Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,901
- Points
- 1,260
Canada's tanks
- Thread starter jfposada
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 10,883
- Points
- 1,160
There is a difference between staffing a whole of the nation defence force for the duration of a national emergency and compelling the nation to serve in a standing army indefinitely.
Yes, conscription was resorted to when we ran out of volunteers. And it damn near broke us as a nation. It was not popular in the UK or the US.
Wars of national survival encourage people to join together to try to survive. But even then there are not only those who oppose compulsion but oppose the government's efforts. This is as true today as it was in any country in the World Wars. Conscript terms of service had to be managed with care. Russian meat grinder tactics broke the Russians in 1917 and were in the process of doing the same to the French and the Brits. Arguably they broke empires in 1919.
In any event, we are not talking about generating a national survival army here. Mobilization is very much an after thought.
This is about creating an efficient standing army to fight the government's Kabinet Wars.
Demonstrably this path does head in that direction.
....
In the World Wars, at least in Britain, the vast majority of people called up for the duration of the emergency were assigned to home service, often doing jobs they did in civilian life while also conducting war effort tasks as well.
Yes, conscription was resorted to when we ran out of volunteers. And it damn near broke us as a nation. It was not popular in the UK or the US.
Wars of national survival encourage people to join together to try to survive. But even then there are not only those who oppose compulsion but oppose the government's efforts. This is as true today as it was in any country in the World Wars. Conscript terms of service had to be managed with care. Russian meat grinder tactics broke the Russians in 1917 and were in the process of doing the same to the French and the Brits. Arguably they broke empires in 1919.
In any event, we are not talking about generating a national survival army here. Mobilization is very much an after thought.
This is about creating an efficient standing army to fight the government's Kabinet Wars.
Demonstrably this path does head in that direction.
....
In the World Wars, at least in Britain, the vast majority of people called up for the duration of the emergency were assigned to home service, often doing jobs they did in civilian life while also conducting war effort tasks as well.
- Reaction score
- 10,883
- Points
- 1,160
In my opinion what this latest unpleasantness has shown is that if a government was truly concerned with national survival then it would focus on weapons and not people. It would focus on filling armouries, magazines and warehouses with the tools necessary to defend the nation. Motivated trigger pullers can be found come the day.
The key is to make systems that can be learned in days. Not years.
The key is to make systems that can be learned in days. Not years.
- Reaction score
- 10,883
- Points
- 1,160
WW2
11,267,000 people in Canada in 1939
1,100,000 people served Canada in uniform.
401,882 men were registered for conscription.
124,555 were drafted for home defence.
99,651 were found fit for service.
By difference 1,000,000 of the force of 1,100,000 was found from volunteers.
Something like 450,000 Canadians served overseas.
47,509 of those were home defence conscripts.
12,908 were assigned to combat roles
2,463 made it to the front lines.
And for those we broke our country.
10% of the population volunteered for service.
5% voluntarily served overseas.
1% were conscripted.
.5% were compelled to serve overseas.
.025% were compelled to serve in the front lines.
....
The government, the forces, the army had 1,000,000 volunteers to manage. And somehow they felt they had to rely on 2,463 of the unwilling to save their effort.
11,267,000 people in Canada in 1939
1,100,000 people served Canada in uniform.
401,882 men were registered for conscription.
124,555 were drafted for home defence.
99,651 were found fit for service.
By difference 1,000,000 of the force of 1,100,000 was found from volunteers.
Something like 450,000 Canadians served overseas.
47,509 of those were home defence conscripts.
12,908 were assigned to combat roles
2,463 made it to the front lines.
And for those we broke our country.
10% of the population volunteered for service.
5% voluntarily served overseas.
1% were conscripted.
.5% were compelled to serve overseas.
.025% were compelled to serve in the front lines.
....
The government, the forces, the army had 1,000,000 volunteers to manage. And somehow they felt they had to rely on 2,463 of the unwilling to save their effort.
Okay, so to be perfectly clear, I'm not advocating for conscription, certainly not in peacetime, although there are arguments to be made. As for wartime, notwithstanding the Ukraine experience, I'm inclined to think that if we get involved anywhere in LSCO they're unlikely to last long enough for conscription to make a difference. I'm firmly in the camp that we need to be prepared to fight with what we have and what we have today doesn't come close to cutting it. I'm nowhere near well enough informed to determine if the CA's plans are sufficient but judging from the commentary on this forum from those who are, they are certainly an improvement if far from perfect, particularly when it comes to the Reg/Res relationship.
As for Canada's experience with conscription, again I'm no expert. But as controversial as the decision to send conscripts into combat was, it didn't break the country. Eighty years on and we're still here. Imperfect as ever but thanks to POTUS perhaps actually rediscovering our national identity.
When it comes to the numbers, the vast majority of those you describe as home defence conscripts who served overseas were those who, having been conscripted, then stepped forward to volunteer, some as early as 1940 (along with those serving in places like Newfoundland - technically at the time overseas). By 1944 those numbers were nowhere near enough to keep units up to strength and many of those fighting in the Scheldt had never recovered from Normandy, the Black Watch being a case in point.
The decision to send conscripts to the front was only taken in November '44, after the Scheldt. So few made it in no small part because the war ended the following May.
Once could argue that perhaps the CA could have avoided using conscripts by reducing its logistical tail. Certainly there were many in the UK in '44 who volunteered to retrain for the combat arms, although I've always understood that they didn't receive much in the way of retraining. But the Canadian logistical tail was not much different in scale from the British or American to my knowledge. And to an extent it reflected the realities of democracies at war. Conscripts in the armies of the Tsar (Romanov or Red) and Hitler pretty much had to take what they got. Those serving in the Allied forces could, and did, write there MPs and Congressmen.
As for Canada's experience with conscription, again I'm no expert. But as controversial as the decision to send conscripts into combat was, it didn't break the country. Eighty years on and we're still here. Imperfect as ever but thanks to POTUS perhaps actually rediscovering our national identity.
When it comes to the numbers, the vast majority of those you describe as home defence conscripts who served overseas were those who, having been conscripted, then stepped forward to volunteer, some as early as 1940 (along with those serving in places like Newfoundland - technically at the time overseas). By 1944 those numbers were nowhere near enough to keep units up to strength and many of those fighting in the Scheldt had never recovered from Normandy, the Black Watch being a case in point.
The decision to send conscripts to the front was only taken in November '44, after the Scheldt. So few made it in no small part because the war ended the following May.
Once could argue that perhaps the CA could have avoided using conscripts by reducing its logistical tail. Certainly there were many in the UK in '44 who volunteered to retrain for the combat arms, although I've always understood that they didn't receive much in the way of retraining. But the Canadian logistical tail was not much different in scale from the British or American to my knowledge. And to an extent it reflected the realities of democracies at war. Conscripts in the armies of the Tsar (Romanov or Red) and Hitler pretty much had to take what they got. Those serving in the Allied forces could, and did, write there MPs and Congressmen.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,373
- Points
- 1,040
The US Army looks pretty viable from here. I'll concede immediately, though, that we don't know what would happen if (as is usually the case) the US got involved in a war abroad (eg. Ukraine or South China Sea) and casualties were heavier than anything experienced in the past four decades.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,373
- Points
- 1,040
What we need to conscript is enough tanks (and other equipment) for the newly-proposed formations.
- Reaction score
- 10,883
- Points
- 1,160
Nothing much to disagree with there.
I do disagree on LSCO duration. The army we have is the one that will open the war. It will have to hold until follow on forces can make it into the field. Eventually some follow on force will be available. What we are debating is hiw long the existing army will have to survive, the size and composition of the follow on force and whether it will find secure ports or it will have to fight its way in.
I also disagree on the breaking the country. As I recall I said "damn near". I stand by that.
Those two conscription crises, on top of school questions and other points of friction contributed greatly to today's PQ, referenda on separation, separate police and pensions, equalization, constitutions, notwithstanding, bilingualism, a symmetrical army, a small and poorly equipped army.
All of those current issues were exacerbated by forcing 2500 unwilling Canadians into a place they didn't want to be.
- Reaction score
- 15,460
- Points
- 1,160
To get to the place you need to be for conscription to work, you will need to build public acceptance for the need and make it part of the education system(Singapore does this). Plus you need a system to track eligible citizens for the period they can be called up and you need physical resources to house and mange them when called up.
Once you start getting the above together, you need a lottery type system where you can call up a small number of eligible people each year. This keeps the system greased and primed for a major callup and does not stress the system to much. I would split the call up into two segments, a military tranche and a Civil Defence tranche, people get to choose if slots remain open. 4-6 months training and around 18 months of service. Make the pay decent so they don't fall behind their peers to much and perhaps some lingering tax benefits. Also a signing bonus if they choose to join the fulltime military or Reserve
The number called up can be varied around needs and resources. A lot of people called up, might be exempted for a host of reasons, medical, dependents, schooling, etc. But since you are calling a small number, you just keeping pulling people till you fill the slots. Do it a year prior to actual service, so they can arrange their life, so at 17 they know they have been selected.
You are going to need barracks, messhalls, classroom, training areas and instructors.
Once you start getting the above together, you need a lottery type system where you can call up a small number of eligible people each year. This keeps the system greased and primed for a major callup and does not stress the system to much. I would split the call up into two segments, a military tranche and a Civil Defence tranche, people get to choose if slots remain open. 4-6 months training and around 18 months of service. Make the pay decent so they don't fall behind their peers to much and perhaps some lingering tax benefits. Also a signing bonus if they choose to join the fulltime military or Reserve
The number called up can be varied around needs and resources. A lot of people called up, might be exempted for a host of reasons, medical, dependents, schooling, etc. But since you are calling a small number, you just keeping pulling people till you fill the slots. Do it a year prior to actual service, so they can arrange their life, so at 17 they know they have been selected.
You are going to need barracks, messhalls, classroom, training areas and instructors.
- Reaction score
- 10,883
- Points
- 1,160
As always, it boils down to the consent of the governed.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 28,447
- Points
- 1,260
Or a well thought out plan to make it seem palatable.
- Reaction score
- 10,883
- Points
- 1,160
Same thing.
Wannabe leaders need to attract wolling followers.
- Reaction score
- 15,460
- Points
- 1,160
Singapore starts when they are young and prepares them for service. I can imagine the whining from the teachers unions having to paint Canada and Armed Forces in a positive light....
- Reaction score
- 17,656
- Points
- 1,160
I was a teenager/early twenties during much of the Vietnam era. TV was nothing like today with only three US networks but the constant stream of film and news articles from Vietnam and the summer protests were quite demoralizing. Casualty figures ran into the dozens to hundreds each week. There was a complete polarization between the older, WW2 era, middle America crowd (our country right or wrong) and the younger, high school and college, draft age crowd (Up against the wall, MF). With that came a very unjustified and unfair "blame the soldier" attitude which the US was able to repair fairly well in the decade that follows.
I think the polarization is even more pronounced now and will undoubtedly have heavy political undertones. Frankly, the threats facing the US and us, are much more pronounced than Vietnam ever was, domino theory not withstanding. I'm not sure if a US government fighting a prolonged conflict on the scale of Ukraine would be able to manage to hold the country and the war effort together as long as they have these days. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't without a direct and concrete threat to the homeland.
Similar threads
