Why Not Canadian Amphib/Marine Capability? (merged)

[Soldier of Fortune]

Well, maybe it would be better if all we had were Marines. Lets look at the American Marines, they have an army, an air force, and a navy all tied into one. I think it would be perfect if Canada did something like this, and it would be cost effective too. Integrating everything into one service would be alot better. We would also not need as many personel. With the mantality "Every Marine a Rifleman" would also weed out any softies from our forces.

 

[Pugil]

The US marine corps is as big as the entire British armed forces, it is almost an army on its own. Like the airborne the marines often develop their own warrior spirit and ethos, it is a natural thing. I dont we need a marine corps, most countries that have marines have a past colonialism history. I think we need more of a mountain operation unit, we dont hear alot about mountain operators but their are they are amongst best troops around the world. In Europe the best troops are mountain infantry, simply because the nature of their training, imagine to climb up a mountain with all your kit, rations, ropes, ammo and fight in the same time, on top of that they have to be self-sufficient. A chain of mountains is a natural defensive line, if you put a well-trained people to defend it, it will be very costly for the enemy to root out one by one all the pockets of resistance You have to be switch on because one wrong step on a steep of a hill can drag you all the way down to the bottom. I did once a mountain warfare exercise and it is just fantastic with all the tactics that evolve around it and skills.

 

[Harry]

Marines

Well, maybe it would be better if all we had were Marines. Lets look at the American Marines, they have an army, an air force, and a navy all tied into one. I think it would be perfect if Canada did something like this, and it would be cost effective too. Integrating everything into one service would be a lot better. We would also not need as many personnel. With the mentality "Every Marine a Rifleman" would also weed out any softies from our forces.

The Marine concept of operations and deployment is a good one, but take into consideration the following:

The average gyrene, can do all a grunt can and more inclusive of airborne ops and spec ops as per training. But their primary role in battle is seaborne ops. We do not have the shipborne capabilities to house, transport and deploy them. And supposedly, everyone in the CF green machine is supposed to be a leg first.

Armor. Marines utilize a combination standard heavy armor and Marine specific armor such as the AMTRAC and Marine LAV. As well as standard wheeled equipment, we are hard pressed at best and possess limited swim capable stuff. Our LAVS don‘t have the pretty propeller paper weights like the old AVGP‘s do.

Air wing. The Marines have both an integrated and separate element of seaborne air ops. They have air wings stationed on squid aircraft carriers and have independent Marine Aviation (helicopter/Harrier) wings aboard Marine Assault carriers. We possess neither.

And we tried the combined thing and it failed miserably. A Marine org would have to be built from the ground up and kept separate. It is how most militaries do it and as such, Marines have their own ways of doing things. For example the USMC MARPAT, their orders of dress and their drill and ceremonial.

We could never afford it and the implications are too great for the average Canadian to support. IE a rapidly deployable offensive force, hmm, visions of the CAR. Many a Canadian still feels that the demise of the CAR was a good thing. Based solely upon the governments Anti-PR put out prior to its closure.

Kind of like Kyoto. Wonder what Southern Ontarians will think when they realize it had nothing to do with particulate pollution‘s and everything to do with a theory that the father of is now questioning himself. But I digress...

USMC

 

[jrhume]

I wonder how many Canadians are serving in the US Marines?

During the Vietnam War some 15,000 + Canadians served in various US forces and 300 or so died there. A good percentage must have been Marines.

I guess that means Canada does have a marine force.

S!

Jim

 

[Harry]

Numbers vary, however, according to a pretty solid documentary on History Television regarding Canucks in Viet Nam aired during the Week of Remembrance, it is like this:

Estimated in excess of 40, 000 Canadians served, 110 dead, 7 MIA.

Pretty much offset the draft dodgers I would surmise.

Here is some reading with various accounts and numbers.

Est 12, 000

North Wall

 

[jrhume]

Harry,

Thanks for the links. One I had seen, the other I had not.

I think this subject has been of interest to me because I served in Vietnam with a US Army Staff Sergeant who was a Canadian. He, like many of the non-Americans who served, became a US citizen.

That‘s one of the great difficulties connected with getting accurate numbers. Many Canadians became US citizens, which makes it problematic to track them as Canadians once they were in the US forces. Others remained in the service, making it a career. Those too are difficult to pick out from the overall listings.

I think the actual number who served in US forces during the Vietnam era is probably in the vicinity of 40,000 - 50,000, with the number serving in Vietnam at around 15,000. Remember, Vietnam service includes naval service in the South China Sea and air force bases in Thailand.

Yes, that addition to our forces more than offset the draft dodgers. I always tell people that those who ran don‘t bother me because we got better men in return.

Jim

 

[Recce41]

In Windsor, Ont is the Vietnam Canada War Memorial, just under the Ambassator Bridge.

 

[muskrat89]

I grew up in a NB border town. An aquaintance (Canadian)of my parents‘ went to Vietnam. As the years passed he became a very high-up in the American Legion, and eventually became the Aide de Camp for the Governor of Maine - the first one ever that was not American born, IIRC

 

[Paul Gagnon]

originally posted by Harry:
We don‘t have Marines because as a nation we were born of a Garrison style military.

Look at the nations who have marines, they have historically used their navies to extend their might or defend themselves. The marines have been a natural element of all their armada and fleet operations.

Whereas we have had strong navies, they where not used to touch shores per se (lets not go near the beach landings-in all reality we have little experience and that that we do utilized conventional land forces). They sailed the seas, cleared lanes of commerce and conducted coastal guard.

Marines historically are an extension of the nations might, and historically these are nations whose might was declared on the open seas. And to reiterate, we came of birth as a Garrisoned nation.

Thanks. I guess since our Navy has always been defensive there really has been no need for Marines. However I was thinking that Marines might be useful for defence in some of the more remote reaches of the Canadian coastline since many if not most areas are extremely rugged and only accessible by sea.

 

[portcullisguy]

Another significant difference between the U.S. Marine Corps and their other forces, also might explain why we don‘t have/need marines in Canada.

I learned this past weekend on BMQ from our knowledgable platoon 2IC that the USMC is under the direct control of the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, otherwise known as the President. The other U.S. forces, particularly the army, are under control of Congress, as they are still known by their name in 1776: The Continental Army of Congress.

Under a Republic, the head of state and head of government are the same person (the President), and one of the usual powers reserved for a head of state is actually in the hands of the elected Congress. That power is the authority to declare war. The United States cannot declare war against another power without the consent of Congress. Since the Marines are under direct control of the President, they can be deployed without Congressional authority. That is why the Marines maintain a rapid deployment task force.

In Canada, this is unnecessary. Here, our head of state is The Queen (as represented by the Governor-General, who is the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces). The head of government is the Prime Minister (the head of Her Majesty‘s Cabinet). Although the head of government must approve of most laws, etc., and is the only authority to raise and levy taxes, etc., the Sovereign retains the power to declare war, and the oath sworn by all armed forces in Canada is to the Queen, Her heirs and successors.

This means, technically and legally, the Canadian Forces are under the control of the "Crown prerogative", should it be exercised, and the Crown has the power to declare war, Parliament does not.

However, keep in mind that we live in a Constitutional Monarchy. The Queen cannot act without the advice of her ministers (Privy Council). Reserved powers are rarely, if ever, used. Functionally, the CF is under control of the government, which has the power to make the laws which affect every other aspect of CF life (who can join, what they get paid, who can give orders, discipline, what kind of weapons we will use, what our role will be, etc.). Since the government pays us, essentially the government controls us. God willing there will never be a case of a government that is not lawfully and democratically elected, in Canada, so that we do not have to test the Crown prerogative in that case (in removing said undemocratic government).

God Save The Queen.

 

[riddleofsteel]

Marine units are not dependent upon political systems and ideology. Even the Soviets used large amounts of naval infantry (I‘m pretty sure the Russians still do). Here‘s a small sample of countries that have Marine/Naval troops. A lot of naval units are not even remotely as extensive as the USMC. Some of them are quite large, while others are really just subunits.

France

Marine Nationale (French Navy. I‘m not sure what their Marines are called, but they use some naval troops)
*Commandement des Fusiliers Marins Commanados (COFUSCO)
-Commando Trepel
-Commando de Monfort
-Commando Penfenyo
-Commando Jaubert
-Commando Hubert ASM (Commando D‘Action Sous Marine)

Italy
*San Marco Battalion

Netherlands
*Royal Netherlands Marine Corps
-7 Netherlands Special Boat Squadron
-Mountain Leader Platoon
-23 Airborne Company
-11th Airborne Company

Norway
*Marinejaegerkommandoen

Sweden
*Amfibieregementen (Amf 1 and Amf 4)
*Kustjägarna ("Coastal Rangers")

South Korea
*Republic of Korea Marine Corps

 

[Harry]

Riddle Of Steel:

Not going to jump all over you, but just question what or where it is you had intended to go with your post.

I will break it down for you:

France, historically a Naval colonizer, their Marines where normally the only form of regular military there. They used a system of reserves and territorial armies, but direct link to the sovereign was the Navy.

Italy, I might suggest you do a little historical review of the San Marco Battalion. Very good read.

Netherlands, former colonizer, former strong blue water navy. AKA-Dutch

Norway, can we say originally a seaborne nation, err Vikings. Always had a strong marine force,

Sweden, mostly islands, was a colonizer and exerted most of it‘s presence with a blue water navy.

ROK, stands to reason, the US rebuilt their military and the Marines have always maintained the Right of the Line in the South.

All with the exception of the ROK have a historical link to using their marine type forces to extend the will of their nations as part of a naval presence.

 

[riddleofsteel]

My post was poorly worded. I was referring to the modern day and age. While I agree that marine units are largely a continuation of the naval traditions of former colonial powers, the governments in most of those countries are not the same as they once were. I doubt that we‘ll see such liberal countries as Sweden and the Netherlands exert their will as colonial powers in the future unless there is a radical change in their respective governments.

I find it hard to accept that Canada, a nation with vast coastlines, lacks this capability. Having a capability does not mean that it must be used, however it does expands the options available to the government. For example, when we still had the Canadian Airborne Regiment, it didn‘t put us under any obligation to launch airborne invasions at the drop of a hat. I think Canada could set a good example for the world about the responsible use of modern military resources. We would have both capability and the moral high ground that Ottawa values so much.

 

[ArmyRick]

Hello my brothers in arms. I have been following this web site for the last six months or so. I like reading alot of the thoughts and ideas that are floating around here. Since the CF is in a change right now, I thought I would through this one forward. Does anyone think the Royal Marines Commando 21 Orbat would be a good idea for CF Infantry? (light or Mech)? In a nut shell it consist of a HQ Company, a Logistics coy (similar to our admin coy), 2 close combat coy (very similar to our current dismounted rifle coy) and 2 stand off combat coy (consist of a 50 cal platoon, javelin platoon and a rifle platoon). The RM have really thought outside the box when they generated this orbat.
The way I look at it, is its two fire base companys and two assault companys.
What's your ideas on this concept, troops?

 

[ArmyRick]

Woops I better clarify a few of the acronyms
CCT = Close Combat Troop (AKA a rifle platoon)
HMG = Heavy Machine Gun Troop (50s)
ATK = Anti-Tank Troop (currently milan soon to be javelin)
MOR = Mortar Troop
RAP = Regimental Aid Post (our speak its a UMS)
A Ech = A echelon troop, basically its the first line resupply troop (our CQMS)

 

[ArmyRick]

The other point I forgot to add is that the RM are using the Viking (armored BV206) and their new FCLV for support weapons and other combat support roles.
I think a similar orbat and equipment could give our light battalions a real punch and still keep them reasonably light.
Ideas? Thoughts?

 

[IPC10]

I think there was once some discussion at one of the Light Forces Working Groups on the new Cdo orbat.

I think as far as Canada goes, if they actually create the PY to bring the light battalions up to the 'new' orbat that was approved in Oct of 2003 it should increase our combt capabilities.   Or make us much more efficent at handing our Mostovi's....

 

[Kirkhill]

I tend to look at the Commando 21 orbat as the following:

1 patrols company with heavy weapons in Landrovers and a ride-along platoon
2 rifle companies (dismounted)
1 heavy company with heavy weapons in armoured and enlarged versions of the Bv206 which includes a ride-along platoon
1 core company which includes HQ and fire support elements (mors, SF GPMGs and ATGMs)
1 logistic company (2 fwd elements and 1 rear element)

I generally like the concept.  Perhaps the Bv206 type vehicle and some of the Landrover roles could be handled by the LAVIII or Coyote and be supplemented by the open top version of the G-Wagen.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

...and be supplemented by the open top version of the G-Wagen.

We don't have an open topped version. It wasn't trialed or bought. :'( Unless you mean the version with the hatch?

 

[Kirkhill]

No recceguy,  unfortunately I mean the one we didn't buy.  The one that I think would be a useful asset.  The G-wagen as purchased looks more like a staff car to me than an F-echelon vehicle.