# Ambush drills



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Peter deVries" <rsm_kes_cc254@hotmail.com>* on *Wed, 03 Jan 2001 05:17:24 *
When i did my QL3 infantry there was a little mix up on ambush drills. The 
old drill being, when a platoon gets into an ambush the commander orders and 
ambush left or right CHARGE. We were later informed that the correct way was 
to have the support element lay down covering fire, while the assault 
element, does sort of a flanking section attack on the enemy. We were told 
that the charge was out of date, some of the reasons being that in a proper 
ambush, it would be easy for the enemy to wipe out advancing troops with 
machine guns, also that their area would have wire obstacles strung up along 
with boobie traps, and all the rest. I was just trying to figure out which 
is the correct way, and when did this change, any imput would be helpful,
Peter
>From: "Ian Edwards" 
>Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>To: 
>Subject: Re: Joining the Brits2
>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:32:15 -0700
>
>John, I don‘t want to pounce on you for your view of history, as I agree
>with your sentiments.
>But a portion of your claims about Canada‘s role in two events are either
>open for discussion or can be disagreed with. And Mil Hist discussion is 
>one
>of the purposes of this list.
>
>I refer to your statements on Vimy and also the 1956 UNEF.
>
>I don‘t think that Canada‘s major part in Vimy Ridge the Brits call it the
>3rd battle of Ypres IIRC played other than a very small part in 
>hastening
>the end of the Great War. But it was important TO US  as that it was the
>first time that Canada attacked together and triumphed together as a Corps.
>We still had a Brit, Byng,  in command at the time Currie didn‘t receive
>command until a few months later. Certainly, the Canadians were not
>expected by the Brits to be successful in the battle. But from that moment
>on, Canada‘s participation in the war, as a larger formation, permitted us 
>a
>small "say" in  the conduct of world affairs. That was in April 1917.
>Canada‘s efforts in the closing months of the war, 1918, were outstanding 
>as
>were the Australians we, over here, don‘t hear much about their valiant
>efforts on the Western Front.
>
>Now, Canada‘s foreign policy at the time of the Suez Crisis, can arguably 
>be
>said to be shameful. Before I get into my rant I wish to make it clear that
>I have nothing but admiration for our soldiers in the UNEF. When I took my
>basic equivalent of QL2 in 1959 my Platoon Sergeant had not long before
>served in the UNEF and Korea prior to that. And that was Canada‘s first
>attempt at peace keeping rather than the euphemism peace making. But what
>L B Pearson did to our allies was stab them in the back. Remember: the
>Brits, the French and the Israeli‘s were within a few HOURS of reaching
>Cairo and putting "paid" to Nasser. Pearson refused to back our Allies, the
>Brits and the French. The Americans were neutral because they faced an
>election in a few months and the US President, Eisenhower, was a "lame 
>duck"
>and couldn‘t make any strategic moves. Russia had a revolution in her back
>yard - within a few weeks open rebellion in Hungary in particular. Russia‘s
>hands were thus tied and she couldn‘t have intervened in the Mid East. But
>Australia, too, sided with Canada more the shame.  Winning the battle, 
>but
>without Western World support, the Brits and the French were forced to call
>it off. A World War in the making? Not at all!!!
>
>The consequence? The toothless Brits and the French saw a hastening of the
>break up of their overseas empires. Anthony Eden was forced to resign as
>Brit PM. Open revolt amongst the French troops and the return of deGaulle.
>The empires were going to be closed down anyway as the Americans had forced
>the Brits, in 1942, to agree to giving up India at the end of the WW2, as a
>condition for American support for British war policy in the Mediterranean
>and elsewhere. It was in America‘s interest to see the end of European
>colonialism.
>
>Yes, the empires would have gone anyway, but they might have devolved with
>less haste and better consequences for the former colonies, with their
>ill-drawn map boundaries that suited European needs rather than acknowledge
>tribal realities. Can anyone argue that most of Africa, in particular, is
>better off today than in colonial times? Yes, some probably could, having
>listened to Liberal propaganda for 44 years.    End of Rant for Today.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Gow 
>To: 
>Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 9:10 PM
>Subject: Re: Joining the Brits
>
>
>snip, snip
>
>
> > Regrettably, that same Constitution separated us somewhat from the
>UK...I‘m
> > no political science type to get into this, others may hopefully 
>comment,
> > but we are an independent nation, and that separation began when the
> > Canadian Corps of volunteer civilians stormed Vimy Ridge, an 
>"impossible"
> > task, and created a situation that ended the Great War.  We affirmed it 
>in
> > September 1939, when Parliment debated going to war, instead of being at
>war
> > by action of the UK government.  We proved it in 1956, when Lester 
>Pearson
> > prevented a world war by solving the Suez Crisis by the formation of
>UNEF...
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
>remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
>message body.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Wed, 3 Jan 2001 00:37:45 -0500*
QL3, in my day, Peter, meant you were going to your third stripe.
And yes, the man of the moment did have command, and as you say, it was
done....you simply overran and/or died in the atempt, there not being much
choice.
Have chatted with Captain Mike, and read his website, to understand how much
things change...so guess that nowadays, you send a constant stream of
updated caualty lists til its your turn, because the System has abandoned
any trust whatever at a Junior or Senior NCO level...anything is an Officer
decision..not at cannon fodder one, nor Junior, nor Senior Cannon Fodder
one..
On the other hand, I hope to Christ that you remember this training and pull
your guys out of trouble...
You have to be alive to join the argument.
And, of course, the "doctrine" was wrong...you must have a platoon, or
company attack, and so the section suport segement becomes insignificant...
Somebody let me know how we are to develop a decent Sr NCO in the figting
phase wth zero empowerment?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter deVries" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:17 AM
Subject: Ambush drills
> When i did my QL3 infantry there was a little mix up on ambush drills. The
> old drill being, when a platoon gets into an ambush the commander orders
and
> ambush left or right CHARGE. We were later informed that the correct way
was
> to have the support element lay down covering fire, while the assault
> element, does sort of a flanking section attack on the enemy. We were told
> that the charge was out of date, some of the reasons being that in a
proper
> ambush, it would be easy for the enemy to wipe out advancing troops with
> machine guns, also that their area would have wire obstacles strung up
along
> with boobie traps, and all the rest. I was just trying to figure out which
> is the correct way, and when did this change, any imput would be helpful,
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Ian Edwards" 
> >Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> >To: 
> >Subject: Re: Joining the Brits2
> >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:32:15 -0700
> >
> >John, I don‘t want to pounce on you for your view of history, as I agree
> >with your sentiments.
> >But a portion of your claims about Canada‘s role in two events are either
> >open for discussion or can be disagreed with. And Mil Hist discussion is
> >one
> >of the purposes of this list.
> >
> >I refer to your statements on Vimy and also the 1956 UNEF.
> >
> >I don‘t think that Canada‘s major part in Vimy Ridge the Brits call it
the
> >3rd battle of Ypres IIRC played other than a very small part in
> >hastening
> >the end of the Great War. But it was important TO US  as that it was the
> >first time that Canada attacked together and triumphed together as a
Corps.
> >We still had a Brit, Byng,  in command at the time Currie didn‘t
receive
> >command until a few months later. Certainly, the Canadians were not
> >expected by the Brits to be successful in the battle. But from that
moment
> >on, Canada‘s participation in the war, as a larger formation, permitted
us
> >a
> >small "say" in  the conduct of world affairs. That was in April 1917.
> >Canada‘s efforts in the closing months of the war, 1918, were outstanding
> >as
> >were the Australians we, over here, don‘t hear much about their valiant
> >efforts on the Western Front.
> >
> >Now, Canada‘s foreign policy at the time of the Suez Crisis, can arguably
> >be
> >said to be shameful. Before I get into my rant I wish to make it clear
that
> >I have nothing but admiration for our soldiers in the UNEF. When I took
my
> >basic equivalent of QL2 in 1959 my Platoon Sergeant had not long before
> >served in the UNEF and Korea prior to that. And that was Canada‘s first
> >attempt at peace keeping rather than the euphemism peace making. But
what
> >L B Pearson did to our allies was stab them in the back. Remember: the
> >Brits, the French and the Israeli‘s were within a few HOURS of reaching
> >Cairo and putting "paid" to Nasser. Pearson refused to back our Allies,
the
> >Brits and the French. The Americans were neutral because they faced an
> >election in a few months and the US President, Eisenhower, was a "lame
> >duck"
> >and couldn‘t make any strategic moves. Russia had a revolution in her
back
> >yard - within a few weeks open rebellion in Hungary in particular.
Russia‘s
> >hands were thus tied and she couldn‘t have intervened in the Mid East.
But
> >Australia, too, sided with Canada more the shame.  Winning the battle,
> >but
> >without Western World support, the Brits and the French were forced to
call
> >it off. A World War in the making? Not at all!!!
> >
> >The consequence? The toothless Brits and the French saw a hastening of
the
> >break up of their overseas empires. Anthony Eden was forced to resign as
> >Brit PM. Open revolt amongst the French troops and the return of
deGaulle.
> >The empires were going to be closed down anyway as the Americans had
forced
> >the Brits, in 1942, to agree to giving up India at the end of the WW2, as
a
> >condition for American support for British war policy in the
Mediterranean
> >and elsewhere. It was in America‘s interest to see the end of European
> >colonialism.
> >
> >Yes, the empires would have gone anyway, but they might have devolved
with
> >less haste and better consequences for the former colonies, with their
> >ill-drawn map boundaries that suited European needs rather than
acknowledge
> >tribal realities. Can anyone argue that most of Africa, in particular, is
> >better off today than in colonial times? Yes, some probably could, having
> >listened to Liberal propaganda for 44 years.    End of Rant for Today.
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Gow 
> >To: 
> >Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 9:10 PM
> >Subject: Re: Joining the Brits
> >
> >
> >snip, snip
> >
> >
> > > Regrettably, that same Constitution separated us somewhat from the
> >UK...I‘m
> > > no political science type to get into this, others may hopefully
> >comment,
> > > but we are an independent nation, and that separation began when the
> > > Canadian Corps of volunteer civilians stormed Vimy Ridge, an
> >"impossible"
> > > task, and created a situation that ended the Great War.  We affirmed
it
> >in
> > > September 1939, when Parliment debated going to war, instead of being
at
> >war
> > > by action of the UK government.  We proved it in 1956, when Lester
> >Pearson
> > > prevented a world war by solving the Suez Crisis by the formation of
> >UNEF...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> >to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> >remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> >message body.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca Mike Oleary* on *Wed, 3 Jan 2001 01:58:23 -0400*
Much will be dependent upon the timing, terrain and tactical situation. 
A hasty ambush at close range by dismounted infantry against dismounted 
infantry which is really all we‘re talking about is still best 
countered by a rapid charge into the enemy‘s fire. This is likely the 
shortest route out of the killing zone and their weapon systems will be 
restricted by the closeness of their friendly personnel. For a hasty 
ambush, if the enemy has had time to place limited obstacles and/or 
mines, these will most probably be on the opposite side of the killing 
zone, to keep the target group within the killing zone.
Assaulting toward the enemy brings all of your own firepower to bear and 
would be little different than the final assault of a deliberate attack. 
It takes you away from the areas that their weapons are sited to cover 
and into the one area that they certainly have not placed obstacles - 
their own rear.
If you find yourself with the time to develop a tactical plan, deploy 
fire support elements and orchestrate an assaulting force, then you‘re 
not in a very good ambush.
For a vehicle ambush, the drill remains accelerating out of the danger 
zone. This may require forcing a leading damaged vehicle off the road to 
clear a path for following vehicles.
Mike
The Regimental Rogue
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter deVries 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:17 AM
Subject: Ambush drills
> When i did my QL3 infantry there was a little mix up on ambush drills. 
The
> old drill being, when a platoon gets into an ambush the commander 
orders and
> ambush left or right CHARGE. We were later informed that the correct 
way was
> to have the support element lay down covering fire, while the assault
> element, does sort of a flanking section attack on the enemy. We were 
told
> that the charge was out of date, some of the reasons being that in a 
proper
> ambush, it would be easy for the enemy to wipe out advancing troops 
with
> machine guns, also that their area would have wire obstacles strung up 
along
> with boobie traps, and all the rest. I was just trying to figure out 
which
> is the correct way, and when did this change, any imput would be 
helpful,
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Ian Edwards" 
> >Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> >To: 
> >Subject: Re: Joining the Brits2
> >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:32:15 -0700
> >
> >John, I don‘t want to pounce on you for your view of history, as I 
agree
> >with your sentiments.
> >But a portion of your claims about Canada‘s role in two events are 
either
> >open for discussion or can be disagreed with. And Mil Hist discussion 
is
> >one
> >of the purposes of this list.
> >
> >I refer to your statements on Vimy and also the 1956 UNEF.
> >
> >I don‘t think that Canada‘s major part in Vimy Ridge the Brits call 
it the
> >3rd battle of Ypres IIRC played other than a very small part in
> >hastening
> >the end of the Great War. But it was important TO US  as that it was 
the
> >first time that Canada attacked together and triumphed together as a 
Corps.
> >We still had a Brit, Byng,  in command at the time Currie didn‘t 
receive
> >command until a few months later. Certainly, the Canadians were not
> >expected by the Brits to be successful in the battle. But from that 
moment
> >on, Canada‘s participation in the war, as a larger formation, 
permitted us
> >a
> >small "say" in  the conduct of world affairs. That was in April 1917.
> >Canada‘s efforts in the closing months of the war, 1918, were 
outstanding
> >as
> >were the Australians we, over here, don‘t hear much about their 
valiant
> >efforts on the Western Front.
> >
> >Now, Canada‘s foreign policy at the time of the Suez Crisis, can 
arguably
> >be
> >said to be shameful. Before I get into my rant I wish to make it 
clear that
> >I have nothing but admiration for our soldiers in the UNEF. When I 
took my
> >basic equivalent of QL2 in 1959 my Platoon Sergeant had not long 
before
> >served in the UNEF and Korea prior to that. And that was Canada‘s 
first
> >attempt at peace keeping rather than the euphemism peace making. 
But what
> >L B Pearson did to our allies was stab them in the back. Remember: 
the
> >Brits, the French and the Israeli‘s were within a few HOURS of 
reaching
> >Cairo and putting "paid" to Nasser. Pearson refused to back our 
Allies, the
> >Brits and the French. The Americans were neutral because they faced 
an
> >election in a few months and the US President, Eisenhower, was a 
"lame
> >duck"
> >and couldn‘t make any strategic moves. Russia had a revolution in her 
back
> >yard - within a few weeks open rebellion in Hungary in particular. 
Russia‘s
> >hands were thus tied and she couldn‘t have intervened in the Mid 
East. But
> >Australia, too, sided with Canada more the shame.  Winning the 
battle,
> >but
> >without Western World support, the Brits and the French were forced 
to call
> >it off. A World War in the making? Not at all!!!
> >
> >The consequence? The toothless Brits and the French saw a hastening 
of the
> >break up of their overseas empires. Anthony Eden was forced to resign 
as
> >Brit PM. Open revolt amongst the French troops and the return of 
deGaulle.
> >The empires were going to be closed down anyway as the Americans had 
forced
> >the Brits, in 1942, to agree to giving up India at the end of the 
WW2, as a
> >condition for American support for British war policy in the 
Mediterranean
> >and elsewhere. It was in America‘s interest to see the end of 
European
> >colonialism.
> >
> >Yes, the empires would have gone anyway, but they might have devolved 
with
> >less haste and better consequences for the former colonies, with 
their
> >ill-drawn map boundaries that suited European needs rather than 
acknowledge
> >tribal realities. Can anyone argue that most of Africa, in 
particular, is
> >better off today than in colonial times? Yes, some probably could, 
having
> >listened to Liberal propaganda for 44 years.    End of Rant for 
Today.
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Gow 
> >To: 
> >Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 9:10 PM
> >Subject: Re: Joining the Brits
> >
> >
> >snip, snip
> >
> >
> > > Regrettably, that same Constitution separated us somewhat from the
> >UK...I‘m
> > > no political science type to get into this, others may hopefully
> >comment,
> > > but we are an independent nation, and that separation began when 
the
> > > Canadian Corps of volunteer civilians stormed Vimy Ridge, an
> >"impossible"
> > > task, and created a situation that ended the Great War.  We 
affirmed it
> >in
> > > September 1939, when Parliment debated going to war, instead of 
being at
> >war
> > > by action of the UK government.  We proved it in 1956, when Lester 
> >Pearson
> > > prevented a world war by solving the Suez Crisis by the formation 
of
> >UNEF...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> >to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> >remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> >message body.
>
> 
_________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at 
 http://www.hotmail.com. 
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
>
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
Much will be dependent upon the timing, 
terrain and
tactical situation. A hasty ambush at close range by dismounted infantry 
against
dismounted infantry which is really all we‘re talking about is 
stillbest
countered by a rapid charge into the enemy‘s fire. This is likely the 
shortest
route out of the killing zone and their weapon systems will be 
restricted by the
closeness of their friendly personnel. For a hasty ambush, if the 
enemy has
had time to place limited obstacles and/or mines, these will most 
probably be on
the opposite side of the killing zone, to keep the target group within 
the
killing zone.
Assaulting toward the enemy brings all 
of your own
firepower to bear and would be little different than the final assault 
of a
deliberate attack. It takes you away from the areas that their weapons 
are sited
to cover and into the one area that they certainly have not placed 
obstacles -
their own rear. 
If you find yourself with the time to 
develop a
tactical plan, deploy fire support elements and orchestrate an 
assaulting force,
then you‘re not in a very good ambush.
For a vehicle ambush, the drill remains 
accelerating out of the danger zone. This may require forcing a leading 
damaged
vehicle off the road to clear a path for following 
vehicles.
Mike
The
Regimental Rogue
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Peter deVries ltrsm_kes_cc254@hotmail.comg
t
To: ltarmy-list@CdnArmy.cagt
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:17
AM
Subject: Ambush 
drills
gt When i did my QL3 
infantry there was
a little mix up on ambush drills. The gt old drill being, when a 
platoon
gets into an ambush the commander orders and gt ambush left or 
right
CHARGE. We were later informed that the correct way was gt to have 
the
support element lay down covering fire, while the assault gt 
element, does
sort of a flanking section attack on the enemy. We were told gt 
that the
charge was out of date, some of the reasons being that in a proper 
gt
ambush, it would be easy for the enemy to wipe out advancing troops with 
gt machine guns, also that their area would have wire obstacles 
strung up
along gt with boobie traps, and all the rest. I was just trying to 
figure
out which gt is the correct way, and when did this change, any 
imput would
be helpful,gt Petergt gt gt gt gt 
gt
gt gt gt gt gt gt gt gt 
gt
gt gt gt gtFrom: "Ian Edwards" ltiedwards@home.comgtgt 
gtReply-To:
army-list@CdnArmy.cagt 
gtTo:
ltarmy-list@CdnArmy.cagtgt
gtSubject: Re: Joining the Brits2gt gtDate: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 
20:32:15
-0700gt gtgt gtJohn, I don‘t want to pounce on you for 
your view
of history, as I agreegt gtwith your sentiments.gt gtBut 
a
portion of your claims about Canada‘s role in two events are 
eithergt
gtopen for discussion or can be disagreed with. And Mil Hist 
discussion is
gt gtonegt gtof the purposes of this list.gt 
gtgt
gtI refer to your statements on Vimy and also the 1956 UNEF.gt
gtgt gtI don‘t think that Canada‘s major part in Vimy Ridge 
the Brits
call it thegt gt3rd battle of Ypres IIRC played other than a 
very
small part in gt gthasteninggt gtthe end of the Great 
War. But
it was important TO US as that it was thegt gtfirst time 
that
Canada attacked together and triumphed together as a Corps.gt 
gtWe
still had a Brit, Byng, in command at the time Currie didn‘t
receivegt gtcommand until a few months later. Certainly, the 
Canadians
were notgt gtexpected by the Brits to be successful in the 
battle. But
from that momentgt gton, Canada‘s participation in the war, as a 
larger
formation, permitted us gt gtagt gtsmall "say" in 
the
conduct of world affairs. That was in April 1917.gt gtCanada‘s 
efforts
in the closing months of the war, 1918, were outstanding gt 
gtasgt
gtwere the Australians we, over here, don‘t hear much about their
valiantgt gtefforts on the Western Front.gt gtgt 
gtNow,
Canada‘s foreign policy at the time of the Suez Crisis, can arguably 
gt
gtbegt gtsaid to be shameful. Before I get into my rant I wish 
to make
it clear thatgt gtI have nothing but admiration for our soldiers 
in the
UNEF. When I took mygt gtbasic equivalent of QL2 in 1959 my 
Platoon
Sergeant had not long beforegt gtserved in the UNEF and Korea 
prior to
that. And that was Canada‘s firstgt gtattempt at peace keeping 
rather
than the euphemism peace making. But whatgt gtL B Pearson did 
to our
allies was stab them in the back. Remember: thegt gtBrits, the 
French
and the Israeli‘s were within a few HOURS of reachinggt gtCairo 
and
putting "paid" to Nasser. Pearson refused to back our Allies, 
thegt
gtBrits and the French. The Americans were neutral because they faced
angt gtelection in a few months and the US President, 
Eisenhower, was a
"lame gt gtduck"gt gtand couldn‘t make any strategic 
moves.
Russia had a revolution in her backgt gtyard - within a few 
weeks open
rebellion in Hungary in particular. Russia‘sgt gthands were thus 
tied
and she couldn‘t have intervened in the Mid East. Butgt 
gtAustralia,
too, sided with Canada more the shame. Winning the battle, 
gt
gtbutgt gtwithout Western World support, the Brits and the 
French were
forced to callgt gtit off. A World War in the making? Not at
all!!!gt gtgt gtThe consequence? The toothless Brits and 
the
French saw a hastening of thegt gtbreak up of their overseas 
empires.
Anthony Eden was forced to resign asgt gtBrit PM. Open revolt 
amongst
the French troops and the return of deGaulle.gt gtThe empires 
were going
to be closed down anyway as the Americans had forcedgt gtthe 
Brits, in
1942, to agree to giving up India at the end of the WW2, as agt
gtcondition for American support for British war policy in the
Mediterraneangt gtand elsewhere. It was in America‘s interest to 
see the
end of Europeangt gtcolonialism.gt gtgt gtYes, 
the
empires would have gone anyway, but they might have devolved 
withgt
gtless haste and better consequences for the former colonies, with
theirgt gtill-drawn map boundaries that suited European needs 
rather
than acknowledgegt gttribal realities. Can anyone argue that 
most of
Africa, in particular, isgt gtbetter off today than in colonial 
times?
Yes, some probably could, havinggt gtlistened to Liberal 
propaganda for
44 years. End of Rant for Today.gt gtgt
gtgt gt----- Original Message -----gt gtFrom: Gow 
ltjgow@home.comgtgt gtTo: 
ltarmy-list@CdnArmy.cagtgt
gtSent: Monday, January 01, 2001 9:10 PMgt gtSubject: Re: 
Joining the
Britsgt gtgt gtgt gtsnip, snipgt 
gtgt
gtgt gt gt Regrettably, that same Constitution separated us 
somewhat
from thegt gtUK...I‘mgt gt gt no political science 
type to get
into this, others may hopefully gt gtcomment,gt gt gt 
but we
are an independent nation, and that separation began when thegt 
gt gt
Canadian Corps of volunteer civilians stormed Vimy Ridge, an gt
gt"impossible"gt gt gt task, and created a situation that 
ended the
Great War. We affirmed it gt gtingt gt gt 
September
1939, when Parliment debated going to war, instead of being atgt
gtwargt gt gt by action of the UK government. We 
proved it in
1956, when Lester gt gtPearsongt gt gt prevented a 
world war
by solving the Suez Crisis by the formation ofgt 
gtUNEF...gt
gtgt gtgt gtgt gtgt
gt--------------------------------------------------------gt
gtNOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a 
messagegt gtto
majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from 
the account
you wish togt gtremove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in 
thegt gtmessage body.gt gt
_________________________________________________________________________
gt
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com.gt  
gt
--------------------------------------------------------gt 
NOTE: To
remove yourself from this list, send a messagegt to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the 
account you
wish togt remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in 
thegt
message body.gt 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:38:38 -0800*
Just wait until each soldier has comm gear and a tracking sensor, the CO can
micro manage "change of shorts" drills.
Have you seen the hi-tech gear the Yanks are testing, video from rifle
sights, etc.....I wouldn‘t want to be a Sec Comm. if they adopt that.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca Mike Oleary* on *Wed, 3 Jan 2001 21:21:15 -0400*
Commanding Officers can talk to each section or detachment commander now 
simply by switching radio nets and many do so simply to monitor 
activities within companies anyway once the tactical situation is out of 
their hands. The tendency to jump in and micro-manage is not a factor 
of technology, it is a personal trait - good commanders don‘t do it, 
poor ones may.
Information from such devices, the same as for cameras operated by recce 
elements, has to be examined and collated by staff, just like any other 
information before it is presented to the commander as intelligence. 
Unless it is in response to a specific intelligence gathering 
requirement, the commander should not be observing this data in raw form 
specifically to avoid undue focus on isolated information i.e., a CNN 
syndrome. Just because it‘s caught on camera doesn‘t mean it‘s the most 
important thing happening in the area of operations.
Mike
The Regimental Rogue
----- Original Message -----
From: dave 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:38 PM
Subject: RE: Ambush drills
> Just wait until each soldier has comm gear and a tracking sensor, the 
CO can
> micro manage "change of shorts" drills.
> Have you seen the hi-tech gear the Yanks are testing, video from rifle
> sights, etc.....I wouldn‘t want to be a Sec Comm. if they adopt that.
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
Commanding Officers can talk to each 
section or
detachment commander now simply by switching radio nets and many do so 
simply
to monitor activities within companies anyway once the tactical 
situation is out
of their hands. The tendency to jump in and micro-manage is not a 
factor of
technology, it is a personal trait - good commanders don‘t do it, poor 
ones
may.
Information from such devices, the same 
as for
cameras operated by recce elements, has to be examined and collated by 
staff,
just like any other information before it is presented to the commander 
as
intelligence. Unless it is in response to a specific intelligence 
gathering
requirement, the commander should not be observing this data in raw form 
specifically to avoid undue focus on isolated information i.e., a CNN
syndrome. Just because it‘s caught on camera doesn‘t mean it‘s the most 
important thing happening in the area of operations.
Mike
The
Regimental Rogue
----- Original Message ----- 
From: dave ltdave.newcombe@home.comgt
To: ltarmy-list@CdnArmy.cagt
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:38
PM
Subject: RE: Ambush 
drills
gt Just wait until each 
soldier has
comm gear and a tracking sensor, the CO cangt micro manage "change 
of
shorts" drills.gt Have you seen the hi-tech gear the Yanks are 
testing,
video from riflegt sights, etc.....I wouldn‘t want to be a Sec 
Comm. if
they adopt that.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Peter deVries" <rsm_kes_cc254@hotmail.com>* on *Thu, 04 Jan 2001 06:25:40 *
Thanks for the info everyone.
Peter
>From: "Peter deVries" 
>Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>Subject: Ambush drills
>Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 05:17:24
>
>When i did my QL3 infantry there was a little mix up on ambush drills. The
>old drill being, when a platoon gets into an ambush the commander orders 
>and
>ambush left or right CHARGE. We were later informed that the correct way 
>was
>to have the support element lay down covering fire, while the assault
>element, does sort of a flanking section attack on the enemy. We were told
>that the charge was out of date, some of the reasons being that in a proper
>ambush, it would be easy for the enemy to wipe out advancing troops with
>machine guns, also that their area would have wire obstacles strung up 
>along
>with boobie traps, and all the rest. I was just trying to figure out which
>is the correct way, and when did this change, any imput would be helpful,
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>From: "Ian Edwards" 
>>Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>>To: 
>>Subject: Re: Joining the Brits2
>>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:32:15 -0700
>>
>>John, I don‘t want to pounce on you for your view of history, as I agree
>>with your sentiments.
>>But a portion of your claims about Canada‘s role in two events are either
>>open for discussion or can be disagreed with. And Mil Hist discussion is
>>one
>>of the purposes of this list.
>>
>>I refer to your statements on Vimy and also the 1956 UNEF.
>>
>>I don‘t think that Canada‘s major part in Vimy Ridge the Brits call it 
>>the
>>3rd battle of Ypres IIRC played other than a very small part in
>>hastening
>>the end of the Great War. But it was important TO US  as that it was the
>>first time that Canada attacked together and triumphed together as a 
>>Corps.
>>We still had a Brit, Byng,  in command at the time Currie didn‘t receive
>>command until a few months later. Certainly, the Canadians were not
>>expected by the Brits to be successful in the battle. But from that moment
>>on, Canada‘s participation in the war, as a larger formation, permitted us
>>a
>>small "say" in  the conduct of world affairs. That was in April 1917.
>>Canada‘s efforts in the closing months of the war, 1918, were outstanding
>>as
>>were the Australians we, over here, don‘t hear much about their valiant
>>efforts on the Western Front.
>>
>>Now, Canada‘s foreign policy at the time of the Suez Crisis, can arguably
>>be
>>said to be shameful. Before I get into my rant I wish to make it clear 
>>that
>>I have nothing but admiration for our soldiers in the UNEF. When I took my
>>basic equivalent of QL2 in 1959 my Platoon Sergeant had not long before
>>served in the UNEF and Korea prior to that. And that was Canada‘s first
>>attempt at peace keeping rather than the euphemism peace making. But 
>>what
>>L B Pearson did to our allies was stab them in the back. Remember: the
>>Brits, the French and the Israeli‘s were within a few HOURS of reaching
>>Cairo and putting "paid" to Nasser. Pearson refused to back our Allies, 
>>the
>>Brits and the French. The Americans were neutral because they faced an
>>election in a few months and the US President, Eisenhower, was a "lame
>>duck"
>>and couldn‘t make any strategic moves. Russia had a revolution in her back
>>yard - within a few weeks open rebellion in Hungary in particular. 
>>Russia‘s
>>hands were thus tied and she couldn‘t have intervened in the Mid East. But
>>Australia, too, sided with Canada more the shame.  Winning the battle,
>>but
>>without Western World support, the Brits and the French were forced to 
>>call
>>it off. A World War in the making? Not at all!!!
>>
>>The consequence? The toothless Brits and the French saw a hastening of the
>>break up of their overseas empires. Anthony Eden was forced to resign as
>>Brit PM. Open revolt amongst the French troops and the return of deGaulle.
>>The empires were going to be closed down anyway as the Americans had 
>>forced
>>the Brits, in 1942, to agree to giving up India at the end of the WW2, as 
>>a
>>condition for American support for British war policy in the Mediterranean
>>and elsewhere. It was in America‘s interest to see the end of European
>>colonialism.
>>
>>Yes, the empires would have gone anyway, but they might have devolved with
>>less haste and better consequences for the former colonies, with their
>>ill-drawn map boundaries that suited European needs rather than 
>>acknowledge
>>tribal realities. Can anyone argue that most of Africa, in particular, is
>>better off today than in colonial times? Yes, some probably could, having
>>listened to Liberal propaganda for 44 years.    End of Rant for Today.
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Gow 
>>To: 
>>Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 9:10 PM
>>Subject: Re: Joining the Brits
>>
>>
>>snip, snip
>>
>>
>> > Regrettably, that same Constitution separated us somewhat from the
>>UK...I‘m
>> > no political science type to get into this, others may hopefully
>>comment,
>> > but we are an independent nation, and that separation began when the
>> > Canadian Corps of volunteer civilians stormed Vimy Ridge, an
>>"impossible"
>> > task, and created a situation that ended the Great War.  We affirmed it
>>in
>> > September 1939, when Parliment debated going to war, instead of being 
>>at
>>war
>> > by action of the UK government.  We proved it in 1956, when Lester
>>Pearson
>> > prevented a world war by solving the Suez Crisis by the formation of
>>UNEF...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>>to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
>>remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
>>message body.
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
>remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
>message body.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------

