Author Topic: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe  (Read 15162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 129,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,668
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #125 on: August 22, 2020, 12:47:31 »
A brigade in Canada would be better than a token brigade in Europe IMO. Or offer a brigade for UN duty or rotate a brigade to Korea.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 317,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,824
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #126 on: August 22, 2020, 14:38:04 »
A brigade in Canada would be better than a token brigade in Europe IMO. Or offer a brigade for UN duty or rotate a brigade to Korea.

We have several brigades in Canada. I'm not sure why you think having them in Canada is more useful than having prepositioned equipment for them in Europe.

We have no national interest in putting a brigade into Korea.

I note that the US 8th Army now has only one manoeuvre division under its command (the 2nd Infantry) with only one ABCT forward deployed to Korea on rotation and two active duty and one NG Stryker brigades in Fort Lewis in Washington. On the other hand there are roughly eight support brigades assigned.

If the US has that little there in manoeuvre units why would we be there?

We've recently had some elements on UN duties but quite frankly, those deployments don't have the same impact that they did a half century ago because few of the conflicts/issues are as between states (like Greece and Turkey was in Cyprus) as much as between internal factions or insurgencies within a country (like Mali). As it is, there are numerous 2nd world countries who are happy to provide peacekeepers to the UN in order to earn some hard cash. Here's a list from last year. (Note that while Canada stands 59th on the list with 192 personnel we're ahead of the US which stands 85th at 34 personnel)

Incidentally, tell Trump he's a billion dollars in arrears on his dues and the peacekeeping budget with the UN. These are real dues, not the phoney baloney stuff he says countries owe to NATO.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 34,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 756
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #127 on: August 22, 2020, 16:21:40 »

 As it is, there are numerous 2nd world countries who are happy to provide peacekeepers to the UN in order to earn some hard cash. Here's a list from last year.

Incidentally, tell Trump he's a billion dollars in arrears on his dues and the peacekeeping budget with the UN. These are real dues, not the phoney baloney stuff he says countries owe to NATO.

 :cheers:

We can debate the NATO 2% argument til the cows come home, but I believe the US position has merit.

I find it ironic that you cite 2nd world countries doing peacekeeping to earn hard cash, and then trash what is inevitably the paymaster for this, the U.S. Until such time as the 5 veto votes in the UN are rescinded (which will never happen), the altruistic vision upon which the UN was supposedly founded will never be realized; why would anyone with a shred of common sense look at the UN with anything but skepticism?

Reform at the UN is long overdue, if it takes a disruptive, reviled, ridiculed (by some) President to point that out, then collectively the organization, and its' leadership, has failed.
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 317,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,824
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #128 on: August 22, 2020, 18:01:56 »
We can debate the NATO 2% argument til the cows come home, but I believe the US position has merit.

I find it ironic that you cite 2nd world countries doing peacekeeping to earn hard cash, and then trash what is inevitably the paymaster for this, the U.S. Until such time as the 5 veto votes in the UN are rescinded (which will never happen), the altruistic vision upon which the UN was supposedly founded will never be realized; why would anyone with a shred of common sense look at the UN with anything but skepticism?

Reform at the UN is long overdue, if it takes a disruptive, reviled, ridiculed (by some) President to point that out, then collectively the organization, and its' leadership, has failed.

The 2% isn't really a question for much debate. We agreed to it and like many of the European nations will undoubtedly not reach it by the 2024 deadline (even before the pandemic) My point with "phoney baloney" was that these aren't "dues" to pay to NATO like Trump keeps thinking they are but internal spending objectives.

While the US has always borne a major percentage of the UN budget (around 28%) the US has had shortfalls which for the period 2017 to the present add up to around a billion USD.

There are definitely shortcomings with the UN but don't confuse a purported failed organization with one that simply doesn't dance to the US's tune anymore. The world is made up of a lot of diverse opinions (many of which are revolting) but the UN is still the only agency that allows those opinions to be expressed in an open peaceful manner.

There are many countries which disagree with various UN activities and policies but the US is the one country which most frequently threatens to take it's football and go home when things don't work out the way that it wants. Just wait to see the fur fly again when the Iran Snapback doesn't go it's way.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 34,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 756
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #129 on: August 22, 2020, 18:11:46 »
The 2% isn't really a question for much debate. We agreed to it and like many of the European nations will undoubtedly not reach it by the 2024 deadline (even before the pandemic) My point with "phoney baloney" was that these aren't "dues" to pay to NATO like Trump keeps thinking they are but internal spending objectives. - "agreed upon across the Alliance"

While the US has always borne a major percentage of the UN budget (around 28%) the US has had shortfalls which for the period 2017 to the present add up to around a billion USD.

There are definitely shortcomings with the UN but don't confuse a purported failed organization with one that simply doesn't dance to the US's tune anymore. The world is made up of a lot of diverse opinions (many of which are revolting) but the UN is still the only agency that allows those opinions to be expressed in an open peaceful manner.

There are many countries which disagree with various UN activities and policies but the US is the one country which most frequently threatens to take it's football and go home when things don't work out the way that it wants. Just wait to see the fur fly again when the Iran Snapback doesn't go it's way.

 :cheers:

Which Countries Have Vetoed The Most In The UN?
Rank   Country   Number of UN Security Council resolutions vetoed by permanent members 1946-2017
1   USSR/Russian Federation   107
2   USA   79
3   UK   29
4   France   16
5   China   11

China just mostly abstains
« Last Edit: August 22, 2020, 18:27:42 by Weinie »
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 317,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,824
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #130 on: August 22, 2020, 18:26:30 »
Which Countries Have Vetoed The Most In The UN?
Rank   Country   Number of UN Security Council resolutions vetoed by permanent members 1946-2017
1   USSR/Russian Federation   107
2   USA   79
3   UK   29
4   France   16
5   China   11

China just mostly abstains

I'm not so sure how much that means. Some of the vetos are because the resolution put forward is a boneheaded idea while in other cases the veto is the result of a boneheaded objection. I think that you need to study the actual resolutions and vetos to see who's being the problem. I do note that many of the vetos pair up countries with the US, UK and France vetoing together and the USSR/Russia and sometimes China. Quite frequently, however, the US or Russia stands alone in its Veto.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 34,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 756
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #131 on: August 22, 2020, 19:11:53 »
 It means that contrary to your conjecture, the U.S.is not the one that most often doesn't play, which makes most of your argument specious.
Get it that you are not a US foreign policy fan, I shudder to think where we would be without their clout in the last fifty or sixty years.
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 317,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,824
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #132 on: August 22, 2020, 20:52:23 »
It means that contrary to your conjecture, the U.S.is not the one that most often doesn't play, which makes most of your argument specious.
Get it that you are not a US foreign policy fan, I shudder to think where we would be without their clout in the last fifty or sixty years.

Actually, you've got it quite wrong. I've always been a fan of the US and most of it's foreign policy at least until this last regime whose foreign policy is fitful and capricious. Incidentally, the US criticism of the UN goes back quite a way before this most recent "disruptive, reviled, ridiculed (by some) President".

The US is (or at least was) the world's premier power and quite properly should use that power to shape events in a way favourable to the western world (and of course itself). That's not to say, however, that one has to slavishly agree with everything they do.

I've, quite frankly, lost your point here. Is it that I alluded to the fact that the US is being hypocritical when it says certain NATO countries aren't paying their "dues" (which aren't really dues at all) when it's in arrears to the UN? Or is it the assertion that when the US isn't happy these days it threatens to pick up its football? (or perhaps, more accurately, unilaterally pull out of treaties and agreements willy-nilly) Incidentally, how's the most recent Aluminum tariff working for you? I mean if my argument is specious, I'd like to know which one.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 34,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 756
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #133 on: August 22, 2020, 20:59:53 »

There are many countries which disagree with various UN activities and policies but the US is the one country which most frequently threatens to take it's football and go home when things don't work out the way that it wants. Just wait to see the fur fly again when the Iran Snapback doesn't go it's way.

 :cheers:

I have re-posted your quote. It is not correct.
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 317,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,824
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #134 on: August 22, 2020, 21:55:30 »
I have re-posted your quote. It is not correct.

I still contend that the number of times a UN veto is used is not indicative of anything unless you do a full analysis of what the various resolutions are. But to end this "is to, is not" back and forth I'll withdraw the word "most" and just leave it at "frequently".

Incidentally add Open Skies to this list of treaties and agreements Trump has abandoned.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,437
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #135 on: August 22, 2020, 22:33:37 »
It should be noted that while rarely used there is actually a mechanism for the general assembly to over ride a veto. Good luck getting the 2/3 majority to vote to do it though.

Back on topic though, strategically speaking NATO's South eastern flank around Romania seems the most vulnerable, Ukraine may be quickly trying to modernize but the latest analysis by Janes puts there ability to sustain large scale combat or offensive operations in doubt. Given that, Russia could seize the black sea quickly, and the launch operations against Romania, Bulgaria,turkey and Greece. A armoured thrust through Ukraine combined with an amphibious invasion of the Romanian Coast is a feasible attack against NATO. So where would any permanent Canadiam presance best be placed?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

stellarpanther

  • Guest
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #136 on: August 23, 2020, 00:00:49 »
It means that contrary to your conjecture, the U.S.is not the one that most often doesn't play, which makes most of your argument specious.
Get it that you are not a US foreign policy fan, I shudder to think where we would be without their clout in the last fifty or sixty years.

Well without American bullying of other countries, there probably would have been a lot less war and violence, certainly that's the case since the Korean war. They tend to start a lot of them or stick their nose where it doesn't belong and make things worse and then pressure other countries to join with them so they don't look bad.  Clout isn't a word I would use.


Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 129,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,668
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #137 on: August 23, 2020, 00:34:08 »
We been making other people's business our business since WW1  ;D

Offline Weinie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 34,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 756
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #138 on: August 23, 2020, 07:33:31 »
Well without American bullying of other countries, there probably would have been a lot less war and violence, certainly that's the case since the Korean war. They tend to start a lot of them or stick their nose where it doesn't belong and make things worse and then pressure other countries to join with them so they don't look bad.  Clout isn't a word I would use.

Here is a list of major conflicts/wars since the Korean War. I count 1 that the Americans started, and a bunch where there noses weren't in it.(until the rest of the World started clamoring for them to "Do something.")

Korean War (1950–53)
Algerian War (1954–62)
Vietnam War (1954–75)
Six-Day War (1967)
War of Attrition (1969–70)
Yom Kippur War (1973)
Afghan War (1978–92)
Iran-Iraq War (1980–88)
Falkland Islands War (1982)
Persian Gulf War (1990–91)
Bosnian conflict (1992–95)
Kosovo conflict (1998–99)
Afghanistan War (2001–14)
Iraq War (2003–11)
Syrian Civil War (2012– )
“In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
– Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 553,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,664
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #139 on: August 23, 2020, 10:46:22 »
I admire your optimistic use of end dates for Afghanistan and Iraq.
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 329,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,621
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #140 on: August 23, 2020, 12:31:19 »
Well without American bullying of other countries, there probably would have been a lot less war and violence, certainly that's the case since the Korean war. They tend to start a lot of them or stick their nose where it doesn't belong and make things worse and then pressure other countries to join with them so they don't look bad.  Clout isn't a word I would use.

That's a gross generalization, of course, which detracts from any credibility your argument might have had.

Just sayin'.

Palmerston famous noted: “Nations do not have permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”

Canada is no different.



"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

stellarpanther

  • Guest
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #141 on: August 23, 2020, 13:36:20 »
Here is a list of major conflicts/wars since the Korean War. I count 1 that the Americans started, and a bunch where there noses weren't in it.(until the rest of the World started clamoring for them to "Do something.")

Korean War (1950–53)
Algerian War (1954–62)
Vietnam War (1954–75)
Six-Day War (1967)
War of Attrition (1969–70)
Yom Kippur War (1973)
Afghan War (1978–92)
Iran-Iraq War (1980–88)
Falkland Islands War (1982)
Persian Gulf War (1990–91)
Bosnian conflict (1992–95)
Kosovo conflict (1998–99)
Afghanistan War (2001–14)
Iraq War (2003–11)
Syrian Civil War (2012– )

... and somehow the US felt a need to always stick their nose into them and usually make things worse.  Name me one time things became better since Vietnam that things were better after the US left.

The only time I can think of a positive outcome was with Panama and the ouster of Noriega.  Panama is a beautiful country and many people say one of the main financial hubs in Latin America.



« Last Edit: August 23, 2020, 13:42:07 by stellarpanther »

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 953,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,800
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #142 on: August 23, 2020, 13:42:33 »
There's no ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo anymore.

South Korea isn't starving like communist North Korea but that technically doesn't count because the US is still there preventing it from happening.

You need a history book or start Googling...

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 317,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,824
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #143 on: August 23, 2020, 13:57:02 »
... and somehow the US felt a need to always stick their nose into them and usually make things worse.  Name me one time things became better since Vietnam that things were better after the US left.

The only time I can think of a positive outcome was with Panama and the ouster of Noriega.  Panama is a beautiful country and many people say one of the main financial hubs in Latin America.

Funny that. Of all the wars in your list, the invasion of Panama is perhaps (next to Grenada) the one unilateral action by the US that has the least justification and most international condemnation (albeit that Panamanians themselves were happy about it)

Anyway, and notwithstanding my own ramblings, I would think that there are probably other threads that can be used for beating up on the Yanks.  ;D

I'd like to get this thread back to the original question which has to do with whether or not Canada should consider prepositioning a brigade's equipment somewhere in Europe as part of our SSE task to provide deterrence against a "near peer" opponent even if the same SSE only provides for deployments at the battle group level? In that respect, should we be capable of/planning to doing deployments larger than battle group?

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

stellarpanther

  • Guest
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #144 on: August 23, 2020, 17:05:26 »
There's no ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo anymore.

South Korea isn't starving like communist North Korea but that technically doesn't count because the US is still there preventing it from happening.

You need a history book or start Googling...

I think my history and facts are pretty accurate.  Here's one something about Bosnia, which isn't really a success story.

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2019/04/14/tensions-in-bosnia-and-herzegovina/

As for Korea, you already stated it's still basically still under US protection.

Offline Dana381

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 44
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #145 on: August 23, 2020, 18:28:05 »
FJAG I have admittedly not read the whole thread but I read the first and last pages to get context.

Your main Question I believe is (and I am basing this on your correction of GR66 in reply 14); Should Canada store a brigades worth of equipment in Europe?

I am not a CF member and I do not claim to have much/any knowledge of military tactics, however I think this is an absurd Idea. Leave expensive, classified, and useful armour equipment in a lightly guarded warehouse in Latvia when our soldiers need more equipment now? How does that help the Canadian Army? Would the Latvians pay for the equipment that will be idle 80% of the time? I doubt it. Flyover troops to use/train on said equipment a couple times per year? I just don't see a great advantage here. I am a truck mechanic and when equipment sits idle it develops problems like dead batteries, stale fuel, algae in the fuel if its bio-diesel, rodents chewing wiring and such. If Russia did attack they would attack this warehouse first and get a bunch of free equipment. It would be too enticing of a target to resist. I don't think the U.S. would allow any of their technology to be left in such close proximity to Russia with such little security.

There are countries asking for the 12,000 troops the U.S. is pulling out of Germany and they are even willing to pay for them. If we wish to bolster NATO with a presence in Europe we should see if one of those countries will pay for 12,000 Canadian troops stationed in their country. This would be additional troops to what we have now and allow us to buy more equipment to supply these troops. Equipment buys would be larger and therefore cost per unit lower benefiting the Canadian Army as a whole.

If we were to stand up a European base it should be a joint base wit a sea and air port as well so all branches could benefit. This would give the RCN an excuse to purchase cargo ships to ferry equipment and supplies back and forth from Canada. It has been pointed out all too often on this forum how badly we need to have a way to deploy our troops when the need arises.

I would also think if Canada could make this work then it should be done in Asia as well to counter the China threat. If we had Bases abroad that were completely paid for by the host countries then it would add a significant capacity to our Army without costing Canadian taxpayers any more money. The dollars to pay for those troops would also be claimed by us and the host country as dollars toward their spending commitments.

The Canadian people seem to like it when we go on training missions to other countries, the politicians could spin this as a training asset to get public approval. I am sure we would be training alongside the host countries soldiers so it would be a least partly true.

I realize my opinions don't matter much but that is my :2c:
Cheers  :cheers:
Dana

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 317,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,824
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #146 on: August 23, 2020, 20:31:05 »
... Leave expensive, classified, and useful armour equipment in a lightly guarded warehouse in Latvia when our soldiers need more equipment now? How does that help the Canadian Army? Would the Latvians pay for the equipment that will be idle 80% of the time? I doubt it. Flyover troops to use/train on said equipment a couple times per year? I just don't see a great advantage here. I am a truck mechanic and when equipment sits idle it develops problems like dead batteries, stale fuel, algae in the fuel if its bio-diesel, rodents chewing wiring and such. If Russia did attack they would attack this warehouse first and get a bunch of free equipment. It would be too enticing of a target to resist. I don't think the U.S. would allow any of their technology to be left in such close proximity to Russia with such little security. ...

Prepositioned equipment is a routine way of allowing rapid reinforcement to a region. In the 70s and 80s the US stored hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment in Germany. Canada did the same to a much smaller extent. The equipment is not "lightly guarded" but properly secured. You're right about equipment deteriorating in storage. That's why these types of facilities have maintenance staff that properly exercise and maintain the equipment and it is used frequently by flyover troops on exercise.

The advantage of such a system is that it allows for a rapid deployment onto the equipment and also permits deploying soldiers to conduct exercises within the same area where operations are expected to take place. In keeping the soldiers in Canada except when exercising in theatre, costs respecting posting soldiers full time with their families are greatly reduced.

One would hope that the deployment onto the equipment would take place during periods of heightened tensions and not after a Russian attack.

There are countries asking for the 12,000 troops the U.S. is pulling out of Germany and they are even willing to pay for them. If we wish to bolster NATO with a presence in Europe we should see if one of those countries will pay for 12,000 Canadian troops stationed in their country. This would be additional troops to what we have now and allow us to buy more equipment to supply these troops. Equipment buys would be larger and therefore cost per unit lower benefiting the Canadian Army as a whole. ...

I seriously doubt that any of the former eastern block countries could pay for our troops at the rates that the US and Canada pays them. There are cost-sharing arrangements for facilities, however.


I would also think if Canada could make this work then it should be done in Asia as well to counter the China threat. If we had Bases abroad that were completely paid for by the host countries then it would add a significant capacity to our Army without costing Canadian taxpayers any more money. The dollars to pay for those troops would also be claimed by us and the host country as dollars toward their spending commitments. ...

I'd be interested in your idea where such a base should go?

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,437
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #147 on: August 23, 2020, 21:05:23 »
Prepositioned equipment is a routine way of allowing rapid reinforcement to a region. In the 70s and 80s the US stored hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment in Germany. Canada did the same to a much smaller extent. The equipment is not "lightly guarded" but properly secured. You're right about equipment deteriorating in storage. That's why these types of facilities have maintenance staff that properly exercise and maintain the equipment and it is used frequently by flyover troops on exercise.

The advantage of such a system is that it allows for a rapid deployment onto the equipment and also permits deploying soldiers to conduct exercises within the same area where operations are expected to take place. In keeping the soldiers in Canada except when exercising in theatre, costs respecting posting soldiers full time with their families are greatly reduced.

One would hope that the deployment onto the equipment would take place during periods of heightened tensions and not after a Russian attack.

I seriously doubt that any of the former eastern block countries could pay for our troops at the rates that the US and Canada pays them. There are cost-sharing arrangements for facilities, however.


I'd be interested in your idea where such a base should go?

 :cheers:

Guam, Iwo Jima, South Korea, strike a deal with Vietnam or Australia.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline reveng

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 75,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,793
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #148 on: August 23, 2020, 21:07:28 »
Guam, Iwo Jima, South Korea, strike a deal with Vietnam or Australia.

I don't really think SK or Australia need our help with much...

Offline Dana381

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 44
Re: Re-establishing a Canadian Armoured Brigade in Europe
« Reply #149 on: August 23, 2020, 21:28:08 »
Prepositioned equipment is a routine way of allowing rapid reinforcement to a region. In the 70s and 80s the US stored hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment in Germany. Canada did the same to a much smaller extent. The equipment is not "lightly guarded" but properly secured. You're right about equipment deteriorating in storage. That's why these types of facilities have maintenance staff that properly exercise and maintain the equipment and it is used frequently by flyover troops on exercise.

In the 70's and 80's didn't we have a significant amount of troops stationed in Germany, an acquaintance of mine lived there as a child. I understood it was a sizable base. You said in reply 14 "Skeleton manning" That said to me lightly guarded, The allied presence in Germany in the 80's was substantially larger than a skeleton manning.

I seriously doubt that any of the former eastern block countries could pay for our troops at the rates that the US and Canada pays them. There are cost-sharing arrangements for facilities, however.

One of the countries asking for the U.S. troops being removed from Germany offered to pay 100% of the cost, I can't remember right now which one.

I'd be interested in your idea where such a base should go?

I don't know where exactly would be the best location in Europe or Asia for these bases, as I said before I have no military background, I am also not fully up on politics in these areas. Poland or Ukraine in Europe maybe, Asia maybe the Philippines or Indonesia. Again That is for the politicians and the Defense department to sort out as there are many variables involved.