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

CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,765
Points
1,060
rmc_wannabe said:
Got to 1 Sigs in 07. Missed out on 1-08, 5-09, 3-09, and gave up hope.

Got posted to Svc Bn and thrown on MTTF out of the blue. The tours haven't stopped since then.

You unfortunately got screwed. There's Sigs guys with 4 bars on their GCS-SWA. You're in a good spot now, any larger sustained mission will have those MT dets rolling. Officers love DWAN.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,468
Points
1,110
cavalryman said:
Will the Winnipeg Grenadiers be reactivated for this tasking? :whistle:

That was supposed to OUR secret! But I get the historical link.....
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Old EO Tech said:
Ya I see Somalia level staff officer deployment :-/  All the new guys need a gong after all :-/

Hopefully this turns out better than that mission...

Serious question though, being, "What is the point of this mission"? We're sending a basically notional amount of soldiers with no/little equipment to "protect" NATO states with must larger armies and better equipment? We're also sending them to defend against a country with little to no ability to project force.

We pulled the CF-18's that we "whipped out" to attack ISIS, a real enemy, but can deploy troops to defend larger countries against a realistically non-existent threat?
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,011
Points
1,060
PuckChaser said:
I sincerely hope that they mean the Bn headquarters Coy, and not some excuse to employ 1 Can Div HQ.... then again, we've never been good with scaling command oversight to the actual amount of troops on the ground.

I'm sure there is a 300 slide powerpoint somewhere followed by a spreadsheet that took 400 hours to make detailing why there will be more tail than tooth.  ;D
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,011
Points
1,060
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Hopefully this turns out better than that mission...

Serious question though, being, "What is the point of this mission"? We're sending a basically notional amount of soldiers with no/little equipment to "protect" NATO states with must larger armies and better equipment? We're also sending them to defend against a country with little to no ability to project force.

We pulled the CF-18's that we "whipped out" to attack ISIS, a real enemy, but can deploy troops to defend larger countries against a realistically non-existent threat?

Didn`t you hear?  We are not at war with ISIS!

Maybe the point of the mission is to 'be seen to be doing something', which may be the only thing to actually do.  Making a stance, all that stuff.

Wonder how badly the infrastructure in places like Lahr has faired out the past few decades.  Might be soon putting a fresh coat of paint on some of it?
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,394
Points
1,260
Bird_Gunner45 said:
We pulled the CF-18's that we "whipped out" to attack ISIS, a real enemy, but can deploy troops to defend larger countries against a realistically non-existent threat?
Tell that to the Ukrainians, the Moldovans and the Georgians - or the Baltics, for that matter, where Russia appears to STILL be trying to sanction what they're considering former Soviet deserters.

Meanwhile, a bit of initial RUS media reaction ...

* - Web presence of RIA Novosti, Russia's state-operated news agency
** - RT, formerly Russia Today, is "a Russian government-funded television network that runs cable and satellite television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia"
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,697
Points
1,060
PuckChaser said:
Only took 1.5 pages to mention medals (not that you care), but guaranteed that's the first thing someone thinks of at NDHQ.
Yup. As well as some 32 day CFTPO tasks

How much service support required? 6:1 ratio, but troops still have to buy their own boots, slings and fighting rigs.

And then be told issued slings and tacvest only.  ;D
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,788
Points
1,090
Eye In The Sky said:
Wonder how badly the infrastructure in places like Lahr has faired out the past few decades.  Might be soon putting a fresh coat of paint on some of it?

Lahr is now the Black Forest Airport, was converted back to a civilian airport after we left, probably in much better condition then when we left. Though with the British Army coming home from Germany, we might be able to score a deal on a well kept base.


Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
MilEME09 said:
Lahr is now the Black Forest Airport, was converted back to a civilian airport after we left, probably in much better condition then when we left. Though with the British Army coming home from Germany, we might be able to score a deal on a well kept base.


Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Lahr Flugplatz is in someways modernized, and at the same time still has remnants of 4 CMBG facilities, either in use or derelict.  It is easily searchable.

Did we not set up a small AMU and supply facility with a tiny staff in Bonn to provide the CAF with an airhead and support on a limited scale back in the late 2000's? 
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
milnews.ca said:

If Russia had any real strength or ability to project power it wouldn't be fighting a proxy war in Ukraine or made a half hearted attempt at invading Georgia. The fact of the matter is that Russia cannot project power inside it's sphere of influence, let alone rival NATO. Any show of Russian force is smoke and mirrors similar to Saddam's military post Gulf War 1. NATO sending troops into Eastern Europe, to me, is more about trying to keep NATO relevant and united after an ineffective Afghan mission than actually trying to dissuade Russia from doing something.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,914
Points
1,160
Bird_Gunner45 said:
If Russia had any real strength or ability to project power it wouldn't be fighting a proxy war in Ukraine or made a half hearted attempt at invading Georgia. The fact of the matter is that Russia cannot project power inside it's sphere of influence, let alone rival NATO. Any show of Russian force is smoke and mirrors similar to Saddam's military post Gulf War 1. NATO sending troops into Eastern Europe, to me, is more about trying to keep NATO relevant and united after an ineffective Afghan mission than actually trying to dissuade Russia from doing something.

If a clash happened and Russia deployed it's artillery, I think we would be shocked at the carnage on our side. It would not last long but the conflict would have a causality rate that rivals Iraq and Afghanistan combined. NATO will stumble in the first week, followed by a counter offensive that would stop the Russian offensive. It would be very short and very bloody with a lot of dead AFV's and aircraft on both sides. Expect heavy causalities within various field headquarters caused by their lack of EW, light discipline and failure to secure the perimeters.   
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,394
Points
1,260
Bird_Gunner45 said:
NATO sending troops into Eastern Europe, to me, is more about trying to keep NATO relevant and united after an ineffective Afghan mission than actually trying to dissuade Russia from doing something.
In a world of nuance, I do have to agree that this is registering at a more-than-zero level for some decision makers.

Bird_Gunner45 said:
If Russia had any real strength or ability to project power it wouldn't be fighting a proxy war in Ukraine or made a half hearted attempt at invading Georgia.
Assuming, of course, that Russia's goal is to take these territories once & for all, as opposed to, say, keeping the "other guys" off balance.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
36
Points
530
Two questions:
1.  For those that know more than me, what should an optimal battlegroup for Latvia look like? 
2.  Is there any chance that this deployment could be used to justify of some new kit that is currently missing in the Army's quiver:  ATGM's?  Self-propelled howitzers?  SAM system of some sort?
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Colin P said:
If a clash happened and Russia deployed it's artillery, I think we would be shocked at the carnage on our side. It would not last long but the conflict would have a causality rate that rivals Iraq and Afghanistan combined. NATO will stumble in the first week, followed by a counter offensive that would stop the Russian offensive. It would be very short and very bloody with a lot of dead AFV's and aircraft on both sides. Expect heavy causalities within various field headquarters caused by their lack of EW, light discipline and failure to secure the perimeters. 

I agree that Russia is likely a tougher nut to crack than what we give it credit for, but the overarching point is that any victory they achieved would be phyrric in nature and short lasting (like the Iraqi attack on Khafji in Gulf War 1). Russia's bigger problems include a horrible economy, massive social issues (Aging population, mass alcoholism, etc), and internal terrorist threat. No to mention the issue they have on their Chinese border with a Chinese nation that would love nothing more than to rid itself of Russia on its doorstep and replace it with smaller and weaker satellite states. Even attacking a nation like Latvia, in 2016, would only result in further international isolation, international resolve to rid the world of Putin, and the creation of another internal problem in the HIGHLY unlikely scenario that the Russians fight to a draw and were allowed to keep Latvia.

The point, then, is that there is absolutely nothing for the Russians to gain by attacking a NATO nation (or actually attacking any nation) and absolutely everything to lose. NATO having a high readiness Brigade in Latvia will accomplish the square root of F all while costing us money that we could use elsewhere.

The decision smacks of knee jerk reactions to pretend problems with the goal of making Russia seem like a bad guy. it's basically watching the movie "Canadian Bacon" with Canada replaced with Russia.

 
Top