Re: [DS and SG] Regiments of the Crown

>You can use that as a rule of thumb for divisions and other large
>formations.  Because when they take 20% casualties, that translates out
>to 90% casualties in the infantry batallions.	Smaller formations can
>fight until 100% casualties in some circumstances.

You are, of course, absolutely correct.  In individual circumstances,
smaller units can, and in many cases have, fought until destroyed
completely - hey let's not forget Camerone, when a unit of Foreign
Legionaires fought the Mexican Army until there were only four or five
left.  They were out of ammo, surrounded, and completely cut off.  So
they
fixed bayonets and charged.  The survivors (only a couple) were later
repatriated, with great respect.  

What I meant was that for sustained operations the ability to absorb
casualties is vital for a military organization, even a small one.  You
might have to fight a last-stand scenario, where your unit takes 80%
casualties, but then THAT'S IT.  They're done.	The survivors go off for
reassignment or therapy...

>
>> Actually, we are slowly getting geared up with some newer equipment. 
I
>> hear they are considering a general issue of M203 grenade launchers
to
>> infantrymen - not one per section, but one to each rifleman.  Also,
we are
>
>?  That's interesting.
>

Our government is finally realizing that because our military has been
so
cut down in size, and there are so few actual combat troops, they should
maximize the effectiveness of what we've got - they are supposedly
adopting
policies to increase the lethality of our troops.  Issuing grenade
launchers on a wider scale is possible when you are only talking about a
few thousand troops.  Canada actually has only about (nominally) nine
battalions of infantry.  Total.  I figure the US Marine Corps Reserve
has
more combat power than we do. 

>> strategic point of view.  He determined that while the location had
>> historically been important, there was infact no present strategic
value
>> for a large military force to be based there.  It is not near any
major
>
>He's got to remember that US bases are NOT sited strategically, but
>based on Congressional seniority.
>

I'm sure you're right, but it makes a much more interesting story to
think
of the hordes of Yanks frothing at the mouth just over the border,
chanting
"Manifest Destiny, Manifest Destiny!"	 :)

>> there at all.  Unless, of course, the Americans had planned the
strategic
>> requirements of a military intervention across the border, into
Canada...
>> Then, the base makes perfect sense.	A force of light infantry could
move
>
>We had the plans on the books until the 1930s, when Roosevelt went
>apeshit and ordered them destroyed.  Or at least that's what I heard.
>

Hey, the Canadian General Staff had active plans for the defense of
Canada
against an invasion from the United States well into the 1930's.  We
didn't
become such close allies until the WWII era.  When Canada had problem in
our Western provinces in the latter part of the 19th century (the Riel
Rebellions), the US would not allow our troops to deploy into the west
along US railroads carrying their weapons, so they went by
canoe/boat/portage/horse etc.  They walked, 1500+ miles through our
arctic
winters.  This was one of the experiences that prompted Sir John A.
MacDonald (our first Prime Minister) to push for the building of our
first
trans-continental railroad - and didn't endear our Governments to each
other.	Same with the US support of the Fienian raiders who planned to
take
over Canada for the Irish.  There were several incidences of Finian
Militiamen staging raids into Canada, being beaten back by the Candian
and
British troops stationed here, and then having their train tickets home
payed for by the US Gov't.  This was in the post-civil war period.

>> There was the incident of the SAS patrol of 8 guys in the Gulf who
took on
>> and beat an Iraqi infantry Battalion.  The Battalion commander later
>
>With how much air support?
>

None, actually.  They had set up an observation post and were
discovered.
The local troops deployed to hunt them down, and they didn't have time
to
call for a helicopter extraction.  So they fought a "disengagement"
action
- see the movie HEAT for that type of scenario.  You know that the
advisor
for the big bank robbery and gunfight scene in HEAT was an ex-SAS
trooper -
he corriagraphed (?? I have no idea how to spell that...???) the fight
sequences based on what the SAS teaches about fighting a
disengagement...

Adrian