[Newsbot]

Title: New Arctic Response Company Group emerges
Category: Military
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2009-05-20 10:53:52
Canadian

[maldonsfecht]

go get 'em boys!

[GreenTiger]

These days it is necessary.

[Racer62]

Wow, a handful of militia mixed with some Inuit rangers. A real force to be reckoned.

[Smacle]

Winter warfare sucks. I feel bad for them.

[Smacle]

I wonder, in that pic, how far the target is for that Karl-G for them to need binos?

[bootlegga]

I'd far prefer naval or air reserve units to be added, rather than a few Militia units. Still, it's better than nothing...

[Bacardi4206]

I am not sure what use this will have. I mean if any military threat is present in the artic it will almost certonly be Air or Naval threats. Not sure what a few hundred soldiers can do about that. Unless they got AA guns to combat air threats.

Seems like a waste to me. Keep the rangers there but put the effort into making more naval battleships and assign them in the artic.

[Canadaka]

Maybe some white camo might help, heh

[SprCForr]

Smacle Smacle:

I wonder, in that pic, how far the target is for that Karl-G for them to need binos?

Firing with the insert at paper maybe?

[SprCForr]

Canadaka Canadaka:

Maybe some white camo might help, heh

Doesn't matter a bit on a range. Patrol is a different thing all together.

[SprCForr]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

I am not sure what use this will have. I mean if any military threat is present in the artic it will almost certonly be Air or Naval threats. Not sure what a few hundred soldiers can do about that. Unless they got AA guns to combat air threats.

Seems like a waste to me. Keep the rangers there but put the effort into making more naval battleships and assign them in the artic.

More info on the threat is required before I could say with any certainty. Troops on the ground have a better loiter time than air and aren't tied to the coastlines.

I'd suspect that they'd be some kind of "go to" for what the Rangers find/observe. That sort of thing (of course) would hinge on CSOR/Reg F commitment to the north.

[ziggy]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

I am not sure what use this will have. I mean if any military threat is present in the artic it will almost certonly be Air or Naval threats. Not sure what a few hundred soldiers can do about that. Unless they got AA guns to combat air threats.

Seems like a waste to me. Keep the rangers there but put the effort into making more naval battleships and assign them in the artic.

Ya,so they can try busting through over ten feet of ice 9 months of the year.
Then theres air patrol over an environment that has frequent ground blizzards for 9 months of the year.

This is a good idea,if anything it will give some guys the experience in the arctic and the more the merrier if their on the ground,they have to understand what it's like first hand and they will,maybe the info they bring back will make some understand why most conventional weaponery wont work.
There's a reason the use ww2 303 british rifles,they work.
You got any gun that has grease in it like most modern ones and it will be useless at -50

Hope this exercise results in more troops getting sent there....on the tundra.
Where they can actually do some good.

[bootlegga]

I think the point here Ziggy is that we already have an excellent ground force (the Rangers). Why add a few hundred reservists (who likely won't have anywhere near the level of Arctic skills as the Rangers) to the mix?

Naval and sea assets are needed up there as well, not just more troops.

[SprCForr]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Naval and sea assets are needed up there as well, not just more troops.

Yep, way more than troops.