# Bigger army



## bossi

I often enjoy Peter Worthington columns - I hope you enjoy this one:

The case for a bigger army
By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun

A recent report in the National Post quoted Maj.-Gen. Lew MacKenzie bewailing the depleted state of the Canadian military and noting that increasingly it is unable to meet combat roles. 

He was responding to an observation by Britain‘s top soldier, Gen. Sir Charles Guthrie, who says too many "humanitarian" roles have reduced the British Army‘s capabilities to fight a real war - which is the prime purpose of the military, if the need arises. 

Maintaining a strong military is a form of insurance against war, deterring any surprise attack. Military preparedness led to "peace" and an uneasy balance of power when the Soviet Union was waging the Cold War. This is conveniently ignored by a succession of myopic Canadian governments which regard the military as a way to save money by cutting personnel, training and equipment while expanding its roles. 

MacKenzie and Guthrie are both right, but nothing is likely to change. The Post quoted retired Gen. MacKenzie - our most experienced peacekeeping soldier - as saying Canada had only about 16,000 effective combat soldiers. 

I doubt MacKenzie intended to say this. Perhaps the reporter misheard. With an army of some 20,000 soldiers - nine under-strength infantry battalions and three depleted armoured regiments, plus minimum artillery - it‘s unlikely we have more than 7,000 "fighting" troops. We can‘t even maintain one brigade (5,000 troops) in action. 

In World War II, the ratio of actual combat troops to support troops in our army was something like 20:1. The Soviet Red Army was around 12:1, while the Chinese in Korea were 6:1. So the idea that 16,000 (80%) of Canada‘s puny 20,000-member army is "combat effective" is wishful thinking. 

Politicians tend to ignore what they don‘t want to hear - like the need for military training in order to be effective. Instead, we cut training to save costs, restrict flying to save fuel, keep ships in drydock to save expenses, limit firing range time to save ammunition costs, risk lives in obsolete helicopters to save buying new ones, barter for cheap equipment instead of buying the best. And so on. 

Instead of command exercises and field training, our troops are resting up or preparing for the next UN or NATO mission. 

When he was deputy commander for operations in Bosnia, Britain‘s Lt.-Gen. Sir Hew Pike, remarked the Canadian military had "surrendered any claim to be a war-fighting force ... is now really just a peacekeeping force." In order to win wars "you must allow us (the military) to generate a sense of duty, self-sacrifice and selflessness and to discriminate, where necessary, between men and women." 

Women combat troops 

This was disputed by the government and the Department of National Defence, whose policy was to have women comprise 25% of combat troops. DND denies this is a "quota." Now DND wants women in submarines. 

U.S. military historian T.R. Ferrenbach (This Kind of War), has noted that democracies are best at fighting "holy wars" when the nation‘s survival is at stake, but lousy at maintaining a military to pursue national interests. In order to effectively defend the human rights and liberties of the nation, an army must forgo some democratic rights and liberties. 

By necessity, the military is disciplined and authoritarian. It requires that members put their lives at risk in the name of duty. The military is not a debating society when it comes to orders - the complaint of a French general during Algeria‘s war for independence. 

In NATO‘s recent air war against Yugoslavia, our side was not prepared to accept casualties, with the result that one perceived oppressor was replaced by another oppressor with fewer restraints and less civility. Mostly civilians were victims. 

The irony today is that democracies are going to need armies more than they did in the Cold War. The U.S. saved the civilized world from Soviet tyranny between 1950 and 1990, but as the likelihood of World War III recedes into the realm of the inconceivable, countries like Canada need larger, not smaller, armies capable of imposing peace on renegade parts of the world on behalf of the UN. 

The zenith of Canada‘s peacekeeping efforts were the years when we had an army that was essentially preparing for World War III. The analogy in those days was that a firehose could be turned down to water the garden, but a garden hose couldn‘t be turned up to put out a fire. 

There you have it. Canada has made its army into a garden hose, complete with a recruiting policy designed to limit our capacity to fight a war. 
- 30 -


----------



## Brad Sallows

As usual, not everything is correct.

Evidently the phrase "combat effective" has been confused with "combat arms".  It may be true that the field force is not currently 100% "combat effective", but not for the reasons implied by Worthington - namely, that combat support and combat service support soldiers are somehow excluded from being "combat effective" (ie. "warfighting effective", if that makes it clearer).

I would suppose that if our "national interests" were to promote peace and stability elsewhere, then the provision of our forces to peacekeeping and peacemaking operations is a wise employment.  To paraphrase Sun Tzu, greatness is never recognized because great people eliminate problems while they are small and manageable.  (I‘m not suggesting greatness, because several problems got out of hand anyway.  Nevertheless, we haven‘t had too many full-blown wars either.  We may have achieved something between the extremes.)

If "survival of the nation" is ever at stake, we‘ll have a remarkable advantage if we have socially conditioned ourselves to accept the presence of women everywhere.

I can think of one example in which the firehose self-destructed while being used for a lesser task.

Worthington rambles quite a bit.  It was unclear to me how our recruiting policy is designed to limit our ability to fight a war.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I take it another error is the 20 to 1 ratio of combat to non combat troops.  That should be the other way around, no?


----------



## Brad Sallows

Yes, the ratio is in the wrong direction.  It is probably also too large.


----------



## The Reverend

As per, the Canadian Army is too little. The problem is in the fact that the battalions are "revolving doors". The troops (the army‘s most precious resource) are treated more like children than soldiers. With budget cuts and understrength, poor equipment and poor leadership (at the top levels) it is no wonder that a) no one wants to be a soldier in Canada ; and b) no one wants to stay in once they are there. There is nothing for a Canadian soldier to strive for anymore. Peacekeeping with the UN and NATO are all good, but the fact that the "Battle Schools" (if they can still be called that) are progressively getting weaker and weaker, and troops are afraid to do anything because of all the "SHARP" and "diversity" training doesn‘t help at all. Would Canada ever be in the postion our British brothers where just in? Probably not. We can‘t call it the "Canadian Armed Forces" anymore, just the "Canadian Forces" in case we offend someone. Who wants to be a part of an organization like that? If we solve some of the problems of "getting rid of" instead of fixing, then maybe our forces will be strong again, not just in numbers, but the quality of the numbers. Until then, we will live in our own shadows until the next major conflict arises, and hundreds of Canadian soldiers get slaughtered.


----------



## the patriot

I strongly prefer to call the military by the name it should be called. The "Canadian Armed Forces". Not social workers without the BSW (Bachelor of Social Work) accreditation.  I guess this is what happens when the younger generation of soldiers start to take command positions and flood the system with politcally correct zealotry.  What will happen next, "No sir, I belay that order because I can‘t run in MK III combat boots.  It will ruin my calves and I won‘t be able to shave them for the next mess function."

-the patriot-


----------



## Mud Crawler

I heard there was like 80 000 uniform personnel and 20 000 civilians working for the army but it fell to somethign like 60 000/12 000 after many budget costs over the year.Maybe, perhaps, theres hope now, since the gov is puttin much needed money back in the national def. Does 60 000 uniform personnel means 60 000 combat troops?


----------



## Mud Crawler

I dont have anything against women at all , but women in a sub my be inapropriate.Theres not even enoguh plce for the men themselves, some sleeping on torpedoes(and when the fuk are they gonna buy GOOD stuff instead of buying out of date  broken subs to the Brits?), i dont think there any place in a sub for women, unless they are ready to share same toilets and everything as man.If teh case, i dont why there shouldnt be any.


----------



## Mud Crawler

Sorry i should have writen everything at once but here it is.
About Worthingtons column, i dont see how our recruiting policy makes us inable to win wars. Its not 19 push ups, 19 setups under a minute and being able to squeeze 50 pounds with ur hands thats gonna make you nto able to make the army, unless your built like a war camp prisonner and u got only skin on bones, well tahts it


----------



## Young KH

How I suppose that this is going to brown a bunch of the guys off but I for one have no idea why Canada would need a SUB in the first place. High speed missile cutters with sub hunting capacity with some 20mm Vulcan canons and maybe some of the most modern torpedoes / missiles would be more appropriate for what we are called upon to do. Some proper attack and transport helicopters wouldn't hurt either.
But most of all we need more Ground troops (Infantry), foot sloggers, the one with the rifle on his shoulder and mostly the one on the ground that needs to have better equipment to help him do his job. Now we all know that for every soldier on the ground we will also need 10 to 15 support personal, now don't take offence but this includes transport, medics, artillery, mechanics, kitchen help and too many more to even mention. Right now we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 60,000 total Canadian Military, which includes the Air Force and Navy and Army. Ground troops (estimate only) is at a level of 7,000 to 9,000 bodies, showing that even what we have is under supported. But some pressure has been taken off by farming out jobs to the private sector such as Medical, Kitchen and most long haul Transport and now they are talking about admin also. 

I feel and this is only my opinion, that Canada needs 20,000 infantry to do the job that it is being asked to do today and even that might be pushing it and the Army support staff needed to be effective, as the demands on our troops does not seem to be decreasing and does not look as if they will any time soon, in fact quite the opposite. The Navy as I said needs high speed multi task smaller ships, not subs and aircraft carriers. Mind you a transport ship or three wouldn't hurt. The Air force needs modern fighters, modern transport planes, modern attack and troop transport choppers just to support and supply the Navy and Ground troops but to protect our coasts and for air and sea rescue, we would also need to beef up the Coast Guard with both equipment and numbers, allowing the Navy and Air force to handle their Military commitments.

The problems as I see them are that we have simply cut the Army back too far, as for the Navy we need to specialize because we are a small (Population wise) nation and do not have the money to play as if we do and the same goes for the Air Force.

Anyway it might not solve everything but it would make life better all around if the troops (Army, Navy and Air Force) could depend on their equipment and because of specialization, they would know exactly what was expected of them and would have enough support to be replaced long enough to train and advance in the chosen Armed Forces careers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Young KH said:
			
		

> How I suppose that this is going to brown a bunch of the guys off but I for one have no idea why Canada would need a SUB in the first place.


If you ask that then you have no idea about naval warfare.



> High speed missile cutters with sub hunting capacity with some 20mm Vulcan canons and maybe some of the most modern torpedoes / missiles would be more appropriate for what we are called upon to do.


High speed misssile cutters??? You prove my point.



> Some proper attack and transport helicopters wouldn't hurt either.
> But most of all we need more Ground troops (Infantry), foot sloggers, the one with the rifle on his shoulder and mostly the one on the ground that needs to have better equipment to help him do his job.


Can't say I disagree with you there



> I feel and this is only my opinion, that Canada needs 20,000 infantry to do the job that it is being asked to do today and even that might be pushing it and the Army support staff needed to be effective, as the demands on our troops does not seem to be decreasing and does not look as if they will any time soon, in fact quite the opposite. The Navy as I said needs high speed multi task smaller ships, not subs and aircraft carriers
> Mind you a transport ship or three wouldn't hurt.


Smaller ships don't fair well in the North Atlantic or North Pacific and if you get rid of subs then yor troop ships have no protection.



> The Air force needs modern fighters, modern transport planes, modern attack and troop transport choppers just to support and supply the Navy and Ground troops but to protect our coasts and for air and sea rescue, we would also need to beef up the Coast Guard with both equipment and numbers, allowing the Navy and Air force to handle their Military commitments.


Having a submarine force plus capable escorts is what enables the navy to handle their military commitments not removing capabilites. 



> The problems as I see them are that we have simply cut the Army back too far, as for the Navy we need to specialize because we are a small (Population wise) nation and do not have the money to play as if we do and the same goes for the Air Force.


Your view is very linear and you don't see the big picture. Joint Ops is the big thing these days and if you remove the AIr Force and Naval capabilites we won't be able to get the foot soldier on the ground. Look at the Navy and AIr Force forums.



> Anyway it might not solve everything but it would make life better all around if the troops (Army, Navy and Air Force) could depend on their equipment and because of specialization, they would know exactly what was expected of them and would have enough support to be replaced long enough to train and advance in the chosen Armed Forces careers.


How is having less eqipment and having nche roles going to make the CF better, if anything you remove the combat effectiveness.

[/quote]


----------



## Young KH

I didn't say that it would make us a better Armed Forces and I did say that it would brown a lot of people off, but we are not and never will be a world power, so should stop thinking like we are. But it will make us a more efficient force in what we have been doing sense the 60's. All of the Armed Forces are undermaned and under equipped because we are a small Nation trying to do it all of the jobs ourselves. We can't afford to buy the biggest and best Subs and the larger ships of the line and buying old run down pieces of junk is not spending our money wisely, but we have in the past proved that we not only are efficient at running escort and sub hunting but even building our own Ships here in Canada.

If we are going to be an intergrated force within NATO then we have to stop duplicating jobs. It's great for the war industry but useless for an Army like that of Canada. We are good at Peace keeping / making and should continue to do that well. We have been known World wide as a more or less a Neutral Country and I HOPE that it remains that way. But lets be serious here no one is going to ask Canada's' Sub force to escort them, not even Canada, and if they did The sub force couldn't do the job anyway. Subs have to be able to work under water to do the job that you suggested.

Cutter, cruiser whatever, I don't know the name or class of ships, SO What. That still doesn't change the reasoning behind what I said. Canada has to specialize because we are too small to do it all and if we specialize we can also trade services for what we require.

If more people would read the meaning behind the postings instead of "Picking Fly Poop out of Pepper" more people might post.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

when I was the army back in the early  90s working at the Army HQ in Toronto,  some numbers were being passed around  comparing the Canadian Army  to NEW YORK CITY  PD , there were more cops in the city  then was ground soldiers in the Canadian Forces. The number of men it took to put one man in the field was like 7 to 1. 

Grunts or men walking with the C7 and holding ground, the only  force capable of holding piece of ground we are very  short of. More then likely we are too short . Enlarging the army, means we should be upsizing the Line regiments, RCR, Vandoos, PPCLI, ( do not meant to cut anyone off) but those are the units that  need a serious number increase, need full size company  numbers,  need full sized Bat.  We cannot and will never field a Division again. But we cannot afford to fake it on paper.

If we supersize the units what  need the man power, we will be able to do the jobs  that  we send the troops on.  When those Line Units are full size the rest of the army  should fall into place and support them.  That is the basics,  we have to get everything required to support the men on the line.  

I will admit I am a former paper pusher,  cut back on my  paper clips, and amount of paper I require, to save money  if it means more troops on the ground. Cut back on a few generals, colonels and some other coffe drinking, donut stuffing faces , chair warming sobs and get back to soldiering.
I know a few Colonels who would take a demotion if it meant they  got to get back to be in the field with the men and being a soldier not a desk jockey. 

We need the equipment, we need the men who can use the equipment, do not need more office chairs to be filled


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Again I would say you know very little about naval warfare so I will give you a quick lesson. Its 3 dimensional:
1) Above
2) On
3) Below
You remove one of those aspects and you lose any effectiveness of a Navy. We lose the subs (BTW if you read about the Collins the Aussies got it was crap initially as well...the CPFs were full of problems initially but have proven their worth time and time again) and we lose a a valuable surveillance asset (being from a Recce Platoon you should realize the capability of a sub), the threat of a sub in an area increases every sailors pucker factor. The list of missions and capabilities have been already stated time and time again so I won't repeat them again.

If people don't pretend to understand what they do not and try to pass off they do then we would not have this problem.


----------



## Young KH

FormerHorseGuard 
Exactly and I can find no wrong in your reasoning, but remember that the last time Canada deployed a large number of troops that we had to beg for transport to get there. This is unacceptable As for me (except for speed) it doesn't matter if we have troop/transport ships or troop/transport planes or even both, but we have been doing the (well almost) same job for 40 years or better, so we should know exactly what is needed to do it.


----------



## Young KH

Just a question, When was the last time that a Canadian Sub was used in war?


----------



## Young KH

Young KH said:
			
		

> Just a question, When was the last time that a Canadian Sub was used in war?


Better yet is when was the last time a Canadian Sub was in fact fit for war?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I could say when was the last time Canada used the TOW missile?

Have you ever read anything on naval warfare? I guess not because if you did you would see that the sub threat world wide is not diminishing its increasing. The best thing to kill a sub (I know the Air Types would argue this  ) is another sub. I freely admit that the Victorias were not the best idea and a U212 prob would have been a better idea.


----------



## Young KH

All I meant about the subs was that Canada would have been better off buying one NEW Nuclear Sub then three old used and lets be honest here pieces of junk from Britain.
As for Navy warfair, I admit that I don't know a thing and don't pretend to, but I do know about spreading yourselves too thin and that is what Canada does, all the time.

As for Re con, just try and see how close you are going to get to the US or British coast line before detection.

But even you must admit that all forces need to be increased, and I would hope that even the navy has priorities of where large expenditures would go. Problems lies in the problem that most generals want the biggest toy in the sand box (pool), but that isn't what is needed today. What is needed in 10 years from now may change, but we are at this time Peace keepers and so that is where the money should be spent. To do a half job now because we want equipment that might come in handy in some future time is wastfull and also not fair to the troops in harms way, right now.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> All I meant about the subs was that Canada would have been better off buying one NEW Nuclear Sub then three old used and lets be honest here pieces of junk from Britain.


4 actually. The problem was having an SSN would be that...it would only be one and it cannot be everywhere at once.



> As for Navy warfair, I admit that I don't know a thing and don't pretend to, but I do know about spreading yourselves too thin and that is what Canada does, all the time.


We always have but getting rid of a capability for a big big area of naval warfare won't solve a thing either.



> As for Re con, just try and see how close you are going to get to the US or British coast line before detection.


Been on a few exercises in my time so I know it can be done. See thats the beauty of having a sub you know its out there, you deploy to look for it and you will hopefully pick it up. Inshore ops is a big thing for submariners these days, the new Virginia class SSNs that are being launched now are even more capable of missions closer to the shore line. SSKs are even more critical these days to prevent Virginia's and their eventual bad guy clones from doing so.



> But even you must admit that all forces need to be increased, and I would hope that even the navy has priorities of where large expenditures would go. Problems lies in the problem that most generals want the biggest toy in the sand box (pool), but that isn't what is needed today. What is needed in 10 years from now may change, but we are at this time Peace keepers and so that is where the money should be spent. To do a half job now because we want equipment that might come in handy in some future time is wastfull and also not fair to the troops in harms way, right now.


I agree but warfare is building blocks, without experience in using those tools you do have how will you be able to do your job in the future when you may really need it. Cutting back and ditching equipment is not the answer.  You cannot actually say getting rid of the Leopards was a great idea or the M109s? Those decisions will come back and haunt the CF.


----------



## aesop081

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The best thing to kill a sub (I know the Air Types would argue this  ) is another sub.



1 Mk 46 selected for TACNAV drop........  ;D



			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> As for Re con, just try and see how close you are going to get to the US or British coast line before detection.



I highly doubt you have any knowledge to back that statement up.....



> But even you must admit that all forces need to be increased, and I would hope that even the navy has priorities of where large expenditures would go. Problems lies in the problem that most generals want the biggest toy in the sand box (pool), but that isn't what is needed today. What is needed in 10 years from now may change, but we are at this time Peace keepers and so that is where the money should be spent. To do a half job now because we want equipment that might come in handy in some future time is wastfull and also not fair to the troops in harms way, right now.



So, floowing your logic, because there were no fires in ( insert city name here) last week, the money for the fire department should be spent somewhere's else ?  Stop using the term peacekeeper, that is not what we ( at least not me) are.  We cannot pick and chose what capabilities we will have as , the funny thing about alliances is that when you realy need them, the dont show up for the fight.

As for you contention tha 1 SSN would have done the job, well yet again you show you are in the wrong arena.  to keep 1 single SSN on patrol you need at least 3 ( one comming off patrol, one on patrol and one ready for the next patrol) some for training and one in long term maintenance !!  Now exactly where do you think the money for that will come from ?  As ex-dragoon mentioned, naval warfare has 3 dimesions and if you dont have all of them you are setting yourself up for failiure.


----------



## Gunner

Young KH said:
			
		

> Just a question, When was the last time that a Canadian Sub was used in war?



Turbot Wars with Spain?


----------



## KevinB

Gunner said:
			
		

> Turbot Wars with Spain?


----------



## Young KH

Are we having fun yet????????? LOL

Not such a dead subject is it????????


Let me know when we get some of these new Virginia class SSNs that are being launched now, then you might have a point. As for one only being able to be in one place, I will admit that four have been in more places but mostly every dry dock for repairs. Troops are getting lots of training there.

Another question I have is why did they get rid of the FN Rifle and why? 

besides why are we talking Navy when the subject is BIGGER ARMY? Ya I know I started it but only because of where the money has and will be spent.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Guy you are so far out of your lane you are on the otherside of the Highway....you cannot admit you really have no clue about naval warfare and you got caught. Stick with what you know.


----------



## aesop081

Young KH said:
			
		

> Are we having fun yet????????? LOL
> 
> Not such a dead subject is it????????
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get some of these new Virginia class SSNs that are being launched now, then you might have a point. As for one only being able to be in one place, I will admit that four have been in more places but mostly every dry dock for repairs. Troops are getting lots of training there.



Again, your ignorance of all things naval come to the ......er....surface.



> Another question I have is why did they get rid of the FN Rifle and why?



Well it has alot to do with those alliances you are so fond of....



> besides why are we talking Navy when the subject is BIGGER ARMY? Ya I know I started it but only because of where the money has and will be spent.



Well, because you brought it up.   And of course, its not just the army that could use a increase in size.   Of course i get the impression that you think that only the army has relevance these days. 

The choice of subs is debatable...YES.   But the decision to maintain a subsurface capability for canada was a wise one.


----------



## Young KH

If you look back and read what I wrote and not what you want to see I did admit that I and I quote"As for Navy warfair, I admit that I don't know a thing and don't pretend to" and by the looks of things that is all you want to talk aboutare   these subs.

We are not at war and don't have the Army, Navy or Air Force to be at war any time soon, and if we are lucky never will need to be art war. My point was if we don't have the money to buy good stuff why are we spending it on useless stuff. Now come back and say I don't know what I am talking about, and you would be right because it has been a long time sense the Navy has sent me their schedule on the subs. The only thing any of us including you can comment on is what has been on the news.   so move on to something else because you are not going to convince me that we need the subs and I will never or so it seems convince you that we don't need them. So let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.


----------



## KevinB

We are official still at was and have been since 9/11.

We got rid of the FN for good reason - please post away in the weapons forum if you wish to debate this.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Young KH said:
			
		

> We are not at war and don't have the Army, Navy or Air Force to be at war any time soon, and if we are lucky never will need to be art war.



Tell that to the guys from 3 PPCLI in Kandahar right now, or the guys from 1 CMBG and 1 PPCLI that will be joining them in February...


----------



## aesop081

Young KH said:
			
		

> If you look back and read what I wrote and not what you want to see I did admit that I and I quote"As for Navy warfair, I admit that I don't know a thing and don't pretend to" and by the looks of things that is all you want to talk aboutare   these subs.
> 
> We are not at war and don't have the Army, Navy or Air Force to be at war any time soon, and if we are lucky never will need to be art war. My point was if we don't have the money to buy good stuff why are we spending it on useless stuff. Now come back and say I don't know what I am talking about, and you would be right because it has been a long time sense the Navy has sent me their schedule on the subs. The only thing any of us including you can comment on is what has been on the news.   so move on to something else because you are not going to convince me that we need the subs and I will never or so it seems convince you that we don't need them. So let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.



Actualy, i will agree to disagree.   But since i hunt subs for a living , i'm sure i'm in a good position to comment on our subs and other countries as well, without using what you see in the news.   That is why YOU are out of your lane and i am crusing in mine just fine.   It is your opinion tha money for subs was a waste...thats fine.   You can say that because you have no understanding of what they bring as far as capabilities to the navy and the training oportunities they bring to ASW forces in this country.   Therfore it is your opinion, and yours only, that is based on less than all the facts.   You have so far only demonstrated a lack of depht in strategic thinking and a very "army-centric" narrow field of view.

I fully recognise the army's challenges , having been in the army for 11 years.   Unfortunately we cannot afford to be a large player but that does not absolves us from the responsability to provide a wide range of capabilities in the service of canadians at home and abroad.   The army needs all sorts of new equipment,  i beleive that it should get it.   But dont dilute yourself by thinking that the army is the only game in town because you think we should be peackeepers and not soldiers.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Actualy, i will agree to disagree.   But since i hunt subs for a living , i'm sure i'm in a good position to comment on our subs and other countries as well, without using what you see in the news.   That is why YOU are out of your lane and i am crusing in mine just fine.   It is your opinion tha money for subs was a waste...thats fine.   You can say that because you have no understanding of what they bring as far as capabilities to the navy and the training oportunities they bring to ASW forces in this country.   Therfore it is your opinion, and yours only, that is based on less than all the facts.   You have so far only demonstrated a lack of depht in strategic thinking and a very "army-centric" narrow field of view.
> 
> I fully recognise the army's challenges , having been in the army for 11 years.   Unfortunately we cannot afford to be a large player but that does not absolves us from the responsability to provide a wide range of capabilities in the service of canadians at home and abroad.   The army needs all sorts of new equipment,   i beleive that it should get it.   But dont dilute yourself by thinking that the army is the only game in town because you think we should be peackeepers and not soldiers.



Amen.   And if I (for some reason) find myself embarked on the new "joint" ship with CEFCOM HQ and the high readiness battle group, I will be more than grateful for the air defence, sub defence, point defence and sheer firepower represented by the 280s, Halifax frigates, and (yes) submarines that will be part of the task group.   In the same vein, I'm sure that the doorkickers going into some s**thole in Afghanistan will be more than grateful for the Aurora that could well be circling overhead, providing overwatch and intelligence, for the close air support that may come from the CF-18s and, especially, for the helicopters that may lift them out of there.

No one in this day and age works alone - its one team and people have to start getting used to that.


----------



## scm77

I won't comment since I don't even have a lane to stray out of, but did anyone else notice this thread was started * 5 years ago* and just bumped up today?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> If you look back and read what I wrote and not what you want to see I did admit that I and I quote"As for Navy warfair, I admit that I don't know a thing and don't pretend to" and by the looks of things that is all you want to talk aboutare   these subs.


You brought them up so I called you on it.



> We are not at war and don't have the Army, Navy or Air Force to be at war any time soon, and if we are lucky never will need to be art war. My point was if we don't have the money to buy good stuff why are we spending it on useless stuff.


Are you qualified to judge on what is and not useless for the CF based on experience rather then the newspaper?



> Now come back and say I don't know what I am talking about, and you would be right because it has been a long time sense the Navy has sent me their schedule on the subs.


Not likely to happen because the movements of a nations subs are one of the closest guarded secrets a nation has.



> The only thing any of us including you can comment on is what has been on the news.


Wrong again, I do this for a living so I know a heck of a lot then what is stated in the news, I work with these guys everyday so I know I have a better idea what they can or cannot do.


> so move on to something else because you are not going to convince me that we need the subs and I will never or so it seems convince you that we don't need them. So let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.


Maybe next time you will pick an area you know more about.


----------



## Young KH

Well said. fact is I'm not even interested in being on the road at all.

Sorry if I hurt some feelings saying that we have not been at war, But until the Canadian Government formally declares WAR we aren't. The fact that other people feel like they are at war with us does not make it so. I have nothing but respect for all of our troops on station. Fact remains that we are on a UN action. The last time that Canada actually declared war (and yes this is going to brown some people off once again) was when they declared The War Messures Act in Oct. 1970 against the FLQ., but that is another topic.

Now on to some other topics. Fire Engines, If we live in a small town that can't afford to buy fire equipment, we don't. You lose some houses maybe or make an agreement with a neighbouring town or pool the resources of 5 or 6 comunities to fight fires. But to buy a (or 4) nice big Fire Engine just like the big City, only to have snow removal, road repair and so on fall by the way side is dumb. Most small towns have those smarts, why doesn't Canada.

Fact is the Ground troops are the ones that are needed at this time and to send them into any posting with anything but the best of equipment in getting very close to murder. We don't have enough ground troops to be safe at any postings. I am talking Infantry , armored and artillery and their support. They are at this time over worked and have very little time left for training or advancement, let alone a personal life. If that browns people off, Tough, learn to live with it.

Yes I noticed that this was a dead posting and was warned that nobody had posted here for over 100 days. I just wanted to see what would happen.

Maybe the only good suggestion is that all forces should get a percentage of the Military budget and if one group wants a whole bunch of new toys and there is no money left to use them, so be it.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> Fact remains that we are on a UN action



And you get this where?  Afghanistan is NOT a UN mission, and there are no blue berets to be seen.

Similarly, declaration of the War Measures Act does not equal a declaration of war.  The last time Canada declared war was on 10 Sept 1939.  Period.

The CF has engaged in combat operations on several occasions since then, including Korea, the Balkans (OP ALLIED FORCE) and, most recently Afghanistan.  Operation APOLLO was certainly war operations, as will be the upcoming Operation ARCHER missions.  To me, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck...



> Fact is the Ground troops are the ones that are needed at this time and to send them into any posting with anything but the best of equipment in getting very close to murder. We don't have enough ground troops to be safe at any postings. I am talking Infantry , armored and artillery and their support. They are at this time over worked and have very little time left for training or advancement, let alone a personal life. If that browns people off, Tough, learn to live with it.



You're way out of your lane here; how do you know that we "don't have enough ground troops to be safe"?  Have you deployed recently?


----------



## Acorn

Ken, the modern reality is you don't need a declaration of war to be at war. Korea wasn't declared, it was a UN-sanctioned *war* though (edit: Teddy R has listed the others). Invoking the War Measures Act is not a declaration of war either. 

Ex-Dragoon,

How is it the Navy is the only service that has managed to not only retain capabilities in the past 30 years, but to increase capabilities? The Army looses tanks - the Navy gains new subs. The Air Force loses (effectively) Tactical Aviation - the Navy gets first rate AAW ships (albeit refits of older ships). The Army reduces it's artillery capability drastically - the Navy transitions from an almost pure ASW force to a truly multi-purpose surface fleet. The only capability the Navy has lost (and I would argue the Navy chose to discard it) is NGFS.

How'd you do it when you haven't had a CDS that lasts longer than the Joe Clark government?

Acorn


----------



## Infanteer

My guess is that, for defence planners, naval capability offers the most "bang for the buck" in terms of manpower, resources, and political capital.   We can send ships with a few hundred sailors to the Persian Gulf or we can have thousands of soldiers and airmen with big footprints operating on land where the potential for casualties is much higher.  Since nothing the CF can do with our current Force Structure and Defence Posture will prove to be decisive, we have to send our military to earn the seat at the council fires, and the Navy seems to be the most economical way of doing so.

Not a sleight to our Naval brethren, only a recognition of what Maritime projection offers strategists.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Acorn said:
			
		

> Ken, the modern reality is you don't need a declaration of war to be at war. Korea wasn't declared, it was a UN-sanctioned *war* though (edit: Teddy R has listed the others). Invoking the War Measures Act is not a declaration of war either.
> 
> Ex-Dragoon,
> 
> How is it the Navy is the only service that has managed to not only retain capabilities in the past 30 years, but to increase capabilities? The Army looses tanks - the Navy gains new subs. The Air Force loses (effectively) Tactical Aviation - the Navy gets first rate AAW ships (albeit refits of older ships). The Army reduces it's artillery capability drastically - the Navy transitions from an almost pure ASW force to a truly multi-purpose surface fleet. The only capability the Navy has lost (and I would argue the Navy chose to discard it) is NGFS.
> 
> How'd you do it when you haven't had a CDS that lasts longer than the Joe Clark government?
> 
> Acorn



I wish I knew Acorn and I wish the other elements did the same. Believe me no one in the navy gloats when someone else looses out. Maybe its because we have been doing Joint Ops with the AIr Force since Unification for us to realize that the loss of a capability helps no one in the CF. As for the NGS its a capaibility we want back.


----------



## Old Sweat

And we will all (well, most of us) agree that our navy has performed superbly. However, once, as John Manley alluded, the bill arrives, we cannot go to the washroom to avoid the casuatlies and trauma of closing with and destroying the enemy. MacKenzie King tried it in 1939 and had to revamp his policy after the fall of France in 1940. To buy a place at the table requires 21-year old platoon commanders saying "follow me," and a whole bunch of kids standing up, hunching their backs and walking into the gates of hell.

Sorry if I got emotional, but that's the price of nationhood.


----------



## aesop081

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Sorry if I got emotional, but that's the price of nationhood.



And IMHO, after years of neglect, canada has run out of room on its credit card.


----------



## Young KH

Finally someone got what I was trying to say.


----------



## aesop081

Young KH said:
			
		

> Finally someone got what I was trying to say.



I meant its time to pay the bill and stop neglecting the armed services.  I, in no way, agree with your vision for the CF.


----------



## Torlyn

Infanteer said:
			
		

> My guess is that, for defence planners, naval capability offers the most "bang for the buck" in terms of manpower, resources, and political capital.  We can send ships with a few hundred sailors to the Persian Gulf or we can have thousands of soldiers and airmen with big footprints operating on land where the potential for casualties is much higher.  Since nothing the CF can do with our current Force Structure and Defence Posture will prove to be decisive, we have to send our military to earn the seat at the council fires, and the Navy seems to be the most economical way of doing so.
> 
> Not a sleight to our Naval brethren, only a recognition of what Maritime projection offers strategists.



I agree with you Infanteer, however I'll add that I think part of it is the diplomatic aspect that goes with having a CPF in a foreign port.  As I've heard from my soon to be MARS bretheren (I LOVE being able to say that now) they spend a bit of time doing the "wine and cheese" thing, with foreign dignitaries.  Given my lack of experience, I can't talk for the other branches, but it seems that the Navy does this more often, and perhaps has been helped a bit more because of it?

T


----------



## Gunner

> I agree with you Infanteer, however I'll add that I think part of it is the diplomatic aspect that goes with having a CPF in a foreign port.   As I've heard from my soon to be MARS bretheren (I LOVE being able to say that now) they spend a bit of time doing the "wine and cheese" thing, with foreign dignitaries.   Given my lack of experience, I can't talk for the other branches, but it seems that the Navy does this more often, and perhaps has been helped a bit more because of it?



Don't forget about the "made in Canada" aspect of most of the capital ships in the navy.   The Frigate program was a huge influx for Canada's shipbuilding industry and there was a large effort to interest other countries in buying the Canadian build Frigate (I don't believe they ever materialized).   The army and air force have less capabilty to "buy Canadian" (no tank, artillery or tacitical aircraft) and often the results are very poor (ie LSVW...).


----------



## KevinB

FWIW I think the Navy has also a much better unified front toward procurment that the other elements.

 Not to simplify their mission - but it appears as they have a vision of how to work and go and do.  Airforce has the fighter pilots, BUFF pilots (both SAR and Airflift), RotorHeads etc.  In the Army we have Light versus Track Toads and the different Arms fighting each others.


----------



## Jaxson

i know most wont agree to what i say, but a bigger army demands more money which it wont get unless something else gets its funding cut, i think our health care should only be free to those who are in welfare to very low income house holds, everyone else i feel should pay,
http://www.cihi.com/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_29may2002_b6_e        according to that we spend $$102.5 billion   on health care if we cut the rich and even middle class income house holds off free health care, would probably save more then half of that which could be put to the army , but then the question becomes... would the Canadian public every agree to this? probably not... i cant say id like to pay for all my health care, but in all honesty, id prefere to know my country is *safer* from terrorists and such instead of knowing "well if i get bombed, its free for them to fix me"   this is just my opinion, and i know it will probably not be welcomed by most of you nor would it probably ever happen.


----------



## Young KH

Come on fellows this is supposed to be about (Bigger ARMY)

It's nice that we are all trying to rethink the acquisitions that the Air Force of Navy has received, But it doesn't matter. That is History and no amount of belly aching is going to change that. What we need to discuss is what can be done in the future to improve the Army's' plight on the ground.

I figure that Money is the problem and if we use the same tactics as the Government (cutting troops to save money) the we should cut where it is costing us the most and use the money to fix the problem. I believe (and yes I know that I have no knowledge(BULL) but in my view, we have too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. We are top heavy on the command structure. We almost have as many Generals now as we had at the height of the second world war. When they were in command of 2 or more Million troops. Forgive me if my numbers aren't exactly right but why do we continue to promote top Officers and at the same time reduce the number of soldiers.


----------



## KevinB

Young KH said:
			
		

> . We almost have as many Generals now as we had at the height of the second world war. When they were in command of 2 or more Million troops. Forgive me if my numbers aren't exactly right but why do we continue to promote top Officers and at the same time reduce the number of soldiers.


 :

2million...

Please THINK about our population then - or http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BACK/1st_CD_Inf_Div.php   


> The First Canadian Army consisted of 1/4 million men, based in England and organized in two corps, subdivided into 5 division and 2 independent tank brigades. The First Canadian Infantry Division sailed from Halifax in December, 1939, but it was three years before they were called into action.


----------



## Young KH

So I take it that you disagree with me that there are too many at the top and no enough troops to do the job.


----------



## KevinB

I would prefer more bayonets - as would 99% of us - but please show me where to cut - rather than make a broad strokes...

 Unfortunately our tech driven ARMY requires a number of officers to administrate projects - projects that have a number of sernior NCO's and Officers that skew our numbers - We need these projects and I KNOW that I as a Cpl (even a stellar staff writing one as myself  ) could never hope to fill those roles.

 As well due to the rank consious nature of Armies we require a number of senior officers in Liason roles which further skew %'ages


----------



## Young KH

KevinB 

Your profile says Mcpl but your answer Says officer at the top complaining about numbers that I right from the start that I wasn't sure on and avoided the question about being too heavy at the top. 

What has become of these sites are they just a place to correct spelling errors or does anyone really want opinions. After all that is why we are in all these places to protect the people right to there opinions. I wasn't asking someone for the exact number and deployment dates of troops in the second world war. I was however stating that there are too many top officers and not enough soldiers and I wasn't meaning office staff.


----------



## Old Sweat

The number of generals in the Second World War is a red herring and is rarely stated correctly. The maximum strength of the Canadian army at any one time was reached in March 1945 and that was somewhere over 400,000 all ranks. Of that, about 250,000 were outside Canada and no more than 160,000-170,000 were in First Canadian Army (FCA). The actual figures can be found in Volume I of the official history. By my estimate there were at least forty officers of the rank of brigadier and above in FCA, plus a multitude of others in L of C, reinforcement and other supporting and training establishments overseas as well as a sizeable command and control structure at home.


----------



## Young KH

Cuts?????????????????? Who was talking about CUTS?????????????????? That is the problem in the first place.

What the Army needs now is increases. I wasn't suggesting cutting top officers but in putting more soldiers or as you call them Bayonet's.

Cuts is what got us to where we are today, and is not the answer is any way shape or form.


----------



## Young KH

Well  Old Sweat 

Why are you so quick with the WWII stats? Stop complaining on what I had to say and give us your opinion on how to improve the Canadian Army. Please

Seems to me that the only people willing to stick their opinions out on the line get it quickly chopped off, by legions of tec (fly poop out of pepper pickers) who themselves don't dare or care to give their own opinions.


----------



## KevinB

Profile says CPL

 I just wish there where 10 pay level incentives...


Dont get me wrong I think there is a lot of redundant pers in the CF, problem is it is hard to identify and areas where I as an 031 would like to cut others feel are needed.   I've looked at a lot of places but when you listen to different project managers etc they can come up with pretty convincing reasons as to why those people (specifically senior Officers and NCO's) need to be retained in those areas.

By Cuts I meant in unnecessary or redunant PY's so you could remuster them or release them and free up funding for more shooters.


----------



## Young KH

Sorry KevinB

My mistake, but it sure seems at times that there are no one out there with any opinions and when someone dares to make one, that there are hundreds of Snippers waiting to pick any statement word by word instead of looking at the content, and what was actually meant. This site started 5 years ago according to someone yesterday and was dead for at least the last year or so, I write one suggestion and am attacked from all sides. Mind you it has opened up the site again.

Here's to more Foot Sloggers, The heart of every Military.


----------



## Young KH

I believe my Point has just been proved. This site was hot when cutting my opinion but was very conspicuous by its total lack of postings as soon as I ask them to come back with their opinions and views.

WARNING to anyone postion anywhere on any site. There are people out there sitting and watching in wait for key words or groops of words, ready to jump all over you and what ever you might say. Not because you are wrong but more because you dare to talk about something that they believe, the only opinion that counts is their own, or because they are working the posts for the specific reason of making sure that their own funding or interests are are not somehow undermined.

I have not been here that long but in every topic there is the same trend to the point (when they can't think of anything else to say) of telling people that they don't know what they are talking about, insults and yes even name calling. These same people have never had an idea of their own or haven't the guts to post them but have all kinds of mouth, opinions and facts that only  spending their time cutting everybody Else's up.

It's almost as if we are being watched and monitored, kept in line so that nothing changes and they can continue to waste the Tax payers monies but not improve the situation at all.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Young KH said:
			
		

> I believe my Point has just been proved. This site was hot when cutting my opinion but was very conspicuous by its total lack of postings as soon as I ask them to come back with their opinions and views.
> 
> WARNING to anyone postion anywhere on any site. There are people out there sitting and watching in wait for key words or groops of words, ready to jump all over you and what ever you might say. Not because you are wrong but more because you dare to talk about something that they believe, the only opinion that counts is their own, or because they are working the posts for the specific reason of making sure that their own funding or interests are are not somehow undermined.
> 
> I have not been here that long but in every topic there is the same trend to the point (when they can't think of anything else to say) of telling people that they don't know what they are talking about, insults and yes even name calling. These same people have never had an idea of their own or haven't the guts to post them but have all kinds of mouth, opinions and facts that only   spending their time cutting everybody Else's up.
> 
> It's almost as if we are being watched and monitored, kept in line so that nothing changes and they can continue to waste the Tax payers monies but not improve the situation at all.



Oh please...   :

You've posted a bunch of nonsensical claptrap masquerading as opinion, then get upset when people challenge you.  I've more or less avoided posting on this (very old) thread, simply because what was being said was so devoid of intellectual content.

The fact of the matter is that you (a) have very, very dated knowledge of what the CF is/does; (b) managed to slag the other two services, then backpedaled when called on it, and (c) will make statements ("UN missions" and "too many officers" springs to mind) without the slightest of facts to back them up.

Educated opinion is more than fine - that's what the site's for.  Most of the people you refer to in such derogatory terms have posted opinions all over this site, many in violent disagreement with government policy - do a search and you'll see.  There's no conspiracy here.  But each one of them is speaking either from direct personal experience or from researched, established facts.  Do the same and no one will jump on you.


----------



## Old Sweat

Mister Young

I was quiet after your previous outburst because I did not trust myself to reply in a rational manner. The reason I questioned your use of patently false Second World War figues is that I have not time at all for people who cannot be bothered to find out things for themselves. 

As for not offering a comment on the size of the army,   I have been long retired and do not consider myself competent to produce any sort of figure without doing more research than I can afford to do. 

If your ideas are clear, sane and doable, then you should have nothing to worry about when posting them.


----------



## KevinB

Teddy did it much better than my rant.


----------



## WogCpl

All have good points, but mine is, what good is a bigger army if you have no airlift, or even a ship to project your force?


----------



## Young KH

But I am having fun. And you guys are talking but if My ideas are so wrong Please set me right with better ideas Please I want and need to know how the ARMY can be (fixed is not the right word) bettered. 

But to set all of you to tasks I have mentioned that my knowledge is at best TV News and can only draw from my time in the Army witch was more then a few years ago. All the information in the world will not make me think that it was a good idea to get out of tanks or to cut the ground troops back to where they sit now. So all the giving me heck for lack of fact is great but meaningless if all you have is fact and no suggestions. Or am I wrong in thinking that no one can dispute that the numbers of Infantry are too low for the tasks at hand.

Sorry if I made anybodies blood pressure go up but sometimes you have to shake it up a bit to get answers.


----------



## aesop081

Young KH said:
			
		

> But I am having fun. And you guys are talking but if My ideas are so wrong Please set me right with better ideas Please I want and need to know how the ARMY can be (fixed is not the right word) bettered.
> 
> But to set all of you to tasks I have mentioned that my knowledge is at best TV News and can only draw from my time in the Army witch was more then a few years ago. All the information in the world will not make me think that it was a good idea to get out of tanks or to cut the ground troops back to where they sit now. So all the giving me heck for lack of fact is great but meaningless if all you have is fact and no suggestions. Or am I wrong in thinking that no one can dispute that the numbers of Infantry are too low for the tasks at hand.
> 
> Sorry if I made anybodies blood pressure go up but sometimes you have to shake it up a bit to get answers.



I'de be realy currious to hear what YOUR solution would be.  Its one thing to think that the ARMY should be bigger but what are your specifics ?  Troop numbers, equipment, units, training .......

Maybe if you proposed something intelligent that doesnt involve slagging the other services, i might give you some credit.  So far all i have seen from you is ranting based on nothing more than personal bias, news reports and uneducated retoric.

Ball's in your court.....


----------



## WogCpl

No apoligies req'd. Canada needs to beef up it's airforce big time. A larger army would be great, but it needs to be able to go places, even if it is only across the country. My answer for now is we need to master the basics, work with what we have, and be able to project it and support it effectively. That goes for all trades, now that the SQ is in, the army troops need to continue praticing the skills learned on their soldiers qualification so that all members of the army have at least a worikng knowledge of basic soldiering skills, be a soldier first so to speak. but try selling that to the civies in uniform. Being a Wog is not a trade or a posting, it's a state of mind!!!!

Quality not Quantity!!


----------



## Young KH

OK

My believes are:

Infantry to increase to pre 1960 numbers. Support to increase as needed
Armored corps to have Tanks again, type unknown.
Navy to have Transport capacity for troops and equipment.
Airforce to have Transport planes for troops and equipment.

Coast Guard to be increased to the point where they can take over coastal watch/ Air and sea rescue.

No granted this is very simplistic and without any tec facts but as you can see I am not proposing any cuts to anyone. 
When I was in the Army I felt that there were not enough postings, however the tasks that the modern army is being asked to do seem (YES TO ME) to be a bit over whelming and in my opinion does not leave enough room for error on the home front.

I don't feel that this is radical and I do believe that with double figures billons of budget surpluses that it is doable. So shot me.


----------



## KevinB

We NEED $ - more than more bodies training is at an all time low IMHO - we may be more capable but that is gadget reliant not basic skill sets.

 FWIW I think our INF (as an INF) is not at an unreasonable deployment level (if anything its low)

Just look south for a lesson on how to endure hardships...


----------



## aesop081

Young KH said:
			
		

> OK
> 
> My believes are:
> 
> Infantry to increase to pre 1960 numbers. Support to increase as needed
> Armored corps to have Tanks again, type unknown.
> Navy to have Transport capacity for troops and equipment.
> Airforce to have Transport planes for troops and equipment.
> 
> Coast Guard to be increased to the point where they can take over coastal watch/ Air and sea rescue.
> 
> No granted this is very simplistic and without any tec facts but as you can see I am not proposing any cuts to anyone.
> When I was in the Army I felt that there were not enough postings, however the tasks that the modern army is being asked to do seem (YES TO ME) to be a bit over whelming and in my opinion does not leave enough room for error on the home front.
> 
> I don't feel that this is radical and I do believe that with double figures billons of budget surpluses that it is doable. So shot me.



Rather lame attemp at making your point.


----------



## Young KH

Well aesop081 

At least it was an attempt lame or not.

Training would come on its own if there were enough people to train and run the courses full time. Right now (and again this is not from personal experience's) the troops are complaining that they don't have the time for training in advanced courses. What with their normal training, postings, some personal life and leave there isn't enough time to go around.(Their words not mine)


----------



## Old Sweat

Having said earlier than I am not very knowledgeable about the current army, I will now prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It seems to me that as a first step we should aim to bring units up to a proper war establishment, which in the case of the infantry would be four rifle companies per battalion. I would also like to see the CSS world separate base and field functions, eg a base establishment and a service battalion as two distinct units.

It may be that this is in the works. If so, good. 

As a next step, I would like to see a bunch of smart folks design a structure to maintain two deployed battlegroups, perhaps with a brigade headquarters, in a hostile environment for a protracted period. With this as an objective there no doubt would be a number of solutions, which then could be war-gamed.


----------



## Young KH

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Having said earlier than I am not very knowledgeable about the current army, I will now prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It seems to me that as a first step we should aim to bring units up to a proper war establishment, which in the case of the infantry would be four rifle companies per battalion. I would also like to see the CSS world separate base and field functions, eg a base establishment and a service battalion as two distinct units.
> 
> It may be that this is in the works. If so, good.
> 
> As a next step, I would like to see a bunch of smart folks design a structure to maintain two deployed battlegroups, perhaps with a brigade headquarters, in a hostile environment for a protracted period. With this as an objective there no doubt would be a number of solutions, which then could be war-gamed.



Nicely put, and Thank you.


----------



## KevinB

Young KH,

 Who are these phantom voices?  The troops tell you... which troops?  
I am HERE to tell you what troops want at least from my perspective as a 031 Cpl.

Training - more of it, and more innovative an relevant.

REAL Missions - which we now have.

What more could and Infantryman want - but a chnace to train and then DO.

Sure we could use many things - but fiscal reality is we will never have a Carrier Airwing or a Nuclear Sub Fleet let alone a 1 Cdn Army force.  You seem to be from the HRDC mindset of lets through money and bodies at it - well we have neither - so we need a force structure that works - your ideas are starrey eyed and rose coloured.

 Stick in the here and now.  Half the units around WASTE tons of money on bullshit rental vehcile for brass etc can drive in style - or waste thousands in sloppy excercises with no clear point (like validating yourself on doctrine you've designed  :).  Or getting a Officer with no shmick trying to teach urban ops rather than qualified urban ops instructor NCO's.  Proving himself and his chain that put him there RTFO.

Stick that in your too PC pipe and smoke it.

I'm tuning you into ignore mode until you have something worthwhile, and I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Young KH

KevinB said:
			
		

> Young KH,
> 
> Who are these phantom voices?   The troops tell you... which troops?
> I am HERE to tell you what troops want at least from my perspective as a 031 Cpl.
> 
> Training - more of it, and more innovative an relevant.
> 
> REAL Missions - which we now have.
> 
> What more could and Infantryman want - but a chnace to train and then DO.
> 
> Sure we could use many things - but fiscal reality is we will never have a Carrier Airwing or a Nuclear Sub Fleet let alone a 1 Cdn Army force.   You seem to be from the HRDC mindset of lets through money and bodies at it - well we have neither - so we need a force structure that works - your ideas are starrey eyed and rose coloured.
> 
> Stick in the here and now.   Half the units around WASTE tons of money on bullshit rental vehcile for brass etc can drive in style - or waste thousands in sloppy excercises with no clear point (like validating yourself on doctrine you've designed   :).   Or getting a Officer with no shmick trying to teach urban ops rather than qualified urban ops instructor NCO's.   Proving himself and his chain that put him there RTFO.
> 
> Stick that in your too PC pipe and smoke it.
> 
> I'm tuning you into ignore mode until you have something worthwhile, and I'm not holding my breath.


hehehehehehehehehe not so nicely put but also valad. Nice to see some opinions now.


----------



## muskrat89

> If that browns people off, Tough, learn to live with it.






> My mistake, but it sure seems at times that there are no one out there with any opinions and when someone dares to make one, that there are hundreds of Snippers waiting to pick any statement word by word instead of looking at the content, and what was actually meant.



So, which one is it?  ???


----------



## Gunner98

Before we decide how big we need to be, we need control over our commitments.  The new security policy and the new CDS are well on the road to establishing some parameters. Parameters which have been absent or fuzzy since 1994.

If we tried to return to war establishment numbers we would quickly run out of money for uniforms and equipment to support them.  Heaven for bid we appear to the global community as building up forces to fight a war.  

Service Battalion, General Support Battalions, Base, Area Support Units - who cares, the Bases merely provide infrastructure support that allows COs and Bde Comds to concentrate on training troops and not worrying about the mundane things like waste management, heating and repairs to roads and grounds.  

After 20+ years of wishing for more bullets and more troops, I am one for letting the CDS shake out his new structure.
  
I notice from your profile that you list the Young Star House - should we infer from that that you are counselor looking for people at Army.ca to whip into shape?  Young Star House is a licensed children's residence facility under the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and an open detention and custody facility under the Ministry of Corrections of Ontario.

Have you met Bruce in your travels, he has a baton for you.


----------



## Young KH

Young Star House - - - -  still own it but haven't worked there for many years. An Agent Orange thing (enough Said)

But we are not allowed to whip anyone in to shape any more then the Sgt (and this is on experience) were allowed in the early 70's heck they weren't even allowed to use bad words in a loud manner. Sort of took the boot out of Boot Camp.

Never Met Bruce but he might as well keep his batton.


----------



## paracowboy

KevinB said:
			
		

> I am HERE to tell you what troops want at least from my perspective as a 031 Cpl.


and I'll add mine as a 031.





> Training - more of it.. more innovative and relevant.


yep





> REAL Missions - which we now have.


most of all. To go out and do the damn job!


> Half the units around WASTE tons of money on bullshit rental vehcile for brass etc can drive in style - or waste thousands in sloppy excercises with no clear point (like validating yourself on doctrine you've designed ).   Or getting a Officer with no shmick trying to teach urban ops rather than qualified urban ops instructor NCO's.


 and this sort of fiscal irresponsibility is found in every unit across the nation, at every level.

You've said on (I think) a couple different threads that troops have told you they want a break. What troops? From where? Speaking for 3 VP, we're desperate to go. Any-friggin'-where! Troops join for one reason - to do the damn job. All the crap we do in Canada is just practicing. The job is out there.


----------



## KevinB

paracowboy said:
			
		

> . All the crap we do in Canada is just practicing. The job is out there.



Amen Brother


----------



## Young KH

Well you asked who said that they are over worked.

Quote "Mr. McCallum said he can't impose a 100 per cent bilingualism requirement on a military that is already overworked and overstressed from repeated overseas deployments."

Or is he uninformed too?


----------



## KevinB

100% bilingualism of the CF would be a collosal waste of $.

 It would take FOREVER to run us all thru the year long french course, and for what value added (to military capability) ?

ZERO

I dont need to speak perfect french (I can get by spoken - well for beers and women    ) to do my mission - CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY THE ENEMY.

 Now realisitcally a better value added would be to get 10% of the Army speaking Arabic, and Pashtu or Dari.


BTW - before you said troops...  I would say a Minister was about as far out in left field from the troops as possible... I would say it was less uninformed and more of a realisist wrt my comments above.


----------



## Old Sweat

With all due respect, and I don't doubt your sincerity, that statement is several years old and perhaps no longer relevent.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

here is a thought or two I have today  on this matter

1) CDS goes to the  Minister of Defence ,  gets told the job they want him to do , CDS picks the units, the man power etc, goes back to the MofD says this  is what  we have for the mission and it costs X dollars. MofD pays X dollars, No more of the leaders setting the mandates and trying to decided what  they want to send or could send. We pay a lot of Generals to make the decesion, let them make them un altered .

2) equipment matters,  CDS looks at requirements and what  is need now, what  is needed this year, and what  is needed in the future, gives list to MoD , MoD  instead of farming it out to various little companies to do the make work projects , he gets it attached to other NATO standing bids, who cares where the truck is made, if it can fit the bill, keep costs down, be on time with delivery dates,  spares parts are easy  to aquire,  it does not have to be made in Canada, or designed here. It just has to work here and work over seas. No more of taking it and redesigning it to fit Canadian content. 

3) weapons & equipment .  airforce, navy  and army should have 3 lists : list  what  they  need right now to do a job, what  they  need to maintain what  they have, long term needs.  start replacing equipment before it is so old museums have the spare parts on display,  instead of buying 1500 new trucks in one year buy  the same number of trucks over 5 years so they  do not all wear out at same time. 

4) Troop level,  Reg Force should have full size units,  a company, sqn, air wing, ships company, full size, put the man power where it is needed.Equip to full size units, no need to borrow or fake exercises, do not learn from driving a  truck with the wrod tank on the side and pretending it is a tank. Real equipment will train better soldiers. Res forces will always have a manning problem, solutions are many, but none will work with out laws in affect to protect jobs at home. 

5) Money increase the budgets,  increase the budgets, and did I say  increase the budgets.  Spend money  now before we have to replace an entire navy or air force and replace all the equipment the army has. Increase pay  and benefits to keep the troops on the job. Provide better care for them at home so they want to stay  in and serve . Increase budgets to pay  for what  is needed, and pay  for less  pf the unneeded stuff like new office decorations, less pay for VIP non sense, I know the VIP stuff is important but do not need spend as much as they spend,  fancy  dinners and stuff feed thme mres or excess rations from the mess hall



I use the trucks thing as example, but i think most major purchases should be looked at way. every Nato nation is buying new equipment,  bulk orders do keep costs down.


----------



## mdh

> Quote "Mr. McCallum said he can't impose a 100 per cent bilingualism requirement on a military that is already overworked and overstressed from repeated overseas deployments."
> 
> Or is he uninformed too?



Oh he was pretty uninformed. He couldn't quite get the difference between Vimy and Vichy.

However I think I get your point.


----------



## paracowboy

Young KH said:
			
		

> Well you asked who said that they are over worked.
> 
> Quote "Mr. McCallum said he can't impose a 100 per cent bilingualism requirement on a military that is already overworked and overstressed from repeated overseas deployments."
> 
> Or is he uninformed too?


you're going off a year-old article quoting McCallum? The media quotes a politican (and an idiot, or is that redundant? But I digress) and THAT's you're evidence? You're disputing actual troops based on the words of a habitual liar as quoted by habitual liars?


----------



## paracowboy

paracowboy said:
			
		

> All the crap we do in Canada is just practicing. The job is out there.


just realized this isn't complete: 

All the crap we do in Canada is just practicing. The job is out there. And we'd best to get to work before the unthinkable happens, and we actually have to go to work HERE.


----------



## Gunner98

Young KH 

Bill Graham was appointed Minister of National Defence on July 20, 2004.  I think Mr. Graham would be more appropriate to quote, but I doubt one year after his appointment, you would find him spewing the same sound bite.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I had the opportunity to have a "one on one" with McCallum when he visited us in Kabul. Let's just say he epitomised everything I believe of our usless politicians.  :


----------



## Young KH

Well I am a bit at a loss here in some postings people want more Army, others just want more money still other want bigger and better toys. There are some saying that they don't have time for proper training because they are on the go all the time. Some seem to be saying that all they do is sit around rotting in Canada. Some say everything is hunky Dorey, others say that there is no money for training and others say that every body is throwing it around like confetti. Who is right?

Is the concept of Volunteering for an over seas posting no longer there?
Is there no one out there that would like the Infantry Batallions filled with a full complament of men who are properly trained, equipped and supported?
Is there no one out there that feels we should be able to deploy our own troops when and where we want to?

If not what is this site and the posting Bigger Army for?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Young KH said:
			
		

> If not what is this site and the posting Bigger Army for?



To keep old delusional reprobates occupied asking inane questions.


----------



## Gunner98

YKH restarted this thread after a 5 year silence by suggesting the Army needs 20,000 more troops, WOW - WHAT A CONCEPT!   

There are approx. 1,000 Regulars awaiting further training in Borden - can you imagine how long the current system would take to absorb, train and post 20,000 soldiers.   We can't find 3,000 or 5,000 so let's set our sights real high and aim for the stars.   

He went on to say, "Anyway it might not solve everything but it would make life better all around if the troops (Army, Navy and Air Force) could depend on their equipment and because of specialization, they would know exactly what was expected of them and would have enough support to be replaced long enough to train and advance in the chosen Armed Forces careers."   

I will humour him with a few more responses:

Is the concept of Volunteering for an over seas posting no longer there?   *Unless your unit is deploying or you are in special MOS/MOC you are out of luck, volunteer in vain.*

Is there no one out there that would like the Infantry Batallions filled with a full complament of men who are properly trained, equipped and supported?   *Since the Inf don't always take the lead on deployments and it is never more than a Coy in the larger contingent, does it really matter how full the Inf Bns are.* 

Is there no one out there that feels we should be able to deploy our own troops when and where we want to?   *If we were to deploy our own troops without Government approval (which takes far too long) I think that would a little too rebellious for most Cdns to handle.*

The current 90-day waiver system post-deployments sees some people constantly away from home - the healthy, good guys (regardless of trade) anyways.   The Army and the CF isn't all about the Infantry.


----------



## KevinB

Gunner98 said:
			
		

> Is there no one out there that would like the Infantry Batallions filled with a full complament of men who are properly trained, equipped and supported?   *Since the Inf don't always take the lead on deployments and it is never more than a Coy in the larger contingent, does it really matter how full the Inf Bns are.*


Cough Cough - Ahem...

I think less than a Bn is the oddity - only ones I can recall are Roto II,III and IV


----------



## Young KH

My God Man, Gunner98,

The only quote you got right was the question about Volunteering.

I didn't say we needed another 20,000. What I said is that the as some in here call them Bayonets need to be brought up to 20,000 men and with full support.

The WE on deploying was meant to mean CANADA not we soldiers on our own, Wake UP. You know Transport ships or planes or both. So that we do not have to beg our friends (which most seem to think aren't) to transport us.

That we can't find 3 or 4 thousand troops willing to join is Bull. That we have made the standards too high and the process too long is more to the point.

That the (and let me quote you exactly here)â ? Since the Inf don't always take the lead on deployments and it is never more than a Coy in the larger contingent, does it really matter how full the Inf Bns areâ ? Is almost as bad as walking around with your eyes closed.

The Terrorists are not finished yet, what has happened in the US, Spain, England, and now Egypt, is some day going to come our way, it's only a matter of time before they get around to us. No Arab Nation can afford Democracy in one of their Nations to work, because if it does none of the rulers be they Dictators, sheikdoms or Kingdome will survive for long. We (and I mean Democracy) are a threat to them and their hold on the people. Us (and here I mean the USA) trying to impose our way of life is curtain death to their control over the masses. So the terrorist are well funded and supplied. This isn't a war between two opposing religions no matter how many people try to make it seem that way; it is a conflict to the death between Democracy and Absolute Rulers. Neither of us can afford to lose this one.

When it happens and I do mean when not if, the problem is where are the troops going to come from to protect our HOMES and people? At this time we don't have the troops to protect Montreal and Toronto let alone adding Vancouver, Regina and Winnipeg to the list. And No I can't prove that , no one can, but if the FLQ, 1970, Oct crises thought us anything, it was that we (The Armed Forces) are not big enough to take on even two cities of any size and protect them. The Police won't be able to handle it, nor can the Navy and Air Force, as for the support groups, I'm sure that they would try but then who is to support them. We need Grunts, foot soldiers and sooner the better. They will need training and I don't mean War training, I mean Police training, the type used for what is coming. It is a War but not a war like any of us here, have ever seen. It will be a long war maybe as long as 10 years. Wake up and smell the coffee man.

Now go ahead guys and rip me apart once again because I dare to have an opinion.


----------



## paracowboy

Gunner98 said:
			
		

> Is the concept of Volunteering for an over seas posting no longer there?   *Unless your unit is deploying or you are in special MOS/MOC you are out of luck, volunteer in vain.*


all too true.



> Is there no one out there that would like the Infantry Batallions filled with a full complament of men who are properly trained, equipped and supported?   *Since the Inf don't always take the lead on deployments and it is never more than a Coy in the larger contingent, does it really matter how full the Inf Bns are.*


 'scuse me? A BN is the norm. These last few Rotos in A-stan have been oddities. As Kevin already pointed out.



> Is there no one out there that feels we should be able to deploy our own troops when and where we want to?   *If we were to deploy our own troops without Government approval (which takes far too long) I think that would a little too rebellious for most Cdns to handle.*


I think it's quite clear he means "we" as in Canada, not "we" as in the Armed Forces or Army.ca, for that matter. And he has a definite point. We can't get anything, or anyone, anywhere on our own.



> The current 90-day waiver system post-deployments sees some people constantly away from home - the healthy, good guys (regardless of trade) anyways.   The Army and the CF isn't all about the Infantry.


no, of course not. It's also about supporting the Infantry.


----------



## paracowboy

Young KH said:
			
		

> The WE on deploying was meant to mean CANADA not we soldiers on our own, Wake UP. You know Transport ships or planes or both. So that we do not have to beg our friends (which most seem to think aren't) to transport us.


see? Toldyaso!



> That we can't find 3 or 4 thousand troops willing to join is Bull. That we have made the standards too high and the process too long is more to the point.


BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA! Standards are too high? If you honestly believe that, then *you're* high! Little girls and middle-aged men are passing Basic. We aren't allowed to fail anyone anymore. We look like the Volksgard (sp) in '45, fer chrissake!



> When it happens and I do mean when not if, the problem is where are the troops going to come from to protect our HOMES and people? At this time we don't have the troops to protect Montreal and Toronto let alone adding Vancouver, Regina and Winnipeg to the list.


so you think we'll put the entire nation under Martial Law, with troops on every corner, sandbagged in? What next? Torchlight parades?



> They will need training and I don't mean War training, I mean Police training, the type used for what is coming.


 wrong. Very wrong. War training is precisely what the troops need. Relevent training to the new type of war. We do NOT serve and protect. We close with and destroy. The line must be maintained or we lose the very freedom we fight to protect. Troops need to learn to fight an asymetrical war. And we are.


> It is a War but not a war like any of us here, have ever seen. It will be a long war maybe as long as 10 years.


 longer.



> Now go ahead guys and rip me apart once again because I dare to have an opinion.


oh, suck it up. Nobody's ripping you apart because you have opinions. They're ripping you apart because you're wrong. You're wrong because you're out of the loop on certain specifics, and are trying to debate with the very people who are the most in those loops.


----------



## Young KH

Thanks paracowboy,

But I don't mid being riped apart, as it goes with the territory. Besides it give people a reason to talk and make suggestions and that can only help.

As for being wrong, well only time will prove that.

As for being out of the loop, was never in it to start with. The Army as I remember it was us Grunts (with no knowledge) took orders from Sgt. and Lt. (with very little knowledge) who were themselves taking orders from Majors (with a bit of Knowledge) who took orders from Lieutenant Colonel (with some knowledge) then full colonels (with a bit more) then to Generals who think they have all the facts who take there orders from Poloticions who know less then the grunts. So I feel in good company.

Good night folks.


----------



## CF-22 Raptor

Hi everybody, i'm new to this forum anyways in my opinion, Canada has a small military and a small budget. Therefore we should value quality over quantity. I think that we have about 16 000 in the army, so why not give them all the latest toys and gadgets? 

I mean how much can it cost to buy top of the line NVG, body armor and guns? Granted vehicles will cost more, but why not spend most of the budget making the infantry happy, before we move on upgrading tanks and APCs? Canada's pretty much a neutral country (can anybody name some enemies?) therefore we have time to gather money and spend them upgrading the CF bit by bit while using the remainder of the budget to maintain the efficiency of other services before it's their turn to have a slice of the pie. 

I think the CF should increase funds to their army. My reasoning is that it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper to maintain 800 men than to maintain a jet, or a ship. The cost of a CF-18 would probably equal the cost of 4 or 5 leopards or give 1000 soldiers top of the line equipment. 

The is how I think the military should spend their money: 

Step 1. Give infantary top of the line equpiment - the best of the best
Step 2. Slowly upgrade canada's armoured division, UAVs, more leopards, and APCs etc
Step 3. Aquire a decent ammount of artilery
Step 4. Buy more troop helicopers, maybe buy some chinooks from the US?
Step 5. Aquire heavy lifts for the air force
Step 6. Aquire troop transports for the navy
Step 7. Start saving money so that canada can upgrade to F-35s by 2020
Step 8. buy more ships for the navy. A few more subs can't hurt
Step 9. It would be nice if Canada reactivated the Airborne or started a Ranger division like the US. I would love tho see that.

Yeah that basically sums up my opinion, i'll probably be disproved within the hour, but what does everyone else think? BTW does anybody know the troop stength of ally and enemy nations? I know that China has an armed forces of about 1 million, wht about the US, UK, and other European nations? Anybody know where i can look that up?


----------



## Britney Spears

The mods should start using this picture more....


----------



## Edward Campbell

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> here is a thought or two I have today  on this matter
> 
> 1) CDS goes to the  Minister of Defence ,  gets told the job they want him to do , CDS picks the units, the man power etc, goes back to the MofD says this  is what  we have for the mission and it costs X dollars. MofD pays X dollars ...
> 
> 2) equipment matters,  CDS looks at requirements and what  is need now, what  is needed this year, and what  is needed in the future, gives list to MoD , MoD  instead of farming it out to various little companies to do the make work projects , he gets it attached to other NATO standing bids, who cares where the truck is made, if it can fit the bill, keep costs down, be on time with delivery dates,  spares parts are easy  to aquire,  it does not have to be made in Canada, or designed here. It just has to work here and work over seas. No more of taking it and redesigning it to fit Canadian content.
> 
> 3) weapons & equipment .  airforce, navy  and army should have 3 lists : list  what  they  need right now to do a job, what  they  need to maintain what  they have, long term needs.  start replacing equipment before it is so old museums have the spare parts on display,  instead of buying 1500 new trucks in one year buy  the same number of trucks over 5 years so they  do not all wear out at same time.
> 
> 4) Troop level,  Reg Force should have full size units,  a company, sqn, air wing, ships company, full size, put the man power where it is needed.Equip to full size units, no need to borrow or fake exercises, do not learn from driving a  truck with the wrod tank on the side and pretending it is a tank. Real equipment will train better soldiers. Res forces will always have a manning problem, solutions are many, but none will work with out laws in affect to protect jobs at home.
> 
> 5) Money increase the budgets,  increase the budgets, and did I say  increase the budgets.  Spend money  now before we have to replace an entire navy or air force and replace all the equipment the army has. Increase pay  and benefits to keep the troops on the job. Provide better care for them at home so they want to stay  in and serve ...
> 
> 
> 
> I use the trucks thing as example, but i think most major purchases should be looked at way. every Nato nation is buying new equipment,  bulk orders do keep costs down.



There is only one thing wrong with your ideas, FormerHorseGuard: they fly in the face of about 500 years of parliamentary practice,  It is the job of the sovereign's civilian advisers (the Privy Council since before the time of Henry VIII, now the cabinet which is, officially, the Committee of the Queen's Privy Council) to defend the realm.  Amongst the things those privy councillors do is to hire sailors and soldiers (including admirals and generals) who will fight the battles the civilians on the Privy Councils decide need to be fought using the resources (money, ships, guns) which those same civilians decide are sufficient for the task.

The CDS is just that: the chief of staff to the commander in chief â â€œ her name is Adrienne Clarkson.  His job is to keep her armed forces in good order, etc and to _manage_ purely military, operational matters.  The CDS is not responsible for defending Canada â â€œ not his job.  The CDS is not responsible for defence policy â â€œ not his job, either.  The CDS is not responsible for budgets or numbers of people or equipment â â€œ none of those are his job.  All those things are the business, the proper business, of the sovereign's ministers and the civil servants they hire to translate policy into programmes.  It doesn't have to be that way but whenever it isn't that way we refer to the government as an oligarchy or dictatorship or something like that.

I, personally, like your No 2; that's a good idea and, in my (considerable) experience you are spot on when you say: _â ? who cares where the truck is made, if it can fit the bill, keep costs down, be on time with delivery dates,  spares parts are easy  to aquire,  it does not have to be made in Canada, or designed here. It just has to work here and work over seas. No more of taking it and redesigning it to fit Canadian content.â ?_  That ought to be branded onto the forehead of every parliamentarian, every bureaucrat and every admiral and general, too. The problem is that most Canadians cannot understand that defence procurement is a 99.9% waste of resources â â€œ we hope* â â€œ and that the money which is, again and again and again, _ad infinitum_ used to make the _best_ Canadian product almost invariably buys an orphan which cannot be supported.

(By the way, I'm being a bit unfair to bureaucrats and generals â â€œ they know that _allied_ procurement almost always buys perfectly good enough equipment at a modest price while Canadian procurement is, in 90+% of the cases, far too expensive and, too often, results in inferior equipment for a premium price.  The problem is that no one wants to tell Halifax shipyard workers to Québec aerospace workers that their government is going to spend billions and billions and every red cent is going off-shore.  We have become accustomed to the _industrial benefits_ or _offsets_ programmes which are, always, and I say this with 100% absolute certainty, a total a complete waste of every cent.  We never, ever, under any circumstances get something for nothing, we pay, usually at about 120% rate, for every _benefit_.  It is a scam, but it is a popular scam with politicians and crooked lobbyists both of whom are lying to an ill-informed populace for their own political or financial reasons.  Let me repeat that: every industrial offset programme is a waste, nothing is 'free' and most politicians and most lobbyist lie about it for their own benefit.  Canadians don't understand this because journalists are, as a group â â€œ stupid and lazy.  Working your way through procurement requires a very slight acquaintance with arithmetic â â€œ something which most journalist lack.  That's why they ended up ion journalism school â â€œ almost every other honours degree requires an elementary level of mathematics so that graduates can assess data, not journalism, it is 'home' for the innumerate.)

I can assure you that your No 3 was (and almost certainly still is) part of the process for the service chiefs in NDHQ.

No one disputes your 4 and 5, but see my opening shot â â€œ parliament, meaning the people of Canada, decides on how much, how many, how big (or small) and how good (or not so good).  Defence ranks, consistently, down with symphony orchestras and foreign aid when Canadians are asked about their tax/spend priorities. 

</rant>  _*Sorry, FormerHorseGuard, I just hammered away at you because you provided an entrée.*_

----------

* Because we want forces which are ready, willing and able to go anywhere and fight we hope that their mere existence will deter attacks on Canada and that by cooperating with other, like minded democracies, we can _keep te peace_ in the world by a combination of muscle and example.


----------



## Gunner98

CF-22 Raptor - What is your estimate of the total cost of this shopping list. " More Leopards" - we don't have any operational at the moment, do we?  Canada as a "neutral" country - interesting concept - I guess being a G-8/7, UN and NATO card carrying country might affected that status!

"Anybody know where I can look that up?"  Ever heard of Google? Or Wikipedia- it is an on-line, free encyclopedia - give it a try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China

YKH - I guess by cutting and pasting your statements and questions I misquoted you - 'splain how that happened.  I just re-read (I ask myself why?) your nausea about 20,000 troops total and not more.  I guess it was too late at night, not unlike your "original" post - 5 years too late.

I guess Rotos 2-4 are all anomalies.  I figured it was becoming the norm.


----------



## KevinB

OP ARCHER is set for a INF BN BattleGroup (1VP)


----------



## paracowboy

Gunner98 said:
			
		

> I guess Rotos 2-4 are all anomalies.   I figured it was becoming the norm.


nope. It was even stated when we started doing a half-assed job that we were only sending small numbers of bayonets to give the grunts a break, and let us train up some fresh meat.

CF-22 Raptor, I had actually typed out a long and drawn out response to your neutrality remark, but have distilled it to this:You really need a clue. However you couldn't get a clue during clue mating season, in a field full of horny clues, if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue-mating dance. What's next? Callin' me a peace-keeper?


----------



## Jaxson

for a bigger army, we would also need a bigger population country wise,  because well lets face it, theres only so many people who want to be in the army and unless more people come to the country or are born and raised and then want to join the military, we cant expect a huge number of new people into the military unless a population growth justifies it. my suggestion: make All immigrants who are capable and within a good age range (or don't have kids or parents to look after) i mean yeah there would have to be some type of limitations but I'm sure you know what i mean... serve a mandatory 2-3years of service in the Canadian Forces(why not right? we pay for them to come here ((sometimes)) we give them money for homes, schooling and so on, we should get more out of it)


----------



## Edward Campbell

CF-22 Raptor said:
			
		

> ....
> The is how I think the military should spend their money:
> 
> Step 1. Give infantary top of the line equpiment - the best of the best...



The "best" is the bitter, incredibly expensive and usually late enemy of the "perfectly adequate".


----------



## Young KH

Jaxson said:
			
		

> for a bigger army, we would also need a bigger population country wise,   because well lets face it, theres only so many people who want to be in the army and unless more people come to the country or are born and raised and then want to join the military, we cant expect a huge number of new people into the military unless a population growth justifies it. my suggestion: make All immigrants who are capable and within a good age range (or don't have kids or parents to look after) i mean yeah there would have to be some type of limitations but I'm sure you know what i mean... serve a mandatory 2-3years of service in the Canadian Forces(why not right? we pay for them to come here ((sometimes)) we give them money for homes, schooling and so on, we should get more out of it)



I do know something about this. I the Ontario distric that I was three years ago there were over 3000 that applied to join the Armed Forces and only 15 accepted. problem lies not in the want but in the accepting.


----------



## KevinB

CF-22 Raptor said:
			
		

> Hi everybody, i'm new to this forum anyways in my opinion, Canada has a small military and a small budget. Therefore we should value quality over quantity. I think that we have about 16 000 in the army, so why not give them all the latest toys and gadgets?



I rather have more trainign dollars teaching troops how to shoot and how to do thigns than many whizz bang toys that look cool but not be abke to use them for no funding.


> I mean how much can it cost to buy top of the line NVG, body armor and guns? Granted vehicles will cost more, but why not spend most of the budget making the infantry happy, before we move on upgrading tanks and APCs? Canada's pretty much a neutral country (can anybody name some enemies?) therefore we have time to gather money and spend them upgrading the CF bit by bit while using the remainder of the budget to maintain the efficiency of other services before it's their turn to have a slice of the pie.
> 
> I think the CF should increase funds to their army. My reasoning is that it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper to maintain 800 men than to maintain a jet, or a ship. The cost of a CF-18 would probably equal the cost of 4 or 5 leopards or give 1000 soldiers top of the line equipment.



Due you aint got a clue - Para covered that one well
But just a quick idea.
 PVS-14 MNVG - $2200 USD
 PEQ-2A CLAD -   $1400 USD
 EOTECH HDS -    $275 USD
 URX MWS Rail -   $225 USD
 MICH/ACH Helmet - $500 USD
 Eagle CIRAS VEST w/ Armour - $1400 USD
no GPS or RADIO yet...



> The is how I think the military should spend their money:
> 
> Step 1. Give infantary top of the line equpiment - the best of the best



Infantry need kit - not sure what your infantary need.


----------



## Jaxson

well if out of 3000 applicants only 15 passed, then i do believe that is one thing they need to fix, if there is that much a turn down rate then how will our army ever get big? i mean yeah alot of them probably failed the process due to their own lack of preparation, but still 2985 failed... thats just like a bit extreme in my opinion.. 

i have a question for you:

what do you believe the highest contributing factor or top 2 factors in applicants being turned downed from the army is?


----------



## Young KH

#1 Government doesn't want to increase the Army.

#2 Politically correct and equal Representation Bull.

And I meant only 15 were ever given the chance to try out for the Military. The others didn't fail but were never contacted in the first place.


----------



## Jaxson

ahh okay, well thanks for clearing up the number thing... and they should increase our army size, it is needed if not for over seas, for at the minimum our homeland defense...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Was it possible that only these 15 met with these _high_ stanndards you allude too>


----------



## Young KH

Tried to join but were not called back.
Never said that the Army should run the show, but would be nice if the Government did.
Wasn't a recruter but have information from one. NNNPD

NOTE:
Something..........TO SIT DOWN AND THINK ABOUT!

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 300 employees and has the following statistics:

a)  30 have been accused of spousal abuse.
b)  9 have been arrested for fraud
c)  14 have been accused of writing bad cheques.
d)  95 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
e)  4 have done time for assault
f)  55 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
g) 12 have been arrested on drug related charges
h) 4 have been arrested for shoplifting
i) 16 are currently defendants in lawsuits
j)  12 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year.

Can you guess which organization this is?



















It is our 301 elected MP's in the Canadian Parliament

The same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws designed to keep the rest of us in line.

Which one did you vote for?

Source: THE OTTAWA CITIZEN Newspaper
Pass this on to every Canadian you know.

And think about it, these are the same people who want to rob the Pension kitty and refuse us pensions.



these are your fearless leaders.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> Can you imagine working for a company...blah, blah, blah..


  You know that none of this is true and that the "list" never appeared in the Citizen..?  It's all an Internet hoax and is complete BS.




> And think about it, these are the same people who want to rob the Pension kitty and refuse us pensions.


  And where did this come frome?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think its also been made about the US Congress and the British Parliament as well.


----------



## Young KH

Bill C-78

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/1999/34/text.html

http://www.afp-aac.org/


----------



## aesop081

Young KH,

I must say that you have definately steped off the reality train here.   Your nonsense gave you very little credibility when this thing started and now i'm sure that alot pf people here feel you have none.   Take a minute, sit back and shake your head.   You have obviously have nothing to contribute to the discussion here and nothing to contribute to the CF in general.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Young KH said:
			
		

> I do know something about this. I the Ontario distric that I was three years ago there were over 3000 that applied to join the Armed Forces and only 15 accepted. problem lies not in the want but in the accepting.



 And what District would that be?
How 'bout posting the weblink to this info, or tell us how you came by this little gem.


----------



## the 48th regulator

> I must say that you have definately steped off the reality train here.  Your nonsense gave you very little credibility when this thing started and now i'm sure that alot pf people here feel you have none.  Take a minute, sit back and shake your head.



Can't, it is an Agent Orange thing....

dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Young KH said:
			
		

> And think about it, these are the same people who want to rob the Pension kitty and refuse *us* pensions.



Your profile shows what, 11 - 12 years Reg service? Unless you served in one of the other orgs listed, enough to be vested, you're not entitled to *our* pension.


----------



## DogOfWar

recceguy said:
			
		

> Your profile shows what, 11 - 12 years Reg service? Unless you served in one of the other orgs listed, enough to be vested, you're not entitled to *our* pension.



You guys are just being petty now Recceguy. So his 11-12 years of service dont mean anything? You could quote his service in a more respectful manner than that. Adding the term "what" shows that you cant even be bothered to check his profile.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> You guys are just being petty now Recceguy. So his 11-12 years of service dont mean anything? You could quote his service in a more respectful manner than that. Adding the term "what" shows that you cant even be bothered to check his profile.



Read what the man has been saying the last couple of days and it will become clear to you.


----------



## aesop081

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Can't, it is an Agent Orange thing....
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Oh yeah..i forgot..the agent orange bandwagon............he migh have fell off the reality train but i guess he found another one


----------



## Young KH

Sense there was absolutely no opinions at this site sense  « Reply #8 on: September 30, 2000, 02:32:00  »  until I made one and that was back on page # 1 and we are now almost at the end of page 8, it would seem that what I have to saw has made a difference. I don't pretend to have all the answers but I do have opinions, wrong or right. 

The Army by its very nature is very secretive and so anyone with real knowledge would not be found posting here, but I would rather be wrong 10 times and be called on it then to have been right once and never mentioned it.

Fact is although there was a lot of verbal diarrhea here and even some un-necessary bad language, there were some (a few posts) real opinions that make sense and were listened to. If someone has to get you so mad that you can't shut up any more, to make you think and come up with some suggestions, then so be it and I did accomplish that. 

I was proven wrong in most cases and completely out of time (not current info) but I did try, as for most of you, if you spent as much time thinking of how to improve the Armed Forces as you did on damming others, the site might even make a difference.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> You guys are just being petty now Recceguy. So his 11-12 years of service dont mean anything? You could quote his service in a more respectful manner than that. Adding the term "what" shows that you cant even be bothered to check his profile.



Before you start double tasking your air breather, YOU better check YOUR facts. His profile shows service from 65-77 or 11-12 years. That was not enough to be vested for pension, you got a return of contributions. He's implying that the Gov't is denying him a pension. So unless he served in another org covered by C-78 he's not entitled to it anyway. 

Your the one that's being petty, if in any way you construe a statement of fact to "disrespect of his service", and if your post is indicitive of your thoughts on this thread, your wasting bandwith.


----------



## Young KH

recceguy said:
			
		

> Before you start double tasking your air breather, YOU better check YOUR facts. His profile shows service from 65-77 or 11-12 years. That was not enough to be vested for pension, you got a return of contributions. He's implying that the Gov't is denying him a pension. So unless he served in another org covered by C-78 he's not entitled to it anyway.
> 
> Your the one that's being petty, if in any way you construe a statement of fact to "disrespect of his service", and if your post is indicitive of your thoughts on this thread, your wasting bandwith.



Sorry to bust your bubble, but I have been on pension sense 1977.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Umm there are plenty of opinions on this site, have you even bothered looking through the other topics here? This site is extrememly active all you have to do is look at the number of new members joining and the number of new topics every month. The site has a life of its own; it does not need you or anyone of us really to continue as its been well established, so spare us the false sense that you saved this site.   :


----------



## paracowboy

Young KH said:
			
		

> I don't pretend to have all the answers but I do have opinions, wrong or right...I was proven wrong in most cases and completely out of time (not current info) but I did try...


Ken, you have opinions, and you are, of course entitled to them, and to voice them. I hope now, though, that armed with some facts, you will revise some of those opinions. If not, hey, that's your prerogative. 
Thanks for your service.


----------



## the 48th regulator

> I was proven wrong in most cases and completely out of time (not current info) but I did try, as for most of you, if you spent as much time thinking of how to improve the Armed Forces as you did on damming others, the site might even make a difference.



That's about all I will take.   Listen Pal, I come to this site to enjoy some good chat, read some info, bump into old and new friend.

I don't appreciate someone logging on here, trolling for old topics and spouting out quotes from the enquirer, then proclaiming himself as being the saviour of all down trodden posters.

If you're here to stir shite, then please just go.   Don't go away mad, just go away.   If you are a member of this site to experience what Mike has done for us, and offer more to build the site, then do it.

Now stop trying to find ways to goad us into an argument, please.

dileas

tess


----------



## Young KH

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Umm there are plenty of opinions on this site, have you even bothered looking through the other topics here? This site is extrememly active all you have to do is look at the number of new members joining and the number of new topics every month. The site has a life of its own; it does not need you or anyone of us really to continue as its been well established, so spare us the false sense that you saved this site.   :


hehehehehehehe Again I stand corrected I meant this Topic. Fly poop out of pepper, hehehehehehehe


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Young KH said:
			
		

> The Army by its very nature is very secretive and so anyone with real knowledge would not be found posting here,



I wouldn't say the Governor General is unknowledgable on the subject. She certainly knows more about the current state of the military than you do, and she has posted here in the past. There are also some very high up people in key positions that post here, if you bothered to look around.



			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> I was proven wrong in most cases and completely out of time (not current info) but I did try, as for most of you, if you spent as much time thinking of how to improve the Armed Forces as you did on damming others, the site might even make a difference.



You still haven't verified or quantified the info you gave out.



			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> Sorry to bust your bubble, but I have been on pension sense 1977.



Sorry, I should have realized you may have gone out on a medical pension. When I joined, back in around the same era, IIRC you had to have 20 years to collect a normal pension.


----------



## Britney Spears

> she has posted here in the past.



 Where?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

She posted a few years ago, and the thread is buried in the archives. It's been mentioned before and we had a couple of threads on it. It'll take a lot of use of that elusive    "Search Button"  but it's there somewhere.


----------



## Britney Spears

I assure you, I did about a dozen searches before I asked.


----------



## paracowboy

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I assure you, I did about a dozen searches before I asked.


me too.


----------



## Britney Spears

Hmm, my hasty searches seem to indicate that the moderator known as "Slim" is, in fact, the Governor General. I may have to refine that a little bit though....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

No doubt you did. As I say, it was a very obscure thread. We were pleasantly suprised to find her lurking here, as many others above the glass ceiling do.


----------



## Young KH

Recceguy

Would you mid telling me what opinion that you want and I quote "You still haven't verified or quantified the info you gave out." As I was told, it is because of not answering this that I was given a Verbal Warning.


----------



## Infanteer

Is this thread going anywhere?


----------



## Young KH

I was kind of hoping it would but it needs input from people that are actually on the ground right now not old fogies like me.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Here are some examples Ken:

As for Re con, just try and see how close you are going to get to the US or British coast line before detection.

WARNING to anyone postion anywhere on any site. There are people out there sitting and watching in wait for key words or groops of words, ready to jump all over you and what ever you might say. Not because you are wrong but more because you dare to talk about something that they believe, the only opinion that counts is their own, or because they are working the posts for the specific reason of making sure that their own funding or interests are are not somehow undermined.

I do know something about this. I the Ontario distric that I was three years ago there were over 3000 that applied to join the Armed Forces and only 15 accepted. problem lies not in the want but in the accepting.

NOTE:
Something..........TO SIT DOWN AND THINK ABOUT!
Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 300 employees and has the following statistics:
a)  30 have been accused of spousal abuse.
b)  9 have been arrested for fraud
c)  14 have been accused of writing bad cheques.
d)  95 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
e)  4 have done time for assault
f)  55 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
g) 12 have been arrested on drug related charges
h) 4 have been arrested for shoplifting
i) 16 are currently defendants in lawsuits
j)  12 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year.
Can you guess which organization this is?
It is our 301 elected MP's in the Canadian Parliament
The same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws designed to keep the rest of us in line.
Which one did you vote for?
Source: THE OTTAWA CITIZEN Newspaper
Pass this on to every Canadian you know.
And think about it, these are the same people who want to rob the Pension kitty and refuse us pensions.


----------



## Young KH

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Here are some examples Ken:
> 
> As for Re con, just try and see how close you are going to get to the US or British coast line before detection.
> 
> Above isn't a statement wrong or right it was a challenge.
> ************************************************************************
> 
> WARNING to anyone postion anywhere on any site. There are people out there sitting and watching in wait for key words or groops of words, ready to jump all over you and what ever you might say. Not because you are wrong but more because you dare to talk about something that they believe, the only opinion that counts is their own, or because they are working the posts for the specific reason of making sure that their own funding or interests are are not somehow undermined.
> 
> There are people waiting to pounce, that is not a bad thing. In fact I believe that it is needed, to get people like me up to date faster then if no one answered.
> **********************************************************************************************
> 
> I do know something about this. I the Ontario distric that I was three years ago there were over 3000 that applied to join the Armed Forces and only 15 accepted. problem lies not in the want but in the accepting.
> 
> I did explain this one but will not give the guys name out because he might be still in the Military. I wrote NNNPD (No Names No Pack Drill) behind it.
> *********************************************************************************************
> 
> NOTE:
> Something..........TO SIT DOWN AND THINK ABOUT!
> Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 300 employees and has the following statistics:
> a)   30 have been accused of spousal abuse.
> b)   9 have been arrested for fraud
> c)   14 have been accused of writing bad cheques.
> d)   95 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
> e)   4 have done time for assault
> f)   55 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
> g) 12 have been arrested on drug related charges
> h) 4 have been arrested for shoplifting
> i) 16 are currently defendants in lawsuits
> j)   12 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year.
> Can you guess which organization this is?
> It is our 301 elected MP's in the Canadian Parliament
> 
> This I will admit came by email to me but I can but won't name a lot of the ones that actually have these problems.
> *****************************************************************
> 
> 
> Source: THE OTTAWA CITIZEN Newspaper
> Pass this on to every Canadian you know.
> And think about it, these are the same people who want to rob the Pension kitty and refuse us pensions.
> 
> The pension part I gave you the web sites to look at.


----------



## aesop081

oh yeah...now i'm convinced  :


----------



## Young KH

aesop081 said:
			
		

> oh yeah...now i'm convinced   :



I haven't been trying to convince you or anyone. Just throwing out suggestions, try it, some might even be good ones.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Mr Young,
I will try and salvage this thread.

I think what people here want are facts and/ or good "conversation". I joined this site in 2002 after having being out for 14 years and then I proceded to "listen" and read. My post number in my first year was less than you have in a few weeks.
Even now, I very seldom put my opinion into "these" types of threads as I , and I have no trouble saying this, haven't got a clue what the military really needs. So I read and ask and when an opportunity comes up for me to suggest something I will post it, usually with the disclaimer that I am far from current on anything military.

I have gotten a lot more out of this site than I have put in, it can be a very rewarding place, especially for those of us who have long moved on......


----------



## Young KH

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Mr Young,
> I will try and salvage this thread.
> 
> I think what people here want are facts and/ or good "conversation". I joined this site in 2002 after having being out for 14 years and then I proceded to "listen" and read. My post number in my first year was less than you have in a few weeks.
> Even now, I very seldom put my opinion into "these" types of threads as I , and I have no trouble saying this, haven't got a clue what the military really needs. So I read and ask and when an opportunity comes up for me to suggest something I will post it, usually with the disclaimer that I am far from current on anything military.
> 
> I have gotten a lot more out of this site than I have put in, it can be a very rewarding place, especially for those of us who have long moved on......



Thank You


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Young KH said:
			
		

> Recceguy
> 
> Would you mid telling me what opinion that you want and I quote "You still haven't verified or quantified the info you gave out." As I was told, it is because of not answering this that I was given a Verbal Warning.



The quote you gave about 3000/15 is the one *I'm* concerned about. Those numbers are just to skewed to be believable. Nor did you state the District, which MAY lend credence to the statement. If your going to toss out "facts" like that, you have to qualify them. I can respect your friends right to privacy, but if you can't back a statement like that, it shouldn't be used, as per the guidelines.

I'm not the one that gave you the "Verbal" BTW.


----------



## Young KH

recceguy said:
			
		

> The quote you gave about 3000/15 is the one *I'm* concerned about. Those numbers are just to skewed to be believable. Nor did you state the District, which MAY lend credence to the statement. If your going to toss out "facts" like that, you have to qualify them. I can respect your friends right to privacy, but if you can't back a statement like that, it shouldn't be used, as per the guidelines.
> 
> I'm not the one that gave you the "Verbal" BTW.


I know you didn't but you must also understand if I gave the district then they would know the who. There are other examples of this sort but as I seem to get in poop all the time I believe I will leave it at that. I was told by the Recruter that they were told how many that they were allowed to send for training. By what I'm hearing here is that some of them choices were not the best. But it was fact.


----------



## Gunner98

YKH "Never Met Bruce but he might as well keep his batton."

Bruce "Mr Young, I will try and salvage this thread."

Now you have met.  I thought since you were both involved with troubled youth you may have met before.  

Bruce speaks many words of wisdom, I think he could teach you as he has many (of us) a little about "playing nice" and "listening."


----------



## McG

Young KH said:
			
		

> How I suppose that this is going to brown a bunch of the guys off but I for one have no idea why Canada would need a SUB in the first place.





			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> All I meant about the subs was that Canada would have been better off buying one NEW Nuclear Sub then three old used and lets be honest here pieces of junk from Britain.





			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> you are not going to convince me that we need the subs.





			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> if we don't have the money to buy good stuff why are we spending it on useless stuff.





			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> Fire Engines, If we live in a small town that can't afford to buy fire equipment, we don't. You lose some houses maybe or make an agreement with a neighbouring town or pool the resources of 5 or 6 comunities to fight fires. But to buy a (or 4) nice big Fire Engine just like the big City, only to have snow removal, road repair and so on fall by the way side is dumb. Most small towns have those smarts, why doesn't Canada.


Your position seems to be all over the place here.   Our military has no use for submarines, but we should have procured a nuclear submarine?   I think your allusion to buying useless â Å“stuffâ ? because we don't have money for â Å“good stuffâ Å“ is off base.   It might be better to say that we bought the small town fire trucks instead of the one big-city fire truck that could not be deployed on both coasts at the same time (or spell itself off in dry docks).



			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> I am not proposing any cuts to anyone.


Then why take opposition to the subs?



			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> we would also need to beef up the Coast Guard with both equipment and numbers, allowing the Navy and Air force to handle their Military commitments.





			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> Coast Guard to be increased to the point where they can take over coastal watch/ Air and sea rescue.


See the National Security board.   This has been agreed with and gone into in greater detail.



			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> We are good at Peace keeping / making and should continue to do that well.


That implies we must be excellent war-fighters first. 





			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> we are at this time Peace keepers and so that is where the money should be spent.


This statement is incredibly wrong, and the fact that people believe it has led to half of what is wrong in the CF.   See here for more. 



			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> We are not at war


No.   We are in a war.





			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> Fact remains that we are on a UN action.


No.   We are not â Å“on a UN action.â ?   We are participating in separate NATO and US operations in Afghanistan.



			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> All I meant about the subs was that Canada would have been better off buying one NEW Nuclear Sub then three old used and lets be honest here pieces of junk from Britain.
> As for Navy warfair, I admit that I don't know a thing and don't pretend to, but I do know about spreading yourselves too thin and that is what Canada does, all the time.


So, you claim we should have perused one maritime COA, and in your next sentence claim to be unqualified to have reached that conclusion?   What value are solutions if you don't have the facts to determine that a problem exists (or what the problem is)?



			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> But to set all of you to tasks I have mentioned that my knowledge is at best TV News and can only draw from my time in the Army witch was more then a few years ago. All the information in the world will not make me think that it was a good idea to get out of tanks or to cut the ground troops back to where they sit now. So all the giving me heck for lack of fact is great but meaningless if all you have is fact and no suggestions. Or am I wrong in thinking that no one can dispute that the numbers of Infantry are too low for the tasks at hand.


Suggestions not derived from facts are useless and inapplicable to reality.   Everything you present is meaningless if all you have is suggestions and no facts.



			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> Navy to have Transport capacity for troops and equipment.
> Airforce to have Transport planes for troops and equipment.


What should each element be able to move?   Should the Navy be able to move a BG or a CMBG?   Should the Air Force be capable of moving a Coy Gp or   a Bn Gp?   I tend to agree that we need the strategic lift capability, but the Air Force and Navy also need the ability to provide coordinated fire & other effects based support to land operations.



			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> We need Grunts, foot soldiers and sooner the better. They will need training and I don't mean War training, I mean Police training, the type used for what is coming.


No.   We need soldiers trained for warfighting & police trained for policing.



			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> Fact is the Ground troops are the ones that are needed at this time and to send them into any posting with anything but the best of equipment in getting very close to murder. We don't have enough ground troops to be safe at any postings. I am talking Infantry , armored and artillery and their support. They are at this time over worked and have very little time left for training or advancement, let alone a personal life.





			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> But most of all we need more Ground troops (Infantry), foot sloggers, the one with the rifle on his shoulder and mostly the one on the ground that needs to have better equipment to help him do his job. ...
> 
> I feel and this is only my opinion, that Canada needs 20,000 infantry to do the job that it is being asked to do today and even that might be pushing it ...
> 
> The problems as I see them are that we have simply cut the Army back too far,





			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> Infantry to increase to pre 1960 numbers. Support to increase as needed


How have you determined that these are the numbers we need?   I agree we could use more infantry, but how have you come to this magic number?   



			
				Young KH said:
			
		

> Is there no one out there that would like the Infantry Batallions filled with a full complament of men who are properly trained, equipped and supported?


I would hazard a guess that most of us would like to see all units manned at 100% to 110%.   Based on this, it becomes a lot easier to say that Canada needs 12 fully manned combined arms manoeuvre battalions (as opposed to calling for 20,000 infanteers without any vision for their groupings).     With this we could sustain 2 x BGs indefinitely on 6 month rotations.   The manoeuvre battalions require 3 â â€œ 4 rifle companies, a surveillance squadron, a DFS squadron, and a cbt sp coy.


. . . but then, all these ideas are already out on the boards.   Try reading some of the threads in the Combat Arms board for some well thought out suggestions (suggestions that provide solutions to real problems/deficiencies as opposed to solutions in need of problems).


----------



## reccecrewman

Well, one thing he got right thats undeniable - WE NEED A BIGGER ARMY.  Yes, some of his facts and figures are wrong, but he does make a very valid point in saying we need a bigger army.  Go back to the 1950's and our Army was quite large (considering our population at the time) On top of the RCR, PPCLI & R22eR, we had the Canadian Guards, Queens Own Rifles & Royal Highland Regiment of Canada as Reg Force Infantry Units, plus the Fort Garry Horse & the 8th Hussars.  For money saving reasons, our once proud Army was reduced and reduced and once again reduced to it's current size.  There's absolutely no question Mr. Worthington hit the nail on the head.  We absolutely need a bigger Army.


----------

