Should the Canadian Forces divide the Armoured Soldier trade?

[SevenSixTwo]

Yes, I know we are a very small military but we are talking about two seperate occupations here. The shock and awe fighter vs. the recce types.

Cavalry Scout

vs.

Armoured Tank Crewman




Pro:

The Cavalry Scout can get more specialized training towards his role. This occupation is also more viable with the upcoming TAPV program but useless unless Canada keeps the Coyote or picks a replacement such as a LAV-H. The U.S. uses Up Armoured Humvees and Bradley's

It allows Tank Crewmen to receive more specialized training as well and to be focus trained.

It allows the Canadian Forces to put a height restriction on the Tank Crewman trade so people entering this trade actually can't be too tall to drive the damn tank! (Leopard 2)

It allows civvy's to choose what they actually want.




Cons:

We are in the Canadian Forces change takes around 10 years as well as a administration nightmare.

The Govt might make regiments geared towards one occupation or another rather than using their brains and keeping all regiments balanced.

Might not have the manpower/funding for this idea to work at all especially with a possible 2011 budget cut upcoming



Anyways, tell me what you think and I know obviously some of you are going to jump down my throat for this and be like "well I am supercrewman so fuck this idea! I drive a tlav, Leo C2, Leo 2, Coyote and every other god damned AFV daily".

 

[greentoblue]

I'm going to be careful to stay in my lane here; suffice to say that ahere is a real world example that could be looked at to see if its is relevant:  the Australian Army already breaks down the Armoured trooper jobs into the categories you mentions:  Light Armoured Vehicle crewman and Main Battle Tank crewman for the reg force, and Light Cavalry Scout for the reserves.  Wesley Downunder might be able to shed more light on this. 
http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/army/combatAndSecurity/

 

[1feral1]

During my 15+ yrs in the the Corps of RAEME in the Army here, I was psoted with RAA (Arty), RAInf (Inf) [two postings], RAAC (Armd), and CSS (CSSB).  Fessing up, the highlight of my entire time in was being a Lighthorseman, proudly wearing the emu plumes from 2005-2009, with the 2/14th LHR (QMI), were we travelled in exclusivly in LAVs. That posting took me to the MEAO, and from Puckapunyal in Victoria to Shoalwater Bay here in Queensland, and up to the territory at Robbo, near Darwin.

I am out of my lane WRT how things work for the trade of Cav vs Tankies, shy of the GMK on the fundimentals as mentioned above.  But I will say, if it works here and is successful, why not have a look on how its done, and take it from there. Our Defence Forces have many things in common, and also we're chalk and cheese culturally, that I notice in a very VERY big way. 

Regards from a tropical fall night here on the island,

OWDU

 

[George Wallace]

Anyways, tell me what you think and I know obviously some of you are going to jump down my throat for this and be like "well I am supercrewman so fuck this idea! I drive a tlav, Leo C2, Leo 2, Coyote and every other god damned AFV daily".

I'm not going to jump down your throat for those reasons.  I will for your total lack of experience though.

Why do people who don't have any experience in what they are talking about seem to feel the need to propose changes to things that they know absolutely nothing about?

First off, do you have any idea of what a Armour Recce soldier does, or what a Tanker does?  You have been posting that you are considering a CT from the Reserves to the Regular Force, so I would say that there is a 99 per cent chance that you have no clue what either does, nor how much it takes to cross train an Armour soldier if the need arises. 

Your "Cons" pretty much sum up the discussion:

Cons:

We are in the Canadian Forces change takes around 10 years as well as a administration nightmare.

With changes approx ever ten or twenty years to the Armour Corps, your suggestion would mean the loss of many hard learned skill sets.  The most recent example was the Hillier years when we almost lost the "tank" and had to bring back many old tankers to relearn the skill sets that we were loosing.

The Govt might make regiments geared towards one occupation or another rather than using their brains and keeping all regiments balanced.

The Gov't has already more or less done this to the LdSH (RC).  Will we loose this Reg't if the Gov't decides to do away with tanks again?  We have already seen them do away with Regular Force Armour units like the 8 CH(PL) in the 1990's, and the Fort Garry Horse in the 1970's.  Due to the situation with Quebec, the most junior Reg't may be all that we are left with, some day in the future.  Once again we will see skill sets lost, and we may have to probably have to relearn those skills from scratch at a much later date, which may mean the loss of lives needlessly in a time of conflict. 

Might not have the manpower/funding for this idea to work at all especially with a possible 2011 budget cut upcoming

This "con" is the current/existing situation and probably the reason we are what we are today, and will continue to be well into the future.

 

[SevenSixTwo]

You don't need to be a genius to see Canada is sending it's soldiers overtime on their occupations.

The newest stroke of intellectual ideas would be ACCIS which, combines three jobs into one.

I wouldn't be wrong in saying we are one of the few militarys in the world that use very general combat arm's occupations (ex Australia/US can pick what type of infantry or even what type of armoured vehicle you wish to operate).

If you say it can't be done due to size the ADF is 28,000 Regulars (correct me if im wrong OWDU) while the CF is 68,000 Regulars.

 

[George Wallace]

Perhaps you can fill us all in on your personal experience in these matters.  What are your qualifications to be proposing change?  Or are you one of these people who seriously thinks that change for the sake of change is a good thing, even if you are unqualified to make those decisions?

I ask; as quite often we get a person (sometimes a troll) on this site who has been playing "Armchair General" watching the news, perhaps playing airsoft, or playing some video game, and has some grandiose ideas of what the CF should look like.  You have a blank profile, a pretentious screen name, and no mention of what your experience really is.  So please enlighten us as to who you are, and why you really think we should "Specialize" Trades?  There are many reasons why we shouldn't, and we will eventually cover most of those as we continue with this thread.

 

[SevenSixTwo]

Perhaps you can fill us all in on your personal experience in these matters.  What are your qualifications to be proposing change?  Or are you one of these people who seriously thinks that change for the sake of change is a good thing, even if you are unqualified to make those decisions?

I ask; as quite often we get a person (sometimes a troll) on this site who has been playing "Armchair General" watching the news, perhaps playing airsoft, or playing some video game, and has some grandiose ideas of what the CF should look like.  You have a blank profile, a pretentious screen name, and no mention of what your experience really is.  So please enlighten us as to who you are, and why you really think we should "Specialize" Trades?  There are many reasons why we shouldn't, and we will eventually cover most of those as we continue with this thread.

PERSEC as you already know. However, feel free to PM me if you really want to know.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

PERSEC?  Then instead of revealing your "true" identity, how's about you fill out some of your profile to give us an idea?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We've already done this. Go do a search and read that thread first, then add to it.

Some things you may want to consider is cost, course development time, where to find the cadre without robbing the Regiments, equipment availability, etc. It's called Project Development.

'Why don't we do this?' without figuring the logistics and turmoil, and proposing reasoned input on it, is akin to saying 'I think pigs should fly' without figuring how or the consequences of not carrying an umbrella.

So proposing something, without offering the nuts and bolts of how, is useless.

I also think you citing PERSEC for your proposition is lame. Fill in your profile if you want experienced discussion. I'm not PMing you. If you have the need to explain you can PM me.

Milnet.ca Staff