree that Russia would LIKE to have the Baltics back under their control and I'm sure that if given the opportunity to stir up the ethnic Russian minorities there in such a was that they could make inroads in the territory they would do so.  But I just don't see Russia launching an invasion to conquer three NATO nations when doing so would put them at war with a group of nations that dwarfs them in terms of population, military expenditure and economic power.   

Russia is a land-locked country with a resource-based economy (http://www.worldstopexports.com/russias-top-10-exports/).  More than 50% of its exports are oil and gas.  Hit their pipelines, pumping stations and refineries and you cripple their economy.  Or just impose an embargo.  You could likely starve/freeze them out of the Baltics without having to actually invade.  What do they do in response?  Invade Poland?  Over extend themselves militarily against a stronger opponent?  Resort to WMD's to secure their control over a small and economically insignificant piece of territory?


----------



## medic5 (26 Dec 2020)

Fair enough, I suppose I didn't consider the economic and broader political ramifications. I concede that it's probably not in their best interest to make such a move.


----------



## FJAG (26 Dec 2020)

GR66 said:


> So what would the Russian end game be for initiating a war with NATO?



That's really the million dollar question, isn't it?

Russian actions haven't always been easily analysed as for example what is the basis for their surreptitious interference in the 2016 elections; the recent hacks into numerous US and European computer systems; the massive Olympic doping scandals? The first to sow scepticism and distrust of the democratic process? The second to gain massive intelligence and to develop stronger cyber war positions? The third for prestige?

None gains Russia anything tangible in the long run but exposes the country to criticism, sanctions and a further outsider status. This at a time when Russia had been making some inroads into the European community which was shattered with the Ukraine.

The problem is one can never entirely be sure what Russia is up to. It's too centrally controlled and too secretive. I've mentioned this before in another thread but back just after the millennium, just after the Baltics were given Partner for Peace status by NATO I was at a conference in Germany where we had a Russian functionary from their German Embassy speaking. In response to the question: "What will Russia do if the Baltics are given full NATO membership?" He blithely replied "The tanks will roll!"

The question isn't so much "what would there end game be?" More properly it is:  "Would Russia take the opportunity to gather some low-hanging fruit if the opportunity affords itself and it felt sure that NATO looked too weak to retaliate with force?" An attack into the Baltic States could cause a game changing crisis in NATO. If the Ukraine should teach us anything it's that Russia is prepared to gamble on a non response if it thinks that there's an advantage to be won.

🍻


----------



## suffolkowner (26 Dec 2020)

I'm not as convinced at how effective NATO would be. The 6 or 7 different MBT's and even more IFV's/APC's and all the associated logistics would be a challenge for sure and more likely a number of independent harrassing campaigns against the Russians would be conducted.  I think the Russians would be challenged to sustain any push deep into Poland or Ukraine as well. The economic numbers aren't that comforting either considering how much Europe depends on that Russian oil and gas. Plus Russia sure gets a pretty good bang fo their $55-70B, such that I think the purchase power parity must be greatly underestimated. Having said all that I don't think Russia has any intent to do anything that ambitious, but staying the course by reinforcing the Baltics and Poland strikes me as prudent


----------



## Weinie (26 Dec 2020)

Fair point on the low hanging fruit, but not sure that Russia hasn't already pruned and cultivated what they feel is in their  strategic interests. They stayed out of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict until it ended, the enclave that those two countries were fighting over was not important enough for Russia to intercede. One end result is that Armenia is now even more tightly ensconced with Russia, and will rely on re-armament from Russian industry for tanks, artillery etc to replace front line losses, and is likely already in negotiations to procure UAV's. I suspect as well that Russian military _advisors_ will be visiting Armenian defence installations for the next few years.


----------



## MSmith (27 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:


> The question isn't so much "what would there end game be?" More properly it is: "Would Russia take the opportunity to gather some low-hanging fruit if the opportunity affords itself and it felt sure that NATO looked too weak to retaliate with force?" An attack into the Baltic States could cause a game changing crisis in NATO. If the Ukraine should teach us anything it's that Russia is prepared to gamble on a non response if it thinks that there's an advantage to be won.


Do you think Russia would have still seized the Crimea/pushed into Donbass if:
 1. Ukraine was a NATO member; and/or
 2. NATO battlegroups with US/Can/UK troops were in the Crimea/Donbass?

Or maybe you're discussing something different from the last few messages, but I think it's safe to say that any western NATO presence in the Baltics removes them from the low hanging fruit category and in fact places them in the "very high hanging fruit" class.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Dec 2020)

MSmith said:


> Do you think Russia would have still seized the Crimea/pushed into Donbass if:
> 1. Ukraine was a NATO member; and/or
> 2. NATO battlegroups with US/Can/UK troops were in the Crimea/Donbass?
> 
> Or maybe you're discussing something different from the last few messages, but I think it's safe to say that any western NATO presence in the Baltics removes them from the low hanging fruit category and in fact places them in the "very high hanging fruit" class.


I don't know why anyone would ever want Ukraine to be a member of NATO.  If our goal is to antagonize the Russians and simultaneously drive them towards the Chinese sphere, we are certainly doing a good job.


----------



## Weinie (27 Dec 2020)

The Russians don't trust the Chinese any more than they trust us. Perhaps it is more of "the enemy of my enemy is my (sometimes/sorta/when it's convenient) friend."


----------



## MSmith (27 Dec 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I don't know why anyone would ever want Ukraine to be a member of NATO.  If our goal is to antagonize the Russians and simultaneously drive them towards the Chinese sphere, we are certainly doing a good job.


I guess I should have been more explicit, I was trying to draw the comparison that the situation in the Baltics now is completely different from that of Ukraine in 2014 and that Russia would hardly consider seizing territory of a NATO member or territory defended by NATO troops "low hanging fruit." I fully agree with you, if you read my other post a few lines up its imperative that the US (and NATO) tread carefully with any further increase of troops in the Baltics. One more time:

"Since intentions are hard to divine, it instead offers two plausible ways to think about Russia’s goals and motivations: 1) Russia is a revisionist actor, motivated by imperial ambitions; and, 2) Russia is a defensive actor, motivated by fear and insecurity. Both viewpoints are consistent with Russia’s recent behavior, but they yield contradictory strategic prescriptions. The United States needs a robust deterrence posture to stop a revisionist Russia, but such measures will provoke a defensive Russia. Conversely, the United States should try to assure a defensive Russia, but a revisionist Russia will perceive assurances as a signal of weakness. Without definitive intelligence on Russian intentions, the U.S. Army must thread the needle between two contrasting deterrent postures"

I think its pretty difficult to make the case NATO should increase OR decrease what we already have there: the BGs as they stand are an excellent reason for Russia not to try anything, while also posing no credible threat to Russia itself. A very good balance, in my opinion.


----------



## Pikache (3 Jan 2021)

GR66 said:


> Crimea and the Donbass both have majority Russian populations and Russia was likely pretty confident that there wouldn't be any major resistance by the locals to their "liberation".  I don't think the situation in the Baltic States would be the same.  And as others here have mentioned, the NATO tripwire defence is more about forcing Russia to kill a bunch of NATO soldiers in order to take the territory.
> 
> A better investment in my mind would be to provide civil and economic support to strengthen the Baltic States.  If the people of these countries (especially the Russian minorities there) feel they have a better life within the existing system then they would under Russian rule, then Moscow will have little opportunity to try and spark some kind of hybrid intrusion into the Baltics.



It's a bit of different story to compare Russian demographics of Crimea/Donbas vs Latvia. Crimea and Donbas had majority ethnic Russians while in Latvia, very few, and only adding to small total area of Latvia is ethnic Russian majority. (Of coincidentally, Riga has the most significant concentration of ethnic Russians in Latvia) So, it would be very messy for Russians to use protection of ethnic Russians as an excuse to stage some kind of take over of (parts) of Latvia. 

I think Latvian government is also addressing the civil grievance of ethnic Russians living in Latvians, of one of biggest complaint is that a lot of ethnic Russians have a hard time to get Latvian citizenship. So, the Latvian govt is working towards making it easier at least for the kids of Russians to get Latvian citizenship. (Funny enough, ethnic Russian party won the most seats in Latvian parliament last election) 

And with a Latvian citizenship, you get access to EU and other opportunities educationally and/or employment wise. Even just living in Latvia, average income is higher than in Russia IIRC, and Russian economy is not doing so good and probably for the next couple of years, with post COVID economic recovery combined with low oil prices which Russia relies heavily for economic growth. So why would you want to live under Russian rule, when your prospects are better with Latvia and EU?


----------



## Pikache (3 Jan 2021)

Weinie said:


> Fair point on the low hanging fruit, but not sure that Russia hasn't already pruned and cultivated what they feel is in their  strategic interests. They stayed out of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict until it ended, the enclave that those two countries were fighting over was not important enough for Russia to intercede. One end result is that Armenia is now even more tightly ensconced with Russia, and will rely on re-armament from Russian industry for tanks, artillery etc to replace front line losses, and is likely already in negotiations to procure UAV's. I suspect as well that Russian military _advisors_ will be visiting Armenian defence installations for the next few years.


Russia already has a military presence in Georgia, but specifically told Georgia that they will not intervene in Nagorno-Karabakh for two reasons IMO. 1. Punish the Georgian PM for trying to get away from Russian sphere of influence politically, 2. ensure Georgia stays firmly in Russian sphere of influence. 

Russia is more than likely to intervene in any country they consider 'near abroad', and they consider Caucasus area a southern security concern. None intervention would have meant significant influence by Turkey in southern Caucasus, of which Russia does not want. Russia is probably pissed off that Turkey already has lodgement, and likely maneuvering to get rid of Turkey's influence.

But we digress


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Jan 2022)

Latvia asks Western allies, including Canada, to help bolster its defences in face of Russian threat
					

Latvia is already Canada’s biggest military deployment, with about 540 soldiers. It has led a NATO battle group in the country since 2017




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




Latvia will be asking for more troops to help deter Russia in coming meeting with our MND


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Jan 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Latvia asks Western allies, including Canada, to help bolster its defences in face of Russian threat
> 
> 
> Latvia is already Canada’s biggest military deployment, with about 540 soldiers. It has led a NATO battle group in the country since 2017
> ...



But 'Latvia is asking more than we can give' right?


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Jan 2022)

Latvia hopeful Canada will extend, boost military presence amid Russia threat - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Latvian ambassador to Canada said his countrymen are grateful for the 600 Canadian soldiers currently deployed to the Baltic state to defend against the threat of Russian attack.




					globalnews.ca
				




Apparently more troops wasn't part of the call, even if it was, given the current personal situation could we even afford to send more?


----------



## WestIsle (29 Jan 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Latvia hopeful Canada will extend, boost military presence amid Russia threat - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Latvian ambassador to Canada said his countrymen are grateful for the 600 Canadian soldiers currently deployed to the Baltic state to defend against the threat of Russian attack.
> ...


Yes we arent deploying many people. All we need to do is stop sending captains from battalion to Ottawa for a couple years. The training cycle to generate OCs and ICs is wearing on the army


----------



## FJAG (30 Jan 2022)

WestIsle said:


> Yes we arent deploying many people. All we need to do is stop sending captains from battalion to Ottawa for a couple years. The training cycle to generate OCs and ICs is wearing on the army


One of these days some genius will get the message that the CF can't afford NDHQ anymore.

Not holding my breath.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09 (30 Jan 2022)

FJAG said:


> One of these days some genius will get the message that the CF can't afford NDHQ anymore.
> 
> Not holding my breath.
> 
> 🍻


I think that is as likely as the leafs winning the cup


----------



## FJAG (30 Jan 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> I think that is as likely as the leafs winning the cup



Okay. You've got to remember that I'm an old bugger and grew up in Scarborough in the Sixties and that the Leafs were my team. To me hockey players were guys like Bower, Brewer, Mahovlich, Keon, Shack, Horton and Armstrong. They brought the cup home in 62, 63, 64 and 67.

Not sure what exactly happened after 67 (maybe its because around then I stopped playing road hockey) but the memory of what went on before is what keeps me (and millions of Torontonians) optimistic that lightning can strike again.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Jan 2022)

FJAG said:


> Okay. You've got to remember that I'm an old bugger and grew up in Scarborough in the Sixties and that the Leafs were my team. To me hockey players were guys like Bower, Brewer, Mahovlich, Keon, Shack, Horton and Armstrong. They brought the cup home in 62, 63, 64 and 67.
> 
> Not sure what exactly happened after 67 (maybe its because around then I stopped playing road hockey) but the memory of what went on before is what keeps me (and millions of Torontonians) optimistic that lightning can strike again.



1967?  Expansion . . . remember that?  It's one thing putting the best quality team on the ice when you're one of six (and those six had been the same for 25 years).  It becomes another thing when you suddenly become one of twelve (and the six new teams have deep pockets holding American dollars) and then over the next 12 years the league expands to 21 teams.

But yes, I still think of "hockey" (real hockey) as those six teams.  And while Roch Carrier's experience may have been indicative of his culture, where I came from (as far east in Canada as possible) a Leafs sweater was the usual preferred choice.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2022)

Meanwhile, some Russians in Latvia don't seem to feel all that threatened ...


> As Canada looks to extend its NATO mission in Latvia, some in this former Soviet republic say the military presence is unnecessary.
> 
> Lilija Lapshina, who was selling pickled cranberries and other preserves at a market in the city of Daugavpils, in the Latgale region in Latvia’s east, insisted her country doesn’t require Western help.
> 
> ...


----------



## KevinB (7 Feb 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> Meanwhile, some Russians in Latvia don't seem to feel all that threatened ...


Shocker the ethnic Russians don't want NATO troops around...


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Feb 2022)

KevinB said:


> Shocker the ethnic Russians don't want NATO troops around...


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2022)

KevinB said:


> Shocker the ethnic Russians don't want NATO troops around...


Some of them may even see Team Soviet Union 2.0 as their "saviours" if push came to shove.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2022)

KevinB said:


> Shocker the ethnic Russians don't want NATO troops around...


…but they sure don’t mind the better living conditions and prosperity of actually living IN a NATO nation…


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> …but they sure don’t mind the better living conditions and prosperity of actually living IN a NATO nation…


They're still unhappy about the Russian language being suppressed - sorta like the old days when Latvian was suppressed.

But I guess some Russians in Latvia (or the rest of the Baltics, for that matter) didn't get the memo about history needing to be remembered with _all_ its warts, right?


----------



## Spencer100 (7 Feb 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> 1967?  Expansion . . . remember that?  It's one thing putting the best quality team on the ice when you're one of six (and those six had been the same for 25 years).  It becomes another thing when you suddenly become one of twelve (and the six new teams have deep pockets holding American dollars) and then over the next 12 years the league expands to 21 teams.
> 
> But yes, I still think of "hockey" (real hockey) as those six teams.  And while Roch Carrier's experience may have been indicative of his culture, where I came from (as far east in Canada as possible) a Leafs sweater was the usual preferred choice.


Right! 

Plus as a businessperson and remember this is first and foremost a business I don't think I would want to work too hard to win the Stanley cup either if I owned the Leafs.  The increase in revenue for a long run in the playoffs etc. would not offset the increased expenses.  They sell out every game now.  They sell tons of licensed product the increase would barely be seen.  The TV money is shared.  So if you are smart you make a team just good enough.  So I would guess the management at MLSE are smart as they have not won in my lifetime.


----------



## Czech_pivo (7 Feb 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> Meanwhile, some Russians in Latvia don't seem to feel all that threatened ...


Some can trace their families in the area back to Tsarist Russia, *while others have roots in the half century of Soviet occupation that ended in the 1990s.*

These would be the Russians who Uncle Joe moved there between 1940-41 and 1944-50 when he and his NKVD lackeys/murderers either executed or forcibly removed a few hundred hundred Latvians (and Estonians, Lithuanians, Poles, Romanians, Hungarians, Germans, Baltic Germans, Volga Germans) to one of the 'Stans. These Russians simply moved straight into the forcibly abandoned houses/farms/flats/apartments of the Latvians off to the Gulags/'Stans and instantly created little (or not so little) Russian enclaves all through the Baltics, Kaliningrad, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, etc, etc, etc.   

To many Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians, these Russians are nothing more than 'Colonizers'.


----------



## Maxman1 (23 Feb 2022)

Canada commits troops, sanctions Russia as Kremlin orders troops into Ukraine

An additional 460 pers including a 100 man artillery unit to Reassurance, _Halifax_ and an Aurora.


----------



## Prairie canuck (23 Feb 2022)

Good day to all. It's been a long time since I posted here, so long I had to re-register, but I could think of no better place to ask this question. Putin has stated that "Canada will pay a price for it's sanctions". Could Russian assets begin to challenge Canada's north, land some men and equipment and plant a flag, and are we ready to respond? I know it's pure speculation on my part but after the last 2 yrs I'm starting to think anything is possible. Thanks for your consideration.


----------



## QV (23 Feb 2022)

What does "enhanced fwd presence" even mean? What's the difference between fwd presence and the enhanced version?


----------



## Remius (23 Feb 2022)

QV said:


> What does "enhanced fwd presence" even mean? What's the difference between fwd presence and the enhanced version?


Speed stripes, boosters and shields.


----------



## Quirky (23 Feb 2022)

QV said:


> What does "enhanced fwd presence" even mean? What's the difference between fwd presence and the enhanced version?



Just the size of the speed bump if Russia decides to move West.


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Feb 2022)

Quirky said:


> Just the size of the speed bump if Russia decides to move West.


Normal speed bumps only last 12 hours, enhanced 24 hours.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Feb 2022)

I mentioned in another thread, the Aurora is just being included “because


Prairie canuck said:


> Good day to all. It's been a long time since I posted here, so long I had to re-register, but I could think of no better place to ask this question. Putin has stated that "Canada will pay a price for it's sanctions". Could Russian assets begin to challenge Canada's north, land some men and equipment and plant a flag, and are we ready to respond? I know it's pure speculation on my part but after the last 2 yrs I'm starting to think anything is possible. Thanks for your consideration.



For now I believe Russia will concentrate on the "north" that is closer to their own landmass.  They have lots of work to do and loads of square miles to do "stuff" with/to.  

I don't think that "landing some men/equipment, planting flag" is something that NORAD would just turn a blind eye on;  Maritime approaches are also part of the NORAD task.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Feb 2022)

Not sure how I messed up the Aurora comment above;  the Aurora is already deployed in Iceland and will be “re-deployed”.


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Feb 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Not sure how I messed up the Aurora comment above;  the Aurora is already deployed in Iceland and will be “re-deployed”.


I only ever hear Aurora's deploying by them selves, is there no point in deploying in pairs?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Feb 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I mentioned in another thread, the Aurora is just being included “because
> 
> 
> For now I believe Russia will concentrate on the "north" that is closer to their own landmass.  They have lots of work to do and loads of square miles to do "stuff" with/to.
> ...


Svalbard possibly? Whatever they do, China will give them political cover.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Feb 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> I only ever hear Aurora's deploying by them selves, is there no point in deploying in pairs?



IMPACT was a 2 plane ATF/Det from Oct 14 - Dec 17.  You're right, though, it has been primarly single aircraft ATFs/Dets in recent history. 

There's lots of benefits to 2+ plane ATFs/Dets, but Mom and Dad have to juggle competing FG/FE/FD/Maint demands with a 14 tail fleet that is also undergoing upgrades the last XX years on a rotating basis.   Aside from IMPACT, the only time I was away with multi-aircraft LRPATFs was exercises (Scotland, Sicily).

Having said that, I've never done a deployment where we were the only game in town;  fixed wing partners have included USA, France, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Japan assets have been part of the overall ATF (Air Task Force) usually.  Exercises are the same, including Cutlass Fury (RCN, "Atlantic" exercise).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Feb 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Svalbard possibly? Whatever they do, China will give them political cover.



That is closer and might be in the sights before the "Canadian" arctic.  China might "join" them...

I'd hate to ditch up there...


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Feb 2022)

China accidentally releases secret Russia-Ukraine documents online
					

A Chinese state-controlled news outlet appears to have accidentally published official instructions for how Chinese media outlets are to cover Russia's




					americanmilitarynews.com
				




Chinese state media accidentally releases its guidance on how to cover/censor posts about russia


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Mar 2022)

the GOC/CAF in Latvia:



Also the GOC/CAF:






						CDS/DM Directive on DND/CAF Operating and Reconstituting in a Persistent COVID-19 Environment - Canada.ca
					

As of 16 February, 2022, the Defence Team is now taking a risk acceptance posture toward COVID-19 as the pandemic evolves into an endemic that must be worked around in order to preserve our ability to serve Canada and Canadians.




					www.canada.ca
				




It is critical that until public health advice permits a reduction in the use of PHMs, every member of the DT continue to apply PHMs, particularly the use of non-medical masks (NMMs), to protect ourselves, our colleagues, and the broader Canadian population.

Because there's nothing more people like than a double fucking standard!  How's that whole 'culture change' coming, Snr leadership?


----------



## Quirky (10 Mar 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> the GOC/CAF in Latvia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nothing to see here, Covid doesn’t exist in Latvia.



Keep wearing that mask at home though, at this point politics and virtue signalling are the priority of the DT.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Mar 2022)

Quirky said:


> Nothing to see here, Covid doesn’t exist in Latvia.
> 
> View attachment 69362
> 
> Keep wearing that mask at home though, at this point politics and virtue signalling are the priority of the DT.



<RSM sees this photo and gets ready to smoke the kid wearing the coyote brown jacket>


----------



## OceanBonfire (21 Mar 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1505821351944364037

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1505915786505904137

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1505959649677357062


----------



## Prairie canuck (22 Mar 2022)

I believe that there is a "next" step regarding Canada's and NATO's presence in Latvia that would increase the troops and equipment. From what I have been reading NATO would like to implement that increase asap. Shouldn't there be a RORO ship in St John's (NB) harbour awaiting this order?


----------



## dapaterson (22 Mar 2022)

Prairie canuck said:


> I believe that there is a "next" step regarding Canada's and NATO's presence in Latvia that would increase the troops and equipment. From what I have been reading NATO would like to implement that increase asap. Shouldn't there be a RORO ship in St John's (NB) harbour awaiting this order?


CAF war stocks are mostly in Montreal.


----------



## GK .Dundas (22 Mar 2022)

dapaterson said:


> CAF war stocks are mostly in Montreal.


I suspect that our war reserves consists of dusty shelves right now. Assuming we didn't try and foist the dust on the Ukranians as well .


----------



## KevinB (22 Mar 2022)

dapaterson said:


> CAF war stocks were mostly in Montreal.


FIFY - YW


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Mar 2022)

Prairie canuck said:


> I believe that there is a "next" step regarding Canada's and NATO's presence in Latvia that would increase the troops and equipment. From what I have been reading NATO would like to implement that increase asap. Shouldn't there be a RORO ship in St John's (NB) harbour awaiting this order?



Saint John, NB.   St John’s is NFLD.  

Are we shipping them the museum pieces from Gagetown??


----------



## Prairie canuck (22 Mar 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Saint John, NB.   St John’s is NFLD.
> 
> Are we shipping them the museum pieces from Gagetown??


I always mix the 2 johns..
I'm just incorrectly assuming that Gagetown would have been the centre of the (east) ground forces universe. Montreal would have been my last guess. So, again, why isn't there a RORO docked in Montreal? I can't see everything going on C17s.


----------



## KevinB (22 Mar 2022)

Prairie canuck said:


> I always mix the 2 johns..
> I'm just incorrectly assuming that Gagetown would have been the centre of the (east) ground forces universe. Montreal would have been my last guess. So, again, why isn't there a RORO docked in Montreal? I can't see everything going on C17s.


Hmm what went wrong the last time the CAF did that. 
   Oh yeah the ship went rogue and held the gear hostage until DHTC acquired the ship back.


----------



## MJP (22 Mar 2022)

Prairie canuck said:


> So, again, why isn't there a RORO docked in Montreal? I can't see everything going on C17s.


Do you know definitely there isn't a ship or better a shipping company on contract to provide a ship?



KevinB said:


> Hmm what went wrong the last time the CAF did that.
> Oh yeah the ship went rogue and held the gear hostage until DHTC acquired the ship back.


We move stuff by ship all the time. The majority of the initial deployment to Latvia was by ship. Ship resupply was common for the tour even post initial surge and has been used a number of times. The material and equipment for the M777 battery sent in 2017 was all sent by ship


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> Hmm what went wrong the last time the CAF did that.
> Oh yeah the *Ukrainian rental* ship went rogue and held the gear hostage until DHTC acquired the ship back.


FTFY… 😉 tee hee


----------



## FJAG (23 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> Hmm what went wrong the last time the CAF did that.
> Oh yeah the ship went rogue and held the gear hostage until DHTC acquired the ship back.


Next time we'll send an armed escort. "I am the captain, now!"


----------



## FJAG (23 Mar 2022)

FJAG said:


> Next time we'll send an armed security detachment. "I am the captain, now!"


----------



## TacticalTea (23 Mar 2022)

FJAG said:


> Next time we'll send an armed escort. "I am the captain, now!"


That got me thinking ''Are there even any Canadian flagged RoRos?'' Might be a bit dodgy to commandeer a Panamanian flagged ship.

Here's the list Vessels Database - VesselFinder

Both Oceanexes, the largest ones, seem to be container carriers only. Or perhaps that's just how they use them. I don't know much about RoRos.


----------



## Maxman1 (23 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> Hmm what went wrong the last time the CAF did that.
> Oh yeah the ship went rogue and held the gear hostage until DHTC acquired the ship back.


----------



## Prairie canuck (23 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> That got me thinking ''Are there even any Canadian flagged RoRos?'' Might be a bit dodgy to commandeer a Panamanian flagged ship.
> 
> Here's the list Vessels Database - VesselFinder
> 
> Both Oceanexes, the largest ones, seem to be container carriers only. Or perhaps that's just how they use them. I don't know much about RoRos.


The larger of the 2 just so happens to be in the St Lawrence heading to Montreal. Size is 210 x 30 m. from the pictures it can have vehicles below and seacans above. Not sure about capacity.


----------



## Scott (23 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> That got me thinking ''Are there even any Canadian flagged RoRos?'' Might be a bit dodgy to commandeer a Panamanian flagged ship.


PEI Ferries!


----------



## OceanBonfire (23 Mar 2022)

Deployment of a battery from the 5e Régiment d’artillerie légère du Canada on Operation REASSURANCE - Canada.ca
					

Media are invited to attend the departure of members of the 5e Régiment d’artillerie légère du Canada for Operation REASSURANCE, at the Québec airport, on 23 March 2022.




					www.canada.ca
				












						Quebec soldiers 'extremely proud' to join NATO mission in response to Ukraine war
					

Dozens of Quebec soldiers are heading for Latvia to join in NATO's deterrence and assurance measures as part of Operation Reassurance.




					montreal.ctvnews.ca
				












						Quebec soldiers en route to Latvia
					

Soldiers from Quebec are heading to Latvia as part of NATO’s response to the war in Ukraine




					montreal.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Quirky (24 Mar 2022)

OceanBonfire said:


> Deployment of a battery from the 5e Régiment d’artillerie légère du Canada on Operation REASSURANCE - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Media are invited to attend the departure of members of the 5e Régiment d’artillerie légère du Canada for Operation REASSURANCE, at the Québec airport, on 23 March 2022.
> ...


Seeing the Quebec Army support the CAF in Latvia is always positive news.


----------



## Czech_pivo (24 Mar 2022)

Canada pressed to take on extra NATO defence role in Baltics​"Artis Pabriks, who is also Latvia’s Defence Minister, was in Ottawa Wednesday for meetings with Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and Defence Minister Anita Anand"
"Mr. Pabriks said he’s pitched Canada on taking on a second role: joining the command of NATO’s Multinational Division North,..."
“We would like that Canadians join. We trust Canadians,” he said, adding that, ideally, Canada’s military would take on a co-leadership role. He said this commitment would require posting a Canadian general in Riga.
Spokesperson Daniel Minden said: “*Canada will be contributing* to the Multinational Division North and is currently considering what that contribution would look like.”
Asked about Canada’s defence spending record, Mr. Pabriks said *he would not want to criticize Ottawa* because his country is extremely grateful for Canadian battle group leadership in Latvia. “*On the other hand,* if you are a NATO member, *we should be ready to spend more*.” Latvia has hiked defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP.









						Canada pressed to take on extra NATO defence role in Baltics
					

Latvia’s Defence Minister Artis Pabriks met Chrystia Freeland and Anita Anand in Ottawa as allies map out their response to Russia’s military assault on Ukraine




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## Spencer100 (24 Mar 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Canada pressed to take on extra NATO defence role in Baltics​"Artis Pabriks, who is also Latvia’s Defence Minister, was in Ottawa Wednesday for meetings with Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and Defence Minister Anita Anand"
> "Mr. Pabriks said he’s pitched Canada on taking on a second role: joining the command of NATO’s Multinational Division North,..."
> “We would like that Canadians join. We trust Canadians,” he said, adding that, ideally, Canada’s military would take on a co-leadership role. He said this commitment would require posting a Canadian general in Riga.
> Spokesperson Daniel Minden said: “*Canada will be contributing* to the Multinational Division North and is currently considering what that contribution would look like.”
> ...


General and Staff...sure...more troops......look way and don't make eye contact.


----------



## MilEME09 (24 Mar 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Canada pressed to take on extra NATO defence role in Baltics​"Artis Pabriks, who is also Latvia’s Defence Minister, was in Ottawa Wednesday for meetings with Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and Defence Minister Anita Anand"
> "Mr. Pabriks said he’s pitched Canada on taking on a second role: joining the command of NATO’s Multinational Division North,..."
> “We would like that Canadians join. We trust Canadians,” he said, adding that, ideally, Canada’s military would take on a co-leadership role. He said this commitment would require posting a Canadian general in Riga.
> Spokesperson Daniel Minden said: “*Canada will be contributing* to the Multinational Division North and is currently considering what that contribution would look like.”
> ...


How nice of them to recognize our ability to stand up HQs


----------



## markppcli (25 Mar 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> How nice of them to recognize our ability to stand up HQs


It’s really what we bring to the table. My recent CODE training finished with a survey that asked what “L1” I belong to, which I’ve taken as a nice summery of the CAFs major issues.


----------



## YZT580 (25 Mar 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> How nice of them to recognize our ability to stand up HQs


it's one area where there is no staff shortage


----------



## FJAG (25 Mar 2022)

YZT580 said:


> it's one area where there is no staff shortage


Betcha we'll create a new GOFO position for it.

😉


----------



## OceanBonfire (27 Mar 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1507318430885679112


----------



## brihard (27 Mar 2022)

Quirky said:


> Seeing the Quebec Army support the CAF in Latvia is always positive news.


I remember in theatre I was just happy knowing the guns were there if we needed them. Never bothered asking who force generated the gunners.

When are you heading over?


----------



## TacticalTea (27 Mar 2022)

brihard said:


> I remember in theatre I was just happy knowing the guns were there if we needed them. Never bothered asking who force generated the gunners.
> 
> When are you heading over?


I think the joke was just towards the wording, not the soldiers.


----------



## brihard (27 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> I think the joke was just towards the wording, not the soldiers.


Could be I misread something there. If it was snark vs the wording of the articles as opposed to snark vs 5 brigade, I’m cool with eating crow and apologizing.


----------



## Quirky (27 Mar 2022)

brihard said:


> Could be I misread something there. If it was snark vs the wording of the articles as opposed to snark vs 5 brigade, I’m cool with eating crow and apologizing.











						Quebec soldiers 'extremely proud' to join NATO mission in response to Ukraine war
					

Dozens of Quebec soldiers are heading for Latvia to join in NATO's deterrence and assurance measures as part of Operation Reassurance.




					montreal.ctvnews.ca
				






> Dozens of* Quebec soldiers* are heading for Latvia to join in NATO's deterrence and assurance measures as part of Operation Reassurance.
> 
> About 80 soldiers from the 5e Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada (5 RALC) boarded a flight from a Quebec City airport Wednesday evening to* join the roughly 1,375 Canadian Armed Forces personnel* in the region. Another 40 members are expected to fly out at a later date.



Article reads like Quebec is sending their own Army to Europe, instead of saying CAF soldiers based in Quebec.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (27 Mar 2022)

Quirky said:


> Quebec soldiers 'extremely proud' to join NATO mission in response to Ukraine war
> 
> 
> Dozens of Quebec soldiers are heading for Latvia to join in NATO's deterrence and assurance measures as part of Operation Reassurance.
> ...


From my experiences, quite a few CAF Soldiers based in Quebec often view themselves as "Quebec's Army." 

3 RCR and 3 Vandoo almost got into fisticuffs in Poland because the TF Comd would not grant St. Jean Baptiste as a stand down, but Canada Day was.


----------



## brihard (27 Mar 2022)

Quirky said:


> Quebec soldiers 'extremely proud' to join NATO mission in response to Ukraine war
> 
> 
> Dozens of Quebec soldiers are heading for Latvia to join in NATO's deterrence and assurance measures as part of Operation Reassurance.
> ...


My bad. Sorry dude. I read it as a shot at Quebec. I’m of the “there’s no cap badge on a helmet” mindset and that’s where I was coming from.


----------



## Quirky (27 Mar 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> From my experiences, quite a few CAF Soldiers based in Quebec often view themselves as "Quebec's Army."
> 
> 3 RCR and 3 Vandoo almost got into fisticuffs in Poland because the TF Comd would not grant St. Jean Baptiste as a stand down, but Canada Day was.



Once/if the bullets start flying none of the anglophone/francophone crap will matter, along with all the sensitivity DLN courses we take.


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Mar 2022)

Quirky said:


> Once/if the bullets start flying none of the anglophone/francophone crap will matter, along with all the sensitivity DLN courses we take.


I've said it before, if this goes hot, all the DLN stuff will disappear really quick.


----------



## McG (27 Mar 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> I've said it before, if this goes hot, all the DLN stuff will disappear really quick.


You’re not going to escape it.  Half the predeployment IBTS training is in DLN now.


----------



## Czech_pivo (31 Mar 2022)

Reading some stuff that NATO has asked Denmark for extra troops in Latvia.  Word is that Denmark has agreed and will send 800 troops.  Have to wonder if Denmark takes on the leadership role since they will have the majority of troops on site.


----------



## FJAG (31 Mar 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Reading some stuff that NATO has asked Denmark for extra troops in Latvia.  Word is that Denmark has agreed and will send 800 troops.  Have to wonder if Denmark takes on the leadership role since they will have the majority of troops on site.


They already have a large leadership role in NATO Multinational Division North which is centred in Latvia. 800 more troops would be a big commitment. Their RegF army is smaller than ours although their reserves have much more depth.

🍻


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Mar 2022)

McG said:


> You’re not going to escape it.  Half the predeployment IBTS training is in DLN now.



I was particularly fond _*and*_ appreciative of the ETHAR Afghanistan-based 167 slide course that prepared me thoroughly for air operations over Iraq/Syria and CSAR stuff.  👎

#TokenTrgBoxChecked


----------



## Dale Denton (31 Mar 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Have to wonder if Denmark takes on the leadership role since they will have the majority of troops on site.



It would be a very big way of NATO leadership embarrassing us into stepping closer to 2%.

Genuine Question:
What are we doing in Latvia that a European country couldn't do better, with better logistics and mobility, etc...?


----------



## MilEME09 (31 Mar 2022)

FJAG said:


> They already have a large leadership role in NATO Multinational Division North which is centred in Latvia. 800 more troops would be a big commitment. Their RegF army is smaller than ours although their reserves have much more depth.
> 
> 🍻


800 is 10% of their army


----------



## GR66 (1 Apr 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> 800 is 10% of their army


From Wikipedia the Royal Danish Army has 25,400 Active Service members (and 63,000 Reservists) so 800 is more like 3% of their Reg Force.  Add that to their existing contribution of 220 soldiers and you get a total contribution of 1200 soldiers (4.72% of their Active Service force).

By comparison Canada has (again according to Wikipedia) 23,000 personnel in the Reg Force Army.  According to the Op Reassurance website we currently have 695 soldiers in eFP Latvia (3% of our Reg Force Army).


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Apr 2022)

GR66 said:


> From Wikipedia the Royal Danish Army has 25,400 Active Service members (and 63,000 Reservists) so 800 is more like 3% of their Reg Force.  Add that to their existing contribution of 220 soldiers and you get a total contribution of 1200 soldiers (4.72% of their Active Service force).
> 
> By comparison Canada has (again according to Wikipedia) 23,000 personnel in the Reg Force Army.  According to the Op Reassurance website we currently have 695 soldiers in eFP Latvia (3% of our Reg Force Army).


I stand corrected, though Id be curious at their teeth to tail ratio


----------



## FJAG (1 Apr 2022)

🍻


----------



## Czech_pivo (1 Apr 2022)

FJAG said:


> They already have a large leadership role in NATO Multinational Division North which is centred in Latvia. 800 more troops would be a big commitment. Their RegF army is smaller than ours although their reserves have much more depth.
> 
> 🍻


They have a population of less than 6m people. I would hope that they RegF is less than ours.


----------



## GR66 (1 Apr 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> They have a population of less than 6m people. I would hope that they RegF is less than ours.


Actually from Wikipedia the Royal Danish Army has 25,400 Active Service Members vs. 23,000 for the Canadian Army.

☹️


----------



## FJAG (1 Apr 2022)

GR66 said:


> Actually from Wikipedia the Royal Danish Army has 25,400 Active Service Members vs. 23,000 for the Canadian Army.
> 
> ☹️


That's a little off. The Royal Danish Army's website states they have 7 - 9,000 professionals excluding conscripts under training.

Conscription is written into the Danish constitution and conscripts generally serve 4 months in training (the majority volunteer for service) and then become part of the reserve. At any given time the number of conscripts for all three services at any given time is 4,200. There are some conscripts who have longer tours which range from 8 to 12 months.

🍻


----------



## markppcli (7 Apr 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Reading some stuff that NATO has asked Denmark for extra troops in Latvia.  Word is that Denmark has agreed and will send 800 troops.  Have to wonder if Denmark takes on the leadership role since they will have the majority of troops on site.


Eh Spain has the largest contribution in Latvia already, still a Canadian hq.


----------



## Fabius (7 Apr 2022)

Much to the displeasure of the Spanish.


----------



## markppcli (7 Apr 2022)

Fabius said:


> Much to the displeasure of the Spanish.


I’ve compared both our work life balances while I was there. Trust me we’d all prefer to work for the Spanish.


----------



## McG (9 Apr 2022)

Looks like it will be permanent forward presence.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512954151117877248


----------



## FJAG (9 Apr 2022)

I guess that means Trudeau has until June in Madrid to figure out how to weasel out of actually doing anything.

I have my fingers crossed for Anand but after the budget I'm not expecting much from us on the international front.

🍻


----------



## McG (10 Apr 2022)

Okay, to get ourselves a seat back at the big-boy table let's figure out how to make this our REASSURANCE commitment:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2022)

Replace 415 Sqn with LRP ATF REASSURANACE...


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Apr 2022)

McG said:


> Okay, to get ourselves a seat back at the big-boy table let's figure out how to make this our REASSURANCE commitment:
> View attachment 69988


Air wing in Poland or Germany? 3 service battalions seem a bit heavy, I'd reorg it into 1 maintenance battalion, and a forward logistics battalion to handle other functions.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (10 Apr 2022)

The unfortunate thing is that we haven't been able to field this large of a formation  since 1945, with both conscription and a large augmentation of the reserve force. 

I have zero idea how we could staff an organization this large, as it would pull every person currently in uniform into the formation.

That's not even looking into the complete lack of capabilities listed, and the equipment rust out we currently have within our field force.

Something to aspire to in 15 years?


----------



## GR66 (10 Apr 2022)

Despite the recent Russian attack on Ukraine I still believe that the risk of a Russian attack on NATO itself is extremely low.  Economics, population and geography are against them in the long run and Ukraine has shown that their military has serious limitations in performing offensive operations against a well-equipped and determined enemy.

My personal opinion is that deploying a Division or even a full Brigade Group to Europe would be a poor use of Canadian defence dollars.  To my mind that money would be better spent on things like:

Additional Fighter Aircraft earmarked for Europe (expand the F-35 buy if required or invest in UCAV development to supplement them).
Increase our airlift/AAR capability to support fighter operations and surge of forces to Europe if required (I'd love to see our A300 MRTT order doubled).  
Increase our ISR and EW capabilites (P-8s, UAVs, possibly even Global Eye, ground based capabilities, etc.) to assist in detecting a Russian build-up in advance as well as providing targeting for strikes if hostilities begin.
Invest in building a well-equipped, high-readiness rapid reaction light force that could quickly deploy to Europe in case of an invasion or heightened tensions.  Needs to include lots of AT and AA capability within the force.  Objective would be to rapidly increase deterrence once a build-up is detected or to blunt/slow the initial attack if it occurs in order give time for heavier forces to be deployed.
Alternately heavily invest in SHORAD, MRAD and Long Range Precision Fires (HIMARS) capabilities which can be rapidly air deployed to Europe in support of allied ground troops in case of conflict.
Alternate "B" - pre-position additional equipment to round out eFP Latvia with fly-over troops in case of conflict  (I prefer the other two options as they can be deployed wherever a risk of conflict is detected rather than already being located in a specific area that can be targeted by Russian forces in initial strikes).

In general increase our Air and Naval forces in order to be able to better support and protect a surge of US forces into theatre.


----------



## KevinB (10 Apr 2022)

If it wasn’t for nukes NATO would be in Moscow…
     If you look at what Russia has left for equipment outside the UKR theatre, a Cbt Team of Leo’s and LAV’s could pretty much drive from Latvia to St Petersburg with out much significant opposition.  

If Canada can’t at least get a Bde into Latvia - everyone else in NATO will see the CAF as a joke.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Apr 2022)

Did we change the abbreviation for Battalion to Bde recently?  yes?


----------



## McG (10 Apr 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> The unfortunate thing is that we haven't been able to field this large of a formation since 1945, with both conscription and a large augmentation of the reserve force.


This is tiny compared to the forces Canada deployed to either World War. CFE was also larger through most of its existence in the first Cold War.


----------



## Spencer100 (10 Apr 2022)

Putting that big a force back into Europe is taking the eye off the real enemy and problem.  Russia will soon be a spent force.  China will be on the move.  

We should put a large enough force that get us out of the kids table.


----------



## TacticalTea (11 Apr 2022)

GR66 said:


> Despite the recent Russian attack on Ukraine I still believe that the risk of a Russian attack on NATO itself is extremely low.  Economics, population and geography are against them in the long run and Ukraine has shown that their military has serious limitations in performing offensive operations against a well-equipped and determined enemy.


I generally agree with the priorities outlined, but remember this:

In 1763, France lost everything. Its american adventure would end. 

But, they learned from their mistakes, re-invested in their military, and kicked butt for a half century. First - poetically enough - by taking revenge in America against the Brits, then going on to build their own European empire, against which it took the united might of essentially the remainder of Europe to stop them.

Russia could do the same, and their apparent defeat today is no indication of what will happen in 15 years. While I understand the point you are making, I've also seen others use the same argument to explain that there is no need, after all, to invest in and rebuild our own military, which in my view could not be more wrong.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Apr 2022)

This is a valid point.  Russia is going to walk away from Ukraine facing some level of failure.  They probably will fix that, as losing armies tend to do, making them more dangerous down the road if they remain an adversary of the West.


----------



## KevinB (11 Apr 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Putting that big a force back into Europe is taking the eye off the real enemy and problem.  Russia will soon be a spent force.  China will be on the move.
> 
> We should put a large enough force that get us out of the kids table.


The 250k US personnel in Europe are 1/8th of our Force. 
  That leaves a fairly robust Force available for Pacific Pivot. 

Canada doesn’t seem to have any inclination to Pacific pivot - and isn’t structured in any way shape or form in the CAF to do that, nor does it seem to want to be shaped that way.


----------



## MilEME09 (11 Apr 2022)

Infanteer said:


> This is a valid point.  Russia is going to walk away from Ukraine facing some level of failure.  They probably will fix that, as losing armies tend to do, making them more dangerous down the road if they remain an adversary of the West.


Your assume corruption does not continue and their equipment actually is cared for.


----------



## KevinB (11 Apr 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Your assume corruption does not continue and their equipment actually is cared for.


Better to err to the high side of enemy capabilities…


----------



## Czech_pivo (11 Apr 2022)

GR66 said:


> Despite the recent Russian attack on Ukraine I still believe that the risk of a Russian attack on NATO itself is extremely low.  Economics, population and geography are against them in the long run and Ukraine has shown that their military has serious limitations in performing offensive operations against a well-equipped and determined enemy.
> 
> My personal opinion is that deploying a Division or even a full Brigade Group to Europe would be a poor use of Canadian defence dollars.  To my mind that money would be better spent on things like:
> 
> ...


I know that the current Bogey man is Russia and while there is the need to address them and address the CAF's plainly evident shortfalls in helping in a meaningful way our commitment to NATO that equals our G7 status, we need to be looking East to our next potential adversary.

If the war in Ukraine was to stop now, with Ukraine's Feb 24th borders being intact, it will take Russia a decade+ to recover from their beating. In that decade+ of time, regime change will most likely occur and there is X% chance that the new regime may not have to same ambitions to recreate USSR 2.0 as the current one does.  This does not mean that we shouldn't rearm and expand our capabilities within NATO but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't neglect our other area of focus = SE ASIA. 

What's that mantra?  'Armies prepare to fight their last war, rather than their next war'.


----------



## GR66 (11 Apr 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> I know that the current Bogey man is Russia and while there is the need to address them and address the CAF's plainly evident shortfalls in helping in a meaningful way our commitment to NATO that equals our G7 status, we need to be looking East to our next potential adversary.
> 
> If the war in Ukraine was to stop now, with Ukraine's Feb 24th borders being intact, it will take Russia a decade+ to recover from their beating. In that decade+ of time, regime change will most likely occur and there is X% chance that the new regime may not have to same ambitions to recreate USSR 2.0 as the current one does.  This does not mean that we shouldn't rearm and expand our capabilities within NATO but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't neglect our other area of focus = SE ASIA.
> 
> What's that mantra?  'Armies prepare to fight their last war, rather than their next war'.


What on my list of revised priorities doesn't fulfill the dual role of countering China?  



GR66 said:


> Additional Fighter Aircraft earmarked for Europe the Indo-Pacific (expand the F-35 buy if required or invest in UCAV development to supplement them).
> Increase our airlift/AAR capability to support fighter operations and surge of forces to Europe the Indo-Pacific if required (I'd love to see our A300 MRTT order doubled).
> Increase our ISR and EW capabilites (P-8s, UAVs, possibly even Global Eye, ground based capabilities, etc.) to assist in detecting a Russian Chinese build-up in advance as well as providing targeting for strikes if hostilities begin.
> Invest in building a well-equipped, high-readiness rapid reaction light force that could quickly deploy to Europe the Indo-Pacific in case of an invasion or heightened tensions.  Needs to include lots of AT and AA capability within the force.  Objective would be to rapidly increase deterrence once a build-up is detected or to blunt/slow the initial attack if it occurs in order give time for heavier forces to be deployed.
> ...


----------



## Czech_pivo (11 Apr 2022)

GR66 said:


> What on my list of revised priorities doesn't fulfill the dual role of countering China?


Doubling the reqts.
Don't look to buy an extra 12 F-35's and expect that they cover off both the need in Europe and the need in SE Asia.   If Europe requires 12, buy them and if SE Asia requires another 8, buy them, but for God's sake don't buy only 12 and say that we've covered off both reqts.


----------



## WLSC (11 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> The 250k US personnel in Europe are 1/8th of our Force.
> That leaves a fairly robust Force available for Pacific Pivot.
> 
> Canada doesn’t seem to have any inclination to Pacific pivot - and isn’t structured in any way shape or form in the CAF to do that, nor does it seem to want to be shaped that way.


Until reality comes knocking to the door.  In the mean time, beef up the Great White North, concentrate in Europe and be prepare to do somehting in Asia.  That is the only posture I can see.


----------



## KevinB (11 Apr 2022)

WLSC said:


> Until reality comes knocking to the door.  In the mean time, beef up the Great White North, concentrate in Europe and be prepare to do somehting in Asia.  That is the only posture I can see.


Reality knocked before - and has been knocking quite recently -- JT doesn't answer the door.

To further drum on my "too light to fight, too heavy to move" view of the CA, it has neither the forces to compete in a near peer conflict in Europe - or the Pacific.


----------



## Czech_pivo (11 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> The 250k US personnel in Europe are 1/8th of our Force.
> That leaves a fairly robust Force available for Pacific Pivot.
> 
> Canada doesn’t seem to have any inclination to Pacific pivot - and isn’t structured in any way shape or form in the CAF to do that, nor does it seem to want to be shaped that way.


When was the last time the CAF had 1/8 of its force stationed outside its borders?  Was it pre-89 in Germany/France or was it Korea?  Anyone know?


----------



## KevinB (11 Apr 2022)

GR66 said:


> What on my list of revised priorities doesn't fulfill the dual role of countering China?
> 
> Additional Fighter Aircraft earmarked for Europe the Indo-Pacific (expand the F-35 buy if required or invest in UCAV development to supplement them).


I would argue that the RCAF needs significantly more than even 140 F-35, and perhaps a dual fleet of F-15EX and F-35 would make more sense.  Yes another airframe, but the same airframe in use down here - and same that will be flown in EU/PAC theaters.



GR66 said:


> Increase our airlift/AAR capability to support fighter operations and surge of forces to Europe the Indo-Pacific if required (I'd love to see our A300 MRTT order doubled).


Someone needs to get Boeing to re-open the C-17 line, you would find a lot of willing global partners for 50+ airframes.


GR66 said:


> Increase our ISR and EW capabilites (P-8s, UAVs, possibly even Global Eye, ground based capabilities, etc.) to assist in detecting a Russian Chinese build-up in advance as well as providing targeting for strikes if hostilities begin.


P-8, Global Hawk etc -- but the P-8 buy shouldn't just replace the P-3 (sorry CP-140) 1 for 1 as the RCAF doesn't have enough, and the fleet probably needs at least a 50% expansion 


GR66 said:


> Invest in building a well-equipped, high-readiness rapid reaction light force that could quickly deploy to Europethe Indo-Pacific in case of an invasion or heightened tensions. Needs to include lots of AT and AA capability within the force. Objective would be to rapidly increase deterrence once a build-up is detected or to blunt/slow the initial attack if it occurs in order give time for heavier forces to be deployed.


I'd argue the entire regular force Army should be constructed that way - with the Medium/Heavy Force being made of Reserves, or at least 2/3rds of the Reg Force Army to be Light (Airborne/Airmobile capable).



GR66 said:


> Alternately heavily invest in SHORAD, MRAD and Long Range Precision Fires (HIMARS) capabilities which can be rapidly air deployed to Europe the Indo-Pacific in support of allied ground troops in case of conflict.


 One would need that too - it isn't an either or.


GR66 said:


> Alternate "B" - pre-position additional equipment to round out eFP Latvia the Indo-Pacific with fly-over troops in case of conflict (I prefer the other two options as they can be deployed wherever a risk of conflict is detected rather than already being located in a specific area that can be targeted by Russian forces in initial strikes).


 Prepositoning a Bde of Equipment in Poland/Latvia - maybe later Ukraine itself  - with a Reg skeleton crew (with full maintenance) and a flyover Reserve contingent --- do the same thing in Australia 


GR66 said:


> In general increase our Air and Naval forces in order to be able to better support and protect a surge of US forces into theatre [insert any applicable theatre here].


We (USA) have a really big machine - support and protection aren't shortfalls down here -- transport it (one may laugh at that - as we have 223 C-17's, but getting equipment into any theatre is an issue without proper build up time -- heck we have over 1 Corps worth of ABCT's in Europe just for war stock (now opened for V Corps in Poland etc) and we are constantly stressing the fleet to keep forces sustained - and build up critical mass.
   The CAF needs to be able to transport, supply and support itself regardless of theatre - something it really can't do unless it is a fairly insignificant force.


----------



## KevinB (11 Apr 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> When was the last time the CAF had 1/8 of its force stationed outside its borders?  Was it pre-89 in Germany/France or was it Korea?  Anyone know?


Germany with 4 CMBG, 10TAG etc.
    Korea would have been theoretically higher - due to the size of the CAF at the time.


----------



## McG (11 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> Germany with 4 CMBG, 10TAG etc.


10 TAG was in Canada with Mobile Command. 1 CAG was in Germany with CFE.


----------



## KevinB (11 Apr 2022)

McG said:


> 10 TAG was in Canada with Mobile Command. 1 CAG was in Germany with CFE.


My bad - I have flushed a lot of that era knowledge.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Apr 2022)

McG said:


> 10 TAG was in Canada with Mobile Command. 1 CAG was in Germany with CFE.


I took KevinB’s comment to mean 444 Squadron, which was chopped from 10 TAG OPCOM to 4 CMBG and co-located in Lahr.  Yes, 1 CAG was in Germany too, but in Baden, not co-located with 4 CMBG.


----------



## McG (11 Apr 2022)

There was a 4 CMBG battalion that was based on the tarmac in Baden–Soellingen, so one could argue that 1 CAG & 4 CMBG were collocated. 
At various point of time through its existence, 1 CAG was alternately named 1 CAD. One of those periods of time also saw 1st Cdn Div HQ in Lahr.
Which means CFE, for one point in time, consisted of two small divisions.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Apr 2022)

McG said:


> There was a 4 CMBG battalion that was based on the tarmac in Baden–Soellingen, so one could argue that 1 CAG & 4 CMBG were collocated.



Nah, the Army just fell for the “we can’t do our own airfield defence, you’ll have to come up and man the gates while were out at TGIMTWTFSS… “ trick.  😉 



McG said:


> At various point of time through its existence, 1 CAG was alternately named 1 CAD. One of those periods of time also saw 1st Cdn Div HQ in Lahr.
> Which means CFE, for one point in time, consisted of two small divisions.


 By ‘small’ do you mean ‘a lot bigger than a Canadian Division today?’ 😆


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Apr 2022)

McG said:


> . . .  One of those periods of time also saw 1st Cdn Div HQ in Lahr.
> Which means CFE, for one point in time, consisted of two small divisions.



It was 1 Cdn Div HQ *(Fwd)* that was in Germany.  Div HQ (Main) was in Kingston.  The div consisted of 4 CMBG which was on the ground in Lahr and Baden-Soellingen and the roundout bde was 5 GBMC from Valcartier.


----------



## McG (11 Apr 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> By ‘small’ do you mean ‘a lot bigger than a Canadian Division today?’ 😆


So, I don’t know.  I assume 1 CAD of today is bigger than 1 CAD of CFE. But 1st Cdn Div of CFE vs any of the CA’s divisions today?  4 CMBG was bigger than today’s CMBGs despite it not having a third infantry battalion, but the current divisions have a lot of reservists that should count for something.


----------



## McG (12 May 2022)

Finland Nato: Russia threatens to retaliate over membership move
					

Finland's leaders say they want the country to apply for membership of the alliance "without delay".



					www.bbc.com
				




Are we at the point where NATO should be dropping an eFP into Finland?  What's ⅩⅧ Corps doing right now?


----------



## MilEME09 (12 May 2022)

McG said:


> Finland Nato: Russia threatens to retaliate over membership move
> 
> 
> Finland's leaders say they want the country to apply for membership of the alliance "without delay".
> ...


I mean the UK dropped an armoured battlegroup there for now. I could easily see NATO forces setting up shop in Finland.


----------



## KevinB (12 May 2022)

McG said:


> Finland Nato: Russia threatens to retaliate over membership move
> 
> 
> Finland's leaders say they want the country to apply for membership of the alliance "without delay".
> ...


They are hanging out in Poland looking at maps of Belarus


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 May 2022)

An increase to Canada's presence in Latvia









						Canada to deploy CAF general, staff officers to join NATO headquarters in Latvia
					

Prime Minster Justin Trudeau announced on Thursday that Canada will send a Canadian Armed Forces general officer and six staff officers to NATO's Multinational Division North Headquarters, based in Adazi, Latvia.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				





> Canada to deploy CAF general, staff officers to join NATO headquarters in Latvia​Prime Minster Justin Trudeau announced on Thursday that Canada will send a Canadian Armed Forces general officer and six staff officers to NATO’s Multinational Division North Headquarters, based in Ādaži, Latvia.
> 
> The announcement comes after a closed-door meeting with Latvian Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fabius (12 May 2022)

Deploying GOFOs and staff officers is our favorite way to contribute. As Gen Vance said in 2018 "Doing our part for global peace and security is often more than sending a large contingent of Canadian Armed Forces members." 

Maybe we will identify and deploy some actual units to be the Divisional Forces for MND (North)


----------



## rmc_wannabe (12 May 2022)

Fabius said:


> Deploying GOFOs and staff officers is our favorite way to contribute. As Gen Vance said in 2018 "Doing our part for global peace and security is often more than sending a large contingent of Canadian Armed Forces members."
> 
> Maybe we will identify and deploy some actual units to be the Divisional Forces for MND (North)


It might be a good opportunity to have a CAF leader on ground that can identify gaps we can fill with what we have, vice being asked to contribute something we don't.


----------



## Fabius (12 May 2022)

Isn't that what Comd Task Force Latvia and the staff that supports them is supposed to do? Pretty sure that is in their Terms of Reference direct from Comd CJOC.
Pretty sure that TFL will continue to have that responsibility vice those personnel who will be attached into MND (North).


----------



## rmc_wannabe (12 May 2022)

Fabius said:


> Isn't that what Comd Task Force Latvia and the staff that supports them is supposed to do? Pretty sure that is in their Terms of Reference direct from Comd CJOC.
> Pretty sure that TFL will continue to have that responsibility vice those personnel who will be attached into MND (North).


Multinational Div Comd vs BG Comd, who do you think will win in a fight 😉? Joking aside, I would imagine the ToR would be revised with this new deployment. It's a matter of a stroke of a pen from Comd CJOC.

Same thing happened when we had someone in the RC(S) seat in Kandahar. In the Big Hand Big Map department,I would reckon this Div Comd might be able to ask for more from higher with less hoops. More eyes on a Canadian Div Comd, especially with the political implications involved, than a BG Commander that gets a visit from the PM once an election cycle.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> . . . More eyes on a *Canadian Div Comd*, especially with the political implications involved, than a BG Commander that gets a visit from the PM once an election cycle.



Don't think that the Canadian GOFO is going to become the Div Comd.









						Multinational Divisions
					

Multinational Division Northeast in Elblag (Poland) and Multinational Division North (Latvia) coordinate the activities of the enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroups in peacetime and, if need be, t...



					mncne.nato.int
				





> On 8th of March in Adazi, Latvia, Danish, Estonian and Latvian Defence Ministers officially opened Headquarters Multinational Division North (MND N). This new unit is first of its kind in the northern part of the Baltic Sea region and will further enhance safety, security and NATO's defence capabilities. The main element of the *Danish-led headquarters* is located in Adazi with a smaller cell present in Karup/Slagelse, Denmark.
> 
> Framework Nations of MND N are respectively Denmark, Latvia and Estonia. The new divisional headquarters will be a part of NATO's Force Structure and will fit in to currently existing Command & Control structure. Its main task will involve support in defence planning of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, co-ordination of regional military activities, including enhanced Forward Presence forces.
> 
> Multinational Division North is a second, following Multinational Division North-East, command of this level on the Eastern Flank of the Alliance.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (12 May 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> Don't think that the Canadian GOFO is going to become the Div Comd.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I stand corrected. Carry on.


----------



## Fabius (12 May 2022)

Comd Task Force Latvia is a full Colonel. The eFP BG Comd reports to him only for Cdn national items with some nuance as we are the lead nation.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> An increase to Canada's presence in Latvia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Another part of the question via this Canadian Press headline ....








						Trudeau pledges more troops to Latvia, but mum on permanent NATO presence in Baltics
					

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau emerged from a private huddle with his Latvian counterpart on Thursday with a promise to bolster Canada’s military presence by deploying more Canadian Armed Forces officers to the Baltic state.




					www.nsnews.com


----------



## KevinB (13 May 2022)

That Heavy Brigade Canada has promised NATO forever….   It just got called.

The CA needs to admit the Emperor however has no clothes.


----------



## MilEME09 (13 May 2022)

KevinB said:


> That Heavy Brigade Canada has promised NATO forever….   It just got called.
> 
> The CA needs to admit the Emperor however has no clothes.


Our lack of everything is coming home to roost


----------



## CBH99 (13 May 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> Another part of the question via this Canadian Press headline ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow.  7 people, none of which actually bring anything to the fight minus being another cook in the kitchen...

I'm sure the TF Commander is thrilled to have more bodies walking around his HQ, that do nothing to enhance our capabilities in theater.  


This is kind of like when the media made a huge deal about the CAF deploying medics to Edmonton area hospitals during the pandemic.


The 7 folks that showed up were great, but their deployment wasn't remotely necessary & didn't warrant the constant press releases.  

It's the appearance of doing something.


----------



## GK .Dundas (13 May 2022)

Some years back The government of Canada discovered that it was easier to look good then to actually do something. The triumph of symbolism over reality .
That's been their default mode since about the late 80's.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 May 2022)

CBH99 said:


> It's the appearance of doing something.


Theatrics is the name of the game for a drama teacher with little foreign policy expertise.

Unfortunately for the PM, theatrics is not math.  The Latvians, NATO, and my 4 year old daughter can count. 

7 Staff Officers =/= a 3000 pers Heavy Brigade.


----------



## McG (13 May 2022)

CBH99 said:


> I'm sure the TF Commander is thrilled to have more bodies walking around his HQ, that do nothing to enhance our capabilities in theater.


They will not be in the TF-L HQ. They will be in the NATO MND(N) HQ.


----------



## suffolkowner (13 May 2022)

I doubt the PM or the PMO had any real input on who and what goes to Latvia. Obviously the one thing the CAF's doesn't lack for is GOFO's so we can supply them easily to other countries in need


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 May 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> I doubt the PM or the PMO had any real input on who and what goes to Latvia. Obviously the one thing the CAF's doesn't lack for is GOFO's so we can supply them easily to other countries in need


PM/PMO received the request from Latvia/NATO for additional support. I'm not privy to what goes on any more than anyone else, but I would have to imagine the PM/PMO knows how bare our cupboards are in both personnel and equipment after our meager aid shipments to Ukraine. 

Foreign Policy and Defence are not the strong suit of this government (and I would argue ANY government since 1945). "Convening" only gets you so far. You can only throw so many words and "other metrics" at NATO before you're no longer relevant. Green Shift, human rights, economic policies, are all worthwhile causes that need addressed.

The problem arises when those people you're trying to influence counter with "so what have you done for us lately?" The "lately" in question is providing meaningful aid to Ukraine and bolstering NATO; both efforts in which we have grossly under delivered for a G7 nation.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> PM/PMO received the request from Latvia/NATO for additional support. I'm not privy to what goes on any more than anyone else, but I would have to imagine the PM/PMO knows how bare our cupboards are in both personnel and equipment after our meager aid shipments to Ukraine.
> 
> Foreign Policy and Defence are not the strong suit of this government (and I would argue ANY government since 1945). "Convening" only gets you so far. You can only throw so many words and "other metrics" at NATO before you're no longer relevant. Green Shift, human rights, economic policies, are all worthwhile causes that need addressed.
> 
> The problem arises when those people you're trying to influence counter with "so what have you done for us lately?" The "lately" in question is providing meaningful aid to Ukraine and bolstering NATO; both efforts in which we have grossly under delivered for a G7 nation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> ...
> 
> Foreign Policy and Defence are not the strong suit of this government (and *I would argue ANY government since 1945*). "Convening" only gets you so far. You can only throw so many words and "other metrics" at NATO before you're no longer relevant. Green Shift, human rights, economic policies, are all worthwhile causes that need addressed.
> 
> T...


Actually, the St Laurent government - 1948-1957 - gave us a coherent and very successful foreign and defence policy suite - far, Far, FAR superior to the mishmash that characterized Canadian policy under Mackenzie King in the 1930s and '40s. His successor, John Diefenbaker kept much of St Laurent's policy suite in place, but he had some strange ideas of his own, mainly driven by a deep distrust (shared by Mike Pearson) about the US (Kennedy) policy goals.

St Laurent gave us the best policy suite in our history. Only Robert Borden came close in the 1910s.

Pierre Trudeau had a "grand strategy" but it never came to fruition - his cabinet would have been in open revolt had he tried to implement it. He wanted to  disarm Canada - make us a sort of very large, very cold Costa Rica - and join the non-aligned movement.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> Actually, the St Laurent government - 1948-1957 - gave us a coherent and very successful foreign and defence policy suite - far, Far, FAR superior to the mishmash that characterized Canadian policy under Mackenzie King in the 1930s and '40s. His successor, John Diefenbaker kept much of St Laurent's policy suite in place, but he had some strange ideas of his own, mainly driven by a deep distrust (shared by Mike Pearson) about the US (Kennedy) policy goals.
> 
> St Laurent gave us the best policy suite in our history. Only Robert Borden came close in the 1910s.
> 
> Pierre Trudeau had a "grand strategy" but it never came to fruition - his cabinet would have been in open revolt had he tried to implement it. He wanted to  disarm Canada - make us a sort of very large, very cold Costa Rica - and join the non-aligned movement.


I recall vaguely PET's musings. The Liberal Party was a means to an end.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 May 2022)

@Edward Campbell thank you for clarifying.

In your opinion, when did the Defence portfolio fall off the cliff in Canadian Politics? I have read Granstein's works on this and he painted a broad brush on all of those named above.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 May 2022)

Defence began to be a problem portfolio in the late 1950s. It began to costs more and more - new ships, new jet fighters, re-equipping the Ary to fight a mechanized war in North West Europe. Canadians wanted to do all that, but they didn't;t want to spend 5% of GDP on defence.

That's the ONLY real problem Paul Hellyer tried to solve in the the 1960s.

It's been almost all downhill since then ... some PMs (Trudeau, Chrétien and Trudeau) being worse on security and defence than others.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 May 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> Some years back The government of Canada discovered that it was easier to look good then to actually do something. The triumph of symbolism over reality .
> That's been their default mode since about the late 80's.


A slight variation on that theme from "Yes, Minister" ....


----------



## RocketRichard (14 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Theatrics is the name of the game for a drama teacher with little foreign policy expertise.
> 
> Unfortunately for the PM, theatrics is not math.  The Latvians, NATO, and my 4 year old daughter can count.
> 
> 7 Staff Officers =/= a 3000 pers Heavy Brigade.


I do not understand the denigration of drama teachers. Is this a general shot at the PM or teachers in general? Should all PM’s be lawyers or ‘businessmen’? Odd…


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 May 2022)

RocketRichard said:


> I do not understand the denigration of drama teachers. Is this a general shot at the PM or teachers in general? ...


The former.  After all, many who don't like the history of the current PM seemed to be OK with previous management being a professional politician since shortly after being out of university, and a conservative lobby group boss when he wasn't.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 May 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> The former.  After all, many who don't like the history of the current PM seemed to be OK with previous management being a professional politician since shortly after being out of university, and a conservative lobby group boss when he wasn't.


As well, there’s a difference between a drama teacher who dedicates a vocation/career to supporting the growth of arts in the education system, and a flitting individual that does it as a gig and that some may say (whether restrained by settlement NDA or otherwise), was with ‘less than benevolent intentions’…


----------



## rmc_wannabe (14 May 2022)

RocketRichard said:


> I do not understand the denigration of drama teachers. Is this a general shot at the PM or teachers in general?


A shot at the PM. Teaching is a proud and noble profession. Acting is as well. I will admit it was rather flippant of me, however my theatrics comment stands.


RocketRichard said:


> Should all PM’s be lawyers or ‘businessmen’? Odd…


Hardly the point. His Excellency President Zelensky is a comedian by trade, who made his fame pretending to be leader of Ukraine. He has proven to be a charismatic and ferocious leader that Ukraine needed.

I derided Harper for being a business man that was penny wise and pound foolish just as much as I did Paul Martin. Chretien was a lawyer that was perfectly happy to trample the Indian Act as Justice Minister.

The right leader, is someone who knows what they don't know, surrounds themselves with people who do, heeds their advice, and acts accordingly.

In the past 7 years of Trudeau's leadership, I have seen numerous occasions of him doing the exact opposite of this: SNC-Lavalin, WE Charity, our dealings with NATO, the UNSC seat, the Vance Affair, all of it.

So yes, if we want to view Trudeau as a statesman, I would at least expect him to act as one. If he's going to perform theatrics on the world stage, I will call it as such.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> As well, there’s a difference between a drama teacher who dedicates a vocation/career to supporting the growth of arts in the education system, and a flitting individual *with a room temperature IQ* that does it as a gig and that some may say (whether restrained by settlement NDA or otherwise), was with ‘less than benevolent intentions’…



There, FTFY


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 May 2022)

All proving you can get good or bad governance/leadership from folks from all walks of life.


----------



## OceanBonfire (25 Jun 2022)

HMCS Kingston and HMCS Summerside joining HMCS Halifax and HMCS Montreal on Op Reassurance:









						HMCS NCSM Summerside
					

Members of HMCS Summerside and HMCS Kingston showcase our new morale patches for the upcoming deployment on Operation REASSURANCE as part of Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group 1 (SNMCMG1), in...




					www.facebook.com
				





__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1540037258442678276


----------



## YZT580 (25 Jun 2022)

OceanBonfire said:


> HMCS Kingston and HMCS Summerside joining HMCS Halifax and HMCS Montreal on Op Reassurance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How long has it been since we have had 4 warships deployed on an offshore mission?   cheers to the RCN


----------



## KevinB (25 Jun 2022)

YZT580 said:


> How long has it been since we have had 4 warships deployed on an offshore mission?   cheers to the RCN


How long can they be sustained like that…

I’m more concerned about the issues that may occur from pushing 4 out to wave the flag.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (25 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> How long can they be sustained like that…



The physical hulls will most likely be fine, however, you're going to run out of sailors to crew them a lot more quickly


----------



## dimsum (25 Jun 2022)

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/vjv9hy


----------



## KevinB (27 Jun 2022)

@Skysix this thread is a pretty good place.


----------



## Skysix (27 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> @Skysix this thread is a pretty good place.


Mods: a suitable move to do?


----------



## Skysix (27 Jun 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> If a clash happened and Russia deployed it's artillery, I think we would be shocked at the carnage on our side. It would not last long but the conflict would have a causality rate that rivals Iraq and Afghanistan combined. NATO will stumble in the first week, followed by a counter offensive that would stop the Russian offensive. It would be very short and very bloody with a lot of dead AFV's and aircraft on both sides. Expect heavy causalities within various field headquarters caused by their lack of EW, light discipline and failure to secure the perimeters.


Surprisingly (?) accurate. No other comment needed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2022)

From today's news: Canada in talks with NATO allies about boosting military forces in Latvia

"The alliance is also dramatically increasing the number of forces on high readiness from 40,000 to 300,000, Stoltenberg said, so they can be deployed quickly in the event of war.

Yet while Germany and Britain have both said in recent weeks that they are ready to lead larger combat units in Lithuania and Estonia, Canada has so far remained silent about its plans in Latvia.

Trudeau in March announced Canada will continue leading the Latvian-based battlegroup until March 2025, which Ozolins described as a necessary first step toward strengthening the force.

Canada is now leading discussions with other allies, the ambassador said, including the 10 other countries that are already contributing troops to the force. Those include Spain, Italy, Albania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

“We are moving in the right direction,” Ozolins said. “The Canadians are leading the process. … This will be like a bit of a negotiation and discussion about who brings what.”"

So we are the 'convenors' of the meetings, are we? Isn't that what Global Affairs Minister Joly said we do so well?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> How long can they be sustained like that…
> 
> I’m more concerned about the issues that may occur from pushing 4 out to wave the flag.


Calling those two things Warships is a stretch 😉


----------



## rmc_wannabe (27 Jun 2022)

It seems as if our political leaders are willing to have Canada step up... with troops, capabilities, and monies coming those nations that actually care to meet their NATO commitments. It's reminds me of this scene from  the Simpsons:


----------



## KevinB (27 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> It seems as if our political leaders are willing to have Canada step up... with troops, capabilities, and monies coming those nations that actually care to meet their NATO commitments. It's reminds me of this scene from  the Simpsons: View attachment 71660


I strongly believe Canada will have a Bde over soon.  I think at this point even your PM sees the clouds of war coming closer.


----------



## Weinie (27 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> I strongly believe Canada will have a Bde over soon.  I think at this point even your PM sees the cloudgs of w*e*ar coming closer.


FTFY. He will announce/bring out new socks. That is all.


----------



## KevinB (27 Jun 2022)

Weinie said:


> FTFY. He will announce/bring out new socks. That is all.


He really doesn’t have a choice. Canada’s’Heavy Bde’ commitment to NATO has been called up.


----------



## Weinie (27 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> He really doesn’t have a choice. Canada’s’Heavy Bde’ commitment to NATO has been called up.


Wool socks?


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jun 2022)

Weinie said:


> Wool socks?


Wool socks in the correct sizes?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jun 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Wool socks in the correct sizes?


Your asking for more than we can give right now...


----------



## Weinie (27 Jun 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Wool socks in the correct sizes?


We are talking "Hoarding techs" here (I'm sorry ahem Material Management Techs)......................right?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (27 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> I strongly believe Canada will have a Bde over soon.  I think at this point even your PM sees the clouds of war coming closer.


He can see the clouds coming all he wants. Doesn't mean we have a stockpile of umbrellas laying about. Nor does it mean any of them are going to work.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jun 2022)

Weinie said:


> We are talking "Hoarding techs" here (I'm sorry ahem Material Management Techs)......................right?


Nope.  Outsourced to Logistik for quite a number of years now.


----------



## Weinie (27 Jun 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Nope.  Outsourced to Logistik for quite a number of years now.


Well, just sort of goes to show when the CAF was of any relevance.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (27 Jun 2022)

YZT580 said:


> How long has it been since we have had 4 warships deployed on an offshore mission?   cheers to the RCN


In Oct/Nov 18 the RCN had a CPF on REASSURANCE with SNMG1 (VDQ) and another CPF (HAL) plus two MCDVs on Ex TRIDENT JUNCTURE off Norway. The VDQ was in a different TG than the HAL while the MCDVs were in yet a third multi-national mine-countermeasures group on the exercise. The TRIDENT JUNCTURE units were not cut to NATO in the manner as the SNMG 1, but they were working on the same exercise. A fairly short pulse (several weeks sailing as parts of various NATO TGs, but one the MCDVs then transitioned to Op REASSURANCE as part of SNMCMG1.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Jun 2022)

TangoTwoBravo said:


> In Oct/Nov 18 the RCN had a CPF on REASSURANCE with SNMG1 (VDQ) and another CPF (HAL) plus two MCDVs on Ex TRIDENT JUNCTURE off Norway. The VDQ was in a different TG than the HAL while the MCDVs were in yet a third multi-national mine-countermeasures group on the exercise. The TRIDENT JUNCTURE units were not cut to NATO in the manner as the SNMG 1, but they were working on the same exercise. A fairly short pulse (several weeks sailing as parts of various NATO TGs, but one the MCDVs then transitioned to Op REASSURANCE as part of SNMCMG1.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jun 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


>


Boats did sail-y things.


----------



## Kilted (27 Jun 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Nope.  Outsourced to Logistik for quite a number of years now.


If only they did t-shirts and underwear as well.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jun 2022)

Kilted said:


> If only they did t-shirts and underwear as well.


There's ongoing work to move all operational clothing to an outsourced provider.


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> He really doesn’t have a choice. Canada’s’Heavy Bde’ commitment to NATO has been called up.


we made a promise, they came to collect before our government initially thought they ever would. Get ready for 4 CMBG to be stood back up, except as a skelaton force cause we do not have the man power to sustain an over seas brigade.


----------



## TacticalTea (27 Jun 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> we made a promise, they came to collect before our government initially thought they ever would. Get ready for 4 CMBG to be stood back up, except as a skelaton force cause we do not have the man power to sustain an over seas brigade.


What if we started recruiting in Europe and elsewhere?

Stand up 4 CMBG as the Canadian Foreign Legion 😁


----------



## FJAG (27 Jun 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> we made a promise, they came to collect before our government initially thought they ever would. Get ready for 4 CMBG to be stood back up, except as a skelaton force cause we do not have the man power to sustain an over seas brigade.


The difference between a "skeleton force" and a "predeployed brigade" is the equipment and a plan for a flyover contingent.

The equipment is no problem. Take all the tanks from 1 CMBG (except a training squadron). Take one LAV company from each existing LAV battalion (allegedly we can't man them fully anyway). Assess each brigade to provide 1/3 of all the headquarters, combat support, combat service support equipment. Shut down CMTC and re-establish it in Europe as the core of the brigade's personnel and conduct future Maple Resolves there as REFORLAT (or REFORPOL - that makes DATE Europe more realistic).

Call it 3 CMBG just to be different.

Brigade on the cheap. I'm only half joking.  😁

🍻


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> Call it 3 CMBG just to be different.


Knowing our NDHQ, they would stand up 6 Div to manage 3 CMBG, which at 6 Divs now requires the stand up of 1 CANCORP HQ


----------



## brihard (27 Jun 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


>


----------



## rmc_wannabe (28 Jun 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Knowing our NDHQ, they would stand up 6 Div to manage 3 CMBG, which at 6 Divs now requires the stand up of 1 CANCORP HQ


Oh dear God no...


----------



## Spencer100 (28 Jun 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Knowing our NDHQ, they would stand up 6 Div to manage 3 CMBG, which at 6 Divs now requires the stand up of 1 CANCORP HQ


You know you want too!


----------



## CBH99 (28 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> I strongly believe Canada will have a Bde over soon.  I think at this point even your PM sees the clouds of war coming closer.


Wowa… hold the phone there Kev…

I usually agree with you on about 99% of all things thus far.  But on this one, I have to come to a dead stop…


Our PM has demonstrated absolutely zero, and I mean truly zero, foresight or forethought when it comes to anything related to ‘him as PM.’

Situations in which the average person would say “This is a bad idea, I probably shouldn’t do this…”  or  “Ya know, what are the realistic consequences of this choice compared to this other choice?”

Nadda.  Zip.  Zilch.  


He ‘may’ see some war clouds forming on the horizon.  Like waaaayyyyyy off in the horizon, above someone else’s country.  

But putting together a plan to deal with those clouds?  Not until it starts making HIM look bad, my friend - only when the adults start whispering about him and chuckling does he seem primed to do much of anything.

He has seen how bare the cupboard is when it came time to donate kit to Ukraine. Has there been any effort at all to stock that cupboard since then?  Nope.  


My point is… I think you may be giving him too much credit


----------



## McG (28 Jun 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Knowing our NDHQ, they would stand up 6 Div to manage 3 CMBG, which at 6 Divs now requires the stand up of 1 CANCORP HQ


No. Europe is expeditionary, so it does not belong to the Army and so it will not require another HQ in the Army. If we do get another HQ, it will be a return of CFE, which had two subordinate division HQs (one land and one air) the last time it existed.


----------



## KevinB (28 Jun 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Wowa… hold the phone there Kev…
> 
> I usually agree with you on about 99% of all things thus far.  But on this one, I have to come to a dead stop…
> 
> ...


I give him less credit than my left shoe…

He’s a weak person by his very nature, which is why I don’t see him arguing against it.   NATO has said ‘okay Canada, we need your commitment’ and he’s going to demurely default to “okay” and ‘CDS make it happen’ so any blame then gets punted downstream to Gen E, and the MND.


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Jun 2022)

I suspect US will take over lead role in Latvia (we could send Leopards but not much else):



> Latvian Minister of Defence asks US to provide more military aid​...
> 
> During talks the minister affirmed Latvia’s readiness to defend itself and also stressed the need to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank’s defence. Pabriks invited US to support the increase of NATO’s expanded battalion to brigade-level units and expand US military aid to Latvia by increasing military presence and providing financing to develop Latvia’s defence capabilities.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> I give him less credit than my left shoe…
> 
> He’s a weak person by his very nature, which is why I don’t see him arguing against it.   NATO has said ‘okay Canada, we need your commitment’ and he’s going to demurely default to “okay” and ‘CDS make it happen’ *so any blame then gets punted downstream to Gen E, and the MND.*



The CAF: that's a bigger threat to Trudeau than the Russians.

The purge of the CAF will likely be his primary goal for the defence file, until the next election, to ensure that his government isn't slammed by (even more) vote killing scandals.

It will be a good idea to keep a hull down, turret down posture for most CAF members over the next couple of years, if they haven't already figured that out.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (28 Jun 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> The CAF: that's a bigger threat to Trudeau than the Russians.


The reason its a threat to him is that he hasn't learned in 8 years of office that we are as important a tool of his foreign policy as GAC or IRCC. Even during Op PROVISION, we were "along for the ride", regardless of the fact GAC and IRCC couldn't do any of the heavy lifting required to make sure the cheque Trudeau wrote with his mouth didn't bounce. 



daftandbarmy said:


> The purge of the CAF will likely be his primary goal for the defence file, until the next election, to ensure that his government isn't slammed by (even more) vote killing scandals.


We do need to clean house, yes. But we're not torpedoing Trudeau's credibility... he is. 

 His grandstanding at the G7, the UN, NATO, etc. have now become tiresome to most world leaders. "Canada's Back" isn't a thing, and hasn't been a thing, for the past 5 years. Even less so since COVID and still less since the Russo-Ukraine Conflict went off. You can wag a finger all you want, but when you shaming isn't backed up with substance, no one takes you seriously. 



daftandbarmy said:


> It will be a good idea to keep a hull down, turret down posture for most CAF members over the next couple of years, if they haven't already figured that out.


The same can be said for most of his caucus, but I don't think that's going to last long. the CPC is it's own hot mess, but so is the NDP. A lot of the Orange side of the house feel betrayed by the concessions Singh has made to prop up this government. I can see the LPC puppet masters taking it as an opportunity to change the narrative in the middle of Act II; the NDP and CPC will come out swinging at Le Dauphin, might as well change the punching bag to soften the impact.


----------



## GR66 (28 Jun 2022)

Unfortunately I can't find the article where I read it, but it noted that in expanding the existing eFP Battle Groups to Brigades they are looking in particular for deployments of Anti-Tank and Air Defence units to strengthen the formations.  Two things which the Canadian Army is notably lacking.

How do we justify stepping into a multinational Brigade command role when we are unable to provide the key enablers that make the Brigade combat effective?  Perhaps it would be more appropriate to hand off command to one of the better equipped eFP Latvia contributors and simply upping our contribution to a complete LAV Battalion which would be a more honest representation of our capabilities (and political will).


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> The reason its a threat to him is that he hasn't learned in 8 years of office that we are as important a tool of his foreign policy as GAC or IRCC. Even during Op PROVISION, we were "along for the ride", regardless of the fact GAC and IRCC couldn't do any of the heavy lifting required to make sure the cheque Trudeau wrote with his mouth didn't bounce.
> 
> 
> We do need to clean house, yes. But we're not torpedoing Trudeau's credibility... he is.
> ...


Interestingly, one could consider the NDP doing exactly the same thing as the CPC is doing, but on the left.  Team Orange is risking fracture (whatever an Orange PPC would look like) and the Grits will see the results of their ‘pit and split’ strategy on the left come to fruition as well and pull more of the Red Dippers and Red Tories into the cult following…


----------



## KevinB (28 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> Unfortunately I can't find the article where I read it, but it noted that in expanding the existing eFP Battle Groups to Brigades they are looking in particular for deployments of Anti-Tank and Air Defence units to strengthen the formations.  Two things which the Canadian Army is notably lacking.
> 
> How do we justify stepping into a multinational Brigade command role when we are unable to provide the key enablers that make the Brigade combat effective?  Perhaps it would be more appropriate to hand off command to one of the better equipped eFP Latvia contributors and simply upping our contribution to a complete LAV Battalion which would be a more honest representation of our capabilities (and political will).


Honestly Canada should probably approach the US and say, ‘hey, we can field a Bde in Latvia - if you give us equipment for an ABCT, and we will give 1 CMBG equipment to Ukraine.   

It’s a big win, win, win, Ukraine gets equipment, Canada gets a credible Bde and we don’t need to send more troops.


----------



## RangerRay (28 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> Honestly Canada should probably approach the US and say, ‘hey, we can field a Bde in Latvia - if you give us equipment for an ABCT, and we will give 1 CMBG equipment to Ukraine.
> 
> It’s a big win, win, win, Ukraine gets equipment, Canada gets a credible Bde and we don’t need to send more troops.


That makes sense…which is why it won’t happen.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (28 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> Honestly Canada should probably approach the US and say, ‘hey, we can field a Bde in Latvia - if you give us equipment for an ABCT, and we will give 1 CMBG equipment to Ukraine.
> 
> It’s a big win, win, win, Ukraine gets equipment, Canada gets a credible Bde and we don’t need to send more troops.


Whoa whoa whoa.... which Canadian industry would benefit from this? Where are we making M1A2s? Did we hold a proper competition on this?

We have lobbyists voters that will want these questions answered...


----------



## Spencer100 (28 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> Honestly Canada should probably approach the US and say, ‘hey, we can field a Bde in Latvia - if you give us equipment for an ABCT, and we will give 1 CMBG equipment to Ukraine.
> 
> It’s a big win, win, win, Ukraine gets equipment, Canada gets a credible Bde and we don’t need to send more troops.


Plus the CAF would not be caught dead in all the US kit.  The reason we buy stuff for our ground forces is to look different than Americans.   LEO's not M-1 when is makes more sense that the plant is 2 hours away from the border.  G wagons, Ilits, MAN trucks, The Mack badged, Provost final assembled, Volvo AB's  Renault Defence Russian Kerax truck.  ETC.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (28 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Plus the CAF would not be caught dead in all the US kit.  The reason we buy stuff for our ground forces is to look different that Americans.   LEO's not M-1 when is makes more sense that the plant is 2 hours away from the boarder.  G wagons, Ilits, MAN trucks, The Mack badged, Provost final assembled, Volvo AB's  Renault Defence Russian Kerax truck.  ETC.


This is possibly why we have abandoned all logic and developed CADPAT (MT), when it would make absolute sense to develop a Multicam derivative like the rest of NATO, including the former Soviet Bloc members. 
"We can't be mistaken for Americans" No, but you're sure as shit going to be mistaken for someone else when you're in the gunsights of some poorly trained Albanian.


----------



## Underway (28 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> This is possibly why we have abandoned all logic and developed CADPAT (MT), when it would make absolute sense to develop a Multicam derivative


It had nothing to do with what you said.  It's about IP control to put our own camo pattern on whatever the hell we want and not have to run back to the owners of Multicam.  And to be fair CADPAT(MT) is basically a Multicam derivative as it was heavily analyzed in the development of the pattern.



Spencer100 said:


> Plus the CAF would not be caught dead in all the US kit. The reason we buy stuff for our ground forces is to look different than Americans. LEO's not M-1 when is makes more sense that the plant is 2 hours away from the border. G wagons, Ilits, MAN trucks, The Mack badged, Provost final assembled, Volvo AB's Renault Defence Russian Kerax truck. ETC.


This has zero to do with why we have what kit we have.


----------



## Spencer100 (28 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> This is possibly why we have abandoned all logic and developed CADPAT (MT), when it would make absolute sense to develop a Multicam derivative like the rest of NATO, including the former Soviet Bloc members.
> "We can't be mistaken for Americans" No, but you're sure as shit going to be mistaken for someone else when you're in the gunsights of some poorly trained Albanian.


Never underestimate the "We are peacekeepers" and not Americans in the deep ethos of the Canadian body politic.  It runs very much at the center of the current administration.  Not in reality but as a feeling.  That feeling is not backed up with resources or the like.  I would have love to have seen the first meeting when the Trudeau gov asked for a peacekeeping mission for the CAF.   It must have been...well first peacekeeping is not like Cyprus today, You need equipment and troops and money and way way more.  And it is also dangerous.  OK they say how about some nice helicopters and transports to Africa then?  OK but we need to protect them, and armed escorts too.....NO I mean medical pick up helicopters.....urgh!


----------



## McG (28 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> How do we justify stepping into a multinational Brigade command role when we are unable to provide the key enablers that make the Brigade combat effective? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to hand off command to one of the better equipped eFP Latvia contributors and simply upping our contribution to a complete LAV Battalion which would be a more honest representation of our capabilities (and political will).


The threshold to be a framework nation does not need to be the key enablers nor even the majority of enablers (though, that is how we have all seen the US do it).  The threshold is to provide a plurality of the enablers ... which could mean that some CS units are also Canadian framework with Canadian and allied sub-units.


----------



## Spencer100 (28 Jun 2022)

Underway said:


> It had nothing to do with what you said.  It's about IP control to put our own camo pattern on whatever the hell we want and not have to run back to the owners of Multicam.  And to be fair CADPAT(MT) is basically a Multicam derivative as it was heavily analyzed in the development of the pattern.
> 
> 
> This has zero to do with why we have what kit we have.


I was being simple.  But it does figure into it.  (get not dealing with ITAR is a part too)  Why do we not use a tank build and maintained two hours away with the HQ of the company and the RD centre 15 minutes from tunnel to Warren ave?

Why do we use a MB G Wagon?  (yes it was assembled by a CDN owned company in Austria.)  The Humvee has more Canadian content in it being manufactured in Indiana.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (28 Jun 2022)

Underway said:


> It had nothing to do with what you said.  It's about IP control to put our own camo pattern on whatever the hell we want and not have to run back to the owners of Multicam.  And to be fair CADPAT(MT) is basically a Multicam derivative as it was heavily analyzed in the development of the pattern.


I will grant you that CADPAT (MT) is a derivative. So is British DPM(MT). So is Scorpion. So is the newest variation the French, Belgians, etc. are using.
None of them are a digitized camouflage pattern. All of them look far more similar to Multicam than MT ever will. This opens the door for sourcing kit from a variety of vendors around the world; CADPAT(MT) will ensure we are under the thumb of whatever Canadian manufacturer is awarded the contract, even if we are the license holder. 

The derail aside, this is a bigger issue when we talk about what we can put on the table when the chips are down (i.e. "So hey, Justin.... that Heavy Bde you promised us..."). We have turned our defence procurement into economic stimulus to our grave detriment. We don't have the industry in Canada to shit out a Brigade's worth of kit, let alone the pers to crew any of it, at the drop of a hat. The "anything but American kit..." mentality has hooped us. 
If we do provide anything of substance, its going to be far more expensive and take longer to hit the ground in Adazi than if we proceed with what @KevinB suggested.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jun 2022)

MarkOttawa said:


> I suspect US will take over lead role in Latvia (we could send Leopards but not much else):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe thoughts and prayers?


----------



## Underway (28 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I will grant you that CADPAT (MT) is a derivative. So is British DPM(MT). So is Scorpion. So is the newest variation the French, Belgians, etc. are using.
> None of them are a digitized camouflage pattern. All of them look far more similar to Multicam than MT ever will. This opens the door for sourcing kit from a variety of vendors around the world; CADPAT(MT) will ensure we are under the thumb of whatever Canadian manufacturer is awarded the contract, even if we are the license holder.
> 
> The derail aside, this is a bigger issue when we talk about what we can put on the table when the chips are down (i.e. "So hey, Justin.... that Heavy Bde you promised us..."). We have turned our defence procurement into economic stimulus to our grave detriment. We don't have the industry in Canada to shit out a Brigade's worth of kit, let alone the pers to crew any of it, at the drop of a hat. The "anything but American kit..." mentality has hooped us.
> If we do provide anything of substance, its going to be far more expensive and take longer to hit the ground in Adazi than if we proceed with what @KevinB suggested.


There are a few good advantages to using a digital pattern.  I'll leave it at that.

If you spent some time thinking about what kit we actually have I think you'll realize that we have quite a lot of US kit, or US derivative equipment.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (28 Jun 2022)

Underway said:


> If you spent some time thinking about what kit we actually have I think you'll realize that we have quite a lot of US kit, or US derivative equipment.


I work in a realm that is loaded with US kit, and a lot of that is so we can maintain FVEY status. We're lucky to be given that grace. I will leave it at that. 

We do use a lot of US equipment in the name of interoperability. As we should. We share the largest land border and shared airspace in the world. We would be fools to not use the same or similar systems in mutual defence. The RCAF and RCN are starting to catch on to this, but barely.

The CA on the other hand...


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I work in a realm that is loaded with US kit, and a lot of that is so we can maintain FVEY status. We're lucky to be given that grace. I will leave it at that.
> 
> We do use a lot of US equipment in the name of interoperability. As we should. We share the largest land border and shared airspace in the world. We would be fools to not use the same or similar systems in mutual defence. The RCAF and RCN are starting to catch on to this, but barely.
> 
> The CA on the other hand...


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> Honestly Canada should probably approach the US and say, ‘hey, we can field a Bde in Latvia - if you give us equipment for an ABCT, and we will give 1 CMBG equipment to Ukraine.
> 
> It’s a big win, win, win, Ukraine gets equipment, Canada gets a credible Bde and we don’t need to send more troops.


----------



## Skysix (28 Jun 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> What if we started recruiting in Europe and elsewhere?
> 
> Stand up 4 CMBG as the Canadian Foreign Legion 😁


I know of some US Army types including pilots that would do that for a landed immigrant card after 3 years even if deployed (plus 1 to unlearn the US way and learn ours 😜) Especially if we upgrade to the Blackhawk at some point.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2022)

Skysix said:


> I know of some US Army types including pilots that would do that for a landed immigrant card after 3 years even if deployed (plus 1 to unlearn the US way and learn ours 😜) Especially if we upgrade to the Blackhawk at some point.



That Black Hawk ship sailed away on April 29, 1992…


----------



## Skysix (28 Jun 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> That Black Hawk ship sailed away on April 29, 1992…


Maybe so, but 30 years on the Bell 412-EP(SAR) we badge as a Griffon is getting long in the tooth and is limited in capacity. And upgrading to the UH1Y that the USMC is using is almost as expensive and less capable than the 'Hawk.

The S70i that Australia is replacing its NH90's (ahead of schedule as thair performance is far below spec and serviceability nowhere near promised) with is essentially a
 UH60-M with RNAV capability (something US Blackhawks lack).

There is a reason that Maple Resolve seems to always have 4 or 5 HH-60M birds up from the lower 48 to assist...


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jun 2022)

Skysix said:


> There is a reason that Maple Resolve seems to always have 4 or 5 HH-60M birds up from the lower 48 to assist...


…which is?


----------



## YZT580 (29 Jun 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Maybe thoughts and prayers?


can't send prayers.  Religion is not allowed


----------



## MSmith (29 Jun 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> …which is?


The HH60Ms are properly equipped for medevac (litter system, oxygen, suction, patient monitors, etc) and have far mor advanced avionics... just a far more useful helicopter if something actually went wrong on the exercise and many casualties had to be evacuated is my understanding.


----------



## Spencer100 (29 Jun 2022)

MSmith said:


> The HH60Ms are properly equipped for medevac (litter system, oxygen, suction, patient monitors, etc) and have far mor advanced avionics... just a far more useful helicopter if something actually went wrong on the exercise and many casualties had to be evacuated is my understanding.


In fairness would we even have the HH60M even if we had the Blachawk as the main helicopter of the CAF?  It is the special MEDVAC unit.  Not the CSAR unit but pretty specialized.


----------



## MSmith (29 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> In fairness would we even have the HH60M even if we had the Blachawk as the main helicopter of the CAF?  It is the special MEDVAC unit.  Not the CSAR unit but pretty specialized.


I don't think anyone was saying that Canada would realistically have the HH60M. I what Skysix was getting at is that our own helicopters cannot do the job of medevac well enough to risk _not_ asking the Americans to send theirs up - which is somewhat embarrassing. When I was on MR21 the only Americans invited to my knowledge were the HH60Ms and crews, no manouvre elements. From the grapevine it sounded like their helicopters were a significant factor in whether or not training was OK'd for the day or not. We were already restricted from operating at night to prevent any accidents due to the limited medical personnel available, so that should give some insight into the risk tolerance vs capabilities discussion being had higher. 

This is all to say - everyone knows that newer kit and better capabilities would be more gooder. Just one example of a gap.


----------



## Skysix (29 Jun 2022)

MSmith said:


> The HH60Ms are properly equipped for medevac (litter system, oxygen, suction, patient monitors, etc) and have far mor advanced avionics... just a far more useful helicopter if something actually went wrong on the exercise and many casualties had to be evacuated is my understanding.


Correct. And they can carry more per lift. Additionally the medics are Critical Care Paramedic level the same as ORNGE (68WF2 - also civilian FP-C (certified flight paramedics) and can do more than the ACP's in Canada (although not much more than the Alberta REMT-P's)


----------



## Skysix (29 Jun 2022)

MSmith said:


> When I was on MR21 the only Americans invited to my knowledge were the HH60Ms and crews . . . From the grapevine it sounded like their helicopters were a significant factor in whether or not training was OK'd for the day or not. We were already restricted from operating at night to prevent any accidents due to the limited medical personnel available


A while back STARS used to position a BK117 at CFB Wainwright during major exercises but I believe the cost of the standby, the limited capacity of a single injured soldier per lift, and the difficulty in providing quarters etc and enough staff for that coverage (in addition to STARS's normal commitments) led to looking at other solutions.

In a nice twist, I now as an Albertan RN/Medic civilian am doing the same mission under contract at Fort Hunter Liggett in central California. And yes, if we are not available the exercise gets slowed or stopped (live fire, jumps and drops, demo, water crossings)


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jun 2022)

MSmith said:


> The HH60Ms are properly equipped for medevac (litter system, oxygen, suction, patient monitors, etc) and have far mor advanced avionics... just a far more useful helicopter if something actually went wrong on the exercise and many casualties had to be evacuated is my understanding.


Ah, you mean like having a semi-ER like capability and a medical emergency resuscitation team?


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2022)

Underway said:


> There are a few good advantages to using a digital pattern.  I'll leave it at that.


Those are mostly theoretical. 
   The problem with digital patterns that the designers (who often have a software validation for the design of their own construction…) is that high end EO/IO systems can actually recognize the pattern and outline a target from recognition very easily due to the straight lines and blocks. 

Most of those same designers will gloss over down range user trials that also show that observers can often PID those patterns easier than blended patterns.

They will tell you all sorts of schlock that the human eye can’t do this or that, and point to their (key point their) computer models. 

To say I think Canada got hosed and didn’t do enough of their own independent testing is a understatement (independence from the computer model that was designed by the same guy trying to foist CADPAT on you…). 




Underway said:


> If you spent some time thinking about what kit we actually have I think you'll realize that we have quite a lot of US kit, or US derivative equipment.


Probably not enough


----------



## GR66 (29 Jun 2022)

MSmith said:


> I don't think anyone was saying that Canada would realistically have the HH60M. I what Skysix was getting at is that our own helicopters cannot do the job of medevac well enough to risk _not_ asking the Americans to send theirs up - which is somewhat embarrassing. When I was on MR21 the only Americans invited to my knowledge were the HH60Ms and crews, no manouvre elements. From the grapevine it sounded like their helicopters were a significant factor in whether or not training was OK'd for the day or not. We were already restricted from operating at night to prevent any accidents due to the limited medical personnel available, so that should give some insight into the risk tolerance vs capabilities discussion being had higher.
> 
> This is all to say - everyone knows that newer kit and better capabilities would be more gooder. Just one example of a gap.


Can't we just use these guys?


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> Honestly Canada should probably approach the US and say, ‘hey, we can field a Bde in Latvia - if you give us equipment for an ABCT, and we will give 1 CMBG equipment to Ukraine ...


There's a LOT of defence procurement jokes that could be made right there re:  Ukraine's possible response


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Jun 2022)

Amongst other big NATO Europe reinforcements US is moving this unit:



> FACT SHEET - U.S. Defense Contributions to Europe​...an airborne infantry battalion from Italy to Latvia...​
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What will our government add to Latvia force?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## rmc_wannabe (29 Jun 2022)

MarkOttawa said:


> Amongst other big NATO Europe reinforcements US is moving this unit:
> What will our government add to Latvia force?


Headaches and empty promises


----------



## Journeyman (29 Jun 2022)

MarkOttawa said:


> What will our government add to Latvia force?


In an endless stream of "... uh ... uh ..." the closest Trudeau got to any commitment was "Canada will fall in line."


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Jun 2022)

At NATO presser just now formin Joly said Canada would be increasing strength in Latvia from 800 to 1,400 "troops". Love to know what Army units, equipment. Defmin Anand to give details. Maybe stationing RCAF Hornets? Couldn't count RCN personnel on ship in Baltic, could they?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## rmc_wannabe (29 Jun 2022)

MarkOttawa said:


> At NATO presser just now formin Joly said Canada would be increasing strength in Latvia from 800 to 1,400 "troops". Love to know what Army units, equipment. Defmin Anand to give details. Maybe stationing RCAF Hornets? Couldn't count RCN personnel on ship in Baltic, could they?


"Good morning, former Stewards... welcome to BASF Adazi....."


----------



## Underway (29 Jun 2022)

MarkOttawa said:


> Couldn't count RCN personnel on ship in Baltic, could they?


That' would only amount to approx 80 pers as it will be MCDV's likely.


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2022)

It’s a ground application.  
   I have it on decent authority Canada was told to field an Armored Bde ( the one Canada has promised for ages… queue Canada quickly searching for one)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> It’s a ground application.
> I have it on decent authority Canada was told to field an Armored Bde ( the one Canada has promised for ages… queue Canada quickly searching for one)


Next Morning, the entire Ontario Armoured Regiment Museum gets called up......


----------



## AmmoTech90 (29 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> It’s a ground application.
> I have it on decent authority Canada was told to field an Armored Bde ( the one Canada has promised for ages… queue Canada quickly searching for one)


Kev, you've mentioned this commitment by Canada to contribute an armoured/heavy Bde to NATO.  Where is the source for that.  Looking at NATO websites, DFAIT, DND I couldn't find it.  I was involved in one of Canada's commitments, stemming from the 2002 Prague Convention, to provide live agent CBRN training.  We used a document that listed the Canada's commitments from 2014ish to secure funding each year.  I do not recall seeing a Bde on that.  There were other significant assets but no Bde.
The document in question was supposed to be re-issued each year but of course documenting commitments is too hard in this day and age as the GoC/CAF might be held to it.
Not trying to be a dick, just wondering.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jun 2022)

Haven't seen it as a news release yet, but it's in the media:









						Canada to lead upgraded NATO combat force in Latvia
					

Canada has signed an agreement to upgrade the NATO battlegroup it leads in Latvia to a brigade, a move that signals a commitment to the military alliance even as the federal Liberals resist calls to boost defence spending to two per cent of GDP.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## rmc_wannabe (29 Jun 2022)

I have to ask.... what possible Armour are they talking about?
Even if we send every last Leo 2A4 that can be flat bedded to Montreal,, do we have ARVs, AEVs, or other assets needed for it to be functional (bridge laying comes to mind along with other Armoured Eng assets we sold off post Afghanistan)


----------



## GR66 (29 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I have to ask.... what possible Armour are they talking about?
> Even if we send every last Leo 2A4 that can be flat bedded to Montreal,, do we have ARVs, AEVs, or other assets needed for it to be functional (bridge laying comes to mind along with other Armoured Eng assets we sold off post Afghanistan)


The article says that the existing Battle Group will be expanded to a Brigade and that Canada will lead it.  It doesn't say that Canada will be deploying a full Brigade. 

In theory we could replace our current Company-level commitment with a full Battalion and replace our Battle Group HQ with a Brigade HQ with another partner nation taking over our existing Battle Group commitment and yet others taking on the non-infantry Battalion components of the Brigade.


----------



## McG (29 Jun 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Haven't seen it as a news release yet, but it's in the media:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, the MN BG becomes a MN Bde Gp.  Our mech company should grow to a Mech BG, and we should provide an Arty Regt (-) and an Engr Regt (-) which will both integrate allied sub-units to reach full strength.  We should also have a Svc Bn which is separate from the NSE so that it is mobile and able to support a mobile brigade.  We will (hopefully) also see Spain, Italy, and Slovakia increase their mech companies up to BGs and maybe each to provide a CS sub-unit to the Bde assets.


----------



## McG (29 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> do we have ARVs, AEVs,


We have both and, if all our tanks are consolidated into Edmonton & Latvia, we have enough of both.


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2022)

AmmoTech90 said:


> Kev, you've mentioned this commitment by Canada to contribute an armoured/heavy Bde to NATO.  Where is the source for that.  Looking at NATO websites, DFAIT, DND I couldn't find it.  I was involved in one of Canada's commitments, stemming from the 2002 Prague Convention, to provide live agent CBRN training.  We used a document that listed the Canada's commitments from 2014ish to secure funding each year.  I do not recall seeing a Bde on that.  There were other significant assets but no Bde.
> The document in question was supposed to be re-issued each year but of course documenting commitments is too hard in this day and age as the GoC/CAF might be held to it.
> Not trying to be a dick, just wondering.


See PM


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jun 2022)

I'm guessing the knitting needles and crochet hooks will be super-busy making companies look like battalions and an understrength battle group or two look like a brigade.

Unless I've missed something, the Canadian Forces, especially the Army, is a Potemkin village sort of affair - there is nothing much behind most of the facades.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (29 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> The article says that the existing Battle Group will be expanded to a Brigade and that Canada will lead it.  It doesn't say that Canada will be deploying a full Brigade.
> 
> In theory we could replace our current Company-level commitment with a full Battalion and replace our Battle Group HQ with a Brigade HQ with another partner nation taking over our existing Battle Group commitment and yet others taking on the non-infantry Battalion components of the Brigade.


I think this is the shell game we're going to end up trying to play, but I don't see our partner nations playing along. there is already a lot of friction within the Spanish and Italian Camps about how little "punching above our weight" matters to those who have brought most of the toys to the playground.


----------



## GR66 (29 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I think this is the shell game we're going to end up trying to play, but I don't see our partner nations playing along. there is already a lot of friction within the Spanish and Italian Camps about how little "punching above our weight" matters to those who have brought most of the toys to the playground.


The number quoted previously upthread suggests that we're only upping our commitment from 800 troops to 1400 troops...and increase of 600.  That's certainly not a Mech Battalion, Artillery Regiment (-), Engineer Regiment (-) and a Service Battalion.  

By the numbers to me it sounds more like expanding our LAV Company to a full Battalion and a Brigade HQ (possibly plus some enablers) at most.  

Of course will have to see what is actually announced but I don't have high hopes for any more serious a commitment than something like that.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jun 2022)

In case anyone wants to read the Info-machine's official tea leaves (aka a joint declaration by CAN & LVA) - highlights mine ...


> ... Building on the significant eFP successes to date, and leveraging existing investments, processes and arrangements, Canada will:
> 
> Continue to provide leadership to NATO forces as a Framework Nation in Latvia.
> Work with Latvia as the Host Nation, with NATO, and with Allies to develop a sustainable plan in the near term to ensure a more robust multi-domain deterrence posture in Latvia, which will implement NATO’s decision and to be able to surge a combat capable brigade. Canada will work with Allies to generate these forces and to stage them appropriately.
> ...


To my long-outta-the-CF eye, lotsa loopholes there to allow Canada to "commit" to a brigade without committing a brigade's worth of Canadian troops.

Archived link to the declaration and CAN govt news release here and here in case the previous link doesn't work for you.


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2022)

Put up or shut up time


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> Put up or shut up time  View attachment 71701


From the report


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> From the report
> View attachment 71703


I didn’t want to shame you guys that bad.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> I didn’t want to shame you guys that bad.


You're just the messenger, buddy


----------



## rmc_wannabe (29 Jun 2022)

Taking a page out of Papa's playbook. 

handshakes and budget cuts.


----------



## GR66 (29 Jun 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> In case anyone wants to read the Info-machine's official tea leaves (aka a joint declaration by CAN & LVA) - highlights mine ...
> 
> To my long-outta-the-CF eye, lotsa loopholes there to allow Canada to "commit" to a brigade without committing a brigade's worth of Canadian troops.
> 
> Archived link to the declaration and CAN govt news release here and here in case the previous link doesn't work for you.


Canada's participation in eFP Latvia....equipped for but not with a Brigade Group.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Jun 2022)

At NATO summit presser Anand  made clear no immediate increase in CAF presence for Latvia--1,400 personnel mentioned is total of those now committed to Op REASSURANCE including RCAF and RCAF. Did say we would be increasing numbers in Latvia (when?). Also said increasing eFP Latvia to brigade strength will depend on other participating countries--more Canadian Army troops to be committed as allies up their commitments., i.e. no increase soon, lots of negotiating and convening to do. Bah! Humbug! Never never land.

Meanwhile it would seem that US Army airborne battalion from Italy to Latvia is outside the Canadian-led eFP:








						FACT SHEET - U.S. Defense Contributions to Europe
					

The United States responded swiftly and effectively in close cooperation with our NATO Allies to the European security crisis brought about by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.



					www.defense.gov
				




Mark
Ottawa


----------



## rmc_wannabe (29 Jun 2022)

MarkOttawa said:


> At NATO summit presser Anand  made clear no immediate increase in CAF presence for Latvia--1,400 personnel mentioned is total of those now committed to Op REASSURANCE including RCAF and RCAF. Did say we would be increasing numbers in Latvia (when?). Also said increasing eFP Latvia to brigade strength will depend on other participating countries--more Canadian Army troops to be committed as allies up their commitments., i.e. no increase soon, lots of negotiating and convening to do. Bah! Humbug! Never never land.
> 
> Meanwhile it would seem that US Army airborne battalion from Italy to Latvia is outside the Canadian-led eFP:


Promising to pay for the meal then hitting the loo when the check comes. Disgraceful.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Jun 2022)

How allies can continue to take us at all seriously beats me:



> Canada to lead upgraded NATO combat force in Latvia​
> ...the government says it's too early to say whether that will entail deploying additional Canadian troops...
> 
> 
> ...


They've have lots of time to come up with something if they really wanted to. They don't.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Jun 2022)

MarkOttawa said:


> How allies can continue to take us at all seriously beats me:
> 
> 
> They've have lots of time to come up with something if they really wanted to. They don't.
> ...


I reckon JT and the gang have never heard of "lead by example".


----------



## FJAG (29 Jun 2022)

If I'm interpreting this right then:

1. Canada will form a Multinational brigade headquarters;

2. Canada will keep a mech battalion headquarters and its company;

3. the brigade will be multinational which means CS and CSS elements can come from anywhere;

4. the brigade is not necessarily fully forward deployed but may end up having designated multi-national rapid reinforcement elements (which to me means prepositioned stocks of equipment and materiel);

5. Canada is adding 600 pers to our commitment which will include elements of the brigade HQ, possibly additional elements for the battalion and possibly CS and CSS depending upon multinational commitments (edited to add - the battlegroup is already fairly robust and its not a stretch to build it into three battalions - the CS and especially the CSS will be the challenge);

6. Not sure if all of the 600 are forward deployed, rotational, or rapid reinforcement.

Since I'm a proponent of prepositioned equipment manned by rapid reinforcement I think that this may turn into a good plan but as usual I will wait to peruse the devil in the details before I crap all over it. I see numerous ways that this could be done well without stressing the system so long as we adapted the system a bit.

🍻


----------



## Spencer100 (29 Jun 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I reckon JT and the gang have never heard of "lead by example".


they are leading by example. This is the way they want to go. Its just not the way you think they are going.


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> they are leading by example. This is the way they want to go. Its just not the way you think they are going.


We may end up annexing you shortly if your government backs out of their commitments…


----------



## Czech_pivo (29 Jun 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Haven't seen it as a news release yet, but it's in the media:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can someone please explain this:

"However, the government says it's too early to say whether that will entail deploying additional Canadian troops."

How can Canada lead a new Brigade if we don't deploy a significant number of additional troops - it's not possible.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Jun 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> How can Canada lead a new Brigade if we don't deploy a significant number of additional troops - it's not possible.


Oh in Dear Leader's mind ANYTHING is possible if you say the right things.....


----------



## FJAG (29 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> We may end up annexing you shortly if your government backs out of their commitments…


You've already got two screwed up factions making a shithole mess down there. Why would you even consider adding a third? And remember - we'd swing things to the socialist side.




Czech_pivo said:


> Can someone please explain this:
> 
> "However, the government says it's too early to say whether that will entail deploying additional Canadian troops."
> 
> How can Canada lead a new Brigade if we don't deploy a significant number of additional troops - it's not possible.


A component of this brigade is rapid reinforcement which means that they are not forward deployed but on stand-by for deployment, hopefully onto prepositioned equipment.

🍻


----------



## Spencer100 (29 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> We may end up annexing you shortly if your government backs out of their commitments…


No you won't.  10 new states. 20 new Democratic Senators!  

I have always laughed at this.  In High School text books had a piece about the US "taking over" Canada. I have always maintained that it would never happen because of that one tiny fact.  Even if Canada enters as 1 State or 3 states or more.  The GOP would never go for it.  

Conversely I have never understood why the Dems wouldn't love the idea.  LOL

We have the most perfect defence of a country in the history of the world.  The US defends us from everyone else.  And the US constitution defends us against the US!  It's beautiful.


----------



## GR66 (29 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> No you won't.  10 new states. 20 new Democratic Senators!
> 
> I have always laughed at this.  In High School text books had a piece about the US "taking over" Canada. I have always maintained that it would never happen because of that one tiny fact.  Even if Canada enters as 1 State or 3 states or more.  The GOP would never go for it.
> 
> ...


But who defends us from ourselves???


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> No you won't.  10 new states. 20 new Democratic Senators!
> 
> I have always laughed at this.  In High School text books had a piece about the US "taking over" Canada. I have always maintained that it would never happen because of that one tiny fact.  Even if Canada enters as 1 State or 3 states or more.  The GOP would never go for it.
> 
> ...


Protectorates don’t get to vote or representation… 



FJAG said:


> You've already got two screwed up factions making a shithole mess down there. Why would you even consider adding a third? And remember - we'd swing things to the socialist side.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Everyone is supposed to pony up both more RRF and troops forward deployed.  
   For Canada that should br 1 Forward deployed CMBG and 2 for RRF.  

Everyone paying Canadian taxes should be wondering WTF the CAF does with its money if it can’t do that easily.


----------



## FSTO (29 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I have to ask.... what possible Armour are they talking about?


Yea, with what? Cardboard cutouts on bicycle chassis?


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2022)

FSTO said:


> Yea, with what? Cardboard cutouts on bicycle chassis?


1 CMBG’s tanks…


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> 5. Canada is adding 600 pers to our commitment which will include elements of the brigade HQ, possibly additional elements for the battalion and possibly CS and CSS depending upon multinational commitments (edited to add - the battlegroup is already fairly robust and its not a stretch to build it into three battalions - the CS and especially the CSS will be the challenge);
> 
> 6. Not sure if all of the 600 are forward deployed, rotational, or rapid reinforcement.


----------



## Ostrozac (29 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> The number quoted previously upthread suggests that we're only upping our commitment from 800 troops to 1400 troops...and increase of 600.  That's certainly not a Mech Battalion, Artillery Regiment (-), Engineer Regiment (-) and a Service Battalion.
> 
> By the numbers to me it sounds more like expanding our LAV Company to a full Battalion and a Brigade HQ (possibly plus some enablers) at most.


There are other parts of a brigade that are some of the hardest to force generate — the signals squadron, the intelligence company, and the Role 2 capable Field Ambulance.


----------



## FJAG (29 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> Everyone is supposed to pony up both more RRF and troops forward deployed.
> For Canada that should br 1 Forward deployed CMBG and 2 for RRF.
> 
> Everyone paying Canadian taxes should be wondering WTF the CAF does with its money if it can’t do that easily.


Let me take a kick at how this could work. I'll number my thoughts for easy reference.

1. Canada is already the battlegroup leading nation and needs to fill an additional slot as the brigade group headquarters. The most difficult job they will have is developing a CSS structure that will work for a multinational brigade, within a multinational division context, facing high intensity combat and to get away from the NSE concept of all singing all dancing support. Step one is to throw out everything regarding logistics that Canada has done sine 2000 and all the bad lessons learned in Afghanistan and to dust off the cold war logistics doctrine while appointing the smartest guy in the logistics branch to oversee tall of this.

2. Canada needs to lock up the regimental cap badge mafias and structure itself to properly sustain the brigade indefinitely. 

3. The most efficient brigade structure (considering its multinational nature) is one of an Armoured BCT using combined arms battalions. The multinational nature makes regroupings on the fly difficult and therefore as much as possible each combined arms battalion should have all the necessary armour, infantry and anti-armour it should need. My own view is that two battalions should tilt infantry heavy (because we are primarily defenders) but one should tilt tank heavy.

4. Canada should form one complete combined arms battalion consisting of one squadron of a squadron of Leo2A4M and two companies of LAV6. There also needs to be a battalion headquarters, a combat support company with recce and mortars and a combat service support company. Of these, the battalion HQ, one rifle company, one tank troop and one half of the combat service support company should be a rotational forward deployed element as it is now. The rest of the battalion's equipment will be propositioned in Latvia while the troops remain as rapid reinforcements in Canada but attend on regular exercise schedules which concurrently exercise the RCAF on the deployment plan.

5. Two additional combined arms battalions are required. Each of Italy and Spain already provide fairly large contingents of a rotational predeployed mech company supported by a half company of tanks. They should be persuaded to double their force through a similar prepositioning of equipment with a rapid redeployment manning.

6. Artillery may be an easy issue. Latvia has enough M109s for two battalions but only one mechanized brigade. It should be convinced to put one of those battalions in direct support of the new multinational brigade.

7. Brigade recce/cavalry is required. Poland already commits a company of tanks and Slovenia a recce platoon. Slovakia has a mechanized company. Between these three nations their commitments could be restructured into a cavalry battalion.

8. Engineers are problematic in that there are only two small platoons there. One should have an engineer battalion with at least two companies. This is a role where perhaps Canada should put another hundred personnel forward deployed and a further one hundred as rapid reaction to form the core to which the two multinational platoons can be joined.

9. The Danes have also recently brought a fairly large contingent in. I'm not sure where they are although indications are they might be with the Latvian Mechanized brigade and as such their availability to the Canadian -led multinational brigade is probably zero.

10. As far as a brigade headquarters is concerned, I'm of the view that this should be a three year posting for the key staff - say around 50. This becomes a major commitment and should not be subject to the usual rotational turbulence. On top of that the brigade staffs in Canada need to be kept intact to continue to run their own brigades. 50 is not a large number and if we can't find 50 decent staff officers and NCOs within the Army then we're not trying hard enough. The remainder of the brigade HQ is primarily signals which do not need a large deployed forward presence but can be filled as rapid reinforcement elements.

11. Now we get to the hardest part. Logistics. As a starter, because of the diversity of equipment, each battalion sized element needs its own robust first line of support, especially for maintenance while supply and transport can be partially rapid reinforcement. The same is true for second line support at the brigade service battalion. Maintenance is a challenge and needs very detailed analysis and a very detailed organizational structure that can work forward with the national contingents and backward to the national theatre sustainment agencies. Supply also needs some tight control and a forward deployed presence while transportation services can be more generic and largely dependent on rapid reinforcement troops so long as the predeployed equipment handling capabilities are capable of multinational cargo handling. Again, IMHO this is one of those places where we should seriously think of making it a three-year posting for roughly 50 key personnel while another 100-150 or so could be rotational predeployment and the remainder - say 4-500 could be multinational rapid reinforcement troops. I'll leave aside the question of how the brigade ties into the multinational division's logistics plan/system because, quite frankly, I have no idea how well developed that system is.

12. I would think that the rapid reinforcement personnel would not be required often. I would think two very short exercises a year aimed at fly-in reinforcement, deployment to a an assembly area followed by redeployment, equipment maintenance and return home. In addition at least one major exercise per year of three to four weeks duration to test the deployment and to exercise the battalions and the brigade in full. The three combined arms battalions could conduct further independent battalion exercises as part of the reinforcement exercises.

13. As for Canada, I see the realignment of the three domestic brigades so that 1 CMBG has one armoured and three mechanized battalions whose responsibility is as the primary provider of the combined arms battalion headquarters and the two rifle and one tank company. With nine rifle companies and three tank squadrons it should not be difficult to generate one full time rifle company and one tank platoon for rotational forward deployment. More difficult will be the battalion headquarters and the rotational maintainers. Consideration should be given to having the key battalion command and maintainer positions to also be three year postings - say 50 PYs. As for 2 and 5 CMBG, my view is 2 needs to become light and rapid reaction and Northern oriented while 5 becomes fully mechanized as a medium multipurpose force.

It's clear to me that one cannot keep a commitment like a brigade in Latvia based solely on rotational elements. There are continuity issues that require a full-time long term posted-in element, other positions that provide a rotational full-time presence and yet others that can easily be filled by rapid reinforcement troops that are designated for the task, trained for it and DAGed ready to go as part of a Joint Fly-over plan. All of that works best if concentrated in one brigade with as little as possible scattered around the country.

My $0.02 (I'll probably throw in an extra penny or two later)

🍻


----------



## rmc_wannabe (29 Jun 2022)

You had me up until you lowballed the Sig Support element. Having worked on many a NATO connectivity ex, it's not 1970 4CMBG here. We have many different sensors and systems that interconnect and need competent signallers to make the voodoo and wizardry happen.

I would honestly say if we are turning this into an MN Bde, we need to stand up another NATO Sigs Bn to support it. Canada can take the lead as the Bde HQ, but definitely need people that can interconnect systems so we all get the same message at the same time on the same systems.


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2022)

I fail to see the issue with just doing a 4 CMBG redo and opting for forward deployed.   

Don’t treat it as a tour, treat it like Germany was, and rotate units out every few years.  

The NATO language clearly specifies that the RRF plus up and the increase posture forwards, means more than just a Cdn Bde in total. 
  Right now this is an absolute mockery of an attempt to look credible but falls exceedingly flat.


----------



## FJAG (29 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> You had me up until you lowballed the Sig Support element. Having worked on many a NATO connectivity ex, it's not 1970 4CMBG here. We have many different sensors and systems that interconnect and need competent signallers to make the voodoo and wizardry happen.
> 
> I would honestly say if we are turning this into an MN Bde, we need to stand up another NATO Sigs Bn to support it. Canada can take the lead as the Bde HQ, but definitely need people that can interconnect systems so we all get the same message at the same time on the same systems.


I hadn't really put a figure on the sigs. Roughly speaking I think a Bde HQ and Sigs Sqn is around 300 all ranks. I put down roughly 50 of those (mostly staff officers) as a 3 year posting. The remaining 250 I saw with some as a rotational forward presence and some as rapid reinforcement. I hadn't concluded what the ratio should be as I'm not sure what number you need there to run things 24/7 all the time and which are only required for exercises and when the balloon goes up. 

I've got the same issue with logistics because on the one hand the Canadian contingent is not a full brigade but on the other hand there is the complexity of the multinational nature of the job.

🍻


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2022)

US to boost military presence in Europe for Russia threat
					

Biden announced the permanent basing of a U.S. military garrison in Poland. He also said the U.S. is sending two additional F-35 fighter jet squadrons to the U.K. and more air defense and other capabilities to Germany and Italy.




					www.defensenews.com
				




Interesting aspect about V Corps in Poland, apparently we promised Russia we wouldn’t permanently base any forces in former WP countries — kind of like they promised Ukraine sovereignty…


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> US to boost military presence in Europe for Russia threat
> 
> 
> Biden announced the permanent basing of a U.S. military garrison in Poland. He also said the U.S. is sending two additional F-35 fighter jet squadrons to the U.K. and more air defense and other capabilities to Germany and Italy.
> ...


You guys should start whacking Belarus politicians.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (29 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> I hadn't really put a figure on the sigs. Roughly speaking I think a Bde HQ and Sigs Sqn is around 300 all ranks. I put down roughly 50 of those (mostly staff officers) as a 3 year posting. The remaining 250 I saw with some as a rotational forward presence and some as rapid reinforcement. I hadn't concluded what the ratio should be as I'm not sure what number you need there to run things 24/7 all the time and which are only required for exercises and when the balloon goes up.
> 
> I've got the same issue with logistics because on the one hand the Canadian contingent is not a full brigade but on the other hand there is the complexity of the multinational nature of the job.
> 
> 🍻


The problem with MN formations is that we all point to the same enemy and say "kill it" and we all find a way to lob rounds, missiles, and bodies at it til it stops moving; most pointy end folks work well together because there is very little divergence from that primacy. The support components are much more difficult. 

Because we all have different ways to supply, procure, interconnect, and employ our support mechanisms; we need people wearing the same flag as the home country to do the leg work. 

Something as simple as sending emails over a NATO Mission Network requires numerous levels of coordination, caveating, networking (physical and with administrators) to make it happen. VHF comms, encryption, IP mapping, permissions all have diplomatic impacts if they're don't improperly. 

Having Signallers from all participating nations forming a Sigs Battalion to interconnect all systems: IT, VHF/UHF Comms, SATCOM, ISR, EW, Cyber, AD Radar, etc.; will make it so that when the balloon does go up, you have all pers on deck from all nations keeping the cans and strings together so there isn't a disconnect.

Logistics is the same shit show. As much as we are supposed to be interchangeable... we aren't. Take a look at our procurement of anything and everything from anywhere... so long as it benefits Canadian Industry. Now multiply that by 9 participating nations. I would hate to be a Svc Bn Maint Coy OC trying to figure out how to source parts from Slovakia, while having to try reading a schematic written in German. 

It's a complex beast that doesn't get the forethought it should... because people only think "1 Bn, 2 Bn, 3 Bn, 4... OK we're set..."


----------



## Fabius (29 Jun 2022)

I suspect we will see FJAGs point 4 from post 798. Slightly reinforce the BG and basically enable Canada to turn it into a Combined Arms Bn. 
In terms of the Bde the most I see happening is Task Force Latvia because becoming the Multi National Bde HQ with some additional Canadian Staff and will dual hat as our National Command Element. 
No additional Cbt, CSM or CSS units deployed.


----------



## Weinie (29 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> You had me up until you lowballed the Sig Support element. Having worked on many a NATO connectivity ex, it's not 1970 4CMBG here. We have many different sensors and systems that interconnect and need competent signallers to make the voodoo and wizardry happen.
> 
> I would honestly say if we are turning this into an MN Bde, we need to stand up another NATO Sigs Bn to support it. Canada can take the lead as the Bde HQ, but definitely need people that can interconnect systems so we all get the same message at the same time on the same systems.


Queue re-hash of everybody searching for substantiation of their trade piling on.


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2022)

Weinie said:


> Queue re-hash of everybody searching for substantiation of their trade piling on.


Regimental Mafia says what…
   I foresee a Coy of Patricia’s, a Coy of Royals, a Coy of Vandoos - and a mishmash of Cbt Spt aspects - no idea on how the Armoured Reg’t will sort it out. 
   The Arty and Engineers will need to make room for a Franco det 

Etc.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (29 Jun 2022)

Weinie said:


> Queue re-hash of everybody searching for substantiation of their trade piling on.


_shrug_ 
I've had to BER $20K in kit because some "tip of the spear" type with an ATCISS course didn't read the voltage, or ground it for that matter, before firing it up. 

I know what we bring to the fight, sometimes it's just being the responsible adult 😉


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> _shrug_
> I've had to BER $20K in kit because some "tip of the spear" type with an ATCISS course didn't read the voltage, or ground it for that matter, before firing it up.
> 
> I know what we bring to the fight, sometimes it's just being the responsible adult 😉


20k? I fell off a roof and broke a 1/4M fused VAS clip on.   20k is chicken feed.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jun 2022)

A subordinate signing for $300k in equipment, sight unseen, not telling anyone, then being posted out was my personal favourite.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> Regimental Mafia says what…
> I foresee a Coy of Patricia’s, a Coy of Royals, a Coy of Vandoos - and a mishmash of Cbt Spt aspects - no idea on how the Armoured Reg’t will sort it out.
> The Arty and Engineers will need to make room for a Franco det
> 
> Etc.



But what about the 7 x Recce Sqns?

It's summer and there's polo to be played, after all


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I work in a realm that is loaded with US kit, and a lot of that is so we can maintain FVEY status. We're lucky to be given that grace. I will leave it at that.
> 
> We do use a lot of US equipment in the name of interoperability. As we should. We share the largest land border and shared airspace in the world. We would be fools to not use the same or similar systems in mutual defence. The RCAF and RCN are starting to catch on to this, but barely.
> 
> The CA on the other hand...



I wouldn’t say we are starting to catch up…we won’t ever, really.  TDL comes to mind right off the bat…


----------



## KevinB (30 Jun 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542504671574495233


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542504671574495233


"Look Ma! I'm the only one in step!"


----------



## markppcli (30 Jun 2022)

Trudeau just finished his remarks without a troop commitment number for Latvia, but us and Spain will lead a global feminist movement so that’s neat.


----------



## Czech_pivo (30 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> Let me take a kick at how this could work. I'll number my thoughts for easy reference.
> 
> 1. Canada is already the battlegroup leading nation and needs to fill an additional slot as the brigade group headquarters. The most difficult job they will have is developing a CSS structure that will work for a multinational brigade, within a multinational division context, facing high intensity combat and to get away from the NSE concept of all singing all dancing support. Step one is to throw out everything regarding logistics that Canada has done sine 2000 and all the bad lessons learned in Afghanistan and to dust off the cold war logistics doctrine while appointing the smartest guy in the logistics branch to oversee tall of this.
> 
> ...


Did I miss an anti-air detachment in the above?


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Jun 2022)

markppcli said:


> Trudeau just finished his remarks without a troop commitment number for Latvia, but us and Spain will lead a global feminist movement so that’s neat.


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Jun 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> There are other parts of a brigade that are some of the hardest to force generate — the signals squadron, the intelligence company, and the Role 2 capable Field Ambulance.


Yesterday Anand made it clear that the 1,400 number was all CAF personnel now committed to Op REASSURANCE, including RCN and RCAF--not just the number for Latvia.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo (30 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542504671574495233


Our Blessed Leader is the only one truly 'manspreading'  -  someone in the PMO should explain to him that this is anti-Feminist and will turn off female votes between the ages of 18-54.


----------



## GR66 (30 Jun 2022)

markppcli said:


> Trudeau just finished his remarks without a troop commitment number for Latvia, but us and Spain will lead a global feminist movement so that’s neat.


Believe me, I have absolutely no love for Trudeau and his defence policy, but there is plenty of blame to go around on this fiasco we find ourselves in now.  

Since 1990 (the end of the Cold War and the last time our Defence spending was at 2% of GDP) we've had both Liberal and Conservative governments (12 years under the Conservatives and 20 years under the Liberals) which have all had a part to play in contributing to this mess (and the 1982-1990 ~2% spending was preceded by sub 2% spending from 1973 to 1981).

A big chunk of the blame should also go to the Military leadership over all this time.  To be honest it's shameful that with an Army the size of ours and an annual Defence budget of the $22 Billion range annually that we're scrambling to be able to piece together the ability to lead a Brigade-sized deployment.  And that's just to LEAD a Brigade...not deploy an entire Brigade on our own.  And what would our situation be if we actually had to fight that Brigade?

I would have loved to witnessed the conversation between the Minister and CDS when NATO called on us to meet our commitment.  

Minister:  "So General, NATO needs us to step up and take on leadership of a Brigade in Latvia.  We have three Reg Force Brigades and nine Reserve Brigades in the Army.  How do you propose we make this happen?"

CDS:  "Ummm...."


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Jun 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Our Blessed Leader is the only one truly 'manspreading' - someone in the PMO should explain to him that this is anti-Feminist and will turn off female votes between the ages of 18-54.


Brutal…


----------



## Czech_pivo (30 Jun 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Our Blessed Leader is the only one truly 'manspreading'  -  someone in the PMO should explain to him that this is anti-Feminist and will turn off female votes between the ages of 18-54.


Looking again at this picture the phase that Maggie Thatcher (I miss her....) used to describe John Major pops into my head - 'He's such a gray man'

Gray-man definition
*An average, forgettable man who does not draw attention or stand out in a crowd*. noun.


----------



## IKnowNothing (30 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> Believe me, I have absolutely no love for Trudeau and his defence policy, but there is plenty of blame to go around on this fiasco we find ourselves in now.
> 
> Since 1990 (the end of the Cold War and the last time our Defence spending was at 2% of GDP) we've had both Liberal and Conservative governments (12 years under the Conservatives and 20 years under the Liberals) which have all had a part to play in contributing to this mess (and the 1982-1990 ~2% spending was preceded by sub 2% spending from 1973 to 1981).
> 
> ...


This brings to mind @Kirkhill's comparison (GDP adjusted) of what Canada gets for our money vs. the Danish.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> Believe me, I have absolutely no love for Trudeau and his defence policy, but there is plenty of blame to go around on this fiasco we find ourselves in now.
> 
> Since 1990 (the end of the Cold War and the last time our Defence spending was at 2% of GDP) we've had both Liberal and Conservative governments (12 years under the Conservatives and 20 years under the Liberals) which have all had a part to play in contributing to this mess (and the 1982-1990 ~2% spending was preceded by sub 2% spending from 1973 to 1981).
> 
> ...



Of course we all know that the coming 'cop out' will be weasel wording changes around 'capabilities', as opposed to hard troop numbers as in 'a full Brigade'.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Jun 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Of course we all know that the coming 'cop out' will be weasel wording changes around 'capabilities', as opposed to hard troop numbers as in 'a full Brigade'.


"Ohhhhh you meant a 'Brigade'. We don't do that here. It's a Brigade Group; less people, less capabilities, but punches above its weight. Sorry, cost saving measure... have you seen the price of a carbon neutral, feminist, new world,social utopia nowadays?"


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Jun 2022)

I'm getting tired of hearing we punch above our weight.  Were pretty light right now, not sure how "heavy" that punch is no matter how much heart and soul we put behind it. 

It's just the new "more with less" mantra.  

I'd love to see a GO/FO call the country to task on this.


----------



## KevinB (30 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> "Ohhhhh you meant a 'Brigade'. We don't do that here. It's a Brigade Group; less people, less capabilities, but punches above its weight. Sorry, cost saving measure... have you seen the price of a carbon neutral, feminist, new world,social utopia nowadays?"


Technically a Bde Group is a Bde+Enablers - the book value for a CMBG is pretty significant (IF it actually had all the stuff it is supposed too).


----------



## FJAG (30 Jun 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Did I miss an anti-air detachment in the above?


Yes and no. I didn't give it any thought because Canada doesn't have any. Latvia does have three air defence batteries with RBS 70 and I'm assuming under the current scheme of things the eFP operates under their umbrella. It's anyone's guess as to what the future will bring - short term, we have nothing to offer.

🍻


----------



## markppcli (30 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> Believe me, I have absolutely no love for Trudeau and his defence policy, but there is plenty of blame to go around on this fiasco we find ourselves in now.
> 
> Since 1990 (the end of the Cold War and the last time our Defence spending was at 2% of GDP) we've had both Liberal and Conservative governments (12 years under the Conservatives and 20 years under the Liberals) which have all had a part to play in contributing to this mess (and the 1982-1990 ~2% spending was preceded by sub 2% spending from 1973 to 1981).
> 
> ...


I don’t blame him for the state of the military at all. Has he improved it? No, but I don’t know that he’s made it all that much worse either. I was more pointing to his inability to say “we are announcing today that Canada will commit an additional x and y to the Baltics and will immediately bring the acquisition of Z.” 

Kirkills comparisons are indeed pretty damming, and the fact that we haven’t rationalized our force structure in 30 years is insane to me.


----------



## FJAG (30 Jun 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I'd love to see a GO/FO call the country to task on this.



   

Oh! Sorry! You were serious. They won't because then they'd have to explain just what DND has been doing with all the money Canadians give it. - Nice little headquarters they have there in Ottawa.



markppcli said:


> I don’t blame him for the state of the military at all. Has he improved it? No, but I don’t know that he’s made it all that much worse either. I was more pointing to his inability to say “we are announcing today that Canada will commit an additional x and y to the Baltics and will immediately bring the acquisition of Z.”
> 
> Kirkills comparisons are indeed pretty damming, and the fact that we haven’t rationalized our force structure in 30 years is insane to me.


He appointed Sajjan which was pretty much a guarantee that the goal posts wouldn't move for a half of a decade. 

🍻


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> Oh! Sorry! You were serious. They won't because then they'd have to explain just what DND has been doing with all the money Canadians give it. - Nice little headquarters they have there in Ottawa.
> 
> 
> He appointed Sajjan which was pretty much a guarantee that the goal posts wouldn't move for a half of a decade.
> ...



I know Im asking for more than our GO/FOs can give ...


----------



## Skysix (30 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> No you won't.  13 new states. 26 new Democratic Senators


FTFY


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> Technically a Bde Group is a Bde+Enablers - the book value for a CMBG is pretty significant (IF it actually had all the stuff it is supposed too).


And the DRMIS price of an LSVW with full EIS is pretty significant, also. Doesn't mean it has held its value after 30 years of neglect...


----------



## Skysix (30 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> Protectorates don’t get to vote or representation…
> 
> 
> Everyone is supposed to pony up both more RRF and troops forward deployed.
> ...


F-35's that don't have the range to be combat effective in the north


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jun 2022)

Hence why the CAF is getting A330 refuellers.


----------



## Skysix (30 Jun 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> There are other parts of a brigade that are some of the hardest to force generate — the signals squadron, the intelligence company, and the Role 2 capable Field Ambulance.


And Engineers with bridging


----------



## GR66 (30 Jun 2022)

Skysix said:


> F-35's that don't have the range to be combat effective in the north


----------



## Kilted (30 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> Minister:  "So General, NATO needs us to step up and take on leadership of a Brigade in Latvia.  We have three Reg Force Brigades and nine Reserve Brigades in the Army.  How do you propose we make this happen?"
> 
> CDS:  "Ummm...."


There are ten reserve brigades, and we have had a fourth regular (combat support) brigade for a couple of years now.


----------



## Dale Denton (30 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> I would have loved to witnessed the conversation between the Minister and CDS when NATO called on us to meet our commitment.
> 
> Minister:  "So General, NATO needs us to step up and take on leadership of a Brigade in Latvia.  We have three Reg Force Brigades and nine Reserve Brigades in the Army.  How do you propose we make this happen?"
> 
> CDS:  "Ummm...."



Can you finish the rest of that conversation?


----------



## Skysix (30 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> View attachment 71729


Flying out of where? Inuvik, Resolute do not have enough fuel to support a tanker dragging a 6-pack. Iqaluit may for a while but Yellowknife and Whitehorse might but they are a fair ways away from where needed. Not to mention the need to regain control of and update/repair the FOL's

Tankers and AWACs are prime high value targets and a 4th gen enemy can down them from a long way away. The arctic has no air defense on the ground and we do not have enough penetation fighters and 'missile trucks' to extend the safe area out far enough.

For example, Relying on F15EX's out of KPDX, F22's from PAED, F35's from PAEI and KC-46 from KTCM to protect not only AK but also our F35's from CYOD as they cover the northern coastline and islands of YT and NT is not realistic


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Jun 2022)

Kilted said:


> There are ten reserve brigades, and *we have had a fourth regular (combat support) brigade for a couple of years now.*


Is this the Canadian Can't Support Brigade tha is a brigade in name only?


----------



## FJAG (30 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Is this the Canadian Can't Support Brigade tha is a brigade in name only?


Actually 6 CCSB has quite a few capabilities and they are growing. It's a new concept for Canada and will take some time to mature. It's definitely a brigade and a valuable one at that.

🍻


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> Actually 6 CCSB has quite a few capabilities and they are growing. It's a new concept for Canada and will take some time to mature. It's definitely a brigade and a valuable one at that.
> 
> 🍻


I have worked closely with CCSB since it's inception. The problem it has is a lack of personnel and a clear understanding from Force Generators of its role/capabilities/limitations.

Definitely needs to be a discussion point on AOC that CCSB is not the land of infinite PYs it's been seen as.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542504671574495233


Is it just me or does Trudeau look Photoshopped?


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Jun 2022)

Dale Denton said:


> Can you finish the rest of that conversation?



Unfortunately the only person capable of finishing that conversation is deceased.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> Actually 6 CCSB has quite a few capabilities and they are growing. It's a new concept for Canada and will take some time to mature. It's definitely a brigade and a valuable one at that.
> 
> 🍻



Here's another Kirkhill flight of fancy.

6 CCSB should be fully resourced with Regular Forces, 

1,2 and 5 somewhere on the 70:30 - 30:70 spectrum.  

Leaning toward's FJAG's thinking.


----------



## KevinB (30 Jun 2022)

Dale Denton said:


> Can you finish the rest of that conversation?


No one can.

 How can you claim to have 4 Reg Force Bde's and 9 PRes Bde's and not be able to field a single Bde?   If I was the Cdn Gov I'd wonder WTF you (the CAF) has been doing with the meager pool of money you have -- sure the Cdn Gov deserves a lot of flack for the amount of money - but quite frankly the Cdn Taxpayer is getting robbed from what it actually gets out of the CAF as opposed to what is going in.

Yes the whole regional subsidy aspect drains the coffers, but the Regimental asshattery that goes on to ensure that they are all equal but different cap badge representations in all capabilities is entirely on the CAF Leaders.


----------



## KevinB (30 Jun 2022)

_Trudeau said that decision will mean the commitment of additional Canadian troops.


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-arms-canada-1.6506611
		

_


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jun 2022)

Correction: Ten Res F Bdes.

The temporary tenth in Atlantic Canada has de facto become permanent.

Sigh.


----------



## FJAG (30 Jun 2022)

KevinB said:


> No one can.
> 
> How can you claim to have 4 Reg Force Bde's and 9 PRes Bde's and not be able to field a single Bde?   If I was the Cdn Gov I'd wonder WTF you (the CAF) has been doing with the meager pool of money you have -- sure the Cdn Gov deserves a lot of flack for the amount of money - but quite frankly the Cdn Taxpayer is getting robbed from what it actually gets out of the CAF as opposed to what is going in.
> 
> Yes the whole regional subsidy aspect drains the coffers, but the Regimental asshattery that goes on to ensure that they are all equal but different cap badge representations in all capabilities is entirely on the CAF Leaders.


You know me Kevin. I'm onside to both those arguments but a flat out statement that we can't field a single brigade is stretching it. There are enough people in the Army and enough equipment to field two mech brigades and to sustain them IF we shut down every other task or function and IF there was an emergency big enough to justify it. So far no one sees the need for that. 

Admittedly we'd need a few UORs to add anti-armour and air defence launchers. We have enough artillery and engineers and service support to put that together. 

My view is that with the money that Canada puts in and the people we currently have we should be able to mobilize and man up to five manoeuvre and three support brigades. Everything else by way of numbers - the five divisions, and the ten reserve brigades are sheer puffery to cloak administrative entities with historical titles. I personally do not like administrative entities.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> You know me Kevin. I'm onside to both those arguments but a flat out statement that we can't field a single brigade is stretching it. There are enough people in the Army and enough equipment to field two mech brigades and to sustain them IF we shut down every other task or function and IF there was an emergency big enough to justify it. So far no one sees the need for that.
> 
> Admittedly we'd need a few UORs to add anti-armour and air defence launchers. We have enough artillery and engineers and service support to put that together.
> 
> ...


Both you gents are far more in the know than I. My feeling is that a few non tac HQs need to be punted, and much of the deadwood needs to go as well.

Recruiting and training need more focus as well.


----------



## KevinB (30 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> You know me Kevin. I'm onside to both those arguments but a flat out statement that we can't field a single brigade is stretching it. There are enough people in the Army and enough equipment to field two mech brigades and to sustain them IF we shut down every other task or function and IF there was an emergency big enough to justify it. So far no one sees the need for that.
> 
> Admittedly we'd need a few UORs to add anti-armour and air defence launchers. We have enough artillery and engineers and service support to put that together.


I’m not seeing the numbers.  I see a lot of theory - but you don’t have enough tanks for 2 Mech Bde’s -  I think the Arty is questionable without rockets and I don’t think the 777 is correct for Mech Bde’s. 

The killers to me is GBAD is absolutely nonexistent, and Anti-Armor is thin at best - and CSS is sparse.   That’s specifically why I don’t see the ability to field the Bde.  



FJAG said:


> My view is that with the money that Canada puts in and the people we currently have we should be able to mobilize and man up to five manoeuvre and three support brigades. Everything else by way of numbers - the five divisions, and the ten reserve brigades are sheer puffery to cloak administrative entities with historical titles. I personally do not like administrative entities.
> 
> 🍻


Agreed.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Jun 2022)

If the British Army, one of the oldest professional military forces in history, can rebadge, consolidate, and effectively employ fighting units without tradition falling apart... I think the Pictou County Fusiliers and their section  plus parade strength can be too. 

The composite of all reserve infantry "regiments" in Toronto could possibly fill a Battalion at most. Much smaller for much smaller units elsewhere in Canada. Let's cut the crap with the TBGs and clear the overhead.

Same can be said with the 3 understrength regiments that are about a company short each of being full battalions. 

That and our penchant for a bazillion HQs, we might be able to squeak a proper Brigade out for NATO.


----------



## FJAG (30 Jun 2022)

An interesting graphic from the UK Daily Mail.









KevinB said:


> I’m not seeing the numbers.  I see a lot of theory - but you don’t have enough tanks for 2 Mech Bde’s -  I think the Arty is questionable without rockets and I don’t think the 777 is correct for Mech Bde’s.
> 
> The killers to me is GBAD is absolutely nonexistent, and Anti-Armor is thin at best - and CSS is sparse.   That’s specifically why I don’t see the ability to field the Bde.


A mech brigade doesn't necessarily need armour. Not every brigade is an ABCT. Even SBCTs do not have tanks. There are enough tanks to flesh out one brigade well and two in a half-assed fashion easily to the standard of an SBCT.

The same for guns. SBCTs use M777s and we have enough guns for one and and two-thirds battalions. I don't like the M777 for a mech brigade either but if its good enough for an SBCT then it will do for us as well. We can fairly easily pick up another six guns to round out two battalions. We already have more than enough FSCCs, FOOs and JTACs. No ABCT or SBCT has rockets. They're a divisional and corps asset as is aviation of which we do have some resources in 1 Wing.

Air defence is the same issue. No ABCT or SBCT has organic air defence units, just scattered Stingers which as I indicated could be UOR'd fairly rapidly. Note as well that 4 RCA(GS)'s has established an AD battery that is becoming the centre of all things command and control of air defence resources while another utilizes the MRRs. That provides critical AD system linkage to whatever theatre resources there are.

There are TOW for anti-armour but quite frankly what's needed could be UOR'd if the situation demands it. My guess is that we will be dealing with this deficiency in the short term.

Between the three RegF brigades, there are enough CSS resources to flesh out two brigades and there is even enough non-tactical CSS transport to flesh out far-rear area supply and transport requirements.

Like I said before, I think Canada's Army is underperforming. I just disagree with the statement that it can't field a brigade. I'm of the view that Canada could field two SBCTs equivalents with fairly minor capability gaps that could be filled rapidly through UORs. In addition there is enough depth in both RegF and ResF personnel that we could sustain them at least through a Roto 0 and 1.

🍻


----------



## FJAG (30 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> If the British Army, one of the oldest professional military forces in history, can rebadge, consolidate, and effectively employ fighting units without tradition falling apart... I think the Pictou County Fusiliers and their section  plus parade strength can be too.


Not only can they be they bloody well need to be.



rmc_wannabe said:


> The composite of all reserve infantry "regiments" in Toronto could possibly fill a Battalion at most. Much smaller for much smaller units elsewhere in Canada. Let's cut the crap with the TBGs and clear the overhead.
> 
> Same can be said with the 3 understrength regiments that are about a company short each of being full battalions.


It's been some time since I crunched the numbers, but a few years back, 32 Bde came out at around 2,100 all ranks which should get you roughly two battalions and an artillery regiment. TBGs are a sign of failure.



rmc_wannabe said:


> That and our penchant for a bazillion HQs, we might be able to squeak a proper Brigade out for NATO.


Funny, isn't it how we can always find the PYs for another headquarters or directorate? But a third gun battery ... ?

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> An interesting graphic from the UK Daily Mail.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are UORs a viable course of action when everybody and his brother is trying to buy the same stuff at the same time.

We have vehicles and gas.  The Americans have got vehicles up the Ying Yang.  What nobody seems to have is bullets.  Especially the Gee-Whiz ones we have been reading about for the last decade and more.


----------



## KevinB (30 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> A mech brigade doesn't necessarily need armour. Not every brigade is an ABCT. Even SBCTs do not have tanks. There are enough tanks to flesh out one brigade well and two in a half-assed fashion easily to the standard of an SBCT.


Given the option - would you prefer to fight in Europe with an ABCT or a SBCT?
   I don't view the SBCT as a preferred option...
 Sure they work for certain applications - but conventional force work in Europe wouldn't be me preferred choice. 



FJAG said:


> The same for guns. SBCTs use M777s and we have enough guns for one and and two-thirds battalions. I don't like the M777 for a mech brigade either but if its good enough for an SBCT then it will do for us as well. We can fairly easily pick up another six guns to round out two battalions. We already have more than enough FSCCs, FOOs and JTACs. No ABCT or SBCT has rockets. They're a divisional and corps asset as is aviation of which we do have some resources in 1 Wing.


How many Rocket Batteries does Canada have at Div level? or Attack Helicopter Bn's? 


FJAG said:


> Air defence is the same issue. No ABCT or SBCT has organic air defence units, just scattered Stingers which as I indicated could be UOR'd fairly rapidly.


But we have those Stingers - and lots of Cbt Arms folks trained on them, as two man Stinger Det's down to the Platoon level...
  We also have multiple levels of GBAD that mean an individual Bde is covered by higher.



FJAG said:


> Note as well that 4 RCA(GS)'s has established an AD battery that is becoming the centre of all things command and control of air defence resources while another utilizes the MRRs. That provides critical AD system linkage to whatever theatre resources there are.


The fact is Canada is missing those Higher Level Div resources - which can't then be used to support a Bde.
   So one is relying on another Nation to provided top cover.



FJAG said:


> There are TOW for anti-armour but quite frankly what's needed could be UOR'd if the situation demands it. My guess is that we will be dealing with this deficiency in the short term.


 IIRC a Bradley Platoon has more TOW than Canada has operational at this point in time...



FJAG said:


> Between the three RegF brigades, there are enough CSS resources to flesh out two brigades and there is even enough non-tactical CSS transport to flesh out far-rear area supply and transport requirements.


Given Canada's fleet status - I will totally disagree 


FJAG said:


> Like I said before, I think Canada's Army is underperforming. I just disagree with the statement that it can't field a brigade. I'm of the view that Canada could field two SBCTs equivalents with fairly minor capability gaps that could be filled rapidly through UORs. In addition there is enough depth in both RegF and ResF personnel that we could sustain them at least through a Roto 0 and 1.
> 
> 🍻


I don't think it can field a credible Brigade that is properly equipped for combat in Europe nor can it support one.

The lack of night vision in the CAF is beyond criminal, let alone other issues.


----------



## FJAG (30 Jun 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Are UORs a viable course of action when everybody and his brother is trying to buy the same stuff at the same time.
> 
> We have vehicles and gas.  The Americans have got vehicles up the Ying Yang.  What nobody seems to have is bullets.  Especially the Gee-Whiz ones we have been reading about for the last decade and more.


Just as much as a capital project. Product availability in times of high demand is unconcerned with the method of acquisition. Just as an example, when we bought the M777s we also bought 33 Excalibur rounds. Why 33? That's the amount of rounds the manufacturer could make available from the parts that were left in the shop after having done the production run for the US Army and Marines.

I don't have visibility of our ammo stocks right now. I imagine they're not that healthy.



KevinB said:


> Given the option - would you prefer to fight in Europe with an ABCT or a SBCT?
> I don't view the SBCT as a preferred option...


Strangely enough the US 2nd Cav Regt is a four battalion Stryker formation.


KevinB said:


> Sure they work for certain applications - but conventional force work in Europe wouldn't be me preferred choice.
> 
> 
> How many Rocket Batteries does Canada have at Div level? or Attack Helicopter Bn's?


Depends on which division we become a part of.


KevinB said:


> But we have those Stingers - and lots of Cbt Arms folks trained on them, as two man Stinger Det's down to the Platoon level...
> We also have multiple levels of GBAD that mean an individual Bde is covered by higher.


Again - it depends on which formation Canadians are a part of


KevinB said:


> The fact is Canada is missing those Higher Level Div resources - which can't then be used to support a Bde.
> So one is relying on another Nation to provided top cover.


Yes. It's worked like that in international armies for quite some time. Take Korea as an example.


KevinB said:


> IIRC a Bradley Platoon has more TOW than Canada has operational at this point in time...


That's not right


KevinB said:


> Given Canada's fleet status - I will totally disagree
> 
> I don't think it can field a credible Brigade that is properly equipped for combat in Europe nor can it support one.
> 
> The lack of night vision in the CAF is beyond criminal, let alone other issues.


We will continue to disagree on this.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> Just as much as a capital project. Product availability in times of high demand is unconcerned with the method of acquisition. Just as an example, when we bought the M777s we also bought 33 Excalibur rounds. Why 33? That's the amount of rounds the manufacturer could make available from the parts that were left in the shop after having done the production run for the US Army and Marines.
> 
> I don't have visibility of our ammo stocks right now. I imagine they're not that healthy.
> 
> ...


The Ukrainians are finding jobs for anyone willing to fight with whatever weapons and vehicles are to hand.  I am sure that Canada is capable of contributing to the effort.  They are probably not going to be a penetration force.  But a Mobile light force, a covering force, a follow on force....


----------



## Fabius (30 Jun 2022)

UORs don’t come from magic though. Canada has always assumed it can just UOR away problems like ATGMs but how does that work when the US military has given away 1/3 of its missile stockpiles and industry is talking about two years to ramp up production to replace that? 

Imagine if in addition to UKR a US Corps was in heavy contact, no way Canada’s UOR ideas would work and I suspect that’s true for multiple systems. 

In terms of sustainability even if we have enough tanks but only have 1 replacement part does that equal a Bde? Maybe on paper but not in combat on the NATO border.


----------



## GR66 (30 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> An interesting graphic from the UK Daily Mail.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You may be correct that out of our entire Army we can throw away the current force structure to cobble together a Brigade that is missing some important elements but can work in a pinch.  However I think that just proves the point that is being made.  We have three Reg Force Mechanized Brigades.  None of them are deployable.  We don't have a plan to make them deployable.  How is that not verging on criminal mismanagement of the Army?


----------



## FJAG (30 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> You may be correct that out of our entire Army we can throw away the current force structure to cobble together a Brigade that is missing some important elements but can work in a pinch.  However I think that just proves the point that is being made.  We have three Reg Force Mechanized Brigades.  None of them are deployable.  We don't have a plan to make them deployable.  How is that not verging on criminal mismanagement of the Army?


I find myself in a peculiar situation defending the Army rather than criticizing it. Remember this very, very important point. SSE does not require a brigade deployment. Since the turn of the century Canada's defence demands of the Army are to provide deployable battlegroups of varying sizes. And a limited number of those. Brigades are essentially mandated as force generators with an additional mandate to, from time to time, provide a formation level headquarters. Nowhere, in SSE does it say we are to deploy a full brigade whether light, medium or heavy.

I think that is a great failing in the SSE.

That said, however, the Army has maintained an ability to generate brigades and runs exercises to that test that capability. My argument quite simply is this. We could, if required, cobble together two effective brigades. Are they ABCTs with M1s and Bradleys - of course not but there are numerous types of brigades and one of ours with a purchase of ATGMs and embedded into a proper division, would easily equate to an SBCT and in some respect with their 25mm turrets and supported by Leopards would exceed the capabilities of an SBCT. We have the bulk of the equipment and the trained manpower. Yes, they require some weapon systems that are not now in our inventory but those systems are more in the nature of ammunition rather than anything else.

Honestly, I have much more faith in our ability to generate those two brigades than I have in our government ever committing even one brigade.

For me this new commitment to Latvia will be a test of both the government's will and the Army Leadership's flexibility. This could be a meaningful commitment (even if it involves prepositioned equipment and flyover components) or a rat's nest. So far I do not expect much from the government. SOX's gift of 30 some odd ACSVs instead of armed LAVs shows once again that he is a complete simpleton when it comes to comprehending what an armed conflict actually is (I'm actually still gobsmacked by the fact we sent 4 M777s and CarlG's)

🍻


----------



## Kilted (1 Jul 2022)

FJAG said:


> Actually 6 CCSB has quite a few capabilities and they are growing. It's a new concept for Canada and will take some time to mature. It's definitely a brigade and a valuable one at that.
> 
> 🍻


I didn't realize that they had given them a number.  I just checked and you can buy the brigade patch at cpgear, so I guess that means that they are a real brigade now.


----------



## FJAG (1 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> I didn't realize that they had given them a number.  I just checked and you can buy the brigade patch at cpgear, so I guess that means that they are a real brigade now.


I only saw that for the first time this week myself.

🍻


----------



## Kilted (1 Jul 2022)

They should just start selling badges for phantom formations now, just to get a head start on confusing the Russians.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> They should just start selling badges for phantom formations now, just to get a head start on confusing the Russians.


We could really screw them up by starting to follow our doctrine…for once.


----------



## KevinB (1 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> They should just start selling badges for phantom formations now, just to get a head start on confusing the Russians.


Pretty sure you do that now


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2022)

GR66 said:


> Believe me, I have absolutely no love for Trudeau and his defence policy, but there is plenty of blame to go around on this fiasco we find ourselves in now.
> 
> Since 1990 (the end of the Cold War and the last time our Defence spending was at 2% of GDP) we've had both Liberal and Conservative governments (12 years under the Conservatives and 20 years under the Liberals) which have all had a part to play in contributing to this mess (and the 1982-1990 ~2% spending was preceded by sub 2% spending from 1973 to 1981).
> 
> ...


----------



## IKnowNothing (1 Jul 2022)

FJAG said:


> I find myself in a peculiar situation defending the Army rather than criticizing it. Remember this very, very important point. SSE does not require a brigade deployment. Since the turn of the century Canada's defence demands of the Army are to provide deployable battlegroups of varying sizes.


But even that defense falls flat when not one single battalion can be fielded to a modern standard of our doctrinal staffing and equipment.

If  we were sitting here today calling for a Bde and CA could confidently point at SSE and then to the ability to perpetually field a BG complete with organic SHORAD, a mech battalion with all of: 30/35mm, proper platoon level AT weapons, ATGM under armour, and 120mm under armour, and attached tank squadron + SP 155 battery then sure.  You get a pass CA, you did what you were told. Now we're telling you we need a Bde.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2022)

GR66 said:


> Believe me, I have absolutely no love for Trudeau and his defence policy, but there is plenty of blame to go around on this fiasco we find ourselves in now.
> 
> Since 1990 (the end of the Cold War and the last time our Defence spending was at 2% of GDP) we've had both Liberal and Conservative governments (12 years under the Conservatives and 20 years under the Liberals) which have all had a part to play in contributing to this mess (and the 1982-1990 ~2% spending was preceded by sub 2% spending from 1973 to 1981).
> 
> ...



It occurs to me that Wayne Eyre has had his Sam Hughes "Come to Jesus moment".  The realization that his military establishment is not fit for purpose, that parochial interests can't be managed and the need is urgent.  And he has nothing.

Time to chuck the Regiments and create a wholly new structure, call it a Canadian Expeditionary Force, recruit from the existing bodies and create numbered Battalions, Batteries and Squadrons.

He has been encouraged in this line of thinking by a Minister who has realized that despite the sixth largest budget in NATO the cupboard is bare.  The best we can do is contribute Swedish anti-tank rifles, a handful of Anglo-American M777s, and some funding. 

I could read the Memo as calling for getting rid of all the carbuncles that have stuck to the peace-time structure and decided that if there are limitations on the number of people in uniform then there is no room for uniformed civil servants.   Any desk job can be contracted out to the Civil Service or the private sector.  Maintenance of tanks and LAVs can follow the route of the ships, planes and helicopters and be contracted out to the private sector.  Just the way the rest of NATO does it - some countries are more successful at it than others and the successful ones should be emulated.  Every logistics supply chain starts in the private sector in any case.

Anand's non-response to every question was 25 BCAD, 6th largest budget in NATO. Rising to 40 BCAD in time for Force 2025.

For the 6th largest budget do we get the 6th most effective force?



As to why the ACSVs rather than the LAV 6.0s?

If that was a Ukrainian ask, perhaps it suggests that the Ukrainians, who generally ride on top of their vehicles when in contact,  don't see much value in a vehicle designed to carry troops that wastes interior space to carry a turret armed with a gun that is too big to kill people and too small to kill tanks.  Take a look at the Slovakian/NATO statement of requirement for an IFV - they wanted a 7.62 coax with lots of ammunition to kill people and gun larger than 30mm, also with lots of ammo, to kill vehicles.  And judging from some of the BTR4 videos out of Ukraine they also expect the turret to be quick on the draw.  Oh, and the Slovak IFVs also had to have a mounted ATGM system.

If that was a Canadian offer, perhaps it suggests that the Canadians are really tied to their LAVs and mounted warfare and wanted to keep their LAVs at all costs.

The ACSVs, without all the Gee-Whiz kit cluttering up the interior, would make a great armoured bus for rapidly moving light infantry with all their weapons, including MANPADs,  ATGMs and Coy Mortars, to the front along broken roads under shell fire.


----------



## McG (1 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> If that was a Ukrainian ask, perhaps it suggests that the Ukrainians, who generally ride on top of their vehicles when in contact, don't see much value in a vehicle designed to carry troops that wastes interior space to carry a turret armed with a gun that is too big to kill people and too small to kill tanks.


Despite its lack of turret, the ACSV will be the tallest armoured vehicle in Canadian inventory when it is fielded. Anyone riding in the roof & leaping into combat will be a casualty before firing their first shot. There is no low profile ACSV.


----------



## KevinB (1 Jul 2022)

FJAG said:


> I find myself in a peculiar situation defending the Army rather than criticizing it. Remember this very, very important point. SSE does not require a brigade deployment. Since the turn of the century Canada's defence demands of the Army are to provide deployable battlegroups of varying sizes. And a limited number of those. Brigades are essentially mandated as force generators with an additional mandate to, from time to time, provide a formation level headquarters. Nowhere, in SSE does it say we are to deploy a full brigade whether light, medium or heavy.
> 
> I think that is a great failing in the SSE.
> 
> ...



From SSE 

Meet commitments to NATO Allies under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty;
Contribute to international peace and stability through:
−  Two sustained deployments of ~500-1500 personnel, including one as a lead nation;
−  One time-limited deployment of
~500-1500 personnel (6-9 months duration);
−  Two sustained deployments of ~100-500 personnel;
−  Two time-limited deployments (6-9 months) of ~100-500 personnel;
−  One Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) deployment, with scaleable additional support; and
−  One Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation, with scaleable additional support.


I'd argue the CAF has been asleep at the switch if they refuse to admit that a Bde would be necessary in the top commitment - and looking at the contributions to international peace and stability has the potential to demand 7k troops plus DART and NEO.

Given the Lead Nation sustained deployment of up to 1,500 and one time limited deployment of 1,500 -- one could reasonably assume that a Bde may be surged for Peace and Stability Ops -- let alone what might be needed under Article 5.

If I was on the CCA staff that is the bare minimum that I would have planned for -- SSE gave the CAF a lot of room, but I would argue that a lot of the staff preferred to build a box, jump in and close the lid.


----------



## FJAG (1 Jul 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> But even that defense falls flat when not one single battalion can be fielded to a modern standard of our doctrinal staffing and equipment.


I've had that debate both here and elsewhere.

As I've said before, I think we need to do much better, but I would never go so far as to say that we can't field a single battalion to a modern standard unless someone like @Infanteer or @TangoTwoBravo, who have much better knowledge of the state of things than I do, were to unequivocally state that to be the case.

For me the dividing line is what is a "modern standard of our doctrinal staffing and equipment" and what is an adequate force. The former, to me is aspirational, the latter is a version of Rumsfeld's "army that we have". During the 1980s we stood watch in Germany with a fair bit of gear but nothing like what the doctrine of Corps 86 called for. There has always been a gap between the doctrine we write and the the equipment we have. What concerns me more than the actual gap is that we seem to have no contingency plans as to how to close that gap when the balloon goes up.

There is equipment that I would not send troops to war without. Useful ATGMs and self defence air defence would be an example but I'm confident that if we were to commit to an alliance members of the alliance would provide that (for a cost of course). Other than that, while I would prefer better equipment, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment sending Canadians to fight with A4s and A6s, LAV6.0s and M777s. Many armies are actually fighting with equipment that falls below the standard of the equipment that we have.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2022)

As to DIANA and eco-funding?

Budget Chapter 5



> Canada’s Leadership in the World​Key Ongoing Actions​
> $5.3 billion over five years to double Canada’s international climate financing to help developing countries tackle climate change;



I'm guessing that Canada, which has not yet committed funding to this new NATO centre, is negotiating to spend a billion a year to buy multi-billions a year from NATO partners who have already committed - and establishing a centre out of reach of both Washington and Moscow.

That preceded section 5.1 which laid out the 25 to 40 BCAD budget plan for the 2025  "Armed" Forces.












						Chapter 5: Canada’s Leadership in the World | Budget 2022
					

A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable




					budget.gc.ca


----------



## KevinB (1 Jul 2022)

McG said:


> Despite its lack of turret, the ACSV will be the tallest armoured vehicle in Canadian inventory when it is fielded. Anyone riding in the roof & leaping into combat will be a casualty before firing their first shot. There is no low profile ACSV.


I believe you already pointed out the most likely ACSV in the Ambulance - which won't have folks riding on top.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2022)

McG said:


> Despite its lack of turret, the ACSV will be the tallest armoured vehicle in Canadian inventory when it is fielded. Anyone riding in the roof & leaping into combat will be a casualty before firing their first shot. There is no low profile ACSV.



Got that.  Which is why I figure it would make a great bus.


----------



## KevinB (1 Jul 2022)

FJAG said:


> I've had that debate both here and elsewhere.
> 
> As I've said before, I think we need to do much better, but I would never go so far as to say that we can't field a single battalion to a modern standard unless someone like @Infanteer or @TangoTwoBravo, who have much better knowledge of the state of things than I do, were to unequivocally state that to be the case.


Night Vision - fail
MFAL - fail
IFF - fail
ATGM - fail



FJAG said:


> For me the dividing line is what is a "modern standard of our doctrinal staffing and equipment" and what is an adequate force. The former, to me is aspirational, the latter is a version of Rumsfeld's "army that we have". During the 1980s we stood watch in Germany with a fair bit of gear but nothing like what the doctrine of Corps 86 called for. There has always been a gap between the doctrine we write and the the equipment we have. *What concerns me more than the actual gap is that we seem to have no contingency plans as to how to close that gap when the balloon goes up.*


Agreed 110%


FJAG said:


> There is equipment that I would not send troops to war without. Useful ATGMs and self defence air defence would be an example but I'm confident that if we were to commit to an alliance members of the alliance would provide that (for a cost of course). Other than that, while I would prefer better equipment, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment sending Canadians to fight with A4s and A6s, LAV6.0s and M777s. Many armies are actually fighting with equipment that falls below the standard of the equipment that we have.
> 
> 🍻


I'm simply furious that for a G7 Nation with a Defense Budget to what it is, that the CAF is structured and supported in such a criminal manner.


----------



## IKnowNothing (1 Jul 2022)

FJAG said:


> For me the dividing line is what is a "modern standard of our doctrinal staffing and equipment" and what is an adequate force. The former, to me is aspirational, the latter is a version of Rumsfeld's "army that we have". During the 1980s we stood watch in Germany with a fair bit of gear but nothing like what the doctrine of Corps 86 called for. There has always been a gap between the doctrine we write and the the equipment we have. What concerns me more than the actual gap is that we seem to have no contingency plans as to how to close that gap when the balloon goes up.
> 
> There is equipment that I would not send troops to war without. Useful ATGMs and self defence air defence would be an example but I'm confident that if we were to commit to an alliance members of the alliance would provide that (for a cost of course). Other than that, while I would prefer better equipment, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment sending Canadians to fight with *A4s and A6s, LAV6.0s and M777s*. Many armies are actually fighting with equipment that falls below the standard of the equipment that we have.
> 
> 🍻


I overstepped a bit to make the point, because I agree with the bold.   To me being on the wrong side of that dividing line is
Bn AT being dismount TOW tubes  instead of a proper AT platoon with ATGM under armour + dismount tubes
Bn mortar being dismount 81's instead of 120's UA, (turreted or not)
Platoon AT being a gd CG 84 instead of...

Fix those and the situation was defensible in my opinion


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> From SSE
> 
> Meet commitments to NATO Allies under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty;
> Contribute to international peace and stability through:
> ...



Sorry Kev, but while you are free to interpret SSE as you find appropriate our civil servants, in and out of uniform, are likewise free to interpret that remit as they see fit.  That is a feature not a bug.

500 people in Latvia on a sustained deployment - requirement 1a met.
Stanavforlant/Euro Air Patrols - requirement 1b met.
Task Force standing in the GIUK gap or a Hornet deployment to Iceland - requirement 2 met.
A couple of small Companies with Lts Colonel in command attached to multi-national missions - requirement 3 met.
A couple more Company sized short term attachments - requirement 4 met
A DART in being - requirement 5 met
A NEO in being - requirement 6 met

And not a Battlegroup, Brigade, Brigade Group or Division in sight.


----------



## Fabius (1 Jul 2022)

The numbers outlined in SSE have allowed both the Government and the CAF to say they have met the needs while ignoring reality. 

What is a sustained 100-500 person deployment? What capability is that? That statement is not even aimed at one service but the CAF as a whole. 
Army thinks that’s a reserve infantry Coy.
Navy thinks that’s two MCDVs. One on each coast. 
Airforce thinks it a fighter 6 pack. 

All the other numbers are equally vague to the benefit of both government and CAF politicians.


----------



## KevinB (1 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Sorry Kev, but while you are free to interpret SSE as you find appropriate our civil servants, in and out of uniform, are likewise free to interpret that remit as they see fit.  That is a feature not a bug.


Someone is going to tell MND etc my interpretation (or similar to that) and hard questions will get asked...



Kirkhill said:


> 500 people in Latvia on a sustained deployment - requirement 1a met.
> Stanavforlant/Euro Air Patrols - requirement 1b met.
> Task Force standing in the GIUK gap or a Hornet deployment to Iceland - requirement 2 met.
> A couple of small Companies with Lts Colonel in command attached to multi-national missions - requirement 3 met.
> ...


Yes close the lid on that box please


----------



## McG (1 Jul 2022)

There is also this bit from SSE:


> The flexibility to support small missions while remaining ready to conduct large operations is made possible by the brigade group structure of the Army. It is only at this level that it is possible to execute integrated joint operations with the rest of the Canadian Armed Forces, other government departments, NATO and other allies and partner forces, and non-governmental organizations.



But I argue that our commitment to “contribution warfare” has allowed us to convince ourselves that sending something & anything is more important than being able to send and sustain particular capabilities. The purpose of the CAF has become feel-good flag waving contingents.

We also learned bad lessons in Kandahar. We we able to fill the glory seat of lead nation because the US filled the role of framework nation. Now we want to lead in Latvia (which will be far more demanding if shooting starts) while investing fewer resources than we had in Kandahar (where we actually had a formation of Canadian units)


----------



## KevinB (1 Jul 2022)

Fabius said:


> The numbers outlined in SSE have allowed both the Government and the CAF to say they have met the needs while ignoring reality.
> 
> What is a sustained 100-500 person deployment? What capability is that? That statement is not even aimed at one service but the CAF as a whole.
> Army thinks that’s a reserve infantry Coy.
> ...


Vague until the Government says do this - it is in SSE...


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Someone is going to tell MND etc my interpretation (or similar to that) and hard questions will get asked...





KevinB said:


> Yes close the lid on that box please



I don't doubt that Austin, Stoltenberg, Karins, Johnson and Zelenskyy are screaming at the tops of their lungs.

But judging from the smug look on Joly's face I would suggest that the Global Affairs team are comfortable with the support they are getting from Macron, Scholz, Michel and von der Leyen.  And from Quebec.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2022)

McG said:


> There is also this bit from SSE:
> 
> 
> But I argue that our commitment to “contribution warfare” has allowed us to convince ourselves that sending something & anything is more important than being able to send and sustain particular capabilities. The purpose of the CAF has become feel-good flag waving contingents.
> ...



The Brigade Group, as seen by Ottawa makes for a handy administrative structure.  A pool of resources which can be drawn on for non-military and military functions.   The prospect of deploying a Brigade Group in its entirety in a military role is well down the priority list.

Canada's Third Rail - Conscription

Thou shall not upset the electorate.   Soldiering is not a Liberal Party thing.


----------



## KevinB (1 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> The Brigade Group, as seen by Ottawa makes for a handy administrative structure.  A pool of resources which can be drawn on for non-military and military functions.   The prospect of deploying a Brigade Group in its entirety in a military role is well down the priority list.


Until it isn't.
   SSE gives a lot of rope, some folks just tie their own nooses...



Kirkhill said:


> Canada's Third Rail - Conscription
> 
> Thou shall not upset the electorate.   Soldiering is not a Liberal Party thing.


With what the CAF gets paid, you have no issues needing conscription at this point.


----------



## McG (1 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> SSE gives a lot of rope, some folks just tie their own nooses...


That rope was desirable to both military and political leadership. The vague metric made it possible to honestly declare the CAF can meet SSE commitments within existing resources or that we don’t need to spend 2% of GDP to meet SSE.  The vague metrics left CAF (and more so every L1) free to pursue service/branch/regimental based wants & inerests.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Until it isn't.
> SSE gives a lot of rope, some folks just tie their own nooses...



Yup.



KevinB said:


> With what the CAF gets paid, you have no issues needing conscription at this point.



Conscription will never be a realistic requirement in Canada.  But keep in mind that this is a country where parties run ads like these


----------



## GR66 (1 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> From SSE
> 
> Meet commitments to NATO Allies under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty;
> Contribute to international peace and stability through:
> ...





Kirkhill said:


> Sorry Kev, but while you are free to interpret SSE as you find appropriate our civil servants, in and out of uniform, are likewise free to interpret that remit as they see fit.  That is a feature not a bug.
> 
> 500 people in Latvia on a sustained deployment - requirement 1a met.
> Stanavforlant/Euro Air Patrols - requirement 1b met.
> ...


The big question to me is what does it take to "Meet commitments to NATO Allies under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty"?

@KevinB has alluded to Canada having committed to supplying a Heavy Brigade to NATO.  That's certainly not spelled out explicitly (and publicly) in SSE, but if this is the case and Canada has made a non-public commitment to providing a Heavy Brigade as part of our NATO commitment then I'd say that certainly the CF leadership has not met that commitment in terms of either force structure or equipment.


----------



## FJAG (1 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> From SSE
> 
> Meet commitments to NATO Allies under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty;
> Contribute to international peace and stability through:
> ...


The brigade issue goes back to Mike Jeffery era when we were in Bosnia and going to Apollo and later Kabul under what was still a Chretien budget. He made it abundantly clear that he could field the then existing brigade group commitment but not within the time frame required under the then current defence policy. At that time the Army convinced itself that it no longer needed to be an "army" but was fine as a failed state issue solver with a lighter force built around LAVs with few plug-and-play enablers and at the BG level. That's where the Armies mind set went and IMHO many of the middle managers (I won't deign them with the title "leaders") bought into the Hillier Kool-Aid. Circumstances made us actually stronger then we were planned to be (tanks, 155s, JTACs etc)

IMHO, there were folks along the way that, like in the 70s, pushed back against the trend. We actually kept the brigades stronger than they were meant to be. Unlike our "division HQs" which are primarily administrative leadership with no deployment capability, our brigade HQs have all the bells and whistles needed. On top of that they train regularly in bde ops including CPXs and CAXs and in the various FTX scenarios that are now the Maple Resolve series of FTXs. 



KevinB said:


> Given the Lead Nation sustained deployment of up to 1,500 and one time limited deployment of 1,500 -- one could reasonably assume that a Bde may be surged for Peace and Stability Ops -- let alone what might be needed under Article 5.


I don't see how you can assume that when the specified commitment is at the BG-sized level. This is why one has defence policies - to spell out what is required. I, like you disagree with the SSE. It should spell out in unambiguous terms what is required.



KevinB said:


> If I was on the CCA staff that is the bare minimum that I would have planned for -- SSE gave the CAF a lot of room, but I would argue that a lot of the staff preferred to build a box, jump in and close the lid.


I agree that we should prepare for a minimum bde level deployment. Where we disagree is that I think that they have, in practice, met the bare minimum for brigade deployability. 

🍻


----------



## Skysix (1 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Come on, when was the last time Canada's military spent money on frivolities like rank changes for DEUs and stuff... 🤣
> 
> I did hear that the current 'Canadian average green rank slip-on with blue thread' the AF uses is changing to "Canadian average green with pearl grey [same thread as our new DEU slip-ons] for CADPAT and flight suits.  Awesome!  Because that was one of my FIRST concerns.  8)


A common trait of managers out of their depth is to micromanage at the level they actually understand....


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Thou shall not upset the electorate.   Soldiering is not a Liberal Party thing _unless it brings in votes then its all good._


FTFY You are welcome sir.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (18 Dec 2022)

It's NATO, it's Latvia, but I don't see any Canadians.









						Nato troops send Christmas wishes with seasonal serenade
					

The alliance shared a post on Twitter of a multinational group of soldiers singing Carol of the Bells.




					www.forces.net
				





__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1603020985271169024


----------



## rmc_wannabe (18 Dec 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> It's NATO, it's Latvia, but I don't see any Canadians.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can hear some nasally J1 Staff at CJOC citing "PERSEC!" As to why we fucked up a basic PR task our allies were setting up. Hell you have the Spanish out there and they're want to do anything unnecessary.

Massive fail if we're looking to take the lead of the MN Brigade Group.....


----------



## GR66 (18 Dec 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I can hear some nasally J1 Staff at CJOC citing "PERSEC!" As to why we fucked up a basic PR task our allies were setting up. Hell you have the Spanish out there and they're want to do anything unnecessary.
> 
> Massive fail if we're looking to take the lead of the MN Brigade Group.....


You're of course assuming that we were invited...


----------



## McG (18 Dec 2022)

I know it’s hard to imagine e that Canada is not at the centre of everything, but perhaps the eFP is not the only NATO presence in Latvia and this is in fact another NATO organization.


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Dec 2022)

McG said:


> I know it’s hard to imagine e that Canada is not at the centre of everything, but perhaps the eFP is not the only NATO presence in Latvia and this is in fact another NATO organization.


It might also be a slight, talking to a couple guys over there, our reputation has taken a bit of a hit. Apparently years of pushing people onto plq and promoting them before they are ready to lead doesn't get you good Jr leaders


----------



## Maxman1 (18 Dec 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Hell you have the Spanish out there and they're want to do anything unnecessary.



I was not expecting that.


----------



## Czech_pivo (19 Dec 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> It's NATO, it's Latvia, but I don't see any Canadians.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Guys, of course Canada was invited!  Who do you think was holding the camera?  Controlling the narrative, that's what the Canadian cameraperson (non-gender title) was doing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I can hear some nasally J1 Staff at CJOC citing "PERSEC!" As to why we fucked up a basic PR task our allies were setting up…


----------



## GK .Dundas (19 Dec 2022)

Want to bet in day or so there's a memo . I mean what's the point if  proclaiming it was actually a brilliant idea if one can't also claim credit for it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2022)

I’m betting we convened the event.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Dec 2022)

We probably could send anyone cuz they were all on MELs.


----------



## markppcli (19 Dec 2022)

McG said:


> I know it’s hard to imagine e that Canada is not at the centre of everything, but perhaps the eFP is not the only NATO presence in Latvia and this is in fact another NATO organization.


You mean like TFL which is all Canadian or the NSE that’s Canadian led ?

Crazy thought - maybe no Canadians volunteered as we’re mid / have just completed the RIP?

@Halifax Tar they just arrived; if you’re on Mel’s you’re loosing your spot. I know it’s hard to fathom but most of the guys going over actually want to and there’s a fully man Op Res happy to take their spots.


----------



## McG (19 Dec 2022)

markppcli said:


> You mean like TFL which is all Canadian or the NSE that’s Canadian led ?


No. Those are Canadian organizations to look after the Canadian mission. That was a NATO video, and we are drawing imagined outrage because it seems to be beyond belief that a NATO nation might have NATO organizations within its borders other that the NATO organization that we have decided to play a part with.


----------



## markppcli (19 Dec 2022)

McG said:


> No. Those are Canadian organizations to look after the Canadian mission. That was a NATO video, and we are drawing imagined outrage because it seems to be beyond belief that a NATO nation might have NATO organizations within its borders other that the NATO organization that we have decided to play a part with.


You are aware this was posted on the eFP Latvia face book page with the tag line of
“Personnel deployed with the NATO enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group Latvia came together to wish you all a warm season’s greetings and happy holidays. 

The song the group is singing, “Carols of the Bells”, is the English version of the Ukrainian Christmas song, “Shchedryk"written by Mikola Leontovich on the motif of the folk "ofедрик".

#WeAreNATO #StrongerTogether”

Right?


----------



## McG (19 Dec 2022)

markppcli said:


> You are aware this was posted on the eFP Latvia face book page with the tag line of
> “Personnel deployed with the NATO enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group Latvia came together to wish you all a warm season’s greetings and happy holidays.


The only place I’ve seen it is from NATO’s post where there is no mention of eFP.


----------



## markppcli (19 Dec 2022)

McG said:


> The only place I’ve seen it is from NATO’s post where there is no mention of eFP.









__ https://www.facebook.com/100068903032363/posts/pfbid0g6pM7DRywC56wfwcbDhAvoiLL41aD7t8srH1dbsEeanRVPPbKJtW224tfDGtND9Nl


----------



## Fabius (19 Dec 2022)

But the eFP in Latvia led by Canada does not include the Danes nor the Americans lol nor Latvians either. 
1 Mech Inf Bde includes both Danes and Americans though, at least until the aFP Bde stands up. Multi National Divsion North also has all three and Canadians.


----------



## McG (19 Dec 2022)

Also seems odd, if this is an eFP video, that it was not posted directly by eFP … still possible, but odd.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2022)

I think it was a nicely done video, either way.


----------



## markppcli (20 Dec 2022)

McG said:


> Also seems odd, if this is an eFP video, that it was not posted directly by eFP … still possible, but odd.


I don’t know why your saying “still possible”  when I posted the video from their page claiming it’s their personnel. Likely no Canadians wanted to participate and I can’t imagine, knowing the command team, they’d really force the issue.



Fabius said:


> But the eFP in Latvia led by Canada does not include the Danes nor the Americans lol nor Latvians either.
> 1 Mech Inf Bde includes both Danes and Americans though, at least until the aFP Bde stands up. Multi National Divsion North also has all three and Canadians.



To be fair 1 Mech Inf Bde owns the eFP or at least have command of them. Or did in 2020. The American and Danes may not fall under the eFP Latvia BG but they are part of the NATO enhance forward presence in totality.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Dec 2022)

markppcli said:


> You mean like TFL which is all Canadian or the NSE that’s Canadian led ?
> 
> Crazy thought - maybe no Canadians volunteered as we’re mid / have just completed the RIP?
> 
> @Halifax Tar they just arrived; if you’re on Mel’s you’re loosing your spot. I know it’s hard to fathom but most of the guys going over actually want to and there’s a fully man Op Res happy to take their spots.



That was a joke homie... Sheesh.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Dec 2022)

Funny how some quotas for the sake of quotas are guffawed by some, but the Canadian content quota for a NATO Christmas music video seems to be a must have  


Eye In The Sky said:


> I think it was a nicely done video, either way.


----------



## McG (20 Dec 2022)

markppcli said:


> I don’t know why you’re saying “still possible” when I posted the video from their page claiming it’s their personnel.


Let’s say it’s still ambiguous to me. The eFP  did not post the video. The NATO account posted the video and eFP shared that NATO post. Yes, they said that they came together to wish a merry Christmas, and it is not unreasonable to interpret that as meaning they are the ones in the video. But it is still not explicit and, as has been pointed out, the composition of the group looks more like another group as it includes nations that are not eFP while missing more than just Canadians from eFP.


----------



## markppcli (20 Dec 2022)

McG said:


> Let’s say it’s still ambiguous to me. The eFP  did not post the video. The NATO account posted the video and eFP shared that NATO post. Yes, they said that they came together to wish a merry Christmas, and it is not unreasonable to interpret that as meaning they are the ones in the video. But it is still not explicit and, as has been pointed out, the composition of the group looks more like another group as it includes nations that are not eFP while missing more than just Canadians from eFP.



It’s probably just a collection of troops from all across the Bde, including eFP (both the BG and other forward presence deployments), and misssing those that didn’t volunteer. But we should probably argue this for another 3 pages.


----------



## McG (20 Dec 2022)

We could go another three pages, but I think we can instead agree that there is not sufficient evidence on the internet for anyone to throw a teddy in the corner and declare the video a slight to Canada.


----------



## markppcli (20 Dec 2022)

McG said:


> We could go another three pages, but I think we can instead agree that there is not sufficient evidence on the internet for anyone to throw a teddy in the corner and declare the video a slight to Canada.


No I’d imagine there’s a few Cpls who are happy they didn’t have to participate in the snow singalong


----------



## YZT580 (20 Dec 2022)

Serious question:  with all the concerns over manpower shortfalls would we have greater or fewer problems if we were to properly position and supply a base in Europe as we did with 4 wing prior to the gulf war?  I totally appreciate the extra costs of shipping families offshore (been there and done that), providing schooling and medical facilities, and myriad other issues that all cost money but the notion of having family nearby vs. saying goodbye for six months might solve other problems??  Just asking


----------



## rmc_wannabe (21 Dec 2022)

YZT580 said:


> Serious question:  with all the concerns over manpower shortfalls would we have greater or fewer problems if we were to properly position and supply a base in Europe as we did with 4 wing prior to the gulf war? I totally appreciate the extra costs of shipping families offshore (been there and done that), providing schooling and medical facilities, and myriad other issues that all cost money but the notion of having family nearby vs. saying goodbye for six months might solve other problems??  Just asking



So the bases we had in Europe post Cold War were the product of decades of investment and previous folks laying the groundwork.

Also, there was a hell of an incentive to head to German for a 4 year stint, as the benefits were well established both financially and  "score, Eurotrip!" for a lot of spouses.

In 2022, the eFP set up is currently not suitable for posting our members or families for a CMBG or a Wing. We have trouble maintaining, let alone building, infrastructure in Canada for our current members. Also, the CAF has changed in that spouse X has a career and doesn't take kindly to dropping it all to live in Eastern Europe for 4 years; hell we cant even get folks to move to Kingston for that very reason.Factor in building a CFB from scratch in Latvia and the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Furthermore, who is going to flesh out the new organizations when we're already dying for folks to full out the brigades/wings we have here? I'm sure Comd 1 CMBG would be tickled pink to find out he's short 1 x Inf Bn, 1 x Armd/Eng Sqn, Atts and Dets from  QGET, as well as Svc Bn to flesh out the new ORBAT in Latvia during the Lentus season. Echo that across 2/5 CMBG, or any various RCAF establishments and it's the same frustration. 

The reforms made in 1994 sacrificed 30 years of capabilities and facilities for momentary gain. Here we are 28 years later and it's going to take another 30 to recoup the losses; and that's if we decide to regain those capabilities back.

I am extremely doubtful I will see it while I still wear the uniform.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Dec 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> So the bases we had in Europe post Cold War were the product of decades of investment and previous folks laying the groundwork.
> 
> Also, there was a hell of an incentive to head to German for a 4 year stint, as the benefits were well established both financially and  "score, Eurotrip!" for a lot of spouses.
> 
> ...









We aren't regaining capabilities, there has been a steady bleed over the past 30-40 years.  Even when we were conducting combat operations in Afghanistan, we were bleeding capability elsewhere _cough_ RCN _cough_.

We are now so far behind, literally, that we will not recover that capability and we are now lacking in other areas.  

Couple this with the skill fade and loss of institutional experience and we are going to have an increasingly less capable Armed Forces.


----------



## brihard (21 Dec 2022)

Maybe our troops just can’t sing worth shit?


----------



## ueo (21 Dec 2022)

brihard said:


> Maybe our troops just can’t sing worth shit?


My thought exactly!


----------



## QV (21 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> We aren't regaining capabilities, there has been a steady bleed over the past 30-40 years.  Even when we were conducting combat operations in Afghanistan, we were bleeding capability elsewhere _cough_ RCN _cough_.
> 
> We are now so far behind, literally, that we will not recover that capability and we are now lacking in other areas.
> 
> Couple this with the skill fade and loss of institutional experience and we are going to have an increasingly less capable Armed Forces.


Add in the loss of trust and respect for the institution (sexual misconduct or vaccine mandates). They have all contributed to the decline.


----------



## FJAG (21 Dec 2022)

brihard said:


> Maybe our troops just can’t sing worth shit?


There's a lot of truth in that. Other than a rousing chorus of "North Atlantic Squadron" when getting pissed, we don't sing much.

When I was working with the Germans they once gave me a copy of their Army's song book - it comes in a nice little pocket edition with an olive drab cover - that contains about twenty-five military marching songs that go back to Frederick the Great.

If you see European troops marching in the field, Germans, French, Spanish, they all sing. Americans do that silly cadence stuff but we don't even do that.

Maybe its because we're shy. Maybe its because in the old British Army the rank and file was to be seen and not heard.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2022)

YZT580 said:


> Serious question:  with all the concerns over *manpower* shortfalls would we have greater or fewer problems if we were to properly position and supply a base in Europe as we did with 4 wing prior to the gulf war?  I totally appreciate the extra costs of shipping families offshore (been there and done that), providing schooling and medical facilities, and myriad other issues that all cost money but the notion of having family nearby vs. saying goodbye for six months might solve other problems??  Just asking


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


>


OK a new term I invented today:

A non gender specific person who displays female traits. (Or male traits if you will)

I am going to hell aren't I?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (21 Dec 2022)

FJAG said:


> There's a lot of truth in that. Other than a rousing chorus of "North Atlantic Squadron" when getting pissed, we don't sing much.
> 
> When I was working with the Germans they once gave me *a copy of their Army's song book* - it comes in a nice little pocket edition with an olive drab cover - that contains about twenty-five military marching songs that go back to Frederick the Great.
> 
> ...



It's not as if there hadn't been, in the past, some under-employed, over-enthusiastic staff officer who probably took an off-hand comment by a superior about the vocalization of allied nations' soldiers and produced this gem.


----------



## FJAG (21 Dec 2022)

Is "North Atlantic Squadron" included?


----------



## Weinie (21 Dec 2022)

FJAG said:


> Is "North Atlantic Squadron" included?


And "Swing Low Sweet Chariot"


----------



## brihard (21 Dec 2022)

Good Ship Venus is unquestionably super cancelled…


----------



## Blackadder1916 (21 Dec 2022)

FJAG said:


> Is "North Atlantic Squadron" included?



Yes, it was.  The index.



The booklet has only the words, no music.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 Dec 2022)

FJAG said:


> There's a lot of truth in that. Other than a rousing chorus of "North Atlantic Squadron" when getting pissed, we don't sing much.
> 
> When I was working with the Germans they once gave me a copy of their Army's song book - it comes in a nice little pocket edition with an olive drab cover - that contains about twenty-five military marching songs that go back to Frederick the Great.
> 
> ...



Long time ago, but when I was with 3 PPCLI from '74-79 we used sing when we matched all the time.


----------



## GR66 (21 Dec 2022)

Retired AF Guy said:


> Long time ago, but when I was with 3 PPCLI from '74-79 we used sing when we matched all the time.


I believe the Geneva Conventions were specifically amended to prevent that from continuing!


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Dec 2022)

GR66 said:


> I believe the Geneva Conventions were specifically amended to prevent that from continuing!


As well as the criminal code of Canada, something about cruel and unusual punishment


----------



## markppcli (21 Dec 2022)

FJAG said:


> Is "North Atlantic Squadron" included?


I have never heard of this song


----------



## dapaterson (21 Dec 2022)

Away, away with the fife and drum...


----------



## FJAG (22 Dec 2022)

markppcli said:


> I have never heard of this song


Really?

"Away, away with the fife and drum; here we come; full of the rum; looking for ...."

Many an evening spent drinking in quarters, playing Euchre or Poker and singing all the little ditties. Not really a marching song.






Ah, yeah beat me too it. @dapaterson


----------



## FJAG (22 Dec 2022)

Getting back to the topic of eFP Latvia, just came across a message of A Battery's rotation back from Latvia where it has been part of a multi-national artillery group consisting of:

- Aztec Battery, 3-29 FA - US - M109A6;

- Bison Battery, Michalovce Artillery Bn - Slovakia - SpGH Zusana

- Miura Battery, RACA 11 - Spain - M109A5

- A Battery, 1 RCHA - Canada - M777

(note who is the odd man out supporting a mech force with a towed gun)





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=540728967943657
			








__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=792387985325978
			




🍻


----------



## markppcli (22 Dec 2022)

FJAG said:


> Getting back to the topic of eFP Latvia, just came across a message of A Battery's rotation back from Latvia where it has been part of a multi-national artillery group consisting of:
> 
> - Aztec Battery, 3-29 FA - US - M109A6;
> 
> ...


To ignore the various mortars in the BG


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Dec 2022)

FJAG said:


> Getting back to the topic of eFP Latvia, just came across a message of A Battery's rotation back from Latvia where it has been part of a multi-national artillery group consisting of:
> 
> - Aztec Battery, 3-29 FA - US - M109A6;
> 
> ...


Yeap, and look at Ukraine, 22 M777s have been lost, SPG total losses are similar but more damaged then destroyed according to Oryx


----------



## FJAG (22 Dec 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Yeap, and look at Ukraine, 22 M777s have been lost, SPG total losses are similar but more damaged then destroyed according to Oryx


Do you have a link to that?

🍻


----------



## GR66 (22 Dec 2022)

FJAG said:


> Do you have a link to that?
> 
> 🍻


From the Oryx Blog website:
​


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Dec 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Yeap, and look at Ukraine, 22 M777s have been lost, SPG total losses are similar but more damaged then destroyed according to Oryx



That's an amazing rate of attrition...


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Dec 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> That's an amazing rate of attrition...


Take this with your grain of salt









						Ukrainian military lost almost 30 American M777 howitzers in a week - Defence View
					

The Ukrainian military lost about 30 American M777 light howitzers in a single week.




					www.defenceview.in
				











						Why did M777 howitzer failed in Ukraine battlefield? Now only 10 operational M777 left - Defence View
					

More than 10 M777 Howitzer, which the US aided to Ukraine, were destroyed in just one day; The US quickly removed the GPS navigation device from the M777




					www.defenceview.in
				




And this









						Ukraine is firing so many barrages its artillery pieces are breaking down
					

Ukraine is firing so many artillery barrages that it's wearing down its own howitzers. A new report says as much as a third of its artillery force is broken at any given time.




					taskandpurpose.com


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Dec 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Take this with your grain of salt
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I mean wear will happen fast when you fire 5000+ rounds a day across the front.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (22 Dec 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> I mean wear will happen fast when you fire 5000+ rounds a day across the front.



Something also tells me the Triple 7 wasn't designed with WWI style barrages in mind.


----------



## FJAG (22 Dec 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Something also tells me the Triple 7 wasn't designed with WWI style barrages in mind.


We had some issues with the gun in the early days but those were early production guns and our logistics system wasn't up to speed yet but all that said, the guns had a remarkable up time during ops in Afghanistan. 

In Ukraine I'd say that they are probably firing at longer ranges (and thus higher, more punishing charges) then we do here in training. On top of being ridden hard, I expect they tend to be put away wet - i.e. running crew and wpn tech maintenance is probably minimal. It's high tech gear with a lot more finicky parts than the C3.

I doubt some of the posts above re numbers except the Oryx ones which I tend to give credibility to. The fact that almost half of the Ukrainian destroyed towed guns are M777s is interesting as the Ukrainians had far more older towed Soviet stock which I presume they employed heavily even as ammo starts to become problematic. It'll be interesting to see some of the AARs coming out of this.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Dec 2022)

FJAG said:


> We had some issues with the gun in the early days but those were early production guns and our logistics system wasn't up to speed yet but all that said, the guns had a remarkable up time during ops in Afghanistan.
> 
> In Ukraine I'd say that they are probably firing at longer ranges (and thus higher, more punishing charges) then we do here in training. On top of being ridden hard, I expect they tend to be put away wet - i.e. running crew and wpn tech maintenance is probably minimal. It's high tech gear with a lot more finicky parts than the C3.
> 
> ...


You mean something like this?









						Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: February–July 2022
					

This study of the early phases of the 2022 war sheds light on Ukraine's strengths and vulnerabilities, and the need for further Western support.




					rusi.org


----------



## FJAG (22 Dec 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> You mean something like this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks but I'd previously seen that and it doesn't have what I'm really looking for in the way of detail as to what is and isn't working vis a vis artillery. It's a great macro picture which is almost meaningless in the Canadian context. We need more micro details in order to convince the Army bureaucracy as to where it went off the rails in the early 2000's and point a way of redressing the imbalance that we somnambulantly plodded into.

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Dec 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> You mean something like this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wonder if we see a M778? Basically an improved M777, built for more sustained fire.


----------



## FJAG (23 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Wonder if we see a M778? Basically an improved M777, built for more sustained fire.


Hard to do. The need for these guns is to support light airmobile, airborne forces but the big issue is that range is dependent on weapon mass. You can product improve the gun through modifications but a whole new gun would probably have the same issues. Remember that this gun basically replaced the M198 which weighed 15,700 lbs with an L39 barrel compared to the M777 at 9,300 lbs with an L39 barrel. That's 6,000 lbs less mass. You need a certain amount of that mass to make a stable and robust platform. I think the M777 is as light as you can go with foreseeable technology.

IMHO the M777 will fall out of use in SBCTs and maybe even IBCTs in favour of wheeled SP guns which can take a longer barrel and autoloader hence more range and bigger terminal effects. Sustained fire is an interesting concept. Most of the SPs, especially the ones with autoloaders, carry limited on-board ammo (give or take 30-40 rounds) That means they need to bomb up regularly or have a very good limber vehicle (like the M992) which can stay with the gun and replenish on the go. The other meaning behind sustained is robustness. Longer ranges means more wear on the barrel and other components - its basic physics. Personally I think that such guns should be built with quick change components to be carried out pretty far forward. It shouldn't take the manufacturer to change out a barrel. That said, these things are getting more complex every day which makes them more susceptible to breakdown. I sure as hell hope that people are taking good stock of what's going on in Ukraine. I think that there are a lot of good lessons about weapon design and sustainability coming out that need to be dealt with. Especially by Canada.

There were originally a thousand M777s in the US inventory which is more than enough to meet the needs of the airborne/airmobile forces equipped for a long time as ones in the SBCTs are replaced (and perhaps even in Active Army non airborne/airmobile IBCTs) I also think there is a good use still in the M119s. If you can't make a better lightweight 155mm and you've got a good supply then there is no incentive to build an M778 (or M1377 or whatever number comes next.)

Remember too that the Yanks still make their own barrels and about 70% of the components for the M777s so they are not about to go the road of the C3.

🍻


----------



## Maxman1 (23 Dec 2022)

There's also conventional 155 guns like the Soltam M-71.


----------



## FJAG (23 Dec 2022)

Maxman1 said:


> There's also conventional 155 guns like the Soltam M-71.


20,000 lbs - 5,000 lbs heavier than the old M198. Still just an L39 barrel. Theoretically capable of being lifted by a Chinook but just. 

There's also the FH 70 and FH77 and if you really want to go strange go for India's Danush which has an APU, comes in at 28,000 pounds with an L45 barrel (allegedly an L52 upgrade)

I'll stick with the M777 for very light work and leave everything else to an SP with an armoured cab.

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Dec 2022)

I still think the reality of a peer to peer artillery war is going to necessitate a more robust towed 155. Using as many parts of the M777 and then beefing up the failure points seem to make sense. I do agree with your comment on field serviceability.

I think every NATO country is going to have beef up their artillery with a mix of MRLS/SPG and towed 155/105mm's. along with a much more robust AD artillery arm including Missile and gun systems, both towed and mounted.


----------



## KevinB (23 Dec 2022)

FJAG said:


> 20,000 lbs - 5,000 lbs heavier than the old M198. Still just an L39 barrel. Theoretically capable of being lifted by a Chinook but just.
> 
> There's also the FH 70 and FH77 and if you really want to go strange go for India's Danush which has an APU, comes in at 28,000 pounds with an L45 barrel (allegedly an L52 upgrade)
> 
> ...


Honestly the old M198 probably could have been given to Ukraine.  I think we still have ~350 in warstock storage.  
  Sure they need a HEMMT to pull as a gun tractor as opposed to lighter stuff for the 777, and doesn’t get in and out of action very fast, but since Ukraine isn’t using airmobile operations for the Arty at this point, it’s a legitimate offering that could be sent over fairly easily.


----------



## FJAG (23 Dec 2022)

KevinB said:


> Honestly the old M198 probably could have been given to Ukraine.  I think we still have ~350 in warstock storage.
> Sure they need a HEMMT to pull as a gun tractor as opposed to lighter stuff for the 777, and doesn’t get in and out of action very fast, but since Ukraine isn’t using airmobile operations for the Arty at this point, it’s a legitimate offering that could be sent over fairly easily.


It was and is a robust old beast and was actually considered as a fall back for Canada for Afghanistan if the M777 option hadn't panned out. We were sold on precision munitions which required a 155. Weird, because we only ended up firing a handful of Excaliburs when push came to shove.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy (Yesterday at 00:29)

I wonder how much he had to pay for that kit, to equip himself properly


----------



## Good2Golf (Yesterday at 20:18)

Could use a bit more scrim…


----------



## rmc_wannabe (Yesterday at 20:41)

daftandbarmy said:


> I wonder how much he had to pay for that kit, to equip himself properly
> 
> View attachment 75822



Not enough to ditch the Frag Vest apparently


----------



## daftandbarmy (Yesterday at 20:42)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Not enough to ditch the Frag Vest apparently



That tac vest must have cost a bunch...


----------



## rmc_wannabe (Yesterday at 20:59)

daftandbarmy said:


> That tac vest must have cost a bunch...


Reminds me of working with the Aussies in Egypt. 

Everyone showed up to our combined range day wearing only issued kit as per the Canadian TF Comd's direction. 

The Aussies, including the RAN Clerk and Quartermaster showed up with SORD plate carrier rigs and Steyrs, while we all looked on enviously. 

It felt like when your more affluent cousin got better toys at Christmas, while you got a sweater to grow into.


----------



## daftandbarmy (Yesterday at 21:50)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Not enough to ditch the Frag Vest apparently



That which does not kill us....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (Yesterday at 22:08)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Reminds me of working with the Aussies in Egypt.
> 
> Everyone showed up to our combined range day wearing only issued kit as per the Canadian TF Comd's direction.


----------



## dimsum (Yesterday at 22:20)

rmc_wannabe said:


> The Aussies, including the RAN Clerk and Quartermaster showed up with SORD plate carrier rigs and Steyrs, while we all looked on enviously.


Steyrs _look _cool, but I preferred firing the C7.

Incidentally, at least based on the Internet, AUSSOF use the M4 series of rifles, _not_ Steyrs.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (Yesterday at 22:54)

dimsum said:


> Steyrs _look _cool, but I preferred firing the C7.
> 
> Incidentally, at least based on the Internet, AUSSOF use the M4 series of rifles, _not_ Steyrs.



They preferred firing our C8s as well. I was not a fan of the Steyr either. 

My point still stands on the fighting order though.


----------



## dimsum (Today at 07:03)

rmc_wannabe said:


> My point still stands on the fighting order though.


What, you don't like going fishing?


----------



## Good2Golf (Today at 08:54)

dimsum said:


> What, you don't like going fishing?


I knew a guy who said it was good for carrying some of his novels he used to read during his down time…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (Today at 08:59)

I turned the Tacvest into a decent “LPSV” on R0 / Impact when we couldn’t get LPSVs issued and had to improvise. I was able to get a decent amount of stuff into it, some issues d kit and some I had/purchased myself. It wasn’t the only carrier we had; we turned the small packs into Go-Bags.  It worked better for that than as an army type cheat rig IMO.


----------



## markppcli (Today at 09:16)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Not enough to ditch the Frag Vest apparently


Tolerance for non issued load bearing kit is high, but 0 for armour / helmets.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (Today at 09:43)

markppcli said:


> Tolerance for non issued load bearing kit is high, but 0 for armour / helmets.



Let me guess;  the CofC is going with the “VAC won’t cover you if…” BS?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (Today at 10:08)

@FJAG  on the SPH vs Towed Howitzer debate.  One thing I've noted that needs to be considered is the effect of loitering munitions or other types of attacks on these weapons systems.  

I've seen a number of videos of attacks on gun positions using loitering munitions where the attack did far more damage to an SPH due to ammunition cook off inside the vehicle which resulted in a total loss of the system.  

This did not occur with a towed howitzer.  The cannon had some scrapes and dents, it may have required new optics but it was otherwise still usable.


----------



## markppcli (Today at 11:21)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Let me guess;  the CofC is going with the “VAC won’t cover you if…” BS?


No more what range standing orders dictate. Usually it’s soft armour as a minimum and plate carriers would take our absurdly over sized softer armour so ya know.


----------



## FJAG (Today at 12:11)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> @FJAG  on the SPH vs Towed Howitzer debate.  One thing I've noted that needs to be considered is the effect of loitering munitions or other types of attacks on these weapons systems.
> 
> I've seen a number of videos of attacks on gun positions using loitering munitions where the attack did far more damage to an SPH due to ammunition cook off inside the vehicle which resulted in a total loss of the system.
> 
> This did not occur with a towed howitzer.  The cannon had some scrapes and dents, it may have required new optics but it was otherwise still usable.


That's if you focus on that one type of munition and getting a hit. And even then it's not true but is the result of the fact that there are more videos from loitering munitions and they make their way onto the internet.

The first thing is that there are hundreds of times more dumb artillery flying around then loitering munitions. Near misses from dumb rounds kill and maim towed gun crews and destroy electronics and optical equipment with slinters which render them ineffective until repaired. SPs survive that. A hit by a loitering munition on a towed gun will also disable/destroy a towed gun. A near miss probably won't because it has a much smaller charge and fragmentation effect than a dumb round.

One can easily defeat the jack in the box effect on an SP by keeping the ammo stored outside of the gun rather than inside, but that just opens some of the crew up to near misses and creates a new set of problems. In addition, as air defences against drones mature, it will become much easier to stop loitering munitions and UAV laser designators from getting through to the rear areas where the guns are. Dumb rounds on the other hand, guided by weapon locating radars and GPS, will remain virtually unstoppable.

The Oryx website isn't much help in that it lists various losses but doesn't show the ratio of types of guns deployed in the first place. Plus I'm not sure how to interpret an "abandoned" gun from a "captured" one. In its rawest and least useful form the ratio of "destroyed" guns to "damaged" ones is: Russian Towed 51/6; Russian SP 187/6; Ukrainian Towed 51/11; Ukrainian SP 54/17. In all cases "destroyed" outnumber "damaged" significantly albeit that Ukrainian guns have a lower ratio of destroyed to damaged than Russian ones and the SP destroyed to towed ratio is higher for the Russians while lower for the Ukrainians. I'm guessing that the fact that there are many more SPs destroyed or damaged has more to do with the ratio of the types of guns deployed and how they are employed rather than vulnerability, but, as I said, I don't have those statistics yet so find it impossible to analyze.

IMHO it's unsafe to draw any conclusions from a small sampling of videos which make it onto the social media because of their dramatic effects. I've worked on towed and SP guns and, quite frankly, when the shooting starts I'd rather be inside a steel box then outside it. I'll keep that attitude until the statistics tell me otherwise.

I'll add one more macabre observation that I get from those videos - its the number of times that people seem to be able to get out of tanks and APCs and the like after they are hit and start to "cook-off". Before all this, I would have thought that virtually impossible.

🍻


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (Today at 12:22)

FJAG said:


> That's if you focus on that one type of munition and getting a hit. And even then it's not true but is the result of the fact that there are more videos from loitering munitions and they make their way onto the internet.
> 
> The first thing is that there are hundreds of times more dumb artillery flying around then loitering munitions. Near misses from dumb rounds kill and maim towed gun crews and destroy electronics and optical equipment with slinters which render them ineffective until repaired. SPs survive that. A hit by a loitering munition on a towed gun will also disable/destroy a towed gun. A near miss probably won't because it has a much smaller charge and fragmentation effect than a dumb round.
> 
> ...


Agree with all of the above, and my statement was just an anecdote, it is an area that requires further study. 

There are indicators though that towed artillery has performed better than expected while some SPH has suffered higher losses/performed worse than expected.  The question becomes why?


----------



## FJAG (Today at 12:45)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Agree with all of the above, and my statement was just an anecdote, it is an area that requires further study.
> 
> There are indicators though that towed artillery has performed better than expected while some SPH has suffered higher losses/performed worse than expected.  The question becomes why?


Again, I'm not so sure that it has performed better than expected.

If I take a look at the M777 numbers, I think that the Ukraine received roughly 100 from the US and 4 from us. Oryx's loss statistics are 22 destroyed and 1 damaged. That's around 25% of the N777 fleet and close to 45% of their combined towed howitzers destroyed. One can draw numerous conclusions from this - the M777 is particulalry vulnerable or the Russians are specifically going M777 hunting - I just don't know what.

I've looked at the photos/videos of those on Oryx and there is no doubt in my humble mind that all those guns are toast and beyond any repair capability. I've only drawn one conclusion from this: If they find your gun and the Lancet gets through the air defence then the gun is in all probability gone regardless as to whether it is towed or self propelled.

🍻


----------



## KevinB (Today at 12:50)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Agree with all of the above, and my statement was just an anecdote, it is an area that requires further study.
> 
> There are indicators though that towed artillery has performed better than expected while some SPH has suffered higher losses/performed worse than expected.  The question becomes why?


Some of the SPA (and other items) are exceedingly maintenance intensive. 

One of the biggest take aways is that a lot of GWOT data and current trends are trash when it comes to an actual large conventional war.   You don’t a lot of safe (everything is relative) enormous FOB’s to run contract maintenance out of.

Down here a lot of expectations of massive logistics trains and support infrastructure just won’t be available - they aren’t in the Ukraine and it’s showing some pieces of kit aren’t the correct tools for a conflict like that.


----------

