CKA Forums :: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba

Tman1 Tman1:

:lol: I thought of using the WWII analogy but thought our weapons were 'at least' up to the Korean War.

Don't forget, until 1955 the Canadian army was still using the Lee Enfield Number 4 Mk I ....

Since their establishment in 1947, Canadian Rangers have been armed with the Lee Enfield, No4 MkI* rifle. Designed in Britain, the bolt-action Lee Enfield was the standard rifle of the Canadian Army at the time, but that changed when the new 7.62 x 51mm NATO cartridge was adopted. Although the regular Army’s new 7.62mm FN C1 rifle functioned well in winter weather, it was decided that the Rangers would retain Enfields to simplify training and reduce costs.

The big problem is that those countries you mention (Japan, France, the UK for example) have far more population, and therefore tax base, then Canada does.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but we have to make tough choices, especially when new fighters cost upwards of $50 million each. Do we buy new DDHs and maintain our blue water capability or do we buy more fighters? Do we buy more tanks and APCs, or do we buy icebreakers to patrol the North?

bootlegga bootlegga:

The big problem is that those countries you mention (Japan, France, the UK for example) have far more population, and therefore tax base, then Canada does.

To use France and the UK as an example... Canada is (rougly) half their size in population and economy.

We definately do not have half their military power. Not even close. They play with SSBN's, SSN's, CV's, many toys Canada's serving men and women do not have the budget to dream of, much less have.

Even if we did spend as much as they did we'd find some way to squander it.

$1:

The only problem with that is we need all that those items.

Author:	ziggy [ Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
Hyack Hyack: Tman1 Tman1: :lol: I thought of using the WWII analogy but thought our weapons were 'at least' up to the Korean War. Don't forget, until 1955 the Canadian army was still using the Lee Enfield Number 4 Mk I .... The rangers still are. $1: Since their establishment in 1947, Canadian Rangers have been armed with the Lee Enfield, No4 MkI* rifle. Designed in Britain, the bolt-action Lee Enfield was the standard rifle of the Canadian Army at the time, but that changed when the new 7.62 x 51mm NATO cartridge was adopted. Although the regular Army’s new 7.62mm FN C1 rifle functioned well in winter weather, it was decided that the Rangers would retain Enfields to simplify training and reduce costs.

Author:	saturn_656 [ Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
bootlegga bootlegga: The big problem is that those countries you mention (Japan, France, the UK for example) have far more population, and therefore tax base, then Canada does. To use France and the UK as an example... Canada is (rougly) half their size in population and economy. We definately do not have half their military power. Not even close. They play with SSBN's, SSN's, CV's, many toys Canada's serving men and women do not have the budget to dream of, much less have. Even if we did spend as much as they did we'd find some way to squander it. $1: I'm not saying I disagree with you, but we have to make tough choices, especially when new fighters cost upwards of $50 million each. Do we buy new DDHs and maintain our blue water capability or do we buy more fighters? Do we buy more tanks and APCs, or do we buy icebreakers to patrol the North? The only problem with that is we need all that those items.

Author:	bootlegga [ Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba
saturn_656 saturn_656: bootlegga bootlegga: The big problem is that those countries you mention (Japan, France, the UK for example) have far more population, and therefore tax base, then Canada does. To use France and the UK as an example... Canada is (rougly) half their size in population and economy. We definately do not have half their military power. Not even close. They play with SSBN's, SSN's, CV's, many toys Canada's serving men and women do not have the budget to dream of, much less have. Even if we did spend as much as they did we'd find some way to squander it. $1: I'm not saying I disagree with you, but we have to make tough choices, especially when new fighters cost upwards of $50 million each. Do we buy new DDHs and maintain our blue water capability or do we buy more fighters? Do we buy more tanks and APCs, or do we buy icebreakers to patrol the North? The only problem with that is we need all that those items. I'd debate whether we need more tanks than we already have. Even France with a far larger army (100,000 compared to our 20,000) only has a few hundred. Other than that, the UK and France have worldwide interests that Canada does not have. We don't need to worry about Diego Garcia, the Falklands, the Seychelles, etc., nevermind the Cold War threat to their homeland from the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. As once great world powers, they feel compelled to maintain their relevance in world affairs, and so spend much more on defence than we do. Still, I'd like to see a larger and more robust CF than we have. However, it either means we have to cut social services, which the left is adamantly against, or increase taxes, which the right opposes. That leaves us with a catch-22.

CKA Forums http://www.canadaka.net/forums/

Canadian Chinook turns the tables, carries U.S. troops to ba http://www.canadaka.net/forums/current-events-f59/canadian-chinook-turns-the-tables-carries-u-s-troops-to-ba-t72660-75.html	Page 6 of 6

Page 6 of 6	All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB ©