# Should the CF be retain in its present form? (Split from MBT thread)



## RickB (19 Jan 2005)

Sorry if this is a bit off topic.

The question in my opinion right now is not really if we should keep MBT's but if we should even keep the CF. So far our government since we started peacekeeping, has forgot about the possibility of a real war with countries or coalitions as enemies more and more. The main idea behind having a military is to defend our sovereignty, not to peacekeep. I'm not denouncing peacekeeping, as it is necessary and useful, but if that's the only purpose for our military, it might as well be a larger version of the RCMP. Once we have this figured out then we could really render a decision as to MBT's, Helicopters, Airlift etc.

My personal opinion on this, is that our military is here to fight wars; so thefore, we should retain both heavy, medium, and light armour capabilities. Thefore we should keep MBT's but also focus on creating a "cavalry" tank so to speak. Something that could have the firepower and all-terrain capabilities of of a tank, whilst keeping the speed and low profile or a recce vehicle/light tank and looking non threatening for those peacekeeping missions.

But as for wars, you NEED heavy armour and you NEED light armour, and medium armour couldn't hurt either. Each has their own capabilities that complement one another, taking one set out throws the whole equation out of balance.

Of course I could be all wrong about everything.

Once again I'm sorry if this went off topic a little bit.

Regards,

Rick B, Cadet MCpl


----------



## generic (19 Jan 2005)

RickB.
I would have to voice agreement on your post and would not think you off base.

To many there is a perception (and a stark reality behind it) that Canada is becoming increasing irrelevant in the global forum.
With continued cutbacks and oft times myopic foresight we are serious losing our capability to effect any kind of action, defensive or offensive. This is not only from a military point of view but one from a political standpoint as well.  When you no longer sustain/maintain the ability to enforce your own sovereignty,and foreign policies you lose complete credibility when it comes to negotiating or effecting change.  Taking MBT's out of the picture, you leave it's replacement looking like a smaller, weaker option.  Left to fight a mainly defensive battle.  As we all know offense and initiative seize the day.
It is well and noble to be known as a nation where "peacekeeping" is our forte, but it would be wise to remember that an army trained to fight a war can handle peacekeeping, not the other way around.

 I have read an increasing number of articles since I have joined which echo repeated the same sentiment: The situation is critical.


----------



## Spr.Earl (19 Jan 2005)

We must keep our MBT's they have the punch and mobility which the new 8 wheeled light armoured,light gunned vehicles we are supposed to get don't have.

Same goes for our Arty we need the Guns wheather towed or S.P.


----------



## tomhynes (20 Jan 2005)

But in todays ever changing world is the need for MBT's there? Canada is in the midst of making some huge decisions concerning our forces, and I honestly think they're really looking into it deep. Our military is in the public eye more and more, and the politicians know it and have accepted it, its only a matter of time now before we start seeing major increases in attention and defense spending.

As far as what our role should be, I used to think we need the heavy, medium and light capability, but then started thinking more realistically. Our military should be very mobilized, with a medium/light punch which will still put us on the offensive overseas. New missions will arise not on big open battlefields, but in urban areas against rogue enemies where the need for a MBT isnt there. Send the Leos into Kabul they'll only create a larger, slower target for enemy attacks. The key words in our transformation are speed and mobility. We should have the ability to get in, make a difference, and get out quickly. If the need is there to stay on the ground we also need the ability to sustain our battlegroups. 

Whether we stay a heavy force, or downgrade to medium the fact still remains that we've hit the bottom and theres nowhere else to go but up from here. The government knows that and its taken alot of hard times and grim realities to prove it, but the money is coming.


----------



## Cliff (20 Jan 2005)

RickB said:
			
		

> Sorry if this is a bit off topic.
> 
> The main idea behind having a military is to defend our sovereignty, not to peacekeep.



The only country that is in a position to invade Canada is the US and the probability of that happening isn't very good.   Even more MBTs wouldn't do much to deter them, if they ever did.   Sovereignty is a nice word, but it takes $$ to exercise it.


----------



## GerryCan (20 Jan 2005)

Regardless of what's going on in the world right this instant, getting rid of MBT's is stupid. It's been said here a million times.
Having an easily deployable force with Medium to Light vehicles sounds all fine and dandy, but do you honestly believe there will be no need for tanks again, ever??

C'mon people, this whole quick deployment crap is a line fed straight from the Bean Counters that are taking the tanks away to begin with.
A good excuse really when you think about it. Convince the people that these pieces of equipment aren't useful anymore and we can replace them with absolute trash ie; STRYKER MGS with both sides going away happy. Until that is, one day when we actually realize that losing a Main Battle Tank isn't such a good idea.
I know we haven't fought in a full scale war in a long time, and hopefully we don't anytime soon, but do we honestly believe that it 'could' never happen again? Well we didn't see 9/11 coming and it happenened(as much as I hate to bring it up)

No medium or light vehicles will ever replace the role of a MBT, they are entirely different roles one or the other can't fill on their own.

We're a peacekeeping nation because the word itself, helps the majority of tax payers that believe we dont need a military sleep at night.

Anyone can 'Peacekeep.' Anyone can sit on the sidelines and watch a country tear itself to shreds and pick up the pieces afterwords, not everyone can fight wars...And by not having tanks, we may become just that.

Here's a look at both sides of the spectrum. 

http://www.rense.com/general61/loses.htm


----------



## tomhynes (20 Jan 2005)

But is it worth using up our valuable dollars just to keep a small fleet of tanks that are just going to keep needing more and more upgrades? I agree that we need a MBT, in my opinion every army that has any sort of structure should have them, but times are changing the need is getting smaller. The US has over 8,000 MBTs in service, we have roughly 130. If there was some sort of war, lets say against China, do you think our 130 old tanks will make a difference? If we transformed our forces into a quick reaction force, we'd still be able to make differences when fighting alongside our allies, just not in heavy equipment. I know it sucks and we all wish that Canada could once again field an army of huge magnitudes, but it'll never happen. Getting back to a war with a country like China, there'd be no fighting on our soil anyways, at least on the ground. We dont even have the ability to transport our Leo's anywhere, and do you think in a time of all our war the Russians or Americans will come to our aid? No, they wont. This just brings up more and more things that are wrong with the CF today.


----------



## GerryCan (20 Jan 2005)

TomHynes said:
			
		

> But is it worth using up our valuable dollars just to keep a small fleet of tanks that are just going to keep needing more and more upgrades? I agree that we need a MBT, in my opinion every army that has any sort of structure should have them, but times are changing the need is getting smaller. The US has over 8,000 MBTs in service, we have roughly 130. If there was some sort of war, lets say against China, do you think our 130 old tanks will make a difference? If we transformed our forces into a quick reaction force, we'd still be able to make differences when fighting alongside our allies, just not in heavy equipment. I know it sucks and we all wish that Canada could once again field an army of huge magnitudes, but it'll never happen. Getting back to a war with a country like China, there'd be no fighting on our soil anyways, at least on the ground. We dont even have the ability to transport our Leo's anywhere, and do you think in a time of all our war the Russians or Americans will come to our aid? No, they wont. This just brings up more and more things that are wrong with the CF today.



No it's not worth keeping a small fleet of tanks that need constant upgrading, but it is worth is to replace the antiques we have with newer ones that don't need constant upgrading.

As for a war against China or whoever, why is it so hard to comprehend any fighting on our soil?  Just because the western world has been bringing the war to foreign soil for so many years, it still doesn't mean it can't happen eventually within our own borders.

I absolutely agree that a Quick Reaction force would be able to make a great difference in various global needs and I'm not ruling it out as a bad idea. But along with that QRF, we should also have a substantial force to further aid in our own protection right here. And yes, tanks would make a difference. Sure we don't have a lot of them, but we don't have a lot of LAV's, Grizzly's, Cougars or anything for that matter. So in the same sense, would our small fleet of any of our vehicles make a difference?

And could you explain as to why you believe America wouldnt come to our aid if we needed? Russia I can understand as they're not one of our biggest allies, but the U.S and Canada are the 2 closest allies in the world, making us one of their best interests.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jan 2005)

A couple of things TommyHynes:

Our tanks have done a fantastic job when deployed overseas.  They filled a niche in Kosovo and went places the larger Leo 2, Challenger 2 and M1's couldn't go.  They went place the wheeled Italian Centaro couldn't go.  They did their job.

Yes we have to up date our tanks.  All weapons systems need upgrades.  Do you think that our brand new LAV IIIs are immune to this?  No, they are already undergoing yet more upgrades, and they will continue to do so.

Several factors that civilians making these decisions seem to make are very destructive.  Civies look at their own situation and then think that a Light Force would be more than adequate to combat it, not looking at current world politics and the evil people out there who may want to cause us harm.  They are "bean counters" who don't worry that the five dollar saving they are making today, will cost us $500 tomorrow.  They don't realize that skill sets lost by our military because of their cuts, will be hard to get back (if ever) in time of a crunch. 

Have you ever sat in a trench on an overcast night, pitch black and listened to a tank moving cross country out there somewhere?  It is terrifying.

Your example of tanks being too slow in Kabul, not as fast as a LAV III or Coyote, is OTL.  Have you ever wondered what happens in a narrow street of mud walls and houses, should these LAV or Coyote get ambushed?  It takes "40 acres" to turn one around.  A tank can turn on the spot.  Can a LAV of Coyote get out of there quickly?  No!  A tank can.  It has Fire Power.  It has raw power in its' diesel engine and can drive through those mud houses and walls.  It has a lot better protection than the wheeled APCs we are now putting our lives in.

Tanks have Mobility, Fire Power, Protection, Good Comms and "Shock Action".  All something that is being lost on this new generation of Soldier and Politician.  All for a couple of bucks savings today.

GW


----------



## tomhynes (20 Jan 2005)

If the world was ever thrust into another world war (I use China only as a hypothetical example), you cant honestly say the US would gladly give up some of their transport planes so that Canada can also play along. Afghanistan was one thing, but if the shit ever did hit the fan and we're talking big time, I just could picture the US taking a more unilateral approach towards fighting the war. Of course they'd still be our closest ally, and probably request we send what we can, but for them to always give up their resources for us is taking a gamble on our part. So my only point was simply that we need bigger transport planes, and Hercs that can get the job done.

As for tanks, I dont necessarily agree that we should be giving them up like this. I WANT Canada to have a military with a punch, I love seeing the Leos in action ripping around in the fields and shaking fear into anyone within a close range to them. I know that they have made a dent in missions such as Kosovo. What my point was, however, is that when the politicians come to the military and say, "heres the money you'll get for the next 5 years, do what you want with it", it puts alot of programs, and equipment on the cutting block. In an ideal budget of course I want us to have all the firepower we can, so that we can pack a punch overseas if the need be. Its not ideal though, its the opposite, it sucks. I will almost never support what our politicians do to us, but sometimes you have to look at the reality of things.  :-[


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jan 2005)

: Putting on Philisophical Hat!.......Ah! yes! but what is Reality?

 ;D

GW


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Jan 2005)

Lets look at this slightly differently.  Tanks are important, ergo we must have tanks.  The budget is 13.5B, and isn't going to get any bigger.  But we have to have tanks.  What do we give up to have tanks?  It is a zero sum game gents.

Dave


----------



## generic (21 Jan 2005)

It seems to me with what I have read here (and I am fairly new here) and in other places that the overall the consensus is: Getting rid of Tanks, no matter the size, is a _*bad*_ idea.  



> Your example of tanks being too slow in Kabul, not as fast as a LAV III or Coyote, is OTL.  Have you ever wondered what happens in a narrow street of mud walls and houses, should these LAV or Coyote get ambushed?  It takes "40 acres" to turn one around.  A tank can turn on the spot.  Can a LAV of Coyote get out of there quickly?  No!  A tank can.  It has Fire Power.  It has raw power in its'
> diesel engine and can drive through those mud houses and walls.  It has a lot better protection than the wheeled APCs we are now putting our lives in.
> 
> Tanks have Mobility, Fire Power, Protection, Good Comms and "Shock Action".  All something that is being lost on this new generation of Soldier and Politician.  All for a couple of bucks savings today



When you listen to it put logically like George Wallace has, it seems to sum up the point perfectly. However, as PPCLI Guy put it, it is a zero sum game because of the pathetically limited budget.  ???  

I really do not like the feeling that this "new mobile light-weight" ideology for the future just feels and sounds like an ill begotten excuse for the fact that we choose not to put money in our military and it is nothing more than a doctrine that can fit around noncommital.

It seems like we decided to not have tanks because we lost the ability to take them anywhere without hitchhiking. But from all accounts that I've read we've had difficulties with the Stryker's as well...

It's a downward spiral.... :-\


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jan 2005)

I agree with the assessment that the CF is facing a zero sum game where the defense budget is concerned. Canada should be spending 
around $20 billion to maintain a modern military force. But with the existing budget were you CDS what would you do to free up money for critical military modernization ?

To answer the original question about MBT's. Tanks are nice but Canada hasnt deployed its MBT's. If you arent going to deploy the MBT's then why spend money on them ? A more deployable system than the Stryker MGS would be the M8 light tank with a 120mm main gun. It is deployable by C-130 and could be deployed with a BG more readily. The 82d would love to have this tank in its inventory.
Hopefully as the 82d is reorganized money will be found to buy 90-100 M8's to reconstitute the 82d's airborne armored battalions.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (21 Jan 2005)

All of you, well, most of you anyway, are missing a major point.

It doesn't matter that Canada only owns 114 Leopard C2.  It wouldn't matter if we owned half that number.  The number is sufficient to keep us familiar with war fighting.  It doesn't matter to the crew commanders, or the troop leaders, or the Generals, that we are operating Leo C2's, and not M1A1(HA).  The Leopard is easier and cheaper to maintain, but it allows us to remain current in the skills that the armour soldier has to be proficient in.  It also allows the Infantry and Armour to train together as combat arms should train together.

If a buildup in our Armed Forces is deemed necessary, then we have sufficient trained personnel to train additional soldiers in the required skills.  Of course, the equipment has to be relatively modern, it would most likely be easier to train civilians to operate an M1 than it would be to train crewman only current on a Sherman.

Lose the tank, and we lose not only capability, but we lose a huge chunk of future capability as well.  Once skills are lost by the armour and infantry, the skills that were so hard won are lost forever.

In my opinion, retaining one Brigade with a "medium" structure, would be the way to go.  Have three "light" brigades, or UA's, or whatever the current buzz word is.  Keep the medium, with the Leo's, the M113 (oops, I mean TLAV's) and M109.

Of course, we don't learn from history, do we?  Look at post WWI, post WWII, and now post cold war.  Sad.


----------



## CupFrantic (21 Jan 2005)

Just a question why wouldn't a M8 be a good compromise between having an only striker force or our out of date MBT? This would give us the fire power we need to be effective in a deployable force. This is not my area of knowledge let everything I read about the M8 is that it is a solid machine.


----------



## tomhynes (21 Jan 2005)

I'll have to admit I didnt think about the future aspect of things. I've never totally supported getting rid of our tanks, like I said before I love seeing them and hearing about our Leos. At least when a few Canadians can read articles about our tanks going up against the US tanks in the CANAM competition? I think thats what its called anyways. Thats all good publicity for our forces. Although the new things we're getting might look cool to the average Joe Canadian, I know they're pieces of crap just as much as the rest of you do. At least we can claim to have tanks that perform very well for the tasks theyre given, whether it be in a peacekeeping support role, or just training.


----------



## jrhume (21 Jan 2005)

I've been visiting the board for a couple of years and this issue keeps coming up.  No resolution seems possible because it looks like the money isn't going to be available -- barring radical changes in your situation.

So what about 'thinking outside the box' as our over-paid management consultants say.  What about a Canadian armored brigade as a component of a US Army division?  Let me expand a bit on the basic idea.

-- The US Army has lots of tanks.

-- Canada has plenty of willing tankers.

-- We even have historical precedent in the 1st Special Service Force, not to mention nearly a century of combat, side by side.

The practical aspects are not that difficult.  Canadians could train alongside their American counterparts in the same facilities.  The CF armored brigade could be stationed in Canada, but that's not a big deal.  Sizeable parts of American units are often stationed in different places.

It's the politics that would make the idea impossible, I suppose.  If the US were to be involved in fighting the Canadian government did not support, then the Canadian brigade could not be used in that conflict.  The Canadian unit could simply be sent to replace an American unit in some other place, freeing that unit for combat.  However, there are two major problems with that scenario: One -- it would detract from the overall fighting ability of the division in question.  Two -- the Canadian troopers would want to go with their friends and comrades in arms.

Nah.  It would never work.  Imagine the screams if someone even suggested such a thing.  

But there must be a way.  As was pointed out above, losing the tanks is one thing -- losing personnel, experience and training -- the culture of heavy armor, if you will, is a much more serious problem.

Jim


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jan 2005)

I think I read somewhere that the artillery was being relegated to the reserves in favor of mortars ?
Looks to me like the plan is to quietly convert the army to a constabulary force.


----------



## ArmyRick (21 Jan 2005)

Its interesting to see the points being brought up here about tanks.

First point, wether we think it is stupid or not to get rid of tanks, the Govt says we aint getting tanks. No tanks for the CF in the foreseeable future. 
Yes a huge set of skills and training and lessons learned will be lost. 
Too bad. Canada put Liberals in, this what we get.

As far as worrying about China invading or some other massive all out war? I would much rather spend the money (if thats the case) on up grading our air fighter fleet or get the Navy some really kick #ss kit. 
Now to get back to where we really are.

I agree the CF should have a 20 Billion $$$ (not unreasonable) budget. But we don't.

Tanks are going. Like a close friend thats terminally ill, we don't want to say good bye. However we must.

Lets move onwards.


----------



## CupFrantic (22 Jan 2005)

Rick, that was a great post and should bring us all back to reality. My next question is will we have to formulate a new army doctrine because we will no longer have tanks?


----------



## generic (22 Jan 2005)

The answer is yes.  And we are.  We are looking to the "3D" approach.  It is being conceptualized and trialed to use LAV III's, TUA (eventually on a LAV chassis), and ADATS/ MMEV (eventually on a LAV III chassis) fight the AA battle.

The logistics, C&C, and realitites of this are a nightmare.  Is it the future?  All the tarot cards say so.

Will this new concept pack a punch? Yes, covering the short, medium and long range spectrums. 
Is there going to be growing pains? You bet.
Will we ever deploy this way? Unlikely, we can't move what we have now.
Is this a replacement for a MBT armor, shock action, firepower (as mentioned before)? Yes.
A good one? No.

There is a previous post that needs to be saluted. Lance Weibe said it best.  We are not only losing the present day capability, the skill fade will be staggering, and in this day and age, this loss of ability and skill from the CF concioiusness could be fatal.

As well, the historic parallels are incredible, and foolish. It looks like we are doing it to ourselves again.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I think I read somewhere that the artillery was being relegated to the reserves in favor of mortars ?
> Looks to me like the plan is to quietly convert the army to a constabulary force.



This is a misconception of what has been happening.  On many of our Tours the Arty support has been in the form of mortars.  That isn't to mean that our Guns are going to the Reserves and we are reverting to mortars.  It is just the level of firepower that NDHQ deemed required at the time.

On the point that Canada hasn't deployed tanks, you are mistaken.  We have deployed tanks to Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo.  As I stated a few posts ago, the Leo 1 served a role in Kosovo, in that it could navigate the smaller streets that the large M1, Leo 2, and Challenger 2s could not and also get through the mud that the wheeled Italian Centauros could not.  

Our major problem has been dollars.  Our Air Force has lost most of its' capabilities, as has our Navy.  Therefore, we cannot transport any of our troops and equipment by our own means.  It is ridiculous to think that in a Major World Conflict we would have to rely on Renting transport.  Even now, people have forgotten the SS Katie incident when one third of our Land Force equipment was held hostage by a freighter captain looking for payment of wages.

GW


----------



## ArmyRick (22 Jan 2005)

George,
Unless I am mistaken, we did not deploy MBT to Macedemia (Dan Haverson told me they only deployed Coyotes and Grizzly)  in 2001?
Also when did we have MBT in Bosnia? During my first and second tour there, the Dutch, Brits, French and Yanks all had tanks, but we had only deployed Cougars and later Coyotes? During my third tour, I think all of SFOR had only like a squadron of tanks in country (Dutch).

I know we deployed a troop to Kosovo.

Has anybody else here know of some of the more specific details of the LdSH exercise in the fall that trialed new tactics using our current Leo, ADATS and TUA Fleet?
I would love to know some of the sepcifics of they tried and tested the tactics.

For anybody not in the loop, basically what they did was use the Leo (pretended they were MGS), TUA and ADATS to test and develop new direct fire doctrine.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (23 Jan 2005)

"The only difference between the Stryker and a Tank is armour and price"- a sentiment I saw expressed in the Globe and Mail.  In peacekeeping action there is one tiny little difference; deterrence.  If I am sitting with my little RPG and see a LAV roll around the corner, I might get all kind of frisky; man portable systems can engage them with a fair amount of confidence.  If I know that an MBT roll around the corner next, I'll be less likely to get frisky because the kinds of systems that can engage an MBT are not the sort of hardware insurgents can carry around.  Frankly, most of the armoured gun systems out there you can pot with a Carl G, pretty much just an APC with delusions of grandeur.  As I understand the new tactical doctrine, MBT are spotters for the indirect fire of missile equipped lighter armour right? The fact that the main gun of a Leopard makes a nasty punch of its own is just a part of the package.  If the MBT is to be the unit exposed to fire to direct the fire of lighter armoured units not exposed to return fire, then the weight of its armour and acuity of its sensors are its prime merits.  That requires a modern MBT.  The Challenger 2 fielded by the UK sports a Canadian designed package for intergrating and directing fire from multiple units.  A smaller number of modern MBT, spearheads for light armoured formations might be more cost effective AND SURVIVABLE, than large numbers of big-gunned tinfoil targets.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Jan 2005)

I agree. But there has to be the political will to deploy MBT's/combat troops which seem's lacking. Ottawa is quick to deploy troops on humanitarian reasons but not for combat. Ultimately if you arent going to use your military to fight its a waste of money to have MBT's and other heavy equipment.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2005)

ArmyRick

A Sqn RCD deployed tanks to IFOR in December of 1995.   Initially they went with Mine Rollers and were to be for Mine Clearance.   They ended up basically doing Gate Guard.   You may want to ask Dan if he remembers the ND made by the CO with the coax in '99.    

GW


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jan 2005)

As I have said elsewhere (See: http://army.ca/forums/threads/25365.285.html ) I believe we need *some*tanks, even light tanks.   The _shock effect_ of armour is, I believe, one of its most important attributes and I believe that a wheeled vehicle, even a wheeled vehicle with a useful (105 mm) gun, lacks sufficient _shock effect_.   Even in low intensity operations the sight and sound of a tank - even a light tank - lumbering and clanking its way into view has a salutary effect, as others have pointed out.

I also agree that we need to keep _*some*_ tanks for training - in *both* regular and reserve forces.   Reserve force tanks become more and more important as we have fewer and fewer in the regular force.

There is, however, clearly, no stomach in the government-of-the-day (nor, I would suggest, in the ranks of the Conservative Party of Canada) for the sorts of massive and lengthy infusions of money which are needed to buy even _*some*_ tanks and new ships and new fighter/bombers and new transport aircraft and new helicopters, and, and, and ... and hire, train and equip thousands and thousands more people.

But, the question is: Should the CF be retain*ed* in its present form?   (My suggested edit)

Rick B was, it seems to me, inching towards a question which many civilians ask themselves: *If restoring the CF to something like a balanced, combat effective, combat ready force is so very, very expensive then isn't it time we assessed alternatives?*

Again, elsewhere, I have posited that, absent any and all requirements for any sort of military force (ÃƒÂ  la Costa Rica) *every* nation-state worth the name *MUST* have, at all times, the armed forces - but maybe police/para-military forces - required to ensure that any band of armed thugs who can outgun a local police force cannot rob the country of its sovereignty by forcing governments to change the rules to suit an armed and angry minority.

That being said, there will be many Canadians who will argue for disbanding the military and building a new, very light, highly mobile, internal security force - probably a para-military adjunct to the RCMP, perhaps something akin to the French CRS.   (See:   http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/rubriques/c/c3_police_nationale/c339_sccrs/index_html )


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Jan 2005)

One possible outcome would be to eliminate the regular Army but keep the reserves/militia and put the Army's portion of the budget [less what the RF requires] into the Navy and CAF budgets.


----------



## generic (25 Jan 2005)

Being fairly new to the forum I don't know if this idea has been floated or debated or contested before.

An idea that I have heard bantered back and forth that falls between disbanding us for a paramilitary, RCMP on steriods model and the present "full-scale" military we have today is that of a model resembling that of an American Marine unit.

A fully cohesive, self- sufficient unit with arty, light armour, infantry all in one unit, with some kind of tactical helo or amphibious capability.  I don't know in what direction this would be a step towards but to me would seem to fall in line with the contemporary operating enviroment and give us a quick reaction force with enough teeth to get something done, but would also enable us to get into our much loved humanitarian missions.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jan 2005)

The CF is not setup for rapid deployment except -JTF2. To have a real rapid deployment capability the CF needs airlift and something like the US LHD. With money in short supply buying more airlift would be the way to go.


----------



## STONEY (26 Jan 2005)

We complain about our defence budget and certainly it could be increased but one problem seems to be how we spend what we do get. Whoever is running this lashup doesn't seem to know what they are doing or where they are going . Why did we spend millons upgrading the C1  to C2 leo then only to get rid of them a short time later. Why did they spend millons building new buildings at CFB summerside then close the place while some were still under construction. Why did they spend millions building new mess facilities & headquarters at CFB Shearwater then downgrade it to a heloport, closing down its main runway's that could handle any aircraft in the air. I'm sure many of you could relate many other horror stories of wasting huge sums of dollars. Does not the left hand know what the right hand is doing ? appearently not.  
    
Maybe the "braintrust" at NDHQ is far ahead in it's thinking than the rest of the world, as in getting rid of MBT's when no one else has thought of it yet. They certainly have failed in getting their line of thought out to the rank & file.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (26 Jan 2005)

> Why did they spend millions building new mess facilities & headquarters at CFB Shearwater then downgrade it to a heloport, closing down its main runway's that could handle any aircraft in the air



not sure if you have been at either lately but I have and both the new headquarter and the mess are packed and busy, they are not under utilized if thats what you are trying to say.


----------



## Inch (26 Jan 2005)

STONEY said:
			
		

> Why did they spend millions building new mess facilities & headquarters at CFB Shearwater then downgrade it to a heloport, closing down its main runway's that could handle any aircraft in the air.



Actually, it's hardly downgraded, there's still 2 Sqns here and an Air Maintenance Sqn plus support personnel, in total 1000+ pers. The mess is used extensively as is the HQ and believe me, the mess isn't new. The O's mess is a hole in the wall while Warrior Block may have been renovated, it's certainly not new and unused.

The big runway was closed since we don't have enough money to be maintaining it when there's no aircraft using it on a regular basis, kinda sounds stupid spending a ton of money on something that won't be used, oh wait, that's the point you were making.


My apologies if this was a hijack.


----------



## swanson (26 Jan 2005)

Hey guys many of you who drive tanks know me as i was a Strathcona for many years, The question should we keep main BTs is really not the correct question the question should be why in the hell don't we have any MBTs. The LEO is a medium battle tank and a very old hunk of junk. Trust me i know how proud the crews are I still remember the torque specs on every nut and bolt and i remember how important a 19mm socket wrench is. But the truth is the Leo is just old and dead yes in 1999 we added new turrets and some Thermal sights but that just turned and old hunk of garbage into a more expensive one. The powers that lead this country would have you believe that we should go wheeled but every good Tank driver knows just how limited the LAVs really are. Remember what LAV stands for and don't ever forget it. If we want to have Armour we must look at the Leo2 improved or the Challenger2 even the new French MBT the Leclerc or whatever it is called. Canada must think about having one full regiment of Tanks, And the other Regiments can have LAVs other NATO countries have laughed at us for years which really stinks because we have the best men in the world and we deserve better. Well that's my 2 cents worth i hope someone replies

R


----------



## RickB (26 Jan 2005)

swanson said:
			
		

> Trust me i know how proud the crews are I still remember the torque specs on every nut and bolt and i remember how important a 19mm socket wrench is. But the truth is the Leo is just old and dead yes in 1999 we added new turrets and some Thermal sights but that just turned and old hunk of garbage into a more expensive one.



I would have to agree with this, I could see how proud the guys were of their tanks during my last visit to the regiment, but I also saw the state of the tanks. The sight of zap straps holding the thermal shield (I think this is what is was called) onto the tank was not pretty. Not that the crews are bad at maintaining the tanks, but its just as swanson put it that the are old hunks of garbage.

For all those speaking of budgets,

Of course we're are not going to get a bigger budget, unless the people of this country start to  really care or even be aware that we have the CF. If the general population doesn't care about something, then the politicians really don't care all that much about it either.

And does it really matter which government party is screwing us over? The two major party's have both done it. You just have to make them care about it, as I previousley stated. Or thats my opinion at least.

As for tanks, (If anyone can confirm or deny this?) we could of had more and better tanks. The Germans wanted to leave us their tanks when they left Canada but no, its bad for us to seem weak accepting military charity. And the suggestion that we could have M1's? not that far fetched at all. The Americans are selling them to Australia and I belive they tried to give them to us 2 for 1 at less than the price of new Leo 2's.

My 0.02 cents on this discussion so far.

Once again I am farely young so feel free to correct me if I am misguided or misinformed.

Regards,

RickB, Cadet MCpl


----------



## jerrythunder (26 Jan 2005)

IM only 16 but i know a little about the world still. I know taht the United States is in an enormous(trillions) debt with China and other country's. And, that many country's such as China are pumping money into Canadian resources such as mining and other raw materials and that with the increasing unrest in the Middle East, Canada will soon be a target. It is the perfect time to up our military. What was said in the fourms as to the CF being too bent on peacekeeping as the Topic Starter mentioned, is true. Canada has invested way too much on the peacekeeping with Tanks and such Canada needs an army to defend itself and rescue other country's as we are known for doing(like Holland in WWII). i know that this is off topic too but did anyone know that canada had the chance to be the strongest country in the world once? lol


----------



## Zipper (28 Jan 2005)

well I may as well add my 2 cents in as well.

I have to agree with those who have said that we must keep the MBT. Not for operational reasons, as they would only be rarely deployed. But for the reasons of history and training. Our forces have been neglected by absolutely every government since confederation and before. We have always played "catch up" when something really big has gone down in the world. One of the reasons Worthington created the Armour school was to train and keep our soldiers as up to date as possible, and to continue to do so after the world wars. Even when we practised with only boards held between 4 guys to represent a tank in the back lot of the garrison, or drove the Iltis around the training area pretending.

So, if we allow our politicians to convince us that we have to lose a certain capability, then we only have ourselves to blame when the next crisis happens and we end up spending more to get up to speed and lose more lives then necessary to gain back what we had in the first place.

As we have seen in Kosovo, Iraq, and even with the Dutch example in Bosnia, the MBT has its place. Not often, but it is still there. To fall into this trap of light cavalry/mobile as an end product is dangerous. It will only be one more step towards driving in jeeps and calling ourselves peace police.

Thanks


----------



## ArmyRick (28 Jan 2005)

Yeah, it would be nice to get new MBT..
One the Govt doesn't want them and two, we in the CF couldn't afford a decent size fleet anyways.

RickB, there are alot of rumours of the US would sell us tanks for dirt cheap or that when they shut down GATES (German Army Training Exercise Shilo) that they would practically have givem them to us, etc, etc.
These are nonsense rumours and military myths.

Even if we did get Leo2A6 or Abrams. Do you realize the cost behind them ? The maintenance? The fuel consumption?

What about deploying them? We don't have that ability.

If we had a 20-25 Billion dollar defence budget than we could probably have 5 full brigades, at least 120-150 of the latest and greatest MBTs, a modern and up to date air fighter fleet, a decent air movement fleet (old rusty hercs aint cuttin it no more) and a respectable navy with amphibious transport ships.

The reality is we don't have them their dollars. We are losing alot of kit and we will lose even more yet. The Canadian people put liberals in power again, so that is how our defence will be.

By the way, I have worked several times on ex (with RCD, LdSH and even 12RBC) with our Leos and I admit, nothing says love like a squadron opening up on a volley of fire...

However as I said earlier, the MBT is on the way out. We need to make peace with that fact. 

Jerry thunder, what is the point you are trying to make man? As I say to my SQ candidates, make your answer short and simple, man...


----------



## Cliff (29 Jan 2005)

How many armour slots are going to be lost?


----------



## Zipper (31 Jan 2005)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Even if we did get Leo2A6 or Abrams. Do you realize the cost behind them ? The maintenance? The fuel consumption?
> 
> What about deploying them? We don't have that ability.
> 
> ...



Starting at the top. So what does that say about any of our mechanized forces? We don't have the means to maintain or fuel them now. Hell, with the number of retirments coming up, we won't be able to staff the base gas station.

As for deployment. There is another one that we cannot do now. As you know our Herc's are in about as good a shape as the sea kings. Not to mention most of the vehicles have to be striped down in some way in order for them to be carried. We have to "rent" transport whenever we want to go anywhere.

Ah...25 billion would be nice. But lets aim for a modest 15-20 instead and forget about 5 full brigades for the moment. I'd be happy with just 1.

Lets hope that with at least a minority, that the gov finally puts something in. Beyond that stupid insulting 500 million that was reported the other day. Ooo...      ...5000 more troops. 5000 more people without decent kit is more like it. Their probably all allocted for ND HQ anyway.

I will never let the MBT or any good peice of kit go quietly. What the hell would I have to do if I wasn't able to bitch?

Sigh...    ...I loved that feeling (vibration) that runs through your body when a troop (Sqn even better) of leo's goes driving by.


----------



## Georgia Minuteman (1 Feb 2005)

Hi, 

I think the Canadian Military should change it's current form...and here's why:   With the relatively small budget, Canada's dependence on U.S. continental defense, and other geo-political/economic realities, I think Canada's best contribution (assuming the political will exists in your capitol) to reshape the Canadian military into a more versatile, non-conventional arm of NATO capable of performing special op type missions as its primary mission focus.     Canadian troops are well trained, disciplined, and well equipped on an individual level, but certainly NOT as a conventional force.     Canada could substantially contribute in intel, spec ops, counter-insurgency, military police-type missions with logistical back up of the U.S. arsenal.         But, do the Ottawa weenies have the guts to go to war even if the tree hugging liberals cry foul?      Bottomline:     Can the U.S. depend on Canada to fight with us....along with us....     If so, then this little snafu over Iraq and Canada's sidelining could easily be forgotten and blamed on that guy you call Chretien whose gone.     That's my $0.02


----------



## Infanteer (1 Feb 2005)

Good points Georgia Minuteman.

"Niche Roleing" for whatever roll has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Your proposal would definitely give the CF a mission to focus both training and resources towards.

However, I won't go for it for because it ties us a bit too much into the US Force Structure.   We are already tied in on the operational level (all our formation-level doctrine works off of coalition involvement), this would tie us in on the tactical level as well, seriously degrading the capabilities of the CF as the tip of the Canadian sovereignty spear.   

Being on the continent gives us (both the US and Canada) the (enviable) option of a _strategy of choice_.   Not directly threatened or geographically bound to any major defence commitments, the government of Canada should be able to choose where to put its soldiers, sailors, and airmen on the line to further the national interest.   Despite the fact that many of us may have grumbled around many of the perceived reasons for abstaining from Iraq, it was Canada's choice to make.   If we were to turn the Forces into an extended tactical arm of the US military we would seriously inhibit our ability as a sovereign state to decide where to exercise our sovereign military power (whatever power that might be....).

Any politician who went for this wouldn't be doing his job as an executive of the sovereign estate.


----------



## Zipper (1 Feb 2005)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Good one Infanteer.  

Yes the liberal's tend to be less willing to send troops anywhere. But if history speaks, then you'll know it was a Liberal Gov that saw us through WWII with King.

As well, most of the tasks you mentioned were of a spec-op nature. This confuses me.

We have our JTF (I would love to see that name changed), and they have been given a big influx of cash to increase their numbers.

So i ask...            ...where are these people coming from?

I was reading up on the SAS. They pass less then 15 people a year out of a course size of 300. The SEAL's are very similar in their numbers. Both these units are drawing off of a strength of well over 100 thousand with higher training standards overall. So how is it that we can build an elite spec-op force when we really only have maybe less then 20 thousand to choose from? And a much lower training standard overall? Do we pass like 1 person a year?

Just wondering.


----------



## Chief Clerk (8 Feb 2005)

I am not from a cbt arms MOC, but I have served with various cmbt arms units in the past 26 years.  It would seem we HAVE to change our ways to be leaner (read less expensive) as $ is not exactly being thrown our way lately!  It would seem we need to step out the COLD war years when everything was heavy (tanks, etc) and expensive.  Lately it seems we are being sent to places where speed and lightness is the way to go, esp when working in and around cities.  Heavy eqpt was good back then when we had it placed and ready to go in Germany, now we cannot even afford to move anything from Canada to Europe with begging for lift from some other country.  I wish the Govt would really sit down and tell us what they REALLY want us to do - rapid reaction force, only peacekeeping, only peacemaking, whatever - and then build and fund upon this!
And, anyway we cut it, we are paid by the taxpayer - and what they want is what we shall provide - after 26 years, just wish someone would finally paint us a clear picture.


----------

