# Canadian Airborne..opening for reserves aswell?



## ThatsLife

I've tried looking all over this board for this but I couldn't find it. I've tried looking online but I only found The Canadian Airborne Museum. So i'm going to ask my question:

Is the Canadian Airborne opening up for the reserves aswell? or is it strictly just a regular force unit due to the "aiding of JTF-2" info i've read up on.


----------



## Korus

If you're refering to the Canadian Airborne Regiment, it no longer exists.
If you're refering to getting on a jump course in the reserves, yes, if you're a switched on troop you might be able to get yourself on a jump course.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Ummm the Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded by the politicos due to the fall out after the Somalia affair. Our parachute capability now consists of 3 jump companies in each Light Infantry Battalion.


----------



## ThatsLife

Oh, is that what it is. I might of misunderstood the rumour then. But thank you for the replies, i'll look into it.


----------



## Gayson

I think he is referrinf to that rumor about the new infantry regiment being created.  A lot of fellow reservists I have spoken to seem to think it is an airborne regiment that is being formed.


----------



## McG

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> I think he is referrinf to that rumor about the new infantry regiment being created.   A lot of fellow reservists I have spoken to seem to think it is an airborne regiment that is being formed.


They are all in a fantasy.  There is no new infantry regiment being formed.   A little research on these boards will lead you to some discussion on expanded roles for the light battalions and a new special operations group.


----------



## Gunner

The only Reserve unit with a "jump tasking" is the Queens Own Rifles in Ontario.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL

I have a lot or respect for the men who were in the Airborne regiment, alot of respect! And some for guys in the jump coy's (the one's who realize that there are other soldier's who have a role to play) so don't go bonker's over my opinion. We don't have an airborne capability. Our herc's barely make to Newfoundland. There 2 maybe 3 countries in the world who can field airborne units and they are taking a real hard look at that capability. Like I said I'm not dissing the jumpers in our army, but we have other priorities. We need to qualify our troops with useful qualifications, recruit, and train leader's. I get so sick of hearing reservists who want to transfer to our ranks or BIQ recruits say I want to join the Airborne or the jump Companies. Take a look where we are operating right now. I don't think having your jump course is really going to do you any good. Except being physically fit and aggressive, but if your neither, than you need a new job.


----------



## GDawg

Perhaps mountain ops qualifications will be the next big thing for new troops and reservists to strive for?

Considering operations from our recent past and present Mountain warfare is more important to us in practical terms than being jump qualified.

I'll be the first to admit I ain't an expert on the pointy end of our military, but when was the last time Canadians jumped into combat compared to climbing a mountain to destroy the enemy?


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL

I was in Afghanistan in 2002 and I agree that would have been a more useful skill, especially in Tora Bora. At least an MOI per section would have been good.


----------



## Roy Harding

BITTER PPCLI CPL said:
			
		

> I have a lot or respect for the men who were in the Airborne regiment, alot of respect! And some for guys in the jump coy's (the one's who realize that there are other soldier's who have a role to play) so don't go bonker's over my opinion. We don't have an airborne capability. Our herc's barely make to Newfoundland. There 2 maybe 3 countries in the world who can field airborne units and they are taking a real hard look at that capability. Like I said I'm not dissing the jumpers in our army, but we have other priorities. We need to qualify our troops with useful qualifications, recruit, and train leader's. I get so sick of hearing reservists who want to transfer to our ranks or BIQ recruits say I want to join the Airborne or the jump Companies. Take a look where we are operating right now. I don't think having your jump course is really going to do you any good. Except being physically fit and aggressive, but if your neither, than you need a new job.



Your basic point is correct, BITTER PPCLI CPL.  Airborne forces are ENORMOUSLY expensive in materiel, relative to their strategic value.  Their relative value to a military organization has been argued since at LEAST WWII.  Other training (Mountain Ops? Desert Ops?) may well have more relevance to our current operations.

However - and this is the point many miss - intrinsic to Airborne training is the inculcation of a "can do, will do" attitude that has not been successfully replicated in other types of training.  The soldiers who have gone through this training usually become one of the "movers and shakers" of their organization - regardless that organization is a Section, Platoon, Company, Battalion, or Brigade (or any other organization you care to name).  Jumpers are true force multipliers - regardless they are in a jump slot or not.

Does this mean that Jumpers are "better soldiers"? - absolutely not.

Does it mean that only Jumpers become "movers and shakers"? - absolutely not.

What it DOES mean, is that _so far_ Airborne training is the most _reliable_ means of identifying, and nurturing those "can do" attitudes in "general purpose" soldiers (we'll leave SF out of this for now).  There are other methods and means to achieving the same end - they're just not as reliable.

Take care of yourself BITTER PPCLI CPL - I enjoy reading your posts.


----------



## GO!!!

In my opinion, we keep the jump coys around for an excellent set of reasons.

1) static line parachuting is an equaliser. The standards for entry and continued performance do not decline for anyone, so you must do the same job, even if you are old, female, a visible minority etc.

2) In order to have the motivation to jump 120lbs of kit and know that if you screw up the exit or landing you could be horribly injured - and you still do it, out of personal pride, arrogance, esprit de corps, whatever, then you are demonstrating a degree of dedication that someone safely ensconced in a LAV does not have to - not to say that they could'nt, but no - one is asking them to.

3) PT and trg are usually the hardest and best in the jump coys, not too many men in maternity wear waddling around.

4) Jumpers are all volunteers. You can ask for your green beret back at any time, there's lots of guys that want a maroon one.

5) In my experience, by all quantifiable standards, the jump companies have higher scores on the Cooper's test, and a much larger number of them shoot marksman.

6) The jump coys give troops something to aspire to - a bit more pay, a cool course, a distinctive uniform, and the kickass rush of jumping!!

7) If mountain ops is to become the replacement for the jump course, it will have to be totally reworked, because right now it is hardly more than a civilian course with guns and rations. I've both worked on it and taken it.

This will also be the most controversial part of my post, but in my experience, the people who most often vehemently oppose airborne units, and continually justify their disbandment, are those who never were able to achive the standard required for entry, or continued employment in one - sour grapes if you will.


----------



## pioneer 4ever

i totally agree with GO


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL

But it is it practical for the operation tempo?


----------



## GO!!!

BITTER PPCLI CPL said:
			
		

> But it is it practical for the operation tempo?



To maintain a force of highly motivated, fit, experienced troops who will take any mission on with gusto?

I would lean towards "yes"


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL

So then get the soldiers to increase their fitness level, and if they are not there to accomplish the mission then replace them. Don't spend millions of training dollars so you think we'll get those kind of soldiers. I've had run ins with a few jumpers (I know a few and they're pretty damn cool) and while they're physically fit they are also dumber than a plastic knife, now this is not all jumpers mind you. Don't get me wrong GO, I like your attitude and you know your s*** in your post's. ​


----------



## Roy Harding

BITTER PPCLI CPL said:
			
		

> So then get the soldiers to increase their fitness level, and if they are not there to accomplish the mission then replace them. Don't spend millions of training dollars so you think we'll get those kind of soldiers. I've had run ins with a few jumpers (I know a few and they're pretty damn cool) and while they're physically fit they are also dumber than a plastic knife, now this is not all jumpers mind you. Don't get me wrong GO, I like your attitude and you know your s*** in your post's. ​



Exactly - however, as I stated in an earlier post - Airborne training is the most reliable method _SO FAR_.

What would YOU suggest as a training regime designed to bring out the same qualities?


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL

You have me there CC (and this the last I reply on this topic, just so I don't piss of any administrator's, being new and all) my original point was the capability and spending alot of money,and  from what I hear, we don't have. Do jump course's identify alot of these personalities, yes, does it benefit the whole (because apparently we are supposed to be team players, so I'm told, rarely seen!) I disagree. Recce courses on the other hand identify alot more soldiering skill, while not as much as jumping, I find younger soldiers learn more from a reccer soldier's skills than anything else.


----------



## Island Ryhno

How about incorporating it all into a Ranger style course. Seems to be the best of soldiering and airborne. Thoughts!


----------



## paracowboy

the difference is not what skills are taught, but rather, what mentality is taught. By leaping from an aircraft in flight, you conquer fear. It teaches you things about yourself that you simply cannot learn any other way. By putting up with 2 weeks of (seemingly) pointless abuse, you learn new things about self-discipline. There is no way to convince those who have not experienced it, but I have served alongside legs, and I have served alongside jumpers. There is a noticeable difference when in a jump unit. Not so much in the skills, but in the mentality.
Airborne courses are vital to a war-fighting military. Airborne units are more so. If we want to be a mob of Peace-keepers, than we require neither. If we want to be a war-fighting capable force, then we require Jumpers and the means to produce and transport them.

A few quotes that show what I mean:


> Parachute jumping tests and hardens a soldier under stress in a way nothing short of battle can do. You never know about others. But paratroopers will fight.
> - Field Marshall Montgomery





> ... When an enthusiastic horseman said that there was no delight on earth, like that which could be found on horseback, there were neither aircraft nor parachutes.  If a canter on a good horse is a wonderful sensation, it is one that cannot be compared with that of soaring into the air with the terrific but controlled power of an aircraft.
> ... Greater than either, however, is the almost superhuman sensation of the parachute jump. It alone compresses into the space of seconds feelings of concentrated energy, tenseness and abandon; it alone demands a continual and unconditional readiness to risk one's life. Therefore the parachutist experiences the most exalted feelings of which human beings are capable, namely that of victory over one's self.  For us parachutists, the words of the poet, who said that unless you stake your life you will never win it, is no empty phrase.
> - General-Lieutenant Bruno Brauer
> German Parachute Regiment





> If you want to find out if a guy will fight in battle, find out if he'll jump out of an airplane. If he will, you'll know he's a fighter.
> Brigadier General James M Gavin
> Comd 82 Airborne Division (1944)


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL

I beg to differ on the last quote. The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders who did the bayonet charge, they weren't airborne, the recent VC winner wasn't either, he is a Warrior driver and so are the 100,000 troops fighting and dying in Iraq today.


----------



## paracowboy

the quote doesn't say that NAPs *won't* fight, it simply says that you know a man who'll jump *will* fight. Nothing more.


----------



## Infanteer101

I don't know about the rest of you guys but the title of this topic "Canadian Airborne..opening for reserves aswell?" sounds pretty f***ing hilarious to me, regardless of what's being posted here.


----------



## Unknown Factor

>>Infanteer101<< said:
			
		

> I don't know about the rest of you guys but the title of this topic "Canadian Airborne..opening for reserves aswell?" sounds pretty f***ing hilarious to me, regardless of what's being posted here.



I agree, do you guys not think that you've completely gotten off track? You want to be Airborne in the reserves move to Toronto and join the QOR's, good luck!


----------



## GO!!!

>>Infanteer101<< said:
			
		

> I don't know about the rest of you guys but the title of this topic "Canadian Airborne..opening for reserves aswell?" sounds pretty f***ing hilarious to me, regardless of what's being posted here.



I agree. Wanna be a paratrooper? Join the regs. Otherwise, you will have to be content with tuesday nights and maybe a kilt.


----------



## Infanteer101

LOL GO!!! That was jokes!


----------



## GO!!!

No disrespect intended, but it's true. 

IMHO, being in a jump coy is more about your state of mind and your approach to soldiering, than actually jumping (although that is a big part too)

This cannot be replicated in anything other than a full time unit.


----------



## claybot

If your going to be airborne join another army. One that has the lift capability to drop ina n actual fighting force such as mutilple battalions.
Jumping from a helicopter isn't airborne, its airmobile with a parachute. 
What army in their right mind is going to drop in a single understrength jump company from helicopters. Don't even bother mention there are three jump companies as we all know each jump company has their own SOP.

That should get some of you wound up.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

claybot said:
			
		

> If your going to be airborne join another army. One that has the lift capability to drop ina n actual fighting force such as mutilple battalions.
> Jumping from a helicopter isn't airborne, its airmobile with a parachute.
> What army in their right mind is going to drop in a single understrength jump company from helicopters. Don't even bother mention there are three jump companies as we all know each jump company has their own SOP.
> 
> That should get some of you wound up.



And if your purpose is to start a flame war you won't be hear too long either....


----------



## Hatless Dancer

I look at it this way. There is a ZERO probability of those three jump companies ever deploying by canopy into any operational environment. It aint gonna happen.There are simply not enough bodies, we don't have the aircraft(long range, or with air to air refueling capabilties), and we cannot support them when they hit the ground. We are deluding ourselves if we really think we have any sort of rapid deployment capability. So if the likelyhood of ever using these forces as intended is nonexistant, why maintain them?


----------



## genesis98

I've heard of a few reserve sigs getting jump courses.


----------



## GO!!!

Hatless Dancer said:
			
		

> I look at it this way. There is a ZERO probability of those three jump companies ever deploying by canopy into any operational environment. It aint gonna happen.There are simply not enough bodies, we don't have the aircraft(long range, or with air to air refueling capabilties), and we cannot support them when they hit the ground. We are deluding ourselves if we really think we have any sort of rapid deployment capability. So if the likelyhood of ever using these forces as intended is nonexistant, why maintain them?



By your logic, we could get rid of the armour, fighter jets, the reserves - completely, and most other aspects of the CF. Then we could hire the americans to do it all for us.  :

Seriously, I thought I made it clear that the jumping is secondary to the state of mind cultivated in the jump coys, but I guess you were too busy to read the rest of the thread. 

As such, the question has already been asked, but what would YOU do to cultivate a rapid deployment capability, besides complaining from the influential rank of a retired Cpl? We might not be much compared to our superpower friends to the south, but we have to retain some capabilities until the political climate is more conducive to our capabilities being expanded.

Also, if we are going to compare ourselves to a nation with similar capabilities, start with New Zealand and Australia - not the US. Check out their capabilities as compared to our own, before being the voice of eternal opposition.


----------



## Blakey

> Recce courses on the other hand identify alot more soldiering skill, while not as much as jumping, I find younger soldiers learn more from a reccer soldier's skills than anything else.



I just returned back from a weekend at home, I was looking over a picture from our RECCE Pl, circa 1996. Out of 24 Pte - Cpl's that were in the platoon at that time, I counted 13 or more (some I do not know of their career status) that are now currently of the rank of MCpl to WO. The Basic RECCE Course, if run "properly" can identify soldiers that are capable and competent for advancement not just within RECCE Pl but within the battalion and ultimately the CF.
Some on the other hand, are just lost causes and are happy to be C'sFL.


----------



## GO!!!

And I can count six individuals I know of from one Jump Coy who are in the JTF and three more who are SAR Techs.

Every unit has over - achievers, but I believe that there is a concentration of them in the parachute units.

In addition to this, the effectiveness of a unit is based on the premise of TEAMWORK, so the ability of certain people to get promoted is something of an irrelevant statement, and, I would daresay, more indicative of their ability to work within the sysem, as opposed to demonstrating good soldiering or leadership skills. But that's just me.

In regards to soldier skills, I can think of one troop who froze in the door and was stripped of his wings for it. He passed a recce course the next year, so, does that identify him as a coward or "suitable for advancement" by your ciriteria?

Also, since when do the terms "lost cause" and "CFL" go together?


----------



## Blakey

All valid points GO,
I believe that the Basic Para course is something to strive for,I'm just of the thought that having this capability without "actually" employing them in which the purpose that they were designed is somewhat futile.


> By your logic, we could get rid of the armour, fighter jets, the reserves - completely, and most other aspects of the CF.


Unfortunately, all of the above mentioned have deployed in "their" role sometime over the last 20 years.


> Also, since when do the terms "lost cause" and "CFL" go together?


I should have chosen my words more carefully, as I too, am one of those C'sFL.


----------



## GO!!!

Blakey said:
			
		

> All valid points GO,
> I believe that the Basic Para course is something to strive for,I'm just of the thought that having this capability without "actually" employing them in which the purpose that they were designed is somewhat futile.Unfortunately, all of the above mentioned have deployed in "their" role sometime over the last 20 years.I should have chosen my words more carefully, as I too, am one of those C'sFL.



In reference to your statement that the armour, fighter jets and the reserves have been deployed in their roles - please elaborate - as I chose those three due to the reason that they have not been deployed in their roles. A militia unit has never been deployed as a unit since these units were in fact created from demobilised reg force units. Canadian Tanks have not been deployed anywhere but Germany, and our fighters were deployed, but not used in the air bombardment of Kosovo. Light infantry units have been deployed to every theatre since Korea, and para units have led the way within them, doing every single aspect of their "roles" with the sole exception of a parachute descent, which has yet to become tactically necessary.

So if we are retaining all of this useless capability - why not cut it all - after all, if it has'nt been used recently, it must be bad - right?

By your definition, since the LAV III has not yet roared through the Fulda Gap and into the heart of Russia, it must also be being "wasted" as it's capabilities are not being exploited to the ends it was specifically designed for.

Parachute companies are worth keeping for the same reason the airborne was. Versatile, tough troops, with the ambition required to win.


----------



## McG

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Canadian Tanks have not been deployed anywhere but Germany,


and Kosovo.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> our fighters were deployed, but not used in the air bombardment of Kosovo.


Are you certain of this?



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Light infantry units have been deployed to every theatre since Korea


Not all light infantry is para, just as not all para is infantry . . . but, you already know this.  A valid role for light infantry does not automatically equate to a valid role for parachute infantry.

If anything, the additional flexibility that the airborne capability gives the CF is much like additional coverage on an insurance plan.  The CF as an insurance plan covers many of our needs, but one day we may find we need the coverage only available with parachute forces.


----------



## GO!!!

The statement regarding the tanks was in response to the allegation that all military units must be used specifically in the "roles" that they were designed for. Since the armour in Kosovo neglected to engage in Troop size ops, by Blakey's definition, they must be chopped.

Our Fighters in Kosovo were not permitted to bomb targets due to a lack of precision munitions and targetting gear. They attended the fight though.

I like the comparison to an insurance policy - maybe you don't need us today - or for the next two years - but it sure would be nice when we are needed...

And besides - we spend money on stupid $hit in this military all the time - tac vests, PAff O's, Army TV, why is 22 million for the Parachute program such a stretch? At least we can do the job they trained us for!


----------



## Blakey

Just getting ready to head off to work, will post later.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Actually the Hornets in Kosovo did drop weapons, both conventional and PGMs.  Mk82 and Mk84, 500 and 2000lb bombs and GBU 10 and 12 guided weapons.  From the the Annual Report of the CDS 1999/2000

_The Canadian Forces contributed 18 CF-18 fighters at the height of the campaign, flew more than 675 combat sorties, and accounted for 10 percent of all NATO strike missions._

More info is provided here:

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol1/no1/pdf/55-61_e.pdf

As well, prior to that during the Gulf War in 1990, the CF18s there dropped a few iron bombs towards the end of the campaign as well as a single Hornet engaging an Iraqi vessel with its gun and a missile.

GO!!!, I fully support us keeping a jump capability, but I think you should make sure of your facts before you post.  For example, you state that light infantry troops have been deployed in every theatre since Korea.  Does this include Eritrea where the was a LAVIII coy and a Coyote recce pl.  Does the Coyote recce count as light infantry?  If not, then do you mean the fact that 2 RCR soldiers conducted dismounted patrols makes them light infantry?


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!!

Every trade in the CF likes to justify their trade but sadly we are all facing the same cuts. Armour losing tanks, arty losing m109's, infantry losing mortars etc.
"GO" your posts seem to indicate that in order to be aggressive and motivated you must be airborne which in my opinion is a slap in the face to every soldier not posted to a jump company. 

 I have jumped full equipment onto a DZ at night in the dead of winter and humped for hours just to call fire onto the fantasian army too but I realized long ago that just because a soldier hasn't gotten loaded on a jump course, doesnt mean they are inferior to someone who has.

 Lets not make this an "airborne" only thing. How about we agree Canada needs a "commando" type quick reaction unit trained in mountain ops, special ops, interrogation, airmobile and yes airborne capeable too.


----------



## GO!!!

Ammo Tech 90

In regards to the use of the CF18s in Kosovo, I have encountered statements contrary to yours, I will try to source them for you.

As to the use of a LAV Coy in the light capacity, I would argue that yes, they have in fact operated as light infantry, and further that this is an integral part of their skill set. All Canadian infanteers are trained in the light role long before they see the back of a LAV.

Shelldrake,

I've made it clear in a number of posts (and threads) that one does not have to be in a jump coy to aggressive and motivated, only that those in the jump coys usually are. So if you feel a slap in the face - it is because you can't read the screen in front of you. 

I've also stated a number of times that they attitude encountered in a jump coy is considerably different than one encountered in a LAV coy, and I believe that one is more conducive to performing difficult tasks than the other. 

Also, all of the capabilities you mention (define Spec ops?) with the exception of interrogation are already present in jump coys, and most light infantry formations. (in the reg force anyway)


----------



## AmmoTech90

GO!!!,

As far as Kosovo goes, unless there has been a huge conspiracy amongst the Taz's to spread stories (not unlikely come to think about it ;D) Canadian aircraft dropped Canadian bombs  during the Kosovo campaign.  I know people that went there to load them and a close friend enjoyed a break from Bosnia when he deployed to Aviano from there to ship back ammo.  Quite a bit less came home than went.

Just so it is clear, H Coy of 2 RCR deployed with their LAVs and used them, but they also did dismounted patrols.  If you thought that a LAV coy deployed without their LAVs then ignore the rest of this paragraph.  By your definition, every infantryman who steps outside a vehicle is Light Infantry.  If that is the case perhaps jump qualified pers should be spread around the battalions rather than concentrated in a single company?  The entire regiment would then benefit from the addition of highly motivated and focused pers.  I don't think this is a good idea btw, but if by your definition an infantryman become "light" when he gets out of his vehicle and starts walking then every infantry battalion is "light", especially under the new fleet management where a battalion doesn't have its full compliment of LAVs most of the time.

I would argue that every Canadian infantryman is trained in a dismounted role first rather than a light role.  Splitting hairs, but thats my opinion.  I would agree that, although there may not have been a formed unit (Pl or more), there was probably at least an Infantry Ops WO kicking around somewhere on every mission.


----------



## Unknown Factor

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> I would argue that every Canadian infantryman is trained in a dismounted role first rather than a light role.



Having taught BIQ, this is in fact incorrect. The skills that are taught are infact 'Basic infantry skills' commonly reffered to as 'Light infantry skills' amoung the trade. In fact all infantry soldiers in Canada are light infantry first, the continued training that is offered once they arrive at their parent Bn will dictate whether they are mechanized or light. The splitting of hairs occures when a mechanized soldier dismounts and conducts dismounted operations and the answer is no he is not a light infantry soldier.  The conduct of the overall operations of that Bn are still mechanized operations, hense the terms apply to their speciffic roles not to the temporary employment of the soldier.

This arguement could go on forever but the reality of the situation is that you wouldn't call a light infantry soldier a mechanized soldier just because he mounts the back of a LAV for insertion.  Light infantry soldiers are trained quite differently than mounted soldiers in that they closely follow the training requirments of the CAR becoming proficent in all aspects of Airborne, Mountain, Anphibious and Aimobile operatations and it is this continueous training that sets them apart for their mechanized counterparts.  I belive what "GO" is trying to put accross is that coupled with the large numbers of jump qualified pers and the existing capability at Coy level develops an infectous desire to accomplish the seemingly impossible regardless of the odds.


----------



## Blakey

Ok, just arrived back from work and I will try to respond, _hopefully_ without any repetion from the previous post's.


> The statement regarding the tanks was in response to the allegation that all military units must be used specifically in the "roles" that they were designed for. Since the armour in Kosovo neglected to engage in *Troop size ops*, by Blakey's definition, they must be chopped.





> and Kosovo.


I did not specify any element size, but if you wish, I'd be happy if at least one member out of the 3 jump coy's were to deploy under canopy into the role that they were designed to do.


> Our Fighters in Kosovo were not permitted to bomb targets due to a lack of precision munitions and targetting gear. They attended the fight though.


Gulf War I, Operation Desert Storm,


> When the four-day ground invasion into Kuwait was unleashed in late February, the Canadian Hornets also flew 56 bombing sorties, mainly dropping 500-lb. conventional ("dumb") bombs on Iraqi artillery positions, supply dumps, and marshalling areas behind the lines.



Information Source



> By your definition, since the LAV III has not yet roared through the Fulda Gap and into the heart of Russia, it must also be being "wasted" as it's capabilities are not being exploited to the ends it was specifically designed for.


No, but at the very least they have "roared" down the street in Eritrea, Bosnia, Afhghanistan, and numerous other countries...



> I like the comparison to an insurance policy - maybe you don't need us today - or for the next two years - but it sure would be nice when we are needed...


History is a good teacher...unfortunately the last time Canadians fell from the sky into a theater of operations was....
Even the Americans used their Airborne forces sparingly( jumping, not as conventional ground forces) during the drive to Baghdad.


> At least we can do the job they trained us for!


Without ruffling any feathers, do you mean as "jumpers" or just regular light infantry?

_Spell check was down, please excuse the  typo's, as well sorry if things seem all wonky and out of order, I tried to encompass all the new posts._


----------



## AmmoTech90

Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> The splitting of hairs occures when a mechanized soldier dismounts and conducts dismounted operations and the answer is no he is not a light infantry soldier.  The conduct of the overall operations of that Bn are still mechanized operations, hense the terms apply to their speciffic roles not to the temporary employment of the soldier.



True, thats what I'm trying to get at.  GO!!! stated that mountain ops, special ops, airmobile, airborne skills were present in light infantry formations.  I inferred from that (perhaps incorrectly) that those skills are to a light infantry unit as LAV operations are to a mechanized unit.  Another place to split hairs, is a soldier out of battle school better suited for a light infantry unit or a mech unit?  I don't think it would really matter, they will receive training at the battalion to make them a "mechanized infantryman" or a "light infantryman".  Perhaps I should rephrase from dismounted to basic infantry and maybe the trade should differentiate between basic infantry and light infantry skills because, as you say later, light infantry soldiers receive different training.



			
				Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> This arguement could go on forever but the reality of the situation is that you wouldn't call a light infantry soldier a mechanized soldier just because he mounts the back of a LAV for insertion.


And I think the two of us agree that a mechanized soldier isn't light because he's walking.  
Yes, it could go on for a long time and I am now going to bow out (unless there's more stuff about bombs!) because I'm wandering a bit out of my lane.

Oh, here's a pic of CF18 flying out of Aviano during Op ECHO with 2xAIM9, 2xGBU-10, 1xAIM7, and a targetting pod.


----------



## claybot

Seems this topic can get some peoples blood boiling so to this I'ev started another thread under Combat Arms.

Light Infantry Battalion/Airborne


----------



## PiperDown

"Parachute jumping tests and hardens a soldier under stress in a way nothing short of battle can do. You never know about others. But paratroopers will fight."

- Field Marshall Montgomery -


Enough said..

Cheers,


----------



## reccecrewman

Overall, I think it's nescessary to keep the jump companies.  It gives the switched on, hard charging guys who are genuinely interested in the hard core aspect of the Army something to strive for.  So much of the cool hardcore training and positions have been eliminated, this at least ain't one of them (yet).  In my Regiment, the place to be for the hard nature types was 44, Assault Troop, and now thats gone.


----------

