O'Connor is Such a Joker

[blueblood]

I see no problem with getting better equipment, i'd personally like to see us get nuclear powered subs. Tanks at 350 grand a pop thats a steal, some new farm machinery costs more than that. 20 tonne drawbar, cat tracks, a cannon for those pesky varmints - where can I get one? but seriously one can never predict the state of the world, so upgrading our tanks plus crew is not a bad thing. I wouldn't send the tanks to afghanistan though, they'd be death traps, theres no room to manouver and use proper tank tactics. I'd say your honestly better off with loads more infantry from other countries helping out and with the fighter jets doing runs and providing air support, they tend not to get wrecked. Biggest thing though, get that afghan army up to competance as soon as possible

[M.Dancer]

What would we want N-subs for? I am of the opoinion that even the new subs are too much sub for what we need. I think the Dutch and the german dolphin class (aquired by israel) would be more than adequate and far less cost.

[M.Dancer]

What would we want N-subs for? I am of the opoinion that even the new subs are too much sub for what we need. I think the Dutch and the german dolphin class (aquired by israel) would be more than adequate and far less cost.

[White Doors]

I see no problem with getting better equipment, i'd personally like to see us get nuclear powered subs. Tanks at 350 grand a pop thats a steal, some new farm machinery costs more than that. 20 tonne drawbar, cat tracks, a cannon for those pesky varmints - where can I get one? but seriously one can never predict the state of the world, so upgrading our tanks plus crew is not a bad thing. I wouldn't send the tanks to afghanistan though, they'd be death traps, theres no room to manouver and use proper tank tactics. I'd say your honestly better off with loads more infantry from other countries helping out and with the fighter jets doing runs and providing air support, they tend not to get wrecked. Biggest thing though, get that afghan army up to competance as soon as possible

Agreed, except for the tank part. No RPG can take out our Leopard II's. It gives the troops protection and let's the taliban knwo that nothing they have can stop them. A good message to send in my opinion.

[White Doors]

What would we want N-subs for? I am of the opoinion that even the new subs are too much sub for what we need. I think the Dutch and the german dolphin class (aquired by israel) would be more than adequate and far less cost.

Nuclear powered subs is the only way we can properly enforce our arctic sovereignty. If any country needs them it's us. Our current subs and the subs that you cite cannot travel under ice pack for any significant time and as such are utterly useless to us.

[M.Dancer]

What would we want N-subs for? I am of the opoinion that even the new subs are too much sub for what we need. I think the Dutch and the german dolphin class (aquired by israel) would be more than adequate and far less cost.

Nuclear powered subs is the only way we can properly enforce our arctic sovereignty. If any country needs them it's us. Our current subs and the subs that you cite cannot travel under ice pack for any significant time and as such are utterly useless to us.

Long range patrol craft are better suited. They are cheaper and have a definate advantage over subs. They are fast and can go over water and land and cover 100 times the area in any given time.

Sub have their purpose, but sovreignty enforcement ain't one of them.

And if you insisted on a surface presence, then choose armed icebreakers...they at least can do something valuable while they patrol.

[White Doors]

What would we want N-subs for? I am of the opoinion that even the new subs are too much sub for what we need. I think the Dutch and the german dolphin class (aquired by israel) would be more than adequate and far less cost.

Nuclear powered subs is the only way we can properly enforce our arctic sovereignty. If any country needs them it's us. Our current subs and the subs that you cite cannot travel under ice pack for any significant time and as such are utterly useless to us.

Long range patrol craft are better suited. They are cheaper and have a definate advantage over subs. They are fast and can go over water and land and cover 100 times the area in any given time.

Sub have their purpose, but sovreignty enforcement ain't one of them.

And if you insisted on a surface presence, then choose armed icebreakers...they at least can do something valuable while they patrol.

Armed icebrakers can't go through thick ice, they can best go at the margins of the pack ice.

N Subs aren't cheap, but they are the only real solution. Unfortunately, we have so many pressing needs in the military that these are at the bottom of the list. Those Diesel class one's from GB are garbage even if they didn't leak.

[M.Dancer]

Armed icebrakers can't go through thick ice, they can best go at the margins of the pack ice.

N Subs aren't cheap, but they are the only real solution. Unfortunately, we have so many pressing needs in the military that these are at the bottom of the list. Those Diesel class one's from GB are garbage even if they didn't leak.

Okay....if a heavy ice breaker can go through 4 ft of ice, are you saying a sub can punch through 10-15 ft of ice, which can be the thickness of pack ice?

[blueblood]

Agreed, except for the tank part. No RPG can take out our Leopard II's. It gives the troops protection and let's the taliban knwo that nothing they have can stop them. A good message to send in my opinion.

Mines can take them out and the Russians had quite the time with tanks in afghanistan, they even said it was better to just walk. Tanks are good in the open, not in valleys and mountains. Nothing the Taliban has can stop a CF-18 either.

About the subs I'm going to say this

1. Nuclear attack subs, are effective, a nuclear attack sub has a much better chance of winning a naval engagement than a surface ship.

2. If we are going to have subs, they might as well be the best.

3. Even though N-subs are expensive, they are highly efficient which would negate the need for surface ships, and the threat of being blown out of the water at any given time out of nowhere is deterrent enough. Also it is an efficient way we can have a competitive navy on the world stage.

4. In the arctic, the subs can go anywhere which gives them a tactical advantage over ships which are limited to ice flows. With the subs, those ice breakers don't have to be armed as as they will be covered by subs.

5. If ever we were to be invaded, with our land army being so small, why not take out the invading army while in transport, again subs are most efficient at this.

I'd like to see good reconnaisance so the subs would be immediately deployed to said threat.

I'd once again say that the CF-18s in afghanistan would make much more sense than tanks

[Black Dog]

Surprisingly it seems the Taliban have been figyhting that way. As Napolean was want to say

"Never interupt your enemy when they are making a mistake"

The region apparently is dotted with fortified walled compounds complete with trenches that they use as bunkers. The heavy armour is ideal for approaching under fire and for directing massive concentrated and targeted fire.

If true, then the Taliban are making a major tactical error in shifting from close quarters, hit and run light infantry tactics to conventional ones. I'm curious about this alleged shift: do you have a citation?

Mines can take them out and the Russians had quite the time with tanks in afghanistan, they even said it was better to just walk. Tanks are good in the open, not in valleys and mountains.

Indeed, Soviet armour got murdered in their war because the mujahideen favoured close quarters tactic which played to their strengths (mobility, familiarity with the terrain) and nullified the Soviet advantage in firepower. And a tank that can bring its firepower to bear is a liability on the battlefield.

About the subs I'm going to say this

1. Nuclear attack subs, are effective, a nuclear attack sub has a much better chance of winning a naval engagement than a surface ship.

What threat would these subs be countering?

2. If we are going to have subs, they might as well be the best.

But that doesn't mean we need to have subs in the first place.

3. Even though N-subs are expensive, they are highly efficient which would negate the need for surface ships, and the threat of being blown out of the water at any given time out of nowhere is deterrent enough. Also it is an efficient way we can have a competitive navy on the world stage.

Why would subs negate the need for surface ships? You can't launch helicopters from subs, you can't transport any quantity of men or material in a sub. Also: why do we need a competitive navy on the world stage if the threats of the future are coming from groups like the Taliban?

4. In the arctic, the subs can go anywhere which gives them a tactical advantage over ships which are limited to ice flows. With the subs, those ice breakers don't have to be armed as as they will be covered by subs.

Wait: if subs can go where ships can't, why do we need them? It stands to reason that teh same limitations apply to anyon etrying to violate Canadian soverignty, which means they'll have subs (which means our subs will be spending all their time beneath the ice playing cat and mouse) or they'll travel on the surface (which means we can counte rthem on the surface).

5. If ever we were to be invaded, with our land army being so small, why not take out the invading army while in transport, again subs are most efficient at this.

We are never going to be invaded. It's a geographic impossibility.

[M.Dancer]

If true, then the Taliban are making a major tactical error in shifting from close quarters, hit and run light infantry tactics to conventional ones. I'm curious about this alleged shift: do you have a citation?

Globe and Mail about 1 month ago. As I understand it, as the Canadians move into Taliban strongholds the Talibani are forced to either stand or flee. Fleeing is fine........staying gets them killed.

[M.Dancer]

I agree. Subs are way down the list of priorities. More Figates and at least 2 Flag ships before another sub. Surface vessels can do things that subs just cannot. Like fire a warning shot over the bow of an illegal trawler.......

[Black Dog]

Globe and Mail about 1 month ago. As I understand it, as the Canadians move into Taliban strongholds the Talibani are forced to either stand or flee. Fleeing is fine........staying gets them killed.

I've heard a lot about "Taliban strongholds", usually from the media. Personally, I've always taken it to describe areas where there are lots of Taliban, where they have a support network in place and some local support and not in terms of fixed strongpoints on a battlefield. As for the staying and fleeing: that's usually the case when they are the one's being attacked and not the one's on the offensive. IOW, I'm not convinced they would suddenly adapt defensive tactics that play right into their enemy's strengths and negate theirs, especially when you consider that fixed defensive positions are a feature of western-style warfare, not the run and gun style of the Afghan tribes.

[M.Dancer]

Globe and Mail about 1 month ago. As I understand it, as the Canadians move into Taliban strongholds the Talibani are forced to either stand or flee. Fleeing is fine........staying gets them killed.

I've heard a lot about "Taliban strongholds", usually from the media. Personally, I've always taken it to describe areas where there are lots of Taliban, where they have a support network in place and some local support and not in terms of fixed strongpoints on a battlefield. As for the staying and fleeing: that's usually the case when they are the one's being attacked and not the one's on the offensive. IOW, I'm not convinced they would suddenly adapt defensive tactics that play right into their enemy's strengths and negate theirs, especially when you consider that fixed defensive positions are a feature of western-style warfare, not the run and gun style of the Afghan tribes.

Yes...Stronghold as being a general area of operations, the walled compounds are within the strongholds...these homesteads are what the local people live in. They have always lived in them and are usually about a musket ball apart. The walls are quite thick for two reasons. One as a natural insulater against cold and heat, and two, they provide shelter against your neigbours complaints, which seem to take the form of 7.62 ball rounds....If you saw the CBC nes video of one of the canadian offensives, you would have seen them firing over the outer walls into the inner compound......What the soldiers have said of the enemy, no lacking of courage, but not particularly smart either. Either way, since NATO is highly mobile, surrounding them and forcing them to ground may happen from time to time......

I read a great article a few years ago about a CIA operative back in the Soviet days. They would give one Mujihadeen group a few Stingers.....that would precipitatee a mini war within the Mujihadeen as rival clans would fight each other for possesion of the stingers.....and the stingers themselves might be sold or horded....getting them to actually use them against the soviets was difficult because of the prestige and leverage they brought.......

[White Doors]

Armed icebrakers can't go through thick ice, they can best go at the margins of the pack ice.

N Subs aren't cheap, but they are the only real solution. Unfortunately, we have so many pressing needs in the military that these are at the bottom of the list. Those Diesel class one's from GB are garbage even if they didn't leak.

Okay....if a heavy ice breaker can go through 4 ft of ice, are you saying a sub can punch through 10-15 ft of ice, which can be the thickness of pack ice?

No, I'm saying that they can go underneath it.

[M.Dancer]

Armed icebrakers can't go through thick ice, they can best go at the margins of the pack ice.

N Subs aren't cheap, but they are the only real solution. Unfortunately, we have so many pressing needs in the military that these are at the bottom of the list. Those Diesel class one's from GB are garbage even if they didn't leak.

Okay....if a heavy ice breaker can go through 4 ft of ice, are you saying a sub can punch through 10-15 ft of ice, which can be the thickness of pack ice?

No, I'm saying that they can go underneath it.

A lot of good that would do if there were mexican illegal immigrants on top of the ice........

[White Doors]

Globe and Mail about 1 month ago. As I understand it, as the Canadians move into Taliban strongholds the Talibani are forced to either stand or flee. Fleeing is fine........staying gets them killed.

I've heard a lot about "Taliban strongholds", usually from the media. Personally, I've always taken it to describe areas where there are lots of Taliban, where they have a support network in place and some local support and not in terms of fixed strongpoints on a battlefield. As for the staying and fleeing: that's usually the case when they are the one's being attacked and not the one's on the offensive. IOW, I'm not convinced they would suddenly adapt defensive tactics that play right into their enemy's strengths and negate theirs, especially when you consider that fixed defensive positions are a feature of western-style warfare, not the run and gun style of the Afghan tribes.

But yet, that is exactly what they did during operation Medusa.

[White Doors]

Armed icebrakers can't go through thick ice, they can best go at the margins of the pack ice.

N Subs aren't cheap, but they are the only real solution. Unfortunately, we have so many pressing needs in the military that these are at the bottom of the list. Those Diesel class one's from GB are garbage even if they didn't leak.

Okay....if a heavy ice breaker can go through 4 ft of ice, are you saying a sub can punch through 10-15 ft of ice, which can be the thickness of pack ice?

No, I'm saying that they can go underneath it.

A lot of good that would do if there were mexican illegal immigrants on top of the ice........

What? It';s about asserting our sovereignty. You don't need to actually kill people to put good military kit to effective use. I do agree that they are down on the list, but they really make alot of sense for Canada.

Oh, and the troop carriers are on the way. No more frigates I'm afraid, but there was talk about 2-3 more destroyer's.

[M.Dancer]

IOW, I'm not convinced they would suddenly adapt defensive tactics that play right into their enemy's strengths and negate theirs, especially when you consider that fixed defensive positions are a feature of western-style warfare, not the run and gun style of the Afghan tribes.

I can't spend anymore time right now looking for the Globe article, but here is a bog of sorts that talks about another shift in Taliban tactics earlier this year. The difference here to what I described....I was saying that the canadians have moved into the Talibans home towns....sometimes catching them pants down. then their choices are to flee or fight.....they are brave....

Instead of employing these proven tactics, the Taliban have massed into company-sized assault forces and have attempted to overrun police stations, villages, and whole towns. The Afghan army and Coalition forces have responded with ground mobility, helicopters, firepower, air strikes, and even a heavy bomber. The results have been grievous losses for the Taliban, as witnessed from the events of the past week.

http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2006/05/odd-t...an-tactics.html

[M.Dancer]

Armed icebrakers can't go through thick ice, they can best go at the margins of the pack ice.

N Subs aren't cheap, but they are the only real solution. Unfortunately, we have so many pressing needs in the military that these are at the bottom of the list. Those Diesel class one's from GB are garbage even if they didn't leak.

Okay....if a heavy ice breaker can go through 4 ft of ice, are you saying a sub can punch through 10-15 ft of ice, which can be the thickness of pack ice?

No, I'm saying that they can go underneath it.

A lot of good that would do if there were mexican illegal immigrants on top of the ice........

What? It';s about asserting our sovereignty. You don't need to actually kill people to put good military kit to effective use. I do agree that they are down on the list, but they really make alot of sense for Canada.

Oh, and the troop carriers are on the way. No more frigates I'm afraid, but there was talk about 2-3 more destroyer's.

Not troop carriers....supply ships....big difference

[blueblood]

Surprisingly it seems the Taliban have been figyhting that way. As Napolean was want to say

"Never interupt your enemy when they are making a mistake"

The region apparently is dotted with fortified walled compounds complete with trenches that they use as bunkers. The heavy armour is ideal for approaching under fire and for directing massive concentrated and targeted fire.

If true, then the Taliban are making a major tactical error in shifting from close quarters, hit and run light infantry tactics to conventional ones. I'm curious about this alleged shift: do you have a citation?

Mines can take them out and the Russians had quite the time with tanks in afghanistan, they even said it was better to just walk. Tanks are good in the open, not in valleys and mountains.

Indeed, Soviet armour got murdered in their war because the mujahideen favoured close quarters tactic which played to their strengths (mobility, familiarity with the terrain) and nullified the Soviet advantage in firepower. And a tank that can bring its firepower to bear is a liability on the battlefield.

About the subs I'm going to say this

1. Nuclear attack subs, are effective, a nuclear attack sub has a much better chance of winning a naval engagement than a surface ship.

What threat would these subs be countering?

2. If we are going to have subs, they might as well be the best.

But that doesn't mean we need to have subs in the first place.

3. Even though N-subs are expensive, they are highly efficient which would negate the need for surface ships, and the threat of being blown out of the water at any given time out of nowhere is deterrent enough. Also it is an efficient way we can have a competitive navy on the world stage.

Why would subs negate the need for surface ships? You can't launch helicopters from subs, you can't transport any quantity of men or material in a sub. Also: why do we need a competitive navy on the world stage if the threats of the future are coming from groups like the Taliban?

4. In the arctic, the subs can go anywhere which gives them a tactical advantage over ships which are limited to ice flows. With the subs, those ice breakers don't have to be armed as as they will be covered by subs.

Wait: if subs can go where ships can't, why do we need them? It stands to reason that teh same limitations apply to anyon etrying to violate Canadian soverignty, which means they'll have subs (which means our subs will be spending all their time beneath the ice playing cat and mouse) or they'll travel on the surface (which means we can counte rthem on the surface).

5. If ever we were to be invaded, with our land army being so small, why not take out the invading army while in transport, again subs are most efficient at this.

We are never going to be invaded. It's a geographic impossibility.

Well we never know, I can't predict the future, and those after world war 1 thought germany was finished and well look what happened, i don't know of a threat, but a good sub fleet would provide employment, deterrence, etc. Also an N-sub can hand most sea vessels its ass in a naval engagement. Surface warships are outclassed by nuclear attack subs, that is why they were created in he first place, better to stay ahead of the curve. I am talking about replacing warships of course, from what i've seen of our warships they look like cannon fodder. I don't see much of a need to launch a chopper from a warship in a naval engagement. Canada is just as likely to get invaded as anywhere else, we're one of the richest and most poorly defended countries in the world, yes we have an advantage of geography, why not base our armed forces around these advantages. Your ideas sound good for our coast guard which we already have and has a function, the navy is for war at sea, the navy and coast guard are two different things.

[jdobbin]

I'll pipe up on this one...

Personally, I hope they send 5000 troops, and all the CF 18's, all the leopard tanks and pound the shit out of the Taliban.....With these people you need to strong arm them, there is no negotiating with the taliban. They want us out, and that is that.

Unfortunately, the Taliban gets safety and funding in Pakistan. And when they come out of the mountains, it is poor tank country.

[jdobbin]

Long range patrol craft are better suited. They are cheaper and have a definate advantage over subs. They are fast and can go over water and land and cover 100 times the area in any given time.

Sub have their purpose, but sovreignty enforcement ain't one of them.

And if you insisted on a surface presence, then choose armed icebreakers...they at least can do something valuable while they patrol.

I agree. I always thought the subs were a poor choice. I would have thought the same thing. Armed ice breakers capable of dropping a depth charge on the inconsiderate who might use the Northwest Passage without asking first.

Our diesel subs can't go north. Or underwater, it seems.

[jdobbin]

Armed icebrakers can't go through thick ice, they can best go at the margins of the pack ice.

N Subs aren't cheap, but they are the only real solution. Unfortunately, we have so many pressing needs in the military that these are at the bottom of the list. Those Diesel class one's from GB are garbage even if they didn't leak.

A nuclear icebreaker can.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

stated that it colored our thinking and determined a force composition that we are now in possesion of.

Is that we we have F-18s, leopards, Frigates, Submarines...........

I humbly submit, you are not in possesion of the facts.

The military wanted F15's, they were given F18's. They wanted Abrahms, they got Leopards. They wanted missle cruisers, they got frigates. They wanted real subs and they got obsolete crap that killed sailors. The military knew what they needed to do the job that was given to them by the government who then gave them less than what they needed and endangered their lives in doing so.

Once again it is a question of force composition, what we have is barely adequate for peace keeping and completely 2nd rate for entering into an aggressive engagement. Listen fella, the stuff needed to play in the big leagues is far from cheap and second hand and second rate equipment can get you killed. I am not keen on the idea of sending my fellow citizens into a gun fight packing a knife. Our guys are good, so good that they would be downright awesome if they had the right equipment and the proper political support. All I am saying is that we should crap or get off the pot.