• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

C3 Howitzer Replacement

The key for England is a strong Navy and RAF.
Same for Canada for homeland defence.

But those do not provide the credibility one needs to be seen as an effective team player in an allied security coalition where a strong unified force is the major element for a viable deterrence posture. Canada keeps forgetting that which is why our general relevance as a nation has slipped as quickly as the Army's has.

šŸ»
 
Same for Canada for homeland defence.

But those do not provide the credibility one needs to be seen as an effective team player in an allied security coalition where a strong unified force is the major element for a viable deterrence posture. Canada keeps forgetting that which is why our general relevance as a nation has slipped as quickly as the Army's has.

šŸ»

We can agree to disagree, how's that ?
 
You canā€™t get anywhere without a Navy, but you canā€™t do anything once you are there without an Army.
You also need the Air Force to provide valuable hotel recommendations when you get there. ;)

I dunno...

In WW2 our overwhelimng air superiority helped us defeat an army full of 'Burp Guns' and 88s using WW1 era bolt guns and puttees ;)
 
Same for Canada for homeland defence.

But those do not provide the credibility one needs to be seen as an effective team player in an allied security coalition where a strong unified force is the major element for a viable deterrence posture. Canada keeps forgetting that which is why our general relevance as a nation has slipped as quickly as the Army's has.

šŸ»

Sorry but I can't agree with that.

In the 1950s which was more respected in Germany? The Canadian Brigade Group or 1 Canadian Air Division?

And the Navy is measured by its willingness to stand into harm's way. More BaltOps with the locals.

It (1CAD) consisted of four wings of twelve fighter squadrons located at four bases. Two bases were located in France (RCAF Station Marville (No. 1 Wing) and RCAF Station Grostenquin (No. 2 Wing)) and two were located in West Germany (RCAF Station ZweibrĆ¼cken (No. 3 Wing) and RCAF Station Baden-Soellingen (No. 4 Wing)).
 





Canada does contribute

 
People generally respect boots on the ground. It meanā€™s commitmentā€¦

Visible commitment at that. Navy and air force are seldom seen in news reports. TV shots of a navy ship at see could be anywhere. Aircraft on a tarmac in a neighboring country don't sell it either. People wearing the flag patrolling the streets and helping the locals sells your commitment. We don't even send DART out anymore. I remember that was all the media cared about in the 90's, every earthquake, hurricane, or disaster of any kind the media said DART so many times I got sick of hearing it.
 
People generally respect boots on the ground. It meanā€™s commitmentā€¦
While I strongly believe that the RCN and RCAF (including NORAD facilities) should be the primary focus of our defence policy and spending, I agree with @FJAG and @KevinB that "boots on the ground" are a very important political signal to both our allies and potential enemies. That effect is impossible in many situations to achieve with air or naval forces.

That being said, we may disagree that the main/only way that effect can be achieved is by placing armoured forces on the Northern European Plain. Other types of forces (including many of the artillery-type systems being discussed in this thread) could also potentially achieve a similar political effect while at the same time being more relevant to the defence of Canada.
 
Other types of forces (including many of the artillery-type systems being discussed in this thread) could also potentially achieve a similar political effect while at the same time being more relevant to the defence of Canada.
And how many Artillery-type systems does Canada have? Something like 39, less 4 sent to the Ukraine. Hardly a footprint, more of a small toe print. C3 Replacement?
Second World War, Arty Regt had 24 guns.
 
And then there's Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan et al ...

Lots of commitment, questionable purposes.
I meant for Defensive purposes in an Alliance partners land.

The Policy party isnā€™t for us.
 
And how many Artillery-type systems does Canada have? Something like 39, less 4 sent to the Ukraine. Hardly a footprint, more of a small toe print. C3 Replacement?
Second World War, Arty Regt had 24 guns.
Absolutely correct. Whatever type of forces we propose to commit to supporting our allies....armour, artillery, aircraft, ships, whatever...it has to be a credible force. That means that whatever force structure we decide on it must be properly and fully equipped, and that includes enough spares and munitions available to sustain the force and be an effective contributor to an allied effort.
 
Back
Top