Canadian arms history

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Can someone make a timeline of what arms the Canadian army used until they were taken out of service?
Thanks very much ive been looking for a long time for this
the bastardchild

[RealUltimatePower]

void

[EvanL]

Ya I don't really have dates but here they are in chronological order roughly

Ross Rifle begining of first world war
Lee Enfeild from WW1 to Korean war (different variants)
FN FAL C1 and C2 in the 60s 70s and early 80s
C7 1988
Soon to be in 2006 C7A2 which looks like **** with the cadpat on it.

For machine guns we've used
Vikers water cooled
Bren gun
obviously Browning 50.cal
C9 (the minime)
C6 the gpmg

uhhh we've had the FN 1911 in service a long time that's a 9mm pistol.
some in CF have the Sig Sauer P225 but not us infantry?! god forbid we'd get an accurate pistol
Some rumors been circulating that we may buy the FN five seven

Sniper rifles we have now are the Mac 50.cal
C3 7.62 mm bolt action

Please note this is in no way researched and done completely by memory and while intoxicated. If anyone wants to be a bitch and correct me go ahead.
I have on my computer a PDF file showing all the guns ever used in the canadian forces. Wolfe got alot of them but there are a bunch left out that we probably dont know we ever had.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Thats cool that explains why I was seeing older soldiers pics from the 60's-70's with FN FAL's. woot

[[AFSOC]]

The C7A2 is still in its early stages, that cadpat camo is not officially there. You know they change it or put it on ther A1's right now.

THe Canadian Army never used Carbines or Thompsons During WWII?

By the way the 303 Lee Enfield is still in service in the CF.

[stuntman]

Soon to be in 2006 C7A2 which looks like **** with the cadpat on it.

Do you have a picture of what this weapon looks like?

[Hydro]

The "FN FAL" C1 was basically just a British L1A1 SLR with a hole cut in the upper reciever for loading the weapon with stripper clips whilst the magazine was still on the weapon. The C2 was a fully automatic LMG version with a heavy barrel and 30 round magazine.

[pAt]

]The C7A2 is still in its early stages, that cadpat camo is not officially there. You know they change it or put it on ther A1's right now.

THe Canadian Army never used Carbines or Thompsons During WWII?

By the way the 303 Lee Enfield is still in service in the CF.

the Canadians used the sten gun i think it was called anyways it was a british SMG, the 303 is not used by the CF only used by Cadets. Right now the A2 is in the testing phase, the CADPAT on the C7A2 is only the Sling other than that its either green or black...
http://www.eme421.com/WeaponsMenu2.html
www2.sfu.ca/casr/101sm-rifles.htm

[[AFSOC]]

]The C7A2 is still in its early stages, that cadpat camo is not officially there. You know they change it or put it on ther A1's right now.

THe Canadian Army never used Carbines or Thompsons During WWII?

By the way the 303 Lee Enfield is still in service in the CF.

the Canadians used the sten gun i think it was called anyways it was a british SMG, the 303 is not used by the CF only used by Cadets

No the Lee Enfield is styll in service in the CF.

http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/101-cenfield.htm

You bati clat...

[Minjin]

http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/101-c7a2.htm

There was a pic on one of the galleries I peruse but it is down temporarily right now. I will try to put a link later.

[Spearin]

Best to my knowledge (off the top of my head):

They did use the M1 Carbine and Thompson during WWII; I have seen photos.

I have seen training footage of the Canadian Rangers (Inuit and Natives in remote areas) and they use the Lee Enfield .303 still.

The Cadets use the Lee Enfield Mk. VII - .22cal conversion of the .303.

I think the FN C1A1 was in service in 1955. And like someone pointed out, the C2 was a heavier barrel, automatic, 30 round weapon for support.

C7A2 = ugly :|

[Minjin]

Didn't we use the Stirling at some point or am I on crack again?

[[AFSOC]]

How can you say the A2 is ugly when its not even built?

I've seen Canadian soldiers during WWII using M1 Carbines. Springfields too....

[pAt]

actually the C-7A2 is right now in the testing..i saw it on that show 'Truth duty Valor'

[[AFSOC]]

What?? i Watch that show and i havent even seen it.......there's only been on episode...

[James]

I've seen pictures of Candian soldiers in Korea during the war (1950-1953) using U.S. small arms - M1 Garand rifles, M1 Carbines, BARs, and .30 machineguns.

[[AFSOC]]

We need proof now people, nuff wit the i've seen things. Cause im sure all of you've seen it like myself. Mine are in Canadian Military books soo unless i scan them we out of luck.

Pat if your thinking that the C7A2 was in that show Truth Duty Honor your totally wrong. In the first episode it was teh Royal 22e Regiment training at Fort Drum, you prolly saw several soldiers carring C8's wit a brown color scheme on the butt of the rifle and around the foregrip of the rifle.

*EDIT* my last post bout the truth duty valor show i wrote "there's been on episode" i meant one***

[James]

There were Canadians and Americans serving together in the 1st Special Service Force in WOrld War Two. They trained together in Montana, fought the Japanese in the Aleutian Islands, and later went to Italy to past the Germans. Among other U.S. arms they carried was the Johnson Light Machine Gun.

http://www.groups.sfahq.com/fssf/history.htm

http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/Johnson.JPG

[[AFSOC]]

YEa....

But that was a Joint US and Canadian force. The Devils Brigade.....

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[[AFSOC]]

cool...

But for the C7A2, Pat was saying it on Truth Duty Valor which it wasnt on. Cause the Royal 22e Regiment wasnt testing out rifles rather they were do urban warefare training.

What regiment was your grandad in??

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

The C7A2 looks fine, just throw on some cadpat camoflauge paint and it would look alot better.

The Sten gun was used mostly by tank drivers/tank crew for a smg. That was when my dad was in the army way back early 70's.

[army cadet_ngcsu]

poop

[pAt]

The C7A2 looks fine, just throw on some cadpat camoflauge paint and it would look alot better.

The Sten gun was used mostly by tank drivers/tank crew for a smg. That was when my dad was in the army way back early 70's.

very surprised that we dont still use it today lol just like the leopards the cold war era tank!

[[AFSOC]]

You dont use the Sten gun because you have the C9, M4 and HK5 foo.

[pAt]

it was a joke dude if you didnt get it i was leading to the side of our old equipment lol and Canada doesnt use the M4 we use a C8 theres a differnce

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[RealUltimatePower]

http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/c7a2-2.jpg

This is the C7A2

[HappyCat]

Thats one ugly weapon. just leave it black and paint it if you need to.

[Falco]

http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/c7a2-2.jpg

This is the C7A2

Isn't that what the soldiers would like to have? The C7A2 will likelier look like this :

http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/c7a2-3.gif

The reason is that the CF want to retain the same barel as in the C7A1 for $$$ reasons.

[[AFSOC]]

eh...

Guys the final version wont have that silly green plastic on. Just wait and watch.

[Otsoa]

The C7A2 is already in testing in select units in the forces and the Vandoos is one unit selected. I too had seen the Truth Duty Valour episode where they were training in the states and in some scenes you can see them. They weren't C8's due to the length of the barrel and forestock. There have been several interesting discussions about the upgrade on www.Canadiangunnutz.com by members of the forces.

[memphiz]

is this the C7A2 the guys holding?
http://www.army.dnd.ca/lf/equip/hab/images/Photos/9001.jpg

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[memphiz]

oh ok thanks, well it still looks pretty cool

[Hydro]

Are you guys sure about the Sten gun? We got rid of that piece of **** in the 1950's, I swear Canada did too, for it to be replaced with the Sterling (C1? in Canadian service).

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[pAt]

]cool...

But for the C7A2, Pat was saying it on Truth Duty Valor which it wasnt on. Cause the Royal 22e Regiment wasnt testing out rifles rather they were do urban warefare training.


http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/3r22r.jpg

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/c7a2-3.gif

No wolf im not a cadet I was reffering to this picture. Besides if you werent happy with your CADPAT rifle wolf, theres a great product called "Bowflauge" were you spray on a layer of color and it is removeable.

Edit-----> yes the sten gun was used just for tank crews. I'm sure it was phazed out and replaced shortly after my dad returned to civillian life. Replaced by what im not sure, my guess would be the mp5.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.for damaging it.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Cause you sure have the knowledge of a Cadet

We use the C8 for armored troops. And um here's something I might've mentioned before over and over. IT's a CADPAT handguard, butt, and pistol grip and or od green. NOT painted on the plastic has that color in it. You don't remove it from your rifle or you get charged for damaging it.

Wow im sorry I didnt know I was talking to a weapons tech ;) Maybe you didnt read properly but I was reffering to the picture of the rifle decked out in OD. Personally I think it looks alot better in the CADPAT version, and if you werent happy with the CADPAT/OD theres always add a layer of paint. But hey that would make sense now wouldnt it, and we couldnt have that now could we?

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[[AFSOC]]

]cool...

But for the C7A2, Pat was saying it on Truth Duty Valor which it wasnt on. Cause the Royal 22e Regiment wasnt testing out rifles rather they were do urban warefare training.


http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/3r22r.jpg

I STAND CORRECTED....nice i didnt see that in the show. Thanx !

[MARK.TIGGER]

ah so its a p225 some of us on the womens photos were speculating wether it was a 226 or a 228

[memphiz]

Actually I'm Infantry so I have more practical knowledge than you who doesn't seem to be listening the first time I said it.
We CANNOT just arbitraily paint our rifles or we'd get in sOOOOOO much **** from the RSM. So what you're saying DOESN'T make any sense.
so your only allowed to paint the rifle if your told to, or if your in combat? like Afghanistan?

[[AFSOC]]

ah so its a p225 some of us on the womens photos were speculating wether it was a 226 or a 228

In the Canadian Forces, most Infantry soldiers are equipped wit Browning 9mm.

CAnadian Special Forces carry Sig Sauers P225's. Like i said in the other thread

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[BOB1]

JTF2 use P226/P228s
Naval Landing Boarding Parties Sea King Flight Crews (sorry not sure about other Air Force types but will try and find out) and MPs use the P225.
Other then that everyone else gets a Hi Power.

We do not have the 1911 in our inventory as stated by Wolfe.

[BOB1]

Anyone mention the various incarnations of the old Webley?

[Spearin]

]ah so its a p225 some of us on the womens photos were speculating wether it was a 226 or a 228

In the Canadian Forces, most Infantry soldiers are equipped wit Browning 9mm.

The C6 Gunners and NCOs or Officers who want them... Riflemen don't use them.

And yes, we did have the Sterling.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[Spearin]

Wolfe, are you with the Camerons?

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[RealUltimatePower]

Wait dumb question, where's you unit based out of?

[Spearin]

Hamilton :)

31 Brigade

[[AFSOC]]

REservist eh??

Why not Regulars?

[memphiz]

http://www.armyimages.forces.gc.ca/getimage.asp?fileres=lo&filetype=jpg&filepath=E:\InetPub\cls_portfolio\cls_images\HiRes\2003-04-30\IS2002-6640a.jpg


http://www.claudenet.com/Gallery/Misc/bobo.jpg
is bobo the target? cuz if he is that'd be cool

[BOB1]

The current pistol for the CF is the Browning Hi Power HP35 not the 1911. The 1911 is the Colt .45....the only Browning even close to make that weapon desgination was the Browning 1910 which was a 7.65 mm pistol. Even the pic and the web site you provided showed there was no 1911 in the Hi Powers name, considering it was first developed in 1935. You might be a C6 machine gunner but I think you might want to research your weapons better.

[[AFSOC]]

Bob....stfu

you prolly sum scronny lil white kid that wants to be in the military but doesnt have the balls too.

[EvanL]

]Bob....stfu

you prolly sum scronny lil white kid that wants to be in the military but doesnt have the balls too.
Actually i have seen him on Socnet i think, and i believe he serves.
Best to keep assumptions to ones self, or you could become a victim of foot in mouth disease.

[BOB1]

At least I know what Canada has or hasn't...show some amturity here I was not nasty at all.

[BOB1]

Thank you Evan been awhile since I posted.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[BOB1]

Do yourself a favour Wolfe and go to the army.ca forums and post the same question. Sorry dude you are wrong pure and simple. My family have been members of the CF for decades I am not as I lost my leg in an auto accident but my brother is a weapons tech in Pet and my dad was one in Gagetown and they basically said there is no such designation. As for me I am a competive IPSC shooter I own a Glock 17 and a Sig P225, I have been handling pistols for 20 years and I have worked in a gun store part time. NO I am not a soldier like you and for that I do envy you but I know firearms and while you are correct that the 1911 and HP35 are related they don't call our 9mm the 1911. The info you provided yourself proves that! As for you other stuff we are not talking about the M16 or the SA80 we are talking the Browning Hi Power so don't waste yours or my time by putting in filler. As for you not researching maybe you should then we would not have had this "discussion". BTW Herstal was not involved with our Hi Powers it was Inglis.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[BOB1]

I already did comment on what I know.....what you are calling the 1911 my family has never heard that designation before and they have been weapons techs with infantry units before. Are you infantry Wolfe? I know I am not but I can smell a poser when I see it. From the official D-Net site here are its properties for the Browning 9mm pistol:

Browning 9-mm Pistol
The Browning 9-mm pistol is carried by officers and soldiers who require a sidearm that can be rapidly drawn and fired, even in confined spaces. The pistol consists of a barrel, a slide, a breech block, a frame, and a 13 round magazine.

Armament:
Cartridge: 9mm x 19mm
Specifications:
Weight: 1 kg (with empty magazine)
Length: 19.69 cm
Barrel length: 12.38 cm
Operation: recoil operated, semi-automatic
Feed: 13-round detachable magazine
Sights: Rear – fixed square notch, Front – tapered post
Sight Radius: 159mm
Muzzle Velocity: 350 m/s


Where is the 1911 there? Please enlighten me. Better yet please post a source where I can see that its called the 1911. You do that and I will apologize for being wrong but I don't believe I am.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[Yeoman]

I have yet to hear it called the 1911, and I'm RCR so top that one then.
the 1911 is called the colt 1911.
always have heard it called the browning, never the 1911, but however I'm going to look into that and see who's right then.
Greg

[BOB1]

I understand your frustration Wolfe and I apologize for calling your sevice record in question that was uncalled for but it was in reaction to your initial statement to me when I just corrected your 1911 statement. Maybe I could have worded it more better and probably would have if AFSOC never butted in. The HP35 designation is simply the manufacturing designation most service members call it the Browning, the Hi Power or the P>O>S.

Designations can be a pain as I see in some of the pictures posted here and we call it the Canadian designation and someone chimes of that its an M16 or whatever.

I will investigate the 1911 term further for you but in honesty and to no fault of your own its been called something totally erroneously. I am just the messenger and I probably could have been a little more diplomatic with you.

[BOB1]

The FN-5-7 would be a nice addition but they are fairly large. Too bad the money is not there.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[BOB1]

Only if you join me for one at Barbarella's if its still opened in Ottawa?

[RealUltimatePower]

Never been where is it?

[BOB1]

Strip bar downtown Ottawa not far from the Bytown market IIRC but that was back in 91.

[RealUltimatePower]

Cool well stripjoints ain't really my thing. The better half deffinetly wouldn't like that.

[BOB1]

LOL neither does mine but that is part of the fun...consider it escape and evasion training :D

[RealUltimatePower]

Ha ok we'll see sometime

[Bartok5]

Guys,

I'm new to this board, so I will be as polite as possible. The fact of the matter however, is that there is an amazing amount of misinformation being posted here - even about something so simple and straightforward as the Canadian Army's standard-issue service pistol. Far too much assumtion, exacerbated by ludicrous 3rd-hand information and a lack of very basic confirmatory research.

Pure and simple, the current standard-issue Canadian Army handgun is the Mk 1 version of the basic "GP 1935 Hi-Power" pistol. This pistol was designed by John Moses Browning back in (you guessed it....) 1935. This particular model (as well as the marginally updated Mk 2 and Mk 3 versions) is informally referred to in Canadian military service as the "GP-35", "Hi Power", "Browning Hi Power", "9mm Browning", etc, etc. The pistols currently in Canadian service were all manufactured by the John Inglis Co. during World War 2. The "Service Pistol, 9mm Hi Power" remains in Canadian Army service simply because there are still thousands of them in mint condition held in operational stocks.

The 9mm Hi Power does the job that it is intended to do as a sidearm (eg. secondary weapon) for selected personnel. It is thoroughly battle tested and has been (or is still) the standard-issue sidearm of numerous Commonwealth military forces. Some nations (such as the Australians) have upgraded to the Mk 2 version with ergonomically-improved grip-panels, an extended ambidextrous safety and enhanced sights, but the basic firearm remains unchanged from the original 1935 design.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the Hi Power in terms of reliability, accuracy and durability. It does the job that it is intended to do, and I certainly had no qualms about carrying one as a back-up to my C-8 Carbine in Afghanistan. Are there newer and "better" whiz-bang handguns available on the market such as the Sig-Sauer family, the Beretta, the HK USP, the FN 5.7mm, etc, etc? Perhaps. But the only discernable advantage that most of those offer is double vice single-action operation for the first shot, and perhaps a decocking mechanism in lieu of a safety catch. Until there is a quantum leap in sidearm technology that produces vast improvements in terms of accuracy, reliability, ease of use, effective range and terminal effect, the marginal (at best) "improvements" represented by the current generation of alternative handguns simply does not justify the expense of replacing the Inglis Hi Power fleet in Canadian Army service.

Some will argue that the pistols in Canadian Army service are worn out, unreliable, etc. In many cases that is true, as the handguns currently held in most units display excessive slide/frame tolerances from being battered throughout their service lives by a steady diet of "hot" 9mm ball ammo. Bear in mind that Canadian 9mm ammo has always been loaded "hot" - first for the Sten Gun, and then for the C1 SMG. Fire what amounts to "+P" ammo through your Sig, Glock, HK, etc, for 50 years and see happens.....

The fact is that there is an ample supply of " brand new" 1940's- production Hi Powers available through the Canadian supply system. The problem is simply that the shot-out pistols held by most "line" units are never condemned and replaced. The vast majority of the basic QL-4 and 5 Weapon Technicians (eg. parts-swappers) employed at unit level aren't capable of telling the difference between a serviceable pistol and a shot-out piece of junk. Most units don't care, since they only haul out their battered and abused Hi Powers for the annual qualification shoot, curse them when they experience stoppages (almost ALWAYS magazine-related BTW), and then put them away for another year.

Bottom line? The "Service Pistol 9mm Browning Hi Power" is just fine for its intended role within Canadian Army line units. We just need to be more selective in identifying the pistols that have reached the end of their service lives and replace them with unissued operational stock.

And no - the Browning Hi Power has NOT, nor will it ever be refered to as the "Browning 1911". The only commonality that the 9mm Hi Power and the .45 ACP Model 1911 (and 1911A1) share is the fact that both were designed by John Moses Browning.

Hopefully this has cleared up some of the rampant confusion and outright error contained in previous posts. Don't even get me started on some of the other Canadian service weapons that have been "mangled" in this thread.

Regards,

[Spearin]

]REservist eh??

Why not Regulars?

Once I get through College, that's where I'm headed.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[Haiw]

Okay so if the guys in your platoon call the C7 a M-14 you would deny the conclusion that the CF doesn't use the M-14? p-)

[BOB1]

Yes as the C7 is a variant of the M16 not of the M14.

[Yard Ape]

C7A2 Details & Photos: http://www.tacticalkit.com/images/c7a2rifle.ppt


One Infantry Soldier's view on the C7A2: http://nightoperations.com/Doc/Infantry-Rifle-Carbine1.pdf

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[Bartok5]

Wolfe117,

I will agree that the argument regarding Canadian Browning Hi Power nomenclature is over, as there is nothing to dispute. Facts are facts.

Of far greater concern to me is your statement that one or more of your instructors on a formal Army Reserve qualification course provided information to his (or her) subordinates which is patently false. What particularly appalls me is the fact that the correct information was readily available to your course staff in the form of the service pistol manual, yet your “instructor” (and I use the term loosely) apparently chose to "wing it" based on flawed personal knowledge. This demonstrates a fundamental lack of professional competence on the part of the instructor in question. It also calls into question the competence of the remaining course staff, who evidently failed to identify and rectify the problem.

Some might argue that teaching (and thereby perpetuating the use of) incorrect nomeclature for a basic service weapon is of little practical consequence. Anyone who thinks so would be very, very wrong. Quite frankly, if your NCO instructors lack the knowledge and attention to detail necessary to teach you the correct names of your basic service weapons, I shudder to even contemplate what other "special gems" you have been taught during your Reserve service. How about the weapon handling drills? Did your instructor also "fudge" those as he went along?

There is absolutely NO excuse for ANY instructor to have presented patently incorrect information to trainees during a formal period of weapons instruction. To have done so reflects very poorly upon his or her professionalism across a broad spectrum. The instructor's personal level of professional knowledge? Lacking. His or her mastery of the subject matter that he/she was tasked to teach? Lacking. Attention to detail? Lacking. Demonstrated ability to competently train subordinates? Lacking. I could continue, but I am sure that you get the picture. The fact that none of your other course staff detected and rectified the problem is equally alarming. This all leads me to seriously question the application of training standards within your unit. No personal slight to you Wolfe, as you and your course-mates were merely the unknowing recipients of bad information. However, this does not change the fact that what occurred is inexcusable.

Moving on, if the majority of the service pistols held by your unit are indeed unserviceable (as you contend), then this situation is also unacceptable. It staggers the imagination to hear that non-functional weapons have not been identified and repaired or replaced within an infantry unit. If the majority of your unit's Hi Powers are truly in the state of disrepair that you’ve described, this smacks of negligence on several levels. The chain of responsibility starts with the individuals who have been issued those weapons and did not report their unsatisfactory condition, and extends through your QM staff to whichever Weapons Technician in your Brigade's Service Battalion is responsible for conducting the unit Annual Technical Inspection. Perhaps they don't know any better, or perhaps they can't be bothered to deal with the problem. I really can't say. What I can tell you is that ample replacement pistols are available from operational stocks. Someone in your unit and/or your supporting Service Battalion is simply not doing their job.

Finally, I don't buy your argument that the lack of double-action operation is sufficient justification for replacement of the Browning Hi Power in general Canadian Army Service. Nor do I believe that the FN 5.7 (or any other handgun for that matter) offers the degree of substantive performance improvement that would justify embarking on a sidearm replacement project. No offence, but have you ever held the FN pistol? Fired it? Studied the results of independent ballistic testing? Read the reports of numerous law enforcement and military agencies rejecting the FN P-90 due to documented reports of consistently inadequate stopping power during armed encounters? Had you done any of the above, I strongly suspect that you would rethink your affection for FN’s 5.7mm cartridge as a substantive improvement over existing pistol calibers. Notwithstanding FN’s “promotional hype”, the FN handgun and P-90 PDW have turned out to be grossly "underwhelming" in practical application. Factory literature and sycophantic "Gun Magazines" are designed to sell "product". You might try looking elsewhere for the unvarnished truth.

At the end of the day, the Canadian Army has far more pressing concerns than the replacement of its perfectly serviceable sidearm. Is the Mk 1 Inglis Hi Power the best possible general-issue handgun currently available on the world market? Nobody would argue that it is. However, the fact remains that the Hi Power is entirely satisfactory in its comparatively minor role as a general-issue sidearm. Canadian Army capital funding is tight, and there are many other projects that will do far more to enhance soldier lethality and survivability on the modern battlefield than replacement of the pistol. It is all about establishing realistic priorities within available means. And that is precisely why there is no current project on the books to replace what amounts to a minor piece of equipment which works just fine in its (very) limited role.

Feel free to e-mail me off-line at "Bartok5@rogers.com" should you wish to discuss any of the issues I've raised in response to your last post. I've given you my perspective on this subject based on 23 years of infantry service and a strong awareness of Canadian military small arms development and procurement matters. You can take it as a learning experience, or ignore it - I'm not fussed either way. I don't have anything further to add in this forum, and I lack the time to engage in an endless on-line exchange. If you feel compelled to have the last word here, then by all means post a rebuttal. In that case we'll simply have to agree to disagree, because I’ve said all that I am going to.....

Regards,

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[hillbillyinheart]

I think the BHP is a good pistol the 2 years owning one, never had a problem with it, fed any type of ammo I put through it. It's serves fine as a sidearm.

Now reading these Files about PDW weapons the military wants, is crap, why go with a NON nato round for a round that is good enough. I dont think Im going to put a 1 ' grouping on a Enemy chest.

BHP was never a target pistol, It's a combat service pistol, nothing else. Also a good friend to have, because you know it's going to work. I dont know anyone that would engage a Enemy at 100m with a pistol. Makes no sence. Does it?. NO

Like I said on another fourm, Nothing slips from Bartok, I try to fight with him and lost hard.

[DANJANOU]

I know bartok from another forum too and the thought he does not need my backup, he does know what he's talking about. Actually it was this thread that brought me here.

Wolfe full marks for trying to defend a hopeless position there troop, but a little advice. Swallow your pride, accept this defeat and learn from it, that's what being a real soldier is all about.

[Michael Dorosh]

There is info on Canadian service rifles and bayonets (as well as LMGs) at my site at

www.canadiansoldiers.com

Very basic info but it is there.

Clive Law at Service Publications (www.servicepub.com) is the go to guy for Canadian pistol questions. Feel free to post to my own forum for Canadian stuff if other questions are to be had.

IF you've spent any time with the reserves you'll know that not all of us are switched on or for that matter as professional as regular forces. I do not know where the misconception among some troops that the pistol is the FN1911 started. However, I'd bet it probably has something to do with the fact that most reservists are simply college or university students who's main reason for enlisting is to help pay their way through school and hardly ever see or use the sidearm or get trained on it.
No there have been no problems in handling drills I knew all those drills long before this course started. I don't know what country you've been living in but the militia is not exactly the most proffessional military organization in NATO.

As for the retarded comments about Canadian reservists "not being as switched on as the regs" - speak for yourself, please, and don't make the rest of the Canadian Reserve Army look like jackasses. I am not about to open a Reg F-Res F pissing contest because it is one neither side would win.

The expectation, however - make no mistake - is for anyone calling himself a Canadian Soldier to be "switched on."

Perhaps things are different in Ottawa than they are in Calgary. Most of our NCOs have tours overseas; some even have the Commander-In-Chief's Commendation for Medak. I consider all the troops I've worked for in my regiment as "professional" and switched on. If you don't, Wolfe, then I pity you. More than that, I admonish you for airing your dirty laundry in public. Not only did you just make yourself look like a jackass by getting the nomenclature wrong, now you are trying to sink your entire regiment in with you. Classy move. Then you stain the entire Reserve Force with more ill-thought out comments.

I think maybe you need to be quiet now.

If you really stand by your comments, please post your name, rank and unit and we'll run them by your CSM or Adjutant.

[Infanteer]

Hey, do I know you guys from somewhere?!?


Wolfe,

Its time to shut your yapper...you've been given the answer by a BTDT so quit while your behind.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[Michael Dorosh]

Wolfe, I don't accept private messages, yours has been deleted unread. If you have something to say, do it here. I take great pride in my service in the Reserve Army (16 years and counting), and especially in my Regiment. Frankly, I think you owe some serious public apologies, but if you're not man enough to do that, at least do me the favour of not cluttering my inbox because frankly I have no reason to talk to you privately.

[DANJANOU]

I think that here endeth the lesson. :bash:

[hillbillyinheart]

As a reserve, i dont think you would see testing on the 5.7, maby online but not in canada. Also a fellow Reservist, we dont see the browning as much nore all, so all your experance is just hearsay, and bs just scrambled on the net.

personal experance is alot better than, internet babble. Firing 60rds on a 2a etc, isn't much. Dont judge the book by its cover.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[hillbillyinheart]

Im sorry your unit, doesn't have funding for anything. Any trainning is better then nothing. Doesn't mean All units Do. Dont drag down the reserves, becuase you fell like it not run right, keep your personal problem to yourself.

If your unit heard what you were saying, I trust you, you'll be dancing without your hat on.

If you dont like it, GET OUT. Then the reserves are for you.. Or Cadets Might need you.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[hillbillyinheart]

Even as a Civi becuase you dont sign the pay sheet, your still military. You sign the paper to fight for your country. Right now your not.

I dont care if you shoot a 1mm grouping, Your not portraying the military in a positave Aspect. more like Blasting, becuase YOU think ! You dont think, you do what you are told. Only time you have the right not to do, if you feel this is unsafe..

I know a few ppl, up in RCR in ont, and they heard this, they wouldn't be happy, maby i'll email them.

Dont screw up. Anymore then you did..

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[hillbillyinheart]

Yeah So do I, (RCR, PPCLI ETC ETC ETC), but they not dumb enough to post it on a Fourm. What Goes on in person stays in person or personal But when you post it on a fourm, your asking for trouble.

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[Bartok5]

Wolfe117,

Notwithstanding my earlier decision to remove myself from a pointless debate regarding retention of the Browning Hi Power pistol in Canadian Military service, I do feel compelled to address the very different "car crash" which is currently ongoing in this thread.

I don't know how to say this politely any longer, so I'm just going to say it. You are an utter disgrace to your unit, yourself, and the uniform that you, I, and the recent series of Canadian contributors to this forum wear with the utmost pride. I have personally worked (as both a serving NCO in the Army Reserves, and as a commissioned officer in the Regular Force), with literally thousands of Canadian soldiers of all ranks and trades over the past 23 years. I have NEVER encountered anyone so undeserving of the title "soldier" as yourself. NEVER!

Quite frankly, you are a complete and total waste of everyone's time. The best thing that you could possibly do at this point is issue a heart-felt public apology to ""Hillbillyinheart" (a great trooper), Danjanou (been there, done that while you were still swimming in your Daddy's ball-sack), Michael Dorosh (doesn't hide behind a "user-name" and is one of the most respected PUBLISHED Canadian military historians available), Yardape (a fellow BTDT guy), and the others who you have tarred with your stupidity-laced brush.

Leaving aside your embarassing self-evident idiocy regarding knowledge of military sidearms and their role in the overall infantry milieu, let us examine for a moment some of the things that you have managed to "accomplish" in your adolescent refusal to accept the wisdom and experience of others here who wear the Maple Leaf. You have:

- Ridiculed the Canadian Army Reserves in their entirety - a sweeping act which has publicly belittled the incredible personal sacrifices and highly professional contributions that your "peers" (and I use the term loosely) make on a continual basis,

- Trumpeted to the world that selected (as a minimum) NCOs within your own unit are incompetent morons for teaching you utter crap in the context of a formal qualification course. Bet they'll love you for that....,

- Told everyone that an admittedly stupid mistake by a single instructor was compounded by the fact that nobody else involved with your "Platoon Weapons Course" had the professional competence to rectify a ludicrous mistake,

- Insinuated that your unit continues to hold weapons which are un-serviceable (which you later waffled on),

- Decided to take it upon yourself to "expose" the "problems" of the Canadian Army Reserve as a collective whole (as you view them from your "junior plug's perspective") to an international audience. And even worse, did so with the utterly lame rationalization that if you could only "expose" the problems, then something might change for the better. Yeah - like that will happen with a idiotic series of ill-considered posts on Militaryphotos.net, of all places,

- Given us a detailed description of a unit training event which seemed farcical to you, but may have been forced upon your leadership by circumstances beyond their control (NOT just because "it was too cold outside"),

- Subjected us to your "Tactical Genius" views on why an urban operations training iteration at your annual concentration did not result in absolute victory for the "good guys". (hint - that's how lessons are learned, and that is precisely why we train),

- etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I am sure that I've missed a few, but based on those examples alone I must admit a reluctanct awe for what you have single-handedly managed to accomplish here. In the short span of a single internet forum thread which started off as nothing more than an ill-informed junior soldier needing a bit of informed education, you have managed to malign the entire Canadian Army Reserves in a lame-assed excuse to explain your own VERY evident shortcomings as a soldier. The sheer scope of your comments is staggering. Starting with your fundamentally pathetic lack of knowledge and understanding of basic military matters, and ending with a scathing condemnation of your parent unit and the Army Reserves as a whole. Congratulations - I have lost count of the many bridges (at all levels) that you have managed to burn in a pathetically gyrating effort to avoid admitting any of your personal faults.

Happily, people like you can often be sorted out in short order. Nobody likes an egocentric with a "no fault" mentality - especially when the individual's faults are defensively transfered to his peers, superiors, and unit. Hmmm let's take a look a few pages back. Ah yes - here's what "Wolfe" had to say:

"I'm a Guardsman, with 1 Coy, 2 pl, 2 sec GGFG. I did basic and infantry training at LFCATC Meaford in 2001. I've been on EX Southern Drive to Fort Knox in 2002 and many other concentration excercises."

Well, thanks for your particulars and impressive tales of "derring do" there Wolfe. I reckon that you won't be too difficult to track down. Indeed, I am quite positive that I have either trained or served with the Regular Support Staff" Captain at your unit. After all (as you've pointed out), the Canadian Army is very small. Oh, don't worry - I'm not on any sort of vindictive crusade. That would be inconsistent with my professional ethics and values. By the same token however, I do feel compelled to make your chain of command aware of the utterly disparaging tripe that you've been posting about them on a public forum. Freedom of speech and opinion are just jim-dandy - until you start maligning the very organization to which you belong. I am sure that your RSSO will be most interested in seeing for himself just how you've "represented" your unit and the Canadian Army Reserves as a whole.

You might want to think about jumping ship to the U.S. Army sooner rather than later, before a potential ****-storm bites you in the ass. Of course, that presumes that U.S. recruiting standards are such that they will accept you. There may be a bit of an upleasant surprise awaiting your cross-border enrolment efforts - particularly if your current unit doesn't have much positive to say in terms of a referral.

Do not mistake my comments as a threat. They are not, because I don't need to make threats. I simply act upon information in the best interests of the service at large.

I have served under and worked with many, many soldiers over the years - of all shapes, sizes, motivations and aspirations. Every single one of them had at least one redeeming quality. Sadly, in many cases that was insufficient to make up for fundamental shortcomings in a broad range of other soldierly requirements. Your inability to concede a mistake in the face of factual information to the contrary is the least of your worries. The fact ot the matter is that you are an arrogant little man. The worst part is that from what I've seen, there is zero substantiation for such an attitude on your part. You talk big, but you have absolutely NOTHING to back it up. You've been NOWHERE, and done NOTHING.

See you in the funny pages. Stand-by......

[RealUltimatePower]

This post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[RealUltimatePower]

Anyways the question still stands did the C2 have an extended clip and could you use its bolt in the C1?

[Michael Dorosh]

Wait a minute....GGFG....Gustav Gone For Good (think they'll ever live THAT one down?)

Maybe he has a point? rofl

Bartok- thanks for the compliments. I can only wish I deserved them.

Your posts have been eminently professional; I like that more and more discussion forums are being taken as a serious tool for open and honest interchanges between CF troops of all ranks, experience levels, trades, etc., no matter what type of forum or where it is located. Please keep up the good work!

[EvanL]

perfect. there isnt a better way to say it than how Bartok did.

[hillbillyinheart]

Wolfe117 What did I say b4, I was in your Shoes B4, I said a few thing back a Few months ago, Ive seen the CO, Capt, CSM. For It, Kept my promotion Back for a few months, watching my friends get promoted, when they diddn't have a QL4 when I did. Wasn't nice, But they forgot about it, I moved on.

Soldier On. Learn from your mistakes, and thank you Sir(bartok5) For Changing the way I though. I learned alot from you, and we never meet. Hopefully somedya we will, and I can shake your hand, well Salute you.

Hopefully see you in NB durring the CGN Shoot.

[Bartok5]

Robert,

You can bet on it! Athough you and I have had our rather vocal differences on another discussion board way back when, you can rest assured that there are no hard feelings at this end. Indeed, if anything I am impressed all to hell with the way that you have conducted yourself since our little falling out many months ago. You took the well-meaning advice of myself, Kevin B, RobAK, and several others to heart, and have done a helluva job of becoming a real meaningful contrrbutor to "our board" as a result. I for one, am proud to associate with you outside of this forum.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for you, and your dad. Indeed, it is going to be a highlight of my year to have the priviledge of meeting the both of you on May 1st. I won't pretend to think that my"nasty-grams" had anything to do with your "good to go" maturity these past 6 months or so. To the contrary, if those words were a catalyst to get you involved with RobAK, KevinB, etc, then all for the better. I'm here to tell you that I really appreciate the fact that you've laid off the "Blackhawk Down" crap down south (some REALLY HARD FEELINGS THERE), and have come aboard With the "qiuet yet competent" atttitude that is the hallmark of the professional soldier. And for that, you have my full kudo's. Well done! The way you have dealt with the "'undealable" on the "mllitary.photo" site speaks volumes as to your character. For what little it is worth, I am bloody proud of you. As no doubt is your Dad. Any day you want to do some hard-arsed soldiering, you just give me a call, and I'd be proud to call you my fireteam partner.......

Your Dad "rocks" - there ain't no other way to say it. Chances are, he can (and will) make look like an utter boob the first time we shoot competitively. That's ultra cool though - In've never been a competitive shooter and I'm always willing to accept an ass-whuppig. This is how we learn...

I have to tell you that I am personanlly, REALLY looking forward to meeting both yourself and your father. It isn't often that I run into a duo who are so sympatico about the important things in life. In my humble books, you guys really have something going on. I can only hope to emulate the same when my own "littlle guy" is ready for the smell of spent-casings.

You guys are "good to go", and I'm really looking forward to meeting the both of your on 1 May !!!!!

Cheers,

Mark

[DANJANOU]

Bartok,

Well said boss, and thanks for the compliment. like Michael I don't know if I rate it but I'll take it. Simply put I was not going to see the uniform that you, Michael and many others wear, or in my case have worn, and earned put to shame in public and stand idly by.

Wolfe, soldier you are extremly lucky I am no longer still in or that I'm not your CSM or you and I would be having words.

However to show what professionalism is I will now answer your reasonable question about the FNC1/C2.

The FNC2 was the section support wpn think the C9's grandfather, two per section being standard.

Basically it was an FNC1 with full auto capability heavy barrel, and bi-pod which when folded up acted as a fore guard (the legs had wooden strips attached to them).

There was a larger 30 rd mag issued with it (5-6 was the norm IIRC) 4 of which were usually carried in a chest harness or bra. The 20 rd magazine could be used as well.

As it was essentially the same wpn as the C1 the same "bolt" actually called a breach block could be used in both wpns.

I also remember it was abitch to lug. Getting mags out of the bra in the prone was impossible unless you were a yoga master (I canned mine and scrounged a couple of old 58 pattern bren gun pouches). Really sustained fire was hard to acheive due to mag capacity etc. Really not an LMG at all.

Mind that's what we had and that's what we used. If we btched about it, we did so in the privacy of the mess.

[RealUltimatePower]

IThis post has been removed because I was an immature idiot. I appologize to all who have been affected.

[HappyCat]

yeah sorry for my bro, hes an assface, hes staying the hell off my computer from now on, sorry people. Hes just a cadet, a wannabe poser.

[hillbillyinheart]

Damage Is allready done, cant reverse that. You discraced the CF forces, your bothers (unit), and Yourself, Should be ashamed.

Keep any personal thought to your self, What goes on in your unit stays. keep it away from the eyes of others.

[HappyCat]

Why the hell should I be ashamed, my brother can say whatever he wants. Don't drag me into this mess, I apologized for something I didn't even do, so just drop it.

[hillbillyinheart]

WTF, A CADET.....&@$@($&@%)@(%&*^&!%@)*)$#++%

NOW HE F**KED His Chances in the reserves.

[DANJANOU]

Ok people the man realised he did something wrong and he apologised, that's good enough for me. There may be repercussions of actions but, real men, real soldiers understand that and own up to their actions, right.

Lets drop it and move on. You claim to be professionals, show it.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Wow alot's went on since my last post...I had alot of reading to do to make it here.

First of all I'd like to thank some of the people actually serving in our armed forces for contributing to this thread. Without all of your contributions this thread would've been nothing. As someone said a few pages back, " Theres first hang knowledge, then theres reading a book" (or something to the effect). Theres a big difference between the two, so thank you for the perspective.

The Bastardchild

[Maverick77]

Mike Dorosh are you the same one who posts on the Battlefront (CM) forums?

[DANJANOU]

While I wouldn't presume to know for sure where the good Mr. Dorosh posts, I'd say probably. As Bartok noted Mike doesn't do the screen name thing so it could be him. You can also find him at www.army.ca where he's a regular, and a valued one at that, and at his own site.

[Resevoir Hogs]

I heard somewhere you guys still have the M72? Is that true? If not what do you ahve for the anti armor role?

[[AFSOC]]

R.I.P's

To our guys in Afganistan that were attacked today.

[Maverick77]

Yeah we keep a bunch of old AT weapons around like Carl Gustav and M72

Even though we have the TOW and Eryx


cant hurt keep em around

[Resevoir Hogs]

You guys should get some Dragons and AT4s

That's where its at ;)

[Bartok5]

You're dating yourself - Dragon is waaaaay past it's "best before date". The M72 on the other hand, still has its uses as described below.

Current anti-armour weapons allocated to the Canadian infantry include:

a. M72A1 - issued as an individual "round of ammo" (like a grenade) and used primarily against soft-skinned vehicles or field fortifications (eg. bunkers/sangars),

b. 84mm Carl Gustav RCL - issued 1 per Platoon HQ for use against light armoured vehicles, soft-skinned vehicles or field fortifications. There is nothing wrong with the "Carl G", particularly the updated "M3" variant made with a carbon-fibre-wrapped steel barrel. The M3 version reduces the weight from over 30 lbs to something in the area of 18 lbs. The Carl G is very reliable and accurate in the right hands. The U.S. Army Rangers don't seem to have any complaints....

c. Eryx ATGM - issued 9 per mechanized company, or 7 per light company. It is effective against just about anything on tracks, wheels, or static. I can't say that the warhead would take out an M1A2 Abrams with a frontal shot, but then again we Canucks aren't likely to be shooting at those,

d. TOW 2B with ITASS (Improved Target Acquisition and Sighting System) - 6 systems employed in a typical infantry battalion's anti armour platoon. 6 x M113 (soon to be LAV-3 based) "TOW Under Armour" turrets for a mech battalion, or 6 x Iltis (soon to be Mercedes G-Wagon) TOW Pedestal Mounts" for a light battalion.

What has been missing from the Canadian infantry's anti-armour weapons mix for the past 20 years is a medium-range tank-killer deployed at platoon level. The Eryx will kill pretty much anything on tracks from 100 to 600 metres. The TOW will do the same out to 3750 metres, but it is a battalion-level asset and the long-range capability is "wasted" at ranges less than 2000 metres. What we've been lacking is an MBT killer with a 2000 to 2500 metre maximum effective range to fill the "gap" between Eryx and TOW. Happily, there is a Treasury-Board-approved procurement project in the works (with testing and field-trials ongoing) that will see us procure either the U.S. Javelin or Israeli Gilspike medium-range anti-armour weapon within the next 2 years. This system will be issued on the basis of 4 per rifle company (1 per platoon HQ, 1 in company HQ). Thus endeth the lack of a medium-range ATGM.

Bottom line? The M-72 is currently the doctrinal equivalent of a 66mm rocket-propelled grenade within Canadian infantry service. It "reaches out and touches things" that the M-203 would be ineffective against. The M-72 may eventually be replaced in Canadian service by the U.S. AT-4, but that remains to be seen. The AT-4 is a very good weapon (I've seen the terminal effect against an AQ bunker during Op ANCONDA/HARPOON first-hand), but it is over-kill in non-armour applications. The M-72 is far more compact and light-weight than the AT-4. If treated as a "big-arsed grenade", it does the job just fine against bunkers, soft-skinned vehicles, etc. The Eryx and TOW currently do the MBT killing within the Canadian infantry. Once we add a medium-range ATGM to the mix, we'll be good to go.

Hope this helps clear up any confusion.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Yaaaaaaaa AT4 gotta love that thing. woot

Sorry what I meant was not Dragon but Predator. Always confusing those two's names. It has a range pretty much equivalent of the Eryx.

M72 is still employed by some units in SOCOM I know. Same reasons you gave.

So you saw combat in A-stan? Tough time huh. What unit were ya? Might be too personal but how many terrorists did you end over there? And is it true some of your troops swapped for M4s when going on certain missions or were those just your version the C8?

Here are some cool photos of various anti-armor systems, Javelin, Predator, LOSAT etc.

Eryx
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/eryx/images/eryx5.jpg
Javelin
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/images/Javelin_10.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/images/Javelin_12.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/images/jav6.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/images/jav14.jpg
LOSAT
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/images/2_hmmwv_anti-tank.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/images/1_hmmwv_anti-tank.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/images/losat_7.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/images/losat10.jpg
Predator
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/predator_kestrel/images/Predatorkestrel_1.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/predator_kestrel/images/Predatorkestrel_2.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/predator_kestrel/images/Predatorkestrel_5.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/predator_kestrel/images/Predatorkestrel_4.jpg
MBT LAW
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/images/mbtlaw_1.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/images/mbtlaw_2.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/images/mbtlaw_8.jpg

[DANJANOU]

Might be too personal but how many terrorists did you end over there?

I can't believe you could actually ask such a thing and in such an asinine manner, Ok after looking at your posts here I can and that's the sad part.

Bartok is an Officer and a Gentlemen in all senses of the word, so I'm sure he would prefer to ignore this and move on.

When you hit puberty, and again from the looks of your posts here that's quite a long way off, and stop playing nintendo/sniper/ranger/rambo/ wannabe you'll discover that certain things are just not asked in the real world.

Hey civilized adults as whole, let alone professional soldiers, have codes of conduct. Something like this may be asked (although phrased differently) in the right circumstance, such as privately between two soldiers who've BTDT.

I realise you have no idea what I'm talking about here, but perhaps other readers do, which is why I bothered responding to this.

[Bartok5]

Resevoir Hogs,

As always, Danjanou has hit the nail squarely on the head. The "gentleman" descriptor is highly debatable, but the remainder of his post speaks to my personal feelings on the matter.

There are times, places and people with whom I will discuss such things. Now, on this site, with you, is not one of them.

No offence taken or intended, as I suspect that you are still pretty young. You will learn over time that there are certain subjects which most military personnel won't openly discuss outside of their peer group. Your question about "ending terrorists" is perhaps the biggest of those.

To answer your other questions, I was with 3 PPCLI Battlegroup, which was attached to Task Force Rakkasan of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). We were based at Kanadahar Airfield throughout the 6-month deployment. We also spent a fair bit of time at Bagram Airfield while staging for air assault operations into the Shah-i-Kot Valley and Tora Bora region along the Pakistani border.

We did not "swap out" personal weapons for missions. Aside from machinegunners and M-203 Grenadiers, all members of the unit's "F" (fighting) echelon carried the C8 as their primary weapon once suficient quantities of the carbine were available in-theatre.

There are a couple of different albums on this site that you can have a look at if you are interested in snapshots of 3 PPCLI's Afghanistan service. Aside from what I've provided above, I am not interested in answering any more questions at this time.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Perhaps it will be better if I take more time to write this post to phrase things properly. No offence was intended by what I said and I'm glad you did not take any.

However, I realised it may be a touchy subject for you that's why I said "it may be too personal" I simply ask because no news agencies have reported much on enemy casualties and Amnesty International hasn't really finished tallying those stats. I'm doing an essay and am just interested in that imput. Also the first hand experience in Afghanistan is of interest. If you know of a place I may get such information It'd be appreciated. Or perhaps you would consider PM me about it, if not I understand.

As for my age, background etc. I don't care to discuss such things on the internet but I assure you I'm not a kid. But it's ok I don't particularily try to be PC on here so I can see why one might assume so.

On a different note here are some more photos enjoy

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/Lookup/200412964348/$file/low3.jpg
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/41cf7d5dc48b220085256e2a003a645f/$FILE/Release0017.2004.04low.jpg
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/904eca81c5e7a93185256e23007e2c40/$FILE/garcia1%20low.jpg
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/3776ee6f9c397a5d85256e28000b84e8/$FILE/Release0017.2004.02low.jpg
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/Lookup/2004125185928/$file/Release0019-2004-02low.jpg
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/Lookup/200412391930/$file/armor2(L).jpg
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/2f3cc91ab6b7930185256e2300681ebc/$FILE/convoy2.jpg
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/c71098c1648b30fb85256e23004486a6/$FILE/13MEU17lo.jpg
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/22d1d49f2584b24d85256e2300436da4/$FILE/13MEU33lo.jpg

[pAt]

http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/small-arms.canada.Carl-Gustav.2.jpg

http://www.army.lt/guns/biglt/gustav3.jpg

[LongWayToTheTop]

Thats cool that explains why I was seeing older soldiers pics from the 60's-70's with FN FAL's. woot

you sure it was a FN-FAL or SLR L1A1? they look very similar SLR was out first :P

[DANJANOU]

Probably neither. The Canadian designation was FNC1 and later FNC1A1. They were built here under licence and with some in house modifications ( winter trigger for mitts, change in the upper receiver to allow partial mags to be refilled with a stripper clip and of course semi auto only)

Here’s a pic:

http://gunthings.com/C1A1.jpg

and the FNC2 section fire support wpn (2x per inf section) with bipod, heavier barrel, full auto capability and 30 rd magazine.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/fal_c2.jpg

[Beowulf]

We got a couple of M-72's from the Canadians in A-stan. Why haul around an AT-4 when there wasn't any armor to speak of?

We also traded MRE's just to change the menu a bit.
-b

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Probably neither. The Canadian designation was FNC1 and later FNC1A1. They were built here under licence and with some in house modifications ( winter trigger for mitts, change in the upper receiver to allow partial mags to be refilled with a stripper clip and of course semi auto only)

Here’s a pic:

http://gunthings.com/C1A1.jpg

and the FNC2 section fire support wpn (2x per inf section) with bipod, heavier barrel, full auto capability and 30 rd magazine.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/fal_c2.jpg

Ya thanks for correcting me on the whole FN thing. We love our Canadian designations though :P Are any of the FN's still in use (i.e. cadets)?
Thanks for the input its much appreciated

[BOB1]

We got a couple of M-72's from the Canadians in A-stan. Why haul around an AT-4 when there wasn't any armor to speak of?

We also traded MRE's just to change the menu a bit.
-b

Ummm not doubting you but would not M72s be something that would have to be accounted for?

[Haiw]

Easy...just list 'em as 'stolen by yanks'. ;)

[DANJANOU]

...just list 'em as 'stolen by yanks'.

Yeah I'd love to have seen the poor troop using that as an excuse.

"March the guilty bastard out Sergeant Major."

"Right....turn! left right left." Directly to Edmonton for 2 years less a day. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.00

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

"Right....turn! left right left." Directly to Edmonton for 2 years less a day. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.00


Wow my brother is already in Edmonton so he wouldnt mind that...except its minus 20'c all the time.... ;)

[Yard Ape]

Edmonton is home to Canadian Service Detention Barracks (a.k.a. the military jail). I don't think your brother would find it a nice visit.

[EvanL]

Edmonton is home to Canadian Service Detention Barracks (a.k.a. the military jail). I don't think your brother would find it a nice visit.
Isnt it that while your in the brig, your pay is deducted to 1$ a day and 50cents for board or something ridiculous like that?

[Michael Dorosh]

While I wouldn't presume to know for sure where the good Mr. Dorosh posts, I'd say probably. As Bartok noted Mike doesn't do the screen name thing so it could be him. You can also find him at www.army.ca where he's a regular, and a valued one at that, and at his own site.


What a difference two years makes, eh? ;)

Just rereading this thread - well, parts of it, to tell the truth, and noticed bartok5's comments on the Browning Hi-Power and M1911. He noted that the only similarity between the two was the designer, Browning, but there is one other similarity - hope this wasn't mentioned already, but the M1911 .45 was an issued weapon to Canadians in both World Wars. Officers in the First World War were allowed to purchase theirs from the government IIRC, who had bought a large supply. The old Osprey title THE CANADIAN ARMY AT WAR by Mike Chappel shows a Canadian Black Watch officer in the trenches (I believe 13th Bn) with a US .45 web holster and an M1911 in it. In the Second World War, I believe they were issued to members of 1 Canadian Parachute Battalion but stand to be corrected - an excellent source would be Clive Law's books from Service Publications, and he has literally "written the book" on service pistols of the Canadian forces.