Canadian Armed Forces: 55,000 and holding steady

[Oberleutnant]

Just because Canadian armed forces don't have a desert BDU, it s not neccessarily mean that their equipment is bad. Please go ahead and tell us all what kind of second-rate equipment they use. Surely their assault rifles must be shitty, considering that they are based on AR-15.

Would these well-trained US troops include the pilot of that F-16 that killed several Canadian soldiers in a friendly fire incident? In some special fields the American military training might be slightly ahead of others, but it's no way clearly superior to others.

I'm sure there are other articles about lousy Canadian soldiers, but here's one: http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/2430kill.htm

If anything, USA should be grateful for having a good neighbour like Canada...

[Azeron]

Regular Australian Army grunts are considered 'special forces' by American standards. During war games only the elite branches of USArmy can keep up with them. There is one example of how your unfounded claim has been shot down

Talk about unfounded claims, source please.

[greenmm]

If you want a real yardstick, perhaps try something like the Israeli army. They're generally considered one of the top 3 armies, if not #1, in terms of training, quality, equipment, and performance in the field.

As for "proving" it... consider the numerous wars they've fought involving Israel vs. their neighbors simultaneously, with each neighbor fielding forces nearly equal to or superior to the Israeli forces, yet time and time again Israel would not only beat them back but also capture new territory...

[TrailerParkJawa]

Canada's poplulation is smaller than California's IIRC. Im not sure its fair to expect them to have a big military. Sure, they might be a bit too socialistic for us Americans but its their country, they can run it the way they want.

Overall, its a damn fine place to go for a vacation or holiday as some would say.

I like the 2 dollar coin, I wish we would do that here.

[Ted]

I've been chuckling from the beginning. Dual-citizenship must be nice, I wouldnt know, they dont give that so freely here. Tarrifs are rarely a one sided situation, thats been a push and shove since the word was invented. One country instigates tarrifs to say, protect their wool industry, the other country scratches its head and says "well hey, piss off...Im putting Tarrifs on all the jar-jar binks toys you import here"...and thus it begins and two groups of people loose. In this case, wool farmers and the Chinese Association for Child Labour.

Have you heard of NAFTA?
Supposed free trade.
What do the yanks do?
Slap tarriffs on every fucking Canadian import, which is about 40% of their imports.

[Knife]

I was watching the news today entailing an interview with a former Candian defence secretary. The Canadian Military consists of 55,000 members...all together. So while they pump all of the money the can into social programmes, neglecting their military, Im not only paying for Iowa farm boys to go to the Middleast and fire off billions of Dollars at psycholgically imbalanced afghani teenagers, Im also paying to defend a country which touts itself as an active member in the international community but contribues, when it comes down to it...jack shit. They couldnt even muster up 800 soliders to send over to Afghanistan to fill their rotation. The American Economy drives and sustains the Canadian Economy, the American Military defends it. What does America get out of this? Nothing (but snide derision, and the audacity to blame America for the 9-11 attacks) What does Canada get out of this?...all the free Paxil they can cram in their mouths. Canada....YOUR FIRED.

Did you get this off of O'reilly? Not that it matter, just curious. But your right, for Canada to sit there under our mililtary protection, and spend most of their money on social programes, weather they work or not is open to debate, then start to poke fun of us for our large military budget and low social spending, in their opinion, sucks. I'm not saying I don't like Canada, nor am I saying that the people suck, just this little issue between us and our friends up north sucks.

[Darth Paul]

I was watching the news today entailing an interview with a former Candian defence secretary. The Canadian Military consists of 55,000 members...all together. So while they pump all of the money the can into social programmes, neglecting their military, Im not only paying for Iowa farm boys to go to the Middleast and fire off billions of Dollars at psycholgically imbalanced afghani teenagers, Im also paying to defend a country which touts itself as an active member in the international community but contribues, when it comes down to it...jack shit. They couldnt even muster up 800 soliders to send over to Afghanistan to fill their rotation. The American Economy drives and sustains the Canadian Economy, the American Military defends it. What does America get out of this? Nothing (but snide derision, and the audacity to blame America for the 9-11 attacks) What does Canada get out of this?...all the free Paxil they can cram in their mouths. Canada....YOUR FIRED.

Did you get this off of O'reilly? Not that it matter, just curious. But your right, for Canada to sit there under our mililtary protection, and spend most of their money on social programes, weather they work or not is open to debate, then start to poke fun of us for our large military budget and low social spending, in their opinion, sucks. I'm not saying I don't like Canada, nor am I saying that the people suck, just this little issue between us and our friends up north sucks.

Ask your airborne squad in Afghanistan who's collective asses were saved from mortar fire by a Canadian sniper team - I'm not sure they would share your opinion.

[weemadando]

Regular Australian Army grunts are considered 'special forces' by American standards. During war games only the elite branches of USArmy can keep up with them. There is one example of how your unfounded claim has been shot down

Talk about unfounded claims, source please.

Vietnam war. After a massively unsuccessful attack on an Australian position NVA high-command issued an order not to attack Australian targets and instead focus on the easier to attack American ones.

Wargames. Pick a wargame - any wargame. Aussie ground-forces unless utterly over-whelmed by the enemy forces will nearly always survive and complete their objectives successfully.

Also, since federation Australia has been involved in 13(?) "official" armed conflicts. Results, 11 wins (Sudan, Boer, WW1, WW2, Borneo, Malaya, I'll find the rest of the list later), 1 loss (Vietnam), 1 draw (Korea)

[Knife]

Darth Paul, I am tring not to insult the Canadian military and my gratatude goes out to those who serve my country and those who help my country. My beef is with a political view held by the leadership of your goverment, that they can thumb their nose at us while enjoying the benifits of our mutual defence treaties.
And please tell me your not comfortable with only 55 thousand people comprising your military, as one talking head on TV said, thats about the amount of people in the NYC police.

[Azeron]

Wennado,
they call me an ultranationalist. You are just a delusional nationalist.

2 comments
1) that was over 20 years ago, things have changed.
2) what battle are you talkign about?

what a jackass

[weemadando]

Wennado,
they call me an ultranationalist. You are just a delusional nationalist.

2 comments
1) that was over 20 years ago, things have changed.
2) what battle are you talkign about?

what a jackass

1) As for things changing? WW2, Australia proved itself in jungle and desert fighing. For reference to this lookat El Alamein and Tobruk. Also look at the Kokoda trail, Singapore and many other SE Asian battles.

Vietnam was 20 years after WW2 and the superiority was still present. Also Australian actions in Borneo, Malaya and many other locations showed that Australian forces are excellent jungle fighters.

2) "All battalions have had their share of fighting, but D Company of
the 6th Battalion, on it's first tour in 1966-67, earned the high honour of
being awarded the U.S. Presidential Unit Citation. The award was made for
it's part in the battle of Long Tan, when; on August 18, 1966, the Company
was on sweep operations in a rubber plantation and was attacked by a regi-
ment of North Vietnamese and Vietcong troops.

Although outnumbered by more than 10 to one, the Company held it's position for more than three hours until a relief force from other companies arrived in armoured personnel carriers. The enemy fled, leaving 245 dead on the battlefield. D Company lost 17 killed in action and 21 wounded. One soldier of 3rd Troop, 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier Squadron, was also killed in action."

from http://grunt.space.swri.edu/aussie1.htm

"In the early hours of May 13, " Coral " was attacked by rocket, mortar and small arms fire, followed by a ground attack. Elements of two North Vietnamese Army Regiments ( 141 and 165 NVA Regts ) were involved. They were aiming for the guns of the base and the mortar position of the 1st Battalion. One 105mm howitzer and two mortars were damaged, but rapid reaction by the Australians resulted in 58 enemy being killed and three detained.

Again, in the early hours of May 16, " Coral " was attacked with a heavy rocket and mortar barrage, followed by an estimated battalion-sized attack against the defences of the base. The enemy were stopped on the wire defences. 34 North Vietnamese soldiers were killed and one detained."

from http://grunt.space.swri.edu/aussie1.htm

It should be noted that though artillery and other *edit* indirect (ie rocket and mortar) attacks on Australian bases continued the engagement of Australian personel in combat was viewed as a very bad idea.

[Darth Paul]

Darth Paul, I am tring not to insult the Canadian military and my gratatude goes out to those who serve my country and those who help my country. My beef is with a political view held by the leadership of your goverment, that they can thumb their nose at us while enjoying the benifits of our mutual defence treaties.
And please tell me your not comfortable with only 55 thousand people comprising your military, as one talking head on TV said, thats about the amount of people in the NYC police.

Fair enough. You just hit a hot button I'm sure it's even more frustrating for those few left to deal with heavy mission loads with shrinking budgets. A quick tour of history to 1914, 1939 and even 1991 suggests that this is unfortunately not a new problem, although Canadian troops do have a history of exemplary performance with substandard equipment. For those who don't recall, the Canadian Navy actually had to borrow Phalanx CIWS weapon systems (from the US) for their destroyers to send them to the Persian Gulf in 1991. So I guess we actually agree, from a certain point of view

[Darth Wong]

Hey Knife, just so you know, Darth Paul is Canadian ex-military. Don't risk the "double-bladed lightsabre to the testicles" maneuver.

[Wicked Pilot]

So.. want.. to.. jump.. in, yet.. know.. so. little.. about.. Canada.

[Oberleutnant]

How big share of Canada's GDP go into military expenditures ? I know that there are sources in the web where I could check this, but they are rarely accurate. CIA World Factbook claims that in Canada's case it's 1,3% of the GDP, but then again they also say that with Finland it's 2%. In reality it is 1,2%.

[victorhadin]

Canada's military is small indeed but it is at least active. canada places a great quantity of it's limited troops into global peacekeeping. The United States is decidedly behind in this respect and could stand to do more. In the Balkans, the United States pledged as many ground troops for peacekeeping as Britain; a country with an army the fraction the size of the United State's.

In Afghanistan the United State's peacekeeping contingent is nonexistent.

I'm not acting to slander the US here, so don't get all reactionary, but your military could stand to do more in international operations worldwide, considering its size.

[Wicked Pilot]

We don't do peacekeeping missions because frankly we suck at it.

[Azeron]

We prefer to give soldiers weapons not lolipops

[ArmorPierce]

Well, I actually agree with Queen of Denmark. Canada leaches off America and have heard that all the second world countries and even some 3rd wrold countries would be able to defeat Canada in a war if it didn't have US protecting it.

[Knife]

Hey Knife, just so you know, Darth Paul is Canadian ex-military. Don't risk the "double-bladed lightsabre to the testicles" maneuver.

I'm honored to be of interest by my liege, but hookey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side. Besides ex Canadian military is but a small matter to a former US Marine.

[Stuart Mackey]

Wennado,
they call me an ultranationalist. You are just a delusional nationalist.

2 comments
1) that was over 20 years ago, things have changed.
2) what battle are you talkign about?

what a jackass

Azeron, I know and have met a number of former and current NZ Army service personel and the odd Brit {one of whom is a member here} and all of them have a low opinion of the training standards of the US Army overall.

In short the opinion of the English speaking commonweath nations is that they are soft, the USMC is a differnt story however, they are ok.
There seems to be unheathy reliance on firepower in the US army, and this seems to have produse a attitude of "let the arty deal with it", rather than useing organic weapons.
Then there is also a tendeny to be more technicians rather than soldiers.
However what the US can do with arty/air/armour in set peice operations, is apparently astounding.

[Darth Wong]

Well, I actually agree with Queen of Denmark. Canada leaches off America

How so? Would America reduce the size of its military if Canada increased the size of ours to a per-capita ratio equal to theirs? Our military would still be only one tenth of theirs, and they would still feel the need to maintain the same military forces anyway, because their enemies are usually half a world away. The Americans don't worry about land invasions, for obvious reasons.

You seem to be arguing that Canada is a drain on America because America is forced to defend us both against the large-scale impossible amphibious invasion that will never come. What kind of logic is that?

If you want to look at a military "leech", look at Israel. We're not the ones demanding billions of dollars a year in advanced military hardware and more in economic aid. We may have a small military, but we take care of it ourselves.

and have heard that all the second world countries and even some 3rd wrold countries would be able to defeat Canada in a war if it didn't have US protecting it.

Really? There are 2nd and 3rd world countries out there that could mount a large-scale amphibious invasion of Canada across thousands of miles of ocean or (worse yet) Arctic tundra? They could establish a beach head in the harsh rocky Maritime provinces and then extend an already hideously expensive logistical train through hundreds of miles of sparsely populated overland territory to the populated core of the country, and then conquer our nation by defeating its military forces? That's quite impressive; which 2nd or 3rd world country in particular has this capability? Have you laid out campaign plans for this ambitious operation?

[Crown]

Ha! Israel is nothing to Japan! It doesn't even feild a respectable military. Essentially it's a military protectorate of America. So while America spent it's money in protecting Japan after WWII, Japan built the worlds second largest economy! Man I love that country!

[Sea Skimmer]

If you want to look at a military "leech", look at Israel. We're not the ones demanding billions of dollars a year in advanced military hardware and more in economic aid. We may have a small military, but we take care of it ourselves.

Every dollar for military support given to Isreal must be used to buy American weapons and equipment, same for what Egypt gets.

The longer the production run, the cheeper a weapon system is.
So not only do American industrys get quite a bit of cash, but the US military also pays less for things. The net loss to the US is somewhat if not compleatly reduced by this.

[Darth Wong]

If you want to look at a military "leech", look at Israel. We're not the ones demanding billions of dollars a year in advanced military hardware and more in economic aid. We may have a small military, but we take care of it ourselves.

Every dollar for military support given to Isreal must be used to buy American weapons and equipment, same for what Egypt gets.

The longer the production run, the cheeper a weapon system is.
So not only do American industrys get quite a bit of cash, but the US military also pays less for things. The net loss to the US is somewhat if not compleatly reduced by this.

Think about the logic of what you're saying: "we send them billions of dollars of stuff, but we bought it from ourselves, so we really didn't lose much money". Do you realize how closely that resembles an Amway sales pitch?

Sorry, but it doesn't work. It's still money out the door. All of those people working in US industry to build these weapons are being paid with TAX DOLLARS which came out of citizens' pockets, and the fruits of their labour are being shipped off to another country without getting anything in return. There's no mitigation. When the government spends money, it takes out of the economy to put back in; it's a zero-sum game. If the products of this expenditure are sent outside the country, it's a net-loss game. Sorry, but that's the math.

And let's not even talk about the interest-free loans the US gives Israel on top of all this ...

No, the biggest military "leech" on the US is unquestionably Israel. Not only do they demand enormous amounts of aid and military hardware, but their inability to work out some kind of compromise with the Palestinians (sorry, but despite what the Israel-apologists have to say, it takes two to tangle, and neither side has made a genuine effort at peace) creates an ENORMOUS headache for US foreign policy. To classify Canada as a big drain on America's military interests (particularly from O'Leary, who's a big Israel-supporter) is simply laughable; it's like taking a magnifying glass to a spot of rust on your bumper and not noticing that the doors have been smashed in.