Rifleman62 said:
Realize it would be classified. Discussion relates to: Would we have enough stocks for a war now? Or would we be caught flat footed? Even that would probably classified. With our defence dollar squeezed are we prepared? Or is the funding going to uniforms/badges?
The OP question had a more historical context, but these latest ones are more futuristic; IMO maybe move this to the arty forum?
At anyrate, from 2008 to 2011 I was the DLR rep for all arty ammo (and the 60 mortar ammo, since the infantry didn't have anyone available to cover it off), and can give something of a response to Rifleman's ammo questions
War stock vs Op stock: most thought War stock was an obsolete concept about a decade ago, that's probably changing
The War stock concept lasted up to the cold war era, and on the face of it looked much like the ammo supply concepts from the World War 2 and Korean war era. It was maintained after the Cold War era, to some degree, as it was believed high ammo expenditure rates might happen well above Op stock capacity, and if they did War stock was supposed to buy time for industry to get caught up to the higher demand. How much that was supposed to be, and how long it was really supposed to last seem to generate a lot of debate and no conclusions
Op stock is of course the limited amount needed for Operations over a given time. Typically, it was planned out roughly 5 yrs in advance, with a Battle Group possibly deployed, another in high readiness training, and everything else in some kind of transition training. There was also an outside chance of a Brigade deployment, supposedly non sustained, for about a year.
The upshot of the discussions, back then, was there was no need for War Stock in the legacy qty scales. But you never know, so some surge capacity, even beyond a brigade deployment was factored into this "Reserve", that is, a qty of ammo to be sustained above Op stocks.
Regardless what the army thought the Op stock and pseudo-war stock should be, an intractable constraint was imposed by a reduction in NP funds (operating budget) over the past decade +. Exacerbating the problem was that new ammo natures coming into use were not offset by the elimination of old natures, 120 mm tank for 105, 60mm mortar for 40 mm auto grenade for example; the de-mil/disposal of the obsolete types added to costs.
There was a need to improve the capabilities of indirect fire munitions as well, which = more costs. This meant what ever stock that had been built up over the years, for the what if, was becoming less useful, as time went by and concept of Ops changed (dispersed ops etc etc). Then there was pressure to reduce even Op stock qty's, due to costs and changing requirements
By the time I left DLR in late 2011, it looked like the decision was to gradually eliminate the War stocks, and the concept of war stocks itself to be abandoned
Maybe that's changed drastically in the last 7 years, but I doubt it. I'm out now, but before I left I helped with a study to justify the bare minimum artillery amounts needed for training, which was a clear sign of pressures to reduce the Op stock even more, never mind war stock
But I'd say Rifleman has a good question, maybe everything old is new again; it all depends on the war you think Canada might end up in
For example, given the recent Russo-Ukrainian conflict there's a good reason to revisit this war stock concept, or at least the qty's kept above Op stock needs
It's easy to dismiss our involvement in that type of conflict, but the thing is you should be prepared for the worst case, no?
