# Canadian Forces by the numbers



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Apr 2004)

Interesting read
 http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/


----------



## Tyrnagog (15 Apr 2004)

All I can say is wow.

Have we come a long way, baby!    

Word‘s cannot begin to describe.  How can we have slipped so far, over such a relatively small time frame?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Apr 2004)

That‘s an extremely useless bit of trivia.  Of course we had more stuff during the war, what would we do with 1 million soldiers now?

I thought the part about 60,000 "men and women" enlisting in 1939 was particularly laughable.  Women weren‘t permitted to serve in the military until later in the war - unless they are including nursing sisters?  The CWAC, RCAF(Women‘s Division) and the female naval services were all created after 1939.  

As for slipping, it was gradual.  Post Korea we had a thriving military courtesy Guy Simonds, including seven Regular Force infantry regiments (each with more than one battalion excepting the Airborne) - including the Black Watch, QOR, Canadian Guards, PPCLI, RCR, Van Doos.  We reverted back to four Reg Force Infantry Regiments in the early 1970s, but still maintained a combat capable brigade in Germany during the Cold War.

I see the PM was in Gagetown today.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (15 Apr 2004)

Did I heard him commending us on our invasion of Norway? It seems that someone failed Canadian and world history. His speech writers are probably working at the scab picking plant for some leper colony by now.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Apr 2004)

Perhaps he said or meant Normandy?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Apr 2004)

He obviously read the script incorrectly.

I imagine he was proably a bit nervous.  Face it, he knows Chretien did the Army dirt and if he is really committed to showing the Army that he is for them, he was probably pretty anxious to do well, which may have resulted in the blunder.  I didn‘t see the speech myself, though, so that‘s just an uninformed guess.

He IS getting up in years and was in front of a uniformed crowd.  Yes, he should have realized it said Normandy anyway, especially since he‘s going there in June.


----------



## RCD (9 Jun 2004)

These people who came up with these figures & fudge them must be smoking the Chretien  grass.


----------



## ark (9 Jun 2004)

21,500 reservists ?

I think the number is closer to 15000 - 15500. Objective being 18500 in a couple years (with a net increase of +500 per year).


----------



## JBP (10 Jun 2004)

Here is some more interesting facts about our Armed Forces in general:

77 F/A-18 Hornets, about 67 combat capable. The rest in rotation for repairs and training services.
Almost 30 yrs old. Need 20 hrs of repair work per HOUR of flight time

112 C2 Leopard Tanks, need 20 hrs repair work for each hour in combat operation (Expected to be servicable until 2010 or something like that)

We have a couple toy ships... Frigates, the smallest class of warships and we have what,10?-12? of them??? 2 Destroyers I think... 

United States Navy Supercarrier (example USS Enterprise or Eisenhower) carries about 90 aircraft at once, is combat operational for almost 1 year, is powered by two nuclear reactors.

ONE carrier can takeout our airforce!...

Although, since the US seems to like starting wars I suppose they need that kinda power...  :warstory:

The US also has 12,000 tanks. 6,000 modern, 6,000 older.

Anyway, just thought that might be interesting to some. Those numbers are from somewhere on http://www.dnd.ca and the US numbers are from thier websites and also MSN.Ca/NBC News

I believe regardless of circumstances we do need a better equipped and formidable military force. It's laughable at best compare to even Chile, who has a larger Navy than we do!


----------



## ags281 (10 Jun 2004)

> We have a couple toy ships... Frigates, the smallest class of warships and we have what,10?-12? of them??? 2 Destroyers I think...



All this talk about how we should get giant ships makes no sense to me. Even the whole JSS concept kind of scares me to tell the truth. Maybe I'm missing something, but at what point did placing as many of your key capabilities as possible into a single ship become a good idea? Just makes a bigger target and saves any enemy time, effort, and ammo to break your force's back as far as I can tell - not to mention the even bigger problem that a single ship can't be in two, three, or four places at once. IMHO, we'd be much better off getting a few simpler/cheaper dedicated supply ships, and then a couple ships capable of moving a few troops, vehicles, and helos. Four EH-101 helicopters should be adequate to rapidly move enough troops from just offshore to where they're needed while the vehicles and remainder of the force takes the sandy route. Get a moderate size troop ship and make the top of it flat and it could handle way more than 4 helicopters. It's not like we need a huge floating airfield for just a few of them.

An additional point to consider is how much ocean we have to cover. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure more boats = ability to monitor a greater area. I'd be happy if we revived the concept of corvettes. A few smaller boats in the place of a single bigger one could do wonders to increase our naval presence. It would also help our understaffed swabbies actually crew the fleet, as smaller ships take smaller crews. Got a problem with small ships do you? Honestly, how much firepower do we really need to keep freighters under control long enough to send a boarding party?



> United States Navy Supercarrier (example USS Enterprise or Eisenhower) carries about 90 aircraft at once, is combat operational for almost 1 year, is powered by two nuclear reactors.



A supercarrier? Yes, they are pretty good for bragging about the size of your wang, but are a waste of resources to babysit. Besides, I'm pretty sure we can be secure with the size of our, uh... landmass, without having to compensate for anything. 1) Canada has no use for a supercarrier, let alone a need 2) We can't afford one 3) Exactly what airforce is supposed to supply the air assets? 4) If we put 5,000 people on a single ship it would be our ONLY ship 5) Who's going to be left to form the babysitting squad? A couple of cooks in RHIBs? No thanks. Troop ship with a few helicopters is enough. If by some budgetary miracle we could actually afford it, maybe get a couple of aircraft like the supercobra to give cover to those on the ground while they secure a position, but that little twist is nowhere near a priority, and we certainly don't need to get any more elaborate/badass than that.



> I believe regardless of circumstances we do need a better equipped and formidable military force. It's laughable at best compare to even Chile, who has a larger Navy than we do!



I think everyone here would agree that we need better equipment. We have no need for a large military, but to have our forces going about their duties with equipment that does not allow them to carry out their mission as effectively and safely as possible is an absolute disgrace. No need to bring Chile into it - of course Chile would have a decent sized navy. While it's true that they have half of our population, all 15 million of them live on beachfront property, and they have a significant stretch of ocean to secure with all those islands of theirs. With the exception of not pissing off Argentina, a good naval presence is Chile's first, last, and only line of defence.


Well, those are just a few of the things that run through my mind. I'm not exactly a navy type, so I'm kind of curious if anyone thinks some of these thoughts could work or if I'm just talking out of my @$$.


----------



## JBP (11 Jun 2004)

I wasn't saying WE should have any and/or all that stuff, I was just giving an accurate accout of what we do have. I don't think we need any Supercarriers etc. Frigates are OK but a couple destroyers wouldn't hurt, I mean, they're not huge either. Cruisers are big, we can't afford that at all! 

I suppose we don't need too many jets either since we don't do anything with them, but that's the point. What if we DID need them!?!?! But the priority I would agree is equipment for our troops and more troops in general.

I can't say too much yet because I'm not in, but from what I've seen+heard from friends, equipment could help!

Anyway, thanks for the response+info!

Joe


----------



## ags281 (11 Jun 2004)

Oops... guess I jumped on that whole supercarrier thing without taking a close enough look at the wording of your post. My mistake.


----------



## T.I.M. (11 Jun 2004)

The Canadian militarty has historically been tiny during peacetime.

In 1914, before World War I broke out, Canada's regular army was just a little over 3,000 men.

In the 1930s the regular army was again down to under 4,000 men, though on paper it was supposed to be a mighty force of 7,000, backed by 130,000 reserves (of which only 50,000 actually existed).  The navy was in little better shape, with 3,000 men and a mere 6 destroyers and 5 minesweepers, a puny fleet by any standards.

In both wars the Canadian military expanded massively, but that was during wartime.  As far as Canada's past  peacetime militaries are concerned, the current day force is huge.  Of course Canada's responsibilities in the world have also changed greatly over the past 50 years, so the old peacetime military neglect is unnacceptable.  However if one wants an accurate picture of Canada's military past it helps to recount the numbers not just in war, but also in peace.


----------



## JBP (11 Jun 2004)

Very good point indeed I suppose. 

One thing I have noted is that Canadian soldiers in general are suppose to be better trained than almost any other regular plain ol' run of the mill grunt. From what I've heard. Even compared to the US regular soldiers. How can we possibly keep this level of training up with the cutbacks and closures/postponing of training programs that 've heard about on other sections of the forum! Is the Canadian military worse off now for training+equipment than it's ever been? I bet if you look at the equipment of the post WW1 and 2 peacetime soldiers, even if only 3000 of them were around, they were probably better equipped! I hope that's not the case but it seems that would be the indication!

I am joining the Reserve force anyway so I won't see anything interesting or new until after Reg force regardless. I'm not griping about me! I'm griping about our forces in general. If we can't have the toys we should get the training! Which leads me to think about the upcomming elections...

Another topic for another section of the forum another day.


----------



## T.I.M. (11 Jun 2004)

As far as equipment is concerened, we certainly aren't skipping through the daisies, but weren't not as badly off as it's sometimes portrayed.   We tend to beat ourselves up more because we compare ourselves to our closest neighbours, the Americans - but _no one_ compares to the Americans.

It's a little more self affirming if you work with a military like the Brits.   You realize that our personal weapons beat theirs all to heck and back, our land surviellance capability (in the form of the Coyote) leaves thiers in the dust, and there is no comparison when considering our personal kit like cots, sleeping bags, wet and cold weather gear, and so on.   In fact with the only occasional exception, Canadians are probably the most comfortably dressed soldiers in NATO - almost certainly the best fed    (IMPs are pure gold in trade with our British allies).   Of course the Brits have their own problems, but they're still one of the top militaries in the world after the Yanks.

That isn't to say we can be complacent - we DO have some wide gaps in certain capabilites, a lot of kit that is substandard, and more that will soon need replacing, but in a few select areas our kit is second to none.   It pays to remember that one of the reasons our frigates were so overtasked is because they are some of the most capable vessels in their class in the world.   During Anaconda our snipers were so successful in large part because they had one of the world's best rifles (even if they still had to mooch American .50 match) and that of all the forces currently part of ISAF, it is the Canadian Battlegroup with its LAVs and Coyotes that possesses the most sophisticated sensors and the heaviest weapons.   When ISAF calls for the big guns in Afghanistan, they call on our people.


----------



## JBP (11 Jun 2004)

Ah! Now that's a good way to look at it! I suppose it is true a lot of people always measure us up to our warlike southern partners which there can be no measure to especially because we are such a peace orientated nation. I'm glad to know we do have some advanced weapons and equipment with the coyotes and snipers. I heard actually now that I think about it that the coyote is a pretty advanced machine and worth it's weight for what it can do. I myself don't like the whole rubber tire option. Whose suppose to go change a tire under enemy fire! Lol... Just kidding, I imagine there is a way around it all. Like, not stopping, or, cover fire.

Anyway, thanks for the info. Makes me feel better to hear that stuff, and to know we're one of the best fed soldiers! That is for sure a moral boost! My buddy told me in boot camp you get to eat bacon and eggs every morning. THAT in itself would be worth it for me to go! *Loves food**Is Italian*  ;D


----------



## Lebanese Canadian (20 Jun 2004)

Oh man,what a weak army. I can't believe countries like syria and Iran have bigger armies.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jun 2004)

You're suggesting that quantity immediately trumps quality; you junior-generalship is obviously not up to par.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (20 Jun 2004)

I thought that was a great read...and now if only a couple politicians would read it and take some advice from it...


----------



## Lebanese Canadian (21 Jun 2004)

No i didnt mean quantity beats quality. I just meant that a country as big as canada should have a bigger ,more powerful army.


----------



## JBP (1 Jul 2004)

I think we would have a much larger army if we needed it! Unfortunatly we have come to rely on the US for a huge portion of our defence and military matters, and they've been kind enough to accomodate. But really, all we do is mostly clean up after our friends to the south go in and wreak some havic! They do this--->  :gunner: We do this--->   :dontpanic: 

It's a decent team, they do the blasting, we guard thier backs and help clean up the civilian populations. We are based off peace, at least we're originally meant to be! The Kosovo bombing was the first true "Offensive" action Canada has taken since.. I think, WW2 I believe. I remember seeing on TV that countries like the States and Britain were saying things like "Welcome back to the club", in regards to us finally joining an assault and not sitting back and guarding bases.

We don't need a huge military, but I do FIRMLY believe we don't have a large enough force. That, and fine, if we're stuck with 50,000 or so thousand troops, at least maybe can we be trained to the highest levels+equipped at least a little better!

Recently, if anyone has noticed, we've had SEVERAL horrible accidents with all our F/A-18's... Missles falling off, pilots dying in routine landing approaches (Happened in US). Either the equipment is too old and becomming unreasonably unserviceable or we're not getting enough training. I blame 80-90% on the equipment myself. Even with our lack of funds, we do still get training for the reg force from what I've seen.

Anyway, just my two cents!
 ;D


----------



## McG (1 Jul 2004)

We have the CF-18.  The pilot that died in the US the other day was flying an American F/A-18.  This is no reflection on our equipment or training.


----------



## JBP (2 Jul 2004)

Yes we have the CF-18, which is realistically, no different from the American F/A-18C I believe because we bought it off them. Only minor differences as far as I know like our paint job, the underside fake cockpit. Although we are getting upgrades which should make it quite different in terms of software+computer hardware for the jet. But they just came out with the F/A-18 Superhornet which, eats a regular Hornet alive... Anyway...

I didn't know he was flying an American F-18, that does make a difference. Maybe some of the cockpit controls were slightly different? That could account for some pilot error. Thing ya gotta wonder is, why wouldn't he have ejected if it was that big a problem? I mean, aren't landings suppose to be routine? I guess no one will know or have an idea until the investigation is completed/revealed.

It's an unfortunate accident and I feel bad for the family. :'(


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jul 2004)

Canada has a mix of single seat F-18C (CF-188A) and two-seater F-18D (CF-188B).

Recruit Joe, your knowledge of the military is clearly lacking.  Please limit your input and junior generalship to what you know, as your hearsay is just clogging up bandwidth.


----------



## ags281 (3 Jul 2004)

Routine landing? There's no such thing Recruit Joe. Landings have always been the most dangerous and complicated part of a flight.


----------

