:stare:Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Printable View
:stare:Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
It's all about perceived need. The US and Canada may disagree on various issues but neither has come to blows since our (US) disastrous winter assault. Socialist countries can't afford large militaries and Canada has no need for one even if it could afford it.
No chance. I do not doubt that China has the capability to produce sufficient transports and other such equipment if it decided to do so and the rest of the world stood by. However, China currently has no aircraft carrier fleet and, lacking any forward air bases close to Canada, would have essentially no air cover for such an operation. The Canadian Air Force has well over a hundred F-18s and would absolutely ravage any incoming naval force that did could not obtain air superiority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Again, no doubt China could do it if they devoted the resources to it, but they couldn't do it tomorrow.
Tsk tsk Gawain you dont know much about the Chinese navy then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
They would need to be able to ship and supply several divisions to take out the Canadian army. They dont have that capacity right now. Plus the distances involved does not make things easier either.
They would need to protect the ships from the Canadian airforce. That requires carriers which they dont have any of.
The level of technology of their surface ships as well as army is also not on the level of the Canadian navy and army.
I doubt China could invade Taiwan even if USA stayed out.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/plan/
CBR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
And a few million angry gun owners. ~;)
And the Liberal Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
All those faulty subs you nasty Brits sold us are now museum pieces. You jerks. ~;) Seriously, though, using something that's broken is a pretty Canadian thing to do. We can handle a malfunctioning boat.
Actually, I remember hearing about a wargame Canada partook in with the US with that very sub, outdated as it is. The sub sank three American ships and escaped undetected. I'll see if I can dig up a link.
Not any more then you have to tell yourself you are winning in Iraq. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
You can barely control Iraq, nevermind any part of Europe. I'de like to see the US invade at most one more country in the next 10 years. That'll stretch your army to the point that you will end worse then in Vietnam and Korea combined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain
:laugh4: That is the best thing I have ever heard. An old, leaky rustbucket managed to "sink" three of our state-of-the-art submarines- and we didn't even catch him!Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
loool....not so hard it seems....
a few years ago one of our Portuguese submarines participated in an exercise and it actually "sinked" an american aircraft carrier.....~D
and i´m talking about real rustbuckets here....ships built in 1968 or 69 ~:joker: i sure as hell wouldn´t go for a ride on one of them if someone paid me 10000000000$
moral of the story?....technology...smelogy.....anyone can take anyone else out...at least once :knight:
Details on the portuguese subs ...i´ll try to find a link with the actual story of the "incident" ~D
Not submarines. Destroyers, I think. Still looking for a link... ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
EDIT: This may or may not be in reference to the same incident of which I was informed.
Clickity click.
Interestingly, old diesel submarines can be harder to detect than modern nuclear submarines. The reason being that a diesal sub can turn off all of its machinery and run completely silently off of batteries. A nuclear sub can never shut off its reactor and as such can never completely eliminate its noise signature.
In some situations low-tech is better.
Interesting paper under the clickity click but not too surprising. Subs, even outdated ones outclass most ships. That’s one of the reasons that other countries with subs are a threat (or at least in the movies~;) ).Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
You have no idea what Canadians are willing to gumble to no end but never take real action about. We put up with Americans don't we, the slightly aggrevating older brother. We still send our fairly new Halifax class frigates out to sea with 1 60's vintage sea king helicoptor. The fact that the air force (the Canadian military has been 1 combined service for like 30 years) keeps those things in the air is a friggin miracle. We spend about 20-30 billion (I forget the exact figure) annually on our military. That translates into 50,000 army troops 2 or 3 groups of fighters and some c-130 tansports and about 50 naval vessels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Lars, the Canadian military hasn't been unified for almost ten years.
Actually, the more civilized a country is, the easier it is to occupy. France was much easier to occupy than Russia during ww2. People are a lot more willing to accept occupation if they actually have something to lose by opposing it.Quote:
You can barely control Iraq, nevermind any part of Europe. I'de like to see the US invade at most one more country in the next 10 years. That'll stretch your army to the point that you will end worse then in Vietnam and Korea combined.
If you had to pick between leaving your comfortable home and all its comforts to go live in the wilderness and fight an unbeatable army, or live in relative peace and prosperity under occupation, chances are a lot of people would choose to complain but not act.
However, if you're dirt poor and dont really have much better to do, the glory of war is a lot more appealing.
Could explain why the US is training vs Swedish diesel subs (with Swedish crew, rented ). Seems to be needed according to what has been mentioned here.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Gah
From what I understand, diesel subs are excellent for coastal defense. The battery power can keep them going silently, and range is not really an issue when hugging a coastline. Also, if they get sunk on a coastline, you don't have a radioactive mess washing onto your beaches. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
I think the North Koreans have lots of diesel subs. The US Navy probably needs practice to counter them, since they don't have any of their own.
Who ever told you that was a dirty liar or living under a rock. It's still one service all the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
We sold you those subs in good faith. Shame you didn't check them on delivery......~D
Wow, so much to comment on, and all in one thread! We'll go in reverse order:
Lars, either you're being sarcastic or you don't know what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Canada isn't a socialist country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Truer words were never spoken, my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Now for the fun part:
The only reason why we wouldn't be able to stand up to the Marines is that even by themselves they outnumber the entire Canadian Armed Forces by a large margin. The entirety of our regular (not including reserves and militia) ground combat forces consists of three very understrength regiments of light infantry, and I believe a single regiment of artillery and a single regiment of armor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
But quite frankly G, a battalion from any of our infantry regiments would kick the everloving snot out of a battalion of Marines every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
When I was with 3PPCLI, a battalion of Marines came up to do an excercise with us and honestly, they didn't know what the hell they were doing. Quite a funny story
Seeing as how it was Marines (as opposed to Army) coming up for the excercise, our CO figured it would be appropriate to do a joint amphibious landing, then do a combined assualt up the side of a big hill. The Marine CO said (this is my favorite part) that he didn't think the amphibious landing was such a good idea, since "a lot of his guys couldn't swim."
"Couldn't swim."
Jesus wept... Isn't this the frickin' Marine Corps we're talking about here?
Anyhow, our CO said that's fine, but can you let us use your landing craft so our guys can do the landing, and your guys can take buses out and just meet us at the beachhead. No problem.
So we do our landing, then wait a little while for the Marines to show up on the cozy, heated (it was a bit of a chilly night) buses we provided. We then form up to do an assault up a big hill, with Canadians in the center and on the right, and the Marines on the left.
So, we begin our attack. Pretty standard, lay down fire support with heavy weapons, and use fire and movement tactics to advance toward the enemy. Except that apparently that's not how Marines do things (or did things, back then anyway). As soon as the shooting started, they got up and charged up the hill in a mad, screaming rush. Which in itself, might not have been that bad. Except they were also veering to the right as they charged, right through all of the Canadian interlocking fields of fire. Even though we were pretty quick to react to this clusterf*** (did I mention this was at night?) and stopped firing, the damage was done and the umpire staff declared a large part of the Marine force killed by friendly fire.
As far as the U.S. forces being battle-hardened veterans now, you are correct G. That would definitely have an impact. But the same can be said of the Canadian troops. There are very few of our reg force infantry troops that have not been involved in real combat operations over the last 15 years.
Having said all that, we also used to go down to Fort Lewis and work with the Rangers quite a bit. Those guys had their crap together pretty good and (for the most part, anyway) could keep up with us during PT. ~D Some of the most fun I ever had was doing live fire jungle lanes that they set up for us.
Goofball,
You were in the PPCLI?
:bow: (Beirut bows in respect.)
Once we get our delivery of F-35 JSFs, new helicopters, and keep up the upgrades on our CF-18s and City Class frigates, we'll be in good shape. Our guys are top notch, they simply need better equipment and more training dollars.
Napoleon said the moral is to the physical as three to one. We've got the moral, so when we get the physical we'll truly be first rate.
Canada, got to love the Maple Syrup.
Australians and Canadian backpackers have already taken over the world!
I hope they take over Thailand soon! That country needs a lot of modernization, especially to stop that dictator-in-democratic-clothes Thaksin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
We're relying on you, Australians! ~D
Back to the issue of Canadian military; I am genuinely interested in Canadian military history. How much, in terms of scale, time, and actions; did the Canadian regiments participate in the two World Wars, for instance? Were they also in Korea during the Korean War?
Edit: Thanks a lot for the link below, Papewaio! :bow:
I didn't know Canadia still had an army...isn't about half of it set to retire in the next five years?
Seriously, 1 on 1 you can't beat us. Mainly because American's are more violent, ravenous, and bloodlust-ey than Canadians are (with the exception of Beirut, of course).
Also, our generals aren't very smart, so yeah.
The US Regular army should be as well trained as the Marines and the Marines as well trained as...well...übermarines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by WWI
Quote:
Originally Posted by WWII
Bloodlust-ey?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
I vote Liberal, believe in socialized medicine, give money to Greenpeace, support the legalization of marijuana, support gay rights, woman's rights, and oppose the war in Iraq.
I'm as typically Canadian as they come.
As for our military, read the history of places like Vimy Ridge and Ortona. Our boys were first class right across the board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Pape shame on you! Vermont makes the best syrup!!! Not the most of course, but we do make the best. If global warming continues though Canada will eventually get the best weather for syrup production....~:mecry:
Unfortunately I don't have much to add about Canada's military, except to mention that they don't really seem to need the submarine in the first place....
But...but...but...the axe!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut