All matters Canadian / Canada

[031-Bacon,RG]

Steve is right: we've always planned to trade space for time - it worked for the Russians in WWII and it should have worked against them in the event of WWIII - until our NATO allies could get into motion.

JMM99, I also have no faith that successive governments will stick to the plan, nor am I holding my breath waiting for the current government to honour it's promises. Public support for the Afghanistan mission, or for new equipment to meet Forces needs, is tenuous at best; when budgets bring the military into competition with social programs, the military comes a distant second every time. An example of that battle is the deferral of construction of our new icebreakers - we won't get new toys if the ballet has to find corporate sponsors.

With respect to the composition of the future CF, I agree that the vast spaces, long coasts along three oceans, and an icebound archapelago should be considerations. If we are serious about asserting our sovereignty, we need to add the capacity to support ops across the littoral. A vessel that can transport troops, provide support for tactical and Chinook helicopters, and with the ability to land fighting and logistics vehicles, would not only suit our defense needs, but also allow us to project force in support of the national interest.

[RJ]

03 Bacon RG - The Marine Corps today has 3 Infantry Divisions and 3 Air Wings.

With supporting combat and logistic suport units the Marines have about 203 -205,000 troops

The Canadian Govt. should consider the Marine "Big Squad" concept of a Squad Leader and 3 fireteams equipted with 3 automatic weapons vs the smaller 9 or 10 man squads other military forces utilitize.

I'd point whoever is considering the big vs little squads argumements to the
Rifle Squad deliberations in the Trigger Puller forum cover the pros and cons in depth.

I'm a big fan of the Marine 13 man squad because I grew up in that environment. It works, it has depth, surivability and to ability to continue the attack and wreak losses on the enemy in a much higher ratio in a shorter length of time.

Ken White, who fought both sized squads in combat favors the more robust Marine Squad for serveral reason. That personal recommendation alone should convince any political, number crunching Scrooge in Canada.

I hope your politicans understand the generational threat we all face with the islamofacist elements who will not go away because we are capable of turning the other cheek.

I suspect there will be a lot of small war action in the next 30 years than having to defent the vast open spaces and depth in dfense your nation enjoys.

[RJ]

03 Bacon RG - The Marine Corps today has 3 Infantry Divisions and 3 Air Wings.

With supporting combat and logistic suport units the Marines have about 203 -205,000 troops

The Canadian Govt. should consider the Marine "Big Squad" concept of a Squad Leader and 3 fireteams equipted with 3 automatic weapons vs the smaller 8 or 9 man squads other military forces utilitize.

I'd point whoever is considering the big vs little squads argumements to the
Rifle Squad deliberations in the Trigger Puller forum cover the pros and cons in depth.

I'm a big fan of the Marine 13 man squad because I grew up in that environment. It works, it has depth, surivability and to ability to continue the attack and wreak losses on the enemy in a much higher ratio in a shorter length of time.

Ken White, who fought both sized squads in combat favors the more robust Marine Squad for serveral reason. That personal recommendation alone should convince any political, number crunching Scrooge in Canada.

I hope your politicans understand the generational threat we all face with the islamofacist elements who will not go away because we are capable of turning the other cheek.

I suspect there will be a lot of small war action in the next 30 years than having to defent the vast open spaces and depth in dfense your nation enjoys.

[GI Zhou]

Speaking to a few far more learned infantry warrant officer types the biggest issue regarding infantry squad size is moving them around the battlefield. Due to rail movement, and pesky things like small bridges and goat tracks - highways in some third world ####e hole, the vehicles have a width restriction. This means seven to ten soldiers with kit can squeeze into an APC/IFV/IMV etc. The marines have those big AAV7 'ordnance magnets' and the new Chinese ZDB05 amphibious infantry fighting vehicle is another large 'ordnance magnet' with lovely slab sides and thin armour.

[William F. Owen]

Speaking to a few far more learned infantry warrant officer types the biggest issue regarding infantry squad size is moving them around the battlefield.

Wrong. That is absolutely NOT the biggest issues. It's the opinion the has created nearly all the problems. The size of the section has NOTHING to do with the size of the vehicle,