CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[The Bread Guy]

Rather than worry about medals, I'd be more concerned how the Trudeau Grits and VAC are going to treat our soldiers if SHTF and they come home injured. They should really sort out that mess before putting any more of our troops into harm's way.

Given the system wasn't fixed over ten years under Team Blue, and it'll still take a LOAD of $ to fix under Team Red that they'd rather spend elsewhere, it would be a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time before any new deployments would happen under those circimstances.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Rather than worry about medals, I'd be more concerned how the Trudeau Grits and VAC are going to treat our soldiers if SHTF and they come home injured. They should really sort out that mess before putting any more of our troops into harms way.  Soldiers shouldn't have think about crap like that when deployed as an extention of the government, quite possibly in harms way.

If Afghanistan (and the ensuing debacle after the fact) was any indication, we have the answer already. Blue or Red, we're disposable to the government de jure.

 

[PuckChaser]

Given the system wasn't fixed over ten years under Team Blue, and it'll still take a LOAD of $ to fix under Team Red that they'd rather spend elsewhere, it would be a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time before any new deployments would happen under those circimstances.

Nobody gets injured on non-combat missions, right? Right?! Willing to bet this was the most risk-adverse option of "doing something" after Trudeau saw the INTREPs from the various "peacekeeping" debacles around the world.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Nobody gets injured on non-combat missions, right? Right?!

1)  Until there's combat  :nod:
2)  Still beats sending troops into combat knowing the system wasn't working, right?

Willing to bet this was the most risk-adverse option of "doing something" after Trudeau saw the INTREPs from the various "peacekeeping" debacles around the world.

Well, I'll give Prince Valiant's people credit for at least READING the material if that's the case ...

 

[PuckChaser]

They were probably trying to find a line that linked the rise of Islamic terrorism to climate change to justify the billions they spent immediately on taking office.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Either way,  I'm sure it's all Alberta's fault.  Fracking or Tar Sands...

 

[Infanteer]

I am curious, why you don't consider the SSM-NATO to be adequate?  Is it just not to be associated with the old "Cold Warriors", or that you don't feel it has any similarity to what 4 CMBG, the Nato Standing Fleet and ACE Mobile Forces did?

The 180-day requirement does not recognize many of the earlier deployments, which were shorter in nature.  I suspect this is what triggered the recent decision to move away from the SSM to a new form of recognition.

 

[PuckChaser]

The 180-day requirement does not recognize many of the earlier deployments, which were shorter in nature.  I suspect this is what triggered the recent decision to move away from the SSM to a new form of recognition.

Which doesn't make any sense, because on the eligibility chart you have entries like this:

UN Force in Cyprus - UNFICYP. 1964-03-27 1965-03-26 service days are multiplied by six

http://forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-awards/ssm.page

Which could easily negate the issue with shorter deployments. As long as they put the SAV, TAV and SIV rider that those days do not count as qualifying service, we'd be good to go with SSM-NATO.

 

[George Wallace]

The 180-day requirement does not recognize many of the earlier deployments, which were shorter in nature.  I suspect this is what triggered the recent decision to move away from the SSM to a new form of recognition.

How is this different from any other medal that has similar criteria?  If you don't meet the criteria, you are not entitled.  We all know that.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I am sure that the medal issue will be worked out. It would seem to be an SSM-NATO style of mission, but perhaps with the timeframe set to ensure that folks who deploy for more than three months but less than six still get the medal.

More interesting will be the work-up training requirements. Will the troops going to Latvia go through a whole "road to war" before deployment or will they use the deployment itself as collective training? One option to keep the troops sharp might be to conduct a thorough admin DAG and IBTS in Canada with perhaps collective training up to Level 3. They would then conduct the rest of their collective training in Europe, using those good training areas.

 

[George Wallace]

I am sure that the medal issue will be worked out. It would seem to be an SSM-NATO style of mission, but perhaps with the timeframe set to ensure that folks who deploy for more than three months but less than six still get the medal.

The criteria of 180 days does not specify "consecutive days".  It could be cumulative, as stated: "An aggregate of 180 days of honourable service".  As this is to be a six month deployment, it should not be a problem.  If people are so set on getting a gong, perhaps a couple deployments may be necessary to meet the criteria.  No need to degrade it lower to be a "gimme" medal.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I am sure that the medal issue will be worked out. It would seem to be an SSM-NATO style of mission, but perhaps with the timeframe set to ensure that folks who deploy for more than three months but less than six still get the medal.

More interesting will be the work-up training requirements. Will the troops going to Latvia go through a whole "road to war" before deployment or will they use the deployment itself as collective training? One option to keep the troops sharp might be to conduct a thorough admin DAG and IBTS in Canada with perhaps collective training up to Level 3. They would then conduct the rest of their collective training in Europe, using those good training areas.

They should watch this video a lot. The Bridge Demolition Guards will likely be 'all the rage' given NATO timidity on the face of Russian obnoxiousness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kspwZdqqCjg

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The criteria of 180 days does not specify "consecutive days".  It could be cumulative, as stated: "An aggregate of 180 days of honourable service".  As this is to be a six month deployment, it should not be a problem.  If people are so set on getting a gong, perhaps a couple deployments may be necessary to meet the criteria.  No need to degrade it lower to be a "gimme" medal.

I don't think that going under 180 days makes it a "gimme" medal, although to be honest I am not sure what you mean by "gimme" medal. My  understanding of the SSM-NATO medal was that it was brought in the 90s to recognize the Germany folks. They probably went over 180 days to exclude "flyovers" and others not posted to Germany. This mission may well be 180 days, but it could be just under that limit for some folks. I do not see the point in being so strict - go with 90 days. If the SSM NATO is so sacred then by all means make a new medal. I do think, however, that troops who go abroad for this duration as part of the demonstration of national resolve should be recognized. Nobody would admit to this being important, but I figure that it should be ironed out.

Regarding the Bridge Demolition Guard video, the Brits always had the best training videos. I remember watching that one in the early 90s. I might just make my students watch it on the next Tut 2!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't think that going under 180 days makes it a "gimme" medal, although to be honest I am not sure what you mean by "gimme" medal. My  understanding of the SSM-NATO medal was that it was brought in the 90s to recognize the Germany folks. They probably went over 180 days to exclude "flyovers" and others not posted to Germany. This mission may well be 180 days, but it could be just under that limit for some folks. I do not see the point in being so strict - go with 90 days. If the SSM NATO is so sacred then by all means make a new medal. I do think, however, that troops who go abroad for this duration as part of the demonstration of national resolve should be recognized. Nobody would admit to this being important, but I figure that it should be ironed out.

Regarding the Bridge Demolition Guard video, the Brits always had the best training videos. I remember watching that one in the early 90s. I might just make my students watch it on the next Tut 2!

If we make the gongs big enough, you can plant them as faux AT mines on the roads in an attempt to slow down their armour.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

If we make the gongs big enough, you can plant them as faux AT mines on the roads in an attempt to slow down their armour.

The point is that there should be some form of recognition - its about morale. Its not something that keeps me awake at night, but its something that should be considered.

This deployment should be a great opportunity for training and showing our resolve to our NATO allies. We might even learn something along the way and end up with an even more capable army.

 

[medicineman]

The point is that there should be some form of recognition - its about morale. Its not something that keeps me awake at night, but its something that should be considered.

I'm sure the Army Sgt Maj will have a badge for that soon enough...  ;D

MM

 

[Old Sweat]

I'm sure the Army Sgt Maj will have a badge for that soon enough...  ;D

MM

Because that obviously was more important than reviewing all the pesky little details of deploying into a potentially hostile environment.

I know that's not fair, but the army has made itself into an easy target.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I am sure that the medal issue will be worked out. It would seem to be an SSM-NATO style of mission, but perhaps with the timeframe set to ensure that folks who deploy for more than three months but less than six still get the medal.

If IMPACT is any indication of the 'medal issue', I wouldn't hold my breath.

Important stuff;  what about the equipment side...how many serviceable LAVs and stuff are floating around these days?  Tanks going to beef up the India C/Ss?  Stuff like that...

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Because that obviously was more important than reviewing all the pesky little details of deploying into a potentially hostile environment.

I know that's not fair, but the army has made itself into an easy target.

Do you really think that the Army's first concern about this is the medal? I am sure that the CJOC and Army staff folks are working on the key issues of what force to send, how to send it, how to sustain it etc.

 

[CBH99]

I was going to say - I'm surprised a majority of the conversation so far has revolved around what medal will be awarded, and not the size & composition of the force.

I'd imagine we actually do have more than enough equipment to send a rather highly equipped battalion sized force. 


The Army has quite a few more M777's now than it did in Afghanistan.  The LAV's are upgraded.

Is TOW actually back?  I've heard different things, but all of the things I've heard have been from credible people - which makes it even more confusing.  (There is a chap on here, can't remember his nickname - who did a TOW shoot recently and had pictures to prove it.)

This deployment might be a FANTASTIC opportunity for the military to showcase to the public just what it doesn't have.  Trucks.  Air defence platforms of any kind.  ATGM capability.  All things that are relatively easy to acquire & integrate back into our forces, and wouldn't cost much.

With this force only being a battalion sized force, I think we will be fine in sending a pretty good looking force.  Minus some key capabilities that our allies will have to bring to the table.