Colin P said:The Weisel, which is the modern Tetrarch or universal carrier. Of course the large assault gliders program would over budget and being held up because it unfairly discriminates against engine manufacturers
Good2Golf said:dapaterson, there you go again, injecting some reality in the Army/Infantry Branch's "pick-and-choose" way of doing things. For all those who say that VP protection is uniquely (or nearly) an INF thing, ask yourself what the likelihood of getting those dedicated (especially RegF) infantry types committed to doing the D&S task? Ah yes, look at all the infantry dedicated to defending/guarding critical facilities. Certainly didn't go to other groups...oh wait.
The Army has enough issues having nine RegF Inf BNs to cover off assigned Pri 1 taskings - arguing a Divisional IRU could be chopped responsively enough to deploy to guard an "hours NTM" deployed C-17 or Herc or Aurora or...does anyone think that would happen? The Army had a hard enough time task tailoring a small responsive capability even when Govt is pressing it hard...we see Govt pick CANSOF not just once, but twice to send a small package abroad, then triple its size while the Army writ large was still trying to be responsive.
Having worked closely to support the Army for more than a quarter century, I don't have any reason to believe that the Army would institutionally desire to even consider dedicating INF, let alone actually executing such a mission, to provide air task force (and smaller) force protection, all the grandstanding argumentation earlier in this thread notwithstanding.
New MOSID for the RCAF? Why not, if the Comd RCAF makes a cogent argument to the Department and either the internal offsets are provided, or an appropriately developed request goes into the MYEP. Independent of employment specifics, that's exactly what Comd CANSOF of the day did for Spec Op MOSID, made the case and execute the Departmentally-approved plan.
The Army needs to spend more time on its own issues, including making sure it is adequately supported logistically before it starts arguing that it should be doing yet another task that would add to its already overburdened Infamtry Corps.
Chris Pook said:http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/dn-nd/D2-73-1987-eng.pdf
Further to the track record of the Army/Infantry with respect to novel approaches:
1987 and Vital Point forces, 10/90, 30/70 and 90/10 battalions, Bv206s and Bisons
Although it was Government Policy there was pitifully little evidence of anybody trying to make the policy work - because the real war was in Germany and needed Leos and Marders.
And the same thinking sank the CAST Brigade - nobody wanted it to work.
MilEME09 said:The difference I see here, like CAST, is that it's not that people didn't want it to work. It's that no one did anything to make it work, the government at the time seemed to use it as a token gesture to NATO. Any initiative will fail if no one helps to make it work.
Oldgateboatdriver said:Ah si!
"We mussta taka tha two hours a break to have da six course meal, and digest the whole thing with a the gooda vino!"
FJAG said:Pasta and wine both came up the mountains in jerry cans on mule back. Still tasted good though. ;D
Old Sweat said:I was on the same exercise with FJAG. This was 1973 and some Italian officers told us they had just adopted the same ration scale for the officers and the non-commissioned members. Welcome to the 20th century! Agree that the wine was pretty good, even if of the chateau screwcap variety.
daftandbarmy said:1 PARA were brigaded with the Canadians and the Alpini. Guess who always got stuck on the Bridge Demolition Guard?
Old Sweat said:In 4 CIBG in the mid-sixties the service support units often were tasked for those sort of things for a variety of reasons. No duff, it was in the real plan as well.
daftandbarmy said:Holy cr#p. More reasons to count our blessings that the Cold War stayed cold...
Infantry? We're relatively expendable. Echelon wallahs? They go, we all go....
Old Sweat said:These guards were often tasked for anti-Pegasus Bridge type envelopments on bridges not earmarked for demolition, and required for our own movement. Infantry did guard the more critical demolitions. It was fifty years ago this fall, so my recollections are a tad fuzzy. I do recall as a brigade LO being stationed on the key bridge over the Weser to pass word to brigade when the 1 PPCLI covering force withdrew, which I did. On order I then passed the applicable code words to a Danish battalion commander, who was the commander of the demolition guard, and hence to the commander of the firing party. That was the start of a very long night, and I won't bore you with the details.