Re: Gunner's comments
[ Follow Ups || Post Followup || The War Diary ]
Posted by Boyd from Canada on April 30, 2021 at 20:04:05:
In Reply to: Re: Gunner's comments posted by Gunner on April 30, 2021 at 05:11:13:
I'm not sure I understand your response. Exactly how do you feel that Canada has made a commitment to maintain a general purpose combat capability. Our ground force lacks many tools of modern forces and is severely limited in it's inventory of others(Just over 100 tanks? Where are the attack helos? CAS? MLRS? Heavy Airlift? Light, Medium and Heavy Sealift? The list is near endless.). The one thing Canada has NOT done is made a commitment to maintain a general purpose force. Our navy is designed to escort convoys to Europe, our Land Force is rapidly becoming a dedicated UN mission machine and the Air Force is...well, nobody is sure WHAT the Air Force is trying to be, but it's seems proud to be able to field a whopping 18 combat aircraft into Europe. I'm also not advocating that Canada flogs off it's guns and hope that the bad guys don't bring artillery. I'm wondering when the last time Canada operationally deployed artillery(Not the troops, but actually fired---forget even fired---AIMED a howitzer in anger. If we turned the artillery into a reserve function, we wouldn't have to pay a reg member to polish the guns, it could be done by reservists. As you pointed out, two batteries are on UN missions right now. Why not convert all the reg batteries into infantry formations by amalgamating them into the command structure of the Reg Infantry regiments? Canada is only going to send artillery if we're a full scale land war, in which case the reserves would be called up anyhow. By this simple reorganization, the Army gets several more infantry companies for the same dollars.As for disbanding it's best regiments, that almost seems to be a Canadian tradition now...
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup