This blog is a random collection of information, partly in support of my quotations web site. Other topics include wine, military news, economics, history, libertarianism, and other random things which happen to strike my fancy. Backup site is at http://quotulatiousness.blogspot.com/ (if there are no posts showing, hit the backup blog for explanation). Comments have been turned off, as the spam was getting too much to handle. Comments can be emailed to me for posting.

February 28, 2006

Refuted by one who knows

Farfromcanadahar is a Canadian soldier, serving in Afghanistan. I don't think he's read my blog, but he might as well have done:

Every time anything happens to Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, everyone with a beef against the current federal government seems to feel the need to ratchet-jaw on about the poor, wretchedly equipped Canadian military. As someone who's been issued all the kit, and who has had access to the stuff other countries are using, I find this tendency extremely irritating.

Canada doesn't have a big navy. We don't have guided missile cruisers, (working) submarines, or aircraft carriers. Our air force is suffering from decades of neglect, and we are stretched mighty thin just sustaining our forces in Afghanistan with our brace of C-130s. We are mothballing our tanks. It's safe to say that as far as the big-ticket stuff goes, we pretty much suck.

But the soldier stuff, the vehicles and the clothing and the protection and (sorry, Gen Hillier) the gizmos . . . now there, we have another story.

He specifically praises the G-wagon, the LAV-III, the C7A2 rifle "which has so many useful and innovative improvements that I despair of listing them without putting my civilian readers to sleep", the new camouflage pattern, CADPAT, night vision equipment, communications equipment, etc.

Is it perfect? Hell no. Combat uniforms, designed to be worn under fragmentation vests, that have chest pockets? And no arm pockets? WTF!? And seriously, mate, what genius came up with a "modular" tactical vest that doesn't allow the user to carry more than 4 magazines? After every other fighting force in the world, not to mention your own soldiers, has come to the conclusion that soldiers require up to 10 or more magazines in modern battle? By the way, great job in making grenade pouches that the grenades you give us don't fit into. That's especially useful. I put my Garmin in one of mine. Maybe I can use another for an MP3 player. And don't even get me started about the absurd, almost criminally negligent administrative system under which we suffer. I really didn't enjoy not getting paid for over two months this fall.

But for the love of God, I think back to the Army I joined in 1987, and the 1950's pattern webbing and 1950's vintage equipment I was originally issued with. I think back to the vehicles we used to drive, the clothing we used to wear, and frankly the attitudes we used to have, and I don't even recognize us.

Clearly, based on that last paragraph, this isn't the army I belonged to, either. In my company's armoury, we still had a WWII-era American rocket launcher (bazooka, to the comic-book crowd), a Bren gun, and lots of other stuff that was older than the company commander. I'm delighted to hear that at least some of that has changed.

Posted by Nicholas at February 28, 2006 02:27 PM
Comments
I'm glad he likes the infantry gear, but I'm not sold on the up-armored G-wagen's utility and protection vs. an up-armored HMMWV. Sure, the G-wagen is way better than the very vulnerable Iltis, but that's not exactly a high standard to top. Posted by: Chris Taylor at March 1, 2006 09:43 AM
Agreed that most anything would be an improvement over the Iltis . . . but it's over 20 years since I last wore a uniform, so I'm willing to take Captain Dave's word on both the good and the bad of the kit he uses on a daily basis. Posted by: Nicholas at March 1, 2006 11:07 AM


Visitors since 17 August, 2004