Canadian Forces Latest Investment

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-28 12:38pm

Icehawk wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: NZ just went for 25mm cannon on our version..which I understand is different from yours.
You're thinking of the LAV3. We actually have those already as well with the 25mm autocannon. But now we are ordering the Stryker mobile gun vehicle which looks similar but is different and a bit more advanced IIRC.
.

They share a common basis for the chassis; the similarities pretty much end at that point.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-28 01:51pm

They had a 105mm low recoil cannon that could have been used
for the MGS, but to save money, they used a full size high recoil
cannon from surplus M-60 MBTs...

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-11-28 03:58pm

Icehawk wrote: I believe its mostly so we can have SOMETHING to send overseas with a 105mm gun that isnt to heavy to put into a transport of our own.

Canada should have bought a couple of sea transports of their own instead continuing to bend over and getting ass-raped by the civilian transporters they're force to use.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2003-11-28 04:06pm

"The Canadian Forces have decided to take delivery of $750,000 worth of unsafe grenades, but will only use them in the event of war because they could detonate inadvertently.

can anyone actually remember the last time canada went to war?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-28 04:52pm

Darth_Zod wrote: can anyone actually remember the last time canada went to war?

There are 2000 Canadian troops in Afghanistan right now, and they have been a major part of not only peacekeeping duties but also taken part in US led offensives.

Rubberanvil wrote:Canada should have bought a couple of sea transports of their own instead continuing to bend over and getting ass-raped by the civilian transporters they're force to use.

I think he's talking about air transports, though MGS doesn't help with that because even if they do get it working the thing will be far too heavy for a C-130 and Canada isn't going to be buying any heavy air lifters for its military.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-11-28 06:42pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
I think he's talking about air transports, though MGS doesn't help with that because even if they do get it working the thing will be far too heavy for a C-130 and Canada isn't going to be buying any heavy air lifters for its military.

Sea tranports are more practial as almost everything is shipped over on them.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-11-28 08:16pm

Icehawk wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: NZ just went for 25mm cannon on our version..which I understand is different from yours.
You're thinking of the LAV3. We actually have those already as well with the 25mm autocannon. But now we are ordering the Stryker mobile gun vehicle which looks similar but is different and a bit more advanced IIRC.
.

One of these days I will find the difference between the two...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-28 09:13pm

Rubberanvil wrote:Sea tranports are more practial as almost everything is shipped over on them.

They also take months and can't reach some areas, like say Afghanistan where Canada would want its armor.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-11-29 06:53pm

Darth_Zod wrote:can anyone actually remember the last time canada went to war?

To give a list of the various wars, battles, and skirmishes that have happened in the history of Canada would take a small book. Anyways, for wars in the last century that I can recall off the top of my head without trying very hard:
WWI
WWII
Korean War
Gulf War
Whatever the one in Afghanistan is being called.

As for peacekeeping missions, Canada has had troops on all but one, or maybe two of the U.N. peacekeeping missions that have taken place. After all, Lester B. Pearson was responsible for UNEF I, which was the first modern peacekeeping mission.

Our troops tend to be trained better than their U.S. counterparts as well. We have regularly won the top gun fighter competitions in the States.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-29 07:14pm

Graeme Dice wrote:
Our troops tend to be trained better than their U.S. counterparts as well.

Actually the Canadian army has a considerably inferior standard of training as a result of it having almost no money to do anything with.

We have regularly won the top gun fighter competitions in the States.

Top gun is a school for USN pilots, not a competition. Canadian forces have come to Red Flag many times and done well in the past, (so has nearly every air force in NATO) but the past success of the best squadron in the Canadian air force against whatever USAF unit happens to be rotating through doesn't reflect the current situation. Canadian forces are under trained, poorly equipped and don't have nearly the budget they ought to have for deployments. Meanwhile other programs get to run 60,000% over budget.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-11-29 07:18pm

I find it highly ironic that the reason these particular grenades were bought in the first place is due to safety regulations.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-11-29 11:09pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Graeme Dice wrote:
Our troops tend to be trained better than their U.S. counterparts as well.
Actually the Canadian army has a considerably inferior standard of training as a result of it having almost no money to do anything with.

Do you have any actual evidence to back this up? or at least asked people in a position to know?.

With NZ, Aussie, UK forces, without fail, the ones I have spoken to think that while US Army forces are really great guys, they are not trained as well as they could be, or up to our own standards.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-29 11:19pm

Stuart Mackey wrote: With NZ, Aussie, UK forces, without fail, the ones I have spoken to think that while US Army forces are really great guys, they are not trained as well as they could be, or up to our own standards.

Except that the US army can easily blow a few dozen million having tanks
run around in full on exercizes shooting the shit out of targets, while
the infantry assaults from Bradleys at the same time...

Meanwhile, the USN is performing mock amphibious invasions with
LCACs on the target nation of Floridum in Naval exercises.

Money DOES buy many good things

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-29 11:25pm

Skimmer just told me that US Military exercises in the past have
approached a quarter billion dollars in cost

Your guys might have better espirt de corps and maybe be
trained a bit higher at the individual rifleman level, but that
won't matter much when you get flanked by a bunch of Bradleys,
and Apaches who have been practicing combined arms maneuver
warfare on a scale you can only dream of as you pinch your pennies.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-11-29 11:35pm

MKSheppard wrote:Skimmer just told me that US Military exercises in the past have
approached a quarter billion dollars in cost

Your guys might have better espirt de corps and maybe be
trained a bit higher at the individual rifleman level, but that
won't matter much when you get flanked by a bunch of Bradleys,
and Apaches who have been practicing combined arms maneuver
warfare on a scale you can only dream of as you pinch your pennies.

A NZ infantry NCO once told me that our guys, up to battalion level were much better trained than their US equivelent {light infantry}.
Beyoned that we could never compare to the US, we simply dont have the equipment or manpower, and logically, cannot compare.
However having loads of dosh and heaps of good kit is not an excuse not to be the very best, attitude wise and in regards to getting the job done. Any thing less than the best you can give is just being idle, if not lazy.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-11-29 11:37pm

MKSheppard wrote:.

Money DOES buy many good things

Except a good attitude towards training it would seem.
Blowing millions on an excersize does not mean a lot if you are not pushing yourself to the limit and beyoned.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-30 12:19am

Stuart Mackey wrote: Blowing millions on an excersize does not mean a lot if you are not pushing yourself to the limit and beyoned.

Does that mean we need to start pushing ourselves to the limit
by having our troops run around with signs saying
"I AM A TANK", "I AM A MACHINE GUN"?

Oooh good idea

(stolen from Skimmer)

[quote"Sea Skimmer"]
I AM A PLATOON!

That should be the new army motto, then we do some personnel cuts[/quote]

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-11-30 12:30am

MKSheppard wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: Blowing millions on an excersize does not mean a lot if you are not pushing yourself to the limit and beyoned.
Does that mean we need to start pushing ourselves to the limit
by having our troops run around with signs saying
"I AM A TANK", "I AM A MACHINE GUN"?

Oooh good idea

(stolen from Skimmer)

[quote"Sea Skimmer"]
I AM A PLATOON!

That should be the new army motto, then we do some personnel cuts

[/quote]

WTF are you on about?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-30 12:43am

Stuart Mackey wrote: WTF are you on about?

Pushing yourself to the limit only works as long as you get to do
boom boom boom. There's a limit where individual determination
dies out and the cold hard budgetary hand takes effect

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-11-30 12:56am

MKSheppard wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: WTF are you on about?
Pushing yourself to the limit only works as long as you get to do
boom boom boom. There's a limit where individual determination
dies out and the cold hard budgetary hand takes effect

Yes.....
My point was that for all the US armies weaponry/budget etc, NZ,Aussie, Brit officers and NCO's dont think your armies training is as good as it could be.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-11-30 02:26am

Stuart Mackey wrote:

A NZ infantry NCO once told me that our guys, up to battalion level were much better trained than their US equivelent {light infantry}.
Beyoned that we could never compare to the US, we simply dont have the equipment or manpower, and logically, cannot compare.
However having loads of dosh and heaps of good kit is not an excuse not to be the very best, attitude wise and in regards to getting the job done. Any thing less than the best you can give is just being idle, if not lazy.

Just about every Western military up to a point is better than the U.S. Military and every one of them will lose in a war barring NBCs and dragged out guerilla(sp) warfare.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-11-30 02:29am

Bragging aside, I myself honesty don't know why the U.S. Military isn't near as good as it should be.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-11-30 03:23pm

Rubberanvil wrote:Just about every Western military up to a point is better than the U.S. Military and every one of them will lose in a war barring NBCs and dragged out guerilla(sp) warfare.

What I'd like to see is a military campaign in the high arctic tundra. I'd like to see just how well armour can handle the swamp, but hate to see the massive ecological damage that would happen.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-11-30 08:38pm

Graeme Dice wrote:
Rubberanvil wrote:Just about every Western military up to a point is better than the U.S. Military and every one of them will lose in a war barring NBCs and dragged out guerilla(sp) warfare.
What I'd like to see is a military campaign in the high arctic tundra.

The U.S. Mil. have or had a couple of brigades trained to fight there, but keeping the UNAF, USN and USM aircraft from attempting to bombed everything looking remotely(sp) hostile is the toughest part.

[/quote] I'd like to see just how well armour can handle the swamp, but hate to see the massive ecological damage that would happen. [/quote]I fore see a shitload of grunts especially tankers on both sides wanting to hang their commanding officier(s) by the testicles ordering armor into the swamp.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-11-30 08:41pm

Crap, could a mod please fix my quote error in my previous post?