# Old Naval Guard's Random Questions - Canadain Army since WW2



## Old Naval Guard (10 Aug 2010)

Hi, I was wondering if anyone knows about Canadain WW1,2 Reenactments in Canada :warstory: . I been thinking about doing something along these lines for a while. I would like to join a Unit already established. If anyone knows anything please let me know Cheers Old Naval Guard


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Aug 2010)

Google is a wonderful tool.

Canadian Military Re-Enactment Groups
http://www.canuck.freehosting.net/reenact.htm


Google - Canadian reenactors (try refining the search with locations and type of group)


----------



## Old Naval Guard (11 Aug 2010)

Hi I am wondering what Canada used for an APC, before the MII3. I know that the Bren Gun Carrier was used for a while after the war and the Halftrack was used in Korea. However what as the APC in Canada or the Brigade in Germanyduring the 1950s, before the M113. Thanks in advance Old Naval Guard


----------



## McG (11 Aug 2010)

There were Kangaroos during the second world war, and I have seen pictures suggesting there may have been some Sherman Kangaroos in limited numbers after the war.  After that, there was a thing called Bobcat that never made it past development.  The first purpose built APC we fielded was the M113.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Aug 2010)

After the Second World War the Canadian army did not have an APC before the M113 family was introduced. The bren gun carriers were used up to about 1957, and maybe a year or two later, as a light utility vehicles for, for example, company commanders and FOO parties. As far as I know, the half-tracks were used in specialized roles in Korea and not for dedicated troop transport.

While we tried to develop our own APC - the Bobcat - it was not a success, and the decision was made to purchase the M113A1 family. From perhaps the late 1950s, the army had infantry battalions (motorized), with 3/4 ton M37 trucks as section vehicles. In my experience, these were not used as APCs, but instead carried the troops up to (roughly) the assembly area, where they dismounted and moved forward to the FUP. (This was in accordance with our doctrine for the nuclear battlefield where the requirement to concentrate and disperse was very, very important.) There was some training at the Royal Canadian School of Infantry using turretless Sherman tanks for officer and NCO training to acquaint them with mechanized operations in conjunction with tanks.

I was in 4 CIBG HQ as a liaison officer in 1965-1967 and was the ops OPI for the APC introduction. There was a fair amount of angst originally about a lack of doctrine except for platoon and company formations. There also were difficulties because the radios in the tanks did not talk very well to the radios in APCs for technical reasons.


----------



## pbi (11 Aug 2010)

> As far as I know, the half-tracks were used in specialized roles in Korea and not for dedicated troop transport.



In Korea 2 PPCLI used  the M-3 White halfrack in mortar platoon, as a weapons and ammunition carrier. Because they mounted the .50 HMG in a slip ring over the cab, they were useful in a direct fire fight too, as proven at the Battle of Kapyong. AFAIK, the remainder of the battalion marched on foot or was lifted by attached transport.

Prior to the acquisition of the M113, I believe we also examined its predececessor the M75. IIRC there is still an M75 in the armour museum collection at Borden, along with what is probably the sole surviving prototype of the Bobcat.

Cheers


----------



## Old Naval Guard (11 Aug 2010)

Hi I am intrested in Pattern 51 webbing. Pictures if one has any, Its strength's and its weakness. Its use by reg army and militia. What was it like to wear. Thanks in advance Old Naval guard


----------



## Old Naval Guard (11 Aug 2010)

Does any one have any pics of the Bobcat and the M 75. Thanks in advance Old naval Guard


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Aug 2010)

Bobcat:







M-75:


----------



## Old Naval Guard (11 Aug 2010)

Thanks Though the Bobcat didnt come out though the M 75 looks intresting. ONG


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Aug 2010)

Old Naval Guard said:
			
		

> Thanks Though the Bobcat didnt come out though the M 75 looks intresting. ONG


right-click the image icon and select "show image".  It will  should then come through.  In the meantime, I'll scrounge another photo, hopefully.

EDIT TO ADD:
I hope this works:


----------



## pbi (11 Aug 2010)

I wore 51 pattern when I joined the Militia in 1974, up until it was replaced by the 64 pattern nylon equipment. The items I reme,ber being issued were:

-a waistbelt with metal buckle and retainers, with hook and grommets to adjust waist size;

-a pair of shoulder straps, worn in an "X" over the back, but coming straight down the front of the body over each breast pocket. These straps were fitted at their ends into buckles on the waistbelt. Although they widened slightly over the shoulders, there was no padding and no good way of attaching extra gear to them. They could be adjusted to fit the wearer, but we had to "snail" the loose ends into very tight, neat rolls so they didn't flop about;

-a pair of ammunition pouches worn on the chest, between the front end of each shoulder strap and the waistbelt, secured by the shoulder strap. We called these "Basic Pouches" or "Bren Gun Pouches". They were designed to carry magazines (I never tried putting a Bren mag in them---that weapon went out of service a few years before I joined). Quite often we would attach one or more extra pouches directly onto the waistbelt to carry other things like tools, grenades, extra ammo, pyrotechnics, etc. (unlike more modern systems, the 51 pattern system was not designed to let the soldier carry very much on the actual belt system). For parades we squared these out with blocks of wood, bricks or socks;

-a waterbottle, canteen cup and carrier, which hooked into the grommets in the waistbelt (usually over the right hip), but could also be secured to the ends of the shoulderstaps (I never did that);

-a messtin carrier, with a set of aluminum messtins that nested inside each other. This assembly also hooked into the web belt, normally over the left hip. Normally we shoved our eating utensils ("KFS") inside the pouch, and sometimes we carried ration items inside;

-a "small pack" which was very small and not really designed very well. It wasn't waterproof and its poor design of shoulder straps didn't allow you to carry very much with comfort. This didn't stop us from packing it full of stuff: poncho (if not carried rolled and tried on the waistbelt), rations, ammunition, shaving gear and towel, spare socks, underwear, etc. On parades this usually ha to be squared out with something: I saw a few guys use wooden frames; and

-other items including bayonet scabbard and frog (fitted over the waistbelt), pistol holster (hooked into the grommets), a compass case, map case, etc were available but I didn't see them used too often (maybe the RegF units used them more commonly). As a Militia soldier I didn't;t get a respirator so I never saw what the carrying case looked like.

The entire system was made of a "web" material that resembled canvas. It was dyed olive drab, with all metal fittings anodized black. Everything had to be treated with a green polish/preservative known as CAPO. This shit came in small metal cans, and we usually put it on with toothbrushes and rags. Once it dried, it had a dull sheen: you could also buff it for parades. CAPO-ing your webgear was  a pain: you had to strip it apart, clean it, apply CAPO, let it dry, then reassemble it all.

Overall I thought it was a terrible system: hard to look after, uncomfortable, poorly designed and incapable of carrying the increasing amount of gear being issued to soldiers. Although the 64 pattern that replaced it had its weaknesses, IMHO it was a hell of a lot better system.

Cheers


----------



## Old Naval Guard (11 Aug 2010)

Hi I was wondering when the following pieces of equipment was withdrawn fro the Canadian Army. Some I know, however there seems to have been some continued use by the militia ie Helmets Mk2,3s were used in the Militia while the Cdn Army changed to the American M-1 in 1960. Did the bren gun see service  in the Militia during the 60s and when was it withdrawn from reg force use. The 25-pounder field gun did it see longer service in the Militia and if so when was it replaced in the reg force army. Webbing, how long did Pattern 37 stay in use by reg or Militia until replaced by pattern51,52 webbing Thanks in advance Old naval Guard


----------



## pbi (11 Aug 2010)

That looks like the one that used to be in Worthington Park in Borden (Maybe still there?-a previous Base Comd rearranged everything). It was a tiny little thing: I'm not sure how a fully equipped section would have used it. It had two little "turrets" (more like "cupolas") on the front deck just above the glacis plate (visible in photo). One looked like it was supposed to take a MG, and the other might have been the driver or CC. In any case these mini-turrets would have been extremely cramped.

Years ago, when we still had an Army Training Film Catalogue, there was a Bobcat demo film in it. I kick myself now that I never looked at it (Or pinched it, more like...)

Cheers


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Aug 2010)

With minimal effort expended on google (3.35 seconds in my case), you would have found this page on another forum.

http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/showthread.php?p=127580


----------



## pbi (11 Aug 2010)

As a young boy in the early 1960's I remember seeing a troop of Sherman tanks on the roadside in the country outside Oshawa, Ontario: I assume these belonged to the Ontario Regt (the local Res armoured unit). I fired both the the Browning Mk1919 .30 cal  MMG (7.62mm version known as the C5 ) , and the 3.5 inch rocket launcher on many occasions: AFAIK as I know the US Army used both of these in WWII.

By the way, what are you working on? A modelling project? You've posted a bunch of related questions about post-WWII Cdn Army gear.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Aug 2010)

The Bobcat was very cramped. I recall seeing the film and noting that it did not have a ramp, but rather a door at the rear. The cupolas, one of which mounted a machine gun, of course, meant that all the arcs could not be covered while moving. (I also think it had a front engine and rear drive, so there was a drive shaft tunnel that ran the length of the interior.)

The army also attempted to develop a 105mm SP version. When I was a Tech Asst (Arty Tech in today talk) our troop CP was deployed on the Mattawa Plain one day to produce gun data for it as part of the test program. This was short lived as the tracks broke after a few rounds. tracks.


----------



## Bass ackwards (11 Aug 2010)

Old Naval Guard said:
			
		

> Hi I am intrested in Pattern 51 webbing. Pictures if one has any, Its strength's and its weakness. Its use by reg army and militia. What was it like to wear. Thanks in advance Old Naval guard



They were still issuing this webbing to recruits when I joined the militia in 1982.

As far as wearing it, I remember that if you didn't button your epaulets over the shoulder straps, they would invariably slip off your shoulders (I was reliably informed that no, it did _not_ make me look more alluring...).
Also, no matter how tight you cinched the stuff down, if you had anything in the magazine pouches, they'd beat you half to death when you were running.


----------



## pbi (11 Aug 2010)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> They were still issuing this webbing to recruits when I joined the militia in 1982.
> 
> As far as wearing it, I remember that if you didn't button your epaulets over the shoulder straps, they would invariably slip off your shoulders (I was reliably informed that no, it did _not_ make me look more alluring...).
> Also, no matter how tight you cinched the stuff down, if you had anything in the magazine pouches, they'd beat you half to death when you were running.



All true. It was horrible junk. Good riddance.

Cheers


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Aug 2010)

It seems to me that the 51 pattern was based on the 37 pattern, which was used in the Second World War. The major difference was the inclusion of eyelets on the belt and hooks on the water bottle and mess tin carriers. The eyelets were the answer to a sergeant major's prayer. Now there was more to shine and paint, along with the various keepers, buckles, etc on the belt, pouches, carriers and packs. Believe me, I know.

We would have blessed the CTS crew if even their worst effort had appeared way back then. Except maybe the combat bra.


----------



## pbi (11 Aug 2010)

I think you're right, but IIRC the 37 was a lighter colour and the fittings were brass: I believe the web belts we wore when  I was in Army Cadets were from the 37 pattern system.



> We would have blessed the CTS crew if even their worst effort had appeared way back then. Except maybe the combat bra.



Amen. Our kit in the 70's was just a mish mash of crap. The only really good stuff I can recall were the combats themselves (but not the stupid coat), and the combat scarf (which IMHO deserves a place in the War Museum as "One of The Best Pieces of Kit Ever"

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Aug 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> I think you're right, but IIRC the 37 was a lighter colour and the fittings were brass: I believe the web belts we wore when  I was in Army Cadets were from the 37 pattern system.
> 
> Amen. Our kit in the 70's was just a mish mash of crap. The only really good stuff I can recall were the combats themselves (but not the stupid coat), and the combat scarf (which IMHO deserves a place in the War Museum as "One of The Best Pieces of Kit Ever"
> 
> Cheers




37 pattern webbing was, actually, pretty functional for an infantry soldier - given the weapons and kit we had in those days, including e.g. the CPRC 26 radio set, the case for which was specially designed to replace one of the basic pouches.






CPRC 26

The 51 pattern kit many 37 pattern components, including the very useful small and large packs. The eyelets were retarded and as Old Sweat notes, the whole thing gave sergeants major too much scope for _quiffs_ - paint it shiny, paint it dull, don't paint it at all and so on in various combinations of  canvas and metal bits.

The 64 pattern (I think it was 64, anyway the flimsy stuff we got _circa_ 1965) lacked, for an infantry soldier, many 'essentials' - like a small pack and the rucksacks (not bad ideas, in themselves) did not fit the M113 APC.

Other candidates for "One of The Best Pieces of Kit Ever" (and I agree that the cotton scarf is on that list):

1. High neck sweater; 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                                    But ours were real wool and, literally, shed water   

2. Enamel mug; and 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




3. Ration bag. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 - except ours were olive drab.

Like about 90% of trained soldiers I refused to return any of those three when, _circa_ 1965, some idiot someone in authority demanded them back. Eventually, in 1997, a kindly storeman-clerk wrote them off, along with pages of other stuff I had lost over the years.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (11 Aug 2010)

They still issued 82 pattern webbing in 2006 to recruits in Borden!


----------



## Bass ackwards (11 Aug 2010)

I'd have a tough time saying that the '64 pattern was really an improvement. At the time however, all of us newly graduated killers were quite horny to get issued the "modern" stuff -which we were told, alas, there was none to be had. Which in turn started a pell-mell rush to the surplus stores in Toronto where there was plenty available. For a price.

In the field, webbing was a mishmash of '64 pattern belts/canteens/mess tin carriers (grenade pouches were never issued for some reason), along with American buttpacks, various European magazine pouches, 51 pattern mag pouches and anything else neat and exotic that could be found at the nearest army surplus store. 
Oh yeah, and knives. Lots of knives. Big ones. Plus the obligatory boot knife cuz we were *bad*. : 

I've still got my scarf too. And still use it on hunting trips. It, at least, is useful. Ditto for the dark green sweater.


----------



## pbi (11 Aug 2010)

ER: Good list. I would add (I know...it seems weird...) the old heavy flannel shirt. I always thought those things were excellent, amd they were frequently worn as outer garments (much to the dismay of Sgts Maj).

Just a minute...I'm having a sensory flashback...._freezing cold morning air....black coffee in a metal canteen cup..the smell of diesel fumes...engines cranking up one by one....combat scarf wrapped around the neck_....

Where did it all go?

Cheers


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Aug 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> . . . The eyelets were the answer to a sergeant major's prayer. Now there was more to shine and paint, along with the various keepers, buckles, etc on the belt, pouches, carriers and packs. *Believe me, I know*. . . .



But hopefully not because . . . 
http://mpmuseum.org/post51equipment.html


> . . . WE'51 is still issued to prisoners in the Military Prison in Edmonton as it is difficult and time consuming to clean and maintain.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Aug 2010)

The Sweater, High Neck (the one in Edward's post) was a national treasure. In the late fall/early winter in Petawawa in the pre-combat clothing and no winter kit days, we used to wear it backwards under coveralls in the field to keep our necks and upper chests relatively warm.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Aug 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The Bobcat was very cramped. I recall seeing the film and noting that it did not have a ramp, but rather a door at the rear. The cupolas, one of which mounted a machine gun, of course, meant that all the arcs could not be covered while moving. (I also think it had a front engine and rear drive, so there was a drive shaft tunnel that ran the length of the interior.)
> 
> The army also attempted to develop *a 105mm SP version*. When I was a Tech Asst (Arty Tech in today talk) our troop CP was deployed on the Mattawa Plain one day to produce gun data for it as part of the test program. This was short lived as the tracks broke after a few rounds. tracks.



This CAJ article by Sean Maloney provides good background of the Bobcat story. http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_02/iss_4/CAJ_vol2.4_19_e.pdf


> Three unarmoured prototypes were authorized: two APCs and *a self propelled gun variant*. The contract was awarded to Leyland Motors of Longueuil, Quebec (later Canadian Car, and still later Hawker Siddeley of Canada, who brought their expertise with aluminium production to bear).   After acceptance by the Army in 1958, the prototypes were put through a number of tests. These tests only served to fuel Army enthusiasm, and the number of vehicles required jumped accordingly to 1567. Six armoured prototypes were then ordered; with the vehicle now being designated “Bobcat.”



The APC version had a retractable (roll-back) armoured roof allowing the occupants to fight from the vehicle.  Attached is a photo of the SP gun variant (perhaps taken on that day on Mattawa Plain?) and a speculative drawing (from the quoted article) of an interesting concept that was considered.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2010)

Old Naval Guard said:
			
		

> Hi I was wondering when the following pieces of equipment was withdrawn fro the Canadian Army. Some I know, however there seems to have been some continued use by the militia ie Helmets Mk2,3s were used in the Militia while the Cdn Army changed to the American M-1 in 1960. Did the bren gun see service  in the Militia during the 60s and when was it withdrawn from reg force use. The 25-pounder field gun did it see longer service in the Militia and if so when was it replaced in the reg force army. Webbing, how long did Pattern 37 stay in use by reg or Militia until replaced by pattern51,52 webbing Thanks in advance Old naval Guard



I was wearing the 51 pattern web, the Tommy style helmet and using a Bren gun in 1968 in the Militia. We also used the 1919 .30 Browning MG, 3.5 rocket launcher and the Sten. C-42 & PRC 510 radio sets for comms.


----------



## Old Naval Guard (11 Aug 2010)

Thanks for responding, intresting  in answer to  pbi question. I am just intrested in the pre-unification army. I served many years as Militia infantry. Kinda like to see how things were in the "Good Old Days". I myself wore pattern 64 was glad to get pattern 82. Loved the scarf .  i am assuming  3.5 rocket launcher was before the m-72 and Karl Gustva., Thanks again.  Old naval guard.


----------



## Old Naval Guard (11 Aug 2010)

Hi another question about our military in the 1960s. Before the arrival of CF-5 Freedom fighter, who provided tactical air support to Army units.?. The CF-101 Voodoos was a air defence fighter with NORAD. The Air Divisions Starfighters were a nuclear strike role. I read an article that stated HMCS Bonaventure Banshee fighter did sometimes provide air support to units in Canada. Did the T-33 also do their part?(Air support).  Cheers Old Naval GUARD


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2010)

Old Naval Guard said:
			
		

> Thanks for responding, intresting  in answer to  pbi question. I am just intrested in the pre-unification army. I served many years as Militia infantry. Kinda like to see how things were in the "Good Old Days". I myself wore pattern 64 was glad to get pattern 82. Loved the scarf .  i am assuming  3.5 rocket launcher was before the m-72 and Karl Gustva., Thanks again.  Old naval guard.



Yes

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/antiarmor/M20.html


----------



## time expired (11 Aug 2010)

IN Canada there was no tactical air support.The only evidence I saw in my summer 2  month vacation

trips to Wainwright that the RCAF existed was when T33 s played enemy air on a couple of exercises.

4 Brigades tacair was provided RAF Canberras and Hunter FAG 9s,Luftwaffe G91s and F104s,Belgian

F84s and Dutch F104s, nary a RCAF aircraft to be seen. The reason of course is that 4CIBG was in the

2 ATAF area and the RCAF was down south in 4 ATAF.

                                                                  Regards


----------



## pbi (12 Aug 2010)

Firing the 3.5 was always interesting. By the time I got into the Militia, much of the ammunition had been in storage for years, and misfires and duds were common. As well, the rocket propellant did not always burn evenly, sometimes resulting in the rocket motor spitting out small chunks of propellant: a face shield was eventually issued to protect the firer from this stuff. Another result of the uneven burning was that, towards the end of the weapon's service life, trajectories could get a bit wobbly.

Sometimes the motor would not ignite: this required a rather frightening misfire drill. After a short count, No. 2 grasped the rear of the rear of the rocket assembly, retracted it from the weapon slightly, gave it a partial turn, then shoved it back in. At this point No.1 would try a re-fire. (I think there was an electrical shorter clip in there somewhere too, but I can't recall how that was handled in the drill).

Once the rocket fired, it would not always detonate if it struck a hard target (and not detonate at all if it missed). This could result in a number of duds accumulating on the firing range. Once a certain number of duds was reached, we usually stopped firing and blew them. Given the unpredictable sensitivity of the fuze, this could cause rectal tension.

Finally, I remember that the folding optical sight was terrible. It had an extremely complicated reticule pattern, and if you looked into the eyepiece at the wrong angle, the reticule markings disappeared.

I'm sure other folks on this board who had the experience of handling the 3.5 can correct my memories above.

I was quite happy to see it replaced by the 84mm Carl Gustaf system.

Cheers


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Aug 2010)

PBI

I think you have pretty well summed up the 3.5in RL. There was a gizmo (excuse the technical term) that was supposed to hold the round in position. It was operated by a lever on the top rear of the tube that was flipped manually after the round had been inserted. In the misfire drill, if the round did not fire the second time, the lever was tripped to allow the rocket to be removed. It was pulled partway out and then the clip and band were put over the fuze retainer in the rocket body behind the warhead. 

It was not until many years later, when we studied ammunition/fuzing/safety devices on the IG course that I realized just how frigging dangerous this was. There always was the possibility that the retainer, which was spring loaded, could pop out, thus arming the fuze. It was roughly akin to the safety system in a fin stabilized mortar bomb, with acceleration and then creep allowing the retainer to move out of the ignition path.


----------



## pbi (12 Aug 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It was not until many years later, when we studied ammunition/fuzing/safety devices on the IG course that I realized just how frigging dangerous this was.



Yes, it was a beast. Thinking back, by the time we got rid of it the 3.5 was probably more dangerous to us than to the Warsaw Pact we were trained to aim it at. IIRC it had a piezo-electric fuze system, which could render duds extremely sensitive and dangerous.

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Aug 2010)

It's a bit like reliving a bad dream, isn't it?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Aug 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> Yes, it was a beast. Thinking back, by the time we got rid of it the 3.5 was probably more dangerous to us than to the Warsaw Pact we were trained to aim it at. IIRC it had a piezo-electric fuze system, which could render duds extremely sensitive and dangerous.
> 
> Cheers





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's a bit like reliving a bad dream, isn't it?



You're both looking with hindsight. 

Back then, when we had our hands on it and they said 'Don't worry about the face mask, this is 'newer' stuff, as a fifteen year old (yeah I lied about my age), it gave you a woody 

C'mon, admit it. ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Aug 2010)

> Firing the 3.5 was always interesting. By the time I got into the Militia, much of the ammunition had been in storage for years, and misfires and duds were common. As well, the rocket propellant did not always burn evenly, sometimes resulting in the rocket motor spitting out small chunks of propellant: a face shield was eventually issued to protect the firer from this stuff.



Group one, Infantry, Shilo, Summer 1964, YSTP: That's exactly what happened. One in three. No face mask, goggles later, but not that summer.



> Finally, I remember that the folding optical sight was terrible. It had an extremely complicated reticule pattern, and if you looked into the eyepiece at the wrong angle, the reticule markings disappeared.



We were taught the the best shot in the Pl was the 3.5 inch guy (to ensure a hit!!).



> There was a gizmo (excuse the technical term) that was supposed to hold the round in position. It was operated by a lever on the top rear of the tube that was flipped manually after the round had been inserted



The Contact Lever and the Contact Latches.

The misfires where gently carried X feet away, to the left of the pit, and placed on the ground. After a day and a course of 30 (?) there was several large piles.

We fired Blue warhead rockets first, then HEAT. I have a picture of the explosion from all the misfires that Sgt Stenkia QOR and Sgt Liscom PPCLI, blew in place.

On incident saw the rocket loaded past the contact latches, causing the launcher to dip off balance towards the ground. In those days you got shit for doing the impossible.

I was fifteen and two months for my irregular enrolment, Oct 1962.


----------



## pbi (13 Aug 2010)

> You're both looking with hindsight.



Hey....come on...at my age that's the only sight that sees clearly anymore!!

Cheers


----------



## Old Naval Guard (14 Aug 2010)

Hi I am sorry if these is not the place for this , I am still kinda feeling my way around Milnet. A question. Since the Seaking is part of the Airforce I was wondering about this Seaking, and the look it was sporting. I know its 443 squadron's.Can anyone shed some light thanks in Advance.  Old Naval Guard


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Aug 2010)

It's a Sea King, not a Seaking.


----------



## Sigs Pig (14 Aug 2010)

A simple Google search turned up this...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebugs/280308704/

Hope it helps.

ME


----------



## exspy (14 Aug 2010)

ONG,

Your question got me thinking and, inevitably, researching what little I could find on tactical air support for the Canadian Army during the 60's.

To begin with, it looks like the RCAF left TAS to the Auxiliary squadrons in 50's.  Specifically to 406 Squadron in Saskatoon and 418 Squadron in Edmonton both of which operated the Mitchell light bomber.

"Both of these units had made their reputation on the famous Mosquito during the war; for their tactical role they were equipped with the Mitchell."     _Roundel, April 1964_

By 1961 however, the Auxiliary squadrons had lost their Mitchells, Mustangs and Sabres and were reequipped with Expeditors and Otters.

In 1962, 408 PR Squadron in Rockliffe (equipped with PR Lancasters) was augmented by a flight of four PR equipped T-33 Silver Star trainers.

"Equipped with photo-reconnaissance noses these aircraft operated in support of Army exercises at Gagetown, Wainwright and Suffield.     _408 Squadron History_

In March, 1964 the squadron moved to RCAF Rivers in Manitoba where the CJATC operated.  It was re-designated 408 Transport Support and Area Reconnaissance Squadron equipped with T-33s, Dakotas and C-119 Boxcars.  In may of that year the number of T-33s was doubled to 8.

"Four of the T-birds were equipped with photo-recce noses, while the remaining four were armed to provide tactical firepower in support of ground troops.  These aircraft supported the summer concentration exercises at Camp Gagetown and Camp Wainwright during June and July, and during October and November they were involved in exercises on both coasts."     _408 Squadron History_

In April 1968 the Squadron was allocated to Mobile Command from ATC.  In October, divested of all of the transport aircraft and with a complement of 18 T-33 aircraft the unit was re-designated 408 Tactical Fighter Squadron.  In 1970 it stood down in preparation of becoming the third operational CF-5 unit.  When the decision was made to only have 2 such squadrons its designation was re-allocated to the new operational helicopter squadron to be based in Edmonton.  TAS passed to 433 and 434 Squadrons.

Now about the Banshee; all I know is that they were phased out of RCN service by 1962.  Banshee naval squadrons did however, undertake summer taskings at Rivers during which they were able to fire rockets and drop bombs and could very well have acted in a TAS role during Army exercises.  Like I mentioned at the beginning, my knowledge is limited.

Cheers,
Dan.


----------



## Old Naval Guard (14 Aug 2010)

Thanks  for your reply. its quiet intresting, despite the lessons learned in WW2 about the importance of tactical air support it was allowed to decline by the early 1960s. If running down the Airforce auxiliary squadrons, switching their roles to other than Air tactical, what was the army to do for close air support?. I guess time expired was right. There was no air support per say. I read in the book HMCS Bonaventure that its Banshee fighters did do Air support for the army. However I dont posses the book Cheers old naval guard


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Aug 2010)

The Banshees did do tactical air support for the army, and the army had a ground liaison officer party afloat on Bonaventure. In 1961 the Banshees started a huge range fire in Shilo while doing a demonstration of tactical air support for the Young Officers Tactics Course.  The army then used the young officers (I was one of them) to fight the range fire for two or three weeks, and gave us our qualification without completing all the course as a consolation.

In 1962 I was standing on a hill on the west side of the Nerepis River in Camp Gagetown and watched a pair of Banshees fly by lower than I was.


----------

