Updated Army Service Dress project

[Furniture]

Perhaps I need to add some more context. I may have been a little brash in my last point.

I am not discounting the contributions of the RCN/RCAF to our partners and allies. My response we as to @Halifax Tar 's opinion that the CA can be replaced by a stronger RCN/RCAF/SOF trifecta.

You won't see a SOF crew conducting Bde level combined arms attacks within a MN Div in Latvia any more than you'd see an RCN Ships Coy or RCAF Sqn. The Bde is what NATO has asked for. We rotate through the BAP task because it's part of the gig, but it also taxes our own AD responsibilities to NORAD. Same with the Aurora crews and the frigates we send to support things like ARTEMIS, REASSURANCE, CARRIBE, etc.

The CA is the cheap and easy multi tool of foreign policy. Be it COIN, PSO, Training, or deterrence operations. It doesn't mean the RCAF/RCN/SOF are any less valued in their contributions; my point was mainly that to do as HT suggests would see a lot less Canada on the world stage. That isn't necessarily a change from where we are with our abysmal returns for NATO and UN missions, but it would be a net loss for whatever away we currently hold with our allies and partners.

Fair points, but I want to address the bolded part.

NATO has asked for the Bde, because they don't need to ask for our ships and planes, the ships and planes have been there for decades. NATO deterrence for the CA might be a new thing again, but it never went away for the RCN and RCAF, even after the Cold War ended.

CAF members generally understand what their branch/element does, but often times have near zero knowledge of what the others are doing, or why they are doing it. Unification didn't break down the silos, it simply renamed them and gave them a terrible uniform.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

NATO has asked for the Bde, because they don't need to ask for our ships and planes, the ships and planes have been there for decades. NATO deterrence for the CA might be a new thing again, but it never went away for the RCN and RCAF, even after the Cold War ended.

CAF members generally understand what their branch/element does, but often times have near zero knowledge of what the others are doing, or why they are doing it. Unification didn't break down the silos, it simply renamed them and gave them a terrible uniform.

Agreed. Especially the bolded part at the bottom.

That's what we're hopefully fixing at the crux of this multi-derailed and disjointed thread about the Updated Army Service Uniform

 

[Good2Golf]

You won't see a SOF crew conducting Bde level combined arms attacks within a MN Div in Latvia any more than you'd see an RCN Ships Coy or RCAF Sqn. The Bde is what NATO has asked for. We rotate through the BAP task because it's part of the gig, but it also taxes our own AD responsibilities to NORAD. Same with the Aurora crews and the frigates we send to support things like ARTEMIS, REASSURANCE, CARRIBE, etc.

Nope, but you may very have SOF conducting nation-building training of Latvia's and other countries' SOF capabilities, which in the Eastern European AO is not an insignificant factor. It warms my heart to see UAF soldiers stacked and boldly advancing covering each others' arcs and demonstrating rock solid weapons handling and shoot-move-communicate skills that scream 'Western SF-training.'

Besides, are you suggesting that the CA could even come close to providing a complete Bde? Or are we going to rest on the "Canada provides the leadership structure of the MNB/MND and others provide the rank and file?" That gets pretty tired in the eyes of the other nations who are actually providing the bulk of the troops to said Bde.

The CA is the cheap and easy multi tool of foreign policy. Be it COIN, PSO, Training, or deterrence operations. It doesn't mean the RCAF/RCN/SOF are any less valued in their contributions; my point was mainly that to do as HT suggests would see a lot less Canada on the world stage. That isn't necessarily a change from where we are with our abysmal returns for NATO and UN missions, but it would be a net loss for whatever away we currently hold with our allies and partners.

Are you gonna stick with that?

Ok, MRS and other factors have made 'easy' about one of the last things that would ever be associated with the institutional Canadian Army. Cheap? Per flag/pin on the flag/pin count in Brussels? One could argue it is actually a disproportionately expensive contribution relative to the weighing factor that ships or aircraft have to such operations - don't take it personally, but those familiar with how things unfold in Brussels are familiar with the weighting of soldiers, aircraft and ships, and it doesn't favour soldiers unless its in big (read 'non-Canadian' quantities).

I'm currently having difficulty seeing the CA put forth anything more than a complete BG...and I'd posit that even that is a challenge, and won't be a contiguous BG from its parent Brigade; most BGs would probably still be a composite unit-level contribution patched together. I'd be willing to bet that a CbtTm is about as big as we could provide as a contiguous formed element.

Then again, maybe I'm out to lunch and the CA is much more robust and capable than I've assessed.

At the very least, and to get back on thread, at least the CA elements will have a snappy new dress uniform for use when they're not managing their readiness.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Nope, but you may very have SOF conducting nation-building training of Latvia's and other countries' SOF capabilities, which in the Eastern European AO is not an insignificant factor. It warms my heart to see UAF soldiers stacked and boldly advancing covering each others' arcs and demonstrating rock solid weapons handling and shoot-move-communicate skills that scream 'Western SF-training.'

Western SF training or Western training in general? We had a pretty substantial contribution to training the Ukranian Ground Forces in tactics and TTPs for 7 years via Unifier. Our Infantry are some of the most proficient in NATO, even if they are under equipped. The Chief of the Ukranian Ground Forces has even stated that the seeds of Ukrainian success in the first 48 hours of the invasion were sown by Western training at Yavoriv from 2014 onward.

Besides, are you suggesting that the CA could even come close to providing a complete Bde? Or are we going to rest on the "Canada provides the leadership structure of the MNB/MND and others provide the rank and file?" That gets pretty tired in the eyes of the other nations who are actually providing the bulk of the troops to said Bde.

That is a discussion for another thread. I know the Italians and the Spaniards are of the opinion we need to shit or get off the pot. Unfortunately, our political masters don't see that the knives are coming out within NATO if we dont hold up our end of the bargain.

Do I see the CA fielding a full Bde in Latvia? Yes.. but only for 1 Roto to maintain credibility, and only after we pull every able bodied troop from every Division to do it.

Are you gonna stick with that?

Ok, MRS and other factors have made 'easy' about one of the last things that would ever be associated with the institutional Canadian Army. Cheap? Per flag/pin on the flag/pin count in Brussels? One could argue it is actually a disproportionately expensive contribution relative to the weighing factor that ships or aircraft have to such operations - don't take it personally, but those familiar with how things unfold in Brussels are familiar with the weighting of soldiers, aircraft and ships, and it doesn't favour soldiers unless its in big (read 'non-Canadian' quantities).

Having never worked at SHAPE, I won't comment on their processes or rationale. I would posit that Brussels wants 2 things from Canada that we can't provide: More effects and less reliance on partner nations. We are a freeloader in all realms, but like to sit at the cool kid's table and talk about glory days, invading Normandy or storming Monte La Difensia

I'm currently having difficulty seeing the CA put forth anything more than a complete BG...and I'd posit that even that is a challenge, and won't be a contiguous BG from its parent Brigade; most BGs would probably still be a composite unit-level contribution patched together. I'd be willing to bet that a CbtTm is about as big as we could provide as a contiguous formed element.

Then again, maybe I'm out to lunch and the CA is much more robust and capable than I've assessed.

The CA is a victim of situating the estimate; strategically, tactically, structurally, and in capability.

COIN and PSO were our sole focus for 30 years. We woke up 24 Feb 2022 and realized that we are completely screwed as a force if Kharkiv were Calgary. We have lost corporate knowledge on Anti Tank and Air Defense Doctrine. We are hastily adapting how we structure our C4ISR and EW capabilities because technology has made leaps and bounds past the 1980s.

Until we get back to being an Army again and not a pet project, we're going to look like amateur hour to the rest of our allies.

At the very least, and to get back on thread, at least the CA elements will have a snappy new dress uniform for use when they're not managing their readiness.

Silver linings I guess.

 

[Good2Golf]

Western SF training or Western training in general?

To be fair to the conventional side, I’ll say both.

However, an ETT doth not a brigade make. I think you’re being kind to the CA putting together a full Bde. Even if it did, the Amry would be done for a decade…

 

[quadrapiper]

Our Infantry are some of the most proficient in NATO...

As a complete outsider, I'm curious about how Canadian infantry proficiency compares to the US, not as a Canada Stronk point, but since they've got every possible resource available.

I'm assuming British infantry are in the same boat as Canadian, though perhaps not as underequipped.

 

[IRepoCans]

As a complete outsider, I'm curious about how Canadian infantry proficiency compares to the US, not as a Canada Stronk point, but since they've got every possible resource available.

I'm assuming British infantry are in the same boat as Canadian, though perhaps not as underequipped.

While I don't know how this discussion veered into this domain, I will say this:

We do not posses the most proficient infanteers (in mech, motorized, or light role context) in NATO, we have a ridiculous number institutional knowledge gaps from the Pte/Cpl level all the way up to the Comd of any CMBG. This constant back slapping we do on our infantry is dangerous, because collectively the total skill repertoire (some of which comes from lack of critical equipment to gain proficiency on) of our battalions leaves much to be desired.

Additionally, our battalions are no where near the authorized strength to the point that a PRes unit has almost the same amount of effective strength as 3RCR.

So I heavily disagree with this sentiment we have the most proficient infanteers in NATO, we may the best pack mules that will move through the mostly ungodly terrain known to man given the terrain and sadistic weather of our RTAs, but we do not posses the infantry we like to say we have.

 

[OldSolduer]

While I don't know how this discussion veered into this domain, I will say this:

We do not posses the most proficient infanteers (in mech, motorized, or light role context) in NATO, we have a ridiculous number institutional knowledge gaps from the Pte/Cpl level all the way up to the Comd of any CMBG. This constant back slapping we do on our infantry is dangerous, because collectively the total skill repertoire (some of which comes from lack of critical equipment to gain proficiency on) of our battalions leaves much to be desired.

Additionally, our battalions are no where near the authorized strength to the point that a PRes unit has almost the same amount of effective strength as 3RCR.

So I heavily disagree with this sentiment we have the most proficient infanteers in NATO, we may the best pack mules that will move through the mostly ungodly terrain known to man given the terrain and sadistic weather of our RTAs, but we do not posses the infantry we like to say we have.

And what do you base this on?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

As a complete outsider, I'm curious about how Canadian infantry proficiency compares to the US, not as a Canada Stronk point, but since they've got every possible resource available.

I'm assuming British infantry are in the same boat as Canadian, though perhaps not as underequipped.

I will leave that to the likes of @OldSolduer @Infanteer and @Kilted to give their expert take, as it's not my wheelhouse (Siggie type here).

My experience as a Coy Sig with 3 RCR when we were working with the Brits and Americans in Romania is that our Infantry is extremely adaptable and well rounded.

It may be a symptom of how small our Infantry numbers are, but you will find a Canadian Cpl or Sgt has been both mech, dismounted, in some cases airborne, and can expect to be hot swapped between roles throughout their careers. Some of our allies, not just the Americans, have rigidity in the way they train and employ their Infantry.

This means that you have fewer SMEs, but more Jack of all Trades folks that can step up if you have a capability gap.

 

[PuckChaser]

 

[Kilted]

 

[Happy Guy]

Ah, yes ... The never ending debate of which Service is more operational, better, more effective and so forth. I'm the best because ....
May I suggest that it all depends on what the government decides is important for their needs at that time.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

May I suggest that it all depends on what the government decides is important for their needs at that time.

Has the government decided?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Has the government decided?

They haven't decided on if they're using Helvetica or Arial for the Defence Policy Update. I expect that decision to be made and announced by end April at the earliest....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And this is not known mostly by the WO’s. There’s a reason we wear cronw,not bars and the ranks are lower on the sleeves and it’s not aesthetic.

Maybe there is a clue in the name?

 

[WLSC]

Maybe there is a clue in the name?

You think

 

[OldSolduer]

They haven't decided on if they're using Helvetica or Arial for the Defence Policy Update. I expect that decision to be made and announced by end April at the earliest....

Times New Roman please because....Roman.

 

[Furniture]

They haven't decided on if they're using Helvetica or Arial for the Defence Policy Update. I expect that decision to be made and announced by end April at the earliest....

It will be Comic Sans, to show the world just how serious we are.

 

[AmmoTech90]

They haven't decided on if they're using Helvetica or Arial for the Defence Policy Update.

It'll be Arial. Arial is Microsoft's copy of Helvetica without the Swiss grace so Microsoft didn't have to pay licensing. Helvetica isn't available on Windows as a native font.

 

[McG]

They know the font. Radio Canada - Google Fonts