Wilber Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) In the mid 60's the army had a brigade group of around 6500 personnel including armoured units in Europe. The RCAF had four wings consisting of around 150 aircraft. In 1969 the elder Trudeau cut that in half and it has been down hill ever since. Edited July 2, 2016 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 Yes another Canadian contribution to NATO and the rest of the world..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 In my opinion, one of the biggest hindrances that NATO would face(self imposed) in a (defensive) war against the Russians is the signing of the landmine/submunition treaty. Yes another Canadian contribution to NATO.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) Yes another Canadian contribution to NATO.... Yes indeed......If the Trudeau government was serious about defending Eastern Europe from the Russians, they'd withdrawal from the treaty and employ both conventional antitank mines in addition to artillery deployed submunitions......they wouldn't stop the Russians, but they might slow them. Likewise, if Trudeau plans to fight off the Russians, I'll expect him to introduce some form of anti-aircraft artillery/missiles into the army, since the army doesn't have the ability to shoot down aircraft any longer........likewise, the purchase of modern antitank missiles..........mobile artillery.......tracked infantry fighting vehicles......attack/recce helicopters.......logistics trucks.......additional fighters (That will survive in a battlefield where the Russian S400 SAM would be present) for the RCAF to provide counter air, CAS, SEAD, interdiction etc........what about small arms? Does the army still have Korean War era mortars and machine guns? probably need some of those too..........might have to quadruple our number of tanks too......etc etc Edited July 2, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 An article by JL Granastien on our NATO commitments, since it's inception.....not a very flattering picture.... Jack Granatstein, OC, PhD, one of Canada’s most renowned historians, has written extensively on Canada’s military history and defence issues. He was Director and CEO of the Canadian War Museum from 1998 to 2000. http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no1/41-granatstein-eng.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 Yes indeed......If the Trudeau government was serious about defending Eastern Europe from the Russians, they'd withdrawal from the treaty and employ both conventional antitank mines in addition to artillery deployed submunitions......they wouldn't stop the Russians, but they might slow them. Likewise, if Trudeau plans to fight off the Russians, I'll expect him to introduce some form of anti-aircraft artillery/missiles into the army, since the army doesn't have the ability to shoot down aircraft any longer........likewise, the purchase of modern antitank missiles..........mobile artillery.......tracked infantry fighting vehicles......attack/recce helicopters.......logistics trucks.......additional fighters (That will survive in a battlefield where the Russian S400 SAM would be present) for the RCAF to provide counter air, CAS, SEAD, interdiction etc........what about small arms? Does the army still have Korean War era mortars and machine guns? probably need some of those too..........might have to quadruple our number of tanks too......etc etc I agree NATO has become a shell of it's former self, incapable of performing it's original concept....defending Europe. We tend to count the Russian out of offensive operations game , and forget that Russia had dozens of army groups just in the west....and as they have declined, NATO has declined at a faster rate....we see this now NATO talks tough but no direct action again'st Russian aggression and expansion.... Trudeau may be the flavor of the day, but he is his fathers son, who can not help but share the same ideas or policies....Even his father started with dismantling our military by a defense review.... Anti aircraft gun Systems...Sold off have none... Anti aircraft sys, put into long term storage, now out of date... Anti tank mis....we have none, all system were sold off as scrap... Self propelled arty, also put into long term storage, out of date...we do have M777, but not many.... Tracked IFV , ours are the orginal M113 modified to TLAV's out of date, and not very many.... Recce vehs , retired, suppose to be replaced by TAPV, issues with contract... the bulk of our tanks are Leo II A4, only 4 generations behind and less than 60 of them ....while we do have 20 leoIIA6M, returned from Afghanistan and not very good shape.....and only 2 generations behind.... Logistics trucks.....LSVW, MLVW, and most of the HLVW fleet sit in compounds rusting out....not fit for military service, and condemned.....Still waiting for a contract to be signed.... * note that the off the shelf truck purchased for the reserves have been re roled to reg force to give them some logistical vehs....note this truck was prone to catch fire and not to be used off road due to it's length... Small arms, C7, C-8, C-9 where upgraded 5 years ago to A2 standards....* Still no 9MM pistol replacement, C-6 GPMG needs updating....50 Cal HMG's all scrapped , melted....No replacement planned, 60 MM mortars recalled, replaced by new 40 mm auto grenade launcher....No veh mount sys available.... Sniper sys are now very out of date....or shot out.... Not enough NVG or sight systems .....although we do have semi modern thermal sites and devices for wpns... And I have not gone through the Airforce and NAVY the forgotten branches...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 An article by JL Granastien on our NATO commitments, since it's inception.....not a very flattering picture.... But a very good read...thanks for linking that piece. True then...true now: ...The Americans, bearing the heaviest burdens of the war, resented being told how the war should be fought by the Canadians, who had a single brigade and a handful of ships committed to the struggle. Granastien doesn't pull any punches....I have/read his book Yankee Go Home ? "Damn Americans....I hate those bastards". - C. Parrish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 So? NATO wanted more European members to take on combat missions in Afghanistan.....how did that turn out? What, exactly, does that have to do with what I said? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 What, exactly, does that have to do with what I said? Everything.........the majority of the European NATO members refused to carryout combat missions in Afghanistan................and now, as you've suggested, Canada is being asked (I don't know if that is true or what the actual context was, but we'll ride with your baseless assumptions) to send forces back to Europe.........why aren't the Europeans doing the heavy lifting in Europe? In a great many cases, the Europeans have armies better equipped for such a role then Canada.........so why is Trudeau sending the poorly equipped Canadian army to Europe, to defend Europeans, well the Europeans are gutting their own forces? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 I agree NATO has become a shell of it's former self, incapable of performing it's original concept....defending Europe. Exactly, so why is Trudeau sending our own underfunded army to do an ineffective job, that really is pointless with the proposed force levels, and not letting the Europeans take care of the window dressing? Was Trudeau bullied into the role? Why are Canadians (and Americans) subsidizing European security........where are the French? The Dutch? The Italians? The Spanish? Is this an attempt by the Trudeau government to right a wrong done when he left our allies holding the bag with ISIS? Is this a low risk token mission, lower risk then sending Canadians "Peacekeeping" in some backwater African shithole filled with Islamic extremists? Will Trudeau increase the defense budget, not only to pay for the mission, but to equip the force going? (not holding my breath) How does this fit into the Liberals "defense review"...........is there an itching desire by the Canadian public to return to a potentially nuclear battlefield in Europe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 Granastien doesn't pull any punches. Nor do the Russians........, forget the 1st Guard (tank) Army (The same historic Army Group that won at Stalingrad and rolled over Hitler) all ready based in Western Russia, in direct response to this NATO move of setting up a "brigade" of ~4000 personal (sounds more like a regiment), the Russians are reestablishing three Motor Rifle Divisions (~30k personal, ~300+ MBT, ~1000 IFVs, ~12 artillery batteries, 3 squadrons of Hinds and Frogfoot etc) to counter this NATO move............again forgetting the entire Army Group already present, three motor rifle divisions is a larger force, with far more firepower, then what the Soviets invaded Afghanistan with........ Where in the Liberal defense review did the Trudeau Liberals plan to revisit such historic Canadian military (failures) missions as Hong Kong or Dieppe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 How does this fit into the Liberals "defense review"...........is there an itching desire by the Canadian public to return to a potentially nuclear battlefield in Europe? Where in the Liberal defense review did the Trudeau Liberals plan to revisit such historic Canadian military (failures) missions as Hong Kong or Dieppe? my you're just so impatient for that review to complete! At some point you'll need to recognize that there is neither a people's will, a political will or a fiscal reality that will align with your (and others want) to get all the toys you dream over. Given those wills and fiscal reality, why not set-out the D2.0 top 5 for Canadian role/want/need... inclusive of domestic and international forays - within domestic don't forget to factor Search & Rescue, Coast Guard, Border Security, Surveillance/reconnaissance, etc.. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 my you're just so impatient for that review to complete! At some point you'll need to recognize that there is neither a people's will, a political will or a fiscal reality that will align with your (and others want) to get all the toys you dream over. Given those wills and fiscal reality, why not set-out the D2.0 top 5 for Canadian role/want/need... inclusive of domestic and international forays - within domestic don't forget to factor Search & Rescue, Coast Guard, Border Security, Surveillance/reconnaissance, etc.. . Waldo you already know what the review is going to recommend....if an expansion was going to happen then they would have just done it... There is no peoples will at all, for either side of this problem, in fact they could not care one way or another. no will to expand or properly equip nor the will to just kill the dept one way or another..... The leadership within DND have already stated on numerous occasions that our military can not do the 3 main tasks already assigned at the same time, it's limited resources means one at a time and barely managing to do that....why even bother with a top 5. I often wonder when US leadership will once again force our government to spend,(I can't help but remember Trumps speech on this topic) and how that will be perceived by our citzens.....The question should be why do we need to have a baby sitter, one that tells us what to do, instead of living up to our commitments all by ourselves.....Maybe NATO, UN should stop with all the kid gloves and just tell us to wake the fuc* up.... I could count on one hand the number of times that there has been a political will to grow our military, each time it was seen as suspect by major leading nations....all talk no action, it does not buy votes....When are we going to have a government that acts for the nations benefit, instead of getting re elected....Leadership my ass....and not just for the liberal government , the cons, NDP, the whole shooting match.....although I do like miss may.... Fiscal realities, This seems to be the end all be all fall back position for those nay Sayers....And yet we spend over 27 bil ann on immigration, how much is the Liberal cabinet spending this term again...where did they find that again,what was that number 30 bil ?....So what your really saying is there is no where we could trim, I find that hard to believe.....and I've only mentioned 2 areas.....there are dozens more..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 ....is there an itching desire by the Canadian public to return to a potentially nuclear battlefield in Europe? I bet there would be a collective cheer from Islam if the Cold War finally went hot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 But a very good read...thanks for linking that piece. True then...true now: ...The Americans, bearing the heaviest burdens of the war, resented being told how the war should be fought by the Canadians, who had a single brigade and a handful of ships committed to the struggle. Granastien doesn't pull any punches....I have/read his book Yankee Go Home ? "Damn Americans....I hate those bastards". - C. Parrish. You should also try "Canada without Armed forces" written by Douglas L. Bland, written in 2004 it includes several case studies done by experts in their field.....here they all list the consequences to Canada.... Here was what they predicted in 2004... "The inadequacies of policies to sustain and continually re constitute our armed forces is a source of the gather crisis in National security, Defense, and foreign policy....If it is not resolved within the next few years then we will be disarmed....and may be to stressful for the nation bear....in an increasingly dangerous , interconnected world...." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) And it doesn't.......so its a waste of time and money. Not necessarily. The Russians have had a good time sending in armed provocateurs and bullying eastern countries like Ukraine and Georgia. There's no reason they wouldn't want to do the same to the Baltics. They might even convince themselves NATO wouldn't do anything about it. The presence of NATO troops, though, would raise the stakes a lot and would likely cause them to think again. Edited July 2, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 Everything.........the majority of the European NATO members refused to carryout combat missions in Afghanistan The point was that Canada has not turned down a recent ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 .. Canadians should be hanging their heads in shame, for the way we treat our military and our veterans.... That is an interesting and expected opinion of someone who has had a career in the military. I am a proud Canadian who is also proud of how our governments have prioritized spending on civilian Canadians rather than more killing machines and career soldiers. I hope the trend continues and we allow the USA to fund those wars which they begin. They start it, they pay to fix it. I can suggest thousands of better uses for the $millions that go into our military every year. As to our veterans, especially those injured on the job, I agree that their compensation is lacking. I see our government attempting to treat then just like the rest of civil servants as to injury and disability but the public wants them treated better than the regular policeman, firefighter or .... who works in a dangerous job while employed by our government. As to NATO, I think we are doing our share considering that Canada has not instigated any action in which NATO has had to intervene. I would like to see Canada's role as peacekeepers and one of the worlds impartial negotiators who can help solve world conflicts rather than add to them. Army Guy paints a bleak (and accurate) picture of the current state of our military. It has always been that way and that is why I had never seriously considered a career in the military and would generally advise against it - except for the few who have the personality to thrive under that system. Oh Canada, What a wonderful place to live! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 That is an interesting and expected opinion of someone who has had a career in the military. I am a proud Canadian who is also proud of how our governments have prioritized spending on civilian Canadians rather than more killing machines and career soldiers. I hope the trend continues and we allow the USA to fund those wars which they begin. They start it, they pay to fix it. I can suggest thousands of better uses for the $millions that go into our military every year. As to our veterans, especially those injured on the job, I agree that their compensation is lacking. I see our government attempting to treat then just like the rest of civil servants as to injury and disability but the public wants them treated better than the regular policeman, firefighter or .... who works in a dangerous job while employed by our government. As to NATO, I think we are doing our share considering that Canada has not instigated any action in which NATO has had to intervene. I would like to see Canada's role as peacekeepers and one of the worlds impartial negotiators who can help solve world conflicts rather than add to them. Army Guy paints a bleak (and accurate) picture of the current state of our military. It has always been that way and that is why I had never seriously considered a career in the military and would generally advise against it - except for the few who have the personality to thrive under that system. Oh Canada, What a wonderful place to live! Yes it is quit an accomplishment is it not, to send your nations soldiers into battle without all the equipment it needs.....After all it is cheaper to bury them than it is to purchase the right equipment....that has got to be something to be proud of....The Canadian that signs up for a career in our military, does so because of a higher sense of duty, wanting to give back something to his or her country.... they want to do more than a 9 to 5 job. and the comradeship.... I get that there are some things that trump military spending....but if our government is going to send it's citizens to war or conflict it should have the balls to equip them properly....But most Canadians are happy to just bury them, instead of forcing those in power to equip them, or here is something new , stop sending them places.... There is a misconception on the military, and other public service employees such as police and firemen....If a military member gets injured on the job, they will do due diligence and treat them to the best of their ability, for instance need a few surgery or two you will receive them, once it is identified they can not repair your injuries and you do not meet universality terms, your released. there is no work mans compensation, no military plan, your given return of contributions from your pension plan, or if your entitled to a pension your pensioned off....A soldier has to go through vets affairs to try to get a medical pension or compensation up to 300,000 for the severest injuries. which is rare....this process normally can take years to finally get something....So to recap soldiers are not entitled to regular compensations...once out of the military you deal with vets affairs...who have no idea on what soldiers do or how those injuries occur.... When I joined the military in 1980, we were close to 93,000 troops, we had funding to train, sometimes more than 8 months out of the year was spent training...when I retired, a soldier is lucky to have one major exercise a year...or for the majority once every 2 years or when deployed....Shit the media reported DND does not have funding for fuel to drive LAV/s....I spent 34 years praying it would get better....that one day we would be excepted by our own citizens and treated fairly.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 If this was the Conservatives, you'd be all for it. #partisanhackThat's pretty much it. Derek would be whining if Trudeau said no just as much as he's whining about Trudeau saying yes. It's that kind of intellectual dishonesty that doesn't even make him worth talking to about these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 Not necessarily. The Russians have had a good time sending in armed provocateurs and bullying eastern countries like Ukraine and Georgia. There's no reason they wouldn't want to do the same to the Baltics. They might even convince themselves NATO wouldn't do anything about it. The presence of NATO troops, though, would raise the stakes a lot and would likely cause them to think again. Ukraine and Georgia aren't NATO nations, if the Russians started dicking around in NATO nations, like was done during the Cold War, there would be a reciprocal level of NATO dicking around with Russian interests.........if they invaded Latvia with a mechanized army the end result would be the same, regardless if there were ~1000 Canadians in the country or not...........add a couple of zeros to the back end of the proposed ~4000 manned NATO brigade and the Russians might take notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 I bet there would be a collective cheer from Islam if the Cold War finally went hot. I don't follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 my you're just so impatient for that review to complete! At some point you'll need to recognize that there is neither a people's will, a political will or a fiscal reality that will align with your (and others want) to get all the toys you dream over. . Hold on a sec........where have I ever suggested, outside standalone purchases or expenses (like deployments) that the defense budget should be increased? I have said countless times that it should be frozen until greater efficiencies are found, likewise a serious look at reducing the size of the regular army in favor of a greater reliance put upon the reserves........such a move would limit the ability for Canadian Governments to easily sign on for overseas adventurism, as the Trudeau government is currently doing in Europe. Given those wills and fiscal reality, why not set-out the D2.0 top 5 for Canadian role/want/need... inclusive of domestic and international forays - within domestic don't forget to factor Search & Rescue, Coast Guard, Border Security, Surveillance/reconnaissance, etc.. I have numerous times before, but yet again, an approach that starts with the defense of Canada (and its interests) and expands outwards, with the full understanding that defending Canada proper (and its interests) is best achieved by starting outwards into the World and reverting back to Canada proper. A modern day revision of how the British defended themselves and their overseas interests.......an influential blue water navy (combined with a modern air force) and a minuscule regular army, more of a cadre of a force able to train and lead a "local force overseas" and/or our own reserve army............... Such a defense policy, a revamp of Victorian gunboat diplomacy, ensures that no Canadian Government will be able to partake in foreign conflicts and open ended deployments sans local support in said countries and/or the expenditure of huge amounts of political capital as the Government "calls-up" the citizens army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 Yes it is quit an accomplishment is it not, to send your nations soldiers into battle without all the equipment it needs.....After all it is cheaper to bury them than it is to purchase the right equipment....that has got to be something to be proud of....The Canadian that signs up for a career in our military, does so because of a higher sense of duty, wanting to give back something to his or her country.... they want to do more than a 9 to 5 job. and the comradeship.... I get that there are some things that trump military spending....but if our government is going to send it's citizens to war or conflict it should have the balls to equip them properly....But most Canadians are happy to just bury them, instead of forcing those in power to equip them, or here is something new , stop sending them places.... There is a misconception on the military, and other public service employees such as police and firemen....If a military member gets injured on the job, they will do due diligence and treat them to the best of their ability, for instance need a few surgery or two you will receive them, once it is identified they can not repair your injuries and you do not meet universality terms, your released. there is no work mans compensation, no military plan, your given return of contributions from your pension plan, or if your entitled to a pension your pensioned off....A soldier has to go through vets affairs to try to get a medical pension or compensation up to 300,000 for the severest injuries. which is rare....this process normally can take years to finally get something....So to recap soldiers are not entitled to regular compensations...once out of the military you deal with vets affairs...who have no idea on what soldiers do or how those injuries occur.... When I joined the military in 1980, we were close to 93,000 troops, we had funding to train, sometimes more than 8 months out of the year was spent training...when I retired, a soldier is lucky to have one major exercise a year...or for the majority once every 2 years or when deployed....Shit the media reported DND does not have funding for fuel to drive LAV/s....I spent 34 years praying it would get better....that one day we would be excepted by our own citizens and treated fairly.... While I assume that you speak for yourself of why you joined and stayed in the forces there are others who joined for very different and more financial and rational reasons. Many treat it as a job and very few members of our military actually see conflict. The way that our military is run and the consequences of joining our military is obvious to any recruits. After 3 years if you do not like what is going on them you leave - and get a job using your military experience as a bonus on your resume. Nobody forces you to stay in for any longer. As for injuries, can military members take out additional health and life insurance? While I respect those who join our military I also respect those who choose to join other law enforcement, firefighters and those in the health community. I do not see military people as heroes. No doubt there are a few in the military who have done heroic things but so have others in our society. I do not consider dropping bombs on basically a defenseless population with no one shooting back at you as heroic - I consider it hunting, not unlike what those of us do when in season we decide to shoot some deer. Personally, I feel investing in our military is not a prudent or effective use of our money. Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia and now Iraq were a waste of $billions of our taxes but yet we continue to pour money into this arm of the government. My suggestion to those in the military who are unhappy with the way they are being treated is that they leave and seek employment elsewhere - that is what the rest of us do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 I don't follow. No surprise. Our proxies would probably be a lot happier if we took our frustrations out against each other directly instead of through them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.