Scott Taylor just ripped into the military on CBC News - Morning....

[Cdn Blackshirt]

To paraphrase: "Canada has been playing pretend with light armoured vehicles that simply cannot stand up to the new high intensity battlefield.   To make things worse we were on track to buy even more lighter vehicles.   What will happen now under Hillier is a rationalization process where we look at our current inventory and find out what works and what doesn't and hopefully make procurement adjustments from there."

Of note, my read was that tone was somewhat positivie in that although it took issue with previous NDHQ leadership/politicians, this was a huge opportunity to set things right....


Matthew.    

 

[George Wallace]

I suppose it may 'slam' NDHQ and the Government, but at the same time it may wake up the Public to the real situation.  So many of the Public think that we 'actually do have an effective Armed Force' with real 'modern' equipment to fulfil our tasks and respond to any future emergency.  Perhaps they should be told that we don't have the aircraft to protect our Air Space, that we don't have tanks, nor do we have an effective compliment of Naval personnel and ships to defend our coastlines. 

GW

 

[S McKee]

To paraphrase: "Canada has been playing pretend with light armoured vehicles that simply cannot stand up to the new high intensity battlefield.   To make things worse we were on track to buy even more lighter vehicles.   What will happen now under Hillier is a rationalization process where we look at our current inventory and find out what works and what doesn't and hopefully make procurement adjustments from there."

Of note, my read was that tone was somewhat positivie in that although it took issue with previous NDHQ leadership/politicians, this was a huge opportunity to set things right....


Matthew.    

I' m not a big fan of Taylor but if your take on what he said is right, unfortunately his analysis is somewhat correct.  We can only war fight with the equipment the government deems fit to give us. Gen Hillier's job is to make it as effective as possible. The problem however is not with our commanders and NDHQ, they follow orders, and I'm sure they advise the government about our military capabilities or lack thereof. The problem lies with a Canadian public who doesn't know the difference between a MBT and a MLBU and the prevailing attitude that the CF is nothing more than an a glorified Boy Scout troop. This week Paul Cellucci was giving a speech at a university in Ont (I can't remember which one) wherein he commented on Canada's military, he got a cool reception and someone in the crowd told him to mind his business that heath care was the burning issue on Canadians minds. Ah the innocence of the damned.  J.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, I think Scott Taylor is right in some respects and wrong in others.   We are pretending that we still wish to fight the high-intensity maneuver warfare game although we are totally unequipped for it and the current war is entirely unsuited for it.

I personally feel that the Armoured Corps is ahead of the Infantry with regards to this, they've realized that without a tank, they can't play the "armoured fist" role and so they are adopting the Recce/Cav "screening/flanking" role, which is a very necessary one (it was what the old horse Cav did for much of the 19th century when it was realized that horse mounted cavalry could not be used against a mass of Infantry armed with rifled muskets).

The Infantry still builds up for the "Combat Team" attacks with it's LAV III, despite the fact that the Combat Team no longer exists.   How the infantry will be able to carry out a close-in, mechanized combat team assault without a MBT seems to be a good question.

What can we have to offer?   With current fiscal realities, we can't hope to "cover all bases".   We must use are strongest asset - our highly trained personnel.   Our mech kit is geared to the "flanking, screening" role of the Cavalry of old.   So in that respect, we still can play the "high intensity game" within a coalition environment (which was the only way we've ever been able to play it, even in the World Wars).   Just as the USMC LAV-equipped LAR's were vital in Iraq, we can find a place to get the most out of our highly skilled soldiers with the kit-loadout that their given.

As for our Light Infantry, they have a place to - as OP APOLLO clearly demonstrated.   The CF needs to quit toying with the issue and firmly set in place Light Infantry doctrine, structures, units and career patterns.   As many of the experienced Infantry-types in these forums have alluded to, if you want to be good at one you can't do both (mech and light).   Our Infantry soldiers are highly regarded in the "Light" aspect, and we must put that asset where it will count the most by turning our Infantry into a Tier III SOC organization.   These units will have a clear and well valued role as direct support for other Special Operations Forces which, as most people know, are the important (and frontrunning) Fourth "branch" of a military force in the current conflict against insurgents, thugs and terrorists.

My overall guess right now for getting our bang-for-the-buck - Rerole three more Infantry battalions as "Light", for a total of six, and merge the remaining three "Mech" battalions with the three Armoured Regiments to form and strengthen the Cav function.   This can give us roughly six battalions of each capability to form battlegroups/task forces for operational deployment.   It will allow us to deploy forces in any contingency along the spectrum of conflict as well as having soldiers trained and prepared to fight in battles of every density (remember, all war is high intensity to the soldiers getting shot at), from low-density guerrilla warfare/terrorist hunting to high-density mech battles in which we can serve a vital "screen/flank" role to a larger allied Mechanized formation.

Our strongest asset is our highly trained soldiers, not our equipment, manpower pool, or neutrality status.   My thoughts are that we should orient our force structure in a way that uses this asset best.

Infanteer

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"The Infantry still builds up for the "Combat Team" attacks with it's LAV III, despite the fact that the Combat Team no longer exists.  How the infantry will be able to carry out a close-in, mechanized combat team assault without a MBT seems to be a good question."

Like lambs to the slaughter.

 

[Zipper]

I suppose it may 'slam' NDHQ and the Government, but at the same time it may wake up the Public to the real situation.   So many of the Public think that we 'actually do have an effective Armed Force' with real 'modern' equipment to fulfil our tasks and respond to any future emergency.   Perhaps they should be told that we don't have the aircraft to protect our Air Space, that we don't have tanks, nor do we have an effective compliment of Naval personnel and ships to defend our coastlines.  

GW

I agree to a point. However I would go even further in that many Canadians actually know how bad off our military is, but just don't give a dam. I've heard on so many occasions "Why do we even need a military? The US will protect us." Which then sends me into foam at the mouth convulsions.

Infanteer: I agree with you in principal. But I think we are still able to hold a heavier role. Not right away mind you, but hopefully down the road.

I agree with you on the lighter Infantry though. By getting rid of the Airborne really screwed ourselves in that role. So we should (wishes of course) bring back the airborn (maybe just a Battalion sized unit), and make the PPCLI into what their name suggests, as well as converting either the RCR or the R22R. Of course this would make for a total of 7 light battalions. Or maybe keep one Batt each from the above two regiments as Mech?

CFL: Agreed on that point.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

At the rate its going LAV wise 2VP could go 2 mech and 1 light coy.   So perhaps you could rerole each coy every 6 months similar to 3VP in relation to jump coys/mountain ops/ etc.

However having 6 Light BNs may make for a "slower" concept which goes against the CDS' rapid reaction force.   Slower because we don't have the helicopters to support them.

 

[Infanteer]

Like lambs to the slaughter.

That is the conclusion I got to when reading the AAR's of exercises and TEWT's that involved a force without the traditional firepower, mobility, and protection of the MBT doing a conventional attack against a fully mechanized opponent.

Infanteer: I agree with you in principal. But I think we are still able to hold a heavier role. Not right away mind you, but hopefully down the road.

Oh, I fully agree with you - Iraq has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the MBT and "high-density" warfare are still brutally relevent.   If I could wave my wand and spend the budget surplus, we would be cruising around in some sort of 70 ton machine of death.   But I can't do that.

Since we don't have that capability and we won't in the near future, we may as well quit kidding ourselves and forming our doctrine and organization around it.   Let's put our resources where they can make a real impact.

I agree with you on the lighter Infantry though. By getting rid of the Airborne really screwed ourselves in that role. So we should (wishes of course) bring back the airborn (maybe just a Battalion sized unit), and make the PPCLI into what their name suggests, as well as converting either the RCR or the R22R. Of course this would make for a total of 7 light battalions. Or maybe keep one Batt each from the above two regiments as Mech?

I don't want to debate specifics here, it wasn't the intent of my post.   I was trying to allude to the fact that it would be possible to field a force that   can be very capable in two seperate tasks (the Cav Screen/Flanking and the Light Infantry SOC) while ensuring that each capability is equally viable in today's hectic readiness cycle (hence, 6+6) with a large enough "pool" of trained soldiers.   I think we need more then a battalion-sized unit because the capability is in such high demand right now that we would burn the unit out in no time.

At the rate its going LAV wise 2VP could go 2 mech and 1 light coy.   So perhaps you could rerole each coy every 6 months similar to 3VP in relation to jump coys/mountain ops/ etc.

Again, I asserted that the capability would have to be distinct (at the Unit or even Brigade level) because, as many of the Infantry guys in the Infantry forum have pointed out, it is not a good idea to "rotate" or try and force guys to do both.   May as well tailor each force to it's main task and maximize our expertise in those functions.

However having 6 Light BNs may make for a "slower" concept which goes against the CDS' rapid reaction force.   Slower because we don't have the helicopters to support them.

Yes, lack of air mobility would be a definate short-term limitation.   Until we get some real tactical and strategic transport (which seems to be on everybody's list these days), we should tailor this Infantry SOC capability, like the Cavalry capability, towards fitting into a coalition environment where we can make a important contributions in a larger Allied support network (Using US Chinooks in Afghanistan is a good example) .   I know it doesn't give us the full range of autonomy that we should have and desire, but that is a constriction of resources, not of the capabilites of our soldiers, and we'll have to work around that for now.

 

[DBA]

Scott Taylor makes few good points mixed in with bads ones. Good for addressing concerns and bringing issues to light but not really useful for solving them.

An example. During the latest Iraq war when the offensive slowed during the sandstorms he was on TVO. His line was the Americans would have a hard time taking Baghdad because there were sandbag emplacements on every street corner among other things. Now it didn't take much thought to realize this was far off the mark. First they were put in place to control the population not as defensive mesasures and second a street corner usually has a long line of sight down the road. Not a good thing if the enemy has longer range weapons than you. A pile of sandbags isn't protection from 25mm cannon fire from a bradley let alone a HEAT round from an abrams.

Moderator edit to remove personal attacks.

 

[Zipper]

Scott Taylor makes few good points mixed in with bads ones. Good for addressing concerns and bringing issues to light but not really useful for solving them.

Well you could say that maybe he says to much? The fact that he is there shining a light on what he see's and is informed about is a good thing. No critic is right (or even close) all of the time, but we still need them to make others aware. To many people take the status quo as being gospel.

Now for another question to go along with Infanteer's statements. Can we make these "proposed" changes while still in the field of operations? Or should we shut down all foreign operations and allow time for rest, refit, and reorganization?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I thought they already slowed down momentum.  We (CF) are ramping up for 2006 from what I've been told.

 

[Zipper]

Ga! If thats what you called "slowed down"? I'd hate to see what ramped up means...

 

[STONEY]

One point i'd like to make is that sometimes  (the Military) are their own worst enemy.
Its been said here that our leaders duty is to advise thair political masters what the Forces require.
Now i've been around for a few dog & pony shows for touring MP's & VIP's and found myself biting my tongue because what the briefer was telling them was a load of crap. The main purpose was to tell the tourists what they wanted to hear that their military was a lean mean fighting machine and so the tourists blissfully wandered off back to Ottawa thinking everything was just peachy. As long as a piece of kit makes lots of loud noise a civvy is impressed , remember he doesn't know the difference between a Sherman tank & a Abrams . I could never figure out why we didn't tell them the truth , that kit A. does such & such but its several models or marks behind what most third world countries are using etc. etc..
Come to think of it ,the only General Officer i heard tell a group of MP'S the facts of life was forced to resign shortly thereafter.  To top it all off,  i don't think that the pap turned out by Public Affairs helps matters much either.  Maybe they should be shown a LSVW parking lot and given a explanation as to why they didn't seem to go anywhere. Instead of trying to impress these tourists, they should go back to Ottawa with questions for the caucas & cabinet.

 

[Zipper]

Amen brother!

 

[marlene]

I'm a civilian and know very little about our military. I take exception with the comment that "the problem lies with a Canadian public who doesn't know the difference between a MBT and a MLBU" Who should inform the public? Is it my duty to come searching on this website to find out about the military? I agree that we know very little but that knowledge has to come from someone other than ourselves searching it out. I am here because I do want to learn.

Scott Taylor seems to generally be well and truly disliked. I have very little idea why however does it not make sense to have someone like Scott Taylor to be writing about the military and informing the ignorant public (like myself)????  And if the information that comes from Mr. Taylor is inaccurate or disliked for whatever reason, then who will give us the information we require?

We need someone to inform us of Canada's military - there are many people in this country (like myself) who would like to be educated and who, even knowing the small amount they do are (for lack of a better word) pro military. Unfortunately, the Canadians who are asking questions like "do we even need a military" need to be educated too. An occasional speech by some official isn't going to cut it in terms of education.

merlane
p.s. I give - what's the difference between an MBT and a MLBU - actually what is an MBT and a MLBU?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

;D

MBT = Main Battle Tank

MLBU = Mobile Laundry and Bath Unit

You're right. The CF does a lousy job promoting itself.  :

 

[silentbutdeadly]

its hard to agree with anything he says , right or wrong esp after his i was caputured in iraq saga, which most of the men and women in my unit believe was just him pissing off some locals with his charming personality. If you have something to say , also come up with good solutions scott!

 

[S McKee]

I'm a civilian and know very little about our military. I take exception with the comment that "the problem lies with a Canadian public who doesn't know the difference between a MBT and a MLBU" Who should inform the public? Is it my duty to come searching on this website to find out about the military? I agree that we know very little but that knowledge has to come from someone other than ourselves searching it out. I am here because I do want to learn.

Scott Taylor seems to generally be well and truly disliked. I have very little idea why however does it not make sense to have someone like Scott Taylor to be writing about the military and informing the ignorant public (like myself)????   And if the information that comes from Mr. Taylor is inaccurate or disliked for whatever reason, then who will give us the information we require?

We need someone to inform us of Canada's military - there are many people in this country (like myself) who would like to be educated and who, even knowing the small amount they do are (for lack of a better word) pro military. Unfortunately, the Canadians who are asking questions like "do we even need a military" need to be educated too. An occasional speech by some official isn't going to cut it in terms of education.

merlane
p.s. I give - what's the difference between an MBT and a MLBU - actually what is an MBT and a MLBU?

Oh Merlane, Merlane, don't you see? If I was to ask an American the same question he/she would be able to tell me, because they actually care about their AF. While I agree to some extent the CF does a lousy job promoting itself, it's really your responsibility as a citizen to learn about your own military, after all, their your fellow Canadians, and their out there representing you. Glad you joined the form. J

 

[marlene]

Jumper - you've made an excellent point here - however, although I agree that Americans know far more about their military than we do, I believe much of their knowledge, if only initially, is fuelled by a government that continually puts positive information out there. As a Canadian, I don't receive that from our government.  I get occasional information from a media that has its own personal agenda, but very little else. If my only constant  information source is from a media with its own bias, I may take what they are saying as the be all. My curiosity is not even stirred to dig further and find out what our military is really all about because the media is not saying anything to whet my appetite for further research. I know that some may immediately take offence that an appetite may have to be whetted however for those civilans who aren't particularly interested initially,  it could help them to want to find out more. If I heard more about Wow! - our soldiers won medals in Afghanistan? Fantastic - that makes me so proud to be a Canadian - what other great things are our military doing? I want to know more.

Unfortuantely, our main sources of information seem to be the Scott Taylors and the media. And apparently Scott Taylor is not the most popular guy on the block. So I can only assume that the reason is because his information is screwed up?Inaccurate? Negative? Perhaps it would be beneficial to have some alternative views presented.

Merlane

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I think basically the last few govt.'s have thought that if the people actually knew how underfunded the military was in terms of equipment and how the personall do so much with so little that the backlash might force them to spend more on it.