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

For the size of Canada, how large should our armed force be?

Dennis Ruhl

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Dean22 said:
In the future I would advise against using wikipedia quoted sources.

This website has the actual numbers of 5.4+ million servicemen including their TIG and their % by rank.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/u/joining_up.htm#s1

You talkin' to me?

The site globalfirepower.com isn't identified as as wiki.  Not that I noticed.  Are you sure about that?

Then you reference about.com, which although less liberal in editing, is very similarly provided by volunteers whose expertise may vary.  Also the about.com site is a recruiting page with no summary.

Then there's wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces

Reguler 1,445,000

Reserve 850,000
 

X-mo-1979

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dean22 said:
Wouldn't we need a larger military than for our strategic needs since our current size was only suitable for peacekeeping? I remember a report a while ago saying we didn't have enough vehicle technicians to manage our tanks for example. I can imagine it being a lot easier managing a tank in a peacekeeping environment vs. one that has taken RPG splatter, small arms fire etc.

Here you are spouting off to members of this site about getting their fact right.Let's get this fact right.
The reason we had a shortage of Leopard C2 mechs was due to our army deciding to get rid of tanks.We mothballed our fleet and started making monuments.Therefore the Mech's were not getting trained for a few years.Suddenly the military realized that getting rid of a very large mobility and firepower asset was a mistake and decided to haul them out of storage and begin using them again.Therefore a lack in training happened over a couple year period.

Leopard 2A6M tech's have to be trained in Germany at the moment for IIRC 10 to 15 weeks.There was of course a shortage of techs/mechs due to the fact that it was new equipment.

As for your comment about tanks needing more maintenance In Afghanistan than in say a peacekeeping mission,your wrong.During peace support operation tanks dont move much.They are a offensive weapon.Sitting around kill's tanks.We only have to look at the large amount of maintenance required for small exercises here in Canada.And usually the first week the VOR rate is very very high.In Afghanistan I never once pulled pack.And for the most part nothing went too wrong with it as it was being used daily.

Please tell me what small arms and shrapnel damage causes and how long that takes to fix oh wise one.
 

Dennis Ruhl

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Dean22 said:
Also, no offense to the United States but I don't think high technology is a solution to wars when facing numbers or guerilla warfare.

If we look at World War 2 Germany did not have the numbers but they had the technological advantage that the allies did not. But the allies had numbers and they would sacrifice 100 T-34's to kill a single German tiger tank (5 t-72's for an Abrams?).

I believe your second paragraph disproves the first. 

Technology does save lives but ultimately infantry wins wars.  Letting technology do the job keeps them alive to accomplish their goals.  Just my opinion and I never was infantry.  Russian WWII tactics worked for them because their friends behind them were just as willing to shoot them as the enemy ahead. 

Whatever numbers Canada has, we should not bite off more than we can chew.

 

Dean22

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dennis Ruhl said:
You talkin' to me?

The site globalfirepower.com isn't identified as as wiki.  Not that I noticed.  Are you sure about that?

Then you reference about.com, which although less liberal in editing, is very similarly provided by volunteers whose expertise may vary.  Also the about.com site is a recruiting page with no summary.

Then there's wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces

Reguler 1,445,000

Reserve 850,000

I am happy you decided to look at the link I wrote and read the congressional report on military personnel instead of relying on wikipedia and their references.
 

Dean22

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
X-mo-1979 said:
Here you are spouting off to members of this site about getting their fact right.Let's get this fact right.
The reason we had a shortage of Leopard C2 mechs was due to our army deciding to get rid of tanks.We mothballed our fleet and started making monuments.Therefore the Mech's were not getting trained for a few years.Suddenly the military realized that getting rid of a very large mobility and firepower asset was a mistake and decided to haul them out of storage and begin using them again.Therefore a lack in training happened over a couple year period.

Leopard 2A6M tech's have to be trained in Germany at the moment for IIRC 10 to 15 weeks.There was of course a shortage of techs/mechs due to the fact that it was new equipment.

As for your comment about tanks needing more maintenance In Afghanistan than in say a peacekeeping mission,your wrong.During peace support operation tanks dont move much.They are a offensive weapon.Sitting around kill's tanks.We only have to look at the large amount of maintenance required for small exercises here in Canada.And usually the first week the VOR rate is very very high.In Afghanistan I never once pulled pack.And for the most part nothing went too wrong with it as it was being used daily.

Please tell me what small arms and shrapnel damage causes and how long that takes to fix oh wise one.

I was talking about the Chicken fencing.

Also, a lot of people on these forums have been saying the Leopard 2 has a weak point in the turret (maybe older version? because I don't always see that point on all tanks) where RPG's can penetrate the ABC protection.

Would vech techs work on chicken fencing and penetration in ABC or metal workers?
 

Dennis Ruhl

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Dean22 said:
I am happy you decided to look at the link I wrote and read the congressional report on military personnel instead of relying on wikipedia and their references.

I'd love to read it.  Why didn't you link the report directly?  Which link on the recruiting page do I click on?
 

Dean22

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dennis Ruhl said:
I'd love to read it.  Why didn't you link the report directly?  Which link on the recruiting page do I click on?

Give me about an hour. To be honest I cannot find the exact link with all the forces at the website at the moment. Maybe it had been an incorrect report like you had suggested. The about website looks official I didn't know it was as unofficial as wikipedia.

However, I did find the # of personnel by rank. Interestingly 33% of the US army is at the rank of SGT with only 11% at Private.
 

Dennis Ruhl

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Dean22 said:
Give me about an hour. To be honest I cannot find the exact link with all the forces at the website at the moment. Maybe it had been an incorrect report like you had suggested. The about website looks official I didn't know it was as unofficial as wikipedia.

However, I did find the # of personnel by rank. Interestingly 33% of the US army is at the rank of SGT with only 11% at Private.

Curse, curse, curse.  Be back tomorrow.  I have to leave the room tearing my hair out.


 

Roy Harding

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dean22 said:
Give me about an hour. To be honest I cannot find the exact link with all the forces at the website at the moment. Maybe it had been an incorrect report like you had suggested. The about website looks official I didn't know it was as unofficial as wikipedia.

However, I did find the # of personnel by rank. Interestingly 33% of the US army is at the rank of SGT with only 11% at Private.

Dean22:

You are talking out of your hat.

Bring up VALID and AUTHORITATIVE (NOT Wikipedia) links before you post in this thread again.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff
 

X-mo-1979

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dean22 said:
I was talking about the Chicken fencing.

Also, a lot of people on these forums have been saying the Leopard 2 has a weak point in the turret (maybe older version? because I don't always see that point on all tanks) where RPG's can penetrate the ABC protection.

Would vech techs work on chicken fencing and penetration in ABC or metal workers?

I'm Guessing your talking about slat armour?Vehicle techs don't work on slat armour and we don't have metal workers.Our Mat techs can aid in removing snapped off bolts etc associated with slat armour.

What weak point are you talking about?How many tanks have you ever seen/worked with in real life?What the hell is ABC protection.I have never heard of anything called ABC protection.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,054
Points
1,160
Please, there is a logical, sensible way to explore this. Sequentially:

1. Define the AIM. The aim will probably have two broad components -

a. Defence of the realm, which may also be subdivided into -

(1) Internal security, and

(2) Territorial defence, and

b. Protection and promotion of of vital interests around the globe;

2. Define the required capabilities. An example of a "capability" might be- "be able to 'see' (maintain surveillance over) our national territory, its contiguous waters and the airspace over both;"

3. Define performance standards for each capability. An example might be "be able to detect and track all surface intruders on the contiguous waters of Canada, below nnoN, out to a distance of nnnkm;"

4. Define equipment/system capabilities and limitations such as ship range, aircraft reliability, availability and maintainability levels, etc;

5. Define numbers and types of "systems" (ships, units, etc) required;

6. Define required states of readiness for various systems;

7. Define the number of people required for each system at each state of readiness; and

8. Add up the costs of the systems and people. Compare that to the available budget. Go back to step 1 and redefine the AIM. Repeat until costs <= budget.
 

Dean22

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
X-mo-1979 said:
I'm Guessing your talking about slat armour?Vehicle techs don't work on slat armour and we don't have metal workers.Our Mat techs can aid in removing snapped off bolts etc associated with slat armour.

What weak point are you talking about?How many tanks have you ever seen/worked with in real life?What the hell is ABC protection.I have never heard of anything called ABC protection.

Yes I meant NBC. ABC is what it is in another language.

ironduke57 said:
After seeing the attached pic I though maybe someone interests this.

On this welding you can easily identify an Leo2 which was originally an A3 or lower. Originally this was an hatch for ammo resupply, but starting from A4 it was deleted. (An turret hit could deform/open it and ABC protection would be broken.) On all earlier versions it was welded with the hull as you can see here.

Regards,
ironduke57

Picture from original post linked.

 

Roy Harding

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dean22 said:
Yes I meant NBC. ABC is what it is in another language.

Picture from original post linked.

What part of:

Roy Harding said:
Dean22:

...

Bring up VALID and AUTHORITATIVE (NOT Wikipedia) links before you post in this thread again.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff

didn't you understand?

When I put the "Milnet.ca Staff" under my name, it means that I'm talking on behalf of the site owner.

Take 24 hours and come up with the links mentioned before you post again.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff

Edited to clarify a thought.
 

Franko

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Dean22 said:
Also, a lot of people on these forums have been saying the Leopard 2 has a weak point in the turret (maybe older version? because I don't always see that point on all tanks) where RPG's can penetrate the ABC protection.

Would vech techs work on chicken fencing and penetration in ABC or metal workers?

Who? So far I've only seen one example and you provided it. No offense to Ironduke but he's not trained on Leo 2A6 IIRC. I am an end user and have done time in the sand in one.

The area you have pointed out is not a weak point on Leo 2 full stop.

RPGs are a concern for any armoured vehicle...just less of a concern for a Leo C2 or Leo 2 crew.

Please don't post any more Wiki-BS on armour...being a potential RHLI recruit does not make you a SME on anything relating to armour.

Regards
 

Old Naval Guard

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hello, My  :2c:  :cdn: Armed Forces should be at the 90,000-100,0000 personal level. We are the 2nd largest country in th world with three coasts. The Navy 15,000 Reg Force with 5,000 Naval reserves. The Army should be around 43,500 personal whila milita of 30,000 including Comms. An Airforce of 40,000 backed by a reserves of 5000-8000 personal. We are a member of NATO,NORAD and claim to be a Middle power. Its time we had a Middle power Military. Yes I am propseing to return our Military to Pre-unification levels. The post war trend of large reg Force anf smaller reserve forve would continue. Perhaps this would be scence by some as unrealistic,however with hard work and spending it can be done.  Cheers Old Naval Guard
 

Michael OLeary

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2
Points
410
Old Naval Guard said:
Hello, My  :2c:  :cdn: Armed Forces should be at the 90,000-100,0000 personal level. We are the 2nd largest country in th world with three coasts. The Navy 15,000 Reg Force with 5,000 Naval reserves. The Army should be around 43,500 personal whila milita of 30,000 including Comms. An Airforce of 40,000 backed by a reserves of 5000-8000 personal. We are a member of NATO,NORAD and claim to be a Middle power. Its time we had a Middle power Military. Yes I am propseing to return our Military to Pre-unification levels. The post war trend of large reg Force anf smaller reserve forve would continue. Perhaps this would be scence by some as unrealistic,however with hard work and spending it can be done.  Cheers Old Naval Guard

I will assume you understand that capabilities of the CF are not simply a matter of personnel strength.  Have you actually completed an estimate to determine what capabilities - i.e., based on combat functions leading to required ships, planes and land based weapons and equipment, plus all needed combat and combat service support requirements, etc. - are needed that would then establish a requirement for those manning levels you feel are appropriate.

Or are those numbers simply the product of a rectal imaginarium?
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Michael O'Leary said:
I will assume you understand that capabilities of the CF are not simply a matter of personnel strength.  Have you actually completed an estimate to determine what capabilities - i.e., based on combat functions leading to required ships, planes and land based weapons and equipment, plus all needed combat and combat service support requirements, etc. - are needed that would then establish a requirement for those manning levels you feel are appropriate.

Or are those numbers simply the product of a rectal imaginarium?

Not too mention the bottleneck in training we already have that would become worse with all these additions. I am all for expanding the CF but lets do it with intelligence and common sense.
 

pbi

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Since (despite all the earnest and well-meaning chrystal ball gazers in places like DLCD and elsewhere...) we will probably never have a very clear idea of what the next conflict will look like, or where it will be, or what Canada's political climate will be when that conflict happens, maybe we should ask a different question: "How large does the CF (or, if you prefer, the Army...) need to be in order to preserve a basic "toolbox" of capabilities that we can adapt to any conflict on relatively short notice?"


Cheers
 

time expired

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Since WW2 Canada`s military policy has been based on one given,Canada cannot be

defended by the CF,therefore we had to join military alliances,NATO,NORAD to help

share the load.The responce of the various governments to this situation was to do

the absolute minimum to keep our allies from tossing us out.We constantly reneged

on our promises to reequip,increase our military budget to 2% of GNP and to upgrade

our capabilities.However we still managed to get a General or two into every HQ and

the military seemed happy with the situation, at at least in the upper echelons.

Now however we seem to be entering a new phase in Canada`s foreign policy,we

have turned our backs ,by our" cut and run policy "in A-stan.,on our old alliance

partners and by the way the UN.Does this mean Canada is now going it alone?,if

so will this mean a huge increase in our military?or does it mean that the age old

idea will prevail,the Yanks(Brits) will never let anything happen to us.

I suspect the latter will be the opinion of the Canadian public,but I also suspect

this will one day bite us in the ass.

                                                  Regards
 
Top