# Triforce concept coming back??



## Bigmac (22 Oct 2006)

I am going to date myself here but when I joined in 1984 the Canadian Armed Forces were under a "Triforce" concept. We all wore the Army green uniform and my personal favorite workdress uniform which included a jacket that required various forms of ironed creases depending on where you were posted (You old guys know what I'm talking about! Don't forget the optional ascot!). A year later the Mulroney government brought back the environmental uniform.
     
      With the CDS statement of rerolling various military trade pers into Infantry roles I ask the following questions:

   *1.    Are we going back full circle and returning to the Triforce concept?

    2.    How do you feel about going back to one uniform for all which would be "Army" ?*


----------



## Infanteer (22 Oct 2006)

1. No

2. No


----------



## Bigmac (22 Oct 2006)

> 1. No
> 
> 2. No



      Although I appreciate the short answer please elaborate as to why you feel this way. To me we seem to be heading back to the triforce.


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Oct 2006)

Could you please elaborate on how you reached this conclusion?  Without solid evidence for others to analyze, it is very difficult to debate something based on what it "seems to be" to one individual.


----------



## Bigmac (22 Oct 2006)

> Could you please elaborate on how you reached this conclusion?  Without solid evidence for others to analyze, it is very difficult to debate something based on what it "seems to be" to one individual.


      The Canadian Forces are militarily small compared to other countries. Presently we are approx. 62,000 pers. We do not have a large resource of infanteers within that number. Obviously in our present mission the infanteer is a hot commodity that will continue as the mission in Afghanistan goes on. My opinion is that we are heading back to a triforce concept to draw on other pers so the fulltime infanteers don't burn out. This to me becomes a triforce concept as we will have to draw from other environments as well to achieve this goal.


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Oct 2006)

The CF is still a single entity as a result of Unification.  Returning to distinct environmental uniforms and the common use of "Navy", "Army" and "Air Force" did not revert the CF to three separate services.  The recent talk of seeking potential (short-term) infantry recruits from other recruiting streams does not necessarily lead to a requirement for a single uniform for all personnel again.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Oct 2006)

1- The uniform is rather imaterial.  Do we not have better things to spend money and effort on that reversing the decision to bring in the DEU ?  What could be possibly gained by doing that ? A great many of us rarely wear the DEUs to begin with, i doubt that going to a single  dress uniform for all will accomplish anything.  Operational clothing is basicaly the same for everyone less those with specific requirements.

2- I beleive that you, like so many others, read to much into all the hooplah going on in the media.  We are not going to see mass breifings tomorow on air forces bases announcing that X number of techs on the base are now infantry and going on BIQ.  We are not about to tie up ships along side so that we can add a coy's worth of soldiers to TFA. IMHO this would do a disservice to the forces and Canada. 

3- Like Micheal O'Leary said, there is no such legal beasts as the Air Force, the Navy or the Army......There has not been since unification.  We therfore cannot go back to what we already are.


----------



## 284_226 (22 Oct 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> My opinion is that we are heading back to a triforce concept to draw on other pers so the fulltime infanteers don't burn out. This to me becomes a triforce concept as we will have to draw from other environments as well to achieve this goal.



There won't be any "drawing upon other environments".  The only trades that will be drawn from will be Arty and Armd, if the briefing given two days ago by the Air Force CWO to 12 Wing Shearwater is accurate - and I have no reason to suspect that it isn't.

Think about it.  The only people that have been making these wild statements about Navy or Air Force personnel being re-roled into infantry are the press.  Even the Halifax Chronicle Herald news story referred to an interview with a *retired* Rear Admiral.  I think if everyone waits until clarification comes through *official* channels, it'll be revealed that everyone is jumping to conclusions - especially the press.


----------



## Bigmac (22 Oct 2006)

Even in '84 everyone considered themselves Army, Navy or Air Force even though we wore one uniform. I know the CF is one entity and will become that even more when all elements merge. We are all part of the collective and will all be assimilated just like the borg. It is only a matter of time!   Much like the US Marines we will train as infanteers and then be sent to trades training. This is my opinion again.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Oct 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> will become that even more when all elements merge.



Can i ask what you are going on about ?

Merge ?


----------



## Bigmac (22 Oct 2006)

> Can i ask what you are going on about ?
> 
> Merge ?



      As far as I am concerned we are all soldiers first. We are all trained as soldiers in basic training and continue to upgrade our skills every year.  Here is my question to you: Are you willing to step into an infanteer role in Afghanistan or any other combat area if required by the CF? This time a Yes or No will suffice.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Oct 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> As far as I am concerned we are all soldiers first. We are all trained as soldiers in basic training and continue to upgrade our skills every year.  Here is my question to you: Are you willing to step into an infanteer role in Afghanistan or any other combat area if required by the CF?



You are over-simplifying things

I always went where they told me and will continue to do so.  But if i am to become an infanteer, who will do my job here at home ?  Afghanistan is our main oprational focus but that does not mean that it is the only thing going on.



			
				Bigmac said:
			
		

> This time a Yes or No will suffice.



Now now...you asked a question , i will give you my answer.  The first time you got a yes/no response, you complained, now you will have to deal with longer responses.


----------



## armyvern (22 Oct 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> As far as I am concerned we are all soldiers first. We are all trained as soldiers in basic training and continue to upgrade our skills every year.  Here is my question to you: Are you willing to step into an infanteer role in Afghanistan or any other combat area if required by the CF? This time a Yes or No will suffice.


No it won't suffice. see this post for my response:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51210/post-466207.html#msg466207


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Oct 2006)

"Joint" I support, "unified" I most assuredly do not.  We're still one _legal_ entity, but have _de facto_ individual services, a system that works relatively well.

As for forced re-roleing to infantry, it ain't gonna happen.  Aside from the operational difficulties in taking a (say) Navy pay clerk and forcing him/her to remuster to infantry, we're far too short-staffed in most of the support trades to make this even a remote theoretical possibility.  Can you imagine the training bill?

Such a narrow-minded, short-sighted outlook denigrates the skill sets required by the infantry; it's not a "simple" job as some would have us believe - as others have pointed out on other threads.  If Bigmac thinks that you can pick up an ill-trained, unwilling group of support people, toss them into theatre as infantry and have them succeed, I'd suggest he hasn't learned much in his 22 years of service.

Tempest in a teapot.


----------



## Daidalous (22 Oct 2006)

I personally think you will see trades people such as cooks drivers medics etc getting deployed more from Airforce and Navy bases and working as there trade.    The idea of making infantry Coy's out of support trades is a bad idea  why??

1. Who d you think will train them     Cbt Arms
2. Who is going to lead them            Cbt Arms NCO's and Officers
This will only create a bigger work load rather than getting rid of it.
3  No one fresh out of a 16 week Battle school and build up training is going to have the same field knowledge as a rifleman with 8 years in. Thus creating entire Coy's of nothing but FNG's.  I can see the MWO pulling his hair out now.

Unless these people are remustered to infantry.  Ouch


----------



## Bigmac (22 Oct 2006)

> Such a narrow-minded, short-sighted outlook denigrates the skill sets required by the infantry; it's not a "simple" job as some would have us believe - as others have pointed out on other threads.  If Bigmac thinks that you can pick up an ill-trained, unwilling group of support people, toss them into theatre as infantry and have them succeed, I'd suggest he hasn't learned much in his 22 years of service.
> 
> Tempest in a teapot.



       I absolutely do not believe the infanteer is a "simple " job and nowhere in my comments will you see that. I have the greatest respect for infanteers especially in todays operations. Don't insult my intelligence, I certainly don't believe any trade can just be dropped into an infantry role without proper training. What I am asking is are there other elements willing to do infantry training and other than a triforce concept what is the solution?


----------



## aesop081 (22 Oct 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> I absolutely do not believe the infanteer is a "simple " job and nowhere in my comments will you see that. I have the greatest respect for infanteers especially in todays operations. Don't insult my intelligence, I certainly don't believe any trade can just be dropped into an infantry role without proper training. What I am asking is are there other elements willing to do infantry training and other than a triforce concept what is the solution?



and stop trying to insult ours.

Its not a question of "willing", other elemnts have a job to do and are already hort manned enough.  We are short here on this air base as we have lots of our "purple" trades personel already deployed to Afghanistan, impacting our operations.

You speak of this triforce thing....but do you even know what it is ? How is that different than what we have now ?


----------



## Bigmac (22 Oct 2006)

> You speak of this triforce thing....but do you even know what it is ? How is that different than what we have now ?



      Triforce was just CF as a whole and we all wore one uniform. We were still Army, Airforce and Navy. Today we must jointly work together to achieve missions just as in the past but now since infanteers are greatly needed perhaps pers could be trained as infanteers first. You would still have your environmental identity and trade just like then but would look more unified with one uniform and could be rerolled for further infantry training and roles as required.  
     
      Take a look at CSOR they have effectively trained pers from all elements. Yes, they were all volunteers but it prooves it can be done.

       Obviously I have stirred a hornets nest.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

I don't think anyone ever thought "tri-force" implied that sailors would be doing combat team attacks (nor that infantry would be crewing submarines).  "Tri-force" implied both jointness (an excellent concept that was never properly implemented until recently) and unification (one service, one uniform and common training especially for "purple" trades).  "Joint" (which is good) does not require "unified."

As far as the merits of re-rolling, well that horse is being beaten here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51210/post-465506.html#msg465506


----------



## aesop081 (22 Oct 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> Triforce was just CF as a whole and we all wore one uniform. We were still Army, Airforce and Navy. Today we must jointly work together to achieve missions just as in the past but now since infanteers are greatly needed perhaps pers could be trained as infanteers first. You would still have your environmental identity and trade just like then but would look more unified with one uniform and could be rerolled for further infantry training and roles as required.
> 
> Take a look at CSOR they have effectively trained pers from all elements. Yes, they were all volunteers but it prooves it can be done.
> 
> Obviously I have stirred a hornets nest.



And as i have said before, do we not have better things to do with our money than more uniforms ?  How much money has already been wasted on that ?  And what would be accomplished by going back to a single dress uniform ? All services have CADPAT now......are we more  effective for it ?

As far as soldier first, tradesman second, i think you are over-simplifying.  Anyone must be capable to defend himself or his/her unit in order to accomplish the mission but those skills are taught at the basic level, nowhere what is needed to be used as an infantryman.  How can one be proficient at both his/her MOC and be a proficient infantryman at the same time ? Shooting C7 once every year, doing the gas hut once every year an infantryman does not make !!  I am a former combat engineer, do you honestly think that i could stay proficient at both that and my current trade ?

CSOR is a success because thos people are either employed in their MOC or are operators and will be employed as such and trained as such.....not people who are support trades that somehow have to maintain infantry skills in "standby"


----------



## TCBF (22 Oct 2006)

"If Bigmac thinks that you can pick up an ill-trained, unwilling group of support people, toss them into theatre as infantry and have them succeed, ..."

- We have Military Cemetaries in Europe full of headstones with maple leaves on them as proof that this has been tried once to often.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> Take a look at CSOR they have effectively trained pers from all elements. Yes, they were all volunteers but it prooves it can be done.


. . . and look how long it has taken.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> . . . and look how long it has taken.



Yup, even with the "assistance" of a bunch of guys from 3 RCR...


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Oct 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> Triforce was just CF as a whole and we all wore one uniform. We were still Army, Airforce and Navy. Today we must jointly work together to achieve missions just as in the past but now since infanteers are greatly needed perhaps pers could be trained as infanteers first. You would still have your environmental identity and trade just like then but would look more unified with one uniform and could be rerolled for further infantry training and roles as required.
> 
> Take a look at CSOR they have effectively trained pers from all elements. Yes, they were all volunteers but it prooves it can be done.
> 
> Obviously I have stirred a hornets nest.



Dude, you're not getting it, are you?



> We were still Army, Airforce and Navy.



No, not after unification.  RCN, CA, and RCAF all ceased being on 1 Feb, 1968. 



> Today we must jointly work together to achieve missions just as in the past but now since infanteers are greatly needed perhaps pers could be trained as infanteers first.



We need all trades and occupations, not just infanteer.  This is not the same as saying that all those trades and occupations involved in deployed combat operations should have a firm grip on individual and collective combat skills consistent with their trade/occupation to allow them to contribute to the overall operation.  As a pilot deployed on the ground in AFG, I was trained in the required sequences mandated for the theatre, including dual weapon qual, driving, TCCC, etc...all skills used or required for the op.  I felt comfortable that I would not become a biological paper-weight to my bud if stuff headed south and we needed to keep ourselves safe to fight another day.



> You would still have your environmental identity and trade just like then but would look more unified *with one uniform*...



It's called CADPAT(AR).



> ...could be rerolled for further infantry training and roles as required.



And then combat support and combat service support functions required by the hoards of 031'ers would be done by....... ???

Bicmac, guys have laid out good reasoning for why things are the way they are...please listen to them, they have a pretty wide base of knowledge on what makes operations work, either ops in general or ops for specific theatres.

G2G


----------



## Bigmac (23 Oct 2006)

Just so you know where I stand, I do not agree with putting sailors  and airforce pers into infantry roles but the studies are being done. Don't shoot the messenger. Please read the link below.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/RTGAM.20061023.wxafghans23/BNStory/Afghanistan/home


----------



## George Wallace (23 Oct 2006)

I think a lot of confusion is occurring in what is being said.  All Recruits should be trained as 'Basic' Infantry so that in whatever Career route they take in the CF, they will be able to defend themselves and contribute effectively to the protection of their co-workers, their job site and equipment.  To re-role Trained Sailors, Airmen, or any other Trade, including Armd and Arty, is foolhardy.  To re-role a percentage of capable Recruits would be the most logical step to take.


----------



## GAP (23 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think a lot of confusion is occurring in what is being said.  All Recruits should be trained as 'Basic' Infantry so that in whatever Career route they take in the CF, they will be able to defend themselves and contribute effectively to the protection of their co-workers, their job site and equipment.  To re-role Trained Sailors, Airmen, or any other Trade, including Armd and Arty, is foolhardy.  To re-role a percentage of capable Recruits would be the most logical step to take.



As one who belonged to an Armed Force who's credo is "Everybody is a Grunt First", and being trained as a ground Radio Tech, they did not want me outside the wire. It was a constant game of attaching myself (there were a few of us) to patrols as radio operators and hoped no higher-highers noticed until we got outside the wire. We were constantly repremanded verbally about the cost of training us, the OpSec aspect, etc., etc..

Those personnel that are gungho and want to take a crack at being a grunt, should be allowed to (within reason) be able to trainup and do a tour, especially if they are new to the CF and the exposure will help them in their trade by giving them a wider exposure. This should be a volunteer only option. 

Everybody, I mean everybody, should be able to handle basic weapons and elementry tactics, because bases do get attacked and sometimes overrun. Not likely in this particular case, but there are other situations where the thinking should apply (eg: convoys, etc).
This basic skillset (rifle) should be a requalifier on at least an annual basis. In addition to ensuring people are capable of defending themselves and others, it reminds them of the fact that they are in the ARMED FORCES,  not CUPE, PSAC, etc.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Oct 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "If Bigmac thinks that you can pick up an ill-trained, unwilling group of support people, toss them into theatre as infantry and have them succeed, ..."
> 
> - We have Military Cemetaries in Europe full of headstones with maple leaves on them as proof that this has been tried once to often.



Sadly, much more than once too often...


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Oct 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> The Canadian Forces are militarily small compared to other countries. Presently we are approx. 62,000 pers. We do not have a large resource of infanteers within that number. Obviously in our present mission the infanteer is a hot commodity that will continue as the mission in Afghanistan goes on. My opinion is that we are heading back to a triforce concept to draw on other pers so the fulltime infanteers don't burn out. This to me becomes a triforce concept as we will have to draw from other environments as well to achieve this goal.



I am off on a tasking, just going out the door, but I could not resist to respond to this.....

Hey BM, I hope I am not too harsh here, but what have you been smoking? In your view of tri-service, I find your opinion confusing and ill informed. "So that the full time 031s don't burn out???" Where and the helll are you getting such ideas or information to guide you in such a bizarre direction?  

Anyways, distancing myself from your unrealistic views, from its original defination as tri-service in the post 1968 CF world, I don't think the government would EVER make that mistake again (at least the Torries - put the lefty limp wristed Libs in there anything is possible). It totally stripped and demoralised the entire CF for many years. I was in from 1976 to 1995.

In comparison, Australia has a similar sized Defence Force with three distinct services, the RAN, RAAF and Army. All are strong, well and fine, plus full of esprit du corps to the maximus. It works, so why spend millions to change it again.


Regards,


Wes


----------



## rifleman (23 Oct 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> With the CDS statement of rerolling various military trade pers into Infantry roles I ask the following questions:
> *1.    Are we going back full circle and returning to the Triforce concept?
> 2.    How do you feel about going back to one uniform for all which would be "Army" ?*



1. No, we are finally getting on with unification and becoming a truly joint force.
2. We never wore an army green uniform. It was CF Green. 
(although I suspect it was tailored after Rifle Regiment Green)


----------

