British Module

[Glukx Ouglouk]

France (in our backstory, France would revert to full NATO membership)

Hasn't France allready rejoined NATO's integrated command in 1993 ? Anyway, even if it's not the case, France has participated in a number of military operations with the US and other NATO countries in the past years (Gulf War I, Kosovo, Afghanistan...) so IMO it's hardly a problem for your backstory.

[mazex]

Originally posted by PSY:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mazex:

The NBT consists of a mechanzed batallion (2500 soldiers), where Sweden supplies 2100, Finland 200, Norway 150 and Estonia 50.

Just out of curiosity why the huge imbalance in troops. Is the Swedish army that much bigger than the others? </font>

[Challenger 2]

EU Battlegroups is the biggest pile of S*** I have ever heard of. It is insane I hate the idea of lossing the Identities of the British forces and the Regiments to a "SUPEREURO FORCE".

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Challenger 2:

EU Battlegroups is the biggest pile of S*** I have ever heard of. It is insane I hate the idea of lossing the Identities of the British forces and the Regiments to a "SUPEREURO FORCE".

They make perfect economic sense and from a logistics standpoint, this should have been done 15 years ago.

It allows nations to split the cost of going to war/peacekeeping and allow them to specialize forces.

Most European nations have adequte force, but projecting that force and the cost of doing so has become prohibiativly expensive.

Combining forces and sharing the load is the perfect way to overcome those problems.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Challenger 2:

EU Battlegroups is the biggest pile of S*** I have ever heard of. It is insane I hate the idea of lossing the Identities of the British forces and the Regiments to a "SUPEREURO FORCE".

The British regiments themselves have come to terms with it; time for their fans to "get on with it" too.

[J Ruddy]

OK, time for MD to put me in my place...

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Given Canada's inability to provide a brigade to the first Gulf War in 1991

IIRC hind-sight has shown this this to be more "political decision" than actual "hard deployment limitation".

If it is easy to do, and if there are enough Canadians who bought CMBB CMAK CMBO then why the hell not? Throw them in and be sure to include the new Leo's!!!!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

OK, time for MD to put me in my place...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Given Canada's inability to provide a brigade to the first Gulf War in 1991

IIRC hind-sight has shown this this to be more "political decision" than actual "hard deployment limitation".</font>

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Actually, they canceled their MGS order.

<snip>

Canada is rumored to have just purchased 80 Leopard 2A4s from the Germans and leased 20 Leo2A6Ms for Afghanistan.

I hope that prick Gen Rick Hillier is eating crow.

Originally posted by [that prick Hillier]:

Tanks are a perfect example of extremely expensive systems that sit in Canada because they are inappropriate to the operations we conduct daily around the world,

I guess the "millstone around the neck of the service" might have some use afterall, eh? I wonder how vindicated the retired officers who he called "armchair strategists who didn't understand the changing face of warfare." are? Or are they just as disillisioned as they were three years ago?

Bitter, me? No. I can't wait to see the look on my bro-in-law sr officer's face when I rub this in it. Guess what? I, the ex-reserve radio technician armchair strategist was right and you, your pals and that dick Hillier were wrong!

Geez, with an attitude like that, no wonder I never made a career out of the military!

[Michael Dorosh]

Hillier doesn't make all the decisions though; not even in a perfect world. He works for the politicians - the MND is the one that in the end sets policy, and once it is set, a good CDS like Hillier will defend his boss' decision, unless it is completely out to lunch, in which case he makes a stink or resigns, or both. Lots of stuff to get upset about without resigning or drawing lines in the sand over the wheels vs. tracks debate.

Despite what the media says, what are the troops saying about the usefullness of Leopard tanks in the Afghanistan theatre?

[Michael Dorosh]

Oh, and on Operation BROADSWORD, found this online, with a focus on the Reserves.

The Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf) War, 1990-1991

Iraq's unprovoked aggression against Kuwait in 1990 produced a massive UN-backed multinational response led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. Canada chose to deploy three ships in August 1990 (Operation FRICTION): HMCS Athabaskan, HMCS Terra Nova and HMCS Protecteur with four Sea King helicopters. In the fall of 1990 Canada then committed two squadrons of CF-18 fighters (Operation SCIMITAR) 439 and 416 Squadrons, and a ground security element infantry company from the infantry battalions from 4 CMBG in Germany. This joint force was composed mostly of regular force personnel. It is difficult from existing sources to determine whether or not the deployed units were augmented with individual Air Reserve or Naval Reserve personnel, though at least one reserve EW unit member was part of the CATGME HQ.28

A ground force contingency plan, Operation BROADSWORD, was then formulated. BROADSWORD was to consist of an independent Brigade Group based on 4 Canadian Mechanized Brigade in Germany, but with substantial augmentation from 5 GBC and 1 CBG in Canada. Plans were drawn up to mobilize Militia units as battle casualty replacements, but the lack of job protection legislation in part deterred planners from examining this aspect in detail.

Instead of sending a brigade group, Canada sent a field hospital (Operation SCALPEL). Given the state of the Canadian Forces Medical System ensured that there was only nine surgeons and nine anaesthetists in the entire CF. Calls to Militia field ambulances produced no volunteers at all from Militia doctors because there was no job protection legislation. The entire CF was stripped of all of its doctors for the duration of the conflict so that the field hospital could be operational.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/Fraser/totalforce_e.asp

Not the whole story, but it does hint at the limited resources available. Individual augmentees did go over; actually, a Supply Tech who later served in our regiment served attached to the Desert Rats, but come to think of it, I believe he was a Regular Force soldier at the time. I'm not sure how he came to be posted to a British unit but he was.

Hmm, should we lead the charge for international liaison and exchange officers in CMX2? There was quite a bit of ink spilled over the number of Canadians in staff positions in the invasion of Iraq, some very highly placed (ie second in command of a division IIRC?) I can't recall if any Canadian junior officers were permitted in US Army/USMC troop command positions or not during the fighting.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Challenger 2:

EU Battlegroups is the biggest pile of S*** I have ever heard of. It is insane I hate the idea of lossing the Identities of the British forces and the Regiments to a "SUPEREURO FORCE".

They make perfect economic sense and from a logistics standpoint, this should have been done 15 years ago.

It allows nations to split the cost of going to war/peacekeeping and allow them to specialize forces.

Most European nations have adequte force, but projecting that force and the cost of doing so has become prohibiativly expensive.

Combining forces and sharing the load is the perfect way to overcome those problems. </font>

[J Ruddy]

If it walks like a dog, barks like a dog, wizzes on it's pals like a dog, it is a dog. There are ways to make a point without being a prick, and like so many senior Canadian officers throughout history, ole' Hillier chose the path of arrogant prick.

a good CDS like Hillier will defend his boss' decision, unless it is completely out to lunch

You're not convincing me that this decision wasn't completely out to lunch.

The Leo is required to fill the direct-fire role. Since the MGS system is a wet dream, this only leaves Leo's. I have argued from day one that totally abandoning tracks for a completely wheeled force is a poorly thought out concept. Though the MGS could have filled the direct-fire role, it's thin armour and lack of mobility were serious concerns for me. These were concerns that no one could dispell either. Also we wanted a C130 mobile force because we couldn't provide strategic lift. So we solved the logistics problem by getting rid of MBT's in favour for the vapourware MGS.

Now we recognize the problems with MGS plus we've committed to strategic lift. The reports have come in from the field of an urgent need for direct fire support, so Leo's are back in.

I have it first hand, from a few 'in the field' non-com's, that the Leo's are a huge morale boost for the boots on the ground. They provide an impressive show of force and an excellent direct fire platform. I haven't seen any official reports, so I guess my buddies will have to do.

I guess I'm being a bit tough on Rick, but bias aside, when so many people claim the emperor has no clothes, he just might be 'nekkid'...

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Oh, and on Operation BROADSWORD, found this online, with a focus on the Reserves.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf) War, 1990-1991

Iraq's unprovoked aggression against Kuwait in 1990 produced a massive UN-backed multinational response led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. Canada chose to deploy three ships in August 1990 (Operation FRICTION): HMCS Athabaskan, HMCS Terra Nova and HMCS Protecteur with four Sea King helicopters. In the fall of 1990 Canada then committed two squadrons of CF-18 fighters (Operation SCIMITAR) 439 and 416 Squadrons, and a ground security element infantry company from the infantry battalions from 4 CMBG in Germany. This joint force was composed mostly of regular force personnel. It is difficult from existing sources to determine whether or not the deployed units were augmented with individual Air Reserve or Naval Reserve personnel, though at least one reserve EW unit member was part of the CATGME HQ.28

A ground force contingency plan, Operation BROADSWORD, was then formulated. BROADSWORD was to consist of an independent Brigade Group based on 4 Canadian Mechanized Brigade in Germany, but with substantial augmentation from 5 GBC and 1 CBG in Canada. Plans were drawn up to mobilize Militia units as battle casualty replacements, but the lack of job protection legislation in part deterred planners from examining this aspect in detail.

Instead of sending a brigade group, Canada sent a field hospital (Operation SCALPEL). Given the state of the Canadian Forces Medical System ensured that there was only nine surgeons and nine anaesthetists in the entire CF. Calls to Militia field ambulances produced no volunteers at all from Militia doctors because there was no job protection legislation. The entire CF was stripped of all of its doctors for the duration of the conflict so that the field hospital could be operational.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/Fraser/totalforce_e.asp

Not the whole story, but it does hint at the limited resources available. Individual augmentees did go over; actually, a Supply Tech who later served in our regiment served attached to the Desert Rats, but come to think of it, I believe he was a Regular Force soldier at the time. I'm not sure how he came to be posted to a British unit but he was.

Hmm, should we lead the charge for international liaison and exchange officers in CMX2? There was quite a bit of ink spilled over the number of Canadians in staff positions in the invasion of Iraq, some very highly placed (ie second in command of a division IIRC?) I can't recall if any Canadian junior officers were permitted in US Army/USMC troop command positions or not during the fighting. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

Do you really think this points to a lack of feet inthe boots ...?

Yes, but you have to actually read what I posted.

Numbers of troops are not the entire issue. Equipment, a means to get it to the war, and more importantly training and perhaps even doctrine are larger issues.

But even at that, they were looking at using Militia augmentees for infantry replacements. Nothing new there, been doing it on all the peacekeeping missions. But peacekeeping missions don't require lots of replacements; in fact, they're not supposed to require any since fatal casualties are generally accidental. I don't count the Yugoslavia experience as "peacekeeping" in that sense.

I am quite sure there was a reluctance to see Canadian fatal casualties (um, duh) but aside from the political fallout to that would be the question of finding experienced soldiers to replace them - which is mentioned in the snippet I just provided. In other words, as scary as Joe Sixpack's reaction to fatalities might have been to the politicians, the Army also had reason to be concerned that there simply weren't enough resources to do the thing.

Which is a bit of a circular argument; insufficient resources lead to fatalities lead to a poor reaction in the public leading to political fallout. You can trace every decision to a fear of political fallout if you want to; Mackenzie King had the same reaction in 1939 when he didn't let the 2nd Division go to Britain until after the fall of France. "Limited liability" has always been the Canadian way, politically speaking. All I am saying is that there was also legitimately more to it than just that. You seem to be arguing that political fallout is the only motivator in this case; it may have been related to everything or even underlain it all, but I am saying there were other reasons.

[J Ruddy]

Grog - one more thing, how many troops did we send to support UNPROFOR & UNITAF in 1992-1993?

I think UNPROFOR was around 1600 and UNITAF was 1250.

So why, in 1991, did we physically not have enough troops to send to Iraq?

[Edit] ok your last message makes it a bit clearer. I could almost believe politics was the lesser reason, but... *meh* I'm too cynical for that!!!!

Bring on CMSF!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

Grog - one more thing, how many troops did we send to support UNPROFOR & UNITAF in 1992-1993?

I think UNPROFOR was around 1600 and UNITAF was 1250.

So why, in 1991, did we physically not have enough troops to send to Iraq?

Check out Peacekeeping at my site

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Peacekeeping

for comparisons on troop contributions. Not perfect data, but a rough comparison.

I am a bit confused about UNITAF; I believe our mission was called UNOSOM by the time Canada became involved? Canada contributed approximately 1250 military personnel (Operations DELIVERANCE and RELIEF) from Dec 1992 to Mar 1993, after the Gulf War had ended. The first advance party for UNOSOM I arrived for duty in Apr 1992.

[ February 21, 2007, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[J Ruddy]

UNITAF / UNISOM - I'm a little backwards on that one

http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/vol3/v3c24be.htm

[Michael Dorosh]

While we're at it, here is my page on the Gulf War

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Gulf_War

The article I mentioned is cited on the page:

Dr. Sean Maloney "Missed Opportunity: Operation BROADSWORD, 4 Canadian Mechanized Brigade and the Gulf War 1990-1991" in The Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin: Canada's Professional Journal on Army Issues Volume 5, Number 1 (Department of National Defence, Spring 2002).

The page is incomplete and doesn't tell you anything I haven't said in the thread already so I'll try and pull up the article later and see what it says.

[SSgt Viljuri]

Sirocco wrote:

From a political, EU centric standpoint it makes sense, but in terms of practical deployment the UK would be better served concentrating on better integration with US forces, IMO. We will always be more in step in terms of our global interests and outlook on force usage with our American cousins than the Euros.

Have you ever heard of NATO standards?

Practical deployment, what do you mean? You're thinking about forming mixed units with the Americans in the future?

Sometimes this Murdochian version of the British provincial patriotism sounds almost loonish.

[Battlefront.com]

When I heard that the Canadians were giving up Leos I said "well, guess they will never have a significant independent military role again". The reason being is that all other nations that have tanks already have them matched up with infantry. Usually a lot of spare infantry exists as well. This would mean that the Canadians would have to operate without their own heavy support capability. Then I heard they were going to use the MGS as a replacement and thought "well, better than nothing but it doesn't change the equation".

Without tanks the Canadian forces would basically be limited to peace keeping missions and fairly low level "infantry" type environments like Afghanistan and Iraq are today. Which are exactly the sorts of roles that are politically difficult to get the population behind. Not a great situation for a nation like Canada to be in IMHO.

As for the greater tightening of European forces together. As Rudel said, it is about time. Already the smaller nations have cut back their defense budgets so much that they can't do much of anything without someone else's help, especially in the form of logistics. Since logistics are so expensive these days, why not pool resources together and create a force that formally recognizes these issues up front instead of running into them when there is a crisis?

Steve

[J Ruddy]

<font size = 1>Yes, I would very much like to play German, Dutch and Canadians in CMSF regardless of the perceived or real inability of Canada to send troops to Syria in the event of a Nato based war against Syria.

[SSgt Viljuri]

Battlefront wrote:

(snips) As Rudel said, it is about time. Already the smaller nations have cut back their defense budgets so much that they can't do much of anything without someone else's help, especially in the form of logistics.

Mostly true, but Sweden and Finland will head to opposite direction.

New centre-right government of Sweden will rethink their defence spending and force cut-backs. (which were absolutely ridiculous, supposedly they were left with 24 operational field artillery guns and so on)

Finland will increase significantly her defence spending after the March general elections. This has gained a wide political consensus, after two or so years of working behind the scenes.

[J Ruddy]

Since logistics are so expensive these days, why not pool resources together and create a force that formally recognizes these issues up front instead of running into them when there is a crisis?

Well, we've been doing something like that for a while. We have no Strategic Bombing capability or Aircraft Carriers.

The main issue with integration is political. We Canadians, for the most part, are like the Dutch. We are proud and independent. We don't like it when people tell us we need a unified North American military because we see ourselves as very different from the US, at least in military spending and foreign affairs. If we seem to rely on others too much, it is seen as an attack on our sovereignty. But if we ignore the problem, it isn't. So we ignore it. Sell our Leos, order MGS, cancel MGS and buy Leos.

*meh*

I'd like to see a time when 'military' is only a word in a dictionary, but I think, as a species, we're too selfish and blood-thirsty for that to ever happen.

I guess we'll always have Paris, eh kid?

[Michael Dorosh]

But reliance on allies is nothing new for Canada, which makes it unbelievable that it should draw so much political attention. Every single expeditionary force Canada sent overseas did it on British or American ships, including the contingents in the Boer War, the Canadian Expeditionary Force in the First World War, the Canadian Active Service Force in the Second World War, the Canadian Army Special Force in the Korean War, and unless I miss my guess, the 4th CMBG in Germany not to mention forces in Yugoslavia and now Afghanistan. We've always travelled on someone else's nickel.

Steve - salient points all around. I think the public here do feel we have a "peacekeeping" army, and in fact, parrot that word out at the drop of a hat despite not realizing Canada hasn't done any real peacekeeping in years if not decades. It's the public perception that is the killer.

[Mikko H.]

Finland will increase significantly her defence spending after the March general elections. This has gained a wide political consensus, after two or so years of working behind the scenes.

Defense Forces and Ministry of Defense advocate increased defense expenditure (as always), but that a significant raise is in making and politically worked out... Could you point me to a source?