Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ebolablue





Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 139
Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:10 pm    Post subject: Troop distribution in Afghanistan Reply with quote

So, with an army of 60 000, why are we still only sending in 2000 at a time? What's to stop us from sending in both the Van Doos, and the PPCLI, for example, for twice the security capability and thus a quicker and better mission?

Maybe I'm missing some obvious facts, but what's stopping us?
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Troop distribution in Afghanistan Reply with quote

ebolablue wrote:
So, with an army of 60 000, why are we still only sending in 2000 at a time? What's to stop us from sending in both the Van Doos, and the PPCLI, for example, for twice the security capability and thus a quicker and better mission?

Maybe I'm missing some obvious facts, but what's stopping us?


Logistics and costs for one; and two, it's important to keep them cycling through(as it is, this may become an issue with 2000 some at a time.. Not to mention that 60,000 isn't the number of infantry, it's the entire army; so you have to consider that there are many in there who are not even soldiers; but as it is they are looking at bringing in non-combat personelle for combat rolls.

Thank the decade of darkness
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is 60,000 not the size of our entire military (as we do not have an army/navy/airforce just the Canadian forces) of which the army element would only be a part of?
Thereís something called a tooth to tail ratio, the number of people required logistically to support one person in combat.
During Korea we started the rotation idea. Basically our troops are supposed to spend 1/3rd of their time resting 1/3rd overseas and 1/3rd training. We MIGHT be able to send something like 6,000 people for a rotation but it would be a disaster.
Most other rich countries besides the US are similar to us in that many of their troops are not deployable.

It is much cheaper for us to pay for Afghan troops than Canadian troops.
ebolablue





Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 139
Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So we have a total capability of sending out 6 000 combat-ready troops at any time?

that's sortoff pathetic....

the logistical ratio can't be 9:1, even with training
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well we have 9 regular force infantry battalions (three weak brigades making a weak division). With a 6 month rotation each of them will have been in Afghanistan once (by the end of this rotation I think....). Since we do not plan to send them again we might have to start calling up reserves.
Other people on the force are people doing reconstruction (hearts and minds are important), engineers, artillery, drivers, and people who do not leave the base (potato peelers).
How often these different types of troops can be rotated, how many of them we have, how long it takes to train them, and the amount of PTSD Canada will have to deal with varies.
Being in combat is very stressful and what the US (for example) is asking of its troops is very demanding.
Note that the UK and US troop strength was highest during the invasion of Iraq but dropped off in both cases almost right away.
ebolablue





Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 139
Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6Reputation: 9.6

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

why wouldn't we send them in again, troops with experience?

Hah, sorry for all the questions, I'm fairly ignorant about the makeup of the Canadian forces. Good to know these things, I suppose.

The Liberal says we can't send in more troops because they're all IN OUR CITIES, SOLDIERS, WITH GUNS, IN OUR CITIES
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We should send them again if they want to go. The idea is (to the best of my understanding) that it would stress them out to much. It seems obvious to me that when you send troops into a combat zone the best thing for them to have is at least some troops and officers who have combat experince! In ww1 some of our people had been in the Boer war, in ww2 many of our leaders had experince in ww1, in Korea we had ww2 vets etc. Some kind of interview with a Psychologist to ensure the person is mentally balanced and they should be allowed to stay as long as they want (I feel).
In ww1 and 2 we did not really rotate our troops and the major emphasis when people broke down was to get them back fighting (which we did pretty well).
Korea changed all that as it was not a 'total war'.
One thing that does happen is people who get back and want to go again will transfer to a battalion that just started training for the mission.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good points so far. The decision to avoid sending troops back looks to have been a political one... American experience seems to demonstrate that the 'veteran' units - the ones returning for 2nd, 3rd, or 4th tours in Iraq - are the most effective and suffer least casualties in combat. Such a deployment model does require intensive therapuetic resources, however.

The current standard deployment in 6 months. I understand they're looking at extending that for units that are not 'combat arms' and deployed to high risk areas...

Edit:
Quote:
...the logistical ratio can't be 9:1, even with training...


Believe it or not, that's incredibly more efficient than the American Military in general. That being said, we do have an overpopulation of admin / senior officer staff. Our current system is kind of a Battle Group / Task Force system - we combine battalions from all over to form one battle group with an infantry batt at its core. We've basically got three battle groups, based around the PPCLI, the Van Doos, and the RCR. Adding two more battle groups, which would allow for a total deployment of say, 12,000 Infantry at a time (doubling current ability), would probably require at least 20,000 more troops in the land forces.

But, I'm no expert. Take it with a grain of salt, and all that...
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We also have maybe 45 reserve infantry battalions (I could be way off in that number). I think all of them are under-strength to some extent but that how under strength they are varies greatly. The idea is in a time of war where we needed a large army they would mobilize and get up to strength. These troops can volunteer to go on the missions if they want which is why someone from the Black Watch gave their life.
Sending reserves who do not want to go is something I would be against. The poor Americans in the National Guard who are over there are pretty much conscripts.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
Sending reserves who do not want to go is something I would be against. The poor Americans in the National Guard who are over there are pretty much conscripts.


Well yeah! If you ignore the fact that they signed up for the duty knowing that it could one day potentially come down to them going to war...
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure that any of our reserve Infantry batts are self-sufficient and capable of deploying as a whole - this hasn't been the intent for quite some time. However,

Quote:
Well yeah! If you ignore the fact that they signed up for the duty knowing that it could one day potentially come down to them going to war...


Our guys sign the same line. I'm not saying it would be a good idea, but its possible to do so. Like Biggy said, anybody currently in the National Guard or Reserves is there with the full knowledge that they could be deployed. If they weren't happy with that they could have quit last year (Obligation is only 3 years, IIRC).
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What the US gov has been doing with rotating people quickly and not letting some people leave is not a model I would like to follow. Many people I know who joined the reserves have been told that they will not get sent overseas unless they volunteers despite what officially we could do. Getting green lighted to serve overseas if youíre a reservist was very hard a year ago and now it is very easy, this smacks of not thinking ahead (ie we sent our best reservists first instead of spacing them out)
None of our reserve battalions (well maybe the RRC Iím not sure) could deploy as a full battalion on its own.
If the government is serious about not sending people twice then very soon we are going to have to send a battalion that is largely reserves and new recruits.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the government will, within a year, seriously reconsider their current 'one deployment only' policy. As you've said, the only way to avoid it is sending forces composed entirely of fresh recruits and volunteers from the reserves.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Troop distribution in Afghanistan

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB