TCBF said:
Mr. Campbell's idea of rotating the parachute role from bn to bn is a proven one, and it worked in the MSF/DoC Force concept in the 1950s. We actually had the equivalent of a parachute bde then, truly the halcyon days of military parachuting.
Can't agree with you there at all. The MSF was never really a starter. Firstly, you can't say it was proven because they were never used in an operational role, which is the true test of a unit.
Secondly, they didn't even really acquit themselves that well on the ground in training. Look at Exercise "Eagle", in 1949. Eagle was such a disaster that the Calgary Herald later editorialized that;
"the Joint Army-RCAF Exercise Eagle has shown that these defence arms, in their present stage could not deal repidly and effectively with even a comparatively small landing by enemy airborne troops and fighter aircraft along the Alaska Highway and on these Northland aerodromes."
It was precisely because MSF didn't work that the Airborne Regiment was developed. And it DID work. At least until it was disbanded for crass political reasons by politicians whose idea of honour is to leave envelopes full of cash for their buddies in Italian restaurants.
The problem with any type of rotational concept is twofold.
1. It weakens the Regimental system that we've subscribed to for a century or so. The regimental system is used simply because it works. By diluting it, we lose the history, comraderie and consistency that has been a proven winner for Anglo-Centric armies for years and years.
2. It leads to unworkable personnel problems. The fact is that although the average combat arms battalion has many good, enthusiastic, fit and motivated soldiers, they also have a large proportion of dead weight who simply aren't up to the standards required of a hard nosed, truly "semi-elite" unit. In a true first strike oriented unit, those types can be weeded out through a selection process to offset extra incentives (extra pay, distinctive uniforms, better chance at seeing action etc.)
You can't do that if you're just going to say "O.K. 2 RCR, you guys are now "elite". The next time JTF 2 has to smoke some Al Qaida village in the Afghan mountains, we're going to cover their extraction zone. Oh, and by the way, Mortar Platoon, you guys are going to be doing a 14 km hump with full battle gear and fire mission load on a mountain range. At night. In winter.
Do you think for a minute that even a third of those guys are going to be "combat effective" by the end of it?
To do those kinds of tasks, you have to train for it constantly, like the US Rangers. I would argue it's better if you can start your guys from the beginning of their careers, like the Brit Paras or Marines.
The best way to meet the task would be to re-form the Airborne Regiment. It may be true that our military is unlikely to be jumping into Dive's Crossing or Arnhem anytime in the near future. But "Airborne" ops are a great development tool and segway to the type of soldiering that the type of light force being considered demands.
Re-constituting an Airborne Regiment would maintain a sense of regimental history and esprit de corps while avoiding the internecine bitching that would inevitably occur if one particular unit were tasked with the responsibility.
It won't happen though. If I were to bet money, the Liberals would never subject themselves to the criticism that would follow re-instating the Airborne Regiment. It would be like the Sea King fiasco.
And if I were really going to bet money, I would bet that all those Regimental rivalries, squabbling, limited transport resources and jealousy will derail this idea before it even gets out of the gate.
JTF 2 will just use the Rangers or Paras when they need to. And the CF can hand out food packages to kids, build schools and man OP's.
I wish the rest of my suggestions were actioned as fast....
