# Humour My Ignorance...



## UnwiseCritic (6 Aug 2013)

Instead of rotating our jump company throughout the battalion why not set up a permanent jump company. I know our para capability is just in maintenance phase, but there's no reason to not keep training "paras". However not all of the people who qualify are really a para capable person. They might be able to land safely but I have seen some people not really bring the professionalism to table that I think is required of these soldiers. And it hinders a units ability to operate as effective as possible. I don't have all the finer details on how to do this. Just an idea that I'm sure has been proposed just wondering why it hasn't been set up this way. They might be more of shock troops than paras. And have it opened to the entire regiment, maybe something to strive for other than sf.

Proposed Requirements
Para Qualified
at least 1 year in Bn
Coopers test gold standard
A 20km ruck march at bft weight but faster (Again finer details to be sorted out) with a shooting test at the end
           -maybe higher shooting scores required
           -maybe a mental endurance test of some sort, Eg log carry similar to brits

Pros
You would have soldiers that are more efficient in a role (that Canada may never use again). But you could push them much harder.
They would tend to be some of the more motivated soldiers, so you could wage an effective battle on "white space". Thus they would be much better trained.
            -they would be more ready to do dry drills on section attacks, c-can village, comms, c-ied, etc
They would be much fitter and therefore more capable of some of the more difficult light infantry tasks
For the same amount of money now you could have better results.


Cons
Sf would tend to dry out a jump company
Other companies will be drained of quality leadership. You could counteract this with installing a two year limit on Mcpls and up subject to review of what the battalions need


I would have thought about it more seriously before posting if I thought it was a possibility. But first I would like to see what sorts of other views people would have (of significant rank or better yet ex-airborne), especially on the cons.


----------



## dangerboy (6 Aug 2013)

I think one of the things we need to ask ourselves is what do we want our Para Coys to be able to do.  Are they just there to maintain our Para capability, or do they have a greater plan.  One Coy by itself is fairly limited in what it can do, I have always wondered why they don't not plan an exercise that involves all three jump coys.  The cynic in me is that people don't want to do this as it would sound to much like the Airborne Regt and they are scared of that.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 Aug 2013)

I was in the Third when A Coy was Para, and only A Coy (98-00).  The rotation is recent - I believe that is started during BGen Eyre's tenure.  Soldiers moved to the Coy vice the coy moving to the soldiers.  You are right - there are pros and cons to both.

I am, however, intrigued by this statement:



> Other companies will be drained of quality leadership. You could counteract this with installing a two year limit on Mcpls and up subject to review of what the battalions need



Given that your only prerequisites for being posted to the Jump Coy is fitness related, how does this deprive the rest of the Battalion of "quality leadership"?  There is more to leadership, even in a light battalion, than fitness.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Aug 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> .... Other companies will be drained of quality leadership ....


My experience is pretty old at this point, but am I wrong to think that not EVERY good leader necessarily wants to jump from a perfectly good airplane?  I stand to be corrected, of course, but I've known lots of Reserve and Reg leaders who were happy and motivated to bigger/better things without necessarily seeking wings.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (6 Aug 2013)

No not all good leadership would want too join. I only generalized where maybe I shouldn't have. In my experience a lot of good leadership is looking to better themselves both professionally and personally. So if a "shock" infantry unit were created it may attract a large portion of these men. As they would see it as an opportunity to learn new things, possibly become more proficient. That being said if these soldiers were returned to their original unit after after their stint it could have positive side effects. But maybe that's why we rotate?

As for it sounding too similar to an airborne regiment it... Call it something else.


----------



## Ostrozac (6 Aug 2013)

Within the light battalions, both approaches have been tried -- currently 3 PPCLI is rotating the jump role between companies, while 3 RCR has kept M Coy in the jump role since the mid-nineties, but it was routine to move soldiers in and out of M Coy as required. Both approaches seem to have accomplished the objective of keeping the parachute role alive within the light battalions.

There is a sticking point about expanding this approach to the entire regiments, though, as you suggest;



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> And have it opened to the entire regiment, maybe something to strive for other than sf.



The biggest potential for dissatisfaction in creating a para company that actively recruits regiment-wide is that you run into the reality that there are battalions in Shilo and Gagetown, and moving soldiers from them into a para role requires cost moves. If you create three "brigade-level indepedant para coys" in Edmonton, Pet and Val, and then say "2RCR and 2PPCLI need not apply" -- then that pisses people off, and reduces your recruiting pool. If you say "Open to all" -- then you risk spending half your posting budget moving guys in and out of jump positions.

Personally? The current model works at maintaining a para capability within the light battalions. However, I think that the biggest operational weakness of the parachute companies is the lack of sufficient numbers of parachute trained reservists to augment them. Right now there's simply no way to mobilize a para company for operations without stripping augmentees from elsewhere in the regular force. I think the current model has something like 30% reserve augmentation at the company level -- we need more reservists para qualified to be able to do that. Even if we had an operational mission for the jump companies (which we don't right now), we couldn't accomplish that mission anyway.

I know that CFLAWC is running PRes jump courses. I think we need more, if we want to be able to use a para company on operations.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (6 Aug 2013)

I'm not aware of the costs associated with relocating. By the sounds of it, it's probably quite significant. It would be interesting to see who would fair better than the other in a competition of some sort. The permanent para coy or the rotating para coy. 

However I don't agree with investing too heavily into a reservist para capability.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (7 Aug 2013)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I know that CFLAWC is running PRes jump courses. I think we need more, if we want to be able to use a para company on operations.


Unfortunately I don't have a lot to add to this discussion due to my distance from the jump company's and their day to day operations and how they are organized, but I am intrigued at the points being brought forward.  

From the PRes stand point though it is difficult to stay current.  For myself personally I did the PRes Basic Para course that was conducted in July/August last year, and since graduating I have not been able to do another jump.  It's not from lack of trying, but because I am not physically close to the QOR or Trenton I don't know about upcoming jumps that are taking place.  I have buddies in the QOR, but the "friend" network does not pass timely reliable info all the time and therefore I've missed the boat on more than one occasion.  I know I'm not alone in this boat and many of the guys that were on my course have not done another jump and we're sitting at 1 year since getting our wings, currency is gone at this point.  As well with PRes soldiers there is an added cost at the unit level because of pay, TD, possibly R&Q etc that needs to be factored in with maintaining a capability that almost all reserve units don't see as a priority.  It's a difficult hurdle to overcome.

Other than the QOR support to CFLAWC and 3RCR is there a lot of PRes augmentation that takes place in the Para Coy's?


----------



## MikeL (7 Aug 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Coopers test gold standard



What is the Coopers test gold standard? I'm only familiar with the Coopers test being graded by a point system, not a "gold standard", etc



> -maybe higher shooting scores required


All members must qualify Marksman on PWT3? Or a different qualification shoot? 
Also, why? Do other nations have their Airborne Infantry held to higher standards for marksmanship compared to the non Airborne Infantry, etc?



UnwiseCritic, what do you envision the future mission/tasking of this Jump Company? Is a company sufficient or would it need to be a Airborne Battalion? Also, what about Engineers, Artillery, etc? 




			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> You would have soldiers that are more efficient in a role (that Canada may never use again).



If you believe it is a role that is unlikely to be used, why retain it and build it into this super Jump Company you envision?


----------



## GR66 (7 Aug 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> ...You would have soldiers that are more efficient in a role (that Canada may never use again).



You could likely insert this quote into 90% of the organizational/equipment threads on this site.  I personally think that this really is THE fundamental problem with the Canadian military.  We don't have a political leadership that is willing to clearly define what exactly it is that it wants the CF to be capable of doing.  

How do you organize the battalions/brigades/divisions/areas/commands etc. if you don't know what size of force you might be expected to deploy and under what conditions.  How do you organize the Reserves if you don't know if they are to be used for individual augmentation, force generation for domestic ops, as a mobilization base for large scale expansion in time of war, public relations (or all of the above)?  Tracked or wheeled vehicles in what proportion?  What level of protection?  Airborne and air-mobile capability?  Anti-armour and anti-air capabilities?  Pioneers?  Mortars?  Aircraft types and numbers?  Warship types and deployment?  Airlift capability?  Sealift?  Logistical support for what size and number of deployed elements?

There is no right answer for ANY of these questions if we don't know what the expectations are.  With a government that expects the CF to be prepared to contribute something useful in virtually any conceivable situation it's not surprising that it seems (at least to me) that the CF is a high quality military that also seems to have a great many areas of specific weakness.  If we try to keep a bit of every possible capability we're not likely to excel at many of them (or be cost effective at them either).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Aug 2013)

GR66 said:
			
		

> You could likely insert this quote into 90% of the organizational/equipment threads on this site.  I personally think that this really is THE fundamental problem with the Canadian military.  We don't have a political leadership that is willing to clearly define what exactly it is that it wants the CF to be capable of doing.
> 
> How do you organize the battalions/brigades/divisions/areas/commands etc. if you don't know what size of force you might be expected to deploy and under what conditions.  How do you organize the Reserves if you don't know if they are to be used for individual augmentation, force generation for domestic ops, as a mobilization base for large scale expansion in time of war, public relations (or all of the above)?  Tracked or wheeled vehicles in what proportion?  What level of protection?  Airborne and air-mobile capability?  Anti-armour and anti-air capabilities?  Pioneers?  Mortars?  Aircraft types and numbers?  Warship types and deployment?  Airlift capability?  Sealift?  Logistical support for what size and number of deployed elements?
> 
> There is no right answer for ANY of these questions if we don't know what the expectations are.  With a government that expects the CF to be prepared to contribute something useful in virtually any conceivable situation it's not surprising that it seems (at least to me) that the CF is a high quality military that also seems to have a great many areas of specific weakness.  If we try to keep a bit of every possible capability we're not likely to excel at many of them (or be cost effective at them either).




We maintain a general-purpose combat capability because we don't know what we are going to be tasked with.  I would love to see an Airborne Bn get stood up again because I am a real believer in light forces and task-tailored organizations but until we get clear direction from the government it ain't gonna happen.  Maintaining an airborne capability has always been a divisive issue in the CF and while parts of the army have gotten on board with it, the CF as a whole has never committed the necessary resources to make it even remotely feasible.

We have 17 Hercs and 4 Globemasters.  It takes 16 to 20 Hercs to drop a Bn sized force, so while the army may be all on board to get Airborne back the reality is we just don't have the airframes or necessary resources to make it happen.  I would love to see a Para Bn stand up mostly for commonality in training but with our present force structure of 3 Mech Bdes that are all relatively the same I don't see a place for them in the ORBAT.  Besides, CANSOFCOM has pretty much taken over that role anyways.  Basically, what other nations call their airborne forces, we call CSOR  

I am a bigger fan of disbanding the LIB's and re-rolling their PYs into something else then I am of maintaining this "Airborne capability" if you even want to call it that, I would rather call it a skill-set because a "capability" implies that you can actually do something with it and make use of it.  We would be far better off focusing on developing air-mobile capabilities within the CF then continuing to try and re-create the past.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (7 Aug 2013)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Maintaining an airborne capability has always been a divisive issue in the CF and while parts of the army have gotten on board with it, the government has never committed the necessary resources to make it even remotely feasible.



Wrong.  The CF has never proposed to the goverment that we allocate the resources to the capability.  If the government were to allocate an additional 20% to our budget tomorrow, I am certain that we, the CF, woiuld not chose to invest it in a true Airborne Capability.  And while we ait for that money to come, no one in the CF is working on capabilities to divest ourselves of so that we can afford said airborne capability.

We need to be careful about blaming "the government" for decisions that we ourselves make.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Aug 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Wrong.  The CF has never proposed to the goverment that we allocate the resources to the capability.  If the government were to allocate an additional 20% to our budget tomorrow, I am certain that we, the CF, woiuld not chose to invest it in a true Airborne Capability.  And while we ait for that money to come, no one in the CF is working on capabilities to divest ourselves of so that we can afford said airborne capability.
> 
> We need to be careful about blaming "the government" for decisions that we ourselves make.



You are right, wrong of me to include the government in there, should have left it at "parts of the army" want an airborne capability.   

I was trying to allude to the fact that airborne forces are actually very expensive and we would be far better off investing our money in capabilities we will actually make use of.  

edit:  Fixed my initial statement


----------



## dapaterson (7 Aug 2013)

Any skillset to be assigned to the PRes needs to be assessed in terms of ability to sustain it.  PRes jumpers are not something that's easy to maintain.  Given the geographic dispersion of units, there's a very limited number of units that could be assigned such a role - arguably, the Hasty Ps are about the only one who are close enough to Trenton.  But even geographic proximity does not imply time available; most reserve units are hard-pressed to maintain basic skillsets; adding more to the training bill generally has poor results.

High training, high maintenance cost skillsets are more responsibly vested in the Reg F.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (7 Aug 2013)

Hmm for me it's not so much the Airborne capability capability that I'm worried about. I just used it as we already have them within our light infantry battalions. But I can't foresee us using them. Air mobile troops might be a little more relevant.

What my concern is: Is that we'll forget lessons learned in Afghanistan and that our check in the box training will remain in place. Fine (but not great) for getting soldiers ready for a specific mission. I'm also concerned there is going to be a lot of bored soldiers who will be really sick of check in the box training. So making a company more "elite" I hate that term, let's say "more capable of difficult tasks" therefore "different".

By putting a group of soldiers together who are more ready to train throughout the week (free training) who are also fitter. Don't pounce on me about the fitness aspect. I've seen plenty of people fall out of attacks. They could practice various types of insertions, tasks (from recce to raids). And make them the air mobile troops. It would just be a place where soldiers could strive for and where volunteers could rotate through thus spreading motivated well trained soldiers throughout the regiment. And hopefully it would be a unit that could be an example for the other companies/younger soldiers to follow. And they would be more ready to train and improve themselves both mentally and physically.  I would go more in depth but some points were raised about the costs associated with moving soldiers.

(*edited, I accidently deleted my summarizing paragraph)

I have since changed my mind on the best way to keep skill sets current and not lose lessons learned. I think inter unit competition would help breed some of this professionalism. As soldiers do have places to strive for, such as CSOR. Though in my opinion leadership by example is a huge and under utilized approach within the CF. By not having a unit that works closely with normal infantry such as CSOR no one is setting the example of what can be attained.


----------



## MikeL (7 Aug 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> What my concern is: Is that we'll forget lessons learned in Afghanistan and that our check in the box training will remain in place. Fine (but not great) for getting soldiers ready for a specific mission.



We can't focus training on Afghanistan, the future may hold something very different then what we experienced there.  IMO there has to be a mix of conventional training against a peer force as well as COIN, etc.



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> So making a company more "elite" I hate that term, let's say "more capable of difficult tasks" therefore "different".



What difficult tasks?  Are these tasks a Rifle Company currently can not accomplish?



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> By putting a group of soldiers together who are more ready to train throughout the week (free training) who are also fitter. Don't pounce on me about the fitness aspect.



IMO, an entire unit should strive for physical fitness, and training.  Why should only a select rifle company be held to a higher standard and train more then everyone else? 



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> They could practice various types of insertions, tasks (from recce to raids). And make them the air mobile troops.



Why is conducting raids, and company recce tasks, etc specific to only one company?  Again, this is something IMO any Rifle Company should be able to do.  What happens overseas, when this company is at home, but other battalions are overseas and have to do these tasks?  Both Light and Mech Rifle companies have conducted Air Mobile/Assault missions. 

What insertion methods must a Infantry Battalion be capable of? Would it be best to have 1 company be the jack of all trades, or spread the skill sets out? Could one company tasked as the Air Mobility/Assault Company, another Amphib, etc



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> It would just be a place where soldiers could strive for and where volunteers could rotate through thus spreading motivated well trained soldiers throughout the regiment. And hopefully it would be a unit that could be an example for the other companies/younger soldiers to follow. And they would be more ready to train and improve themselves both mentally and physically.  I would go more in depth but some points were raised about the costs associated with moving soldiers.



Is it not possible to have the unit as a whole strive to improve themselves mentally and physically? Why focus a single company within a regiment on this?


----------



## UnwiseCritic (7 Aug 2013)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> We can't focus training on Afghanistan, the future may hold something very different then what we experienced there.  IMO there has to be a mix of conventional training against a peer force as well as COIN, etc.



I agree, thus the competition. And the need for no more check in the box training



			
				-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> What difficult tasks?  Are these tasks a Rifle Company currently can not accomplish?
> 
> Well you've answered your question there with what you expect of a rifle coy. I have seen almost entire platoons fall out of an uphill assualt





			
				-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> IMO, an entire unit should strive for physical fitness, and training.  Why should only a select rifle company be held to a higher standard and train more then everyone else?
> 
> Why is conducting raids, and company recce tasks, etc specific to only one company?  Again, this is something IMO any Rifle Company should be able to do.  What happens overseas, when this company is at home, but other battalions are overseas and have to do these tasks?  Both Light and Mech Rifle companies have conducted Air Mobile/Assault missions.
> 
> ...



I 100% agree everyone should strive to complete all these tasks and have good fitness levels. But this is not currently happening within these battalions (ok, the Battalion I was with). So someone has to be the on the forefront and set an example. As for spreading it out, that's what we do now and it "works". Except when I was air mobile, never even saw a helicopter, when I was mountain troop the first time our company had 1 AMO and maybe 3 BMO qualified soldiers and never came within 200km of a mountain. There was no amphibious company. 

And when I was jump company we had to practice/teach hand signals to some soldiers. 1/4 of the Coy had never done a live fire section attack for their first year in battalion (or in infantry training). And I don't know about you but that stuff bothers me.


----------



## MikeL (7 Aug 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> But this is not currently happening within these battalions (ok, the Battalion I was with). So someone has to be the on the forefront and set an example. As for spreading it out, that's what we do now and it "works". Except when I was air mobile, never even saw a helicopter, when I was mountain troop the first time our company had 1 AMO and maybe 3 BMO qualified soldiers and never came within 200km of a mountain. There was no amphibious company.
> 
> And when I was jump company we had to practice/teach hand signals to some soldiers. 1/4 of the Coy had never done a live fire section attack for their first year in battalion (or in infantry training).



Would making one "Super Rifle Coy" change this? Instead of focusing on having this company, why not the larger organization as a whole? There should be a push for the various companies to get out and work with helicopters, live fire ranges, etc. There would have to also be a push/coordination for other elements to train with the battalion as well(eg Tac Hel, etc).  

The Amphib comment was more directed at possible insertions/specializing a Company could do within a battalion; not saying it's something we currently have.






			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> And I don't know about you but that stuff bothers me.



It does, I think it might take more then making a super company to change this.  I assume fiscal restraints, etc will be a issue for more ammo, training, etc. IMO it is going to take a lot more then this Company idea to fix the issues.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (7 Aug 2013)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> It does, I think it might take more then making a super company to change this.  I assume fiscal restraints, etc will be a issue for more ammo, training, etc. IMO it is going to take a lot more then this Company idea to fix the issues.



Will it take more than one company to fix this? Yes. Is it a start, yes. Is it the right place too start, I don't know. You can still do a lot of training that costs nothing. In Edmonton we had the ability to practice nav, fibua, sat range maybe to practice a call for fire, c-can village, rappelling, obstacle course, first aid, setting up various kinds of trenches, etc. But we never really did much of that.


----------



## Flaker (13 Aug 2013)

Well I don't see this happening ("shock infantry") I think there is proof of concept but only in militaries that can afford it.

USA (Rangers, maybe marines, airborne)
England (paras, commandos)
France (marines, some para regiments)
Dutch (marines... Not sure if they are sf or not?)

However Canada is more similar to New Zealand/Australia. I don't believe they have non-sf units designed to be more proficient at light infantry skills. 

IMO, the money saved when it comes to troop retention would outweigh the costs of transferring soldiers. Who knows maybe one day they'll finally make that Marine Commando Regiment. Which I would assume would have been based on the royal marines. I wonder what killed that idea?


----------



## MikeL (13 Aug 2013)

Flaker said:
			
		

> Well I don't see this happening ("shock infantry") I think there is proof of concept but only in militaries that can afford it.
> 
> USA (Rangers, maybe marines, airborne)
> England (paras, commandos)
> ...



I'm not sure if you are trying to list of SOF units, or SOF and non SOF units that can achieve the "shock" effect.

AFAIK, the Netherlands Marines are not as a whole SOF but there are specialized units within.

Aside from differences in size and equipment/support at their disposal how do these units greatly differ from the Canadian Infantry battalions and CANSOF?




			
				Flaker said:
			
		

> However Canada is more similar to New Zealand/Australia. I don't believe they have non-sf units designed to be more proficient at light infantry skills.


Curious to what you mean by "more proficient at light infantry skills" what skill sets are these based on? What nations do have non SOF that are highly proficient at light infantry skills?




			
				Flaker said:
			
		

> IMO, the money saved when it comes to troop retention would outweigh the costs of transferring soldiers.


I assume you support the original idea of each regiment having a specialized company?  What would the mission/tasks be for this specialized Coy? Can a single company achieve those tasks? Are they tasks something that a Infantry Bn can not achieve now, or something that CANSOF  could be tasked with?  What would be required to support it? 




			
				Flaker said:
			
		

> Who knows maybe one day they'll finally make that Marine Commando Regiment. Which I would assume would have been based on the royal marines. I wonder what killed that idea?



I assume the costs associated with starting it, manning, equipment, etc would be challenges to forming a Marine Commando Regiment. As well, is it required? Is the CF large enough to have another unit added without hurting the manning of pre existing units? Can the Navy support it?

Would tasks given to a Canadian Marine unit be something the Infantry and CANSOF can not already do?


----------



## Flaker (14 Aug 2013)

I wasn't trying to list sof units. I was attempting to point out "shock" capable units.

As for size and equipment I'm not sure the size of any of these units. But Canada is not capable of keeping up with the size of the first three countries mentioned. The difference between the units IMO (will not compare to cansof, as these units are not sof) is that they have higher entrance requirements. So they have now recruited the top pool, as a generalization.

The nations I have mentioned are ones that have more "proficient" light infantry skills. This is not entirely a testament to their training programs as the short comings of ours. I am not aware of any amphibious capability, raid training (st.nazaire) , long range rucking (ie Falklands march)

As for a regiment having a specialized company, I'm not sure if that's the best approach. I'm not aware of other countries doing this. Then again we're already doing this with our jump companies. If we want to have maintenance phase on everything then it would work (sarcasm)

I agree aside from costs I don't think the CF could man the regiment properly without damaging per existing units. I'm not aware of what cansof is capable of, could they do it. Probably yes, but would a raid like the one on st.nazaire be the best use of a sof unit? I know it's from WW2 but who knows what war is next. Maybe port seizure will be a large part of it.


----------



## MikeL (14 Aug 2013)

Flaker said:
			
		

> The difference between the units IMO (will not compare to cansof, as these units are not sof)



Just wanted to clarify as most of the units/services listed were non SOF; but the 75th Ranger Regiment is SOF.



			
				Flaker said:
			
		

> is that they have higher entrance requirements



IMO, yes and no.  Some do(ex 75th Ranger Regiment, Para Regiment, etc) when comparing to the standard fitness test for that branch of service. Others do not(US Airborne do the same PT test as everyone else in the Army AFAIK), and the USMC fitness test is unique to them, much like how every other branch in the US has it's own test.



			
				Flaker said:
			
		

> The nations I have mentioned are ones that have more "proficient" light infantry skills. This is not entirely a testament to their training programs as the short comings of ours. I am not aware of any amphibious capability, raid training (st.nazaire) , long range rucking (ie Falklands march)



For an amphibious capability, what does the CF require? For example, do we want to be able to assault a beach with a large force? As well can the RCN support sea to shore landings with their ships, etc? 

Do we want to expand on the maritime capabilities we already have with Boarding Parties and CANSOF?

I've heard 2RCR has done some amphibious stuff(not sure to what extent) and other units have gotten to do amphibious assaults in training outside Canada(such as with the USMC, etc). If Canada pursues an amphibious capability for the Infantry, do we need to create a new unit, or would running units through some amphibious training during yearly training, pre deployment training, etc work?

As for raids, is this not a tasking a Infantry Bn can already achieve; at least to a certain extent? 




			
				Flaker said:
			
		

> long range rucking (ie Falklands march)



IMO this is something that can either already be achieved or can be worked on. Wasn't the 3PPCLI BG conducting some rather long marches during Op Apollo?



			
				Flaker said:
			
		

> As for a regiment having a specialized company, I'm not sure if that's the best approach. I'm not aware of other countries doing this. Then again we're already doing this with our jump companies. If we want to have maintenance phase on everything then it would work (sarcasm)



Do we need to create a new unit/sub-unit or just enhance capabilities within preexisting units?



			
				Flaker said:
			
		

> Probably yes, but would a raid like the one on st.nazaire be the best use of a sof unit?



IMO that would be dependent on the mission/objectives, is it in a new theatre or a new one, and so on.




			
				Flaker said:
			
		

> Maybe port seizure will be a large part of it.



Maybe, but will a new unit need to be required, or just have a preexisting unit train for this as required?


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Aug 2013)

Isn't "raid" just another way to spell "big fighting patrol"?


----------



## Infanteer (14 Aug 2013)

A Raid is a type of Fighting Patrol.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Aug 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> A Raid is a type of Fighting Patrol.



Sort of my point, nothing mystical and door kickery about it.


----------



## Flaker (14 Aug 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Biting       -British Paras

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid        -Commandos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Archery      -Commandos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomp                         -Paras and commandos 90km march in 3 days

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_at_Cabanatuan    -Rangers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_at_Cabanatuan   -Canadians reg inf/Commandos (Massively botched up due to lack of int. However the "raid" was more of a diversion for 30 assault unit)

Granted most of my examples are from WW2, it's an area of interest so I know about them. But I'm sure there's lots of evidence of the concept working. Thus why those units have stuck around. I can assure you our reg infantry are not prepared for undertakings such as that. And these units have proven themselves time and again capable of meeting new threats on short notice. If hypothetically you could have one of our infantry battalions do one of the above ops. Vs One of the units I've mentioned previously. Who would fair better?

Maybe we should stop trucking our soldiers to and from the range in BIQ. And not give our Officers s**t for taking us on 15km runs. Or our NCO's trouble for giving us a little extra pt, or trouble them for them telling us what we can and can not eat.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> A Raid is a type of Fighting Patrol.



Maybe so but it's not just "poking the bear". It usually has a larger objective than that. *See above

Do we need such a unit... No. Should we enhance these capabilities within a Battalion. IMO yes. Are our soldiers able to train for this, yes. On short notice, not likely as the pre-existing skills for such operations are not currently within the Battalions. 

What it comes down to is the lack of direction the CF as a whole has.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (15 Aug 2013)

Flaker: trying to change the CF into a leaner meaner fighting machine is like trying to make something from nothing (an act of god). There are professionals but the bureauracy you would have to navigate through would require the rank of CDS while willing to commit career suicide.

What you can do is be an example for others to follow. Much like why I picked a coy to start. So it can be an example. I also suggest you start with something smaller and if your successful at that try changing bigger things.

Also skeletor I would like to hear some of the answers to the questions you've asked. Though I feel I may already know the answers.


----------



## MikeL (15 Aug 2013)

Regarding some of those WWII examples, I'm not sure if some of them would be done by a conventional force today, but perhaps with SOF. Also, givin today's technology, etc would the military throw a battalion into the slaughter and be willing to accept losing over half the force as KIA/WIA and POWs(such as in St Nazaire)? Or perhaps look more for a precision strike(such as a missile/bomb) and have a small team with a JTAC on the ground.


Before new units are created, new tasks assigned, etc to the Army the RCAF and RCN also have to be in on this and be able to actually support it. Unless of course it is expected that we just bolt our forces onto existing allied units and have them provide the support/transport.

Also, what does the GoC want out of the CAF?  Once we actually have clear assigned roles/tasks then we can tailor the forces as required. Look at the Airborne for example, what is their role? They are maintaining a parachute capability but Canada hasn't used that capability since WWII. As well, is a Airborne Company per brigade really enough? Or would it be more practical to have them all grouped together in a battalion - provided of course Canada is actually seriously about it.  If not, perhaps we should go the way the Australians went and maintain the Airborne capability within SOF only.


If we are just looking at improving what we already have, what do we really need/want out of our battalions?  Do we need to turn them into a type of "Commando" unit? Probably not. Can we enhance some of their capabilities, sure. But, again, if we want an amphibious capability we need to be able to support that. 

It's great that we can have Infantry that can dismount from a vehicle and hit a beach, etc but do we internally have the means to get them there, and support? Do we want this to be a capability we can have on our own? Or something we can have troops familiar with it by participating with our allies(eg USMC) when they conduct that type of training.


----------



## myself.only (15 Aug 2013)

Well, I imagine the CSOR largely fills the role previously tasked to a "commando" unit and isn't called a Commando Regt only because the terminology has shifted to SOF as an umbrella term that reflects deployment into a broader spectrum of ops.
Yet, if we dug up Churchill, with libation in hand, he'd probably call them commandos.... and wish he had had them at his disposal 70 years ago.

Any other glaring differences in organization, assets and tactics between the two units probably exist to realize modern capabilities and capitalize on technological advances. 
So I think - and I am just venturing amateur opinion here - those same capabilities and advances make this more of a question of "*Would* the CAF mount a 600-man raid on a port?" rather than "*Could* the CAF mount a 600-man raid on a port?"
Wiser men may debate that.... but if the answer is yes, then I'd imagine the CSOR would get the task rather than a LIB.
 :2c:


----------



## Journeyman (15 Aug 2013)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Do we need to turn them into a type of "Commando" unit?


That would likely be the government response.  

Given the recent fixation on all-things-fashion (Navy curl, Areas becoming Divisions, Pips & Crowns for Army officers, the ubiquitous Chinese 1812 pins...), the good idea fairies would likely get a bunch of Commando patches embroidered and say "that was easy; you people must be _so_ proud."


[/sarcasm......somewhat]


----------



## myself.only (15 Aug 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> That would likely be the government response.
> 
> Given the recent fixation on all-things-fashion (Navy curl, Areas becoming Divisions, Pips & Crowns for Army officers, the ubiquitous Chinese 1812 pins...), the good idea fairies would likely get a bunch of Commando patches embroidered and say "that was easy; you people must be _so_ proud."
> 
> ...



Do we get to hear the MND announce: "Canada is going commando"


----------



## Portnord (15 Aug 2013)

Out of curiosity (and seeking cover under the thread title), what would we use a force of paratroopers for in this day and age? Is there a plausible scenario for a sizeable body of troops that couldn't be more efficiently handled by helicopter transport?

If I discount tiny special forces or espionage scenarios, all I could imagine is esprit de corps. There's nothing wrong if it's just advanced skill training with cachet that improves retention of professional soldiers, but there seem to be a lot of alternatives being kicked around the thread. Granted what I know is paper thin (like someone else said coloured by WWII and whatever can be gleaned from reading military history), if there's some advantage or flexibility that someone can share, always happy to learn.

Some of you seem to be questioning what they might be tasked with - I'm wondering if we will ever want or need to have anyone jump from a plane into combat ever again.


----------



## MikeL (15 Aug 2013)

Portnord said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity (and seeking cover under the thread title), what would we use a force of paratroopers for in this day and age? Is there a plausible scenario for a sizeable body of troops that couldn't be more efficiently handled by helicopter transport?



In modern times, there have been multiple occasions of Airborne forces being dropped - French in Mali, Indochina; I think the US has done this in almost every conflict they've been involved with since WWII; etc.

They have been used to seize airfields, drop a large force into an area to open a new front(eg 173rd Airborne in Iraq 2003), etc. Helicopters may not have the range, or may be more susceptible to a anti aircraft threat.

As for Canada ever having a Airborne Company Group (or larger sized element) conduct a combat jump, I don't know.. I don't see it happening going off the past, but who knows what may or may not happen in the future.


----------



## medicineman (15 Aug 2013)

Not everywhere in the world can be reached by helicopter in a short period of time unless they're already prepositioned there.  There have been post-Second World War operational para drops with varying degrees of success - Sinai and Suez, Dien Bien Phu, Kolwezi, Grenada immediately spring to mind...the US Rangers also did a jump in Afghanistan in 2001, though IRRC, that was more a camera stunt than anything.  Israel dropped paratroops into the Sinai in '56 and the UK and France dropped paras into the Suez shortly thereafter.  The French airborne forces jumped into Dien Bien Phu.  The Kolwezi crisis was dealt with quite decisively by FFL paratroops being able to jump in quickly and then aggresively clear the baddies and rescue the goodies in the town.  Grenada was a bit of a shyte show, but was still successful on the objective side of the fact that the Rangers did an opposed drop onto and then captured an airhead.  

I somehow don't see many mass drops in the coming future, but battalion level ops domestically are a possibility in a disaster situation or armed incursion into remote areas of our own country...however, I do believe there is a unit that's already designated for that sort of thing now in the form of CSOR?  The question(s) is (are) - "Does the GoC feel there is a need"? followed by "If there is indeed a need, how do we (the CF/GoC) fulfill that need?" followed by "Are resources immediately available and if not, can they be made so readily?" followed by "Who the Hell is going to pay for it all?"...and in the current fiscal climate, my guess is the question order is going to be reversed somewhat.
 :2c:

MM

Edit to add: Skeletor, you beat me to it...with a couple extra examples each  ;D...we both forgot the Turks into Cyprus in the 70's.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Aug 2013)

The government doesn't know a para company from a para legal, or even a pair of MC Hammer parachute pants.  It is the Army and CAF that has to do this analysis.....


----------



## dapaterson (15 Aug 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The government doesn't know a para company from a para legal, or even a pair of MC Hammer parachute pants.  It is the Army and CAF that has to do this analysis.....



NEWSWIRE - Ottawa.  Minister of National Defence announces 3 PPCLI to wear parachute pants as part of Army Transformation.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Aug 2013)

Her we go...


----------



## UnwiseCritic (15 Aug 2013)

Is there a thread or open source website that states what capabilities the government wants from us? Or what we want from ourselves?

Or is there no clear defined goals for us, aside from being a re-election tool?


----------



## dapaterson (15 Aug 2013)

Read the Canada First Defence Strategy.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Aug 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Is there a thread or open source website that states what capabilities the government wants from us? Or what we want from ourselves?
> 
> Or is there no clear defined goals for us, aside from being a re-election tool?



You could look up the Government's White Paper on Defence....... >

It has been in the ......ummmm.......'To be updated' mode now for........two....three.....maybe more Prime Ministers.


----------



## Monsoon (15 Aug 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You could look up the Government's White Paper on Defence....... >
> 
> It has been in the ......ummmm.......'To be updated' mode now for........two....three.....maybe more Prime Ministers.


The 1994 White Paper was the Chretien government's policy direction to the CF. Dapaterson is right - the CFDS is the current government's strategic-level policy direction. Whatever parts of the White Paper that continue to live on only do so because they aren't incompatible with the CFDS.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Aug 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Read the Canada First Defence Strategy.


Any word on what's happened with the review of said strategy (the web page says its last update was 27 Jul 13) since said review was mentioned in the media about a year ago?


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Aug 2013)

*removed*


----------



## UnwiseCritic (15 Aug 2013)

I just read a summary about it... It's a little out of date. It was on track for awhile though.


----------



## Portnord (16 Aug 2013)

Thanks for the info, skeletor and medicineman.


----------

