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

John spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> > > Uhhh. . . The Canadians can put a division on the ground if they
called
> > > up every reservist they have.  And then they would be straining to
> > 
> > Canada fielded a very large force (*much* more than a division) in
WWII,
> > with a far smaller population, a less developed economy, and less
wealth
> > in general.

... and it was a lot less costly per man. Unless you plan to put out 
poorly supplied (relative to today), poorly equipped (bolt action 
rifle, no GPS, 1 radio per section, foot transport) troops with no 
training (no time to train them in the scenarios I've seen 
discussed).  And our people aren't (as of today) too happy about 
taxes, privation, and sacrifices.... so I'm not sure this would be as 
easy of undertaking. The days of mobilizing a nation for anything 
short of a war of survival seem to be pretty much over. 

> > > deploy it--it wouldn't have the logistical tail to sustain
long-term
> > > operations removed from it's base of supply.  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.  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.

New York Air National Gaurd. 

 
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/