Canadian SAS?

[Daredevil]

taken from a Parlimentary news letter from the Honerable Cheryl Gallant in an Article Called Bring Back the Airborne

"It is time to put on the table a discussion that revolves around the formation in the Canadian Armed Forces of a specialized Regiment with air Capabilty. I propose that the minester base this Regiment at CFB Petawawa(personal Note Petawawa is the old home of the fromer Airborne)And call it the Canadian Special Air Service. This group would share a number of equivalencies with the British SAS and the US Delta Force. The Formation would be in direct response to the need of a highly specializedunit within the Canadian Armed Forces . It's role would include the Defence of Canada and domestic operations such as responding to terrorist attacks. It would train regularly in anti-terrorist measures. This group would represent a body of men that would increase the size of the Army component at a time when our troops are serioulsy over tasked."

I took this from another site, so I don't know what the date was but I get the impression it was recent. If this was fairly recent, what would it mean for JTF-2?

[King]

Bring back the Airborne... well, we do like to buy our helicopters twice.

Gallant is not in government, she's one of the newbie Alliance MP's from Ontario so even if she put a private members bill forward nothing will come of this. The government is talking about expanding the size of the JTF2, up to 1000 troopers last I heard. If she's looking for a Canadian SAS we already have one, it's just smaller and called the JTF2. I guess you could always rename the JTF2 to the SAS for the coolness factor. We probably should be looking at a unit more along the lines of the 75th Rangers.

[TonyM]

Great idea, but not remotely feasable with the current gov't. They did the disbanding and there's nothing polictally to be gained by admitting it made a stupid mistake. As with all governments, it has little/nothing to do if it's the right or wrong decision. We'll have to wait until we get those (insert favourite derogatory term here) out.

To keep the current level of buffoonery in perspective, always consider one thing:

What is the role of Government?

The Real Answer: To Be Re-Elected.
Nothing else matters. Not starving children, homeless veterans, school crime, drug problems, nucular holocaust, nothing if it dosen't relate directly to the prime directive. The days of polictical sacrafice by elected officals for the good of the country are long gone. Now if you could get most of the 100 ridings in Ontario to believe that an Airbone Regiment would somehow benefit them all, only then would you see the Liberals switch gears like a Born Again prostitute. Until then......

[garett]

I think there already was a Canadian Special Air Service Regiment right after WW2 but it only lasted a year until being renamed. We already have a CT unit, JTF-2. King is right, we need a 75th type until but in reality we already have it. The 3 Battalions of the 75th are all split up like our 3 light Battalions are. I think we should keep the 3 light battalions but maybe role them into a unit or expand their capabilities. I find it kinda funny that while there is talk of phasing out the light battalions there are also people sitting around talking about expansion. You can't really have both, you can't increase and decrease at the same time. Instead of having 3 light Battalions with a jump Coy each we should either take away the Jump Coys and make another "Airborne" or jump qualify all 3 light battalions. I think that the bottom line is that nothing is going to happen until there is a change in government. Maybe we should start raising personally funded units again like in WW1. Know any rich people?

[TonyM]

You're right garett, we did have a SAS. But it was only a coy. Following a soon to be tradition, it was didbanded quickly.

[enderr]

This "Can SAS" concept would pretty much be a Ranger unit. And what probably would happen is 3RCR would get scrapped and the new unit would use all of 3RCR's infrastructure. Non para guys would either go on a para course or go to 1 or 2 RCR. If they don't sit on their asses for too long I might be able to do an AIC before I get my CD, okay the bar for the CD.

[abprar]

In Australia we split 2/4RAR into 2RAR and 4RAR.
We made 4RAR a Commando unit that will take over East coast CT here whilst the SASR concentrates on Long range recon stuff.
I'm told your JTF2 is not very good in the green role but awesome in the black.

And if you guys want to start a new SF unit would it not be better to get advice from the Brits after all the Canadian army is commomwealth.Are you not different traditionally to the yank army?
I reckon you should have a purely army unit ...no mounties get help form the SAS SBS.AND REFORM THE AIRBORNE.

I'm now a proud owner of a PPCLI Para Coy shirt.As rare as rocking horse shit down here.I had to swap every 3RAR Para shirt I could muster for it.Anybody else want to swap Canadian unit Tshirts for 3RAR,4RAR or 6RAR Tshirts email me.
abprar@specialoperations.com

[towhey]

Having witnessed US Rangers work at close quarters, I personally don't believe the Canadian army has much to learn from them.

At best, the Rangers approximate the level of soldiering common in most Canadian infantry battalions. They are "special operations" only when compared to line US infantry.

This isn't to belittle them -- not at all. They're very good at what they do. But so are most Canadian units. Canadian infantrymen are generally much better trained, individually, than their line US counterparts. Where the Canadians lack is in tactical capability above battalion level. However, for battalion level ops, I'd put them ahead of Rangers any day.

Aside from much better "branding" and marketing, the major difference between Rangers and line soldiers -- and Canadian infantry -- that I noticed was psychological, not operational. Frankly, Rangers are trained for suicide missions and they seemed to relish the "martyr" role.

Towhey's Law of Martyrdom: "The only good martyr is a dead martyr."

The last thing Canada needs is a rebirth of the Airborne Regiment. What Canada needs is a truly special operations capable unit. JTF-2 is not (yet) such a beast. As someone else has noted, they're a good black ops (CT) unit, but without a credible green ops capability. It is the latter that is required.

Whether this achieved by re-roling JTF-2 into a multi-role spec-ops unit like the British SAS or by creating a new green-ops unit, doesn't really matter.

Given the recent recommendation to increase the size of JTF-2, I would expect the former would be the most expedient route to take. And, as much as the SAS has history and "coolness", it's not our history or coolness.

Might as well keep the JTF-2 name -- it's now well known, highly mysterious and broadly respected. Besides, like the SAS, it's name alone is captivating, as we've seen already in the press: "what is JTF-1??" After all, the Special "Air" Service was named as a deception -- to mislead the enemy into thinking it was an Air Force unit.

What more can you ask for?

[This message has been edited by towhey (edited 11-10-2001).]

[Infanteer]

Having witnessed US Rangers work at close quarters, I personally don't believe the Canadian army has much to learn from them.
At best, the Rangers approximate the level of soldiering common in most Canadian infantry battalions. They are "special operations" only when compared to line US infantry.
This isn't to belittle them -- not at all. They're very good at what they do. But so are most Canadian units. Canadian infantrymen are generally much better trained, individually, than their line US counterparts. Where the Canadians lack is in tactical capability above battalion level. However, for battalion level ops, I'd put them ahead of Rangers any day.
Aside from much better "branding" and marketing, the major difference between Rangers and line soldiers -- and Canadian infantry -- that I noticed was psychological, not operational. Frankly, Rangers are trained for suicide missions and they seemed to relish the "martyr" role.
Sir, I know this is veering from the topic of the thread, but could you give a little more insight behind the observations that lead you to conclude this. I know you are not one to "shoot from the hip" and I would be interested to hear more of what you have to say about this.
I am guessing a few trigger happy Rangers on the board would to.

[Marauder]

A "special" unit? But, then they might be misconstrued as "elite" and "capable"! And, dear God, they might have, <GASP> STANDARDS! If that calamity were to occur, our laziest, shitbag, oxygen stealing, retard soldiers would feel left out and excluded because they might think they can't be a part of something "special", and then their self esteem would lessen!!! Sweet Jesus, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
That would lead to the media thinking we CF soldiers are mean and like to hurt people. And then there's the issue of such units using Violence. Violence is bad. Violence might corrupt the children and weak-minded. And under our current political climate, anything that upsets the soccer moms isn't good for us, remember.

Bring back the CAR, make the entire army ABN and AA qual'd, spend money on weapons and transport planes and decent assault and transport choppers instead of making 5000 new variations of the dime, nickel, and quarter, and let us raise the standards. Then let us go waste some fucking tangos, instead of babysitting some bunch of assholes who are gonna tear each other apart when we leave anyhow.

Moi? Bitter? Surely you mistake me for someone else, sir.

[Enfield]

I think the talk of forming an SAS/Airborne/bigger-better JTF is putting the cart before the horse. Let's fix what we have right now before we start forming new units.
Enlarging JTF, or forming new rapid reaction battalions - well, let's wait until we can keep the battalions we have up to strength. I agree we need a a unit with the same tasking/role as the US Rangers or paras or whatever. Should it be the Airborne? No, I don't believe so - call it something else, organize it differently.
But before that - if we're gonna move 500 guys from the battalions, we better be able to fill those spot in the PPCLI, RCR, and R22R. I say we start with giving out some kind of proper taskings to the units we have (Reg and Res) - amphibious, mountain & arctic, air mobile, etc.

[Cree Warrior]

75th Reg't being only as good as a Canadian Regular Unit?...Thats a good one, LOL! Thats about all I can say.
Maybe after you weed out all the obese, broken, PTSD'd, SHARPed out troops. Then put them through a Canadian run scenario, maybe, maybe back in the 70's 80's, maybe, but I doubt it.
Like I've said before, I've worked with Brit Para Regiment, Ranger Regiment and Canadian units. 75th is BY FAR superior. Just because the regular Army in the US Sucks, doesnt mean the regiment's standard is lower.
By the way, how much combat experience have Canadian units had in the last 20 years? Training is training, war is war.

Just had to add my 2 cents.

Sua Sponte

[Pawn]

Cree,

What is your opinon of the British Para Regiment? Do they have comparable capabilities with the 75th?

[Sharky]

Originally posted by towhey:
Having witnessed US Rangers work at close quarters, I personally don't believe the Canadian army has much to learn from them.

At best, the Rangers approximate the level of soldiering common in most Canadian infantry battalions. They are "special operations" only when compared to line US infantry.

This isn't to belittle them -- not at all. They're very good at what they do. But so are most Canadian units. Canadian infantrymen are generally much better trained, individually, than their line US counterparts. Where the Canadians lack is in tactical capability above battalion level. However, for battalion level ops, I'd put them ahead of Rangers any day.

Aside from much better "branding" and marketing, the major difference between Rangers and line soldiers -- and Canadian infantry -- that I noticed was psychological, not operational. Frankly, Rangers are trained for suicide missions and they seemed to relish the "martyr" role.

Towhey's Law of Martyrdom: "The only good martyr is a dead martyr."



You're joking, right? I hope so because that whole quote is laughable at best. And believe me, I'm definitely laughing.



------------------
F.I.D.O.

[Dark Helmet]

Comparing a regular Canadian infantry unit to the 75th Ranger Rgt is tantamount to comparing a Big Wheel to a Corvette.

To make the statement that they are on par with each other is laughable at best.

[towhey]

Infanteer: Good question.

What makes a Ranger unit? According to US doctrine, and a Ranger officer I spoke at length with in Fort Lewis while observing Rangers at work, it breaks down into two major things:

1. Specialization in small unit tactics, with a heavy emphasis on patrolling skills. Something line US infantry don't really do.

2. Esprit-de-corps.

Canadian units don't just specialize in small-unit tactics -- they are exclusively focused on them. This is, perhaps, a sad reflection of the fact that Canada doesn't field any large formations. The Canadian Army of the latter 20th Century and today is largely unable to function above battalion level. However, in the Canadian context this is not a show-stopper because the fact is Canadian battalions are trained for and accustomed to operating independently. Not unlike Ranger battalions.

Compared with other NATO nations, Canadian infantrymen are quite broadly trained with a number of "specialist" skills. The "average" infantryman in a regular battalion is trained "two-up" after about two years of service. Meaning, a private can do a Master Corporal's job, if the need arises -- a Master Corporal can (and often does) fill in for Warrant Officer positions.

An "average" regular infantryman in a Canadian battalion is qualified on all company weapons and vehicles and has trained in live fire and manoeuvre exercises up to company level. While this may be true of Rangers also, it is not true of most line infantry units in most NATO armies.

These days, an "average" Canadian infantryman has served on at least two operational tours overseas in a war zone. The "average" US infantryman, perhaps including the Rangers, has not.

Patrolling is heavily emphasized throughout Canadian infantry training and the "average" Canadian infantryman is well-skilled in both reconaissance and fighting patrols. Unlike their US counterparts, Canadian infantrymen routinely operate 4-man patrols -- a tactic not employed in many armies outside the special operations arena. Patrolling skills and taskings are not limited to the recce platoons -- line infantry sections are expected to be proficient in all patrolling functions. In this regard they are much like the Rangers.

Although not all soldiers in a Ranger battalion are "Ranger Course" qualified, patrolling is the focus of this gruelling course. I have not taken this course, however I have known a number of both Canadian and US officers who have taken the course and they indicate the level of patrolling skills taught on the course is very good, but not exceptional.

The Rangers I observed were very good soldiers. However, none of the sub-units I observed appeared to perform at a level that I would not expect from an "average" Canadian infantry battalion.

One major capability difference between the Rangers and line Canadian infantry battalions, obviously, is parachute capability. Not much I can say to that -- other than it's a useful way to get to work, but it doesn't really change what you do when you get there.

Another major advantage the Rangers have is great marketing. They have built an outstanding brand and market it well.

They always seem to demonstrate a brilliant esprit de corps that has often seemed lacking in the Canadian military at a macro level. However, when you scratch the surface of a Canadian infantry battalion, I have always found a strong, resiliant fighting spirit.

Rangers are doctrinally employed on operational taskings, often ahead of the main force, where skilled infantryman are required in some quantity (i.e. 100's).

This separates them from "special operations" forces who normally operate in very small teams. The two complement each other nicely: Spec Ops provide the high-cost high-specialized surgical expertise, while Rangers provide lower-cost, higher-volume "bulk".

Out of all US Army organizations, the Rangers seemed to come closest to the Canadian regimental system -- and to demonstrate many of the same strengths and weaknesses.

The Rangers' strong self-image is, undoubtedly, highly valuable to the Rangers. Historically, Rangers often seem to draw the "suicide" missions and like most high-morale regiments take perverse pleasure in this fact. I guess, when your Army is as large as the US Army, you can afford to have battalions who are regularly used as cannon fodder. Unfortunately, even Rangers are not always able to overcome the odds. It seems a shame to squander such fine soldiers. This is one attribute I would not want to see adopted by a new Canadian unit.

As it turns out, "average" Canadian infantryman are, in fact, far above average compared with most Armies in the world.

For those non-Canadians who find this hard to believe: good. Keep underestimating the Canadian Army. That is a strategically advantageous position for us to be in.

For those Canadians who prefer to think their military is shoddy: consider the numbers. Out of a population of 30 million, Canadian regular infantry units field only about 6,000 troops. Is it really that hard to believe that you could find 6,000 really good guys to do this stuff?

For those Canadian soldiers who really believe that they, themselves, are second rate: shame on you. Time to get a new job.

Having thought more about it -- perhaps the Ranger model is not a bad one for Canada to explore. But I would argue it is a model for the regular infantry battalions (where few things would have to change), not a jazzed-up JTF-2 or SAS. They should be really special.

[This message has been edited by towhey (edited 11-12-2001).]

[Sharky]

You obviusly know very little about the capabilities of the 75th. Actually, I'm quite glad. It seems that too much is known these days. Your diatribe of defense would seem to be more defending your honor than anything else. Nothing wrong with that and I won't knock you for it. Every unit needs their morale boosts here and there. But that would appear to be all that this is. A little chest beating so you can feel better.

------------------
F.I.D.O.

[Daredevil]

If I remember correctly, Towhey, Cree Warrior has served as both a Ranger in the 75th, and as a soldier with the Canadian Forces. If you won't respect what these other Rangers are telling you, surely you would have to respect the opinion of someone who has experienced both sides.

[Cree Warrior]

Firstly, Peacekeeping is not war (although the RESERVISTS from Medac pocket would disagree). If it were Canadians simply wouldn't be sent there.
Secondly, I would agree that the average Canadian Infantryman gets more up front training in QL3, and in QL4's like MG. How much do they get after this? Try asking a pte, Cpl or MCPL in one of our "Light" infantry Bn's, its not much.
Example: 2nd Ranger Batt went to Wainright last Nov. Their ammo budget for THAT deployment equaled PPCLI's for the entire YEAR. That's called on the job training. What's better, an MG qualified Pte that shot maybe 3,000 rds during his MG course, or a "maggot" from a weapons squad that shoots thousands and thousands of rounds a year? (I remember a 4 day training cycle in Ft. Lewis where the maggots went through 60,000 rds.)
Thirdly, its a moot point. Its like saying, ahhh our hockey team here in The Pas, Manitoba is better than the Oilers. Why? Cuz I've seen them both in pre-season practice and our town team looked better. Until our team plays for the Stanley Cup (Afghanistan) its a moot point.
Untill we Canadians go to war its laughable that we compare ourselves as equal or "superior" to a unit that went to war, is at war, probably as we speak? Armchair quarterbacks.

Lastly,
Lets go through a scenario:
Canadian / US dignitaries become hostages abroads, imminent threat. Governemt wants the boys sent out ASAP.

US: Ranger batt on RF 1 is wheels up in 18 hours max. On the ground with "other" assets within 28 hours.

Canada: Unit designated does MLOC (3 days min)
Padre meets with ALL members spouses (4 days min)
Air force arranges transport, pulls aircraft from jump courses, humanitarian aid missions etc. (3 days)
All pers who feel threatened or scared "choose" not to go and reserve augmentees needed to get to combat strength (1 week min)
Meanwhile JTF is sitting on the ground waiting.
Canadian aircraft go tits up on the runway, US planes rented and brough up (2 days)
Canadian Forces are on the ground with JTF in 2 months (speedy by our standards)

Uhhh, Oh yeah, we are WAYYYYYY better that Ranger Bn's!!!! LOL

I do NOT think it is unpatriotic or shameful to admit that our forces are weakened and uneffective. We've been in peacekeeping mode for years and have not been to war since Korea. We have NO transport, shitty gutless helo's, low training budgets etc. We are all motivated combat hungry troops, but we also have to be real.

If my response seems to be over the top, its because I get sick and tired of listening to Canadians dissing Rangers and the US. It seems to be a CF passtime to talk about old Airborne vs. Ranger stories. "Oooooh, like did you hear the airborne regiment snuck through a swamp in Florida and wiped out a whole Ranger Coy, or or or about the time that the 82nd dropped into Pettewawa in January with jungle boots on and the Airborne DZ controllers just laughed at em and left em there, etc. etc. etc. To me its just an inferiority complex.

Thats all for now, I'm sure I'll have more to say on the topic.

Sua Sponte



[This message has been edited by Cree Warrior (edited 11-12-2001).]

[Tracy]

Originally posted by towhey:

Having witnessed US Rangers work at close quarters, I personally don't believe the Canadian army has much to learn from them.

At best, the Rangers approximate the level of soldiering common in most Canadian infantry battalions. They are "special operations" only when compared to line US infantry...

...Aside from much better "branding" and marketing, the major difference between Rangers and line soldiers -- and Canadian infantry -- that I noticed was psychological, not operational. Frankly, Rangers are trained for suicide missions and they seemed to relish the "martyr" role...


Aside from the ability to quote yourself, what qualifications do you bring to the table? I've worked extensively with PPCLI, CAR, US Light Infantry, and the Ranger Regiment. By 'worked' I mean put a rucksack on, do patrols and pub crawl with them.

Suicide missions? Is that YOUR perspective, speaking FOR the CF? By extension, does that mean the CF will NOT undertake missions that the Rangers routinely accomplish with little or no casualties?

The Canadian Army has nothing to learn from the US Army; because they're Canadians. As such, Canadian Defense policy is vastly different from US Defense policy. We like what we have, and it works. You like what you have, and it must work because you're not a suburb of Detroit.

Instead of being a piss-ant, why don't you go down to Fort Benning, GA and go through Infantry OSUT, Airborne School and RIP as a Light Weapons Infantryman? Stay with a Ranger Batallion for two years and report back here. THEN, you may talk all the sh*t you desire...

[Infanteer]

Cree Warrior, I have noticed that "American Bashing" alot, and I completely agree with you sir, it is somewhat of an inferiority complex. It gets kinda annoying after a while because it is true, we could stand to learn something from them, or anyone else for that matter.
Mr. Towhey, tactics and knowledge aside, don't you think the operational and training tempo of the 75th should be taken into account. As from what I understand, the 75th is on its feet for a good percentage of the year practice their skills. They are indeed a sharp spear, ready to be used at any time.
Sure, I as a Canadian infantry Private got a lot of infantry skills dumped onto me in my basic courses. But how much of this am I going to retain. How many of these skills do I really gain a good working knowledge with. I know since I am a reservist it is different, but Cree Warrior brings up a good point; even our regular units are underfunded and strained by everything from insufficent equipment and supplies to bureaucratic bullshit.
I in know way consider the Canadian infantryman or army in general to be a second rate force; but I do see our problems and and recognize that there are units out there that are in some aspects superior.
So if we were going to be comparing the abilities of two units, we should probably look at the actual capabilites of the units, as opposed to the potential abilites. On paper, a Canadian infantry battalion looks great; a wide array of infanteering skills disseminating among the ranks, good equipment, firepower etc, and you could probably measure it with a Ranger Battalion. But in reality, I would venture that important issues such as training and such would cause a Canadian battalion to fall short of delivering the goods.

[Tracy]

As an addendum,

No, I'm NOT bashing the Canadian Forces (well, maybe the Navy..) because they are a fantastic group of troops. I fought alongside them in Somalia so I know they work well under pressure.

Towhey's remarks are rather irksome because it's an arm-chair politician's answer; not from someone at the mud and blood level. Fortunately, the REAL Soldiers on both sides get along rather well.

[garett]

This one time at MO camp......

[Jeff Rambo]

This post deserves more attention, it'll be in the debating section under GENERALNET.

------------------
Cheers!
J.R.
----------
26OCT01