# How good is our training?



## spenco (29 Jul 2004)

Hi, I was wondering how well Canadian training compares to other first world nations, say for an Infantryman, and how long is our training compared to other nations/   Also can you be deployed straight after Battle School here or do you have to be in a regiment for a while first?

Thanks.


----------



## Armymedic (29 Jul 2004)

As an individual collective (ie individual skills and section level), we are the best trained troops in the world. We are taught to think, adapt and improvise, and those traits are groomed at all levels.


----------



## spenco (29 Jul 2004)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> we are the best trained troops in the world.



But doesn't every army say that?     ;D


----------



## Pugnacious (29 Jul 2004)

Greetings!

I'm a Civi (for now), but I have been told by friends and family in the CF that we can do things with Duct tape like no other Army in the world.  ;D

On a serious note when I talk to other people in other armies in the world they seem very impressed with our abilities.
That seems to go beyond a simply level of friendly respect. 

I have good stories, but I'll save them for the more experienced, and active members to chime in.

That's my limited take on it.
Cheers!
P.


----------



## Slim (30 Jul 2004)

Maybe this will help.

During the course of my time in the CF I had the good fortune to work with a number of different countries armies.

Not one member of any foreign military that I spent time with EVER had anything bad to say about Canadian soldiers. Our training, style of military thinking and practical approach to problem solving are very popular with other countries soldiers.

We are (or at least were) seen as one of the better trained armies in the world.

Hope that helps.

Slim


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jul 2004)

http://army.ca/forums/threads/17965.0.html

You can be the best boxer in the world, if you have a shitty coach and a bad promoter/agent your going to starve.


----------



## NavyGrunt (30 Jul 2004)

Its sad because us on the inside can watch it decay and come apart at the seams and the people on the outside think everything is either hunky dorey or that we spend too much on the military. Our oldest institution rotting. I wish it wasnt in my generation


----------



## Gunnerlove (31 Jul 2004)

Throughout our nations short history our military has spent most of it's time decaying in neglect. Remember how sad we were at the start of both world wars?


----------



## Spr.Earl (31 Jul 2004)

Slim said:
			
		

> Maybe this will help.
> 
> During the course of my time in the CF I had the good fortune to work with a number of different countries armies.
> 
> ...



Got that right Slim but also we are un predictable  because we are trained to think for our selve's at the lowest rank.


----------



## Slim (31 Jul 2004)

Every Private a cpl and every cpl and sgt at need be... 

It used to be a thing that would stun even our own officers in the Strats.

The Recce Sqn OC would have a senior cpl take over and successfully run the *Sqn TRACE*!

Slim


----------



## Spr.Earl (31 Jul 2004)

Slim said:
			
		

> Every Private a cpl and every cpl and sgt at need be...
> 
> It used to be a thing that would stun even our own officers in the Strats.
> 
> ...



Same on the Engineer side Slim.



Back in 96 doing our work up for Bosnia(Wainwright) I was in the C.P. for Eng Support for 1 C.E.R.,we had a NO Duff as to  Pers. situation for a Sapper and the O.C. and W.O. split and I was the only one left in the  C.P. and I ended up having to direct the Engineering Task's as they came up or when completed had to re- direct all the heavy equipment to the posted tasks plus our armour element's we had at the time.

When they came back the Sit. Map was up too date and we had comm.'s with all and task's completed, posted and all sent up the chain.


----------



## rrr965 (31 Jul 2004)

When I was on course There was a Sniper VP course running and I realized how well trained our troops are, especially when a course 0f 20 of the Better PPCLI Troops was already at a 50 percent failiure rate before they even had went on their FTX!


----------



## Slim (1 Aug 2004)

Rocky_Infanteer said:
			
		

> When I was on course There was a Sniper VP course running and I realized how well trained our troops are, especially when a course 0f 20 of the Better PPCLI Troops was already at a 50 percent failiure rate before they even had went on their FTX!



You're quite right of course. The Canadian Forces Sniper Qualification is a VERY hard course e to pass. I believe you must first pass the RECCE patrolman crs and do quite well.

I have known several snipers and to a man they are intelligent, thoughtful individuals who are constantly looking for ways to excel in their chosen craft.

I don't know if this still holds true but once upon a time the members of the sniper school in Gagetown used to wear British Army DPU rather than our uniforms. Looked very sharp! 8) 

If this is no longer the case I hope someone from the Infantry, who is in the know, will correct this post.

Slim


----------



## Pugnacious (1 Aug 2004)

Are there Snipers in the reserves?

I've allways been interested in this trade.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Troopasaurus (1 Aug 2004)

nope, no snipers in the reserves.


----------



## Pugnacious (1 Aug 2004)




----------



## LanceaLot (1 Aug 2004)

I cannot see why people get so excited about snipers. I watched a short video about snipers on the Canadian forces webpage and most of their time consisted of them sneaking around to find a good position and then sitting there. And I really mean sitting there and wating for hours and hours and hours. And then I am sure 99% of the time they would never shoot anything. I honestly think I would die from boredom.  I am sure they are vital to support of the Infantry, but I don't think I would want to be one of them.


----------



## Armymedic (1 Aug 2004)

I have to partially agree with Lancelot. Canadian sniper's observation and reporting skills are their greatest assest to commanders at all levels. Being in the right place at the right time and not beeing seen is harder (albiet more important) then being a really good shot.

Heck, anyone can learn to shoot.

Now why is this thread turning into a sniper discussion... 

What about how diverse over Combat service support trades are?


----------



## Private Jimbo (1 Aug 2004)

Back to the training side of things , I personaly cant imagine that the canadian reserves are as well trained as the US reserves.    Ive seen their recruitment pages, and videos... on their state of the art website.   And the reservists seem to get just as much training as the full time guys, all training together at their basic at least.  They also all wear the same pieces of equipment and know the same junk.  So it just seems that the extra month they go on course for , would make a difference.  Also it seems like they get more tours with all the wars going on so they can practice what they learnt.

then again, since ive never been in the US reserves , I really dont know.


----------



## NavyGrunt (1 Aug 2004)

When you went through ST.Jean I gurantee you had reservists there. And the Navy and Air Force have a 10 week BMQ as well for reservists which is directly transferable to the regs.

As for how great they are in the states- all the issues they've had in Iraq with Abu Garib were with reserve military police. And the reason stated was because they didnt recieve proper training. So I really don't understand your post.


----------



## Private Jimbo (1 Aug 2004)

Guess I should have said  that they seem to recieve LONGER training, dont know if its better, but my BMQ course is 4 weeks long. From what Ive heard the reg force has a 12 week course and I dont understand how reservists can be trained to the same standard.  Now the 10 week BMQ is not Just BMQ but also SQ.( In BC anyways) Im really just talking about my own situation, and im not military police , but reserve infantry.


----------



## Pugnacious (1 Aug 2004)

Back to snipers...From the ones I have met and talked to police and military, and what I have read there is allot more then just looking for target, and hiding. For an interesting read: http://www.snipercountry.com/

Sorta like bagpipes if you like them you like them...if yah don't yah don't.
Some people join the Army to cook.  

Back too topic...
Also I'm confused by the diffrences in training times between Regs and Reserves...how can they be the same if the amount of time is different?  Also how different are the two sets of training?

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Slim (2 Aug 2004)

_Back to the training side of things , I personally cant imagine that the Canadian reserves are as well trained as the US reserves._

Having worked with the U.S. Army Reserve and the National Guard I can say that we are better trained and seem to care more about what we do...But then I realize that our army isn't what it used to be either...


----------



## clasper (2 Aug 2004)

My experience working with Americans comes from participating in several Ex Final Drive's.  This is the final exercise for the students that are learning to be staff officers at the staff college in Kingston.  The students run a divisional HQ for several days, and they require support from a few int ops to provide them with an ICAC (intelligence collection and analysis centre).

I worked with several American students on these courses, and they were all astonished that 2 or 3 reservist int ops could function as an entire ICAC.  In American HQ's, they were used to seeing separate and dedicated orbat analysts, manoeuvre analysts, terrain analysts, map markers, message handlers, etc.  The flexibility, adaptability, and capability of Canadian int ops really impressed them.  (Age old story of Canadian soldiers being jack of all trades because we don't have enough people.)

I also worked with a couple of African officers on these courses, and those guys were astonished that an NCO could work intelligently and independently without being supervised by an officer.  One of them got really pissed at me when he told me to get him a coffee, and I told him where the coffee pot was.  (He was used to dealing with a different calibre of NCO...)


----------



## 48Highlander (2 Aug 2004)

AI said:
			
		

> nope, no snipers in the reserves.



Actually, my unit and the Lorne Scots both have a sniper tasking on paper, we just don't have anyone trained to fill them   so there are openings for snipers in the reserves, but no snipers.


As for the difference in training between american reserves and our own....my unit sent a full platoon down to Ft. Blanding in Florida recently to work as part of a US National Guard company.  I truly enjoyed my stay, and liked the American soldiers, but was not very impressed by their level of skill.  At the same time, I think I must have heard the phrase "you guys should be rangers" at least twice a day during our stay there.  We seemed to impress the heck out of them with everything we did, even with such simple things as weapons handling drills.  One of the first things we did there...we used the American M4 carbines with the new CCO sights to shoot their version of the PWT and qualified about 70% of our troops on the first shoot even though it was our first time using the weapon/sight, whereas the Americans who have been using them for months only qualified about 50%.  Their OC was just amazed by that.  So yes, I'd say our reserves are a bit better than theirs.


----------



## NavyGrunt (2 Aug 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> So yes, I'd say our reserves are a bit better than theirs.



I didnt mean to start a pissing contest. I'm sure they have some fine soldiers in their reserve system. I just didnt like the comment taking credit away from our guys. They may lack in certain areas but I think pound for pound between Iraq and Afghan they have more experienced operators than we do. Training well is one thing being in the shit is another Im sure.

 I love my country but Texas has been my home away from home for many years.


----------



## Gunnerlove (2 Aug 2004)

I believe that B Coy Canadian Scottish, and the Rocky Mountain Rangers have snipers. So it would make sense for other units to have them as well.


----------



## NavyGrunt (2 Aug 2004)

Perhaps this is a matter of reg force snipers leaving and joining the reserves. Then giving them this designation allows them to upkeep their skills. I cant see it being a trade you apply for when you talk to the recruiter at a reserve unit. Maybe if you have a civilian qual as well. Like police sniper who is a reservist


----------



## Lance Wiebe (3 Aug 2004)

Our reservists, at basic tasks, may indeed be better than the average National Guard soldier is doint the same tasks.  But, let's take a National Guard unit, and compare that unit with one of ours.  Ther, simply, is no comparison.  The NG unit is certainly equipped with the same equipment as the regular force, maybe not with the latest bells and whistles, but still...

The LdSH compete every year for the CanAm cup, competing against a NG unit equipped with M1 tanks.  In the latest competition, the Straths lost.  Yes, the M1 is newer, but, in theory, the Straths are much better trained, right?  Well, a few years ago, before all the ammo cuts and training money cuts, yes.  Nowadays, well, the results speak for themselves.


----------



## Excolis (3 Aug 2004)

not true, there are snipers in the reserves.  the rsm of the essex and kent scottish is a sniper.  and the previous rsm was pathfinder/ranger/ well he had a lot of bells and whistles...  i am not sure if they used to be reg though.. now i am curious


----------



## Pugnacious (3 Aug 2004)

I'll start another thread just in case this is too buried for those who might know to find, and answer.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## jrhume (3 Aug 2004)

I have to agree with A. White.   I suspect the most experienced, best trained troops in the world, whether reserve or regular force, are deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq.   Most are American or British, but not all.   I read an interesting blurb this morning about Fijian soldiers guarding convoys in Iraq.   

The contrast between US Guard/Reserve forces and CF Reserves is one of large army/small army.   In the normal course of events, a small professional army will be better trained and more capable on a soldier by soldier comparison.   This is a natural result of smaller forces, with less specialization and less of much of the nonsense and folderol that goes along with a large army.

American Guard/Reserve units have spent most of the last thirty years responding to domestic disasters.   The CF spent a lot of that time doing peacekeeping activities in lots of godforsaken spots.   This has to have had an effect on the Reserves, whether those units were posted abroad or just absorbed veterans into their ranks.

The US Army is revising almost all current training in light of events in Iraq.   Soldiers in transport and other support units are going to receive more training in battle scenarios.   This is not new.   We had to learn the same lessons in Vietnam.   Armies have been re-learning similar lessons since someone began recording history.

But the most valuable asset any US commander will have for some years is a solid cadre of combat veterans -- and it doesn't look like those will be in short supply.

My hat is off to the CF.   Canadian military forces have always performed well, in many difficult situations.   The best thing, in my opinion, for the future CF would be if a brigade or two were serving right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But that's just my thinking.


----------



## bitterman (3 Aug 2004)

Sorta back to the training topic....

       I have been thinking about joining up, and I've talked to a few people, asked their opinions and have come to form an idea as the training and the amount of training that our guys get, specifically time at the range.   I just want to verify this thought.

If in the case that I went into the INF, Full time Reg Force, how much time do I actually get on the range?   As my job would be "to close and destroy the enemy", would being able to fire my weapon be of utmost priority?

When I spoke to a few people who are in the Reserves, and one in the Reg Force, who said that they don't get any time on the range anymore.   The Reservist told me that they MAYBE get to do live fire training once a year, and even then don't get to fire off more than 60 rounds each?   I shoot at least 60 rounds when I go to the range, and I go out at least each weekend with nice weather.   Tell me I don't get more shooting pratice than my country's armed forces do?

Has there been some exaggeration here?   How often do you guys get to practice?


----------



## PTE Gruending (3 Aug 2004)

Bitterman, in response to your queries:
In the reserve world, typically once you are in your unit, you may get out to do live fire once or twice a year (at least in my experience). However, on your courses (BMQ, SQ, DP1A, DP2A) you will get expend a bit more ammo in a period of about 4-5 months training (time it takes to complete aformentioned courses).

However, live fire training aside, you get to do other things that will increase your marksmenship talent within your unit. Our unit ran a "Shoot for life" program, where we spent a months worth of parade nights practicing marksmenship principles and doing other things. We broke it down to the basics, and had all of our positions corrected by experienced NCO's. They even put dimes on top of our front site while we were in the prone, and we had contests to see what all could be done without knocking off the dime (ie: close eyes, rifle down, rifle up, site still in alignment?). And depending on your unit, you may or may not to spend a fair amount of time in your Armouries SAT trainer (which is essentially a video-target simulator where we use our actual weapons, hooked up with lasers). It's no replacement for actual live fire, but it is a fairly easy and economical way to increase your marksmenship skills for when you do actually make it to the range. I know I learned a lot from my instructors during this time....


----------



## Pugnacious (3 Aug 2004)

I was wondering the same thing, and the answer / advice   I got was keep up your practice after we teach you how to shoot the way you are suppost to, and undo any bad habits you have taught yourself before joining.    Other then that no info on how much practice we can get on legal military ranges...as the person I asked is retired, and out of the loop abit.

Now the problem is the weapon we are issued isn't exacly legal to drive down to your local Canadian rifle range.
And there isn't much in the 'legal to own group' that even comes close to the military rifles.

I know if I get in and if I had the chance I would like to practice everyday, as I want to be the best I can be in that role.   
So I'm also interested in finding out how much pratice we can expect to get, and how some members deal with this. 

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Gunnerlove (3 Aug 2004)

Get trained by a civie weapons instructor, get a licence, and go buy yourself an Armalite(yup they are legal to own), then feel free to spend alot of money on an Elcan sight and ammo. A half dozen trigger group parts and a modification to the bolt carrier are all that seperates a C-7 from a modern AR-15. If you can shoot one you can shoot the other. Or relax and take your couple grand to mexico for a month.   

http://www3.mb.sympatico.ca/~jhipwell/

Yeah yeah, the C-7 is a far better weapon.....
but then why are all the parts interchangeable with an AR?


----------



## spenco (3 Aug 2004)

I have another question regarding training, however it is slightly off topic to the direction this thread has taken...however, I was wondering how does the training for a CF pilot (hercules or other similar planes, not fighter pilots) compare to airliner training, how well do we train our pilots compared to Air Canada and the like?


----------



## GerryCan (3 Aug 2004)

I don't know if they still wear Brit DPU in Gagetown, but our guys in 1 never wear it, although they may occasionally switch up cam while on deployment. Never heard of them doing it lately though.


----------



## Pugnacious (4 Aug 2004)

The Armalite is restricted.
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/owners_users/fact_sheets/r&p.asp

Does the Army train and issue you a restricted firearms licence?

BTW: I still don't know why the Dragonov sniper rifle is Prohibited, as its's clip is only 10 rnd, is a semi auto, and has a long barrel.  The government has not answerd my repeated questions about it.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Aug 2004)

Being restricted doesn't mean your not allowed to buy it or use it. You do however need to apply for a non-restricted AND restricted licence.

The army doesn't give you any sort of licence for firearms, they do train you how to use a host of different weapons.

I'm not that current on the laws. I remember a while ago the government was trying to ban  weapons with a "military type action". (not sure how far that went).  Some bolt action rifles have a military type action so they would in essence be banned as well. (as told to me by the game wardens)

The Dragonov was made from the ground up as a sniper rifle, you don't get much more "military" than that. Sometimes to be black listed all a firearm needs is a bad name or history. (Rugar mini-14)


----------



## Pugnacious (4 Aug 2004)

That was the strange part..I pointed out the Tigr9 is the hunting rifle version on the SVD, made in the same factory, and pretty much the same beast, but not prohibited or restricted (or so they said then), and this totaly stumped the Government person I was talking to when they compared the data sheets I sent them from the factory in Russia:

http://www.izhmash.udm.ru/arms/svd.html
http://www.izhmash.udm.ru/arms/tigr9.html

And they had to forward my questions off to yet another person (into the void)...4 months later and still no reply.
It's like they opened a magazine, jumped back, hid under chairs, and said oh that looks scary..better prohibit it! ;D

Sorry to go off topic...just one of those strange mysterys in life.
Cheers!
P.


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (4 Aug 2004)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Being restricted doesn't mean your not allowed to buy it or use it. You do however need to apply for a non-restricted AND restricted licence.
> 
> The army doesn't give you any sort of licence for firearms, they do train you how to use a host of different weapons.
> 
> ...



i think after the russo shooting in toronto and the fact a ar15 was the culprit that the govt will come down hard on assault type weapons once fall sessions in the houses start.  fair enough that the weapon in question was probably not a legally obtained weapon, but still there is little need for cdns to own these weapons.


----------



## Slim (4 Aug 2004)

> Origionally posted by Pugnacious
> 
> Does the Army train and issue you a restricted firearms licence?



The Canadian Armed Forces do not fall under the Canadian firearms laws and, therefore, do not have to licensed the way any other governmental, police or business has to with respect to carrying a weapon, loaded or otherwise.

I know because, having carried concealed while on duty in the CF and having contact with local police I have had to explain to them that a member of the CF is entitled to carry a loaded firearm in the execution of their duties without a license and regardless of their dress of the day or current tasking. (Example-moving a bunch of rifles from place to place. The rule is that there must be a person with a loaded pistol in the vehicle doing the transferring. The combat arms guys and galls will know what I'm talking about.)

The various police forces across Canada usually have their respective police association hold their license to carry.

The CF is the only entity in Canada that this applies to. The link to the Cdn firearms centre is below. 

Slim   

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/default.asp


----------



## Pugnacious (4 Aug 2004)

Thanx Slim! 
That is interesting stuff, and good to know.
Cheers!
P.


----------



## big_johnson1 (4 Aug 2004)

Slim said:
			
		

> The Canadian Armed Forces do not fall under the Canadian firearms laws and, therefore, do not have to licensed the way any other governmental, police or business has to with respect to carrying a weapon, loaded or otherwise.
> 
> I know because, having carried concealed while on duty in the CF and having contact with local police I have had to explain to them that a member of the CF is entitled to carry a loaded firearm in the execution of their duties without a license and regardless of their dress of the day or current tasking. (Example-moving a bunch of rifles from place to place. The rule is that there must be a person with a loaded pistol in the vehicle doing the transferring. The combat arms guys and galls will know what I'm talking about.)



I hate to tell you this but I've transfered weapons on several occasions, and we have never had to have a loaded pistol carried with them. It's one thing to post a guard, but we've never had armed pers guarding weapons.


----------



## Pugnacious (4 Aug 2004)

"I hate to tell you this but I've transfered weapons on several occasions, and we have never had to have a loaded pistol carried with them. It's one thing to post a guard, but we've never had armed pers guarding weapons."

I remember a few years back a Quebec biker gang robbed a Canadian Army truck, and took a bunch of weapons and ammo.
IMHO Not to protect such stuff with an armed guard(s) or escorts is sheer stupidity, and socially irresponsible.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## MJP (4 Aug 2004)

Feral said:
			
		

> Slim said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I've seen it before, although it is not a regular occurrence by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Pugnacious (4 Aug 2004)

"The Canadian Armed Forces do not fall under the Canadian firearms laws and, therefore, do not have to licensed the way any other governmental, police or business has to with respect to carrying a weapon, loaded or otherwise."

So back to training...does this mean that a CF member can take his or her C7 off to a local rifle range to get some practice?

Mind you the Armalite carbines are looking like a good option right now.
Any ideas which one is the closest match to the C7?
http://www3.mb.sympatico.ca/~jhipwell/riflear.htm

Also which Elcan sight is used on our C7s rifles?
http://www.armament.com/elcan/index.htm#pic1

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Aug 2004)

No.


----------



## D-n-A (4 Aug 2004)

No, a CF member can not sign out their issued weapon an head off to a civvie range to shoot it.



This is the elcan sight the CF uses
http://www.armament.com/elcan/elc34.htm

As for a weapon, any M16 style weapon with a flat top upper receiver(to fit the elcan sight) will do
http://www3.mb.sympatico.ca/~jhipwell/ar10a4spr.htm like this


----------



## Pugnacious (4 Aug 2004)

Exellent!  ;D
P.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Aug 2004)

To get the topic back on track, how about this.

Instead of how good is our training, How "good" are the soldiers we are currently turning out?


----------



## Slim (5 Aug 2004)

> "I hate to tell you this but I've transfered weapons on several occasions, and we have never had to have a loaded pistol carried with them. It's one thing to post a guard, but we've never had armed pers guarding weapons."



You guys are making me feel old!

When I was in the rule in transferring weapons from place to place, in the reserves, was that one member of the vehicle or convoy had to have a loaded pistol with them. Usually the CQMS or one of his toadies. Will it repell an attack by bikers intent on stealing a bunch of weapons...of course not. It was just a rule you had to follow. No more and no less!

Slim


----------



## big_johnson1 (5 Aug 2004)

To comment from the Engineer side of the fence, I think we're doing quite well. My unit has had several deployments down to the US to work side by side with the Air National Guard units, and we've always surprised the heck out of our hosts. Our guys are highly cross-trained, and very resourceful compared to the average US ANG soldier. We have repeatedly taken on jobs that we were told we would never complete, then not only did we finish what we started, but we had enough time left over to take on other tasks as well.

We do have our share of problems however, as often CE sections working base side never get the cross training that a Construction Troop or Airfield Engineering Flight would get. Base-side, the sections are often isolated, with each trade having minimal contact with the others. In the CTs and AEFs, composite sections of several trades often work hand in hand, with tradesmen switching roles constantly from supervisor to supervisee as the task dictates. This teaches teamwork and how to take on tasks we aren't necessarily trained for.

Personally I'm proud of what I see on the news as well, mainly reports of how the hard army trades are doing overseas, showing that we may not have the equipment of some of the countries, but we use what we do have to it's maximum effectiveness. And before you all go off on me about how we need more money, better equipment, etc etc, remember that we do get a lot of money, it just needs to be spent more efficiently. I'll bet a good load of DNDs budget is wasted on equipment contracts that are given to companies based on politics rather than economics (ie some politician gets himself re-elected in his constituency rather than saving money..) Just look at what the cancelled helicopters that we ended up buying some of anyways cost us: $400 million I think.


Chimo!


----------



## pbi (8 Aug 2004)

As a currently serving soldier, my opinion is that at the individual and sub-unit levels we are one of the best trained armies in the world, including the US and UK.   (I specifically exclude any discussion of SF here, as I have no real idea how we stack up...). I base my opinion on 30 years of service, both Reg and Res, several overseas deployments, a number of exercises involving troops from other nations, some military course time spent in the US and in Canada with members of foreign armies, and loads of anecdotal experiences from Canadian soldiers at various rank levels, Reg and Res, in most MOCs. As well, you could throw in comments and observations from various other sources like "Soldier of Fortune" or "Outdoor Living Network" (Not very authoritative perhaps, but interesting perspectives all the same...)

Our soldiers are, in general, far better trained at these levels, and this proves itself constantly when we deploy on operations or on exercises with other nations, particularly the US. A few very good examples are the high praises heaped upon 3 PPCLI by the US forces in Afghanistan, and the outstanding peformance of Canadian troops as Opposing Forces (OPFOR) at the US Army's National Training Centre. To that you could add our performance on international sniper competitions, and the victory of a Canadian armoured troop at a recent US Army Armoured Branch gunnery competition (against M1 Abrams!!!)

While other armies may be superior to us in some aspects at these lower levels (Brits are generally physically tougher, US has more money invested in training technology, US Marines are generally more physically fit, etc) no one army that I am aware of combines the same high quality human material with a pretty damned good training system (when it works, that is, and when it is funded properly). In particular there simply is no equal to the Canadian NCO: they are our "secret weaopn" and in my opinion/experience they are our saving grace. They combine great intelligence and initiative with experience and a sense of humour (and a healthy dose of sarcastic skepticism) .As well, we must learn very early in our careers to do "everything with nothing" and we become masters of this to a degree that confounds our US counterpatrs.

I am quick to admit that at the higher levels of life,(above battalion) although we have good people and good kit, we simply cannot stack up against larger and better funded armies (especially the US). There is no substitute for actually commanding real formations (brigades and bigger...) in the field on operations and our Army offers very limited scope for this. We also lack the massive firepower and logistical capability of larger armies, although we do send NCOs and officers on exchange with other armies (such as US, UK) to keep our hand in and stay aware of what's going on. For example, Canadian Army officers served (and are serving) with US forces in Iraq as exchange officers-this is not a secret. Canadian Army officers and NCOs teach at US and UK military schools.

Give me a well trained Canadian soldier, Reg or Res, any day. We have nothing to be ashamed of. Cheers.


----------



## pegged (8 Aug 2004)

It's kind of funny to run across posts on what the closest Armalite rifle is to a C7. I'm 17 at the moment but when I turn 18 I will be getting my FAC and purchasing a firearm, probably from Armalite. Interesting to see 7.62mm M16 style rifles, talk about beefy. Anyone have an idea on the price of a C79 sight? I was going to just get an M15A2 off of Armalite, without the Picatinny mount, but if it's possible to purchase an Optical sight, why not get the A4 heh.

Anyway back to the topic at hand. I just completed my SQ and had the best Sgt. as a section commander (best soldier I have seen in the Military, too). He would tell us about how well trained our troops are, he specifically noted about our recce patrols being the best in the world, I thought that was pretty interesting.


----------



## Pugnacious (8 Aug 2004)

O' Shea... I'll PM you the info I just got from the great guys at wolverine supply.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Dave 514 (12 Aug 2004)

Hi:
It is said here in the US that the CF have the best trained men with the worst equipment. I'm not sure that's true about the equipment..

I just came back from visiting the Ld SH (RC) which in recent competitions with our Armour beat us almost everytime. They used the outdated Lep 2s. I gather in 4/5 years those will be replaced with the new LAV IVs. You know the ones with 105mm using reduced loads so as not to tip it over at 3 and 6 o'clock. The Straths impressed the hell out of me as highly trained and above all highly motivated proud regiment.

To the respondant Slim that said when armed with a handgun guarding the transfer of rifles from A to B, that if attacked by Bikers he'd not repel the boarders. It's a shame that training with a handgun, is so poor and confidence is so low that you feel you couldn't do your duty. The lack of training with a handgun is poor here too.

Here to be precise, when I was in competion, if some one came to me and said they knew how to shoot because they'd been in the military, I gave them a wide berth. Most of'em couldn't hit a barn door at two feet if they were in it.

Thank you all for serving. 


David


----------



## Slim (12 Aug 2004)

Dave 514 said:
			
		

> Hi:
> To the respondant Slim that said when armed with a handgun guarding the transfer of rifles from A to B, that if attacked by Bikers he'd not repel the boarders. It's a shame that training with a handgun, is so poor and confidence is so low that you feel you couldn't do your duty. The lack of training with a handgun is poor here too.



There are lots of great shooters here...My point was that if an organized criminal gang decided to steal automatic rifles while they were being transported, they would presumably use larger weapons than pistols... and there would be more of them.
Slim


----------



## pbi (13 Aug 2004)

I agree with your observation. In fact, if you check our (sad) history of military weapon losses, you will find that almost all of them were either by neglect/stupidity, or via "inside jobs". Don't forget that over the past couple of decades we have had our own small share of criminals in the Army, with some having biker connections. This is not confined to us: when I was in Quantico, the US Naval Investigation Service scooped up some Marines working in a base arsenal who were selling weapons to criminals. In my opinion, the biker organizations in this country are too smart to get into anything as messy and public as armed robbery of military weapons: they'd rather just take some of their drug/prostitution funds and buy what they want. Cheers.


----------



## pbi (13 Aug 2004)

After reflecting for a bit on this topic of how well trained we are, and after watching some of the footage of the Marines fighting in Iraq, I want to qualify something I said earlier. While I still believe beyond question that we have excellent troops who are well trained, and that these troops can stand shoulder to shoulder with anybody, I don't want to miss an important point. What the US Army and Marines ARE getting, that we are not, is actual combat experience. There is no substitute for this experience, and as Canadians we must be very careful not to dismiss or devalue this experience just because we are not getting it ourselves. I hope I didn't create the impression in my earlier post that we can turn up our noses at the suffering and experience of our US comrades, whether they be "jarheads" or "doggies". As soldiers ourselves, regardless of our own political beliefs about US foreign policy, we need to take a moment to think about those troops.God bless them, I say. Cheers.


----------



## Scott (13 Aug 2004)

To expand on pbi's statement. I am a firefighter and I received schooling from one of the best institutions in the country, that didn't amount to a hill of beans the first time I took on a fire for real, outside the relative safety of the training grounds. Training lays the framework for a person, police officer, soldier, firefighter, etc. but in no way is it a replacement for hands on experience. You can't truly simulate war, fire or a bad guy pointing a gun at you, sorry.

We still need the best training we can get, again, there is a frame work laid, but how you effectively use that training to aid you in your experiences sets you and the amateurs apart. I know plenty of guys in the fire service who have had the same training I had but have not been lucky (lack of better term) enough to fight a good fire, I know they're trained, but that's it, I still don't know if they are going to turn tail and run when things get hot and nasty and this guy doesn't have an instructor there telling him it's OK, can he handle the pressure? I have also worked with plenty of guy who have had the training and a bit of experience but as soon as you throw something at them they they were not expecting they are useless.

Maybe I went off thread a bit, but you can see my points.

Just thoughts

Cheers


----------



## pbi (13 Aug 2004)

scott1nsh: A good parallel. I was (briefly) a volunteer firefighter myself, while I was living in the US (Hydrant man on an engine company). Despite the fact that we were protecting a suburban county with hundreds of thousands of residents, hospitals, schools and one of the biggest malls in the US, I found that the "training" I got as a "trainee" was pathetic and certainly inspired absolutely no confidence in me. (to be fair it was all "OJT"- I never got loaded onto the County Academy course)   I remember that the one organized drill night I attended was a farce: I could have taught the damn class better by myself. Pretty scary when you consider that we were responding, along with about twelve other volunteer departments in the County with the same apparatus to the same calls and hazards as paid men would in a city. A fire is a fire, and an extrication is an extrication, volunteer or paid.

Training is not the be-all, although it is vital. Nothing replaces experience, which in my opinion is why we need to keep in close touch with armies that are engaging in combat ops. The best mistakes to learn from are somebody else's. Cheers.


----------



## Scott (13 Aug 2004)

pbi, you're right and thanks.

Training is not the one answer although I call it a necessary evil. Necessary: it's obvious why. Evil: guys get out of training and think that they know it all. Also you have the scattered sort who goes on to take every course known to man and beast yet still can't put it all together outside of a discussion. We have one such type with us right now, the guy does training and proctoring of fire courses. You have to be pretty damn good at the books in order to be selected to do this, I can verify that. But herein lies a problem. This guy is great, second to none, practically a god when it comes to the books, yet he has not seen a real big worker (fire) So, around the coffee table he likes to dissect what the latest run sheets have said, this annoys me to no end because he is going by the book....the book has never been 100% right on any call I have been to. My point is, training only carries you so far, you can only use it as a crutch for so long. Eventually you are going to have to get in and get dirty, if you don't, or fail to perform while doing so then guess what, all that training is pretty much useless. 

In the fire service I look at it like this: Those who can't do, teach. Those who can neither do nor teach, proctor.

I am sorry if I hijacked the thread for firefighting talk.

Just thoughts.


----------

