Previous  1 ... 11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

1) Let's see, the RCN permanent force strength doubled between 1936 and 1939. The air force budget grew from $3.1 million in 1935-36 to $30 million in 1939-40. Mackenzie King built 6 destoryers between 1937 and 1940, adn added 4 minesweepers as well. Pretty big expansion for peacetime I'd say. My point wasn't about timing but rather that he was wliing to do it in the first place.


2) Actually the force St. Laurent sent to Europe and Korea had nothing to do with the 'draw down' from WW2. Leftover army equipment from WW2 was given to the Dutch, Belgians and Italians. How many F-86s and CF-100s flew in the WW2? None. That's because they were bought well after the war ended. Same with the Special Force sent to Korea. Composed largely of WW2 veterans yes, but almost all of them had returned to civilian life and then returned for the "adventure". Same with the St. Laurent class of destroyers, which were ordered and launched in the 50s, not WW2.

And it was a pretty big force; 12 squadrons of F-86s and a infantry brigade group of 10,000 men (bascially a small division) for Europe and a commitment for a 60 ship navy.


3) Well, of course a Regular Force trooper can be called back to regular duty. But they don't work 365 days a year. This is essentially the same as saying a cop is always on duty. The point here was that it would be more affordable to equip a large force of reservists than by simply adding a few thousand Reg forces troops/airmen/sailors.

   

The expansion you are talking about took place after '36 and only became meaningful in '39 when the writing was clearly on the wall. Those increases you speak of were virtually meaningless to the military. Look at the scramble to haul out of museums any relics from WWI to train on. The arrival in borden of obsolete FT-7 tanks from the states for AFV training, the list goes on and on. It would be interesting to see where exactly these increases were spent prior to the war. They sure as hell didn't buy weapons.

Kings willingness to do anything only related to his own parties survival in control of the government. His primary strategy in all things was to do nothing unless he absolutely had to.

Korea.

Huh?
The ships we used in Korea were mostly Tribals. Some were built after the war in the late '40s, most were built and served during WW II.

No CF-100 belonging to Canada flew in Korea. No CF-86 belonging to Canada flew in Korea. Our pilots were seconded to the USAF and flew US F-86s. The link below details.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cf ... aval#naval

The Army sent WWII era equipment. This was the stuff left from WW2. Shermans vs T-34/85s. Lee-Enfield rifles. Vickers and Brens, hmmm leftovers if you ask me.

"Pretty big" is not huge. Our forces in Europe were not more than a Division. Compared to other allied troop commitments this was small. And it got even smaller as time went on.

The cost of equipping a Reserve unit is the same as equipping a Regular force unit. All operational units are equipped according to the CFFET (Canadian Forces Force Equipment Table) so for the Essex Kent Scottish to be equipped operationally is the same as, say, 1 PPCLI (or whatever role the unit was to take). Manning and training is the big factor. Simply put a Reservist is not trained to the same level as a Regular. Reserve units are not immediately employable in their current state.

   

We did use Tribals in Korea (where the Cayuga proved herself so ably) but the steamers: St. Laurent class, Annapolis class, MacKenzie class, IRE's were all built in the late 50, early 60's. And all were paid off in the 90's. The Iroquois class, commissioned in 72 and 73, were next and last until the Halifax class started coming online in 89. I'm sure no one needs updating on the sub situation...

   

The Canadian military as a whole is nothing but a big goof operation the whole fuckin military is a fuckin joke know.

   

Could you have possibly used the word "fuck" any more in that sentence?

   

"The fucking Canadian military as a fucking whole is nothing but a big clusterfuck of an operation and the whole fucking military is a fucking joke now."

Challenge met.

   

TOne your language down... or you might see some post disapeer.

   

And exceeded

The fucking Canadian fucking Military as a fuckiing whole is fucking nothing but a big fucking clusterfuck operfuckingration and the fucking whole fucking military is a fucking joke now. FUCK

LMAO

   

........Ahem...............


Fuck you you fuckity fuck of a fuckers fucking fuckmonster, you fucking fucker!!!!!!!

teasing man. Ya know I don't mean it. And to the Mods, sorry. I just couldn't resist.

   

The fucking Canadian fucking Military as a fucking whole is fucking nothing but a fucking big fucking clusterfuck operfuckingration and the fucking whole fucking military is a fucking joke now. FUCK. It is so unfuckingbelievable. FUCK!!!!





We are in so much trouble aren't we??????

   

Yeah, I suppose going from 2 old rusting destroyers to 4 brand new destroyers and 6 minesweepers is meaningless. As were the Hurricane fighters they bought (meaningless in the Battle of Britain too), and the Bren guns, etc. Maybe he didn't buy very many tanks, but where would they have come from? Matildas from the UK? Grants from the US? Both were totally inferior to the PZKW mkIII or mkIV. How much would he have had to spend to make you happy?



Had you bothered to read my reply, you would have noticed that the F-86s, CF-100s and the St. Laurent class destroyers were bought as part of his rearmament during the 50s. I never said that they fought in Korea, you did.




If you don't think sending 2 brigades overseas (one for combat), the purchase of 12 squadrons of F-86s, a commitment to a 60 ship navy (including an aircraft carrier) and the development of the Arrow ($250 million in 1950s money -- BILLIONS now) was a large contribution to NATO, then I don't think that anything less than a million man army would satisfy you. All of this cost us almost 6% of our GDP during the 50s. I'd call that pretty huge. How much would you prefer, 10%? 15% 20%? Yes it was smaller than our contribution during WW2, but we were fighting a world war for the fate of mankind, not a limited conflict in Korea.



As I said in my original post, it would cost us extra to equip them, but due to fewer training hours, we could have more of them, kind of like the Swiss. Which would you prefer, one person to take over your posting in Afghanistan, or three possible replacements? Or five? Or seven? Me, I'd prefer having more people trained to replace me so I can maybe get some holidays. Having a larger militia would give our soldiers more depth and actually allow us to deploy for an extended period of time. As it is now, it's ridiculous sending troops for 3 months or 6 months and then having to withdraw them because we don't have enough replacements.

I have never said that Canada spends too much on defence now (If anything, we need better equipment and more personnel). I simply said that a lot of people bash the Liberals as the reason for their ills. But in the past, they supported the military plenty and many military men can't see this because they can only see what's happened while they were in the service. Or perhaps this is because the Liberals have spent so much of the last 50 years running the country.

Whatever it is, the fact is that Canadians as a whole haven't given a damn about the military for almost 2 generations. In a 1995 Macleans poll, only 1% felt that defence was an issue, 31% felt unemployment and 15% felt the deficit was more important.

   

Hurricanes meaningless in the Battle of Britain? I think not, they were the mainstay of Fighter Command in 1940, Spitfires just stole the glory. Hurricanes did the majority of fighting and the Royal Canadian Air Force , with 1 Sqn and 242 Sqn RCAF played its part (those were the days! Paul Hellyer massacred the best of the CF).

Per Ardua

   

Compared to the re-armament program in other Allied countries it was meaningless. The ships were hand-me-downs and the Hurricanes never materialized until after the war started. Any of the tanks you mentioned were far better than the FT-17s given by the US. Nothing was done until after the war started. At the very least they would have allowed for more current training prior to deployment, adoption of more modern battlefield tactics (not that they were all that great but hindsight is 20/20) as well as the increased opportunity to develop the support mechanisms and command element to control such.

No I didn't. You didn't bother to read my post. Read the quote you selected from me again, closely.





A Division was small beer in the Central Front theatre by any measure. Reduction to a Brigade Group made it smaller yet. The Arrow never made it into production. The Arrow was destined for NORAD. The Arrow didn't make any large contribution to NATO. Your last crack about the million man army is ridiculous.



So now we're spending more yet not addressing the shortfall in training? Having nice kit but being unable to effectively use it is wasteful and pointless. Only one soldier does replace you overseas. Those three, five, or seven are no good if they are not properly trained to the same standard.
WRT to training, the system has been so cut back that the military is unable to even deal with the recruits in the pipeline in a timely fashion. The field force probably doesn't need many more units, it needs the properly trained troops to fill the vacancies they already have.

You said it yourself, the Libs have been in power, they were responsible. The Conservatives get their share as well, believe you me. Are you saying I should have been grateful to the Libs for making me deploy more often? Making me use 60's era equipment, freeze my pay and reducing the manning level from 80,000 to 50,000 amongst other things? Maybe I couldn't see the fact that they're such great guys because I was too busy putting out the fires. Puh-leeze.

   

Liberals are always funny when it comes to defence.

They cut the defence budgets whenever they can and then blame the military for it's lack of readiness when they're needed. Then the liberals predictably say, "See? The military is a waste of money!", and respond to the military's funding problems by cutting their budgets even more.

If the liberal military were a car, it would run out of gas because God forbid the libs should buy gas for it and then the liberals would say, "So what? It didn't work anyways!"

   

I think that you are forgetting Mulruoney & the PC gov't had a great deal to do with the Gov't debt & slashed military budgets. It was not all 1 political party.

   

Previous  1 ... 11  12  13  14  15  16  Next