Future of ATHENA: Manning issues & LAV III upgrades
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
In the Chronicle Herald on Saturday.
http://www.herald.ns.ca/Search/535722.html
It seems they really are desperate for bodies.
Wont be the first time they have used us as infantry. My MS got pulled off the tanker back in the 90's in Somalia handed a weapon and was used for convoy escorts.
Good or bad I kind of fit the bill for a re-roll. Prior infantry training, boarding team, fit, and locked into the forces for three years once this course is done so I'm not likely to release. If I were the one hunting files I would be looking for people like me. :warstory:
(Edit to correct spelling in thread title.)
http://www.herald.ns.ca/Search/535722.html
It seems they really are desperate for bodies.
Wont be the first time they have used us as infantry. My MS got pulled off the tanker back in the 90's in Somalia handed a weapon and was used for convoy escorts.
Good or bad I kind of fit the bill for a re-roll. Prior infantry training, boarding team, fit, and locked into the forces for three years once this course is done so I'm not likely to release. If I were the one hunting files I would be looking for people like me. :warstory:
(Edit to correct spelling in thread title.)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Oh man, what are they thinking in Ottawa? Are they so delusional that they really believe that they can train combat infantrymen for a theatre as volatile as Afghanistan in THIRTEEN WEEKS?
Holy crap on a malmac plate, brothers and sisters, can this be anything other then an the defintion of DESPERATION!
And its all cause NATO is to gutless to step up to the plate and our government is to fey to make then accept their responsibilities.
As have we!
Critics slam Afghan naval mission
Throwing sailors and air force members into ground combat a mistake, experts say
ALEX DOBROTA
From Monday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — Throwing sailors or air force members into ground combat in Afghanistan would be a colossal mistake, military experts said yesterday.
The proposal from the Department of National Defence is an option offered to avoid sending major army units back to Kandahar for a second time. But the plan encountered nothing but hostile fire yesterday.
It could lower troops' morale, would take too long to implement, place too great a strain on navy and air force ranks and generally makes no sense, a variety of critics said.
"I just can't see how you turn a sailor into a soldier without taking as long to do it as it would take for you to take a recruit off the street," said David Bercuson, the University of Calgary professor who is one of Canada's leading military analysts.
"It's an act of desperation, there's no question about that," echoed Scott Taylor, editor of Esprit de Corps military magazine. "It's a whole different mentality, a different role, different everything from being a sailor to a combat arms soldier."
Canada has 2,300 army personnel on the ground in Afghanistan and has made a commitment to keep that presence until 2009. But the army is too small to fulfill that mission without calling some units for a second tour of duty, said Capt. Richard Langlois, a spokesman with DND.
The use of members from other services, known as "re-rolling," is being studied as the Forces seeks ways to avoid sending soldiers to Afghanistan more than once.
"It's just an option that was brought up to alleviate the rotation tempo," Capt. Langlois said.
The proposal came up in discussions between the office of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and that of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier some time before last week, Capt. Langlois said.
The idea was quickly dismissed yesterday by Jack Granatstein, professor emeritus of history at York University in Toronto, who said it could limit efficiency.
"Our regiments are close-knit groups and it's tough to put an outsider in," Mr. Granatstein said.
Currently, the Royal Canadian Regiment from Petawawa is almost midway through its rotation, which ends next February.
It will be replaced by a formation composed of several units across the country that is currently assembling at Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick, and then in August, 2007, the Royal 22nd Regiment (Vandoos), is scheduled to take over. That's when the army will have to start second tours if no other plan emerges.
If DND approves the re-rolling policy, the ground force could also draw reinforcements from the 9,900-strong navy and from the 13,600-strong air force.
But one military expert estimated the reassignment could take as long as 12 months, as navy and air force personnel would have to undergo extensive training to qualify for ground service.
For instance, sailors would be hard-pressed to switch their Zodiac patrol boats for a LAV III armoured personnel carrier, said Mr. Bercuson, who is director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.
"They have to know not only how to run the bloody beast, but also how to keep it running under the most adverse of circumstances."
All Canadian Forces personnel undergo a 13-week-long boot camp before advancing to specialized training. While all of them receive some weapons training, most sailors and air force members serve for years without using a firearm, Mr. Bercuson said.
In the navy, only sailors that make up a ship's boarding party carry side-arms. And those sailors account for only a small percentage of the force, Mr. Bercuson said.
By contrast, mechanized battalions in Afghanistan operate in 10-strong sections that include a machine gunner, a LAV III driver, a navigator and a radio operator.
One of the most notable examples of sending sailors into ground combat happened during the Second World War, when entire units of the Soviet Red Navy were thrown into the slaughter of the Battle of Stalingrad.
In dire circumstances, even the Canadian army has reassigned some of its troops to different trades, though it seldom called upon the navy or the air force in recent history.
In 1944, many anti-aircraft gunners joined the ground offensive in Europe. And in 1994, several artillery and tank squadrons bolstered the infantry ranks of Canada's peace-keeping contingent in Bosnia.
Resorting to re-rolling to buttress the Afghanistan mission is a short-sighted policy, Mr. Granatstein said. "One of the hazards is that the navy is also short of personnel and that's not going to solve its problem," he said.
Capt. Langlois acknowledged the criticism.
"It has to be studied," he said. "Not everybody would be encouraged to re-roll, because there are some trades that are also desperate for people so you have to take that into account."
If re-rolling becomes a policy, it would happen only on a voluntary basis, he insisted. Sailors and air force members would be fully trained before being sent into combat. Preferably, they would fill administrative positions.
Extending the six-month tour of duty to nine months is also being studied, Capt. Langlois said.
But some sailors showed no reserve at trading their berets for helmets and rifles.
"It doesn't matter if we're in the navy, in the air force or the army -- we all signed the dotted line," said Petty Officer (2nd Class) Derek Speirs, a cook based in Halifax who has done a peacekeeping stint in the Golan Heights and is willing to serve in Afghanistan.
"We're all here to defend our country and that's what we're paid to do."
Holy crap on a malmac plate, brothers and sisters, can this be anything other then an the defintion of DESPERATION!
And its all cause NATO is to gutless to step up to the plate and our government is to fey to make then accept their responsibilities.
As have we!
Critics slam Afghan naval mission
Throwing sailors and air force members into ground combat a mistake, experts say
ALEX DOBROTA
From Monday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — Throwing sailors or air force members into ground combat in Afghanistan would be a colossal mistake, military experts said yesterday.
The proposal from the Department of National Defence is an option offered to avoid sending major army units back to Kandahar for a second time. But the plan encountered nothing but hostile fire yesterday.
It could lower troops' morale, would take too long to implement, place too great a strain on navy and air force ranks and generally makes no sense, a variety of critics said.
"I just can't see how you turn a sailor into a soldier without taking as long to do it as it would take for you to take a recruit off the street," said David Bercuson, the University of Calgary professor who is one of Canada's leading military analysts.
"It's an act of desperation, there's no question about that," echoed Scott Taylor, editor of Esprit de Corps military magazine. "It's a whole different mentality, a different role, different everything from being a sailor to a combat arms soldier."
Canada has 2,300 army personnel on the ground in Afghanistan and has made a commitment to keep that presence until 2009. But the army is too small to fulfill that mission without calling some units for a second tour of duty, said Capt. Richard Langlois, a spokesman with DND.
The use of members from other services, known as "re-rolling," is being studied as the Forces seeks ways to avoid sending soldiers to Afghanistan more than once.
"It's just an option that was brought up to alleviate the rotation tempo," Capt. Langlois said.
The proposal came up in discussions between the office of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and that of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier some time before last week, Capt. Langlois said.
The idea was quickly dismissed yesterday by Jack Granatstein, professor emeritus of history at York University in Toronto, who said it could limit efficiency.
"Our regiments are close-knit groups and it's tough to put an outsider in," Mr. Granatstein said.
Currently, the Royal Canadian Regiment from Petawawa is almost midway through its rotation, which ends next February.
It will be replaced by a formation composed of several units across the country that is currently assembling at Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick, and then in August, 2007, the Royal 22nd Regiment (Vandoos), is scheduled to take over. That's when the army will have to start second tours if no other plan emerges.
If DND approves the re-rolling policy, the ground force could also draw reinforcements from the 9,900-strong navy and from the 13,600-strong air force.
But one military expert estimated the reassignment could take as long as 12 months, as navy and air force personnel would have to undergo extensive training to qualify for ground service.
For instance, sailors would be hard-pressed to switch their Zodiac patrol boats for a LAV III armoured personnel carrier, said Mr. Bercuson, who is director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.
"They have to know not only how to run the bloody beast, but also how to keep it running under the most adverse of circumstances."
All Canadian Forces personnel undergo a 13-week-long boot camp before advancing to specialized training. While all of them receive some weapons training, most sailors and air force members serve for years without using a firearm, Mr. Bercuson said.
In the navy, only sailors that make up a ship's boarding party carry side-arms. And those sailors account for only a small percentage of the force, Mr. Bercuson said.
By contrast, mechanized battalions in Afghanistan operate in 10-strong sections that include a machine gunner, a LAV III driver, a navigator and a radio operator.
One of the most notable examples of sending sailors into ground combat happened during the Second World War, when entire units of the Soviet Red Navy were thrown into the slaughter of the Battle of Stalingrad.
In dire circumstances, even the Canadian army has reassigned some of its troops to different trades, though it seldom called upon the navy or the air force in recent history.
In 1944, many anti-aircraft gunners joined the ground offensive in Europe. And in 1994, several artillery and tank squadrons bolstered the infantry ranks of Canada's peace-keeping contingent in Bosnia.
Resorting to re-rolling to buttress the Afghanistan mission is a short-sighted policy, Mr. Granatstein said. "One of the hazards is that the navy is also short of personnel and that's not going to solve its problem," he said.
Capt. Langlois acknowledged the criticism.
"It has to be studied," he said. "Not everybody would be encouraged to re-roll, because there are some trades that are also desperate for people so you have to take that into account."
If re-rolling becomes a policy, it would happen only on a voluntary basis, he insisted. Sailors and air force members would be fully trained before being sent into combat. Preferably, they would fill administrative positions.
Extending the six-month tour of duty to nine months is also being studied, Capt. Langlois said.
But some sailors showed no reserve at trading their berets for helmets and rifles.
"It doesn't matter if we're in the navy, in the air force or the army -- we all signed the dotted line," said Petty Officer (2nd Class) Derek Speirs, a cook based in Halifax who has done a peacekeeping stint in the Golan Heights and is willing to serve in Afghanistan.
"We're all here to defend our country and that's what we're paid to do."
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Already posted in another Thread.
Next time give the proper Credits and a Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061023.wxafghans23/BNStory/Afghanistan/home
Next time give the proper Credits and a Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061023.wxafghans23/BNStory/Afghanistan/home
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
It seems to me that convoy escort and protecting the PRC's is precisiely how all the lads are dying, eh? Soldiers train for all their life for this, swabeees do not. Take thirteen weeks just to get them in shape, let alone train them in the delicate arts of killing people for a living.
And BTW, whats the point?
This mission will not be successful unless NATO steps up to the plate with thousands of soldiers. Trained soldiers.
Not piecemeal fixes ala Bush lite.
And BTW, whats the point?
This mission will not be successful unless NATO steps up to the plate with thousands of soldiers. Trained soldiers.
Not piecemeal fixes ala Bush lite.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Ok George, I will do that.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
Volunteers
No one is going to come in to your office and order you to meaford for some battle school a$$ kicking. IF this happens, I would bet it would be on a VOLUNTEER basis..... Think about the big picture and I doubt it will happen, why take our naval pers, when other NATO allies have perfectly capable combat troops sitting in Afghanistan RIGHT NOW, doing sweet F all while our boys do all the dirty work. These other "freeloaders" have to pick up the slack or send them home........
No one is going to come in to your office and order you to meaford for some battle school a$$ kicking. IF this happens, I would bet it would be on a VOLUNTEER basis..... Think about the big picture and I doubt it will happen, why take our naval pers, when other NATO allies have perfectly capable combat troops sitting in Afghanistan RIGHT NOW, doing sweet F all while our boys do all the dirty work. These other "freeloaders" have to pick up the slack or send them home........
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Listening to Scott Taylor on CBC tonight on the way home. It sounds like they are trying to bump infentry out of training positions, desk jobs, etc first. It would not be beound the scope of things for them work out the logistics of us getting trained to do things filled by our well trained infantry. They have two years plus to get desperate enough to come after us. I just wouldn't put it past them.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Navy_Blue said:
An unfortunate problem with that is......Now you will have a lower calibre of Recruit being trained to lower standards. When I was an Instructor at the Armour School, I could tell by the calibre of the students we got who had Cbt Arms Instructors and who had Navy or Air Force Instructors in Cornwallis and St Jean. It just means that the next stage of their training is now more difficult and perhaps more time consuming for the Students as well as the Staff.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The time being taken to become familiar would have to be compressed, but think of it in the historical context of Canadian units being sent from one sector of the Front to another. It shouldn't take months to understand the local layout; a relieving unit can acquire the information that was passed on by the preceding unit and put it to use. In the past, combat units would be at the front for a period of time and then placed in reserve to recuperate, we should view Canada as this.
A professional army needs to be able to show up and get a handle on the situation in a short amount of time. I think this would allow for a more continuous operational approach to matters without having to actually increase the amount of time overseas.
Going from 6 months to 9 months will make deployments even more of an "Event", something that is built up towards and then torn done upon completion. Instead, a 3 or 4 month deployment (at all levels) will keep the army focused on operational effectiveness, which is something that a small professional army is best suited for (what is required for mission success - not on recreating a CFB everywhere we go).
The inability to move units through the operational area in less than 6 month increments may be an indication of some form of institutional failure.
- Before deployment a CF soldier is already fully trained and familiar with those they will be serving with - if it still takes a couple of months to get up to speed then could there be something wrong with the training?
- Canadian units are replacing Canadian units (or NATO type units) if the information is not being adequately passed on, or not adequately understood, then could the problem be in the command and control or information structure?
If the CF is not capable now of achieving success with shorter deployments, what would it take?
A professional army needs to be able to show up and get a handle on the situation in a short amount of time. I think this would allow for a more continuous operational approach to matters without having to actually increase the amount of time overseas.
Going from 6 months to 9 months will make deployments even more of an "Event", something that is built up towards and then torn done upon completion. Instead, a 3 or 4 month deployment (at all levels) will keep the army focused on operational effectiveness, which is something that a small professional army is best suited for (what is required for mission success - not on recreating a CFB everywhere we go).
The inability to move units through the operational area in less than 6 month increments may be an indication of some form of institutional failure.
- Before deployment a CF soldier is already fully trained and familiar with those they will be serving with - if it still takes a couple of months to get up to speed then could there be something wrong with the training?
- Canadian units are replacing Canadian units (or NATO type units) if the information is not being adequately passed on, or not adequately understood, then could the problem be in the command and control or information structure?
If the CF is not capable now of achieving success with shorter deployments, what would it take?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/23/rerole-afghan.html
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor denied on Monday that there are any plans to have sailors or air force members take part in ground combat in Afghanistan.
Speaking in the House, O'Connor also denied reports that the government would increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months, up from six.
"There is no intention of employing sailors or airmen or airwomen in infantry roles," O'Connor said. "As well, there's no intention of extending the time that people are in Afghanistan if they're in active operations."
O'Connor was responding to reports that the Department of National Defence was considering the option of "re-roling" troops, which means using members from other services of the Canadian Forces in infantry roles.
Last week, Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, said the Armed Forces would be looking outside combat units to find troops.
He said the demands of the mission are prompting military commanders and defence officials to look for new ways of finding personnel.
Continue Article
"We will re-role people that are in the training system right now but who are designed to be something else," Hillier told the Commons defence committee.
"We'll say, 'For the next two or three years, you'll be infantry, and then go back to your primary role.'"
On the weekend, Brig.-Gen Mark Skidmore, who is in charge of army forces in Western Canada, said the military wants to increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months.
Canada has more than 2,000 troops serving in Afghanistan and is in charge o
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor denied on Monday that there are any plans to have sailors or air force members take part in ground combat in Afghanistan.
Speaking in the House, O'Connor also denied reports that the government would increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months, up from six.
"There is no intention of employing sailors or airmen or airwomen in infantry roles," O'Connor said. "As well, there's no intention of extending the time that people are in Afghanistan if they're in active operations."
O'Connor was responding to reports that the Department of National Defence was considering the option of "re-roling" troops, which means using members from other services of the Canadian Forces in infantry roles.
Last week, Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, said the Armed Forces would be looking outside combat units to find troops.
He said the demands of the mission are prompting military commanders and defence officials to look for new ways of finding personnel.
Continue Article
"We will re-role people that are in the training system right now but who are designed to be something else," Hillier told the Commons defence committee.
"We'll say, 'For the next two or three years, you'll be infantry, and then go back to your primary role.'"
On the weekend, Brig.-Gen Mark Skidmore, who is in charge of army forces in Western Canada, said the military wants to increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months.
Canada has more than 2,000 troops serving in Afghanistan and is in charge o
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I wouldn't get to comfy lads.
I can recall the MND saying there was no tanks heading to afghanistan either....
I can recall the MND saying there was no tanks heading to afghanistan either....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I hope this isn't off topic but if Gordon O'Connor and Gen. Hillier are saying two different things. I respectfully submitt that I would be inclined in most cases to give more credibility to the later. I know that is a rather harsh statement, but I think we can look at the difference between a politician in a minority government and a General in charge of an army and see who's motivations for saying what and when lend itself to forthrightness. One is conserned with public opinion, the other is letting people know of the discussions that are going on higher up, so they can prepair and be ready if it is decided a certain way. If I was a sailor and suddenly it was anounced I'm being put on infintry training, I'd be shocked. However, if a little forshadowing was out there, I'd be a little less upset about it.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
True. That being said some common sense has to prevail here, look at the big picture.. I know sailors/airmen were used as soldiers before, but times are nowhere near as desperate now as they were then. I am for the mission in Afghanistan but if it gets to the point where Canada is considering uprooting its entire CF and mobilizing them for a mission in Asia while our NATO allies sit on their A$$es doing nothing then I say it is time to rethink our position.
Personally I don't think we will see sailors take from the fleet to augment the forces over there, I can see guys who signed up as a sailor being rerolled into army trades. But again, you just can't stop the training cycle nearly every trade needs people. We could be looking at a bigger mess if that cycle is disrupted.
Personally I don't think we will see sailors take from the fleet to augment the forces over there, I can see guys who signed up as a sailor being rerolled into army trades. But again, you just can't stop the training cycle nearly every trade needs people. We could be looking at a bigger mess if that cycle is disrupted.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I think sailors have good reason to be shocked.
We all chose what we wanted to do when we signed on the dotted line, that is what a volunteer army is all about. To change the rules out of sheer desperation is only a sign of weakness and violates the trust between government and soldier.
Infantry is not for the weak, the lighthearted or those who joined looking for a trade to fall back on when one decides they have served enough. Its dirty, stinky work with great hardships that cannot be undertaken by those who have not been hardened.
There is only one function, close, engage and neutalize the enemy. It takes years of training to perfect these skills, particualrly in todays high tech combat theatre...
most importantly, it takes desire.
Not back door conscription
We all chose what we wanted to do when we signed on the dotted line, that is what a volunteer army is all about. To change the rules out of sheer desperation is only a sign of weakness and violates the trust between government and soldier.
Infantry is not for the weak, the lighthearted or those who joined looking for a trade to fall back on when one decides they have served enough. Its dirty, stinky work with great hardships that cannot be undertaken by those who have not been hardened.
There is only one function, close, engage and neutalize the enemy. It takes years of training to perfect these skills, particualrly in todays high tech combat theatre...
most importantly, it takes desire.
Not back door conscription
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
At my unit they have started asking more persistently "who wants to go to Afghanistan?"
Our unit has never sent anyone to Afghanistan (Sig_Des please confirm) so this somewhat BIG news. I personally find it hilariously stupid on my units part. After 3 years of trying to get on a tour -- even as a dishwasher in ALERT -- and being met with ridiculous roadblocks (IE "You must be PLQ qualified to go to Afghanistan."). And it's not just me, everyone was getting this BS. So I finally decided to finish my degree at University. And within the first week of school they started asking people. Well I'm in the process of transferring out of that unit But I will be glad to go on tour with my new unit (int) once this school year is done and I have done my trades training.
PS if this new policy (air force and navy doing grunt work) goes ahead, just think, in the future there would be Air Force Generals with more than just an OMM and CD on their DEUs. ;D
I kid I kid... well it is Army.ca
Our unit has never sent anyone to Afghanistan (Sig_Des please confirm) so this somewhat BIG news. I personally find it hilariously stupid on my units part. After 3 years of trying to get on a tour -- even as a dishwasher in ALERT -- and being met with ridiculous roadblocks (IE "You must be PLQ qualified to go to Afghanistan."). And it's not just me, everyone was getting this BS. So I finally decided to finish my degree at University. And within the first week of school they started asking people. Well I'm in the process of transferring out of that unit But I will be glad to go on tour with my new unit (int) once this school year is done and I have done my trades training.
PS if this new policy (air force and navy doing grunt work) goes ahead, just think, in the future there would be Air Force Generals with more than just an OMM and CD on their DEUs. ;D
I kid I kid... well it is Army.ca
Similar threads
