Author Topic: "Light Infantry/Airborne Capability" & "Canadian Airborne - a waste of $$$?"  (Read 67471 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Acorn

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 853
Re: Light Infantry/Airborne Capability
« Reply #50 on: August 17, 2005, 22:21:24 »
Why bother with "fill in your profile?" It only makes a difference in the initial assessment of a poster's (poser's) knowledge. Frankly, I find "fill in your profile" to be a lazy way of assessing someone. The more posts one makes, the easier it is to establish, or destroy, credibility. The fact that the profile can be exaggerated (to say the least) makes it less than usefull as an assessment tool.

Brygun has made certain statements. His (her?) words have "filled in the profile."

Acorn
"Liberal societies cannot be defended by herbivores. We need carnivores to save us." - Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil

Offline Brygun

  • New Member
  • **
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 47
Re: Light Infantry/Airborne Capability
« Reply #51 on: August 17, 2005, 23:21:07 »
Quote from: Brygun on Today at 21:16:13
Rather vague. Which matter/paragraph are you refering to? If its just a matter of disagreeing thats fine.


Do you make it a habit of trying to be difficult with the DS of every forum you fo to? If so, you will find it does not sit well here.

Seriously, it was a sincere offer to clarify. How it was considered something else is baffling. My apologizes for not protraying the sincerity.
http://army.ca/php/privacy.php
Optional material declined.

Offline Michael Dorosh

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -1,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,770
  • Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!
    • CANUCK
Re: Light Infantry/Airborne Capability
« Reply #52 on: August 17, 2005, 23:25:13 »
Why bother with "fill in your profile?" It only makes a difference in the initial assessment of a poster's (poser's) knowledge. Frankly, I find "fill in your profile" to be a lazy way of assessing someone. The more posts one makes, the easier it is to establish, or destroy, credibility. The fact that the profile can be exaggerated (to say the least) makes it less than usefull as an assessment tool.

Brygun has made certain statements. His (her?) words have "filled in the profile."

Acorn

Agreed.  How much weight would one give somebody, for example, because he has "ex-Cpl" in his profile?  Could be Scott Taylor posting for all we know.  I would agree that one establishes one's bonafides every time they post.
"So, how's your sister?" -Brigadeführer Hermann Fegelein
 
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com
 http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com

Offline Brygun

  • New Member
  • **
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 47
Re: Light Infantry/Airborne Capability
« Reply #53 on: August 17, 2005, 23:44:29 »
Rather hope we can get back on topic shortly. The army.ca privacy statement clearly states the profile information is optional. An option to leave blank IS being taken. I dont consider it any fault of mine to refuse demands on optional material.
http://army.ca/php/privacy.php
Optional material declined.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -6945.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 280,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,672
    • Army.ca
Re: Light Infantry/Airborne Capability
« Reply #54 on: August 17, 2005, 23:47:58 »
Back on track guys. I think some things are pretty obvious and there's no need to belabour them.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Brygun

  • New Member
  • **
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 47
Re: Light Infantry/Airborne Capability
« Reply #55 on: August 18, 2005, 00:16:42 »
Actually neither Dien Bien Phu nor Khesahn are good examples of what you are trying to describe. Neither of these were established airfields/areodromes that subsequently needed "infantry" to defend them in order to continue their operations.

Thank you for a good post. Its discussions like yours Michael that are part of why I took the time to participate in army.ca.
http://army.ca/php/privacy.php
Optional material declined.

Offline claybot

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 37
Re: Light Infantry/Airborne Capability
« Reply #56 on: August 18, 2005, 10:40:09 »
Infanteer
The quote you use

For what I might be able to add to this thread I will.

C Coy 2PPCLI was a Coy that never made the transition to LAV prior to its deployment on OP APOLLO.  Our training prior to deployment focused on "Light Infantry" skill sets.

I was blessed, as Coy Comd with a congruence of capabilities that made a deployment with 3 PPCLI much easier than would be possible today.


This part should be clarified a little.... Yes C Coy 2PPCLI hadn't made the transition to LAV prior to OP Apollo but thet were still a mech company since they had M113's prior.
Yes they did focus on "Light Infantry" Skill sets prior to deployment - but that training was just more of what the 2 bn normally did, rucksack marches were part of morning PT. The final range that C Coy went through for their confirmation training was the same range the rest of the battalion went through.


Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Light Infantry/Airborne Capability
« Reply #57 on: August 18, 2005, 13:11:02 »
Claybot:

Your observations and Devil39s comments suggest the compatibility of Light Infantry and the M113, an armoured truck or transporter as opposed to a fighting vehicle.

The LAV looks to me more like an armoured fighting vehicle, or armoured car, that can carry a few troops as well.  As noted elsewhere the difference in vehicle capabilities and limitations on ability to transport personnel have resulted in different TTPs and less commonality between Light troops that could hitch a ride in the back of an M113 and those troops that work regularly with LAVs.

Replacing M113 with Bison/Stryker would have likely preserved 9 similar infantry battalions.  Sticking a turret on the vehicle changed the game entirely.  IMHO  ;D.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Unknown Factor

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 65
Re: Light Infantry/Airborne Capability
« Reply #58 on: August 18, 2005, 19:18:00 »
Replacing M113 with Bison/Stryker would have likely preserved 9 similar infantry battalions.   Sticking a turret on the vehicle changed the game entirely.  

I agree entirely with this statement, being defined as Mech Inf in todays Army is a lot more specific than it used to be.   When all 9 BN's had M113's we regularly called them Mech BN's, this at the time was, I belive, to be correct as the main effort of those BN was to close with the enemy in a large mounted Mech attack.   That did not however mean that we were continually training for Mech op's with those vehicles.   In fact as I stated before we spent a good majority of the year training dismounted a fact that I think is eluding some.   In fact I would compare a lot of the training to that what was conducted in the CAR while I was there less the jumping and intensity.

If you want to integrate Light Inf into the Mech attack, I think it may actually be prudent to give them M113's as there is no mech attack that will outrun it over broken terrain. Additionally the inclusion of the vehicles to any operations in the north would be an asset, especially for continued operations, with an airlift capability they could be brought in once suitable austere airstrips could be developed.   Keeping to a simple platform would enable the Light Inf to qualify drivers as well as gunners on wpns which are much more user friendly such as the .50 cal and mk19 within turreted systems, without disrupting their current training tempo or without becoming to complex.

Expansion of the roles within the Light Inf would facilitate a Bn within each Regt that maintains the capability of Airborne, Airmobile, Amphibious and Complex Terrain, with further trg operating patrolling and gun platforms based on the G-Wagon and M113. This in it's self would greatly enhance the retention of younger soldiers who look for something else to aspire to rather than just being an extension of a vehicle. But the arguement that the Light Infantry requires extensive trg to become mounted soldiers is a bit out of place, there has been a lot of excellent progress in the past few years, specifically in the areas of who to send to which theater.   With the expectaion of opening another front - so to speak- in the next few years I belive the Mech units will find their plate rather full in the next few years.

With that being said, 3 Light Inf Bn in Canada has given them the ability to accomplish more in the stand point of being proactive in a theater rather than just making a presence.   I believe there are still people out there in the Army that look at themselves as Peacekeepers first killers second, accomplishing the tried and true rather than venture into an area of operations which may cause casualties.   Since 2001 operations as they relate to the Canadian Army are no longer considered to be "Safe" and if anything has impressed me in the past few years it has been the Armies willingness to accept those risks and prepare it's soldiers for those risks and in no place has this been more true than within the Light Inf Bn's themselves.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2005, 19:20:38 by Unknown Factor »

BITTER PPLCI CPL

  • Guest
Re: Light Infantry/Airborne Capability
« Reply #59 on: August 21, 2005, 17:26:06 »
Hey Claybot, we just didn't do sets of light infantry training and we did a heck of a lot more ranges than the other coy's. I got in 2001, it wasn't until 2003 I actually did mech crap, and that was enemy force in Gage town, so that doesn't really count! Your either one of 2 things; someone in 2VP who is bitter and didn't get to go on Op Apollo, or are gullable and listened to someone who is pissed and didn't get to go and are cutting us down out of spite.  :threat: :threat: :threat:

Offline Jungle

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,188
Paracowboy; now you know how I see   our so called Airborne capability, I see it too in a certain way, a waste of $$$ :salute:
I disagree... while our present Airborne capability is not "doctrinal", it will serve as a solid base for the coming Light Force, which has to have an Airborne capability. Like it or not, it's the way ahead...
"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
- John G. Diefenbaker. July 1, 1960. From the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,957
  • What the????
IMHO (I am not a paratrooper, however I spent a year with para coy, 3 RCR). I beleive we should keep para capability, but with a specific role. I don't beleive we need an entire battalion.

Now airmobile forces would be far more beneficial but we need decent choppers for that.

A light force that is airborne, airmobile, amphibious capable ? Damn straight. Thats what we should have. I also beleive we should concentrate our light (maybe future airmobile) units in petawawa. Its close to Trenton (for quick deployment) or maybe in the future Halifax bug outs (if we ever get the JSS going?).

Well those are my thoughts.
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,338
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
I think ALL of our Cbt Arms should be Para qualified.

Ideally all of our Light Forces be MFP.

 It is a needed capability

 
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline paracowboy

  • I keep sayin' it...
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,190
  • Make The Voices Stop!
the fact that we do not have a proper Airborne capability, or that they have not been employed properly is not reason to eliminate them, rather it is reason to rid ourselves of the mentally lethargic individuals who are responsible.

Quote
I think ALL of our Cbt Arms should be Para qualified.
as should every CS and CSS pers who is even vaguely interested. It's far more than simply a course where they teach you to fall out of an aircraft.

...time to cull the herd.

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,957
  • What the????
You two are really living in reality. Where do you get the aircraft and the funding? The manpower and the time allotment for trg everybody? I am for keeping jumpers but lets be a bit more realistic.
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline paracowboy

  • I keep sayin' it...
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,190
  • Make The Voices Stop!
"Realistic" would be grasping that we are involved in a war that is not going to end any time soon, with the most asymmetric foe ever faced, and having money thrown at us until we ask them to stop.
"Realistic" would be having Aircraft built/purchased specifically to project force anywhere we needed.
"Realistic" would be training the guts out of the entire CF, to turn us from 'peace-keepers' to counter-insurgency specialists.
"Realistic" would be churning out soldiers at a rate that would make the brooms in The Wizard's Apprentice look like pikers.

However, Canada has not been particularly "Realistic" in the past 30 years. We prefer to cower in our beds, while others protect us. Then we bite them in the back for doing so.

aahhh! That's better. Now, where were we? Oh yes.
At a minimum, we should have an entire BN group, with CS capabilities, per Regt, Airborne capable. With the ability to project and sustain them.
We should have those units practice jumping into Exercises together, so they get SOPs down, and become inter-changeable.
We should have those units practice supporting the boys at DHTC.
We should have those units train in conjunction with the mechanized units, so that they learn the capabilities of each other, and the weaknesses.
We should have those units work with those of the UK, the US, Australia, and New Zealand (mostly so I can meet Lucy Lawless).
We should, but we won't.
...time to cull the herd.

Offline Cataract Kid

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 3,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 754
Quote
We should have those units practice supporting the boys at DHTC.
IMO That is, by far, the most reasonable argument put forth that I have seen.
Edited to add: Oh ya BTW im a Leg
« Last Edit: August 22, 2005, 21:45:26 by Blakey »

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,338
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
I kinda want to cry Para - that was perfect.

Fact we are at WAR - some people are too stupid or naive (or both) to realise that - the sooner we are a country come to grips with that the better.

 Second the quicker our OWN Army come to grip with getting the RIGHT tool for the job - (COIN) the better LAV's and Coyote's are not very usefully in that operation despite what some people (for their own reasons) want you to think.

 

 
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,957
  • What the????
If I was the CDS and told I could have extra funds for one of two options
(a) Really good choppers (Chinook Ds, EH101, black hawks, apaches or a combination of any of these) to develop a superb airmobile force or
(b) Stand up an airborne battalion....

I would go for (A).  Having spent a year with Para Coy 3RCR, I am very much aware of what you guys are capable of in a para role and to quote one of my previous section commanders (he was a pathfinder) "He would not want to jump into battle".

I think the are alot of things the army needs and do explain exactly how more paratroops are going to help the army ?
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

BITTER PPLCI CPL

  • Guest
Don't think I hate Airborne, because I don't! If I was the CDS and we had a lot of money! This is what I would do; buy C-17's, C-130J's and the stretched versions and Chinook helicopter's. Then I would stand up an Airborne bn and an Airmobile bn. The only reason I say what I say is because at the present time we don't have the money to spend on this! :salute: :cdn:

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,957
  • What the????
Having thought on this idea and stuff, I think we really need more than anything is a battalion of troops that perform a similar role to US Rangers. If I were CDS, I would make their primary role airmobile and put the emphasis on those operations (assuming we get a decent chopper for it). They would also be trained in airborne and amphibious operations.
Their primary role would be a rapid deployment force capable of delivering a quick fast strike anywhere in the world from our JSS or trenton. They would also be tasked with supporting the Dwyer Hill gang.

I would also make it so that  members would complete a basic para, airmobile ops and a course similar to the Ranger course. This would help keep the ranks filled with motivated, physically fit and very aggressive soldiers that I served with in 3RCR Para.

Again I would emphasis their primary role should be airmobile as I beleive airmobile ops are far more flexible than airborne. But as Grenada shows, keep the para capability and skills in the back pocket just in case you need to seize that airfield.

I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline Jungle

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,188
Having thought on this idea and stuff, I think we really need more than anything is a battalion of troops that perform a similar role to US Rangers. If I were CDS, I would make their primary role airmobile and put the emphasis on those operations (assuming we get a decent chopper for it). They would also be trained in airborne and amphibious operations.
Their primary role would be a rapid deployment force capable of delivering a quick fast strike anywhere in the world from our JSS or trenton. They would also be tasked with supporting the Dwyer Hill gang.
You are describing something close to what the coming Light Force will be. Also, according to the SCTF project, the LIBs would be deployed (one at a time) on the CDS's "big honking ship" (San Antonio class ??) and be ready for depl at short notice. They would be able to use amphibious assets from the ship, use Helos for airland or airdrop, or move to a safe airfield to board aircraft for a Parachute op inland. Airmobile is nice, but when you have to cross long distances, or insert large numbers of troops rapidly, nothing beats a half dozen C-130s; these can drop 240 fully equipped Troops in minutes in any area.
"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
- John G. Diefenbaker. July 1, 1960. From the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Offline claybot

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 37
Re: Light Infantry/Airborne Capability
« Reply #72 on: August 23, 2005, 21:20:43 »
You got in during 2001 and its now 2005 and your already a  BITTER PPCLI CPL. And you never did mech crap until 2003 which means you were either in B or C Company which merged into C Comany for the deployment. Also means you were a private at that time. So I'm sure you have amassed a lifetime of experience during those short few years. Good For You...... Hows Shilo........

Obviously my 2 years in Germany and my 3 UN tours and 1 NATO tour in 2 different battalions plus 1 published article about the Army and intrest in Military history (On Infantry is a great book to read over and over) plus the great time I spent in the MEDAK POCKET in no way compares to your established career of what 4 years.........

Oh and by the way I was clarifying that C Company was a Mech Company before they became a Light Company But of course how would you know that, you were a Civvie when they were MECH.

BITTER PPLCI CPL

  • Guest
Re: Light Infantry/Airborne Capability
« Reply #73 on: August 24, 2005, 11:16:08 »
Thanks Claybot for responding, I read your posts. And concur with what you say. :salute:

Offline claybot

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 37
Yes there are wars going on and in case you haven't noticed we have not really deployed to any of them except OP APOLLO, which by the way its primary role was to guard the airstrip not go into combat. Our primary mission still is PeaceMaking and that is what our government likes and always will.

Yes there are people who are trying to convert the LIB's into a US Ranger type force with full Jump capability. And if the LIB's get enough good press this will probably happen, there is no way it will be called the Airborne.

But is this the way to go? Is this going to work going back to a single specialist unit? Able to deploy at a moments notice when we have a govement unwilling to do so?

All this talk about if  I were the CDS I would do this........... If you were the CDS and tried to this you would be unemployed......

More than likely it will go back to the way it was the former members of the Airborne will get there beloved unit back under a new title specializing in rapid response to a mission that will never come.

Just like the the past the Unit will sit on their rucksacks waiting and hoping a war will start and off they go only to have the mission cancelled at the last moment (Remember the Sahara). While the remaining 6 Infantry Battalions will rotate through mission after mission with very little breaks, doing all the work. Sending their social misfits to this new unit trying to keep the best soldiers for themselves.

History repeats itself........