Army Guy
-
Posts
10,511 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
62
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Army Guy
-
-
7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:
HM Royal Canadian Infantry Corps was always an elite formation
Shock Troops of the Empire to win the Great War from Amiens to Mons
that was Canada's only edge ; best infantry in the world
you can give that up for political expediency, no doubt
but then Canada has lost the only edge it ever had
We have lost a lot of things, a huge amount of capabilities the Infantry used to have were lost , some of them have come back like Anti Armor Plt...not completely but it is coming back, with ground mount tow launchers, and on the new side by side has tubes mounted...gone are the LAV III TUA's ...we have lost the Armor recce element, Mortars, Pioneers is just starting to make a come back, again no vehicle mounted stuff, Medics are gone, so are Rad Op's, do to shortages, Pipes and drums funding was cut back, Training is just a dream...
-
On 4/15/2024 at 11:39 AM, Queenmandy85 said:
As I asked above, where are my numbers wrong?
Mr. Poilievre has not committed to 2% of GDP. While any increase is welcomed, even he cannot work miracles. Governments can only do what the electorate will allow.
Because there are many ways to skin a cat, first off, how many Canadians even blinked an eye when the liberals spent well over 700 Bil in less than 2 or 3 years...no taxes were increased, no social programs shut down..so part of my concern is why did we not say anything then...and when the military is brought up people sit up and start talking not about do we need it, no it is about we can't afford that....I think it is because it is not a social program that dumps money into their pockets...
Cutting the fat is one way to pay for a 2 % military...trust me their are many places the fat is thick...or does not serve all Canadians. It is not about miracles, it is about taking a good look at what we do spend,and do we really need to spend there.
-
On 4/13/2024 at 11:07 PM, August1991 said:
1. Ancient Europe? Why NATO?
2. China? Look at Singapore.
Yes ancient europe as you continue to reference... why not NATO, it is a huge alliance , that has continued to act as a back up to the US, it has been used in the middle east, and pacific regions...
Yes China military is expanding faster than any other nation on the globe, it's current navy is now larger than the US fleets, even the US industry could not compete in ship building with china as it stands today, and it is forcing the US to build more ,ships faster, and better...you need to do some reading...
-
20 hours ago, I am Groot said:
And then there are the penalties exacted on that human body for going to those extremes.
Even though she was a standout Bowdoin athlete and could bench press 145 pounds and squat 200 pounds, was ranked 4th out of a class of 52 in Officer Candidate School and excelled at Marine Corps fitness tests, Petronio's deployment in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan took a brutal toll on her 5-foot-3-inch body.
"By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change,” she wrote. “My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions.” She lost 17 pounds on an already lean body.
It's not about small frames. It's about the anatomical differences between male and females. A smaller framed male can still carry more, move faster, will have more endurance, lung capacity, muscle mass, etc., than a female of comparable size.
https://mcgazette.blogspot.com/2012/07/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created.html
It is easy to find examples of individuals that could not maintain the standards during deployment, as there it is easy to provide examples of females that have completed a deployment without any abnormal medical conditions... you could also find the same conditions that affected men....My point is in today's military females serving in combat roles have been accepted by our politicians, the military, and most Canadians...those that do not accept this line of thinking are no longer welcome in the forces, that was a quote by the current CDS...not mine,
Changing this thinking is going to take some drastic changes in our new morals and values...much like this infinite genders thing that has somehow taken traction. I think EX flyer hit the nail on the head, every trade in the military especially the infantry depend on the dynamics of the section... we fight as a team, some will end up doing more, carrying more, etc etc...all contributing in different ways, those that don't contribute or become a drag on that dynamic normally end up being forced to find a new job...It is not perfect, but it does give those that want a chance to be an infanteer, or whatever else, that opportunity is there...
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
In order to get to 2%, the average taxpayer will have to pay an extra $700 in taxes. Spending on defence is easy. Getting the revenue to pay for it is the problem. Why do you think governments have let the Forces decline so much? If the voters wanted a credible Canadian military, the governments would do it. The fact that governments don't make defence a priority is because it isn't a priority for the voters.
Beyond the increase in the Defence budget is the re-building in our armaments industry. That is a big price tag in its self.
You keep posting these unrealistic numbers...PP has already told you how he is going to increase spending, and it is not through empty promises like the liberals... he is going to shave existing things already budgeted for...like the billions we spend on foreign aid...like UNRWA for instance... cut some of these excessive social programs...that would be more than enough to pay for any increase in military spending...
Forces are in decline becasue Canadians let it happen period...
more than 30 % of Canadians answered in a poll that it is a priority...and those numbers are climbing...
Rebuilding our armaments is already happening thanks to the liberals it's a small start but atleast it is getting their...will the funding survive i don't know...
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, I am Groot said:
But anyone can't hump eighty or a hundred pounds of gear for days on end on field operations. And women who can do it when superbly fit are few and far between and face all kinds of physical issues if they try. US Marine Captain Katie Petronio wrote about this a decade ago. There are basic issues with trying to make females infantry, starting with them having less muscle mass, thinner bones, smaller frames, and lower lung capacity. They take physical damage more easily, recover more slowly, and don't have the speed or stamina of men.
You don't have to be a PT god, to accomplish anything a infantrymen can, it's it's more mental than physical...you would be surprised what the human body can do when you force it...take those PPCLI guys in Afghanistan, they did not have a choice it was march or die...you could not just fall out and walk back...not everyone can keep it up for extended periods of time, some days you need your battle buddie to step up and give you a hand...
There are lots of studies done, some say it is impossible, and then we have direct examples of women doing it...even excelling at it...the major hold back right now is the higher tier you go the harder the physical and mental standards are...so if 5 % of the females make it in the Infantry, corp, not many of those are making CSOR standards and i don't think there is 1 female operator at JTF 2.
That female medic that picked up one of my soldiers weighed in at maybe a buck 40, she managed to race down 100 meters of narrow ally way, pick up a dude with his gear weighing in at more than 220 -250 lbs pick him up , and RAN with him back to safety...and she was not running in a straight line...lots of zigs and more zags...
Everyone is forgetting there are also small framed men that are in the infantry as well, and they manage because they know what they can press their bodies to do...
Look i used to be that guy, did not have time for any female in the infantry, it has taken years of convincing and i've seen females suck it up and do whatever is necessary to get the job done...i've seen it in unarmed combat classes, in the field, on the battlefield, those that could not make it did not last long as an infanteer, everyone in the Bn knows what is at stake...thats life's, no matter what the politicians or chain of command wants to do with wall charts, if you can't do the job, the Snr NCO corp will ensure standards are met or exceeded,or that soldier will be gone.......everyone else that made it, can push beyond what your mind thinks it an do..an infanteers career is all about finding your limits and then breaking those standards, doing it over and over again...
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, I am Groot said:
That is a terrible tooth to tail ratio.
It is the largest piece on the battlefield, just look Ukraine for a second, most NATO countries can not produce arty shells fast enough, thats one theater of war...and yet they have to worry about beans, bullets, and fuel, not counting everything else, from toilet paper, spare parts, batteries, other equipment, the list is endless, supply trains run all day and all night...by road , air, and sea....it never stops...until the war is over...and the longer distances you need to cover then the larger the tail becomes...manning it all consumes more men and equipment than the fighting forces expend...
-
6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:
anyone could meet the elite standard of HM Royal Canadian Infantry Corps ?
with respect, MWO, I must disagree
at the RCR Battleschool, many fell to the side of the road and failed to meet the standard
only those who refused to quit,
whom put one foot in front of the other,
for the brothers to the left & right of them, come what may; met the standard
training ground of the warriors, at Camp Petawawa, Renfrew Garrison, Ontario
Airborne
You misunderstood my quote, i said it only takes 5 lbs of trigger pull to send a round down range...anyone can do it...becoming a Infanteer is no simple task, not for the faint hearted, nor is it for the weak...
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:
Didn't answer the question, as you so often fail to do. LOL
"I challenge you to tell us when close combat at bayonet range warfare is happening except in movies ". Not what you may think you can do but when it actually happens???
Even Army Guy, who has years more credibility than you acknowledges there is no hand to hand combat anymore
I think you misunderstood, i said i did not see any one use a bayonet while in Afghanistan, hand to hand combat i seen used many times be it to handle an unruly prisoner, or just taken a guy down, on a raid, or search...Afghanis were funney you could point a rifle at them all day and they would not blink pull a side arm out and they would become complaint quickly ...
-
18 minutes ago, blackbird said:
That's interesting. Well, I don't claim to be an expert on it.
I suppose there may be some women that would fit into the that kind of job. They should be carefully screened when they are hired to be sure they are suitable.
Wonder why there were so many reports of sexual abuse in the CAF in the last number of years.
There is no more sexual abuse in the forces than there is in the same population in civilian sector. Most government departments have reported the same scale and same offenses,take RCMP for instance... DND has gotten more media coverage, 99.9 % of the soldiers don't have a issue, serving in mixed units...Soldiering is a dirty sweaty job, who in their right mind would want to get sexual with all that going on...
most of these cases have alcohol involved...That is the main culprit, mix some booze in with long deployments and shit happens....most of it consensual, but there are unwanted acts and fro the most part they are punished... you have a higher chance of sexual abuse in university than in the forces...
-
6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:
none the less, every infantryman must be required to ultimately close to bayonet range in extremis
to include fixed bayonet fighting
unfixed bayonet fighting
and unarmed combat
that is the standard
Ducimus
True enough, hand to hand combat has saved my life more than once,
-
23 hours ago, blackbird said:
Down through history, isn't it only men who actually fought in armies? Women stayed home and looked after the family and did jobs that supported the nation's armed forces.
I can see women in supportive roles but not on the actual combat ranks.
There is a psychological and physical difference between men and women. Does the military try to downplay or deny the differences between men and women? I assume politicians made the decision to put women there as part of the new ideology of inclusion and equity. Just seems improper.
No women have been used in armies around the globe all through out history...That's what they were expected to do, in a lot of cultures stay home in the kitchen...Russians used women to great effect, in all kinds of combat roles, they made very effective snipers as well.
In Afghanistan, there was no front lines, every soldier was exposed to the enemy, regardless of job or task...when you left the camp it wasn't a matter of IF you were going to get hit, it was when...Taliban did not care if you were Infantry or not male or female...they would kill both all the same...and still we went out every hour of every day....
Sure there is, everyone is a soldier first...if females can make the standard then they should have the opportunity to serve, and few have....which means that the women that did serve in Canadian infantry or combat roles did exceptional well. You do know that there are small light wieght men with small frames in the Infantry as well, in Afghanistan ruck sacks started at 100 lbs and would climb to 150/160 depending on the mission ...try that in the mountains, and plus 55 degrees heat...
While that was not the norm, it was for the PPCLI during the open phase of Afghanistan, during routine patrols my pack weighed in at maybe 50 to 60 lbs..mostly ammo and water...lots of water...
I seen a female medic run down a narrow ally way, under heavy machine gun fire pick up a wounded soldier throw him on her back and she ran back to safety more than 100 meters...both ways...he was about 220 lbs with all his kit and weapon. sure she was motivated by gun fire, that day she had a set of balls the size of a C-130....Hero's come in all shapes and sizes...and sexs as well.
-
19 hours ago, August1991 said:
Misleading title.
With Navy, Air Force -our military has about 50,000.
By comparison, the US with 10x our population has about 1.4 million active military. IOW, the US has about 3x our numbers.
I favour our way of doing things.
=====
In Canada and the US, soldiers now choose to join. (In Canada, we have always had a voluntary military. Since Nixon, the US has not had conscription.)
IMHO, when a State resorts to military conscription, its leaders are imposing a tax - a weird tax.
The Army is a separate element within the military ( Army, Navy, Air force)...not used to describe the entire military but one small portion of it...Here they are talking about the Army...
My math is bad, but how many times does 50 K going into 1.4 million,,,a lot more than 3 times...over 28 times our military...we might have a ways to go....
Canada has had conscription as well, not since WWII.
-
2 hours ago, Aristides said:
If you are unable to work alongside women without abusing them, you are the problem.
Many women have served in the Canadian infantry, in combat without any issues...although in Afghanistan we did not face any hand to hand combat, but lots of close combat.ranges of less than 50 feet......It only takes less than 5 lbs of trigger pull to fire a 5.56 round into someone's fore head or center of mass.....anyone can do it.... but lets face it if it gets beyond that point everyone is on their own regardless, and yes men will be protective of women infanteers it is human nature, but don't think for a second, that any infanteer would not do the same for another brother in arms, it is who we are....I can not explain the bond that develops between members of the same section or platoon....deeper than brothers and sisters....most would die protecting another brother....even having been retired for years if one of my brothers phoned me today, and said hey i need help hiding a body....I would be gone before the phone hung up....
And what little issues there was got sorted out pretty quickly by an NCO...as for frat, sure it goes on, but it is punished severely while deployed regardless of rank...back in garrison it is frowned upon, measures will be taken to make sure your not in the same chain of command... other than that who cares really, life in the army is not very conducive to marriage, which is why a lot of army guys marry army women...
-
4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
When it comes down to it though, the number of infantrymen would be way less than 28,000. That number includes a lot of support trades as well - cooks, logistic types, mechanics, etc.
Even if we had unlimited troop carriers at our disposal, we probably have far less than 20,000 actual soldiers to drop off on a beach somewhere. I don't even want to guess.
Army is an element which the Infantry is part of,
When i retired in 2014/15 each Bn had 3 undermanned rifle companies,( TO&E states 150 men per Company peace time) maybe 400 troops plus maybe another 100 scattered across the BN...3 BNs to a regiment... 3 Regiments in Canada so maybe on a good day we are looking at 4500 soldiers...fighting infantry...but according to the last report only 50 % of those are able to deploy....so now we are down to 2200 troops..."not including CSOR, or JTF 2" Note this does not include any reserve numbers, but don't look for any miracles, their numbers are not that good either...
On top of all this there is large equipment deficiencies as well, so even if they were at full strength there is not enough equipment.... not to mention that each Regiment as one light rifle company, like a PARA company...they are lite so no IFV, or anything heavy...except maybe some BV206, trucks, etc....
Today, these numbers are far below those that i gave, most likely by another 1/3
Normally it take s more than 10-20 support pers to service one infantry guy...thats your cooks,logies, mechs,admin,medical pers, etc etc...
Armoured corp and Arty, Cbt Engineers are just as bad...
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:
preparedness can be a deterrent to a war breaking out in the first place
but if deterrence fails, such as if you are facing a madman like Adolf Hitler
then preparedness does not reduce casualties per se
the Germans were the most prepared in both World Wars by far
yet they were totally annihilated in both cases
in the case of Canada, being unprepared has actually reduced casualties before
because in the Second World War, Canada didn't put large numbers of boots on the ground until 1944
instead Canada focused on the bombing campaign against Germany
this was the Canadian government's strategy to reduce casualties, and it was successful for the most part
it's the same situation with NATO now
because if NATO goes to war, and wholly unprepared Canada doesn't have many troops to send
that will prevent casualties not increase them
the more prepared Canada is to send troops right away, the more casualties Canada will suffer
thus it is better for Canada to stick to the World War Two strategy
send some navy and air force to the fight, but hold the troops back until as late as possible
the Navy SEALs have an axiom which is : "don't rush to your death"
so if Canada has to spend years building up an army in Canada
that's not a bad thing in terms of avoiding casualties
Canada suffered its highest casualty rate in the First World War
why ?
because Canada was too prepared
Canada rushed in, putting large numbers of boots on the ground right away, at the Ypres Salient
if Canada had instead done what the Americans did, which was wait until 1917 to go in
then Canada would have suffered vastly fewer casualties overall
bear in mind that NATO Article V within the Washington Treaty ;
does not actually demand that Canada send large numbers of troops to Europe
all it says is that Canada must "assist" its NATO allies
it doesn't stipulate that Canada do anything specific therein however
the treaty allows all member states to contribute only what they "deem necessary"
so Canada is in fact free to hang back and consider its options, even if NATO goes to war
furthermore, in terms of Latvia, it's not a good idea for Canada to deploy more forces there
that's just a tripwire
in the event of war however, that force could be cut off by way of Lithuania & Kaliningrad
you don't want to get caught in a "Dunkirk on the Baltic" scenario
so in terms of avoiding casualties, Canada should minimize the tripwire force, not expand it
like if you were going to reactivate 4 CMBG and send it to Europe, don't send it to Latvia
just like World War Two ; you send them to England, and then just wait out from there
you're really only bound, constitutionally, to defend the Commander-in-Chief at Buckingham Palace
there's nothing actually binding Canada to save Latvia at any cost, even under Article V
Boots on the ground are but one part of the total commitment we made, Canada scrambled to get ships to assist with convoy duty, during this struggle good men paid for the life's for sub par equipment....and the airforce, they had weeks of training and then shipped over to bomb germany during the night...during their time in the air they learned what it took to survive or were scraped out of the hull in buckets ...So young Canadians were paying the price from day one...and lets not forget that small Dieppe raid for the army, which seen a sizable chunk of the army gone in a blink of an eye...
One just has to look at the all 3 elements before each of the great wars...there was not enough full time soldiers to train the amount we needed, not that it matter as the equipment they had at the time was relics...and with everyone around the globe looking for the same equipment, we got what we got... Ross rifle, and the rest of the junk we ended up buying...cost lifes, which is my point...
The next conflict will be come as you are, it takes months to build main battle tanks, and aircraft, and years to build ships...so we won't have the time to get ready or build new...we will fight in what we have and what little we can build before the main fight...we'll run out of ammo in a week.....and when your your looking at just 40 main battle tanks, because the rest are training tanks, LAV 6 and now rebuilt M113...in a world were new IFV will tear us a new one before we get past the embarkation line...good Canadians will die, while the rest of Canadians will shrug their shoulders and say nothing....good thing it its not me...
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, August1991 said:
China? It used to be, for Americans, Japan. IMHO, China is now Singapore. Xi is Lee Quan Yew.
AG, I have some answers and many opinions. I am reminded of Keynes famous response:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
I think your not listening to the facts, nor are you willing to look up the facts for yourself.. I respond becasue i think your conversations are interesting, but frustrating at times.
Leave ancient european history in the past, it's not coming back, today according many smart people in NATO, most countries foreign affairs departments , any western intelligence agency if ask who was the new emerging threat all would tell you it is China, with Russia in second place only due to nukes...as an example look at the US marine corp is changing it's tactics and equipment to be better suited for island hopping, not the european plains because of china, a lot of funding is being spent to meet these goals...so it is not on a whim and pray...5 eyes and UK,A,US are defensive agreements for the pacific, that includes a large chunk of NATO fleet as well...all of this points to the pacific as the new problem for the world...
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, August1991 said:
No. We in the West defeated the Soviet Union. (Russia is not the Soviet Union.)
Kissinger worried about how to create a structure of peace. One key point that he made is that the Soviet Union followed a Marxist ideology - it was intent on dominating the world.
No , we defeated no one. The west out spent the warsaw pact, Russia decided to pull back and broke up the warsaw pact...if we had defeated them there would have been a surrender with conditions and stuff.... russia just packed up it's toys and went home, thats all that happened...Today they took their toys out for a drive into ukraine, and decided to stay a while....
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, herbie said:
Are you effing kidding? Pull your head out of your Torified arse.
Name some liberal spending programs that effect most or all Canadians....?
-
2 hours ago, herbie said:
And a majority will oppose cutting spending on anything that affects them.
Cut it all in the first couple years and most Canadians won't even remember come the next election...
-
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:
because they are in Europe
but do Canadians feel threatened by the war in Europe ?
not really
what Canadians fear, is America
with good reason in fact
because ultimately, the American religion is bound to overthrow Canada
you don't have free speech
you don't have gun rights
you allow unrestricted abortion
by that alone, America should depose the Chinese Communist treasonous proxy Canadian government
Rangers, lead the way
War in Europe just means more Canadian men and women will die...being unprepared just means more of them will die sooner and quicker....
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
I know nothing about this topic. Based on my own ignorance, I’d like to suggest that politicians should not make major military purchases into political issues at election time. We civilians just don’t know enough to decide which helicopters, boats or fighter aircraft should be bought. The main thing is buy SOMETHING in a timely fashion, based on the collective expertise of our military, before the older equipment becomes useless and or dangerous.
Military procurement is a mess...the military places an order in based on specs, civilians search the market that some what meets those, in other cases major companies will build something hoping to meet those specs...the people with the most influence over what is purchased is politicians..what offsets does the manufacture offer, how many canadians does it employ, can it be built in Canada, all of those over ride what DND wants...and finally what is the cheapest shit available...DND does not have a great track record of purchasing either, Take a look at some of the Army equipment we bought....all the good stuff was a mistake in disguise...HLVW, is a good truck, nobody could figure out why we bought it...we would later find out it placed 3 out of all the competition...sometimes everything is a good choice...
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
Agreed but our problems with military spending and a coherent long-term military policy precede this particular government by a fair few decades. It seems difficult to change this in a democracy unless we have an imminent military threat on our doorstep. At least Putin has managed to wake Europe up a bit.
Not only to Europe, but across DND and MDND, people have been stepping up and telling anyone that will listen, that we are in need of deep investment...Everyone already knows most of the globe has noticed our lack of participation, and have said politely hey your a loser time to step up...We are losing capability's along with the expertise in using them every year, once they are gone we will have to pay other nations to teach us the basics on all of these lost capabilities...
Lets not forget there is 1/2 a dozen or so european countries that have stepped up to a war footing, are desperately thinking conscription,and boosting their defense budgets into the 3 percent range...We are one of the few that seems to be still riding the wave to the beach....as history has shown, we have always cashed in the peace bonds hard, and paid a price when crises happens in lives...history repeats itself over and over here in canada.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:
Canada “needs” to contribute to the defence of North America for political reasons Not because it’s necessary for our security but because the less we contribute to continental defence , the more USA dominates us. .
Canada has lived this very post for most of it's most of it's history and it is wrong....And it has cost the lives of thousands of Canadians...thrown into combat with little to no real training, with equipment that was not proven or sub par, just ask the crew of the sherman tank what they thought of their tanks in comparison to Germany's or the Russians...
Man has not learned to talk out it's problems, which is why violence is still a political tool...We need to defend ourselves, and par take in ALL our defensive agreements not becasue it's political but becasue it saves the lives of those men and women that are going to be sent into battle...my son and daughters, and future grand children are at risk as is yours. If we are not willing to defend ourselves, then we don't deserve our current freedoms and rights. Becasue it is nessicary maybe not at this day or week, but at some time we will need to pick up weapons and defend what is right...
Not sure why Canadians are content with having someone else pay for our defense, I'm sure American tax payers are not thrilled about picking up the tab, i know if it was reversed i'd be pissed as well....we as a people have become fat and lazy, we spend our time trying to see what we can glean off our government instead of having any pride whatsoever and stepping up...
Sometimes it is embarrassing to be Canadian.
-
2
-
My elderly family member just waited 18 hours in the ER to see a doctor
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted
Here in NB we have had 3 people die, in the waiting rooms...and all they can do is launch investigations...