Topic: Canadian Airborne..opening for reserves aswell?

[>>Paladin<<]

LOL GO!!! That was jokes!

[GO!!!]

No disrespect intended, but it's true.

IMHO, being in a jump coy is more about your state of mind and your approach to soldiering, than actually jumping (although that is a big part too)

This cannot be replicated in anything other than a full time unit.

[claybot]

If your going to be airborne join another army. One that has the lift capability to drop ina n actual fighting force such as mutilple battalions.
Jumping from a helicopter isn't airborne, its airmobile with a parachute.
What army in their right mind is going to drop in a single understrength jump company from helicopters. Don't even bother mention there are three jump companies as we all know each jump company has their own SOP.

That should get some of you wound up.

[Ex-Dragoon]

If your going to be airborne join another army. One that has the lift capability to drop ina n actual fighting force such as mutilple battalions.
Jumping from a helicopter isn't airborne, its airmobile with a parachute.
What army in their right mind is going to drop in a single understrength jump company from helicopters. Don't even bother mention there are three jump companies as we all know each jump company has their own SOP.

That should get some of you wound up.

And if your purpose is to start a flame war you won't be hear too long either....

[Hatless Dancer(Banned)]

I look at it this way. There is a ZERO probability of those three jump companies ever deploying by canopy into any operational environment. It aint gonna happen.There are simply not enough bodies, we don't have the aircraft(long range, or with air to air refueling capabilties), and we cannot support them when they hit the ground. We are deluding ourselves if we really think we have any sort of rapid deployment capability. So if the likelyhood of ever using these forces as intended is nonexistant, why maintain them?

[genesis98]

I've heard of a few reserve sigs getting jump courses.

[GO!!!]

I look at it this way. There is a ZERO probability of those three jump companies ever deploying by canopy into any operational environment. It aint gonna happen.There are simply not enough bodies, we don't have the aircraft(long range, or with air to air refueling capabilties), and we cannot support them when they hit the ground. We are deluding ourselves if we really think we have any sort of rapid deployment capability. So if the likelyhood of ever using these forces as intended is nonexistant, why maintain them?

By your logic, we could get rid of the armour, fighter jets, the reserves - completely, and most other aspects of the CF. Then we could hire the americans to do it all for us. 

Seriously, I thought I made it clear that the jumping is secondary to the state of mind cultivated in the jump coys, but I guess you were too busy to read the rest of the thread.

As such, the question has already been asked, but what would YOU do to cultivate a rapid deployment capability, besides complaining from the influential rank of a retired Cpl? We might not be much compared to our superpower friends to the south, but we have to retain some capabilities until the political climate is more conducive to our capabilities being expanded.

Also, if we are going to compare ourselves to a nation with similar capabilities, start with New Zealand and Australia - not the US. Check out their capabilities as compared to our own, before being the voice of eternal opposition.

[Cataract Kid]

Recce courses on the other hand identify alot more soldiering skill, while not as much as jumping, I find younger soldiers learn more from a reccer soldier's skills than anything else.

I just returned back from a weekend at home, I was looking over a picture from our RECCE Pl, circa 1996. Out of 24 Pte - Cpl's that were in the platoon at that time, I counted 13 or more (some I do not know of their career status) that are now currently of the rank of MCpl to WO. The Basic RECCE Course, if run "properly" can identify soldiers that are capable and competent for advancement not just within RECCE Pl but within the battalion and ultimately the CF.
Some on the other hand, are just lost causes and are happy to be C'sFL.

[GO!!!]

And I can count six individuals I know of from one Jump Coy who are in the JTF and three more who are SAR Techs.

Every unit has over - achievers, but I believe that there is a concentration of them in the parachute units.

In addition to this, the effectiveness of a unit is based on the premise of TEAMWORK, so the ability of certain people to get promoted is something of an irrelevant statement, and, I would daresay, more indicative of their ability to work within the sysem, as opposed to demonstrating good soldiering or leadership skills. But that's just me.

In regards to soldier skills, I can think of one troop who froze in the door and was stripped of his wings for it. He passed a recce course the next year, so, does that identify him as a coward or "suitable for advancement" by your ciriteria?

Also, since when do the terms "lost cause" and "CFL" go together?

[Cataract Kid]

All valid points GO,
I believe that the Basic Para course is something to strive for,I'm just of the thought that having this capability without "actually" employing them in which the purpose that they were designed is somewhat futile.

By your logic, we could get rid of the armour, fighter jets, the reserves - completely, and most other aspects of the CF.

Unfortunately, all of the above mentioned have deployed in "their" role sometime over the last 20 years.

Also, since when do the terms "lost cause" and "CFL" go together?

I should have chosen my words more carefully, as I too, am one of those C'sFL.

[GO!!!]

All valid points GO,
I believe that the Basic Para course is something to strive for,I'm just of the thought that having this capability without "actually" employing them in which the purpose that they were designed is somewhat futile.Unfortunately, all of the above mentioned have deployed in "their" role sometime over the last 20 years.I should have chosen my words more carefully, as I too, am one of those C'sFL.

In reference to your statement that the armour, fighter jets and the reserves have been deployed in their roles - please elaborate - as I chose those three due to the reason that they have not been deployed in their roles. A militia unit has never been deployed as a unit since these units were in fact created from demobilised reg force units. Canadian Tanks have not been deployed anywhere but Germany, and our fighters were deployed, but not used in the air bombardment of Kosovo. Light infantry units have been deployed to every theatre since Korea, and para units have led the way within them, doing every single aspect of their "roles" with the sole exception of a parachute descent, which has yet to become tactically necessary.

So if we are retaining all of this useless capability - why not cut it all - after all, if it has'nt been used recently, it must be bad - right?

By your definition, since the LAV III has not yet roared through the Fulda Gap and into the heart of Russia, it must also be being "wasted" as it's capabilities are not being exploited to the ends it was specifically designed for.

Parachute companies are worth keeping for the same reason the airborne was. Versatile, tough troops, with the ambition required to win.

[MCG]

Canadian Tanks have not been deployed anywhere but Germany,

and Kosovo.

our fighters were deployed, but not used in the air bombardment of Kosovo.

Are you certain of this?

Light infantry units have been deployed to every theatre since Korea

Not all light infantry is para, just as not all para is infantry . . . but, you already know this.  A valid role for light infantry does not automatically equate to a valid role for parachute infantry.

If anything, the additional flexibility that the airborne capability gives the CF is much like additional coverage on an insurance plan.  The CF as an insurance plan covers many of our needs, but one day we may find we need the coverage only available with parachute forces.

[GO!!!]

The statement regarding the tanks was in response to the allegation that all military units must be used specifically in the "roles" that they were designed for. Since the armour in Kosovo neglected to engage in Troop size ops, by Blakey's definition, they must be chopped.

Our Fighters in Kosovo were not permitted to bomb targets due to a lack of precision munitions and targetting gear. They attended the fight though.

I like the comparison to an insurance policy - maybe you don't need us today - or for the next two years - but it sure would be nice when we are needed...

And besides - we spend money on stupid $hit in this military all the time - tac vests, PAff O's, Army TV, why is 22 million for the Parachute program such a stretch? At least we can do the job they trained us for!

[Cataract Kid]

Just getting ready to head off to work, will post later.

[AmmoTech90]

Actually the Hornets in Kosovo did drop weapons, both conventional and PGMs.  Mk82 and Mk84, 500 and 2000lb bombs and GBU 10 and 12 guided weapons.  From the the Annual Report of the CDS 1999/2000

The Canadian Forces contributed 18 CF-18 fighters at the height of the campaign, flew more than 675 combat sorties, and accounted for 10 percent of all NATO strike missions.

More info is provided here:

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol1/no1/pdf/55-61_e.pdf

As well, prior to that during the Gulf War in 1990, the CF18s there dropped a few iron bombs towards the end of the campaign as well as a single Hornet engaging an Iraqi vessel with its gun and a missile.

GO!!!, I fully support us keeping a jump capability, but I think you should make sure of your facts before you post.  For example, you state that light infantry troops have been deployed in every theatre since Korea.  Does this include Eritrea where the was a LAVIII coy and a Coyote recce pl.  Does the Coyote recce count as light infantry?  If not, then do you mean the fact that 2 RCR soldiers conducted dismounted patrols makes them light infantry?

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

 Every trade in the CF likes to justify their trade but sadly we are all facing the same cuts. Armour losing tanks, arty losing m109's, infantry losing mortars etc.
"GO" your posts seem to indicate that in order to be aggressive and motivated you must be airborne which in my opinion is a slap in the face to every soldier not posted to a jump company.

 I have jumped full equipment onto a DZ at night in the dead of winter and humped for hours just to call fire onto the fantasian army too but I realized long ago that just because a soldier hasn't gotten loaded on a jump course, doesnt mean they are inferior to someone who has.

 Lets not make this an "airborne" only thing. How about we agree Canada needs a "commando" type quick reaction unit trained in mountain ops, special ops, interrogation, airmobile and yes airborne capeable too.

[GO!!!]

Ammo Tech 90

In regards to the use of the CF18s in Kosovo, I have encountered statements contrary to yours, I will try to source them for you.

As to the use of a LAV Coy in the light capacity, I would argue that yes, they have in fact operated as light infantry, and further that this is an integral part of their skill set. All Canadian infanteers are trained in the light role long before they see the back of a LAV.

Shelldrake,

I've made it clear in a number of posts (and threads) that one does not have to be in a jump coy to aggressive and motivated, only that those in the jump coys usually are. So if you feel a slap in the face - it is because you can't read the screen in front of you.

I've also stated a number of times that they attitude encountered in a jump coy is considerably different than one encountered in a LAV coy, and I believe that one is more conducive to performing difficult tasks than the other.

Also, all of the capabilities you mention (define Spec ops?) with the exception of interrogation are already present in jump coys, and most light infantry formations. (in the reg force anyway)

[AmmoTech90]

GO!!!,

As far as Kosovo goes, unless there has been a huge conspiracy amongst the Taz's to spread stories (not unlikely come to think about it ) Canadian aircraft dropped Canadian bombs  during the Kosovo campaign.  I know people that went there to load them and a close friend enjoyed a break from Bosnia when he deployed to Aviano from there to ship back ammo.  Quite a bit less came home than went.

Just so it is clear, H Coy of 2 RCR deployed with their LAVs and used them, but they also did dismounted patrols.  If you thought that a LAV coy deployed without their LAVs then ignore the rest of this paragraph.  By your definition, every infantryman who steps outside a vehicle is Light Infantry.  If that is the case perhaps jump qualified pers should be spread around the battalions rather than concentrated in a single company?  The entire regiment would then benefit from the addition of highly motivated and focused pers.  I don't think this is a good idea btw, but if by your definition an infantryman become "light" when he gets out of his vehicle and starts walking then every infantry battalion is "light", especially under the new fleet management where a battalion doesn't have its full compliment of LAVs most of the time.

I would argue that every Canadian infantryman is trained in a dismounted role first rather than a light role.  Splitting hairs, but thats my opinion.  I would agree that, although there may not have been a formed unit (Pl or more), there was probably at least an Infantry Ops WO kicking around somewhere on every mission.

[Unknown Factor]

I would argue that every Canadian infantryman is trained in a dismounted role first rather than a light role.  

Having taught BIQ, this is in fact incorrect. The skills that are taught are infact 'Basic infantry skills' commonly reffered to as 'Light infantry skills' amoung the trade. In fact all infantry soldiers in Canada are light infantry first, the continued training that is offered once they arrive at their parent Bn will dictate whether they are mechanized or light. The splitting of hairs occures when a mechanized soldier dismounts and conducts dismounted operations and the answer is no he is not a light infantry soldier.  The conduct of the overall operations of that Bn are still mechanized operations, hense the terms apply to their speciffic roles not to the temporary employment of the soldier.

This arguement could go on forever but the reality of the situation is that you wouldn't call a light infantry soldier a mechanized soldier just because he mounts the back of a LAV for insertion.  Light infantry soldiers are trained quite differently than mounted soldiers in that they closely follow the training requirments of the CAR becoming proficent in all aspects of Airborne, Mountain, Anphibious and Aimobile operatations and it is this continueous training that sets them apart for their mechanized counterparts.  I belive what "GO" is trying to put accross is that coupled with the large numbers of jump qualified pers and the existing capability at Coy level develops an infectous desire to accomplish the seemingly impossible regardless of the odds.

[Cataract Kid]

Ok, just arrived back from work and I will try to respond, hopefully without any repetion from the previous post's.

The statement regarding the tanks was in response to the allegation that all military units must be used specifically in the "roles" that they were designed for. Since the armour in Kosovo neglected to engage in Troop size ops, by Blakey's definition, they must be chopped.

and Kosovo.

I did not specify any element size, but if you wish, I'd be happy if at least one member out of the 3 jump coy's were to deploy under canopy into the role that they were designed to do.

Our Fighters in Kosovo were not permitted to bomb targets due to a lack of precision munitions and targetting gear. They attended the fight though.

Gulf War I, Operation Desert Storm,

When the four-day ground invasion into Kuwait was unleashed in late February, the Canadian Hornets also flew 56 bombing sorties, mainly dropping 500-lb. conventional ("dumb") bombs on Iraqi artillery positions, supply dumps, and marshalling areas behind the lines.

Information Source

By your definition, since the LAV III has not yet roared through the Fulda Gap and into the heart of Russia, it must also be being "wasted" as it's capabilities are not being exploited to the ends it was specifically designed for.

No, but at the very least they have "roared" down the street in Eritrea, Bosnia, Afhghanistan, and numerous other countries...

I like the comparison to an insurance policy - maybe you don't need us today - or for the next two years - but it sure would be nice when we are needed...

History is a good teacher...unfortunately the last time Canadians fell from the sky into a theater of operations was....
Even the Americans used their Airborne forces sparingly( jumping, not as conventional ground forces) during the drive to Baghdad.

At least we can do the job they trained us for!

Without ruffling any feathers, do you mean as "jumpers" or just regular light infantry?

Spell check was down, please excuse the  typo's, as well sorry if things seem all wonky and out of order, I tried to encompass all the new posts.

[AmmoTech90]

The splitting of hairs occures when a mechanized soldier dismounts and conducts dismounted operations and the answer is no he is not a light infantry soldier.  The conduct of the overall operations of that Bn are still mechanized operations, hense the terms apply to their speciffic roles not to the temporary employment of the soldier.

True, thats what I'm trying to get at.  GO!!! stated that mountain ops, special ops, airmobile, airborne skills were present in light infantry formations.  I inferred from that (perhaps incorrectly) that those skills are to a light infantry unit as LAV operations are to a mechanized unit.  Another place to split hairs, is a soldier out of battle school better suited for a light infantry unit or a mech unit?  I don't think it would really matter, they will receive training at the battalion to make them a "mechanized infantryman" or a "light infantryman".  Perhaps I should rephrase from dismounted to basic infantry and maybe the trade should differentiate between basic infantry and light infantry skills because, as you say later, light infantry soldiers receive different training.

This arguement could go on forever but the reality of the situation is that you wouldn't call a light infantry soldier a mechanized soldier just because he mounts the back of a LAV for insertion.

And I think the two of us agree that a mechanized soldier isn't light because he's walking. 
Yes, it could go on for a long time and I am now going to bow out (unless there's more stuff about bombs!) because I'm wandering a bit out of my lane.

Oh, here's a pic of CF18 flying out of Aviano during Op ECHO with 2xAIM9, 2xGBU-10, 1xAIM7, and a targetting pod.

[claybot]

Seems this topic can get some peoples blood boiling so to this I'ev started another thread under Combat Arms.

Light Infantry Battalion/Airborne

[Tarlouth]

"Parachute jumping tests and hardens a soldier under stress in a way nothing short of battle can do. You never know about others. But paratroopers will fight."

- Field Marshall Montgomery -


Enough said..

Cheers,

[reccecrewman]

Overall, I think it's nescessary to keep the jump companies.  It gives the switched on, hard charging guys who are genuinely interested in the hard core aspect of the Army something to strive for.  So much of the cool hardcore training and positions have been eliminated, this at least ain't one of them (yet).  In my Regiment, the place to be for the hard nature types was 44, Assault Troop, and now thats gone.