I think that the hole thing would depend on where the battles would take place because the 2 countries are on opposite ends of the earth, I deffinitly dont think that the Army will be involved but if there is a war i think it will all take place in the air/ air strikes.
"What Canada needs is another good war!" said someone I go to school with, commenting on proving the worth of our Army. The more pacific among us need not worry should a war break out in Asia; it would be primarily fought and won with Naval power, and Canada according to Janes Defense, has none. Well, almost none. If memory serves me correctly, Canada‘s Navy just beat Chile‘s in their ranking, but Mexico‘s edged us out. Just think, the pride of the Canadian fleet are a handful of small twenty year old diesel subs that were rejected by the British Royal Navy because the final product was deemed to not meet their high standards. As for our Army fighting overseas, we have no way to get to the battle. We have no air-air refuelling, we have a few very old Hercs (the oldest one still flying is in Canada‘s service!), and no supply ships--remember the GMS Katie? Maybe we do need to prove the need for a proper Army...
The country still has a very capable Land Force that is capable of holding its own in a ground war, regardless of location or terrain. What is needed, is a committment by the politicians to maintain and increase military spending so that the standards do not erode away.
Patriot, Canadian soldiers are the most versatile and among the best trained regulars in the world. In spite of this, our hundred and fifty or so tanks and three regular force battalions of infantry would not repel an armour assault a-la Soviet doctrine (wave after wave of heavy armour). If Canada were at war defending the homeland or overseas in support of NATO or UN committments, we might just get buried.
It takes more than a highly trained, smart soldier. I compel you to recall Oct. 3, 1992, MOgadishu. The US Rangers (highly trained light inf, just like us) come under attack. They‘re in serious trouble. The Marines could not respond with their M60A3‘s for whatever reason and the US Army armor did not for their reasons... but a Pakistani armour force saved them. With T-54‘s and T-62‘s, a hungry, poorly trained army bailed out the elite US Rangers. The moral of my story? It takes more than good training. Yes, political will and a supportive public is what we really need--but that must lead to some new equipment and more soldiers. We‘re among the best trained in the world; it is high time we are equipped as well as we are trained.
The relief force to the downed Blackhawk was not a Pakistani relief force. It was composed of the 10th Mountain Division‘s Rapid Reaction Force, which borrowed some Malaysian and Pakistani armoured vehicles along with their drivers.
I believe your example runs contrary to the point you are trying to prove. The US Army Rangers, a small and lightly-armed, but highly trained, force, when surrounded , managed to inflict casulties upon an enemy of upward estimates of 1000 men...for the loss of 18 Rangers.
Just look at the Blue Pennent of the PUC on the Colours of the 2PPCLI. There stand is a testement to how superior soldiers can overcome mass attacks.
All I know about the ‘Battle of the Black Sea‘ I got from Mark Overton‘s ‘Blackhawk Down‘. A good read, but written by a journo, rather than someone with a military background. Anyone know of any other good sources on this engagement? Thanks...
One of the posters there was actually apart of Task Force Ranger, and he has answered many questions.
Just make sure you read through all the old posts before you post a question, because repetitive questions will be flammed.