• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Comparing the Combat Arms (Inf vs. Engr vs. Armd vs. Arty)

Originally posted by Recce41:
[qb]Well all you Weekend warriors can relax,
-so add it up 31 weeks. If u get hurt after 4 weeks you should have not bothered joining. The Army is hard work! You are Weak if a week of hard work hurts go back to Mcdonalds.
[/qb]

:rolleyes: It‘s nice to see that superior, condicending attitude is still alive and well the way some regs view the reserves. We don‘t need the gov‘t to get rid of the reserves, just leave it to our full time brothers-in-arms(?). All those deployments we go on, (manning up to 25% of some missions) still leaves us unqualifed to share the same air I guess. :cool:
 
I may be off a bit on the %, but it does not alter the facts. A lot of the young, part time soldiers or cadets are looking at reg force fellas posting on this forum. They‘re looking for guidance, assurance and a genuine interest in gaining knowledge. They look to you for that. They likely see your responses as the final word on the subject(s). Comments like yours are not productive. I guess regs don‘t get hurt anymore, let‘s close NDMC and stop sick parades, we can save some money. Oh, and you didn‘t hurt my feelings. You see I‘ve been on both sides of the fence and heard the snivelling from both reg and res about each other and that‘s exactly what it is, snivelling and whining. I‘ve also seen people, from both sides, at least willing to do something to try solve the problems, rather than just slag the opposition, tell them their not worthy and go flip burgers. At least these young people try it on. Hey, it ain‘t for everyone. Not every reg goes from basic to retirement either. Take a pill and relax. Your technical expertise is well appreciated. We have a pretty good time here, try and enjoy it. Valid points are well accepted and debated with enthusiasm. Heck, sometimes we might(?) even admit being wrong. We don‘t need to belittle the efforts of others to make a point. The competition at SOCNET is the place to mindlessly rail at people. It‘s kind of the 22:00 hrs, fri nite, in the snakepit atmosphere of military forums. Rant ends, out. :D

Audax et Celer (1972-75)

PS- still wondering if your the Coyote patrol attachment to my troop for 2 weeks from now. :cool:
 
I‘ll admit some people I know in the reserves don‘t really care about soldiering, they just care about impressing women, and getting money. they don‘t want to fight for their country.

I‘m thinking of reserving because I want to get my education before I go regular, but don‘t want to enter after uni without some experience. some of my friends are doing this too. I‘ve got a buddy becoming an airforce pilot after uni, and another friend doing DOTP after some years in the reserves and uni.

but then again, right now I‘m even considering entering the reg force for a few years after my first year of uni, then going back to finish it off..

:bullet: :cdn: :bullet:
 
guess I‘ll throw in another question.. It was mentioned that the army values education. So, my question now would be what the army provides for reg soldiers who want to go to university (in my case it would be finish). I was talking to a reg force guy recently, and he said there was something after so many years of service, but wasn‘t sure of the details. I know about the ROTP right out of high school, but I‘m not doing that.. I want to be a ‘real soldier‘ (aka. NCM) for a while before going over to the dark side (officerhood).

p.s. not making fun of officers.. I just want to be an NCM first so I know what‘s going on (aka to become a good officer), and so that I don‘t get to be a desk jockey right away.


:bullet: :cdn: :bullet:
 
Right now there will be a max 2000$ re-embursment for reservists in post-secondary education. I‘m not too sure about the rules, I think you have to parade with your unit for a year. This is also affecting how reg force can get an education, especially for NCM‘s. I have no idea of the details of that because I‘m not reg force, but I‘m sure you can get the information somewhere.
 
Originally posted by Roko:
[qb]. . . but then again, right now I‘m even considering entering the reg force for a few years after my first year of uni, then going back to finish it off.[/qb]

Finish university first. It is harder to motivate yourself to go back to the life of a student once you have started making money. I Know too many people who planned to take a year or two off from university, and then never did go back.

As for your questions about Engineers take a look at this Field Engineer Info.
 
yeah, I‘ve decided to finish my degree first, and to join the reserves whilst in uni.. oh, and I‘ve decided I‘m probably gonna just stick with infantry if I‘ll be in the reserves... If I go reg force after uni, I may switch to armour or sapper then (unless I really like infantry)
 
Was just curious on the role Engineers play in combat situations. I was checking things out and I already understand that the primary role is to assist the army in living and fighting (transport, fixed defense, mines, bridges etc) and to deny the same to the enemy but also noticed that their secondary role was to fight as infantry as required. Historically, how often have engineers been called to front-line combat and how much infantry training do they receive today. I know that their job can take them to front line areas but I really mean fighting to take and hold ground/ patrolling etc offensively as aposed to defense. I realize in todays operations Engineers would be indisepensible in helping to restore war-torn cities and communities but would they be effective war fighters as well ? Reason I‘m asking is that although I have been a Reserve Infantryman for several years I am also taking civil engineering in university (if thats even close to the level of training that is required) I am educated to build things but I rather blow them up so I guess I have both in my blood.

Just to make them perfectly clear I am in no way downplaying any service branch of the CF. I respect anybody willing to serve their country in any shape way or form.
 
Originally posted by Fus:
[qb]Was just curious on the role Engineers play in combat situations. I was checking things out and I already understand that the primary role is to assist the army in living and fighting (transport, fixed defense, mines, bridges etc) and to deny the same to the enemy but also noticed that their secondary role was to fight as infantry as required. Historically, how often have engineers been called to front-line combat and how much infantry training do they receive today. I know that their job can take them to front line areas but I really mean fighting to take and hold ground/ patrolling etc offensively as aposed to defense. I realize in todays operations Engineers would be indisepensible in helping to restore war-torn cities and communities but would they be effective war fighters as well ? Reason I‘m asking is that although I have been a Reserve Infantryman for several years I am also taking civil engineering in university (if thats even close to the level of training that is required) I am educated to build things but I rather blow them up so I guess I have both in my blood.

Just to make them perfectly clear I am in no way downplaying any service branch of the CF. I respect anybody willing to serve their country in any shape way or form.[/qb]
Now the Lord of the Realm has glorified the Charge of the Light Brigade,
And the thin red line of the Infantry, when will their glory fade?
There are robust rhymes on the British Tar and classics on Musketeers,
But I shall sing, till your eardrums ring, of the Muddy Old Engineers.
Now it‘s all very fair to fly through the air, or humour a heavy gun,
Or ride in tanks through the broken ranks of the crushed and shattered Hun.
And its nice to think when the U-Boats sink of the glory that outlives the years,
But whoever heard an haunting word for the Muddy Old Engineers?
Now you musn‘t feel, when you read this spiel, that the sapper is a jealous knave,
That he joined the ranks for a vote of thanks in search of a hero‘s grave
No your mechanised cavalrys‘ quite alright and your Tommy has drained few peers,
But where in **** would the lot of them be, if it weren‘t for the Engineers,
Oh they look like tramps but they build your camps and sometimes lead the advance,
And they sweat red blood to bridge the flood to give you a fighting chance
Who stays behind when its getting hot, to blow up the roads in the rear?
Just tell your wife she owes your life to some Muddy Old Engineer,
Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking Muddy Old Engineer.
No fancy crest is pinned to their chest, if you read what their cap badge says,
Why ‘Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense‘ is a queersome sort of praise,
But their modest claim to immortal fame has probably reached your ears,
The first to arrive, the last to leave, the Muddy Old Engineers,
The sweating, go getting, uproarious, glorious Muddy Old Engineers.

Say‘s it all.
 
Originally posted by Fus:
[qb] . . . I already understand that the primary role is to assist the army in living and fighting (transport, fixed defense, mines, bridges etc) and to deny the same to the enemy . . . [/qb]
Add demolitions and construction to your bracketed list; and "move" to the unbraketed list.

Originally posted by Fus:
[qb] Historically, how often have engineers been called to front-line combat . . . [/qb]
There are several examples of this through out history. One frequently reffered to is the minners of the first World War. Enginners would attempt to tunnell under enemy trenches and collapse them with explosives. Both sides did this and both side conducted counter minning, where Engineers would dig toward the sound of enemy tunnelers. Frequently this resulted in opposing Engineers engaging in hand-to-hand (or shovel-to shovel) combat under ground.

Originally posted by Fus:
[qb] I know that their job can take them to front line areas but I really mean fighting to take and hold ground/ patrolling etc offensively as aposed to defense. [/qb]
The secondary role used to be to fight as Infantry in the defence. The "in the defence" has been dropped and the Engineers will fight as Infantry when ordered, in any phase of war. An Enginner Troop is a standard component of any square combat team, and I have heard more than a few Tactics Instructors recomend to task the Engineers as reserve and throw them in when there is not enough Infantry. (As an Engineer I would suggest this is potentialy squandering an important reasource.)

Originally posted by Fus:
[qb] . .. I have been a Reserve Infantryman for several years, I am also taking civil engineering in university (if thats even close to the level of training that is required) [/qb]
You have the educational requirments to be an Engineer Officer.

Originally posted by Fus:
[qb] Just to make them perfectly clear I am in no way downplaying any service branch of the CF. I respect anybody willing to serve their country in any shape way or form.[/qb]
You are aware that Engineers are a Combat Arm, right?
 
Thanks for the reply, thats a pretty catchy tune. I was aware that the engineers were a combat arm, I just wasn‘t a bit more detail on the matter. How different is the reserve training compared to the regs. I know for the other combat arms reserve training is now where near is good as the regs but is it any different for engineers, do they get to practice using the basic heavy equippment regularly ?
 
Fus,
Are you still considering joining the Engineers? Would this be Reg Force or PRes? Officer or NCM? I am only asking for one reason. If you are considering joining the Reg Force as an Engineer Officer, then I strongly caution you about taking advantage of the Education Reimbursment. If you do, you will not be elligable for the recruiting allowance of $40 000. However, you may only claim the education reimbursment up to one year after you are first allowed to claim. It does not give you a very large window to make up your mind, but that is the way things are at the moment.

. . . and there is one further ‘if.‘ There is no certainty as to how long the recruiting allowance will be available.
 
All sounds very interesting BUT, in WW I there were Tunneling Companies comprised of Infantry men who did the digging under the direction of the Engineers. Demolitions were often carried out by the Infantry Pioneer platoons. In Korea the Brigadier wanted an OP dug on our hill, we were told the engineers were coming up to do it. Right!. Two engineers arrived and we the infantry dug it out under their direction.
In another instance a Engineer arived on our hill with a device for sweeping mines. The intent was to sweep an area further behind the crest of the hill, we had been taking too many casualties in this area. We came under attack that night and I went down to call out the men for "stand to" and this young Engineer told me he didn‘t have to go he was in the Engineers. I said fine you know you are going to be back here all by yourself. That produced the desired effect.
 
I can‘t understand why I constantly see people ignoring the virtues of the artillery. There are many postings and other questions/statements that indicate something along the lines of "my three choices were INF, LCIS, Traffic" (not important what the second two were, just that they were not artillery or even armour).

My question here is: If you (generally speaking) are so high on getting into the infantry but aren‘t sure if you will get in, why don‘t you put down artillery as your second or third choice? Is it because there is a lack of knowledge of what the artillery is all about? Or is there some kind of bad mystique about it?

I was in the artillery reserve for three years and i can tell you that we got to do pretty much everything that the infanteers got to do. Plus, we got to the fire the big guns! (Which is pretty **** cool, I gotta say!)

Was just wondering this for a few days now, so I thought I might actually put it out there and try to find out the real reason.
 
I think perhaps you are right, there is probably a general (but mistaken ?) image that the Artillery troops spend all their time hanging in the back somewhere, polishing the gun / calculating azimuths etc, with little or no actual ‘action‘ in the popular sense.
 
Casing,

Dont kid yourself what the Arty do playing local defence etc. is nothing like what the Infantry do.

I‘ll give you a hint we get all sorts of rebagdes to the PPCLI from the Arty. You never hear them going the other way.

I was a reserve artilleryman and I went reg Inf...
 
From KevinB: "Dont kid yourself what the Arty do playing local defence etc. is nothing like what the Infantry do."
-----------------

I am not, as you say, kidding myself. My statements are from personal experience. However, since my limited experience is just that, I have approached a career Artillery serviceman for his comments.

Sgt. Slack, currently employed at CFRC Calgary, has something around 18 years with the reg force Artillery. He says that "we seem to do far more Infantry type work then most realize, so much so that JLC/JNCO 2001 an all infantry course was instructed by mostly Arty personnel. Much to even my surprise most Artillery soldiers seem to do more section attacks in the run of a year then Infantry soldiers! Light Batteries eg "C" Bty man the mortars and are deployed more in an Infantry role then Artillery. All four of my deployments were as an Infantry soldier".

So, as you can see there is plenty of opportunity for this type of work and people investigating a career in the CF should not limit their choices to just Infantry, if that is the type of career they want.

Please elaborate on your statement so that potential recruits visiting this forum approach a possible CF career with an educated mind on what their options are.
 
Visiting recruits just need to know that they should go Infantry opposed to Artillery heh
 
Back
Top