lwarmonger

I recall hearing that same argument by pre-World War I thinkers. They were under the impression that because of the great volume of trade that occured between nations and the expense of contemporary weapons and munitions, any war couldn't help but be short.

The problem isn't that the US (or China, or the EU) couldn't afford it... the problem is that once it became clear that one side was losing, the nuclear element will introduced to the picture by the loser (either as a negotiation tool or a limited/all out weapon) and shorten the war one way or another.

lwarmonger

Actually, in that respect it may be better off than the United States. They are part of NATO (which means they do have a certain portion of that network... if Nato cooperation can be stretched to Afghanistan it can be stretched to Pakistan too), and among many nations it would be far more acceptable politically to act as a staging area for Canadian troops than American ones.

Officer of Engineers

Hitesh,

I was not trying to ignore your question but was trying to frame the answer that is both realistic and fitting the Canadian doctrine. The problem is that I don't have enough info on Pak and Indo doctrines to give you a good answer.

I don't have the context. Is the CMBG on offence or defence? Are we the recee force or the strategic reserves or even the main force? And some decisions are not even for Canada to make such as the recee force and the strategic reserves implies that we are part of an overall higher command.

I was trying to frame the answer in how we envision the battlefield and between here and trying to butcher two animals, not enough time nor attention to do five things at once.

I will give you an example. 4CMBG was the strategic reserves for VII Corps at the Fulda Gap. If crap hits the fan, 4CMBG was to hold off two Soviet Armies while surviving VII Corps elements (most importantly, the HQ) get across the Rhine.

__________________
Chimo

Blademaster

Ok let's take it in the context that Canada just volunteered for the Afghanistan job, relieving US of its duties allowing US to concentrate on Iraq. It is now the main force in the theater of Afghanistan. Let's say that the US hasn't create a staging base yet there. Afghanistan is friendly to Canada and is having problems with Pakistan Army providing cover and support for the Taliban in Afghanistan territory. Therefore, Canada needs to stop the Pakistan Army from providing cover and support in Afghan territory. How is Canada going to get to Afghan territory and establish itself as the main force?


Interesting. I thought 4CMBG was supposed to be the killing stroke of VII Corps, hence the strategic reserve designation.

Feanor

Would that have been possible? And which armies are we talking about?

zraver

No, the Killing stroke would always be re-organized US units and French forces backed by REFORGER arrivals. The Canadians never had enough armor for offensive operations vs a Soviet scale foe.

It depends on how well the US did and what era. After 1985 if VII corps got pushed aside and the Soviets had an intact Cat A army to use and at least neutral skies probably not very long due to a lack of effective firepower vs T-72/T-80 armor vs the 105mm guns. And soviet artillery superiority. Earlier than that when the Canadian Leo I's were still combat effective or vs a Cat B or older formation or exhausted and heavily atritted Cat A formation probably yes.

Officer of Engineers

That's not going to happen. The numbers is not there. NATO has half the numbers deployed to Afghanistan, the US the other half. Canada alone does not have enough troops to replace both. However, Canada can be the lead nation but I think the UK would be the most likely candidate.That's not going to happen but Canada can control a province.Transit would most likely still by AEROFLOT, they're simply the cheapest way of getting there. The CMBG would most likely travel by ship to either the Middle East or to Europe before embarking on flights through the Central Asian Republics. Khandahar is still under NATO control and would be the staging area for any NATO operation.They are that too but the scenario I've listed is when crap hits the fan.It's a delaying action to allow VII Corps to escape. Even forcing the Soviets to re-organize for a proper assault would aide us. However, our maneuver elements are meant to prevent flanking while our fire and obstacle elements are meant to suppress their onslaught.

I don't know. The simplified battleplan was for the 11ACR to meet the Soviets head on, delaying them until VII Corps can completely mobilize. If 11ACR failed, then it was 4CMBG's job to allow VII Corps to escape. Whether VII Corps actually put up a big enough fight before determining they need to get across the Rhine or what damage the Soviets suffered is a big question. It probably won't be the 1st two echelons that would hit 4CMBG but to this day, only Moscow knew what forces they've assigned to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th echelons.

I can tell you that we expected to be nuked if we put up too good of a fight.A single company size tank squadron is going to do squat all in a heads up fight no matter what tank it is. The numbers just ain't there. AT duties belong to the infantry battalions and the artillery regiment.

If, and that is a big if, a humongous if, things goes to plan, then VII Corps would escape via Lahrs to which we had an entire base (CFB Lahrs) and my cluster-linked fields into play.

If not, more than a likely if, my regt would've been setting up hasty fields along the main and flanking lines of axis.