# CF Not What it Used To Be!



## LawnDart (10 Feb 2005)

I'm curious to hear from any serving members, and their opinions regarding the complete and utter collapse in training/development standards experienced by the CF over the past 20 years or so.

Starting about WW2, the Canadian Army used to pride itself on it's superiority over their US counterparts. We had a well trained, hard hitting combat force made up of professionals who lived for their job.

In Korea, we sent an army made up of WW2 experienced officers and NCO's who led a group of hardcore, adventure seeking volunteers against Chinese conscripts and kicked ass. Along with the Aussies, we became legendary in the Commonwealth Brigade. Unlike the Brit "Nasho's" (conscripts), we were pros, and proved the point at Kapyong and other engagements.

Then came the long kiss goodnight, when Canada decided it no longer wanted to be part of the British Empire. We opted out of Borneo, Malay etc, explaining we weren't British and wouldn't fight in their "colonial wars".  When Viet Nam came along, we decided Canada was well and truly a pacifist nation, wasn't interested in the Cold War, and skipped out on that one too. Then we changed our flag and elected Trudeau. We even put a guy named Paul Hellyer, a "zombie" (slang for "non-combatant") in WW2 in charge of defence, and he fucked it all up by amalgamating the services. 

This is a radical move, but one which will be followed by every other nation in the world in the near future."

Paul Hellyer

We're still waiting Paul.

Yep, that's about right. The only radical decisions ever made by a Canadian Military leader are totally fucked up.

Canadian military history has no Pattons, slapping cowardly privates and cursing a blue streak,as he rolls acros southern France in record time to relieve the "Battered Bastards of Bastogne."

We have no Nelsons, taking a woefully inadequate naval force against the French and Spanish juggernaughts at Trafalgar, only to scuttle them in a massive feat of military brilliance, thereby crippling the Great Napoleon.

Instead we have, Paul Hellyer and the famously corrupt WW1 defence minister Sam Hughs (the one who decreed that all Canadian Regiments would be relegated to numbered battalions instead of their fighting names). We also have Romeo Dallaire, an officer who went to Rwanda, stood by as 10 Belgian Paratroopers under his command were hacked to death by tribal thugs, then didn't even have the guts to go to Belgium and testify at an inquiry into their deaths. He may be a hero on CBC, but there are 10 Belgian mothers still demanding closure that he could provide.

Today, our forces lead the world in SHARP training and non-smoking regulations, but the CF don't know much about fighting!

All that said, in the 40's and 50's, we in the CF  had it together! It's too bad about what happened!


----------



## Armymedic (10 Feb 2005)

To spur on meaningful debate, and as a frame of reference for the the forum mbrs, could you put more info about yourself on your profile or add another post explaining what is the basis for the statements above.


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Feb 2005)

Please take some time to reconsider your post. You obviously need to brush up on your military history, and not just Canadian military history as well. Cheers. 



* edit, I didn't know medics were mind readers. LOL.


----------



## EODSpr (10 Feb 2005)

Yeah we're not perfect but we do have some damn fine soldiers that do the absolute best with what our country offers them. You can't just blame the government, because in our democratic society it is the people that elected them, and the people didn't seem too upset with the way things were going. People today say boost the forces, but ask them if they are willing to do it at the expense of a social program or if they will pay an extra dollar on their taxes "hell no" will be the answer. The money has to come from somewhere.

I applaud of soldiers sailors and airman, of which I am one, for the outstanding job they do under less than ideal circumstances. The can do attitude and the way they do more with less is what makes the Canadian Soldier great.

E45 

Chimo!


----------



## pbi (10 Feb 2005)

Let me address few of your points. I started my service in the Army Reserve in 1974, then transferred to the Regular Army in 1982. I am still serving: at the moment I am colocated with US forces in Afghanistan where I have been since Aug.



> the complete and utter collapse in training/development standards experienced by the CF over the past 20 years or so.



This is something of an exaggeration. I don't think that our performance on operations indicates an Army whose training/development standards have "utterly collapsed". Overall at the lower levels we compare pretty well with US forces except in the area of physical fitness where we are quite weak overall. We have some very serious systemic problems in both Indiv Trg and Collective Trg, but if you look closely at what is happening now (as opposed to a few years ago) you will see some real efforts being made to correct that. We have a long way to go: that is for sure, but we are very, very far from having "collapsed". I would also argue that our our officer corps is becoming far more professional than it was 20 years ago, and that we now have a very solid cadre at all rank levels but particularly at the senior officer level who have strong operational experience, many of whom have seen and heard shots fired in anger. We have made some mistakes: I am quite sure about that, but to start from the premise that we have total failure is IMHO wrong.



> Starting about WW2, the Canadian Army used to pride itself on it's superiority over their US counterparts. We had a well trained, hard hitting combat force made up of professionals who lived for their job



Superiority in what? Low level tactics and leadership? OK-roger that. Operational and strategic level ops? Logistics? Firepower? Command and Control Capabilities? Military organization? Force Structure? Ability to project force? Senior leadership? Resources? Operational focus? Public support? Governmental support? Sorry-none of the above. And, I would not be so quick to condemn the people now serving in our Army by assuming that they are automatically not "professionals who lived for their jobs". Check out some of the debates on this site, for a start. There are true professionals and soldiers on these pages, who love their Army even though it drives them nuts.



> Then came the long kiss goodnight, when Canada decided it no longer wanted to be part of the British Empire. We opted out of Borneo, Malay etc, explaining we weren't British and wouldn't fight in their "colonial wars".



Ahhh-I see. How naughty of us to become an independent country! So much better to have remained an obedient servant so we could participate in some of the inept British foreign policy in the post-war years.



> When Viet Nam came along, we decided Canada was well and truly a pacifist nation, wasn't interested in the Cold War, and skipped out on that one too



How are you reasoning this one out? We didn't participate in Vietnam: OK-neither did the UK nor West Germany. As for "skipping out" one the Cold War: what were NORAD, NATO (we persuaded the US to join) 4 CMBG,   our (two-key) nuclear capability, or the money spent in the 50s on building a real Army in peacetime, for the first time ever?



> and he fucked it all up by amalgamating the services


OK-roger that. I am with you here.



> This is a radical move, but one which will be followed by every other nation in the world in the near future."



Yes-it was self-serving rubbish that used pseudo-military justifications for penny-pinching. Nobody took much interest outside of Canada. IMHO we have still not full recovered from the terrible institutional damage this move wreaked on us.



> Canadian military history has no Pattons, slapping cowardly privates and cursing a blue streak,as he rolls acros southern France in record time to relieve the "Battered Bastards of Bastogne."



No, but considering that we started the War with a Permanent Force of about 5,000 men, a few worn out little old training tanks, and no armoured formation, we produced a pretty damned good Div commander in Bert Hoffmeister. And, I think there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that the two soldiers Patton struck were not cowards but combat stress victims. Ever had combat stress reaction, or PTSD? Thousands of Canadian soldiers, including some pretty damned good ones, have. Smacking them around isn;t the answer. And, as the actions of Patton's superiors showed, it wasn't the answer then either.



> famously corrupt WW1 defence minister Sam Hughs (the one who decreed that all Canadian Regiments would be relegated to numbered battalions instead of their fighting names). We also have Romeo Dallaire, an officer who went to Rwanda, stood by as 10 Belgian Paratroopers under his command were hacked to death by tribal thugs, then didn't even have the guts to go to Belgium and testify at an inquiry into their deaths. He may be a hero on CBC, but there are 10 Belgian mothers still demanding closure that he could provide.



Wow. You're looking for a fight and you're probably going to get one from a few of the history folks around here. You certainly do have your own view of things, don't you? Hughes was probably certifiable, and he definitely pissed off lots of people around him, but I think that calling "famously corrupt" may be stretching it. And as for " fighting names" of Milita units, that would be a bit of an _non sequitir _ when the great majority of Canada's Militia units in 1914 had never been in action, ever.



> Today, our forces lead the world in SHARP training and non-smoking regulations, but the CF don't know much about fighting!



Well, I really don't care much for SHARP, but then I don't like trailer-trash racist mullets cluttering things up either. As for smoking: good riddance. Your last sentence probably did not come out the way you meant it: it could be taken as an insult. It's true that we haven't got alot of combat experience, but I think if you look at the performance of our troops at Medak and in Afghanistan under OEF, you will see that we can still produce pretty good soldiers. We are starting to red-line it in some areas, and maybe we are running on fumes, but our troops generally serve us well.



> in the 40's and 50's, we in the CF   had it together! It's too bad about what happened



Really? What Regular Army did we have in the 1940s? Look it up: it wasn't much. Check out the weak peformance of the Regular battalions in Korea (as compared to the aggressive, dynamic performance of the Special Force battalions that went in first. Read   _A War of Patrols_.) The Army in the 1940s and 1950s faced serious problems, just as serious as we do now.   Looking back on some imagined "Golden Age" is IMHO quite pointless. Better to get on and deal with the world and the realities that face us now.

Cheers.


----------



## LawnDart (10 Feb 2005)

Hey Army Medic, I'm willing to "spur on" as much meaningful debate as you'd like.

I joined the CF as an armoured reservist in 1984, went to the Patricias in 1988. Spent a couple of years there, did a trip to Cyprus, got bored and tried 2 CDO. Went to Somalia, back to Pet, came back to the Pats and the Peg. Worked as a C-6 guy in a rifle Company and a Jack in Recce. Got sick of the whole show after watching all the bullshit after the Airborne got disbanded, moved overseas. Joined the Aussie Army Reserve. Was impressed by the way they did things. Realised most of the shit I'd been taught over the previous eight years was absoulute crap. Came back to Canuckistan for personal/family reasons.

If your resume's more impressive, then I apologise. Or not. I don't care who anyone is, I've paid my dues in full and am entitled to my full fucking opinion on all things CF.

LawnDart!
ALL THE WAY!


----------



## JBP (10 Feb 2005)

It would seem Lawndart is just that...

PBI - BANG on man, you hit the target for sure!

I've only been in since Jan 6th 2005 and I can already tell that there are some serious hombres out and about in all our Armed Forces. We are still regarded as one of the highest trained forces in the world even though we lack logistics/transportation capabilities. But as PBI said, you get us to the combat zone/area, we do the job and do it damn well. Our boys in Afganistan have been patted on the back several times and awarded even by the Americans.

Shit, I thought I talked out my ass sometimes! Lawndart, you seriously insulted all the CF speaking the way you just did. We're sorry your a SUCK! You took things the wrong way and never got over it maybe???

Lawndart - If you want to be a war-monger and be owned by another country, simply move! You were in Aussie land, go back! About Romeo Dallaire, your just taking what you've read off the tabloids pal. Or watched on TV last week, read HIS book, that HE WROTE, where HE explains WHY and WHAT happened... I'm not saying he made the right or wrong decision, but don't post a stupid comment about something you have no idea your talking about. You just want to argue like the other daily visitors to this site.

You do a great disgrace for those people you have served with over the years and those who have DIED.

 :rage:


----------



## JimmyPeeOn (10 Feb 2005)

I may be mistaken, but you seem to be a little high and mighty on the Generals and Field Marshall's glory and not the grunts on the ground winning the fire fights for them.

Hey Joe, that was a little harsh man.  He's done some pretty hard core shit too and he's entitled to have his opinion.  You don't even know the man easy on the "disgrace" bit.


----------



## patt (10 Feb 2005)

heres a quote from a buddy of mine that was in the military 

"this is what you get for having a civilian run the military"


----------



## LawnDart (10 Feb 2005)

PBI, that was a very intelligent post, however, you didn't sell me.

I won't refute your arguments point by point, but I will say this.

The non-smoking regulations may put the CF into line with the rest of the public service, but they've led to an absolute desertion of the JRC's by the troops. Reg soldiers smoke and they should be allowed to do so in their own club. Fuck Politically Correct bullshit.

Sam Hughes was brought down by a corruption scandal, check your history. He also happened to be an idiot who tried to destroy the Canadian Regimental System.

I stand by my original assertion that the Army's standards have dropped significantly in the last 20 or so. I.E.:

The CF now allows women in all trades, including infantry. Are you trying to say they meet the same physical standards guys were making in 1982? C'mon bud, I went though Wainwright in the old days, don't try to bull the bull! You'll get the horns if you keep it up!

You're absolutely right about the difference in physical standards. The first thing you notice on a US base is how fit everyone is. Fitness is the basic building block of soldiering. Canadians no longer have it. We are absolutely inundated with fat-bodies, walking cardiac cases.

Americans train for unconventional war at Fort Polk La. Canadians are still pretending to defend Rifle Ridge in Wainwright. Real training is Realism. Train hard, Train Real, Fight easy.   

I could do an entire post on Gen. Romeo,   and his moral failings. But maybe that would be better for another day, no?


We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (10 Feb 2005)

I may agree with you on some points in a sense however making statements that all Canadian soldiers are   inundated with fat-bodies, walking cardiac cases is complete and utter nonsense, I have seen far more fit soldiers then i have seen unfit soldiers, Dont Generalize the entire Military because their are some Out of shape overweight soldiers, it isnt fait to the ones who work their asses off day in and day out to stay in the best shape they can be in, it also isnt fair to the ones who are overweight and out of shape because they have a permenent injury and cant get back into shape.

Although i agree, currently we are still useing old training methods in some areas,   these things are changing and are changing quickly and we are modernizing our training to fit in with what the cf actually does now days while on tours.

Its alright to have a strong opion, but please dont do it at the expense of all the fine soldiers canada has!


----------



## DELTADOG13 (10 Feb 2005)

Sorry just stumbled on this thread and had to add my two cents. Lawndart, what are you talking about. In the last couple of years, the combat arms has been leading the way in unconventional and revolutionary warfare. For instance we have been forging new tactics, techniques and procedures in Operations in Built Up Areas in such places as Ft Benning. Yes I realize that is in the US. Training areas we are lacking but we are working on it. We've done numerous exercises where our fine soldiers have used their initiative and cunning to defeat our opposing forces. Most of our outdated tactics are gone or being revised as we speak. I know I've done some of the revising. Try keeping abreast of what is going on in your native land like a true patriot.


----------



## LawnDart (10 Feb 2005)

Hey Pte Joe, Sorry, I didn't realise how far back you go. Didn't mean to insult you bud.

ARE YOU SERIOUS!

Back in the ole days, when soldiering was soldiering, we didn't have time to write FUCKING e-mails! We were too busy polishing boots, getting tortured in the "hollow square", fighting with ugly locals in Downtown Digby N.S., etc.


----------



## DELTADOG13 (10 Feb 2005)

To add more. Many times Canadian soldiers have gone to the States to be Enemy forces or Allies. We've come away from those times as equals with loads of accolades. We are and always will be a small army. However what we lack in size we make up for in skill and knowledge. Always waiting to pounce on the enemy when called to join the fray.


----------



## pbi (10 Feb 2005)

> PBI, that was a very intelligent post, however, you didn't sell me



No, and I didn't really think that I would. I just wanted to get my thoughts out there too. You seem pretty convinced that we are just a bunch of useless tossers and that there hasn't been much good in the Army since the CAR was disbanded. Enjoy retirement.

Cheers


----------



## LawnDart (10 Feb 2005)

DeltaDog, you can't really say that Canadians are "Leading the Way" on anything. Certainly not compared to the Yanks. We STILL don't have a good MOUT site, which is problematic, as ALL warfare is now conducted in cities rather than on wide open plains.

Our army is STILL basing it's doctrine on open plain, mech warfare (witness the recent move of 2PPCLI to CFB Shilo from Winnipeg-if we were an army, and not a social welfare project, then why would we be moving out there? The answer is to save some dishwasher/grasscutter jobs in a questionable Liberal Riding.)

We have nothing like the US Army's Fort Polk site. We don't properly excercise our full infrastructure, our logistics, etc. Many of our troops are out of shape. 

We need some work.


----------



## old medic (10 Feb 2005)

LawnDart said:
			
		

> We even put a guy named Paul Hellyer, a "zombie" (slang for "non-combatant") in WW2 in charge of defence,




Lets be accurate here...... Hellyer entered the airforce, completed basic training, then wound up getting put in the army, which he absolutely resented, and some say was part of his hate for the army.  However, he served with the RCA as a gunner starting in Normandy.  He was not a   
Zombie.


----------



## NCRCrow (10 Feb 2005)

I hope u guys leave the  Navy out of this one!!!


----------



## big bad john (11 Feb 2005)

LawnDart said:
			
		

> as ALL warfare is now conducted in cities rather than on wide open plains.



Am I missing something here?   I sort of felt that it was warfare in the open yomping across East Falkland, then again in Iraq and now with Troops in Afghanistan.   
FIBUA is a major concern.   Certainly no one is still waiting for an armoured thrust through the Fulda Gap.   But there is still plenty of war conducted in wide open spaces.


----------



## LawnDart (11 Feb 2005)

"No, and I didn't really think that I would. I just wanted to get my thoughts out there too. You seem pretty convinced that we are just a bunch of useless tossers and that there hasn't been much good in the Army since the CAR was disbanded. Enjoy retirement".

PBI

Sorry to have offended you PBI. I forgot how sensitive "LEGS" were. Proves my point about how soft the forces are now though. Can't even take written criticism. Let alone gunfire.

2 COMMANDO!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Feb 2005)

old medic said:
			
		

> Lets be accurate here...... Hellyer entered the airforce, completed basic training, then wound up getting put in the army, which he absolutely resented, and some say was part of his hate for the army.  However, he served with the RCA as a gunner starting in Normandy.  He was not a
> Zombie.



No, he resented having to basic a second time, and I don't blame him, as much of the syllabus was identical.

If the discourse in this thread doesn't start to improve, I'm dropping the hammer on it.  Lawndart, dial the language back, you're not impressing anyone.

Your assertions about the Canadian Army priding itself on "superiority" over the Americans are waaaayyyyy off base, incidentally; pbi's response was just the tip of the iceberg.

Your other "historical" information is a bit laughable, as well.


----------



## NCRCrow (11 Feb 2005)

OUCH!!!


----------



## big bad john (11 Feb 2005)

Everytime I hear someone talk about how it used to be in the OOOLddd Army I am reminded of the story of a young Recruit upon arriving at depot for Basic training.   He was the first to arrive, so the Staff told him to go wait and sit on a bench.   An hour or so later the next young Recruit arrives.   He too is directed to wait upon the bench.   The two Recruits introduce themselves.   After a moments silence the first Recruit turns to the second and says, "let me tell you how it was in the Old Army".

Things change.   Sometimes for the better, sometimes not.   But the one thing that you can be sure of is that things WILL change.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> Things change.  Sometimes for the better, sometimes not.  But the one thing that you can be sure of is that things WILL change.



And somebody, somewhere, will be upset by every little one of them. ;D


----------



## big bad john (11 Feb 2005)

Amen Michael


----------



## old medic (11 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> No, he resented having to basic a second time, and I don't blame him, as much of the syllabus was identical.




I'll slightly disagree with you on this one Michael.  Some brief books on the history of the CF say he resented having to do basic over again.
Some papers on unification suggest he was bitter at the army, as his choice was the airforce.  Some suggest this is why the the DND base command structure is very much like the old RCAF structure.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Feb 2005)

old medic said:
			
		

> I'll slightly disagree with you on this one Michael.  Some brief books on the history of the CF say he resented having to do basic over again.
> Some papers on unification suggest he was bitter at the army, as his choice was the airforce.  Some suggest this is why the the DND base command structure is very much like the old RCAF structure.



I trust Granatstein on this one - see WHO KILLED THE CANADIAN MILITARY.  I've seen the interpretation you've presented also - tellingly, I haven't read his biography, and would be foolish to argue with his own words - do you recall if he stated it one way or the other in his own words?

It is quite possible he resented the Army, and I won't argue that point with you.  Whether it affected his opinions on unification is another story.  Say what you will about Hellyer, there were some very good points in (GRAMMAR EDIT: favour) of unification.  I'm not saying I agree with how it was implemented, nor agree on how much should have been unified.  Again, I'm with Granatstein on these basic points.


----------



## old medic (11 Feb 2005)

I have both that one and Bercuson & Granatstein's Dictionary of Canadian Military History, which just mention the Basic training.
I don't have Paul Hellyer's autobiography immediately handy, but I'll take a look.
But lets save this one for the real history forum,  The prognosis on this thread isn't good.  :warstory:


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Feb 2005)

old medic said:
			
		

> The prognosis on this thread isn't good.  :warstory:



You're a skilled practitioner!


----------



## combat_medic (11 Feb 2005)

*ding ding*

This round's over, everyone to their corners to cool off.


----------

