# Politics and the Military



## hector (8 Jul 2001)

I know this topic is probably beat to death but I beleive it is an important one and should be debated as often as possible. So here it is again.  Why do we continually allow our armed forces to be overrun with waste, while our General Staff gets bigger every day!  But yet we (members) and the general citizenry rollover and think this is fine.

Recently, in a discussion I had with a close freind, who is now in Moosejaw for pilot training, I was made privy to some interesting events.  This freind by the way, had to wait for four years to get a slot after the the entire training structure of the Air Force was gutted on a CF policy Change that lasted less then a year.....was told in an open briefing, by the General in charge of training (the General in charge of open breifings must have been busy) that the pilot candidates were to behave as gentleman and officers while on course and not go running to the press (no one had at that point gone to any new agency)  about the minor detalis of their careers and training policy in the CF‘s. This was in regards to the Bombardier managed training center now responsible for training our Air Force.  The General then went on to say, to snikering and giggles by the way, that the cousres were now on track and that the CF‘s did not forget about them and they were now entering into one of themost effective forces in the world etc etc.....by the end of that month the course dates were yet again extended canceled or rescheduled....course candidtaes were yet again sent home or RTU‘ed to the various museums, crosswalks and canteens they were kept at while more  bugs were "massaged" from the training system.   The final comment on this is; The friend I am speaking of had celebrated his 21‘st birthday two weeks after completeing his basic officer training course.... two days ago he celebrated his 24th...still no wings on his uniform.....


----------



## the patriot (14 Aug 2001)

By the way, the General Staff has now been reduced considerably compared to what it was ten years ago.  About your friend‘s situation, it comes down to an old saying called "hurry up and wait" which can get absolutely annoying at times.  Something they probably won‘t tell you is that they‘re literally bleeding to death by losing pilots who leave the Canadian Armed Forces for cushier paying jobs with the commercial airlines.  It‘s called the 5 year "Air Canada" program...  Maybe it‘s just that they don‘t have instructors around to teach your friend.  

-the patriot-


----------



## rcrman (20 Aug 2001)

The Patriot,


Hear! Hear! Fact: They DND are hurting...only now they finally have figured that out. Almost a little too late. These next few years will be interesting for sure. Like my old CSM said "I‘m on the 20/30 plan....I have my 20 someodd years for full pension and if anyone pisses me off, I‘m out in 30 days!!!!" I only think he was out faster than that....just like me. he he he whether a Private or a Master Warrent Officer....they don‘t give a ****!!! Oh yeah if your hurt, well kiss your career bye bye...hell there‘s always the kit shop, or RSS where they send people to finish off their years for pension.>>>>>>>>>>>FIRE IT UP<<<<<<<<<<<<<


----------



## Yard Ape (6 Sep 2001)

20/6 plan now.  Only the 6 is in months.    

  Yard Ape


----------



## the patriot (8 Sep 2001)

Grubby,

AHA!!!!!!  So RSS isn‘t really Total Force to make the Militia a better trained cadre of soldiers?!  Sounds like it‘s a retirement home for those who don‘t have the heart to outright quit.   

-the patriot-


----------



## Jungle (8 Sep 2001)

How about this to keep people in units: stop sending large numbers of people on summer tasks... they even do this weeks after members come back from a tour!!! Now, training is one thing, doing it right is another!!! We need to SPECIALIZE our units, we need a dedicated airborne unit and an amphibious unit (actually, by unit i mean battle-group) so we can keep up with the rest of the modern armies... and deploy rapidly... for real!!!


----------



## the patriot (8 Sep 2001)

I guess we already have that with the Para Companies in each of the Light Infantry Battalions of the RCR, PPCLI, and the Van Doos.  As for amphibious ops, they try to address that with various exercises from what I‘ve seen at the Reserve level.  The danger with over-specialization is that people then start to get slack with basic soldiering.  At the end of the day, once you‘ve hit the ground running or landed on the beach..... everyday pepper-potting will save your rear end.  If you can‘t even do that, you‘re pretty much dead.

-the patriot-


----------



## Jungle (9 Sep 2001)

Yes, the Para coys look good on paper, but they are virtually useless. I served in the Airborne Regt a few years, then a few more in a para coy, and there are a lot of differences: First, the jump coys are a way to maintain parachuting expertise in the army, but are not designed to carry out Airborne operations. The reason for this is that there is no combat support or combat service support deployable with these coys. Second, the CO‘s of the LIB‘s would rather have "heavy metal" units (ie: LAV-3) and don‘t care much for parachuting. The Airborne Regt was a rapid deployment unit, and it was equipped and trained as such. When i talk of amphibious ops, i am not talking about crossing a river with an assault boat, i am talking about assaulting a coast line from the sea... Amphibious ops are the most complex a force may have to carry out, and we are not ready or equipped for that kind of ops. Now, you will see the LIB‘s disappear in the next few years, and possibly the para capability as a whole at the same time...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Sep 2001)

Being armour, I don‘t think of or know that much about paras. However, one question has always come to mind. With today‘s easy to come by black market arms, what‘s to stop a couple of creeps on the ground with say, a couple of old Redeyes or Stingers taking out a whole company of quick reaction\ deployable airborne troops in the air and what would be the backup plan for the mission? Not being smart here, it‘s a genuine question of interest. Does this scenario not go towards making large airborne drops obselete?


----------



## towhey (10 Sep 2001)

Recceguy:  You‘re right.

Mass drops have been obsolete for decades.  Perhaps since the end of WW2.

One of the big problems with the defunct Airborne Regiment was, in my opinion, that it was totally unusable.  Like the horse-mounted cavalry of old, it was a hold-over from a bygone era.

That is not to say that Canada doesn‘t need a rapid reaction force that is airmobile -- nor that we don‘t need the ability to insert forces by parachute.

However, I would suggest that what Canada needs is an entire army that is airtransportable and rapidly deployable.  

We also need an SAS-type special operations unit.  I don‘t think that JTF-2 should fill this role -- although, if you followed the SAS model, they might be absorbed into a larger unit.  

I see the need for specops troops for a number of tasks:  strategic/operational level reconnaissance; strategic/operational level harrassment/demolitions missions;  training of local insurgency forces in occupied territories; etc.  All of these tasks are compatible with Defence of Canada needs.  Peacetime taskings may include maintaining a company on standby for major air disasters in the high Arctic.

Should we ever re-establish the Airborne Regiment?  Nope.

However, Canada should have a small (i.e. battalion-sized) special operations unit able to be inserted into an AO by any means, including parachute, submarine, what have you.


----------



## Jungle (10 Sep 2001)

I‘m afraid a lot of you have no idea what the Airborne Regt was about!!! Yes it was trained in mass drops (if you can call a Battalion mass...) because it is the best way to take troops anywhere, anytime (try deploying to the Baffin islands, or any other overseas location, in 3-4 days with LAV-3‘s); but mostly, it was trained in small unit tactics, such as fighting patrols behind enemy lines, being able to operate for days without resupply. It was also trained in mountain ops, desert and jungle warfare, and made regular trips to the arctic. But mostly, it was filled with volunteers who had the guts to go further, to do more with less, to do whatever was needed to get the job done. Not too many units in today‘s Army can claim this...  cdn:


----------



## King (10 Sep 2001)

towhey,

I always hear people calling for Canada to have an SAS of our own, but doesn‘t the JTF2 fill this role already? It‘s not the size of a Btln. but hasn‘t the JTF2 expanded beyond the CT thing? Even if it hasn‘t, couldn‘t that expansion be done within the current unit instead of creating a new one? 

You‘ve probably read that paper on Canada‘s NEO capability, I think the idea of increasing the size of the JTF2 and creating a unit more along the lines of the U.S. Army Rangers has some merit.

Jungle,

Are you saying that parachuting still has value as long as it‘s not used to drop troops directly into combat? To bring them near the battle but not on top of it? Would you say intense or dangerous training like parachuting, which has lost a lot of it‘s practicality is still useful?


----------



## Yard Ape (10 Sep 2001)

For all those questioning the validity of airborne/airmobile have a look at the 10 July post by ducimus in Resurrect the Airborne Regiment?  .

As for the comment about making the JTF more like the US Rangers, I disagree with this idea.  The JTF should be like the SAS (or if we need a US comparison then the SEALS or Green Berts).  A resurected Airborne could be modeled after the Rangers.

  Yard Ape


----------



## the patriot (10 Sep 2001)

Yard Ape,

I‘m in total agreement with what you‘re saying.  Leave the JTF in its current form and expand its mandate for covert ops when needed.  Furthermore, what‘s this that I‘m hearing that the Reg Force Infantry units are dropping their Assault Pioneer platoons?!

-the patriot-


----------



## Jungle (10 Sep 2001)

All right troops, i think we are moving in the right direction... King, yes i believe there is still use for parachuting, but in the low-to-medium intensity range of conflicts. Funny how some are comparing the Cdn Ab Regt to the US Ranger Regt; these 2 units were "twinned" in early ‘94 because of the almost identical nature of their methods and culture... As for JTF-2, i believe it should stick to CT. Remember the (British) SAS is a Regt, and one of it‘s squadrons is dedicated to CT; the rest are spec ops. Now the Australian SAS Regt has no CT capability, nor has the New-Zealand SAS Sqn. These units are "special forces". These countries have different units for CT, mostly coming from the police. 
Yard Ape:
 I just took a look at the "resurrect the Ab regt" discussion, and i see a lot of people are comparing Canada with the USA or the UK. Realistically, i think we should compare ourselves with countries like Australia or Belgium (smaller population and military). Even then, we are out to lunch when it comes to rapid reaction/special forces units...


----------



## King (10 Sep 2001)

Yard Ape,

You misunderstood me. I was saying the JTF2 be kept in it‘s current role while another unit, similar to the U.S. Army Rangers, be created to, among other things, comlement the JTF2. Like the Rangers work with Delta in America. 

Jungle,

I always though that the CAR had more experience then the Rangers. Most Rangers are about 18 or 19 years old. I doubt the avg. age of the CAR was that low. However, while the cultures and even structure were different between the two units, didn‘t they train for similar missions? 

The SAS is a regiment and yah part of that regiment deals with CT. But it‘s not exclusive within the unit. all members of the SAs are trained in CT and will do some time in that part of the regiment. Why can‘t the JTF2 expand to become like the SAS?

In Australia (don‘t know about NZ) the SAS has a CT unit within itself, called the TAG (Tactical Assault Group). They also have a unit within TAG called OAT (Offshore Assault Team) that does maritime CT. I agree we can‘t compare ourselves to the U.S., Australia is a much better example and maybe could model a Canadian SAS after theirs.


----------



## Yard Ape (11 Sep 2001)

> Originally posted by Jungle:
> [qb]I just took a look at the "resurrect the Ab regt" discussion, and i see a lot of people are comparing Canada with the USA or the UK. Realistically, i think we should compare ourselves with countries like Australia or Belgium (smaller population and military). Even then, we are out to lunch when it comes to rapid reaction/special forces units...[/qb]



The specific post that I refered to in that discusion was of Belgian Paratroops.  And yes, we cannot hold a candle to them.

  Yard Ape


----------



## Jungle (12 Sep 2001)

King, it depends what king of experience you are talking about... the Rangers were deployed in a number of combat ops, while Canada was not using the CAR to it‘s full potential. . If we modeled our military after the Aussie‘s, here is how it would look:
3 x special forces units: SAS Regt, 4 RAR (CDO ie:amphibious), 1 CDO Regt(partly reserves)
1 x quick reaction force: 3 RAR (para) battle group.
also, we would have bought real helicopters (blackhawks) not CH-146‘s. This is what i meant before when i talked about specializing our units: of course we need a couple of "heavy metal" brigades, where we should concentrate all our leopards and LAV-3‘s. But we also need units that can go where the heavy metal cannot, and deploy at a moment‘s notice to protect Canadian citizens and interests the world over. Finally, i also think that JTF-2 should be part of a larger unit, to be modeled somewhat like the Aussie SAS Regt.


----------



## King (12 Sep 2001)

Jungle,

You don‘t like the Griffons?


----------



## Jungle (13 Sep 2001)

Frankly King, no. They are a nice "taxi" to take VIP‘s around, but are not well suited for military ops. What happened is very simple: Bell helicopter took a military helo (the huey) and turned it into a machine usable by civilian buyers. Then, the CDN govt bought 100, painted them green, and told the Army to use them !!! They are in fact a good machine, for the civie user... but too fragile for mil ops: they had to add plywood on the floor (we were poking holes in it with C7 barrels), the doors handles are cheap plastic, the seats fall apart... but the avionics are top notch. I think we should have bought a real military machine...


----------



## McG (21 Sep 2001)

Intresting how these posts describe and recomend exactly the type of fighting force that the US is deploying to the mideast. It adds a fair amount of credibility to all the arguments made for a new airmobile battalion, helicopters capable of troop airlift, and possibly a JTF2 with a slightly expanded role.


----------



## Yard Ape (21 Sep 2001)

This discusion describes the time of force that will be needed in Afganistan because that is the type of force that will be needed for most conflicts in the near future.

  :fifty:   Yard Ape


----------



## Recce41 (22 Sep 2001)

Well
   I see it this way, we need the SSF back. We were light quick to deploy force. Im a armour guy but I hate tanks. I‘ve spent most of my time in Recce and Loved it. For Airborne and Assult ops they have there use. Fast, can be put down in a small area. I‘ve served as a jumper and did exs that were better than the LEG exs. large scale drops no med to small yes. You can drop a Coyote. We were used as fast support as the 1st Recce Sqn Para was to in Arheim and other drops with the Canadian and British paras in WW2. We require the type of force back. We were better trained and would have more bang for the Buck.  Heavy Bges are good for places like the Gulf War but not for the new type of small country peacemaking/keeper ops.
 We should have Tanks but in the med Bges which can be used in the normal war role. So  train on what we and train to be the best. And for Taskings in summer the Res have to kick some of the ones in their own units to get out and do them and not down at the beach tanning. 
         Sgt J.  CD CDS. com


----------



## the patriot (22 Sep 2001)

Recce41,

So with your suggestion that the SSF be brought back, I would assume that you mean along with that comes the Airborne Regiment.  Do you think that there is the political will to bring it back to the Order of Battle?!

OSONS (We Dare!)

-the patriot-


----------



## Recce41 (23 Sep 2001)

Yes Most of us Jumper would think it was great. 
         Sgt J. Cd,CDS com.    RCD ex 1st troop PARA      :tank:


----------



## Yard Ape (25 Sep 2001)

*Analysis: Role of the elite troops*
Monday, 24 September, 2001, 11:47 GMT 12:47 UK 
BBC News
By defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus 
America‘s military preparations seem familiar - carrier battle groups are under way and warplanes are deploying to overseas bases. 

But military action, when it comes, is likely to be very different from anything we have seen before. Certainly air power will be used but the real action will be on the ground. 

Many experts believe that this could involve one of the largest special forces operations in recent years. 

The attacks on Washington and New York killed thousands of people and changed once and for all the reluctance of America‘s political leaders to risk soldiers in ground combat. 

*Casualty risk*

This reluctance to put its troops "in harm‘s way" was often more apparent than real. It is clear, for example, that President George Bush senior was quite prepared to suffer US casualties in the Gulf War. 

But as things turned out the ground campaign was so quick that US casualties were in fact minimal. Now, with so many US civilian lives lost, there is no question about accepting the risk of military casualties. 

Special forces are the ideal ground troops for what lies ahead. 

The Pentagon does not want to invade Afghanistan. It has studied the Soviet army‘s operations there and knows that a long stay would play to the Taleban‘s strengths. It also doesn‘t want to flatten large areas of the country with bombing. There will be no Iraq-style air campaign. 

For one thing, there are just not the equivalent targets in Afghanistan - the country is poor and much of its infrastructure has already been destroyed in years of civil war. 

But if the US is to carry the international diplomatic coalition it has forged, it needs to make its strikes judicious, clearly focused and with every effort to avoid civilian loss of life - once again suggesting that it would be better to go in on the ground. 

Everything of course depends upon adequate intelligence. Many reports suggest that Western special forces - possibly Britain‘s Special Air Service, the SAS, or US units - are already in place on the ground gathering information. 

*Highly trained*

It would not be surprising but defence ministries simply don‘t speak about that type of operation. But if special forces are to play a key role in the days ahead the Pentagon can draw on a variety of highly trained units. 

As if to underline the growing importance of this kind of warfare, the US Special Operations Command was established as a separate entity in 1987. It is responsible for army, navy and air force special forces. 

They include the 75th Ranger Regiment - the premier light infantry unit in the US Army and the so-called Delta Force, an elite anti-terrorist unit. 

Special forces from America‘s allies - especially some of its Nato allies might also be involved with particular attention focused on Britain‘s SAS which has long-operational experience of this part of the world and is widely regarded by professionals as "one of the best in the business". 

*Close-quarter struggle *

The exact nature of the operation is unclear. It might involve sweeps of key areas of Afghanistan or it might involve the seizure of territory and the holding of a "box" for some days while other teams scoured the terrain for the hiding places of Osama Bin Laden‘s followers. 

High-technology will give the US forces many advantages over their Soviet equivalents. 

They have highly sophisticated helicopters with tailor-made navigational and electronic systems to insert, supply and recover special forces teams. But this will be no "Rambo" movie. 

Afghan fighters know the terrain well and will see themselves as confronting an invading force. 

Technology is important but is not always relevant in this grim and determined close-quarters struggle. 

US and other Western leaders are already warning of potential casualties readying public opinion to realise that this really is a new kind of wafare from what has been seen in the past decade.


----------



## Gordon Angus Mackinlay (28 Sep 2001)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The last posting stated that the  Australian and NZ Defence Forces had no counter-terrorist ability, both nations actually do.

AUSTRALIA  The SAS Regiment in Perth, WA, has 3 sabre squadrons (1, 2 and 3) each of 3 troops (30 men each).  These are in CT (black) role 1 (this is reorganised into the TAG - Tactical Assault Group role), conventional warfare (green) 1, and training for CT 1, each sqn rotates through the black, green and training cycles.  The 3 other sqns in the regt (Base, Support (formerly training) and signals), provide direct support to the 3 sqn roles.

NEW ZEALAND   The SAS Group, has 2 sqns, each 3 troops (12 or 16 men each).  1 Sqn CT, the other general war.  It has similar support elements to the Aust SASR, allowing for difference in size (600 to 180).

In both organisations, the basic sqn troop has a specific role; vehicle mobility, air operations, water, with a patrol from each troop receiving training in mountain techniques (if they were on full establishment each organisation would have a 4th troop per sqn with the mountain role).

In Australia, the 4th Battalion (Commando), The Royal Australian Regiment (organised as a HQ coy and 2 strong cdo coys) was to have taken over the CT (and the CSAR - Combat Search and Rescue, now the RAAF Airfield Defence organisation responsibility) role.  However, due to our chronic shortage of infantry, it was converted into a light inf bn to tour with the UN in East Timor.  It is not sure what is to happen to this unit as the minimum requirement is for 4 lt inf bns (we have 3)!

3rd Battalion (Parachute), The RAR, is the reduced establishment lt inf bn element of the parachute group (light gun fd bty, engineers, log and medical).  A expensive unit to run, but, has a vital role in the defence of Australia.  With its very high mobility and quick reaction - just what Canada needs for the same major problems of distance.

Until the NZ Labor Party loonies started their major destruction of the NZ Defence Force, had a para rifle coy and a commando (Ranger traditional title) coy in the organisation of the 2 lt inf bns.

In regard to the Belgium Armed Forces, their Parachute Commando Brigade has 3 lt inf bns (of Reuglar soldiers) with full support units, and a ‘SAS‘ type coy.  The requirement for CT operations within the nation now comes from their recently formed Federal Police Service.

Yours,
Jock in Sydney


----------



## Yard Ape (28 Sep 2001)

That sounds like what Canada needs.  A 4 Squadron SAS modeled after the Austrailians and incluning the Mountain Ops Sqn.  Replace the JTF 2.

  Yard Ape


----------



## portcullisguy (27 Nov 2001)

> Originally posted by the patriot:
> [qb]I guess we already have that with the Para Companies in each of the Light Infantry Battalions of the RCR, PPCLI, and the Van Doos.  As for amphibious ops, they try to address that with various exercises from what I‘ve seen at the Reserve level.  The danger with over-specialization is that people then start to get slack with basic soldiering.  At the end of the day, once you‘ve hit the ground running or landed on the beach..... everyday pepper-potting will save your rear end.  If you can‘t even do that, you‘re pretty much dead.
> 
> -the patriot-     [/qb]



Sorry to revive an old discussion... I am new here, though, and thought I‘d catch up on the old discussions (so I don‘t repeat anything already beaten to death).

One thing I notice is a lot of talk about "para" this or "specialization" that or "JTF" here or what have you.  And, I certainly agree to some extent.

But, the patriot is absolutely right:  The most essential, fundamental task of combat arms soldiers is to destroy the enemy.  How it is done is not as important as doing it.

Jumping out of airplanes, or swimming, or amphibious landing, or walking, or driving a AFV are only ways of getting to the battle.  Once there, it is essential that every soldier know how to "finish", i.e. shoot the enemy.

Over-emphasis on specialization or non-essential skills is bad if it allows basic skills to deteriorate.


----------



## ender (30 Nov 2001)

Agreed.  The level of marksmanship (at least around here) is pretty pathetic.

  Most people don‘t know how to use thier own sights.  People are walking around with thier sights in a position where they can‘t even see through them.  I‘m a pretty crappy shot, but becuase I know how to adjust my own sights I can hit the target at the 500m snap.  That makes me one of the better shots in my regiment.  Why don‘t they teach everyone how to do this?  Sometimes, even the range staff who are adjusting helping to zero the weapons are pretty clueless.

  Here, many of the instructors have no idea of the basics of marksmanship.  You still see people getting yelled at for putting thier mags on the ground.

  If you can‘t shoot the enemy, you are pretty ineffective as a soldier.  More emphasis should be placed on warfighting skills.  How many people here have a long butt who need one?  A left handed helmet strap?  Why isn‘t this stuff availiable?


----------



## Yard Ape (30 Nov 2001)

It is available.  You just have to ask for it.  There is a problem with your local supply if it cannot be gotten to you.







  Yard Ape


----------



## ender (3 Dec 2001)

It‘s not availible to me. (maybe I should bug my section commander more)  I think a lot of people don‘t even know it exists.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (3 Dec 2001)

Everything is in the system. ask  for it!!!!( demand it!!!!)


----------



## enfield (4 Dec 2001)

They‘re definatley in teh system. I know lots of guys that have extra long or shortened butts. 
The biggest problem is not enough time at the range.. once a year doesn‘t really help much. I‘ve always wondered how important the range really was to fighting - the marksmanship principles are going to go to **** on the two-way range. Live fire ex‘s, jungle lanes, they seem more important.


----------



## TOW2B (4 Dec 2001)

The conventional range is a tool meant to reienforce the marksmanship principals.The convention range provides the repetition required for the principals to become second nature.It in no way can simulate the rigours of combat but it is not meant too that is why we do field firing.The time spent on the range is important but it must not be the end of training.It is fine and dandy to hit a arget at 500m or what ever but not hit one at 50m after a 300m section attack. People bitch about not getting enough time on the range yeah, that is true but compare that to the amount of people that bitch when you get to the range!!!! You gotta wonder sometimes.
 Personally I train more on my own than I do with my unit, people think I am wierd for spending every weekend on the range that I can but I know exactly what I am capable of and ow much it has improved me.this may not be an option for all but any shooting is better than none.A little trick I learned from a "Secret Squirrel",use a BB gun to practice insinctive shooting cheap as hell and pretty fun when you can nail a dragon fly from your webbing at 10 paces when waiting for the next relay to shoot.
 It is a matter of commitment,I  am a SNCO in the Regs so if I can make time to shoot, alot of the others out there should be able to as well.You cannot expect your units to have the money or time to do it for you.


----------



## ender (5 Dec 2001)

You have the resources to train on your own, a lot of who live in cities (especially Liberal anti-gun cities like Toronto) don‘t have those options.  I can‘t afford to buy guns or even a permit.  And seeing as I have no backyard and live in a basement apartment, a BB gun isn‘t a viable option either.  It‘s not about time.

I don‘t think it‘s unreasonable to expect the Army to train it‘s soldiers how to shoot.


----------



## TOW2B (6 Dec 2001)

The military does teach you how to shoot.The problem is with the units and higher.Apparently Brigade figures that it is more practical to send all SNCOs away on taskings rather than allow them to remain with the units to do their job which is to teach and coach.Does your unit have a Musketry Officer or a Master Coach ...Chances are it doesn‘t.Don‘t blame the military as a whole it is the units that are dropping the ball,espescially the SNCOs who have the responsibility to maintain the marksmanship standards of a unit.An hour of dry firing is equal to an hour of live fire with all the benifits.


----------



## ender (7 Dec 2001)

My unit does have a musketry NCO, he‘s small arms instructor qualified and goes to CFSAC every year.  He‘s also my Dad.  Our unit won‘t give him time to teach anything.  They won‘t give the rifle team time to train.  Last unit warrier qual shoot they tasked him out to do assault boats for an infantry excercise.  Yes, my unit dropped the ball.  But the situation seems to be same (or significantly worse) in most of the other units in the brigade.  If nearly every individual unit (with some notable exceptions ie. Lorne Scotts) is dropping the ball, then it is the army‘s fault for not making it a priority.


----------



## rceme_rat (8 Dec 2001)

I think the training problem is evident -- we‘ve tasked the hell out of understrength units, and sent everyone away to augment deployed units.  This has left a bunch of directionless and fatigued individuals.  

Sort of like driving your car with the oil light on with the intention of doing something about it.  Never gets done until "without warning", the engine seizes.  

Funny, that happens exactly when you need it the most.  


Don‘t blame the leadership for this one - it goes up to the Minister who still seems to think we‘re better prepared for operations now than a decade ago.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Dec 2001)

>I know lots of guys that have extra long or shortened butts. 

I can‘t believe you all let this one go by.


----------

