[SprCForr]

ziggy ziggy:

There's a reason the use ww2 303 british rifles,they work.
You got any gun that has grease in it like most modern ones and it will be useless at -50

Hope this exercise results in more troops getting sent there....on the tundra.
Where they can actually do some good.

The weapons will work, they just have to be properly prepared and maintained. Even here in balmy Alberta the rules for arctic warfare have to be followed. No oil is used on military small arms during winter in sub-zero temps. Dry lubricant only, never exposed to a heat source (like the inside of a shelter or tent) and as mentioned, a high standard of cleanliness. Slack off and you're screwed. First by the inoperable weapon and two, by the pissed off boss.

They've never sent enough troops north for training. Hopefully this will change that.

[ziggy]

SprCForr SprCForr:

ziggy ziggy:

There's a reason the use ww2 303 british rifles,they work.
You got any gun that has grease in it like most modern ones and it will be useless at -50

Hope this exercise results in more troops getting sent there....on the tundra.
Where they can actually do some good.

The weapons will work, they just have to be properly prepared and maintained. Even here in balmy Alberta the rules for arctic warfare have to be followed. No oil is used on military small arms during winter in sub-zero temps. Dry lubricant only, never exposed to a heat source (like the inside of a shelter or tent) and as mentioned, a high standard of cleanliness. Slack off and you're screwed. First by the inoperable weapon and two, by the pissed off boss.

They've never sent enough troops north for training. Hopefully this will change that.

The more peeps they send the more get to see that its different from what most portray it as which is good because hopefully some good ideas come out of this.
Some of those guys will be in a position of power some day and making desicions so this is good that they get the arctic experience now because some of the solutions coming out for arctic security are so lame brained and impossible they make me wince.

And I dont care what it is,if plastics involved it wont be much good after -50 up there.
But the dog sled team allways starts.

[ziggy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I think the point here Ziggy is that we already have an excellent ground force (the Rangers). Why add a few hundred reservists (who likely won't have anywhere near the level of Arctic skills as the Rangers) to the mix?

Naval and sea assets are needed up there as well, not just more troops.

Experience,the more the merrier,I see what the US sends their guys up there with for clothing and its laughable at best,the more peeps freeze their feet the more they will bitch and then maybe the arctic will be taken for what it is,a very different environment then anywhere else.

[Bacardi4206]

ziggy ziggy:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

I am not sure what use this will have. I mean if any military threat is present in the artic it will almost certonly be Air or Naval threats. Not sure what a few hundred soldiers can do about that. Unless they got AA guns to combat air threats.

Seems like a waste to me. Keep the rangers there but put the effort into making more naval battleships and assign them in the artic.

Ya,so they can try busting through over ten feet of ice 9 months of the year.
Then theres air patrol over an environment that has frequent ground blizzards for 9 months of the year.

This is a good idea,if anything it will give some guys the experience in the arctic and the more the merrier if their on the ground,they have to understand what it's like first hand and they will,maybe the info they bring back will make some understand why most conventional weaponery wont work.
There's a reason the use ww2 303 british rifles,they work.
You got any gun that has grease in it like most modern ones and it will be useless at -50

Hope this exercise results in more troops getting sent there....on the tundra.
Where they can actually do some good.

Um... if civilian mappers can manage to get through the artic. I am pretty sure Navy Battleships can do the same or how about we develope ice breakers since we should be doing that anyways if we want to access any of that untapped oil and resources but yeah. I am sure a soldier whos weapon probally will freeze before he ever gets a chance to use it is a lot more effective tool than a 50 ton warship

[ziggy]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

ziggy ziggy:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

I am not sure what use this will have. I mean if any military threat is present in the artic it will almost certonly be Air or Naval threats. Not sure what a few hundred soldiers can do about that. Unless they got AA guns to combat air threats.

Seems like a waste to me. Keep the rangers there but put the effort into making more naval battleships and assign them in the artic.

Ya,so they can try busting through over ten feet of ice 9 months of the year.
Then theres air patrol over an environment that has frequent ground blizzards for 9 months of the year.

This is a good idea,if anything it will give some guys the experience in the arctic and the more the merrier if their on the ground,they have to understand what it's like first hand and they will,maybe the info they bring back will make some understand why most conventional weaponery wont work.
There's a reason the use ww2 303 british rifles,they work.
You got any gun that has grease in it like most modern ones and it will be useless at -50

Hope this exercise results in more troops getting sent there....on the tundra.
Where they can actually do some good.

Um... if civilian mappers can manage to get through the artic. I am pretty sure Navy Battleships can do the same or how about we develope ice breakers since we should be doing that anyways if we want to access any of that untapped oil and resources but yeah. I am sure a soldier whos weapon probally will freeze before he ever gets a chance to use it is a lot more effective tool than a 50 ton warship

civilian mappers? Same ones responsible for all the frozen in barges every year?
Riiiight.

Thats one of the reasons they have fuel and food shortages,you have 3 months to ship by sea,as shown the last 5 years they cant figure it out yet.

To give you an idea of what a 50 ton warship would be up against 2 years ago we hauled over my ice road for 3 months with 50 tonne rock trucks capable of hauling another 50 tonnes which makes them over 100 tonnes,they ran over the ice road with minimum 6 feet of ice to 10.5 feet.
A 50 ton warship would need a huge icebreaker in front of it along with a few fuel barges just to keep it fueled trying to break through ten feet of ice,and for what?
Theres no one up there breaking ice or sailing around for 9 months of the year,not russians,americans or Canadians.
Huge waste of money and resources with allmost zero gain unless your talking about bragging rights.

Read back Bacardi as to why I explained the rangers use a vintage 303 british.
It works,plastic and aluminum dont.
Best bang for the buck is boots on the tundra,plus the guys that come back from a tour there will be tough as nails and hopefully some good ideas will come of it other then the knee jerk reactions you see everytime arctic security is mentioned.

Right now it is fairly cheap to send a bunch of guys up there and good experience for them,I'm talking remote bases.There is a few camps kicking around that can be revived fairly quickly.

The mars mission camp at Devon island comes to mind.
Dont worry about the resources,the french have been exploiting them for many years,who do you think I contract out for up there? companies out of Quebec which is ok because they have hotshot chopper pilots and super models for hr gals.

[bootlegga]

ziggy ziggy:

To give you an idea of what a 50 ton warship would be up against 2 years ago we hauled over my ice road for 3 months with 50 tonne rock trucks capable of hauling another 50 tonnes which makes them over 100 tonnes,they ran over the ice road with minimum 6 feet of ice to 10.5 feet.
A 50 ton warship would need a huge icebreaker in front of it along with a few fuel barges just to keep it fueled trying to break through ten feet of ice,and for what?
Theres no one up there breaking ice or sailing around for 9 months of the year,not russians,americans or Canadians.
Huge waste of money and resources with allmost zero gain unless your talking about bragging rights.

Read back Bacardi as to why I explained the rangers use a vintage 303 british.
It works,plastic and aluminum dont.
Best bang for the buck is boots on the tundra,plus the guys that come back from a tour there will be tough as nails and hopefully some good ideas will come of it other then the knee jerk reactions you see everytime arctic security is mentioned.

Right now it is fairly cheap to send a bunch of guys up there and good experience for them,I'm talking remote bases.There is a few camps kicking around that can be revived fairly quickly.

The mars mission camp at Devon island comes to mind.
Dont worry about the resources,the french have been exploiting them for many years,who do you think I contract out for up there? companies out of Quebec which is ok because they have hotshot chopper pilots and super models for hr gals.

A 50 ton warship? I don't think anything Maritime Command is that small. I'm sure vets could correct me, but anything that small is probably considered a 'boat', not a ship (big difference). Even the Kingston MCDVs are almost 1,000 tons.

Canada wouldn't want dinky rowboats up there.

The ships Harper proposed, which aren't capable of year round ops up there, are expected to be about 3,000 tons each. Now I don't know how much cargo a 3,000 ton ship could carry, but frankly, I don't give a damn.

The point of Maritime Command operating up there wouldn't be to resupply villages with food or fuel, it would be to maintain a Canadian presence, and hopefully prevent illegal/unannounced transits of our waters by foreign freighters, icebreakers, and with a little luck, submarines (although it would be luck more than anything if they actually caught a sub).

The point of having the Navy and Air force up there is the same reason for having the Rangers, to show the world it is ours.

[ziggy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

ziggy ziggy:

To give you an idea of what a 50 ton warship would be up against 2 years ago we hauled over my ice road for 3 months with 50 tonne rock trucks capable of hauling another 50 tonnes which makes them over 100 tonnes,they ran over the ice road with minimum 6 feet of ice to 10.5 feet.
A 50 ton warship would need a huge icebreaker in front of it along with a few fuel barges just to keep it fueled trying to break through ten feet of ice,and for what?
Theres no one up there breaking ice or sailing around for 9 months of the year,not russians,americans or Canadians.
Huge waste of money and resources with allmost zero gain unless your talking about bragging rights.

Read back Bacardi as to why I explained the rangers use a vintage 303 british.
It works,plastic and aluminum dont.
Best bang for the buck is boots on the tundra,plus the guys that come back from a tour there will be tough as nails and hopefully some good ideas will come of it other then the knee jerk reactions you see everytime arctic security is mentioned.

Right now it is fairly cheap to send a bunch of guys up there and good experience for them,I'm talking remote bases.There is a few camps kicking around that can be revived fairly quickly.

The mars mission camp at Devon island comes to mind.
Dont worry about the resources,the french have been exploiting them for many years,who do you think I contract out for up there? companies out of Quebec which is ok because they have hotshot chopper pilots and super models for hr gals.

A 50 ton warship? I don't think anything Maritime Command is that small. I'm sure vets could correct me, but anything that small is probably considered a 'boat', not a ship (big difference). Even the Kingston MCDVs are almost 1,000 tons.

Canada wouldn't want dinky rowboats up there.

The ships Harper proposed, which aren't capable of year round ops up there, are expected to be about 3,000 tons each. Now I don't know how much cargo a 3,000 ton ship could carry, but frankly, I don't give a damn.

The point of Maritime Command operating up there wouldn't be to resupply villages with food or fuel, it would be to maintain a Canadian presence, and hopefully prevent illegal/unannounced transits of our waters by foreign freighters, icebreakers, and with a little luck, submarines (although it would be luck more than anything if they actually caught a sub).

The point of having the Navy and Air force up there is the same reason for having the Rangers, to show the world it is ours.

They better send troops first and then send a few planes one at a time,
Troops =cheap and peeps on the tundra where no other country is,or
Ships,subs=billions of dollars and no one wants to see our ships stuck in the ice,not good bragging rights.
Thats what will happen,best to send peeps and dont emberass ourselves trying to open up a waterway that the rest of the world knows can be done and has done but is way too expensive.
Plus whats the gain to send a ship up there other then bragging rights?

None,absolutely none.

Whats it going to do? Maybe they should try and focus on getting some fuel up there first before they get the rambo thing going in an environment they have allmost no experience in.

And Boot,maybe watch the episode of hero ships when the Nautilus go's to the pole and tell me if you think that is still a good idea.
All the sailors on that sub thought they were going to die.

But they got bragging rights right?

[ziggy]

Sorry Boot but this comment blows me away.

$1:

The point of Maritime Command operating up there wouldn't be to resupply villages with food or fuel, it would be to maintain a Canadian presence,

Good to see where your prioritys lie,in case you missed it we have a Canadian presence up there and they need fuel and food.

Like I said,the military cant help the vary peeps up there defending our north yet they want to go up there and all of a sudden defend the north.

unreal,your a bit late bud,the rangers beat you to it and are at it right now and are probably far more effective then a billion dollar icebreaker will ever be.

[bootlegga]

ziggy ziggy:

bootlegga bootlegga:

A 50 ton warship? I don't think anything Maritime Command is that small. I'm sure vets could correct me, but anything that small is probably considered a 'boat', not a ship (big difference). Even the Kingston MCDVs are almost 1,000 tons.

Canada wouldn't want dinky rowboats up there.

The ships Harper proposed, which aren't capable of year round ops up there, are expected to be about 3,000 tons each. Now I don't know how much cargo a 3,000 ton ship could carry, but frankly, I don't give a damn.

The point of Maritime Command operating up there wouldn't be to resupply villages with food or fuel, it would be to maintain a Canadian presence, and hopefully prevent illegal/unannounced transits of our waters by foreign freighters, icebreakers, and with a little luck, submarines (although it would be luck more than anything if they actually caught a sub).

The point of having the Navy and Air force up there is the same reason for having the Rangers, to show the world it is ours.

They better send troops first and then send a few planes one at a time,
Troops =cheap and peeps on the tundra where no other country is,or
Ships,subs=billions of dollars and no one wants to see our ships stuck in the ice,not good bragging rights.
Thats what will happen,best to send peeps and dont emberass ourselves trying to open up a waterway that the rest of the world knows can be done and has done but is way too expensive.
Plus whats the gain to send a ship up there other then bragging rights?

None,absolutely none.

Whats it going to do? Maybe they should try and focus on getting some fuel up there first before they get the rambo thing going in an environment they have allmost no experience in.

And Boot,maybe watch the episode of hero ships when the Nautilus go's to the pole and tell me if you think that is still a good idea.
All the sailors on that sub thought they were going to die.

But they got bragging rights right?

Why do you think many people have been pushing for the heavy icebreakers Harper initially promised? So Canada could do year-round operations up there. If you think the Russians, Yanks, Brits, and maybe even the French aren't poking around up there, then you're deluding yourself. Most of the time (99% I'd guess) it's via nuclear sub, not icebreaker. However, if the US decides to send another Manhattan (oil tanker) or Polar Sea (icebreaker), we should at least be able to respond, instead of simply uttering feeble complaints.

Do things like that happen every day? No, not even every year. But, like anything else in the military, you have to be ready to fight the next war, not the last war. That means building icebreakers or arctic capable subs today, not in a decade.

And who cares about how the sailors on the Nautilus felt? I bet a lot of pilots thought they were going to die flying mail/vaccine (like Wop May) to the north in the 1920s too. The Nautilus was more than half a century ago and is totally irrelevant.

Arctic circumnavigation is old hat for most navies with nuke subs and heavy icebreakers. It should be for us too.

[bootlegga]

ziggy ziggy:

Sorry Boot but this comment blows me away.

$1:

The point of Maritime Command operating up there wouldn't be to resupply villages with food or fuel, it would be to maintain a Canadian presence,

Good to see where your prioritys lie,in case you missed it we have a Canadian presence up there and they need fuel and food.

Like I said,the military cant help the vary peeps up there defending our north yet they want to go up there and all of a sudden defend the north.

unreal,your a bit late bud,the rangers beat you to it and are at it right now and are probably far more effective then a billion dollar icebreaker will ever be.

Sorry, but the CF isn't here to dish out fuel and food to people, unless it's an emergency (like a natural disaster, crisis, etc).

If a federal organization is going to do that, it should be the Coast Guard. They have icebreakers and the skill to escort big freighters up there to help supply villages.

The CF's job is to protect Canada and kill people who would attempt to do us harm. If you want someone to send food to a village, talk to the UN or Canada Post or Fedex. Shipping and freight is NOT the CF's job, period.

Translation: They are here to KILL people who would do Canada harm. And since there is no way militarily to kill an Arctic cold front, it's not their job, and never will be.

[ziggy]

Why would you want billion dolllar ice breakers up there breaking ice unless it was for bragging rights because it would be a useless operation as theres no one up there in the winter dude except for the locals,rangers and some very poorly equipped CF and American forces.

Boots on the tundra,let them see what the resupply is like for the peeps living there and defending our north,the same ones that get ignored all the time by guys with bright ideas to sbend billions doing what they cant.
Then once you have that figured out you can spend more billions on icebreakers that will wander around breaking ice for no reason.
You think they can open up a waterway for shipping?
At -50 it will be refroze in an hour,think about that.
Your wasting your time,theres a reason they ship everything in a 3 month window.

I thought like you when I first went up there,unless you go see what its like you can say what you want,I know what it's like now,completely different then I thought it would be.

[RUEZ]

What good is having an Arctic territory if you can't get to it 12 months of the year?

[ziggy]

RUEZ RUEZ:

What good is having an Arctic territory if you can't get to it 12 months of the year?

The french do and I did,allthough I was probably the only guy in history that kept an Arctic Camp open over winter on purpose.

Stupid frenchys,what wre they thinking?
What was I thinking for volunteering?

[SprCForr]

ziggy ziggy:

And I dont care what it is,if plastics involved it wont be much good after -50 up there.

They're actually a composite but they still do fine. They haven't been breaking up there or down here either when the temp hits the basement. If they were, then the butts would be swapped out before hand.

Of course, there isn't going to be much fighting at -50. Well, nothing prolonged anyway. The energy expenditure for a soldier to fight in those conditions is immense. The other issue is that whoever would create such a response would be subject to the same conditions.

You can eat the dogs, but an Artic Cat tastes like gas.