- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Posted by "Andrew Davies" <Davies_A@region.durham.on.ca> on Wed, 01 Mar 2000 12:30:44 -0500
Hi Gordan
Yes I‘ve just come back from Fort Knox where I took 47 Reserve Cougar Qualified people to train. Yes, we had to learn about the M1, how to start it, what the trouble codes where, as well as our Recce guys figuring out the M3 and its TOW system.
By the end of the last day, we had all the DM, and gunnery systems figured out and we started doing advance to contact traces.
By the end of the 2nd day we were doing advance to contact with an en force at normal competence, and wpns tight.
By the end of day three, the EN force was at wpns free, and we kicked butt.
So why train on kit that we will never own? Because we can. Really, our soldiers are highly motivated, highly educated and can think. They are up to the challenge, and this week proves that the conversion to M1 or M3 or M8 AGS would not take long.
Our American hosts where impressed that we learnt so quickly. We practiced our crew drills, troop drills and Sqn drills. We practiced Navigation, command and control and our radio procedure. My soldiers started at 0730, took only hour for lunch and trained until 1630 hrs. No coffee breaks, no smoke breaks and at 1630 I had trouble getting them out of the turrets.
Next year we are looking at going to the Marine Training Center in California to train in the desert in HUMMERS and or M3.
If the government buys our new tank at the same time the yanks buy theirs for the new Med Brigade our soldiers will be ready to train in no time. But that would be the smart thing to do, so don‘t hold your breath.
Andrew
>>> Gordan Dundas 03/01/00 10:57AM >>>
Thought you could answer this question far better then I could.Are you a member
of the Unoffical Cdn.Army mailing list if you like to join the address is
army@cipherlogic.on.ca
Derrick Forsythe wrote:
> I know that our guys have, for the past couple years, been going south to
> use the Yanks simulated armoured trainers - I‘m reasonably sure the Yanks
> aren‘t set up for Leopards - it begs the question, why do we train on
> platforms we‘ll never have? Or are even now searching for a site in Quebec
> that can assemble the "Abrahams" M1A1 -
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: I Michael Gough [SMTP:s22617@rmc.ca]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 4:37 PM
> > To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
> > Subject: Re:
> >
> > Grayson,
> >
> > The Brits and Yanks wanted us to send a tank division to the Gulf. But
> > they didn‘t
> > want Leopards, the Yanks offered to supply M1A1s for a tiny price, but we
> > refused.
> > Why? The political implications of buying kit not made in Canada.
> >
> > Here‘s another story that I heard tossed around. Some American armoured
> > regement
> > wanted some enemy force training against opponents with equal kit. ie. the
> > Abrams.
> > They sent a few of their tanks up for a bunch of our guys to train on for
> > about a
> > week. So the Americans came up and the exercise was on, and guess what
> > happened.
> > We sent them running with their tails between their legs!
> >
> > Our armoured corps is not obselete, nor is its role in the CF
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > Grayson McCready wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I‘m going to come in on the other side of the argument. Canada has
> > > demonstrated a lack of will to fight along side our allies in a serious
> > > ground war. Gulf War
> > >
> > > So new tanks would not be the best way to spend that money. We seemed
> > > happy to take on those roles that had a minimum of risk no disrespect
> > to
> > > the sailors and aviators so we should spend the money on updating the
> > > equipment they will use, new Hercs seaborne Helicopters and widgets for
> > > the CF-18s for example.
> > >
> > > The Americans and the Brits were happy to take on allies arabs who
> > had
> > > an equipment mix of similar vintage of our Leo/M113 team but for sure,
> > > they didn‘t lead.
> > >
> > > By letting the Leos go without replacement we‘re just admitting what our
> > > allies already know, Canada is not in the serious war fighting business
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Grayson
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Patrick Cain wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 11:48 29/02/2000 -0500, John Gilmour wrote:
> > > > >Sorry I meant to say that they do not need any new/latest generation
> > MBT‘s !
> > > > >As infantry support the Leopard 1, with upgrades is quite sufficient
> > for
> > > > >Canada‘s military role .
> > > > >The likliehood of Canada going it alone in any sort of conflict is
> > zero we
> > > > >would be paired up with heavy Armoured Formations of say the USA or
> > the UK.
> > > >
> > > > Canada‘s lack of a serious ground role in the Gulf would seem to
> > contradict
> > > > that. Neither Britain or the United States want to get involved in
> > serious
> > > > ground combat alongside allies with obsolete equipment.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Patrick Cain
> > > >
> > > > voice: 416 539-0939
> > > > fax: 416 515-3698
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
Hi Gordan
Yes I‘ve just come back from Fort Knox where I took 47 Reserve Cougar Qualified people to train. Yes, we had to learn about the M1, how to start it, what the trouble codes where, as well as our Recce guys figuring out the M3 and its TOW system.
By the end of the last day, we had all the DM, and gunnery systems figured out and we started doing advance to contact traces.
By the end of the 2nd day we were doing advance to contact with an en force at normal competence, and wpns tight.
By the end of day three, the EN force was at wpns free, and we kicked butt.
So why train on kit that we will never own? Because we can. Really, our soldiers are highly motivated, highly educated and can think. They are up to the challenge, and this week proves that the conversion to M1 or M3 or M8 AGS would not take long.
Our American hosts where impressed that we learnt so quickly. We practiced our crew drills, troop drills and Sqn drills. We practiced Navigation, command and control and our radio procedure. My soldiers started at 0730, took only hour for lunch and trained until 1630 hrs. No coffee breaks, no smoke breaks and at 1630 I had trouble getting them out of the turrets.
Next year we are looking at going to the Marine Training Center in California to train in the desert in HUMMERS and or M3.
If the government buys our new tank at the same time the yanks buy theirs for the new Med Brigade our soldiers will be ready to train in no time. But that would be the smart thing to do, so don‘t hold your breath.
Andrew
>>> Gordan Dundas 03/01/00 10:57AM >>>
Thought you could answer this question far better then I could.Are you a member
of the Unoffical Cdn.Army mailing list if you like to join the address is
army@cipherlogic.on.ca
Derrick Forsythe wrote:
> I know that our guys have, for the past couple years, been going south to
> use the Yanks simulated armoured trainers - I‘m reasonably sure the Yanks
> aren‘t set up for Leopards - it begs the question, why do we train on
> platforms we‘ll never have? Or are even now searching for a site in Quebec
> that can assemble the "Abrahams" M1A1 -
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: I Michael Gough [SMTP:s22617@rmc.ca]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 4:37 PM
> > To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
> > Subject: Re:
> >
> > Grayson,
> >
> > The Brits and Yanks wanted us to send a tank division to the Gulf. But
> > they didn‘t
> > want Leopards, the Yanks offered to supply M1A1s for a tiny price, but we
> > refused.
> > Why? The political implications of buying kit not made in Canada.
> >
> > Here‘s another story that I heard tossed around. Some American armoured
> > regement
> > wanted some enemy force training against opponents with equal kit. ie. the
> > Abrams.
> > They sent a few of their tanks up for a bunch of our guys to train on for
> > about a
> > week. So the Americans came up and the exercise was on, and guess what
> > happened.
> > We sent them running with their tails between their legs!
> >
> > Our armoured corps is not obselete, nor is its role in the CF
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > Grayson McCready wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I‘m going to come in on the other side of the argument. Canada has
> > > demonstrated a lack of will to fight along side our allies in a serious
> > > ground war. Gulf War
> > >
> > > So new tanks would not be the best way to spend that money. We seemed
> > > happy to take on those roles that had a minimum of risk no disrespect
> > to
> > > the sailors and aviators so we should spend the money on updating the
> > > equipment they will use, new Hercs seaborne Helicopters and widgets for
> > > the CF-18s for example.
> > >
> > > The Americans and the Brits were happy to take on allies arabs who
> > had
> > > an equipment mix of similar vintage of our Leo/M113 team but for sure,
> > > they didn‘t lead.
> > >
> > > By letting the Leos go without replacement we‘re just admitting what our
> > > allies already know, Canada is not in the serious war fighting business
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Grayson
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Patrick Cain wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 11:48 29/02/2000 -0500, John Gilmour wrote:
> > > > >Sorry I meant to say that they do not need any new/latest generation
> > MBT‘s !
> > > > >As infantry support the Leopard 1, with upgrades is quite sufficient
> > for
> > > > >Canada‘s military role .
> > > > >The likliehood of Canada going it alone in any sort of conflict is
> > zero we
> > > > >would be paired up with heavy Armoured Formations of say the USA or
> > the UK.
> > > >
> > > > Canada‘s lack of a serious ground role in the Gulf would seem to
> > contradict
> > > > that. Neither Britain or the United States want to get involved in
> > serious
> > > > ground combat alongside allies with obsolete equipment.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Patrick Cain
> > > >
> > > > voice: 416 539-0939
> > > > fax: 416 515-3698
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
