CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[PuckChaser]

Got to 1 Sigs in 07. Missed out on 1-08, 5-09, 3-09, and gave up hope.

Got posted to Svc Bn and thrown on MTTF out of the blue. The tours haven't stopped since then.

You unfortunately got screwed. There's Sigs guys with 4 bars on their GCS-SWA. You're in a good spot now, any larger sustained mission will have those MT dets rolling. Officers love DWAN.

 

[Altair]

If you joined at 18 you wouldn't have missed the cool tours.  8)

didn't want to die a virgin.

 

[medicineman]

didn't want to die a virgin.

Then you should have tried harder to get laid

MM

 

[OldSolduer]

Will the Winnipeg Grenadiers be reactivated for this tasking?

That was supposed to OUR secret! But I get the historical link.....

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Ya I see Somalia level staff officer deployment :-/  All the new guys need a gong after all :-/

Hopefully this turns out better than that mission...

Serious question though, being, "What is the point of this mission"? We're sending a basically notional amount of soldiers with no/little equipment to "protect" NATO states with must larger armies and better equipment? We're also sending them to defend against a country with little to no ability to project force.

We pulled the CF-18's that we "whipped out" to attack ISIS, a real enemy, but can deploy troops to defend larger countries against a realistically non-existent threat?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I sincerely hope that they mean the Bn headquarters Coy, and not some excuse to employ 1 Can Div HQ.... then again, we've never been good with scaling command oversight to the actual amount of troops on the ground.

I'm sure there is a 300 slide powerpoint somewhere followed by a spreadsheet that took 400 hours to make detailing why there will be more tail than tooth.  ;D

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Hopefully this turns out better than that mission...

Serious question though, being, "What is the point of this mission"? We're sending a basically notional amount of soldiers with no/little equipment to "protect" NATO states with must larger armies and better equipment? We're also sending them to defend against a country with little to no ability to project force.

We pulled the CF-18's that we "whipped out" to attack ISIS, a real enemy, but can deploy troops to defend larger countries against a realistically non-existent threat?

Didn`t you hear?  We are not at war with ISIS!

Maybe the point of the mission is to 'be seen to be doing something', which may be the only thing to actually do.  Making a stance, all that stuff.

Wonder how badly the infrastructure in places like Lahr has faired out the past few decades.  Might be soon putting a fresh coat of paint on some of it?

 

[The Bread Guy]

We pulled the CF-18's that we "whipped out" to attack ISIS, a real enemy, but can deploy troops to defend larger countries against a realistically non-existent threat?

Tell that to the Ukrainians, the Moldovans and the Georgians - or the Baltics, for that matter, where Russia appears to STILL be trying to sanction what they're considering former Soviet deserters.

Meanwhile, a bit of initial RUS media reaction ...

• "The deployment of Canadian troops to support NATO force in Eastern Europe is not aimed at provoking conflict, but rather at ensuring peace and stability in the region, the head of the Canadian delegation to the OSCE PA told Sputnik* Friday ..."
• "Canada to send 1,000 troops to E. Europe to boost NATO presence at Russia’s doorstep" (via RT**)

* - Web presence of RIA Novosti, Russia's state-operated news agency
** - RT, formerly Russia Today, is "a Russian government-funded television network that runs cable and satellite television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia"

 

[Eye In The Sky]

;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

;D

Interestingly enough, guess how you spell "Putin" in French?  ;D

 

[medicineman]

Interestingly enough, guess how you spell "Putin" in French?  ;D

In English, it is a homonym of a gardening implement

MM

 

[Jarnhamar]

Only took 1.5 pages to mention medals (not that you care), but guaranteed that's the first thing someone thinks of at NDHQ.

Yup. As well as some 32 day CFTPO tasks

How much service support required? 6:1 ratio, but troops still have to buy their own boots, slings and fighting rigs.

And then be told issued slings and tacvest only.  ;D

 

[MilEME09]

Wonder how badly the infrastructure in places like Lahr has faired out the past few decades.  Might be soon putting a fresh coat of paint on some of it?

Lahr is now the Black Forest Airport, was converted back to a civilian airport after we left, probably in much better condition then when we left. Though with the British Army coming home from Germany, we might be able to score a deal on a well kept base.


Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Journeyman]

Yup. As well as some 32 day CFTPO tasks

  :nod:  Let the "Staff Annoyance Visits" begin.

 

[George Wallace]

Lahr is now the Black Forest Airport, was converted back to a civilian airport after we left, probably in much better condition then when we left. Though with the British Army coming home from Germany, we might be able to score a deal on a well kept base.


Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Lahr Flugplatz is in someways modernized, and at the same time still has remnants of 4 CMBG facilities, either in use or derelict.  It is easily searchable.

Did we not set up a small AMU and supply facility with a tiny staff in Bonn to provide the CAF with an airhead and support on a limited scale back in the late 2000's? 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Tell that to the Ukrainians, the Moldovans and the Georgians - or the Baltics, for that matter, where Russia appears to STILL be trying to sanction what they're considering former Soviet deserters.

Meanwhile, a bit of initial RUS media reaction ...

• "The deployment of Canadian troops to support NATO force in Eastern Europe is not aimed at provoking conflict, but rather at ensuring peace and stability in the region, the head of the Canadian delegation to the OSCE PA told Sputnik* Friday ..."
• "Canada to send 1,000 troops to E. Europe to boost NATO presence at Russia’s doorstep" (via RT**)

* - Web presence of RIA Novosti, Russia's state-operated news agency
** - RT, formerly Russia Today, is "a Russian government-funded television network that runs cable and satellite television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia"

If Russia had any real strength or ability to project power it wouldn't be fighting a proxy war in Ukraine or made a half hearted attempt at invading Georgia. The fact of the matter is that Russia cannot project power inside it's sphere of influence, let alone rival NATO. Any show of Russian force is smoke and mirrors similar to Saddam's military post Gulf War 1. NATO sending troops into Eastern Europe, to me, is more about trying to keep NATO relevant and united after an ineffective Afghan mission than actually trying to dissuade Russia from doing something.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If Russia had any real strength or ability to project power it wouldn't be fighting a proxy war in Ukraine or made a half hearted attempt at invading Georgia. The fact of the matter is that Russia cannot project power inside it's sphere of influence, let alone rival NATO. Any show of Russian force is smoke and mirrors similar to Saddam's military post Gulf War 1. NATO sending troops into Eastern Europe, to me, is more about trying to keep NATO relevant and united after an ineffective Afghan mission than actually trying to dissuade Russia from doing something.

If a clash happened and Russia deployed it's artillery, I think we would be shocked at the carnage on our side. It would not last long but the conflict would have a causality rate that rivals Iraq and Afghanistan combined. NATO will stumble in the first week, followed by a counter offensive that would stop the Russian offensive. It would be very short and very bloody with a lot of dead AFV's and aircraft on both sides. Expect heavy causalities within various field headquarters caused by their lack of EW, light discipline and failure to secure the perimeters.   

 

[The Bread Guy]

NATO sending troops into Eastern Europe, to me, is more about trying to keep NATO relevant and united after an ineffective Afghan mission than actually trying to dissuade Russia from doing something.

In a world of nuance, I do have to agree that this is registering at a more-than-zero level for some decision makers.

If Russia had any real strength or ability to project power it wouldn't be fighting a proxy war in Ukraine or made a half hearted attempt at invading Georgia.

Assuming, of course, that Russia's goal is to take these territories once & for all, as opposed to, say, keeping the "other guys" off balance.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Two questions:
1.  For those that know more than me, what should an optimal battlegroup for Latvia look like? 
2.  Is there any chance that this deployment could be used to justify of some new kit that is currently missing in the Army's quiver:  ATGM's?  Self-propelled howitzers?  SAM system of some sort?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

If a clash happened and Russia deployed it's artillery, I think we would be shocked at the carnage on our side. It would not last long but the conflict would have a causality rate that rivals Iraq and Afghanistan combined. NATO will stumble in the first week, followed by a counter offensive that would stop the Russian offensive. It would be very short and very bloody with a lot of dead AFV's and aircraft on both sides. Expect heavy causalities within various field headquarters caused by their lack of EW, light discipline and failure to secure the perimeters. 

I agree that Russia is likely a tougher nut to crack than what we give it credit for, but the overarching point is that any victory they achieved would be phyrric in nature and short lasting (like the Iraqi attack on Khafji in Gulf War 1). Russia's bigger problems include a horrible economy, massive social issues (Aging population, mass alcoholism, etc), and internal terrorist threat. No to mention the issue they have on their Chinese border with a Chinese nation that would love nothing more than to rid itself of Russia on its doorstep and replace it with smaller and weaker satellite states. Even attacking a nation like Latvia, in 2016, would only result in further international isolation, international resolve to rid the world of Putin, and the creation of another internal problem in the HIGHLY unlikely scenario that the Russians fight to a draw and were allowed to keep Latvia.

The point, then, is that there is absolutely nothing for the Russians to gain by attacking a NATO nation (or actually attacking any nation) and absolutely everything to lose. NATO having a high readiness Brigade in Latvia will accomplish the square root of F all while costing us money that we could use elsewhere.

The decision smacks of knee jerk reactions to pretend problems with the goal of making Russia seem like a bad guy. it's basically watching the movie "Canadian Bacon" with Canada replaced with Russia.