War Canadian Style
- Thread starter tomahawk6
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
What exactly are clandestine ROE's?
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Quagmire said:
You keep them in your pocket instead of taping them to the butt of your rifle...
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 2,329
- Points
- 1,160
From the article:
"The teaching model is still based on the assumption that when we go to war, that war will be conventional, as in the
Godless Russian hordes lined up in tanks coming at us from one direction," a veteran non-commissioned officer at
Kandahar Airfield told the Toronto Star.
"It is not the fault of the instructors. That was the environment they came up in. But at the same time, that's not what
war is anymore. The reality today is counter-insurgency. The top Canadian brass realize this and so do the front-of-line
soldiers. But in between, there is a layer of the army locked in hidebound thinking, basically resistant to change.
"So a lot of us deployed in Afghanistan today have basically had to throw out the book and educate ourselves. It's
really not that difficult, because so many armies around the world have been training in counter-insurgency techniques
for so long now that there is a substantial library of knowledge available. And we're studying it on our own."
This is understandable, and from a training system point of view, it isn't entirely accurate. In terms of leadership training, the type of conflict is the tool by which candidates are assessed. His quote of "that's not what war is anymore" is not entirely accurate either: perhaps it should have been "that's not what THIS war is".
In all seriousness, think about the 1980's in training when we all did platoon level fighting patrols and the like. When the heck would we EVER do them? NEVER was the thought. What with the "Godless Russian hordes" bearing down on us in our reverse slope positions, when could we even contemplate doing a fighting patrol? Well, guess what: that's exactly what we are doing now. "Two up, one back" made sense for the Central Front, but doesn't make sense at all for Khandahar. Does this mean we don't teach it? Certainly not. As I said, it is (a) a training tool to assess (at least for leadership) and (b) some wars may still be fought that way. Heck, that's what the Iraqi army faced in 2003: "Godless" hordes rolling down on them from every direction. We may be on one side or another, but the full can of beans does include the "conventional" model of warfare. I can't forsee anything like that in the future, but who forsaw us in Afghanistan of all places back in the summer of 2001?
As for counter-insurgency and all that, I think we are on the right track with modernisation of training (at all levels) and it's good to see the units on the ground studying it on their own, but that's exactly what we are doing back here as well.
Now, we were in a Counter Insurgency op (of sorts) in South Africa in 1900 or so. I wonder if any of those lessons apply to today?
Just food for thought
Garvin out.
(edited because that blue was so, well, "Godless")
"The teaching model is still based on the assumption that when we go to war, that war will be conventional, as in the
Godless Russian hordes lined up in tanks coming at us from one direction," a veteran non-commissioned officer at
Kandahar Airfield told the Toronto Star.
"It is not the fault of the instructors. That was the environment they came up in. But at the same time, that's not what
war is anymore. The reality today is counter-insurgency. The top Canadian brass realize this and so do the front-of-line
soldiers. But in between, there is a layer of the army locked in hidebound thinking, basically resistant to change.
"So a lot of us deployed in Afghanistan today have basically had to throw out the book and educate ourselves. It's
really not that difficult, because so many armies around the world have been training in counter-insurgency techniques
for so long now that there is a substantial library of knowledge available. And we're studying it on our own."
This is understandable, and from a training system point of view, it isn't entirely accurate. In terms of leadership training, the type of conflict is the tool by which candidates are assessed. His quote of "that's not what war is anymore" is not entirely accurate either: perhaps it should have been "that's not what THIS war is".
In all seriousness, think about the 1980's in training when we all did platoon level fighting patrols and the like. When the heck would we EVER do them? NEVER was the thought. What with the "Godless Russian hordes" bearing down on us in our reverse slope positions, when could we even contemplate doing a fighting patrol? Well, guess what: that's exactly what we are doing now. "Two up, one back" made sense for the Central Front, but doesn't make sense at all for Khandahar. Does this mean we don't teach it? Certainly not. As I said, it is (a) a training tool to assess (at least for leadership) and (b) some wars may still be fought that way. Heck, that's what the Iraqi army faced in 2003: "Godless" hordes rolling down on them from every direction. We may be on one side or another, but the full can of beans does include the "conventional" model of warfare. I can't forsee anything like that in the future, but who forsaw us in Afghanistan of all places back in the summer of 2001?
As for counter-insurgency and all that, I think we are on the right track with modernisation of training (at all levels) and it's good to see the units on the ground studying it on their own, but that's exactly what we are doing back here as well.
Now, we were in a Counter Insurgency op (of sorts) in South Africa in 1900 or so. I wonder if any of those lessons apply to today?
Just food for thought
Garvin out.
(edited because that blue was so, well, "Godless")
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
I know that our doctrine is slowly beginning to change. I'm trying to get my hands on as much as I can right now to see how the changes are being implemented. I think Afghanistan has been a large wakeup call, as well as Iraq (from an observational point of view obviously) as to what we need to change for our training system.
Something that I have noticed in the reserves though is that we're trying to change so fast to this 3 block war type of fighting, that the basic soldier skills are being forgotten about or rarely touched. I have noticed that soldiers that have a solid grounding in section attacks, patrolling and basic infantry skills (focusing on the infantry as it's what I know), that those soldiers in turn have an easier time accepting new information. Hope I don't sound like an old fashioned that isn't getting with the times, as I'm 21. Hope I made sense in where I was going with this. It's 2:43am and I hopped on for a brief moment.
Something that I have noticed in the reserves though is that we're trying to change so fast to this 3 block war type of fighting, that the basic soldier skills are being forgotten about or rarely touched. I have noticed that soldiers that have a solid grounding in section attacks, patrolling and basic infantry skills (focusing on the infantry as it's what I know), that those soldiers in turn have an easier time accepting new information. Hope I don't sound like an old fashioned that isn't getting with the times, as I'm 21. Hope I made sense in where I was going with this. It's 2:43am and I hopped on for a brief moment.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,588
- Points
- 1,040
Beleive me, section attacks, defensive ops and patrolling will continue to be skills taught on SQ (and perhaps the enhanced BMQ?). Just have to add in more urban ops at unit level training and include FULL spectrum of ops. (3 block war stuff)
In St Jean right now they have this camp built like a canadian camp we would have overseas in theater, only smaller. Its suppose to be a "UN" camp :
If ever a place should really focus on basic soldiering skills, thats it. But they don't.
In St Jean right now they have this camp built like a canadian camp we would have overseas in theater, only smaller. Its suppose to be a "UN" camp :
If ever a place should really focus on basic soldiering skills, thats it. But they don't.
Devlin
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Just started reading this and I did not get to far in when this caught my attention.
When did we start eating MRE's over IMP's? Is this just a case of the reporter mixing up acronyms, a small point but it made me begin to question how accurate the article is.
When did we start eating MRE's over IMP's? Is this just a case of the reporter mixing up acronyms, a small point but it made me begin to question how accurate the article is.
- Reaction score
- 2,329
- Points
- 1,160
It could be MRE or IMP. I've had both on ops, but more than likely the term "MRE" may, for this reporter, mean any type of "Freddy Chef" or "Magic Pantry" type of boil in the bag stuff. Just like my M113 was called a tank at Oka.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,764
- Points
- 1,110
I agree that we still need some "old-school heavy metal" skill sets, but those should be on the back-burner. Lining up a LAV company for a live fire attack is fun and looks good at Wainwright, but there are real scenarios to be done first like the defence of a FOB or a leader's engagement. Working with host-nation forces is another critical skill. We should tool our training system (indiv and collective) for the counter-insurgency war and not the WW III (actually WWII) that we all know and love.
And yes, both MREs and IMPs are eaten over there.
Cheers,
2B
And yes, both MREs and IMPs are eaten over there.
Cheers,
2B
1
17thRecceSgt
Guest
Canadian.Trucker said:
Isn't the current requirement for PRes units ELOC Lev I to be completed annually? Which is Mandated trng?
I know what you mean though, I witnessed this on Ex with my unit during our Bde FTX recently, where some of the "greener" NCOs have mistakenly dropped some important parts of trng, or even Tp level SOPs as "thats not the way we do it anymore" which to me equals "I am not trained or experienced enough to be in the position I am and I am sort of lazy too".
I can't comment on the current trng and its lack of/perceived lack of modernization. I do, however, think there are some core skills that should be continued regardless, as not every conflict or mission will be like A-stan is...there is a need for some "core" or "generic" trng, and the TSMT that is done now before deployment. Which leads to my question, is the TMST trng not meeting the goal? I have never heard it was overly lacking.
Mud
Similar threads
