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

Correcting the continuing ignorance regarding the NDP (& shots on the Conservatives)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I still don't buy the 5 rounds thing. In order to deploy, you have to complete MLOC/DLOC. Simply by completing that process, ou fire more than five rounds, since yuo have to successfully complete the PWT. Which takes considerably more than 5 rounds to do. You can't even get CS/CSS pers zero effectively with only 5 rounds, unless the moon is right and the stars are aligned.
 
Michael O'Leary said:
His is one opinion, others here have expressed theirs.  But you have already decided which you are willing to believe, so it appears your's and fez's minds are equaly closed to a discussion.

There is only one Marine in my Company who worked with Canadians overseas.  I am only representing one view because it is the only one I have knowledge of to represent.  I have no vested interest in dumping on CF soldiers.  I was one for 11 years.  Just because I moved south of the border doesn't mean I have any anti-Canadian sentiments.  My wife is Canadian, I'm Canadian, my parents are Canadian etc....

So say what you will but the only part of my mind that is closed is the part that has to deal with bull crap that gets spewed out at me.

PJ D-Dog
 
PJ D-Dog

You are correct in saying that one soldier's experience is not the same as another's.  I, too, have a hard time believing that an officer heading off on Tour had only 5 rounds to qualify, when the lowest qualification is the PWT 1 and it is 50 rounds.  A person has to have at least PWT 4 (I believe) to go on Tour and that consists of a lot more than 50 rounds.  If this officer only fired 5 rounds, either someone in the system allowed him to squeeze through unnoticed or he, himself, failed to go to the Ranges to qualify when he was directed to do so (How many times have we seen officers, mostly in non-Combat Arms Trades, who feel that weapons handling is not necessary for their job?).

We just ran a PWT 1, as we are not on a deployment rotation, and ran through 28 Fd Amb with our relays.  They all fired more than 50 rounds.

As for 'Book Learning', that is a different story.  'Book Learning' may make a person an intellectual, but not necessarily intelligent.  Sometime it takes some 'Street Learning' and a little less ego and more open-mindedness to really understand the world situation.  Fez is fixated on this one topic, not listening at all to any of the answers given him/her, when (s)he could easily browse some of our other Forums and Topics and see what is being said.  As a matter of fact, PJ D-Dog, you may want to widen your search, as some of these topics have been covered and been either explained or discredited.

If Fez wants to propose questions, then Fez should also be ready to accept answers from "Boots on, or who have been on, the Ground".  If Fez can not, neither you nor (s)he can really maintain credibility in the discussion.
 
PJ D-Dog said:
I really don’t think that attacking someone because of his or her ignorance (through no fault of their own) is going to be conducive to having an intelligent exchange.
I most certainly agree.  The flaming dog pile was in appropriate (that is why the thread was locked).  However, when someone is told through first hand sources that his facts are wrong (such as the case with the armour), then that someone accept that he is wrong.

PJ D-Dog said:
1.  Fez’s Background:
Those of us involved in debating fez did not really care about his background.  So far, his posts have not lived up to the standard your praise should have us expect.  His posts are how we will judge him (and there are other NDP leaners on this site that manage to get by in the debates).

PJ D-Dog said:
2.  Five Rounds for Qual

I recently visited with my cousin who is a Major in the CF. He is in the mental health field as part of the air force.  Prior to his deployment to Afghanistan in Jan 06, he was only allotted a five round magazine for annual rifle qual.  I made it clear to Fez when I recounted this story that this excluded the combat arms as his original post stated.  I asked my cousin many questions about this and he was disgusted at the fact that he was not given more time on the range for qualification.  He enquired as to why there was such a shortage of ammo and he was told that it was due to budget restraints.  It seems that service support don’t need to qualify at the same level as a combat arms unit.

We both agreed that regardless the branch of service, all deploying CF personnel should be getting a higher standard of rifle sustainement training prior to going over.  Some may not agree with this, but anyone can get caught in a firefight even the mental health guy.
Your friend has failed to meet the standard to deploy.  All soldiers going into the country must do at least PWT 2.  Anyone that will leave the camp must be PWT 3.  If all he has been given is five rounds then he has not even completed PWT 1.  If this is true, someone is being negligent in their duties.   

PJ D-Dog said:
4.  How Many Magazines does it take….

A buddy of mine was working for a company, which produces CF military gear.  He explained that in order to get a federal contract for equipment, he had to speak with the head of DND acquisitions in Ottawa.  He was shocked to learn that this relic of a soldier was still of the opinion that CF soldiers should only be carrying four mags in the their pouches and one in the rifle.  The DND official was questioning the need to have more mags as he feared an increase in budget costs.  Obviously, he was trained in the good old days of the Cold War and just didn’t understand.  After visiting soldiers in Afghanistan, he wondered whey they would want to carry more ammo.
? Who is your buddy?  Who did he speak to; someone in DLR, ADM(MAT), clothe the soldier?  I don’t understand this procurement process you’ve presented.  It does not sound like how we do business.

PJ D-Dog said:
5.  Gunny Says…..

My company Gunny worked with Canadians in Afghanistan.  He has told me that other than being hard working and easy to get along with, they were not trained to effectively deal with the mission at hand.  Again, the doctrinal shift.  Although their tactics were similar to those used by the Marines, Canadians lacked aggression and were more interested in supervising tasks rather than doing them.  He said they liked to explain things more than actually doing them.  His overall assessment was that CF Soldiers should have been given more training before deploying.

As for IEDs, I would like to see the manual the CF is using in order to compare it to what the Marine Corps is using.
When did your Gunny work with Canadians?  Was it APOLLO?  Kabul?  Except for a few Marines in HQ & comms dets, I only saw Army and Air Force in Kandahar.

How did your Gunny come to these conclusions?  What did he see?  Why/How do we lack aggression?

What were the training deficiencies?

Your comments are so general and devoid of detail that it is impossible to comment in most cases.

. . . btw, if you have the JIED Defeat handbook, you have the first draft of our book.

PJ D-Dog said:
He is concerned that the level of training he is receiving is not up to par with the mission they will be performing.  He recounted how the training was focused on fording drills and other elements that would be included in a classical European theatre.  He was concerned at how they will be operating in desert mountain terrain and wondered why they practiced fording rivers etc… 
The Hellmund River: my BG had to deal with it.  His BG may have to do the same.

PJ D-Dog said:
He was also concerned about the Cold War drills of a morning stand-to which continued to be advocated by the higher leadership in the work up training. 
Well, considering the level of night observation within the Taliban, this does not actually sound that bad a tactic if one were expecting an attack.  Far better than a Mad Minute. 

Your friend has a lot of ideas on what he does not want to do.  Are there no comments on what he thinks is missing?

PJ D-Dog said:
Another issue is that of leadership.  He is very concerned that leadership displayed in the training is inferior.  He is at the point where he has no confidence in both the junior and senior leadership of the unit his is with.  Despite all of this, he is still going to deploy, as he wants to get a tour in before he gets out.
What is wrong with the leadership?  This statement is so general and devoid of detail that it is impossible to comment.


PJ D-Dog said:
In an attempt to validate this information, I spoke with a Captain friend of mine who went over and asked him some of these questions.  I also read some reports on CF casualties on CBC and spoke with Marines who have served in Afghanistan with Canadians Soldiers. 
and what did the Capt say to that validated any of the training or leadership concerns?  I notice nothing in your CBC links is related/relevant.

PJ D-Dog said:
6.  The NDP-the party you love to hate…..

The NDP is not a monolithic organization.
I will agree that we see anything from the NDP or the left attacked with ad hominem.  Indeed, attaching the label of “left” or “NDP” is often an attack in itself.  We try to do our part in raising above this, and counter ad hominem is not the solution.  You can help with the “report to moderator” feature where you feel there is a problem.

PJ D-Dog said:
If the politicians in this country would listen to the actual CF members before making policy, then you would all be ahead of the game.  Remember that it is the politicians who decide where you will deploy, for how long and what gear you will use.
You don’t think they are listening to the CDS?
 
Thanks George....I only entered this debate because Fez was acting on information that we had discussed on a few occasions.

PJ D-Dog
 
Ref the whole 5 rounds issue, as an AF officer I recently qual'd C7 & 9mm with a lot more than 5 rounds, and I am not even deploying yet.  On my Wing, failure to weapons qual hurts your PER.  Weapons quals & mandatory PT in the AF, our culture is changing slowly, for the better, thank you Gen Hillier!!!!

Last night I sat through yet another CBC "Town Hall" meeting ref Canada in A-Stan.  I watched some lefty UBC prof and some CPA audience clowns pile on a wounded PPCLI officer & the A-Stan Ambassador.  Seems they love the CF provide that we de-arm, only Peacekeep, and handout candies & teddy bears.  Gen Hillier has us in A-Stan to save his career, he is bad because he called the T-Ban scum bags and murderers, which will upset them when we have to negotiate.  OH Yeah, we are supposted to lead an invasion of Sudan to save Darfour.

My point is that this FEZ guy and people like him have preconceived ideas and prejudices, have made up their minds, and no amount of facts and first hand accounts will sway them.

The NDP spending $30 Billion on DND, FEZ your kidding right!!  That could actually be a sign of the Apocalypse:):)  "Socialist are not anti-military, just remember the Warsaw Pact".  Yes, I do remember them from my time in Lahr.  As I recall they had large militaries to keep the citizens in those countries from rising up against there own governments, or from fleeing in droves to the west, a la Hungary 1956 or Czech 1968.
 
"... Canadians lacked aggression and were more interested in supervising tasks rather than doing them.  He said they liked to explain things more than actually doing them."

- Well now, it's not like WE haven't noticed a bit of that in our work up training, right?  As an across the board comment, it is inaccurate.  Still, it is hard for leaders who have spent their time administering and supervising their elements to actually get on the ground and lead.  The DS mentality is a hard one to break.  Then, the skill fade becomes a bit noticeable. 

- As for stock footage, an MWO called me from his house the other night telling me he saw me on TV.  It was Op APPOLLO footage.  I would have had green CADPAT, a green frag vest, a green LC vest, and a SAND Coyote.  If you see any SAND Coyotes, the footage is at LEAST four years old.

The media can't tell the difference between our uniforms and vehs and the ones from other countries.  In their eyes, if we aren't wearing a Blue Beanie and have red and white flags on our shoulders, we aren't Canadians.

Tom
 
I'm jumping a bit out of my lane here... but it's to see if I can
find a root cause of the 5 round concept.

I recall a UN tour under Gen McKenzie in which he was told his troops could
only carry 5 rounds per mag and 5 mags per man.  They also limited him
on types of weapons, etc...  Bosnia?  Not that it was followed  ;) to my limited understanding.


I seem to recall something like that in the early 90's.  I can't verify that.  If I am
right we might have ground zero for the whole 5 rounds misconception.

If I am wrong.. at worst... it's a minor sidetrack of this thread which I'm sure I'll
be forgiven for.  ;)
 
Trinity said:
I'm jumping a bit out of my lane here... but it's to see if I can
find a root cause of the 5 round concept.

I recall a UN tour under Gen McKenzie in which he was told his troops could
only carry 5 rounds per mag and 5 mags per man.  They also limited him
on types of weapons, etc...  Bosnia?  Not that it was followed  ;) to my limited understanding.


I seem to recall something like that in the early 90's.  I can't verify that.  If I am
right we might have ground zero for the whole 5 rounds misconception.

If I am wrong.. at worst... it's a minor sidetrack of this thread which I'm sure I'll
be forgiven for.  ;)

No way.  I was on HARMONY 0, we took the entire 4CMBG  ammo allotment for CANENGBAT and the R22eR.  The force commander at the time was from India, and was horrified at the amount of ordnance we brought with us.

edit for spelling
 
Kat Stevens said:
The force commander at the time was from India, and was horrified at the amount of ordnance we brought with us.

;D

Ok... then in some UN tour...  being told to limit our weapons, ammo, etc...  if this could job
someones memory that might solve the question.  I remember MacKenzie talking about it on
an interview year and years ago.  Anyways.. it's a side track to the convo.. so unless anyone
knows... best to continue on the normal subject.
 
Trinity said:
Ok... then in some UN tour...  being told to limit our weapons, ammo, etc... 
Cyprus maybe?

In any case, I had 10 mags and all the ammo to go with it in Afghanistan.  It was the same across the Fd Sqn.  I cannot speak for the rifle companies (except that I saw guys carrying far more than just 5 mags) and I can only assume that they were not carrying less than the engineers.
 
As far as five rounds go, many possibilities:

1.  PWT done on pistol, had to meet a Grouping Standard only with a C7, did that first group.  Good on 'im.
2.  Qual PWT already, had to Zero new C7 only, did that first group. Good on 'im.
3.  Tour policy varies from element to element, tour to tour, etc.
4.  Para 4, the various screw-ups para:
    a.  Miscommunication: organizers told he would qual later, next week, in theater, etc.
    b.  Initiative: organizers thought the ammo would be better used by somebody who desparetely     
needed the practice; and
    c.  Who knows?

We know that even with 'universal standards' on shooting quals - and other quals - that there will still be exceptions.  Witness the girl on the Level 3 ___  Range who could not fire accurately kneeling because she could not hold the rifle up.  Think she passed PWT?  Think she will still go over?  You know it.

Reminds me of all of the work ups and PT we did before Bosnia 2000, only to see a guy driving a _____ who was bigger than it was.  Think everyone on tour went through what you did to get there?  HIGHLY unlikely.
 
You are right about Bosnia but it was in regards to the type of ammo allowed :
Orders from the U.N. were they could bring Mortars but use only illumination rounds and they could have T.O.W.s but no ammo for them he cheated and brought the exlosive rounds for the motars and rounds for the T.O.Ws .
(source his autobiography and General Mckenzie himself )
 
TCBF said:
Think everyone on tour went through what you did to get there?  HIGHLY unlikely.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.  Everyone's experience is different whether some want to believe it or not.

PJ D-Dog
 
How to group (by a qualified Small Arms' Instructor.  Namely, me):
You get 25 rounds.  First, at the 100m mark (on a conventional range), fire five rounds at the correct aiming point.  Stand up, shake it out, and then fire five more at the same aiming point.  Do this again.  And again.  There, you have fired 20 rounds.  Then, you go down range and note the Mean Point of Impact (MPI) and the group size.  From the group size, you will get the Permissible Variance (PF) (not telling 'how' to do this, just that the bigger the group, the bigger your PV can be when you confirm your group).  From the MPI, you get the correction to apply to your sight.  Apply said correction and go back to the 100 m mark.  Fire the last five rounds.  If the MPI of this five round group is within the PV to the point of aim, you are zerored.  If not, fire three more five round groups and repeat the process.

Also note that prior to zeroing, you have to be able to consistently fire within a certain size (again, not stating what size this is: it's irrelevant for this forum).
So, "five rounds" does not cut it and does not happen.
Full stop.
Also, re: fording drills (this caught my eye a few messages back): there are indeed rivers in Afghanistan, and even though they may be dry at the time of fording, the drill wasn't invented to fight the Soviets, it was developed in order to effectively cross a river.  I haven't had to do this in Afghanistan, but I think there are those members on this site who may be able to state whether or not they had to do that in theatre.
 
von Garvin said:
How to group (by a qualified Small Arms' Instructor.  Namely, me):
You get 25 rounds.  First, at the 100m mark (on a conventional range), fire five rounds at the correct aiming point.  Stand up, shake it out, and then fire five more at the same aiming point.  Do this again.  And again.  There, you have fired 20 rounds.  Then, you go down range and note the Mean Point of Impact (MPI) and the group size.  From the group size, you will get the Permissible Variance (PF) (not telling 'how' to do this, just that the bigger the group, the bigger your PV can be when you confirm your group).  From the MPI, you get the correction to apply to your sight.  Apply said correction and go back to the 100 m mark.  Fire the last five rounds.  If the MPI of this five round group is within the PV to the point of aim, you are zerored.  If not, fire three more five round groups and repeat the process.

Thanks for the clarification but I too am a Marine Corps Primary Marksmanship Instructor (PMI).  I agree with what is being said but the point that I am making is the fact that a Major in the Royal Canadian Air Force deployed to A-Stan and only shot five rounds as part of his rifle qual.  I've known this guy all my life as he is my cousin.  He has no reason to make up some story.  As I stated in my earlier post, we both agreed that it was not enough but it still happened.

As an earlier post stated, not everyone's work up training is going to be exactly the same.  This can be debated until the cows come home but the facts remain.  I do not post garbage on this forum as some people do in other topics.  No matter where you go in the military world, training is not homogenous.  There will always be those who have done more training or less training for similar deployments.  It is happening here in the Marine Corps and I know it is happening in the CF by virtue of the nature of the organization.

Good input though, keep shooting.  KILL!

PJ D-Dog
 
TCBF said:
1.  PWT done on pistol, had to meet a Grouping Standard only with a C7, did that first group.  
This fails to meet the minimum standard.  Pers deployed must qualify to the PWT standard on all their pers weapons (that means PWT standard is achieved on both the C7 and the pistol).

TCBF said:
Think everyone on tour went through what you did to get there?  HIGHLY unlikely.
No, but there are minimum standards.  Pers that do not achieve these minimum standards should never leave Canadian soil. (and if some how they do, they should not become the argument to make generalizations about the CF).

PJ D-Dog said:
TCBF said:
Think everyone on tour went through what you did to get there?  HIGHLY unlikely.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.  Everyone's experience is different whether some want to believe it or not.
Yet this entire thread is based on second-hand stories of individuals (all relayed through you) that have become generalizations on the CF.  hmmm . . .
 
Thanks for clarifying that VG. Like my previous post said I didn't think 5 rounds was sufficient enough to zero a weapon. Moreover for a soon to be BMQ recruit, knowing that you dump 20 rounds down range just to find the variance before attempting to zero.
 
PJ D-Dog said:
Thanks for the clarification but I too am a Marine Corps Primary Marksmanship Instructor (PMI).  I agree with what is being said but the point that I am making is the fact that a Major in the Royal Canadian Air Force deployed to A-Stan and only shot five rounds as part of his rifle qual. 
NEWSFLASH
The Royal Canadian Air Force does not exist.
And, FYI, I am not a Marine Corps Primary Marksmanship Instructor, so when you say "I too am a...", you are making a mistake.  I have never even been a Marine, nor have I played on on TV or even in a wargame.

 
PJ D-Dog said:
Thanks for the clarification but I too am a Marine Corps Primary Marksmanship Instructor (PMI).  I agree with what is being said but the point that I am making is the fact that a Major in the Royal Canadian Air Force deployed to A-Stan and only shot five rounds as part of his rifle qual.  I've known this guy all my life as he is my cousin.  He has no reason to make up some story.  As I stated in my earlier post, we both agreed that it was not enough but it still happened.
then your cousin is negligent in his duties. Either he allowed someone to send him to Afghanistan without proper training, or he arranged it himself by scammin' off. Either way, he screwed up. Large. Especially as a senior officer. The Standards are no secret, everyone who deploys is made aware of them. Everyone is made aware that they are responsible to meet them. He failed to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top