|
Author
|
Topic: Politics and the Military
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jungle
Recruit
Member # 480
Rate Member
|
posted 09 September 2021 16:53
Yes, the Para coys look good on paper, but they are virtually useless. I served in the Airborne Regt a few years, then a few more in a para coy, and there are a lot of differences: First, the jump coys are a way to maintain parachuting expertise in the army, but are not designed to carry out Airborne operations. The reason for this is that there is no combat support or combat service support deployable with these coys. Second, the CO's of the LIB's would rather have "heavy metal" units (ie: LAV-3) and don't care much for parachuting. The Airborne Regt was a rapid deployment unit, and it was equipped and trained as such. When i talk of amphibious ops, i am not talking about crossing a river with an assault boat, i am talking about assaulting a coast line from the sea... Amphibious ops are the most complex a force may have to carry out, and we are not ready or equipped for that kind of ops. Now, you will see the LIB's disappear in the next few years, and possibly the para capability as a whole at the same time...
Posts: 8 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
towhey
Veteran
Member # 146
Member Rated:
|
posted 10 September 2021 00:58
Recceguy: You're right.Mass drops have been obsolete for decades. Perhaps since the end of WW2. One of the big problems with the defunct Airborne Regiment was, in my opinion, that it was totally unusable. Like the horse-mounted cavalry of old, it was a hold-over from a bygone era. That is not to say that Canada doesn't need a rapid reaction force that is airmobile -- nor that we don't need the ability to insert forces by parachute. However, I would suggest that what Canada needs is an entire army that is airtransportable and rapidly deployable. We also need an SAS-type special operations unit. I don't think that JTF-2 should fill this role -- although, if you followed the SAS model, they might be absorbed into a larger unit. I see the need for specops troops for a number of tasks: strategic/operational level reconnaissance; strategic/operational level harrassment/demolitions missions; training of local insurgency forces in occupied territories; etc. All of these tasks are compatible with Defence of Canada needs. Peacetime taskings may include maintaining a company on standby for major air disasters in the high Arctic. Should we ever re-establish the Airborne Regiment? Nope. However, Canada should have a small (i.e. battalion-sized) special operations unit able to be inserted into an AO by any means, including parachute, submarine, what have you.
Posts: 35 | From: toronto, on, canada | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jungle
Recruit
Member # 480
Rate Member
|
posted 10 September 2021 07:43
I'm afraid a lot of you have no idea what the Airborne Regt was about!!! Yes it was trained in mass drops (if you can call a Battalion mass...) because it is the best way to take troops anywhere, anytime (try deploying to the Baffin islands, or any other overseas location, in 3-4 days with LAV-3's); but mostly, it was trained in small unit tactics, such as fighting patrols behind enemy lines, being able to operate for days without resupply. It was also trained in mountain ops, desert and jungle warfare, and made regular trips to the arctic. But mostly, it was filled with volunteers who had the guts to go further, to do more with less, to do whatever was needed to get the job done. Not too many units in today's Army can claim this... cdn:
Posts: 8 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
King
Recruit
Member # 234
Member Rated:
|
posted 10 September 2021 09:28
towhey,I always hear people calling for Canada to have an SAS of our own, but doesn't the JTF2 fill this role already? It's not the size of a Btln. but hasn't the JTF2 expanded beyond the CT thing? Even if it hasn't, couldn't that expansion be done within the current unit instead of creating a new one? You've probably read that paper on Canada's NEO capability, I think the idea of increasing the size of the JTF2 and creating a unit more along the lines of the U.S. Army Rangers has some merit. Jungle, Are you saying that parachuting still has value as long as it's not used to drop troops directly into combat? To bring them near the battle but not on top of it? Would you say intense or dangerous training like parachuting, which has lost a lot of it's practicality is still useful?
Posts: 18 | From: Ottawa | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jungle
Recruit
Member # 480
Rate Member
|
posted 10 September 2021 19:30
All right troops, i think we are moving in the right direction... King, yes i believe there is still use for parachuting, but in the low-to-medium intensity range of conflicts. Funny how some are comparing the Cdn Ab Regt to the US Ranger Regt; these 2 units were "twinned" in early '94 because of the almost identical nature of their methods and culture... As for JTF-2, i believe it should stick to CT. Remember the (British) SAS is a Regt, and one of it's squadrons is dedicated to CT; the rest are spec ops. Now the Australian SAS Regt has no CT capability, nor has the New-Zealand SAS Sqn. These units are "special forces". These countries have different units for CT, mostly coming from the police.
Yard Ape:
I just took a look at the "resurrect the Ab regt" discussion, and i see a lot of people are comparing Canada with the USA or the UK. Realistically, i think we should compare ourselves with countries like Australia or Belgium (smaller population and military). Even then, we are out to lunch when it comes to rapid reaction/special forces units...
Posts: 8 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Canadian]](../../ubb/graemlins/sm_canada.gif)
Yard Ape
posted 09 September 2021 20:31
