Canadian military to be smaller than Tories promised in 2006

Fascinating.

Not good.

I noticed that, too. The effects of the mission in A-stan?

Not so much. More along the lines of the forces being top heavy and it takes a considerable amount of time and money to get a recruit to become a proficient tradesman. You can swell the ranks with ease but they will not be able to do much more than ruck matches. This comes more from the fact that we have kept the forces at or around 60,000 for so long. Lots of NCO's and enlisteds that have time in with blown knees and backs that have been in way longer then their bodies were made for. A-stan is having an effect as there was a rush of new recruits that raised the level of FNG's but it will take years before this influx will be homogenized to the point it will replace what is leaving right now. The more senior ranks stayed to train but there is way more of them punching out then there are of the new guys for now. Over time this will correct but we have a shortfall, a real brain drain of experienced troops. Something A-stan is actually helping the CF with. The real problem is the more specialized trades need something more than grunts. A raise in pay will help but there is a huge skilled manpower problem that needs to be dealt with post haste.

What everyone must realize is that the military is a cross-section of the Canadian population, and everything that happens with the population happens in the military. The fact is that we have a very strong economy where there is no shortage of work especially in the West. Therefore recruiting takes a hit because of the abundance of good jobs plus we lose trained personnell to the open market where the pay is better and they wont have to sleep in a ditch. If our economy crashed these numbers would be very attainable.

True but then we wouldn't be able to afford the budget to sustain the number required then.

Canada could have a potent Canadian defense force if it would switch military thinking from conventional, flat-surface fighting to all-terrain guerrilla warfare. It has been amply demonstrated that small mobile units using fight and flee tactics have defeated vastly superior fire power e.g. Viet Nam.

Canada has its Indians to teach bush skills, skills that allow the soldier to support himself from the land, orient himself without technology, to track, stalk, and move silently close to the enemy.

Two of the most decorated soldiers in the first and second world wars were Indians. Peghamgabow from Ontario and Frank Prince from Manitoba. Both sneaked behind enemy lines and reported back, drawing maps of where the enemy and their fire power was concentrated.

Frank Prince was borrowed by the Americans, who were bogged down in Italy. Prince stole behind the German-Italian lines, and provided the information necessary for the Americans to break through. He was awarded two medals simultaneously by King George, one on behalf of the President of the United States.

If you take an in-depth look at the wars between Canada and the US, the Indians play a pivotal role in all of them. It was the Indians who helped the British move their equipment and troops up the cliffs to the Plains of Abraham.

In a country as vast as Canada, its defense cannot be achieved by old, conventional, military thinking. Use the expertise of the Native people.

I agree with that sentiment regarding gorilla warfare, at least in the field. However, it is difficult logistically as far as the current rank structure goes as the superior officers still need to designate targets and get that info out to soldiers.

Sorry bud you're a century late on this one. Today's Indians have no more bush craft than any other person living in rural areas, or experienced hunters. Some Inuit maybe a different story though, as they live in areas that very few people of any other ethnicity live in.

No western nation's military force can make that switch completely. The conventional skill sets to be maintained. It's that skill set that currently allows us to dominate on a battlefield when the guerillas stand and fight or are fixed in place.

Vietnam is a poor comparison if it's looked at more than superficially. The skills you claim our troops need are for the most place already there and have been practiced for decades. Are you familiar with the patrol doctrine of the Candian Army? Have you ever heard of the "Patrol Spirit"? We take pride in our skill in that area and answer to no one in our ability. They are perfectly comfortable with a map and compass. They can move unseen, they can ambush. The requirement to bring overwhelming fire on our enemy dictates certain technological aids. Making it a straight C7 vs AK fight is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, there is some merit to conducting dismounted patrols, but that time isn't yet.

You sure your not talking about Sgt Tommy Prince RCE and later in Korea of the PPCLI? The same one that every single Patricia and Sapper learns about in Battle School? He's honored at the Battle School by having the drill hall named after him.

Tommy Prince

philowl


Not really. That is an urban legend which the body count disproves empathically.

As far as using our FNs----most young guys are already very experienced in bar-hopping. This is 2007 not 1812.

This is hardly news.

Despite Harper's promises and 'grand vision' his annual increases for the DND haven't been any bigger than the Liberals were (about 1 billion annually for the last 4-5 years). The only thing he's done with the defence file is buy us 2 C-17s, which as nice as they are, haven't added all that much to the DND capabilities. Other than that, Harper been as full as of promises as Martin was.

Guerrilla Training For Canada

Another example of guerrilla ware fare against superior fire power is Israel, where the Palestinians have fought for 60 years. If you have the chance to speak to servicemen who worked with the Israeli army they are unanimous in saying that it is the best army in the world. No wonder! They have had 60 years of continual practice! Also, France vs. Algeria, British vs Kenyans, USA vs Somalians, British vs IRA, Castro vs USA-backed Batista, and others.

I'm merely illustrating that when a major power goes to the enemy's home turf they have expensive logistics to maintain while the guerrilla fighters have the local populace to support them and provide intelligence on the movements of the invaders. The advantage is on the side of the guerrillas.

The same would apply to Canada; we would not rest until any occupier was driven out!

Please don't think the Indians have completely lost their traditional skills, the greater proportion of trappers in Canada are Indians. And the Canadian Forces are currently using the Northern Indians as Rangers, and are sending some of our troops up there for training. I'm arguing that this program should be greatly expanded.

In Switzerland every healthy male must take military training and take refresher training periodically afterward. Their guns and equipment are kept at home. Attack Switzerland and the whole country will be at your throat.

Sounds like someone has been reading Defence Plan 1 again...guerilla warfare against an aggressor in Canada likely wouldn't work. Too few major cities to hide in and too many big open spaces that can't hide terror camps.