We are driving good soldiers out of the Army

[Scoobie Newbie]

Now I'm sure I will come off as being stupid for asking this but are the guys at the top (LCol, Col etc) voicing their concerns as well as making statements such as leaving what many officers aspire to (CO) early?
I would argue that not only should be combine the armoured and infantry but all trades under one new regiment (or whatever you want to call it).  When units train, they all train together.  Problem being training area's and such. 

 

[Gunner]

I play ground hog day in the QRF tent...

Kevin, I know where you work and I don't envy the task that has been given your coy.

The Op Palladium Roto's the Inf Bn's that formed the Btl Gp's had CO's.  The continegent commander which we have renamed as NCE was more of an administrator then - the CO 'fought' his unit.

Yes, however, we don't have a Btl Gp conducting operations on Roto 2.  Our declared assets to ISAF are minimal.

The 1VP 031's are FP assets - realistically if we wanted to patrol the city the Roto would have been much more 031 heavy.  Ask MarkC for an honest assement/feedback of Coyote usefulness is this neck of the woods.

Patrolling the city is not our role.  If it was we would look a lot more like Roto 0/1.

As a Patrica I am extremely sad to see Lt Col Vida go he is the best CO I have served under since I joined some 17+ years ago
Though 'Super Dave' Chupick is runner up when he had 2 RCHA (92-93)...

I think everyone has expressed sorrow over the loss of LCol Vida and I think some of the reasons raised by Mark were part of his decision.  Army members want an real army role in their nations foriegn policy, not to be portrayed as boy scouts.  The decision by the government not to become involved with the US in Iraq was a slap in the face to many (ie LGen Cam Ross).  A nation should not be embarrassed, real or perceived, over the use of the military to further its foriegn policy.

No offence the Artillery trade (I saw the light in 94  ) - but the only two trades that really should command Btl Gps are Inf and Armd - and historically command has gone to the unit that that has the heavy presence (which in this Roto would have been Inf).

No offence taken.  In a world of limited budgets and limited political will, the artillery doesn't place high on the priority list for scarce resources.  I don't disagree with you, however, I again point out that we do not have a BG in Afghanistan.  Look at what has been declared to ISAF and then relook at your logic.

Several NCO's and Officers in 1VP that have their 20, have 30 day released since Lt Col Vida tendered his resignation.  This year I feel the unit is really going to take a kicking - and the CF/Gov't hopefully will realise that the reasons are exactly what MGen Mac stated...

As mentioned in other posts, it is too bad that this is happening.  I don't necessarily agree with the way the army is going however I understand why LGen Jeffery puts the transformation into effect and why we are heading in the direction we are.  The onus falls on me to to support these decisions.  If I can't, I will have to consider release as well. 

 

[commando_wolf63]

I think our military should seriously look at the US Marines example.  heck we are small enough to initiate it.  One cap badge for all.  All members are Marines first and aviators, tankers etc second.

Back in the late 60's early 70's the three branches of the Canadian Armed Forces were unified under a single uniform and Cap bagde it didnt work. Most units went back to wearing their unit's capbadges prior to Unification. Then in 84 The Progressive Concervitve Party as an election promise, promised the Forces new uniforms according to what Branch of the forced they represented. Unification under one Cap badge didnt work the first time. 

 

[Infanteer]

No offence the Artillery trade (I saw the light in 94  ) - but the only two trades that really should command Btl Gps are Inf and Armd - and historically command has gone to the unit that that has the heavy presence (which in this Roto would have been Inf).

Guderian was a Signals Officer before he got into the theory and application of Armoured Warfare.  Kesselring was an Air Force General and was able to conduct a brilliant delaying campaign in Italy.

Point is, no one trade holds the monopoly on military excellence.  Any military Officer who has a thourough understanding of the profession of arms should do.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

commando_wolf63  why did it not work?

 

[commando_wolf63]

It's hard to say really but how'd you feel if you were standing outside a civilian airport in full dress uniform with all army insignia and have someone come up to you and ask "How long have you been in the Navy" or Airforce for that matter

 

[KevinB]

Gunnar,

Furthering my point - declared ISAF assets versus in theatre ISAF assets...
Putting 1/2 of the cbt arm force under KMNB and the rest with no real mandate outside CJ was incredibly stupid...

 

[Gunner]

Furthering my point - declared ISAF assets versus in theatre ISAF assets...

No there are declared ISAF assets and non-declared CANADIAN assets.  Canada is responsible for all of us here in Afghanistan, not NATO.

Putting 1/2 of the cbt arm force under KMNB and the rest with no real mandate outside CJ was incredibly stupid...

On the infantry side, there are not enough of you to do anything besides what you are doing now.  Whether or not you are declared to ISAF, your role would be the same.  I would even hazard to guess that if we declared more of our assets to ISAF we could actually have a smaller contribution then we do now.

 

[George Wallace]

Kevin B

At the sounds of it you don't understand the role you are supposed to be filling.  The Recce Sqn there now is defining that role and our 'politicians' are redefining it also.  It is of great interest to some of us who are in the process of replacing you in the next Roto.  Hopefully by then there is a 'final solution' and well defined task to be filled.

I am assuming that the Inf Coy is 'security' for the ISTAR Recce element.

Government waffling and indecision shows between the lines in their public statements and todays young soldiers, having higher educations that their forebearers, can very plainly see it.  It has an effect on morale and consequently troop strengths as they seek other employment.

GW

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Back in the late 60's early 70's the three branches of the Canadian Armed Forces were unified under a single uniform and Cap bagde it didnt work. Most units went back to wearing their unit's capbadges prior to Unification. Then in 84 The Progressive Concervitve Party as an election promise, promised the Forces new uniforms according to what Branch of the forced they represented. Unification under one Cap badge didnt work the first time.  

No they didn't.   The only ones to get a "unified" cap badge were recruits, who wore the Tri Service badge.   All units retained their cap badges but bear in mind that at the same time Unification went through, the corps and services were replaced by branches.   For example, the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps and Royal Canadian Army Service Corps were disbanded and in their place came the Logistics Branch.  

Don't confuse the CF Uniform and unification of the services with what they did with the cap badges - individual regiments and branches still retained their identity from the start.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The Marine Corp model is more then one uniform.  All members pound the ground first and formost.  This provides a commonality throughout so the Harrier pilot knows what the Infanteer is going through etc.  I realize that we have a lot of people that are comfortable in their little role so perhaps intially the combt arms elements and new recruits (of all branches and trades) would be indoctorined.  I realize by going this route it would take a long time to have everyone on the same net.  However its got to start somewhere and somehow.

 

[logau]

My two cents ---

Even if we get more kit and personnel - it may not matter.

The CF is likely now a back burner armed forces. What they do is done well and the standards are high but back burner is back burner.

More on this line of thinking at  

Realism Canadian Style: National Security Policy and the Chrétien Legacy
http://www.irpp.org/pm/archive/pmvol5no2.pdf

In my view there are a few key lessons for all

1. The long service regular is going to be increasingly rare and hassled by the back to back deployments. No one will help him.

2. As long as the Army doesn't have an internal slowdown the government will continue sending out troops and the release rate at the other end will be as described above.

3. How it was in the old days of CFE or the 80,000 person CF is irrelevant. There is a problem that needs to be fixed and no one is fixing it. You don't hit harder without muscle inside your Cadpat sleeves.

4. The regular Army draws from a   limited pool that can't adequately get its hands on extra manpower from either the civilians or the reserves.

5. If the government see's itself clear to improve this it will come between 2005 and 2007 - if not the trend line is down. The longer its not fixed the worse it gets when Osama or some hopped up group gets its hands on a hockey rink full of innocent spectators.

6. By improving it I mean having the kit and troops to deploy Battalions/Regiments with their full command structure and support elements from engr sqns to recce units to the whole battle group shopping list - and do this indefinitely every 6 months. But if we look at the US - maybe the 6 month time scale overseas is doing more damage? I see year long tours being done by our US friends while we stick to the 6 month mantra. The standard is join to serve for the duration - but if we accepted that - we accept that its a war and not a tour.

PS: (Whoever coined that term tour should be covered in honey and feathers)

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The reason for year long tours (and I may be reading this wrong) is that the US gov't didn't want to rotate fresh troops into a war zone and have more battle hardened troops (more experience) rotated out.  Also it is believed by some that it was a quasi-type of draft where members who would have normally been done in there contract served another 6 months that they didn't count on.  Anyone please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I also think year long tours may serve to further degrade the morale around here.  Your gone nearly a year with the work up training plus the tour as it is.  Quite a few people have families and would rather be home then spending another 6 months in some hole.  As it is the gov't needs to seriously see the weakness in our military and realize that we can't sustain the tempo that we are currently on.

 

[canuck101]

I was just wondering the same thing are you talking about turning the CF into a marine force.  I think everyone that joins should should do a two year stint pounding the ground before going to there trade school.  By doing this we enlarge deployment available personnel.  They will have at least one overseas mission under there belt, this being a six month mission.  the airforce for the most part can be merged into a marine corp.

In Canada i don't think we would have the need for a carrier but a ship like HMS Ocean would be ideal or a ship like an Enforcer 13000 that the dutch have. I guess it would be like unification again but different. 

Just a thought i had. I will keep my head down  :warstory:

cheers

 

[onecat]

A 2 year stint on the ground before going to your trade... are you crazy.  Many people who join the CF have no desire to be a grunt, and doing that would make recruiting that much harder.  Take me, I'm 34 and joined FSC because I wanted a good trade and a good career... but if for a second I thought I would have run around and do infantry BS for two years before I got to my trade.. that would be it.  I would never of signed up for 3 years.  As a tech I can do better in the civi world.  What's the point of training of a cook or clerk to use the C-6 and do section attacks when they are never going to use them.. its just wasted resourses.  and the CF does have that much money to burn.  man they even count the paper clips.

The problem with the CF isn't that they need more combat arms guys, its that they need more of everyone.  People who join combat arms do so because like the lifestyle, and its not for everyone, even if you like army and all the BS and cock they feed you.

Now if Canadian actually voted in a party that supports teh military maybe things would change.  But the way things are right, its feeding on it's self.  The more experienced people leave and the smaller the armed services get that worst its getting. 

 

[George Wallace]

A 2 year stint on the ground before going to your trade... are you crazy. Many people who join the CF have no desire to be a grunt, and doing that would make recruiting that much harder. Take me, I'm 34 and joined FSC because I wanted a good trade and a good career... but if for a second I thought I would have run around and do infantry BS for two years before I got to my trade.. that would be it. I would never of signed up for 3 years. As a tech I can do better in the civi world. What's the point of training of a cook or clerk to use the C-6 and do section attacks when they are never going to use them.. its just wasted resourses. and the CF does have that much money to burn. man they even count the paper clips.

The problem with the CF isn't that they need more combat arms guys, its that they need more of everyone. People who join combat arms do so because like the lifestyle, and its not for everyone, even if you like army and all the BS and **** they feed you.

Grouse me out.  Where did you come from?  Getting an education or a trade for free sounds like Welfare to me.

Personally, I sort of looked at the CF as resembling the USMC, in that we have Airmen, Sailors and Soldiers all in one unified military.  Sorry to burst your bubble Radiohead, but you better get used to being a Soldier first and a tradesman second, or you will not have a happy career.  You are going to be posted to a Cbt Arms unit to do that trade and you will have to do all that "grunt" stuff. 

You remind me of some of the Reservists I ran into in Gagetown this summer, who wanted the paycheque, but didn't think they had to do anything for it.  If you don't like it, pay your own way through school and get that trade you wanted and don't waste the CF's time and money.

GW

 

[canuck101]

how hard do you think it would be changing the CF into a USMC or Royal marine kind of force. I don't see to much need to change either of the three services much to fix a Canadian version of the USMC.  The only thing that i think would be different would be that we would not have any planes based on amphibious ships maybe helo's.  Then we could setup the CF as a medium force without mbt but with maybe lighter vehicles like the CV90 TRACKED ARMOURED COMBAT VEHICLE and the variants that they offer.

 

[Infanteer]

A 2 year stint on the ground before going to your trade... are you crazy.   Many people who join the CF have no desire to be a grunt, and doing that would make recruiting that much harder.

That "infantry BS" you so casually refer to happens to be the bread-and-butter of soldiering; not sitting in some office in Kingston thinking of neat prowords and the like.

Take me, I'm 34 and joined FSC because I wanted a good trade and a good career... but if for a second I thought I would have run around and do infantry BS for two years before I got to my trade.. that would be it.   I would never of signed up for 3 years.   As a tech I can do better in the civi world.

You wonder why the Combat Arms guys ride the REMF's so hard.   That is the biggest pogue attitude I've ever seen towards the profession of arms.

What's the point of training of a cook or clerk to use the C-6 and do section attacks when they are never going to use them.. its just wasted resourses.   and the CF does have that much money to burn.   man they even count the paper clips.

Because the next time you are sitting comfortably in the rear area using your fancy trade skills and the local Pashtun warlord decides he is going to cut your head off, you and the rest of your CSS buddies better be prepared to fight.

There is a report on by a US Logistics Officer on the steps that the CS and CSS trade needs to take due to the unnecessary casualties they are sustaining in Iraq, a war with no front lines, due to being unprepared or simply ignorant of the rigors of combat.   I'll try to find it and post it here.

I'd suggest you reevaluate your statement radio man; one day you might not have the big-bad infantryman around to save your skin.

People who join combat arms do so because like the lifestyle, and its not for everyone, even if you like army and all the BS and cock they feed you.

What Army are you in?   If you think that BS Cock is what my line of work is all about you should turn in your kit and sign your release to find all that money in the civilian market.   The training that the Combat Arms receives is not about people who "like the lifestyle", it is about instilling the proper attitudes and mindset in soldiers in order to enable you to effectively survive occasions when other groups of people are trying to kill you.   If you think that Support types are immune to this, you've got you head in the fucking clouds.  

Read some of the other threads around here discussing the issues of training, maybe you'll get a better understanding from real soldiers on the way things work.


See you later Pogue....

 

[PuckChaser]

I've heard this a couple times throughout my short career, and its always hit home. Soldiers first, tradesman second.  I'm not the strongest guy in the world, but I don't mind the infantry stuff, hell I admire the guys that can do it day in and day out. Everyone in the CF should be combat ready, be it able to fire a weapon, or man a defensive position, or participate in a section attack. War doesn't just hit the front line boys and girls, the battlefield is always changing. What you once thought was a rear-ech position, could be within a few hours the new front line. How fast can you tear down your TV/VCR setup and get the hell out of dodge?

If we lose a few soldiers because of this, fine. They don't have the soldiering attitude the CF needs. And for those that join expecting a desk job? Basic is a rude awakening.