# Could WW2 military growth be repeated today?



## Silentstriker01 (4 Dec 2010)

Hypothetically, however unlikely, if Canada was to become involved in a major war on the scale of World War 2, how fast would we be able to expand our forces? (Assuming the war had strong political backing). Would Canada be able to repeat WW2 era growth? Or has modern training and equipment become too advanced to rapidly increase armed forces capabilities and numbers?


----------



## SevenSixTwo (4 Dec 2010)

Who knows? The answer would depend on if the training system were to stay the same. Funny enough, the Canadian military was around the same size as it was today pre-WW2.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Dec 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> Who knows? The answer would depend on if the training system were to stay the same. Funny enough, the Canadian military was around the same size as it was today pre-WW2.



Not quite:



> Granatstein notes that "the Permanent Force had only 4,261 all ranks in mid-1939, every unit being under strength." (xxxi) The Militia saw another 46,251 train in 1938-39. (xxxii) So who, exactly, were the other men and women that made up the wartime strength of the Canadian Army, which saw the service of 730,625 (xxxiii) soldiers and support personnel, in Canada and abroad, during the Second World War.


 (source link)

Silentstriker01:

The limitation would be industrial capability to build whatever modern force you are imagining would be the result of "similar" expansion.  The Canadian Army in the Second World war had between 1939 and 1943 (invasion of Sicily) to be provided with equipment, personnel and training to be prepared for that. There was also significant national will to provide the support necessary for that buildup.  Assuming you have the right circumstances, I suppose we could do quite a bit in almost four years of preparation.

Questions like this really need more context to allow for worthwhile discussion.


----------



## 4Feathers (4 Dec 2010)

I suspect there is a plan in place somewhere in the hallowed halls of NDHQ for a scenario like this, involving industry as well as reserve units, working in conjunction with our existing force generation capability. Different COA's already thought out depending on the scenario they were to respond to. Nations would retool their industrial capability to meet the demands. Another challenge would be dealing with multinational companies, who's industrial might although located on our soil, could not be utilized to our benefit. (unless forced to of course). A great deal of our industry is no longer Canadian owned. Putting boots on the ground is only part of the challenge, the big one is meeting the manufacturing needs, and getting the required products to the troops who have been trained on them. Point of case, the Japanese awoke the industrial giant of the USA during WW11. (now to get back to my Sat morning coffee) 

(the opinions expressed above are highly Logistically biased  ;D )


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Dec 2010)

I think the military would be capable, I don't think the 18-25 year old demographic would be willing to fight like they did in 1939.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Dec 2010)

Don't forget that the Canadian government originally wanted to fight a limited war when we started up in 1939. It took the shock of the Blitzkrieg through the Low Countries and France to shock us out of our lethargy. It also meant that we cancelled the plan to close the armoured school (not called that back then) as it had been appreciated that there was no place for tanks in the Canadian military. The original plan was to have a corps of two infantry divisions and corps troops with most of the effort devoted to industry, the navy and the air force, including the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan.


----------



## SevenSixTwo (4 Dec 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Not quite:
> (source link)
> 
> Silentstriker01:
> ...



Im sure the U.S. would be able to spare a few million M-16's.


----------



## Sapplicant (5 Dec 2010)

Welfare switched to workfare would make for a smoother transition, just saying.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Dec 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> Im sure the U.S. would be able to spare a few million M-16's.





			
				Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Welfare switched to workfare would make for a smoother transition, just saying.



I can see it now, the media and opposition party's reactions to Canada building a large army for combat by the thinly veiled conscription of welfare recipients armed with weapons retired by another country.

_For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong._ - H. L. Mencken


----------



## GAP (5 Dec 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I can see it now, the media and opposition party's reactions to Canada building a large army for combat by the thinly veiled conscription of welfare recipients armed with weapons retired by another country.
> 
> _For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong._ - H. L. Mencken



Don't even have to go to the expense of weapons....Iran didn't.......weren't the legions rather good at clearing minefields?...... ;D


----------



## crooks.a (5 Dec 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> Im sure the U.S. would be able to spare a few million M-16's.


If we needed to repeat the same level of military growth, then I wouldn't doubt that the US would be involved, thus drafting troops (and as a result, not being able to spare any weapons).


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2010)

Unless part of the build up involved eliminating the bureaucracy, the ordering and building of weapons would be the biggest bottleneck of all


----------



## Zartan (6 Dec 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Unless part of the build up involved eliminating the bureaucracy, the ordering and building of weapons would be the biggest bottleneck of all



To elaborate on this point, the amount of time, money and labour that goes into building modern military technology has has increased exponentially since the 1940's. Simply to transition to a state of affairs where our industry would be capable of sustaining a "total war" effort would likely require more capital and/or labour then Canada actually has. The effort to try would take a great deal of time and effort in itself - naval procurement being a sterling example of what would happen in such a scenario. Further, access to military technology would be another damper. We have excellent LAVs, ships and small arms, but no capacity to build say, fighter aircraft. In a future scenario wherein our new F-35s were found wanting, the ability for us to swiftly transition to new platforms could very well be many months or even years in the making - even with full access to foreign technology and platforms. We would be hard pressed to equip a force indigenously or even invest in the means - privately or publicly. Foreign capital as investment and purchases of foreign weapons would likely be a necessity in the outset. 

Another issue is demographics. The Canadian population is not as young, relatively, as the population in 1939, and is better employed than we were in the Great depression. Canadian recruiting would likely face a great deal of rivalry from competition in primary and secondary industry as world demand for our food, minerals, metals and whatever leftover industrial capacity we have (or appears) could very well stymy our ability to rapidly expand. Our main advantage over 1939 is the availabilty of women to serve in both military and home-sectors. The presence of women under arms and in industry would put the social history of the Second World War to shame. They would be a necessity in a total war scenario.

One should remember that by the time the Canadian military was ready for large-scale independent operations (a qualification which thus largely excludes the efforts of RCN and RCAF elements under British command for the early phases of the war) the Second World War was over half over. A future war scenario it would take far, far longer to prepare an equivalent force - and cost astronomically more. The cost to train, equip and sustain and individual soldier is massive on it's own, and a massive increase over the Second World War. A private of 1939 made as much in a year as I did in about two days in Afghanistan, and I'm certain it cost far more to feed me and to keep my vehicle running...

Which of course brings us to the price of gas. Given the shift in the paradigm towards full-mechanization, a modern army utilizes vehicles in a way soldiers in the Second World War could only imagine. Given the relative paucity of young men (and women) willing and able to fight on the front lines, not to mention the ability of news media to cover events, it would be a fair scandal to have the infantry ride into battle on tanks as our forefathers did. Vehicles and all those things that run them could be seen as a political necessity, and those things are at a near historic cost and unlikely to drop - not mention the obvious spike that would occur during a "total war"

Of course, all of this is under the assumption that we're not fighting in Canada...


----------



## McG (6 Dec 2010)

Silentstriker01 said:
			
		

> Hypothetically, however unlikely, if Canada was to become involved in a major war on the scale of World War 2, how fast would we be able to expand our forces? (Assuming the war had strong political backing). Would Canada be able to repeat WW2 era growth? Or has modern training and equipment become too advanced to rapidly increase armed forces capabilities and numbers?





			
				SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> Who knows? The answer would depend on if the training system were to stay the same. Funny enough, the Canadian military was around the same size as it was today pre-WW2.


The answer to the first question is no.  We could not ramp-up to a comparable size fighting force in the same time-span.

People and training would not be the limiting factor.  Instead, available equipment and the time/capacity to manufacture new equipment would be the limiting factors.  To make matters worse, we do not buy enough major equipment to kit our standing forces - we buy enough so that we must manage fleets and ship equipment from one target training audience to the next.


----------



## Danjanou (6 Dec 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Welfare switched to workfare would make for a smoother transition, just saying.



You'll have to trust me on this one, but NO.


----------



## Sapplicant (6 Dec 2010)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> You'll have to trust me on this one, but NO.



I feel I should elaborate...

I don't mean take all the people on welfare and give them guns. Put them to work in the factories, shipyards, farms, etc. Don't force them to the front lines. If Canada were to be legit at WAR with a group of other countries, I believe you'd see more than enough capable people signing up to defend Queen and Country. The welfare group would be the ones picking up the slack at home, doing the jobs that were vacated by people enlisting.

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Danjanou (6 Dec 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> I feel I should elaborate...
> 
> I don't mean take all the people on welfare and give them guns. Put them to work in the factories, shipyards, farms, etc. Don't force them to the front lines. If Canada were to be legit at WAR with a group of other countries, I believe you'd see more than enough capable people signing up to defend Queen and Country. The welfare group would be the ones picking up the slack at home, doing the jobs that were vacated by people enlisting.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion.



Yup, again trust me on this NO. 8)


----------



## Comrade (7 Dec 2010)

Kernewek said:
			
		

> To elaborate on this point, the amount of time, money and labour that goes into building modern military technology has has increased exponentially since the 1940's. Simply to transition to a state of affairs where our industry would be capable of sustaining a "total war" effort would likely require more capital and/or labour then Canada actually has. The effort to try would take a great deal of time and effort in itself - naval procurement being a sterling example of what would happen in such a scenario. Further, access to military technology would be another damper. We have excellent LAVs, ships and small arms, but no capacity to build say, fighter aircraft. In a future scenario wherein our new F-35s were found wanting, the ability for us to swiftly transition to new platforms could very well be many months or even years in the making - even with full access to foreign technology and platforms. We would be hard pressed to equip a force indigenously or even invest in the means - privately or publicly. Foreign capital as investment and purchases of foreign weapons would likely be a necessity in the outset.
> 
> Another issue is demographics. The Canadian population is not as young, relatively, as the population in 1939, and is better employed than we were in the Great depression. Canadian recruiting would likely face a great deal of rivalry from competition in primary and secondary industry as world demand for our food, minerals, metals and whatever leftover industrial capacity we have (or appears) could very well stymy our ability to rapidly expand. Our main advantage over 1939 is the availabilty of women to serve in both military and home-sectors. The presence of women under arms and in industry would put the social history of the Second World War to shame. They would be a necessity in a total war scenario.
> 
> ...



Brilliant analysis. Canada would be caught awfully unprepared. Fortunately, the scenario is not very realistic. The concept of total war died in the 20th century. Wars between great power rivals will never be fought like that again.


----------



## Sapplicant (7 Dec 2010)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Yup, again trust me on this NO. 8)



I don't trust anyone I've never had face time with. Please. Elaborate.


----------



## Sapplicant (7 Dec 2010)

Comrade said:
			
		

> The concept of total war died in the 20th century. Wars between great power rivals will never be fought like that again.



We can only hope.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Dec 2010)

Comrade said:
			
		

> Wars between great power rivals will never be fought like that again.



Yeah, thats what they said after world war 1.

Food for thought.........


----------



## Silentstriker01 (7 Dec 2010)

Kernewek said:
			
		

> To elaborate on this point, the amount of time, money and labour that goes into building modern military technology has has increased exponentially since the 1940's. Simply to transition to a state of affairs where our industry would be capable of sustaining a "total war" effort would likely require more capital and/or labour then Canada actually has. The effort to try would take a great deal of time and effort in itself - naval procurement being a sterling example of what would happen in such a scenario. Further, access to military technology would be another damper. We have excellent LAVs, ships and small arms, but no capacity to build say, fighter aircraft. In a future scenario wherein our new F-35s were found wanting, the ability for us to swiftly transition to new platforms could very well be many months or even years in the making - even with full access to foreign technology and platforms. We would be hard pressed to equip a force indigenously or even invest in the means - privately or publicly. Foreign capital as investment and purchases of foreign weapons would likely be a necessity in the outset.
> 
> Another issue is demographics. The Canadian population is not as young, relatively, as the population in 1939, and is better employed than we were in the Great depression. Canadian recruiting would likely face a great deal of rivalry from competition in primary and secondary industry as world demand for our food, minerals, metals and whatever leftover industrial capacity we have (or appears) could very well stymy our ability to rapidly expand. Our main advantage over 1939 is the availabilty of women to serve in both military and home-sectors. The presence of women under arms and in industry would put the social history of the Second World War to shame. They would be a necessity in a total war scenario.
> 
> ...



Interesting, argument although personally I believe that if there was evidence that Canada was directly threatened, recruitment would not be an obstacle.
In the event of a war or the buildup to an inevitable conflict could Canada not acquire the ability to build fighters, tanks, advanced naval ships?


----------



## Danjanou (7 Dec 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> I don't trust anyone I've never had face time with. Please. Elaborate.



And I don't need to nor wish to elaborate to someone who has less TI than my boot laces. I'm the resident SME on this.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Dec 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> The answer to the first question is no.  We could not ramp-up to a comparable size fighting force in the same time-span.
> 
> People and training would not be the limiting factor.  Instead, available equipment and the time/capacity to manufacture new equipment would be the limiting factors.  To make matters worse, we do not buy enough major equipment to kit our standing forces - we buy enough so that we must manage fleets and ship equipment from one target training audience to the next.



I concur.

All the rest of the answers here are basically fantasy.  If Canada ever became involved in a global war such as WW II, a war where Canada rested in relative safety away from both the European and South Pacific conflicts, we would have to fight with what we have on hand.  There would be no military build up possible as our major manufacturing centers and transportation hubs would be (already are) the first locations targeted.  With those being targeted, so would be our major population centers.  Halifax would be a smouldering hole in the ground.  Everything from Quebec City through to Windsor would be a nuclear wasteland.  Sault Saint Marie, Thunder Bay, Churchill, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Victoria and St John’s would all be craters.  They would all be the first to go.  There would be no possibility to retool machinery, recruit people to the CF or work force, let alone manufacture arms and equip a military.  We would have difficulty to contribute to a limited war scenario, let alone try to take on a major war scenario such as WW II.

There would be no opportunity to raise taxes to fund a major war.  There would be no opportunity to nationalize Industry.  There would be no significant population to raise an armed force from.  Canada would be struggling just to survive as a nation in a nuclear wasteland, incapable to contribute an expeditionary force outside of our own borders.

How's that for Doom and Gloom?


----------



## cphansen (7 Dec 2010)

Is it not really a question of time? In the case of a new war, would Canada not have to go to war with the equipment and troops on hand?

Is that not why the Regular Forces changed their primary responsibility from conducting the schools and training the Militia, during the 50's, to being the primary responders, i.e. fighting the battle and being reinforced by the reserves?

I believe in modern warfare that there would not be the time required to get the country deciding on the desired weapons, building them, recruiting people and training them to fight. I believe that we would have more than enough volunteers to create units but not enough time to train units.

I believe Canada could produce units just not well equiped, trained units.

The true issue is time, time is needed to take advantage of Canada's capabilities and population but once time is past, it's gone, we can not go back and make different decisions.

If we are to fight a major war then we must prepare now and celebrate like crazy if the money we spend on preparing for war is wasted because there's no war. I do not believe there's one person here who wants a war, even if they're ready to fight a war to defend Canada.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Dec 2010)

Comrade said:
			
		

> Wars between great power rivals will never be fought like that again.


But if it does occur, I can guarantee with equal validity, that "the boys will be home by Christmas."   





* Obligatory fine print: Although now, the boys _and_ girls will be returning; they are not obligated to return home, but may indicate an HLTA destination of choice; naturally, "Christmas" is not meant to diminish the contribution of those celebrating Hanuka, Kwanzaa, winter solstice....; 19 times out of 20, plus or minus 3.


----------



## Big Red (8 Dec 2010)

We'll also need to factor in  a nine month workup period for our troops once they've been trades trained. Hopefully the enemy has the courtesy to give us a warning order at least two years prior to any major offensives.


----------



## Loachman (8 Dec 2010)

And the HLTA plan for a deployed force of that magnitude would be horrendous.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Dec 2010)

Big Red said:
			
		

> We'll also need to factor in  a nine month workup period for our troops once they've been trades trained.



9 months? You're underestimating....  >


----------



## dapaterson (8 Dec 2010)

Big Red said:
			
		

> We'll also need to factor in  a nine month workup period for our troops once they've been trades trained. Hopefully the enemy has the courtesy to give us a warning order at least two years prior to any major offensives.



Well, from Canada's declaration of war in 1939 to the invasion of Sicily was roughly four years of work-up training.


----------



## ArmyRick (8 Dec 2010)

As far as two major nation vs nation warfare never happening? Don't say that. It may at this time be unlikely but wait for it, IT will happen again. 3 years, 30 years, 300 years? Who knows. 

Look at the episodes between the two koreas recently. Personally if there is a major war to be fought, I would say it would most likely be Koreas. 

As far as mobilizing again? There is the time it takes to DAG all the reg F and reserve pers, get them up to speed, equip them properly and then train an expansion force. Better hope its a long conflict otherwise Canada will not be involved in such a grand scale.

My opinion anyways.


----------



## Tharris (8 Dec 2010)

There would have to be a tonne of qualifications and contingencies but I suppose it is possible from a macro (but superficial) standpoint, but I don't think we would be fighting the same type of war, and with new weapons systems etc it's no longer a matter of having weeks or months to buildup and train forces.  In the 70s and 80s planners realised even the overseas transport of troops is problematic in a global war context.  

All  of this got me wondering what would happen in case of a protracted global conflict...how would today's generation respond to conscription if it became an issue?  Interesting food for thought. 

-T.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Dec 2010)

TWH said:
			
		

> ...how would today's generation respond to conscription if it became an issue?  Interesting food for thought.
> 
> -T.



The same way all previous generations did.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Dec 2010)

TWH said:
			
		

> All  of this got me wondering what would happen in case of a protracted global conflict...how would today's generation respond to conscription if it became an issue?



Well, first they'd go to facebook to complain about how _unfair_ it is that they might have to do something they don't want to do.  Then they'd all go to 4chan to discuss what countries they'd run away to if they had the cojones to be as defiant in real life as they are on the Internet.  And then most of them would fall in and process as expected.  And most of those who did would do their duty.


----------



## Sapplicant (8 Dec 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Well, first they'd go to facebook to complain about how _unfair_ it is that they might have to do something they don't want to do.  Then they'd all go to 4chan to discuss what countries they'd run away to if they had the cojones to be as defiant in real life as they are on the Internet.  And then most of them would fall in and process as expected.  And most of those who did would do their duty.




You left out the part where Army.ca's membership more than triples overnight, and you have to open a new forum dedicated to poorly worded questions on the draft.


----------



## GAP (8 Dec 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> You left out the part where Army.ca's membership more than triples overnight, and you have to open a new forum dedicated to poorly worded questions on the draft.



There's a thread already like that........recruiting..


----------



## Sapplicant (8 Dec 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> There's a thread already like that........recruiting..



Touché.


----------



## Altair (9 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The same way all previous generations did.


Even better if you tell them all it's going to be exactly like call of duty.


----------



## Tharris (9 Dec 2010)

It scares me that said fact would have to be clearly stated...-T.


----------



## Haligonian (9 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I concur.
> 
> All the rest of the answers here are basically fantasy.  If Canada ever became involved in a global war such as WW II, a war where Canada rested in relative safety away from both the European and South Pacific conflicts, we would have to fight with what we have on hand.  There would be no military build up possible as our major manufacturing centers and transportation hubs would be (already are) the first locations targeted.  With those being targeted, so would be our major population centers.  Halifax would be a smouldering hole in the ground.  Everything from Quebec City through to Windsor would be a nuclear wasteland.  Sault Saint Marie, Thunder Bay, Churchill, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Victoria and St John’s would all be craters.  They would all be the first to go.  There would be no possibility to retool machinery, recruit people to the CF or work force, let alone manufacture arms and equip a military.  We would have difficulty to contribute to a limited war scenario, let alone try to take on a major war scenario such as WW II.
> 
> ...



This is just it.  This discussion seems to be focussed on Canada getting involved in some kind of high stakes coventional war where WMD have been conveniently dis missed.

So if that is in fact the debate then I would say that we could not stand up an army like we currently have in that time frame.  But we might be able to stand up a significantly less trained and lesser equipped force. This is what all forces would have to look at in either the fantasy non-nuclear war or the conflict that carries on post nuclear exchange (if such a thing can be imagined or is possible).  If you look at alot of the hardware we have today its like the car that SO nice you're afraid to take it out of the garage (or the comic bood so mint you're afraid to read it). Look at the F-35. They cost roughly $89 million per unit and pilots take at least 3-4 years to train from basic to completion of flight training. Can you imagine losing more than a handful of these things?  What would they replace this with is much cheaper, bare bones, and easier to fly planes that could be produced and manned quicker (if they were replaced at all). Our fighting vehicles are in the same boat.  Extremely expensive by comparison to vehicles produced previously with a much longer training time and larger training bill.  This trend impacts the individual soldier as well, with our basic Privates receiving much more training than previous generations did.  We are an army of quality that in some kind of non-WMD or post WMD war would have to accept some more quantity at the cost of quality.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Dec 2010)

Haligonian said:
			
		

> This is just it.  This discussion seems to be focussed on Canada getting involved in some kind of high stakes coventional war where WMD have been conveniently dis missed.



hence my comment back on page 1:



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Questions like this really need more context to allow for worthwhile discussion.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Dec 2010)

Haligonian said:
			
		

> We are an army of quality that in some kind of non-WMD or post WMD war would have to accept some more quantity at the cost of quality.


Whoa! You're not suggesting we drop Media Awareness off of IBTS, are you?


----------

