# Can the infantry just borrow weapons from the US?



## Jarnhamar (17 Feb 2016)

If we deploy conventional combat arms forces to Syria is there anything stopping us from saying we goofed, can we please have some weapons and ammo? 

For the infantry we don't have .50cals, 60mm mortars or TOW missiles anymore. Our 84mms and C16agls's are pretty limited.  The 84mm doesn't have all that much range and the C16 dismounted is ridiculous for a number of reasons.

It looks like the US is giving out TOW missiles faster than people give candy out on Halloween.  It seems like everyone in Syria has them, they're even firing them at individual people.

So is there an actual rule or anything (aside from losing face) that stops us?  I recall training with a US brigade in California a couple years back we got some hands on classes with some of their weapons but were told we're not allowed using them in the exercise because we never got authority or some such which seemed pretty silly at the time. 
Surely if the US can drop TOWs in the hands of moderate terrorists they can let their buddies up north use some?

Failing that what the heck would we use to take on the heavy armor floating around Syria and Iraq (lots of it US made)?


----------



## dangerboy (17 Feb 2016)

One of the issues of using foreign ammunition and weapons is that all of our ammo and weapons have be approved by the JAG office to ensure that they are compliant with international law.  Some countries interpertation of international law is slightly differant than ours. 

Also DAOD 3002-5, Use of Firearms, Ammunitions and Explosives has regulations that we must follow such as:

Ammunition Inter-changeability

Many CF service firearms have the same calibre as allied service firearms. This similarity in calibre does not guarantee compatibility of ammunition intended for use in allied service firearms or any other firearm with CF service firearms. 
Approval to use non-CF service ammunition in CF service firearms must be obtained from DAEME.

Now if you are with allies and run out of ammo during a firefight and get ammo from them I don't think anyone will say anything but to plan to use allied ammo/weapons withour authority will most likely get you in trouble.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Feb 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Failing that what the heck would we use to take on the heavy armor floating around Syria and Iraq (lots of it US made)?



"Sticky bombs"







Bring extra socks, grease, C4.....


----------



## Haggis (17 Feb 2016)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Approval to use non-CF service ammunition in CF service firearms must be obtained from DAEME.



I remember a bit over twenty years ago at a certain infamous pair of native reservations in Québec and Ontario police officers were trading their .223 JHP rounds for CF issued 5.56 mm FMJ and tracer.  Talk about a shyte storm on both sides when that was discovered by the Sgts Maj!


----------



## McG (17 Feb 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> For the infantry we don't have .50cals, 60mm mortars or TOW missiles anymore.


There are TOW missiles in Canadian depots still.  I suspect the same of .50 cal because it is still used outside the Army.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Feb 2016)

The Navy certainly has at least ninety-eight .50 cal MG's and that is just for those mounted on ships or in stock to mount on ships (there are eight set aside for the PCT's if need be).


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Feb 2016)

Well, legend (some of it certainly factual) says that's how the 25th CDN Inf Bde (Korea, early 1950s) overcame it's (now and again fairly serious) equipment deficiencies ... they "borrowed" (some say "liberated") what they needed from the Americans. There were reports that the Americans might have liked to have been asked ...  :dunno:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Feb 2016)

Not to mention spare bits liberated from them in Yakima and Ft Lewis in the later 1/4 of the 20th century


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Feb 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Bring extra socks,



Ease up there John Wayne, a soldier's Logistik Unicorps account only goes so far.


----------



## MJP (17 Feb 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If we deploy conventional combat arms forces to Syria is there anything stopping us from saying we goofed, can we please have some weapons and ammo?
> 
> For the infantry we don't have .50cals, 60mm mortars or TOW missiles anymore. Our 84mms and C16agls's are pretty limited.  The 84mm doesn't have all that much range and the C16 dismounted is ridiculous for a number of reasons.
> 
> ...



We use their ammo on a frequent enough basis.  I haven't seen the JAG piece that DB mentioned but I would assume in the context of your question for use in a theater of operations it makes sense. For training the ammo world vets the usage of other ammo and authorizes the usage.  Just saw one recently for a variety of ammo natures and was quite impressed with the level of detail.


----------



## Pusser (18 Feb 2016)

There are actually STANAGs (NATO Standardization Agreements?) concerning ammunition (as well as a huge variety of other things).  In a nutshell, everyone prefers to use their own; however, if circumstances dictate, ammunition of the correct nature that meets the NATO standard can be used.  Small arms ammunition that meets the NATO standard can have green tips and/or (more commonly a standardization mark (circle with a cross - looks like like a crosshair) stamped on the base.


----------



## NavyShooter (18 Feb 2016)

At this point, I'll interject with the "NATO SPECIFICATION" vs "NATO INTERCHANGABLE" ammunition markings:

Source:  http://www.cruffler.com/trivia-June01.html


> *STANDARDIZATION MARKINGS  and MEANINGS
> *In  August 1959, the NATO Department of Military Standardization published the NATO  identification marking.  The NATO identification mark is a cross within a  circle.  All types of ammunition standardized by NATO and adhering to the terms of the Standardization Agreement (STANAG) bears this mark, indicating that the  cartridge in question is interoperable with others so marked.  However, it  cannot be stressed enough that this marking alone does not guarantee interchangeability.  That is to say, a random selection of 7.62mm NATO cartridges from different manufacturers bearing the cross-within-circle marking will likely display equally random ballistic performance.  Only the inclusion of  an additional marking on the cartridge packaging in the form of a maltese cross  or four leafed clover indicates that the ammunition is expected to provide  identical ballistic performance.  If the clover symbol is framed, this is an  indication that the accessories contained within the packaging such as clips or  links also correspond to designs approved by the STANAG.



NATO Specification ammo will have this stamp on it:





NATO Interchangeable ammunition will have this stamp on it:






This is not to say that you don't need permission if you PLAN to fire foreign weapons or ammo, (I think it has to come from an L1) if you need some more detail on that, I can go digging.  I've been involved with planning foreign weapons shoots in the past.

NS


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Feb 2016)

I understand the issues with using Canadian ammo in foreign weapons (and vice versa). In my case we were told we weren't allowed to use the US weapons on exercise (with their ammo) because we didn't receive permission from higher.  It seemed like a very stupid piece of red tape and a lot of training value lost.

If we deploy against ISIS or other entities with modern weapons we're going to need .50 cals, mortars and especially anti-armor weapons heavier than an 84mm carl gustav. Why would we wait until the last minute to officially realize this and start training with them again?


----------



## NavyShooter (20 Feb 2016)

Setting up a foreign weapons shoot involves permissions from an L1 due to 'risk mitigation' 

The fact that an American soldier can fire the rifle lying beside me on the range, but I cannot exchange rifles with him (M-4 vs C-7A2) makes very little sense, but it's the rule.  The manual of arms for both weapons is effectively identical.

Swapping weapons with a Brit and firing an SA-80 is a slightly different manual of arms.

Again, all of that needs an L1 approval.


----------



## Remius (20 Feb 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I understand the issues with using Canadian ammo in foreign weapons (and vice versa). In my case we were told we weren't allowed to use the US weapons on exercise (with their ammo) because we didn't receive permission from higher.  It seemed like a very stupid piece of red tape and a lot of training value lost.
> 
> If we deploy against ISIS or other entities with modern weapons we're going to need .50 cals, mortars and especially anti-armor weapons heavier than an 84mm carl gustav. Why would we wait until the last minute to officially realize this and start training with them again?



We are getting back in the TOW business.  It's only in the starting phase but it is happening.


----------



## bLUE fOX (20 Feb 2016)

I didn't think we ever left? Aren't the ones we have left all wireless versions? I know we are fresh out of Eryx.


----------

