# Rundown of Canadian Army Capabilities Forfeited 1985-2003



## Michael Dorosh (2 Nov 2003)

So let‘s run down the list, here, and see what capabilities we‘ve forfeited.

The Airborne was disbanded - but the regular force infantry battalions retained jump companies.  I have a question on this - are the jump companies in addition to the standard mech or light infantry battalion war establishment?  If not, doesn‘t that mean that in time of war, if we wanted to assemble a parachute battalion, that all the regular force infantry battalions would then be short a rifle company?

Artillery - M109s soon to be gone, replaced by 81mm mortars.  Does this mean the 81s are leaving the infantry battalions?  105s - that darling of the US Army circa 1944 - still on inventory

Armour - all fully tracked vehicles to be phased out; 116 (?) surviving Leopard IIs, recently upgraded, to be (scrapped?  war storage?  sold on ebay? given to Army Cadet corps?) in favour of 66 Strykers.  Question - does this mean that our three regular force armoured regiments will only have enough vehicles for one of them?  What will the other two use?  Cougars?

Infantry - MLVWs on last legs; no replacement vehicle named.  Grizzlies long gone (?)  M113s - on last legs?  Recently upgraded to ACAV standards (circa 1966 Vietnam).  LAV IIIs and Bisons available in - what numbers?

Iltis to finally go, replaced by G-Wagen and Silverado - at less than 1 for 1 exchange

So we‘ve reduced our airborne capability (the CC-130 fleet has been similarly left to whither with our MLVWs, no?), our armoured capability, we have limited airmobile capacity (no more chinooks, but new Gryphons - how many Twin Hueys did the Gryphons replace, we bought 100 of the latter, yes, and a few have crashed?)

Has anyone been doing the math on this?


----------



## Garry (2 Nov 2003)

Since I joined the forces we have lost:

500 Centurions- replaced by Leopard 
120 Leopards- replaced by 60 stryker
all M-109‘s- replaced by mortars
all Kiowa Helo and the scout role
all Twin Huey‘s- replaced by Griffon.
all Chinook and the heavy lift role
all Starfighter and the low level nuke role
all Canuck‘s- replaced by 120 F-18
all CF-5‘s and the dedicated ground attack role 
all VooDoo‘s- replaced by F-18
40 F-18- to be sold/scrapped/pedestal mounts

100 Tutors replaced by 20 Hawks.

4 CMBG and the permanent REFORGER role.

we do not have enough C-7‘s to give one to every CF member (so much for "rifleman first" concept)

some fun, eh?


----------



## nULL (2 Nov 2003)

Yet...somehow...canada has managed to not be invaded, and remain a sovereign country. Careful with the numbers boys, you might lose the rest.


----------



## muskrat89 (2 Nov 2003)

LOL, null - does your Sgt Major REALLY let you keep a daisy stuck in the muzzle of your rifle???


----------



## Gunnar (2 Nov 2003)

It‘s there to distract potential enemies from the complete lack of bullets in the breech!  (They‘re on order...we‘re trading in all existing ammo for two FULL magazines and a some pot.  Cigarettes are bad for you, after all....)


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Nov 2003)

And yet, somehow, despite the tanks and helicopters, the FLQ still murdered and intimidated people, and the Mohawks still put up barricades...shall we get the Americans to defend against internal threats, too?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Nov 2003)

Hey nULL, hows that application process going?!?
If you havn‘t noticed in last few years, a threat doesn‘t have to be a territiorial one to be in the interests of Canadian sovereignty.

Virgins studying sex, hey boys....



> LOL, null - does your Sgt Major REALLY let you keep a daisy stuck in the muzzle of your rifle???


That, my fried, was hilarious....


----------



## nULL (3 Nov 2003)

Infanteer....process is still on track, I now feel pretty good about being physically able to do it. Just need to put on a few more pounds so I don‘t get shucked away and told to "put more meat on my bones". my doctor said the armed forces medical standards "are wierd" and "aren‘t very logical" (his words). 

OK, ok, my post may have been a little misunderstood. Perhaps what I meant to say was, when was the last time that the Canadian military had to "back off" of a deployment, leave a conflict, or suffered large-scale casualites due to lack of material? I dunnooo....why does it seem like everybody keeps saying that if cuts are made, all these bad things will happen to canada - but never do?

I‘m not trying to be vindictive, i‘m just curious as to when all these bad things will happen...here‘s a scenario...what would happen if we had a mighty, well equipped army? what would be different, seeing as how we‘d still be next to the United States?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Nov 2003)

But nULL, we sat out the last two Gulf Wars precisely because we did not have the equipment to participate....at least we have been smart enough not to start something we couldn‘t finish.  But we could have started a lot more, and likely gained a bit more respect in the world (if not self respect) by doing so...


----------



## nULL (3 Nov 2003)

well, not really...we sat out the last gulf war for political reasons (lack of resources was just an excuse i think) but the first...yeah...ok, you‘re right. as for starting wars, that‘s kind of a gray area don‘t you think? i think canada would get more [self] respect if we directed our resources towards peacemaking in those african countries such as Ethiopia, Angola, etc. 

i dunno, that‘s the university student in me talking i think. i just personally would feel "good" knowing that canada was selflessly taking part in military action, as opposed to naturally pursuing it‘s own self interests. guess it‘s a good thing nobody consults me eh? heh. 

still, there‘s alot to be said for finishing the job you start. 


 http://www.playsource.net/justin/ 
it‘s up...


----------



## gate_guard (3 Nov 2003)

Notice how we didn‘t have an official stance on the war in Iraq until after France and Germany stepped up? Then suddenly we just jumped on the peace bandwagon cause it was the "right thing to do". I call bulls***. Reading between the lines, it seems to me that the only reason we didn‘t back up the U.S. in Iraq was because we didn‘t have anything to send anyways. Then France and Germany gave us our "graceful" exit by not backing up the U.S. either. It just reconfirms my suspicions that Jean Cretien is a former CF member who had a sex change and they forgot the nuts. I think Tron still has his extra one, maybe if Jean asks nicely...


----------



## Spr.Earl (4 Nov 2003)

Let‘s all get real!!

As a Nation we can‘t even mobilise a full Division minus!! that‘s even including all the Militia!!

When I was in Bosnia,Roto 0 SFOR(96/97) and did the Transistion over from IFOR to SFOR with 1 C.E.R.,with 12 Field Sqn and a Field Sqn is  supposed to be to 200 +! all rank‘s for War strength!
Guess what?We were called a Sqn "MINUS"! we had 90 all rank‘s!!!!!

Yup what a tour all filling in for the field troop‘s because some section‘s went down to 4 men.
Juggling all over just to cover the gap‘s!!

I know so because I filled in for the section in Corolici twice!!Yet I was the drvr/Rad op for the Recce W.O. for Support Troop I also worked FEL‘s up in the pit because we did not have enough operator‘s to load the dump‘s or drive the dump‘s
we had!!

We could have not sent Troop‘s to the Gulf!!


----------

