Politics and the Military

[McG]

Intresting how these posts describe and recomend exactly the type of fighting force that the US is deploying to the mideast. It adds a fair amount of credibility to all the arguments made for a new airmobile battalion, helicopters capable of troop airlift, and possibly a JTF2 with a slightly expanded role.

 

[Yard Ape]

This discusion describes the time of force that will be needed in Afganistan because that is the type of force that will be needed for most conflicts in the near future.

:fifty: Yard Ape

 

[Recce41]

Well
I see it this way, we need the SSF back. We were light quick to deploy force. Im a armour guy but I hate tanks. I‘ve spent most of my time in Recce and Loved it. For Airborne and Assult ops they have there use. Fast, can be put down in a small area. I‘ve served as a jumper and did exs that were better than the LEG exs. large scale drops no med to small yes. You can drop a Coyote. We were used as fast support as the 1st Recce Sqn Para was to in Arheim and other drops with the Canadian and British paras in WW2. We require the type of force back. We were better trained and would have more bang for the Buck. Heavy Bges are good for places like the Gulf War but not for the new type of small country peacemaking/keeper ops.
We should have Tanks but in the med Bges which can be used in the normal war role. So train on what we and train to be the best. And for Taskings in summer the Res have to kick some of the ones in their own units to get out and do them and not down at the beach tanning.
Sgt J. CD CDS. com

 

[the patriot]

Recce41,

So with your suggestion that the SSF be brought back, I would assume that you mean along with that comes the Airborne Regiment. Do you think that there is the political will to bring it back to the Order of Battle?!

OSONS (We Dare!)

-the patriot-

 

[Recce41]

Yes Most of us Jumper would think it was great.
Sgt J. Cd,CDS com. RCD ex 1st troop PARA :tank:

 

[Yard Ape]

Analysis: Role of the elite troops
Monday, 24 September, 2001, 11:47 GMT 12:47 UK
BBC News
By defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus
America‘s military preparations seem familiar - carrier battle groups are under way and warplanes are deploying to overseas bases.

But military action, when it comes, is likely to be very different from anything we have seen before. Certainly air power will be used but the real action will be on the ground.

Many experts believe that this could involve one of the largest special forces operations in recent years.

The attacks on Washington and New York killed thousands of people and changed once and for all the reluctance of America‘s political leaders to risk soldiers in ground combat.

Casualty risk

This reluctance to put its troops "in harm‘s way" was often more apparent than real. It is clear, for example, that President George Bush senior was quite prepared to suffer US casualties in the Gulf War.

But as things turned out the ground campaign was so quick that US casualties were in fact minimal. Now, with so many US civilian lives lost, there is no question about accepting the risk of military casualties.

Special forces are the ideal ground troops for what lies ahead.

The Pentagon does not want to invade Afghanistan. It has studied the Soviet army‘s operations there and knows that a long stay would play to the Taleban‘s strengths. It also doesn‘t want to flatten large areas of the country with bombing. There will be no Iraq-style air campaign.

For one thing, there are just not the equivalent targets in Afghanistan - the country is poor and much of its infrastructure has already been destroyed in years of civil war.

But if the US is to carry the international diplomatic coalition it has forged, it needs to make its strikes judicious, clearly focused and with every effort to avoid civilian loss of life - once again suggesting that it would be better to go in on the ground.

Everything of course depends upon adequate intelligence. Many reports suggest that Western special forces - possibly Britain‘s Special Air Service, the SAS, or US units - are already in place on the ground gathering information.

Highly trained

It would not be surprising but defence ministries simply don‘t speak about that type of operation. But if special forces are to play a key role in the days ahead the Pentagon can draw on a variety of highly trained units.

As if to underline the growing importance of this kind of warfare, the US Special Operations Command was established as a separate entity in 1987. It is responsible for army, navy and air force special forces.

They include the 75th Ranger Regiment - the premier light infantry unit in the US Army and the so-called Delta Force, an elite anti-terrorist unit.

Special forces from America‘s allies - especially some of its Nato allies might also be involved with particular attention focused on Britain‘s SAS which has long-operational experience of this part of the world and is widely regarded by professionals as "one of the best in the business".

Close-quarter struggle

The exact nature of the operation is unclear. It might involve sweeps of key areas of Afghanistan or it might involve the seizure of territory and the holding of a "box" for some days while other teams scoured the terrain for the hiding places of Osama Bin Laden‘s followers.

High-technology will give the US forces many advantages over their Soviet equivalents.

They have highly sophisticated helicopters with tailor-made navigational and electronic systems to insert, supply and recover special forces teams. But this will be no "Rambo" movie.

Afghan fighters know the terrain well and will see themselves as confronting an invading force.

Technology is important but is not always relevant in this grim and determined close-quarters struggle.

US and other Western leaders are already warning of potential casualties readying public opinion to realise that this really is a new kind of wafare from what has been seen in the past decade.

 

[Gordon Angus Mackinlay]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The last posting stated that the Australian and NZ Defence Forces had no counter-terrorist ability, both nations actually do.

AUSTRALIA The SAS Regiment in Perth, WA, has 3 sabre squadrons (1, 2 and 3) each of 3 troops (30 men each). These are in CT (black) role 1 (this is reorganised into the TAG - Tactical Assault Group role), conventional warfare (green) 1, and training for CT 1, each sqn rotates through the black, green and training cycles. The 3 other sqns in the regt (Base, Support (formerly training) and signals), provide direct support to the 3 sqn roles.

NEW ZEALAND The SAS Group, has 2 sqns, each 3 troops (12 or 16 men each). 1 Sqn CT, the other general war. It has similar support elements to the Aust SASR, allowing for difference in size (600 to 180).

In both organisations, the basic sqn troop has a specific role; vehicle mobility, air operations, water, with a patrol from each troop receiving training in mountain techniques (if they were on full establishment each organisation would have a 4th troop per sqn with the mountain role).

In Australia, the 4th Battalion (Commando), The Royal Australian Regiment (organised as a HQ coy and 2 strong cdo coys) was to have taken over the CT (and the CSAR - Combat Search and Rescue, now the RAAF Airfield Defence organisation responsibility) role. However, due to our chronic shortage of infantry, it was converted into a light inf bn to tour with the UN in East Timor. It is not sure what is to happen to this unit as the minimum requirement is for 4 lt inf bns (we have 3)!

3rd Battalion (Parachute), The RAR, is the reduced establishment lt inf bn element of the parachute group (light gun fd bty, engineers, log and medical). A expensive unit to run, but, has a vital role in the defence of Australia. With its very high mobility and quick reaction - just what Canada needs for the same major problems of distance.

Until the NZ Labor Party loonies started their major destruction of the NZ Defence Force, had a para rifle coy and a commando (Ranger traditional title) coy in the organisation of the 2 lt inf bns.

In regard to the Belgium Armed Forces, their Parachute Commando Brigade has 3 lt inf bns (of Reuglar soldiers) with full support units, and a ‘SAS‘ type coy. The requirement for CT operations within the nation now comes from their recently formed Federal Police Service.

Yours,
Jock in Sydney

 

[Yard Ape]

That sounds like what Canada needs. A 4 Squadron SAS modeled after the Austrailians and incluning the Mountain Ops Sqn. Replace the JTF 2.

Yard Ape

 

[portcullisguy]

Originally posted by the patriot:
[qb]I guess we already have that with the Para Companies in each of the Light Infantry Battalions of the RCR, PPCLI, and the Van Doos. As for amphibious ops, they try to address that with various exercises from what I‘ve seen at the Reserve level. The danger with over-specialization is that people then start to get slack with basic soldiering. At the end of the day, once you‘ve hit the ground running or landed on the beach..... everyday pepper-potting will save your rear end. If you can‘t even do that, you‘re pretty much dead.

-the patriot- [/qb]

Sorry to revive an old discussion... I am new here, though, and thought I‘d catch up on the old discussions (so I don‘t repeat anything already beaten to death).

One thing I notice is a lot of talk about "para" this or "specialization" that or "JTF" here or what have you. And, I certainly agree to some extent.

But, the patriot is absolutely right: The most essential, fundamental task of combat arms soldiers is to destroy the enemy. How it is done is not as important as doing it.

Jumping out of airplanes, or swimming, or amphibious landing, or walking, or driving a AFV are only ways of getting to the battle. Once there, it is essential that every soldier know how to "finish", i.e. shoot the enemy.

Over-emphasis on specialization or non-essential skills is bad if it allows basic skills to deteriorate.

 

[ender]

Agreed. The level of marksmanship (at least around here) is pretty pathetic.

Most people don‘t know how to use thier own sights. People are walking around with thier sights in a position where they can‘t even see through them. I‘m a pretty crappy shot, but becuase I know how to adjust my own sights I can hit the target at the 500m snap. That makes me one of the better shots in my regiment. Why don‘t they teach everyone how to do this? Sometimes, even the range staff who are adjusting helping to zero the weapons are pretty clueless.

Here, many of the instructors have no idea of the basics of marksmanship. You still see people getting yelled at for putting thier mags on the ground.

If you can‘t shoot the enemy, you are pretty ineffective as a soldier. More emphasis should be placed on warfighting skills. How many people here have a long butt who need one? A left handed helmet strap? Why isn‘t this stuff availiable?

 

[Yard Ape]

It is available. You just have to ask for it. There is a problem with your local supply if it cannot be gotten to you.

Yard Ape

 

[ender]

It‘s not availible to me. (maybe I should bug my section commander more) I think a lot of people don‘t even know it exists.

 

[JRMACDONALD]

Everything is in the system. ask for it!!!!( demand it!!!!)

 

[enfield]

They‘re definatley in teh system. I know lots of guys that have extra long or shortened butts.
The biggest problem is not enough time at the range.. once a year doesn‘t really help much. I‘ve always wondered how important the range really was to fighting - the marksmanship principles are going to go to **** on the two-way range. Live fire ex‘s, jungle lanes, they seem more important.

 

[TOW2B]

The conventional range is a tool meant to reienforce the marksmanship principals.The convention range provides the repetition required for the principals to become second nature.It in no way can simulate the rigours of combat but it is not meant too that is why we do field firing.The time spent on the range is important but it must not be the end of training.It is fine and dandy to hit a arget at 500m or what ever but not hit one at 50m after a 300m section attack. People bitch about not getting enough time on the range yeah, that is true but compare that to the amount of people that bitch when you get to the range!!!! You gotta wonder sometimes.
Personally I train more on my own than I do with my unit, people think I am wierd for spending every weekend on the range that I can but I know exactly what I am capable of and ow much it has improved me.this may not be an option for all but any shooting is better than none.A little trick I learned from a "Secret Squirrel",use a BB gun to practice insinctive shooting cheap as hell and pretty fun when you can nail a dragon fly from your webbing at 10 paces when waiting for the next relay to shoot.
It is a matter of commitment,I am a SNCO in the Regs so if I can make time to shoot, alot of the others out there should be able to as well.You cannot expect your units to have the money or time to do it for you.

 

[ender]

You have the resources to train on your own, a lot of who live in cities (especially Liberal anti-gun cities like Toronto) don‘t have those options. I can‘t afford to buy guns or even a permit. And seeing as I have no backyard and live in a basement apartment, a BB gun isn‘t a viable option either. It‘s not about time.

I don‘t think it‘s unreasonable to expect the Army to train it‘s soldiers how to shoot.

 

[TOW2B]

The military does teach you how to shoot.The problem is with the units and higher.Apparently Brigade figures that it is more practical to send all SNCOs away on taskings rather than allow them to remain with the units to do their job which is to teach and coach.Does your unit have a Musketry Officer or a Master Coach ...Chances are it doesn‘t.Don‘t blame the military as a whole it is the units that are dropping the ball,espescially the SNCOs who have the responsibility to maintain the marksmanship standards of a unit.An hour of dry firing is equal to an hour of live fire with all the benifits.

 

[ender]

My unit does have a musketry NCO, he‘s small arms instructor qualified and goes to CFSAC every year. He‘s also my Dad. Our unit won‘t give him time to teach anything. They won‘t give the rifle team time to train. Last unit warrier qual shoot they tasked him out to do assault boats for an infantry excercise. Yes, my unit dropped the ball. But the situation seems to be same (or significantly worse) in most of the other units in the brigade. If nearly every individual unit (with some notable exceptions ie. Lorne Scotts) is dropping the ball, then it is the army‘s fault for not making it a priority.

 

[rceme_rat]

I think the training problem is evident -- we‘ve tasked the hell out of understrength units, and sent everyone away to augment deployed units. This has left a bunch of directionless and fatigued individuals.

Sort of like driving your car with the oil light on with the intention of doing something about it. Never gets done until "without warning", the engine seizes.

Funny, that happens exactly when you need it the most.


Don‘t blame the leadership for this one - it goes up to the Minister who still seems to think we‘re better prepared for operations now than a decade ago.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I know lots of guys that have extra long or shortened butts.

I can‘t believe you all let this one go by.