Story states a new book claims Canadian efforts fell short in Kandahar

[LieutenantPrivate]

Actually, the problem is exactly the opposite of how you have described it.  If anything, we have far too few logisticians and our "fighters" pay lip service to logistical planning.

2, 800 troops in Kandahar. 600-800 fighting troops.  Im curious as to how you can claim that?

 

[Sythen]

2, 800 troops in Kandahar. 600-800 fighting troops.  Im curious as to how you can claim that?

Maybe first you can fill in your profile a bit so we will know what your experience is, and where your knowledge comes from.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

2, 800 troops in Kandahar. 600-800 fighting troops.  Im curious as to how you can claim that?

I meant that both in the context of KAF and globally in the CF.

Much of that Kandahar tail was not, as I understand it, logisticians.  There were legions of Staff Officers,  medical folks,  Signallers, morale and welfare people, aircrew and MPs in addition to the logisticians.  Some of the people on the list are useful (in the right quantities)- others, not so much.

Globally, the CF is crappy at Logistics.  We treat support trades as a dumping ground for those who cannot "make it" in the Combat Arms or other operator occupations.  We talk down to them and often denigrate their contributions.  We cut their establishments to save bayonets and then wonder why no one can fix trucks or deliver ammo on time.  We almost never do a proper support estimate for an operation or exercise and then wonder why things are such a shambles when we deploy.

That is what I mean.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I have to agree.  The problem wasnt with the individual Canadian troops.  They wanted to fight.  The problem is the lack of aggression and risk adverse nature of some of our leadership.  Argue what you want, but its true.  We are very much a logistics-based army.  Too many pencil-pushers, not enough fighters.
Hate away....

And in all your worldly experience, do you have even the most basic clue on how many people it takes to support one combat soldier?

Wait, let me answer that for you.

Obviously not.

However, I'd bet that you'd be one of the first to spout off, piss and moan if you didn't get your bullets, beans or gas, missed your leave, didn't get paid, had no med or mechanical support amongst a myriad of other things that all those other people do so that combat soldiers can concentrate on doing their job without worrying about that 'other' stuff.

 

[Infanteer]

Just as I would not be afraid to compare Totalize to Goodwood, I would welcome an objective analysis of the early British operations, tactics and equipment in Helmand against the performance of TFs 1-06 through 3-07.

They are starting to pop up - I've seen a few on RUSI.  They aren't particularly endearing.  The UK got caught with its pants down in '06 - there were Canadian sub-units that had to fight their way into British TI as the Paras were fixed and in danger of being overrun.

 

[Old Sweat]

2, 800 troops in Kandahar. 600-800 fighting troops.  Im curious as to how you can claim that?

Could you tell us where you got those figures? My reading is that we had about 2800 troops overall including those not at KAF. Besides the three companies with the battle group, there was another with the PRT. Add on the two armoured squadrons, the field squadron and the artillery - guns and STA both - as well as the OMLT and the SOF and the loggies, etc who regularly ventured out, and the situation looks a lot different from what you painted.

As for tooth to tail ratio, we now have nine battalions out of a regular force of under 20,000. When I joined we had 13 battalions out of a regular army of 48,000. We probably are too lean, but I don't know how to fix it, or if it is fixable.

 

[GAP]

We had a 1 - 9 tooth to tail ratio way back when....I don't think the CF is anywhere close....

 

[LieutenantPrivate]

And in all your worldly experience, do you have even the most basic clue on how many people it takes to support one combat soldier?

Wait, let me answer that for you.

Obviously not.

However, I'd bet that you'd be one of the first to spout off, piss and moan if you didn't get your bullets, beans or gas, missed your leave, didn't get paid, had no med or mechanical support amongst a myriad of other things that all those other people do so that combat soldiers can concentrate on doing their job without worrying about that 'other' stuff.

Support staff dont win wars or hold ground.  Combat troops do. 
I never meant to slag supprt staff/logistics.  Every military needs them...and I mean that, we NEED them.  But they will not "win" the war.

As for the figures and where I got them, the figures are drawn from that article/book.  If the figures are skewed and I am incorrect I apologize. 

 

[aesop081]

  But they will not "win" the war.

The war will not be "won" without both.

The war WILL be lost, without effective logistics.

 

[LieutenantPrivate]

The war will not be "won" without both.

The war WILL be lost, without effective logistics.

True.  However, I can just as easily replace "effective logisitics" with "effective combat troops" and the quote would still ring true. 

So, we established that we NEED both.  Without security you cannot conduct your logisitics and vice-versa.
But the problem being stated here is we tried to do too much with too little.  And the author highlights the example of the Brits in Helmand.  The fact is, we needed more combat troops (which we could not supply...and if we did have them that would = more logisitics troops) and a more agressive posture (which our leadership didn't have). 

Debate on, I appreciate everyones input.  Some great things being said on here.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Support staff dont win wars or hold ground.  Combat troops do. 
I never meant to slag supprt staff/logistics.  Every military needs them...and I mean that, we NEED them.  But they will not "win" the war.

As for the figures and where I got them, the figures are drawn from that article/book.  If the figures are skewed and I am incorrect I apologize.

John 11:35
:facepalm:

 

[LieutenantPrivate]

John 11:35
:facepalm:

?
Should I dig up a bible somewhere?

 

[Infanteer]

Wars will also clearly be lost without the civilian staff required to man the Tim Hortons, the numerous civilian clerks on call to ensure everyone gets a 3 week holiday in Australia in the middle of the war, and the multiple Visits staff required due to the fact that every second day features people coming to get their boots dirty in the BSA (despite the fact that visits are simply a distraction on leadership and staff - Monty had it right by banning all visits to 8th Army)....

 

[LieutenantPrivate]

Wars will also clearly be lost without the civilian staff required to man the Tim Hortons, the numerous civilian clerks on call to ensure everyone gets a 3 week holiday in Australia in the middle of the war, and the multiple Visits staff required due to the fact that every second day features people coming to get their boots dirty in the BSA (despite the fact that visits are simply a distraction on leadership and staff - Monty had it right by banning all visits to 8th Army)....

 

[Journeyman]

Some great things being said on here.

Yes, notwithstanding the great divergence in post quality between those who know what they're talking about, and those who are he who is back-peddling.

Maybe first you can fill in your profile a bit.....

No need. From a quick read of his posts.....he doesn't know what the Infantry qualification badges are, yet he's an expert on what SOF Assaulters/Operators think, how Task Force leadership in operations fails to meet his standards of aggressiveness, and claims he's "been there multiple times."  :

His profile would merely read, "talks out of his ass."

....to ensure everyone gets a 3 week holiday in Australia in the middle of the war...

Not me; I did military tourism in Vietnam  ;D

 

[dapaterson]

[off topic]

Not me; I did military tourism in Vietnam  ;D

I heard you were originally thinking about Thailand, but ultimately just said "Phuket."

[/off topic]

 

[GAP]

Not me; I did military tourism in Vietnam  ;D

Great place to visit, but wouldn't want to live there...... ;D

 

[LieutenantPrivate]

Yes, notwithstanding the great divergence in post quality between those who know what they're talking about, and those who are he who is back-peddling.
No need. From a quick read of his posts.....he doesn't know what the Infantry qualification badges are, yet he's an expert on what SOF Assaulters/Operators think, how Task Force leadership in operations fails to meet his standards of aggressiveness, and claims he's "been there multiple times."  :

Am I starting to make too much sense that it hurts to hear? Sorry

 

[SeaKingTacco]

?
Should I dig up a bible somewhere?

No.  Just use Google.

 

[dimsum]

Am I starting to make too much sense that it hurts to hear? Sorry

Despite the fact that this is an unofficial Internet forum about the CF, some (I'd say the majority) of members are people with significant amounts of time in.  I can personally vouch for SKTacco and CDN Aviator (although I really don't want to in the case of the latter... ) that they know what they're talking about.  I'm sure that some of these people have had to think about this "issue" you're talking about as part of their actual job, not flapping their Internet gums in a forum.

Debate is good and highly encouraged, just know where the boundaries/lanes are and when one has overstepped them.