Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure

OK - let's agree on a set of basic assumptions here.  Unless we want to
rewrite the complete GZG background, we work with several limitation. 
The
US has a civil war.  The Canadians and Brits intervene.  They join
together
and form the NAC.

Done deal.

Now, as to the detailed particulars...

>Thomas Barclay wrote:
>
>> > and Canadian landings in Georgia and South Carolina are fiercely
>> > opposed by FCC forces, but after the previous years of tough
>> > conflict during the Civil War, these forces are worn down and have
>> > little equipment remaining in good condition.
>> 
>> But a bunch of Combat Veterans. That would be nasty. And they know
>> the terrain. And its far warmer than Brits or Canucks prefer.
>
>Someone's also never looked at a map of South Carolina.  South
>Carolinians whipped Bastard Tarleton and his English friends hollow
>using the swamps to hide in--this is Guerilla Country par excellance. 
>You're not going to overrun it easily.

OK, so we don't go there.  That isn't really the point, though.  The
Canadian and British forces aren't INVADING the United States - that's
patently rediculous.  I figured that the Canadians and Brits end up
fighting A BIT, and those they fight are remnants of one or two of the
factions that fought the civil war and aren't ready to give up yet. 
Much
more like what we do in Bosnia (like when the Canadian and French forces
fought the Croatians - small battle in the grand scheme of things,
though
not to the guys on the ground at the time...) than, say, the Gulf War.

>
>> Neither we nor the British have enough troops even with callups to
>> manage this. Maybe with significant US help. or UN help.
>

Hang on a second!  First, this is taking place several decades from now.
The Canadians fielded an army of over a million troops, plus the third
largest Navy, plus the fourth or fifth largest airforce in the Second
World
War.  With a total population of what, 9 million?  Canada can do PLENTY
when it has to.  What do you think would happen if the US disolved into
civil war and started tossing nukes around - that we'd sit around for
two
or three years and hope nothing happens to us, with our three regular
brigades strung out with one guy every ten kilometres along the border
with
his snow shoes and a slingshot?  Come on??  Our military is structured
to
turn into 3 or 4 divisions in four months NOW - what is going to happen
over the next three decades?  Is it reasonable to think that we might
get a
government sometime between now and 2020 that, unlike the present one,
actually knows one end of a rifle from the other?  Second, we aren't
INVADING the US in the timeline.  They were going to send a combined
force
of maybe one division into central Africa a year ago to help distribute
aid
and restore order.  Over an area bigger than Texas with MILLIONS of
displaced refugees.  It isn't always sheer numbers - but how you apply
those numbers.	You can do a LOT in an area if you are the only guy on
the
block that is confident, armed to the teeth and well organized.  Like
after
a years-long civil war.  Third - IT'S A STORY...

>Uhhh. . . The Canadians can put a division on the ground if they called
>up every reservist they have.

Yes, we have a small military.	Our regular army has three brigades, and
some of the divisional assets needed to form a division - but not all. 
Our
reserves are organized into (I forget exactly) about 6 or 7 brigades. 
With
brigade headquarters, etc etc etc.  Toronto alone has an organized
brigade,
with regiments of armoured, infantry, artillery, logistics troops, etc.
However, our total reserves only number around 18,000 nation-wide, I
think.
 The Canadian reserve structure is designed to be the cadre of a massive
callup for a general war in Europe - very Cold-War.  Remember, our big
contribution to NATO was a single heavy mechanized brigade based in
Germany
and a whole bunch of reinforcements.  We were set up with the idea that
the
brigade in Germany would fight initially (and at it's peak in the late
'70's and early '80's, the Canadian Brigade in Germany regularly won
"Best
Brigade" in NATO - they were very good), and be immediately reinforced
with
the other regular brigades shipped over.  The reserves were designed to
form 2 or 3 more divisions quickly, with a mass recruitment and training
program.

We've never structured our military for power projection, only
collective
defense.  Projecting power has never been a national interest.

Incedentally, on a per-population basis, our military (total about 80 or
90,000 including reserves and regulars) equates to a 900,000 strong
military in the US - given that the US has not quite ten times our
population.  It isn't that bad if you look at it this way - very
comparable
to many other countries on a per-population basis.

  And then they would be straining to
>deploy it--it wouldn't have the logistical tail to sustain long-term
>operations removed from it's base of supply.

We couldn't do it.  At all.  We'd be completely reliant on US logistic
support.  When the Canadian government decided to lead a deployment into
central Africa to help displaced refugees a year or so ago, they started
chartering Russian heavy lift transport aircraft.  They were considering
hiring Russion RO-RO ships to transport our heavy equipment.  On the
other
hand, so did the US during the Gulf conflice...

  The Brits. . .well, they
>deployed a division to Desert Storm with massive US logistical help,
but
>this required every functioning tank in their inventory.  Ooops. How
>you'll deal with 10 Regular Army Divisions, 3 USMC Divisons, 8 National
>Guard Divisions, 15 Enhanced Brigades, 1 USMCR Division, et al. is
going
>to be interesting.

We aren't going to fight them.	This isn't about how Canada and Britain
would invade the US *today*, it's about how Canada and Britain intervene
in
the US, after being invited in by the remaining US government (which
presumably would control much of this force).  After a long civil war, I
imagine the US military wouldn't look much like this.

  I'd bet there are States of the union with larger
>Air Forces than Canada--I know Texas has about as more tanks than the
UK
>sent to Desert Storm.
>

The US Marine Corps Reserve has more air power than Canada.  That really
isn't the point, though.

Adrian