Army Reserve Restructuring

[McG]

A simple example: A unit in three locations. How often does the command team need to be present, together, in each? Do the CO and RSM have to be geographically co-located? What is the optimal, maximum distance to exercise C2?

Why do we need that consolidated as one unit under a LCol CO instead of separate as three units under Maj COs?

 

[dapaterson]

Why do we need that consolidated as one unit under a LCol CO instead of separate as three units under Maj COs?

At some point there is a CoC with responsibilities, that include being present.

 

[McG]

Sure, but there is a lot of responsibility and authority specifically placed in COs. So make the CO a major and keep it local. You then reduce the level of familiarity that some LCol two cities away needs to maintain.

 

[MilEME09]

I was talking to a guy last week from one of those units.

200 'effectives', 30 attending on a weekend exercise...

I saw one as bad as 60 ES and 8 TES, authorized str? 180ish

 

[ueo]

Are STDs that bad up in Barrie and Owen Sound ?

our attempt at humor just sux!

 

[CountDC]

Requirements to free up NCOs to staff locally run courses, which for some units essentially deprives them of key people to meet annual collective training goals.


And get the time commitment for COs back somewhere under 60 class A day equivalents.

last time I worked at a pres from May to end Aug I was for a large part the only full time staff at the unit. Everyone else was tasked as staff or instructing on course at the local base. Some would try to do what they could when they could (nights, meal times, etc) while others understood the task the were assigned away for was their job now and they didn't do anything for the unit.

Once had a new CO tell me during his "new CO brief" from the Bde Cmdt he was basically told that as a CO he was expected to put in full time hours at the job despite only allowed to sign in for 60 days.

Why do we need that consolidated as one unit under a LCol CO instead of separate as three units under Maj COs?

Would have been happy if this was the case at a unit I spent time with. The location I was physically at was great, the others not so much. At one point the CO was mainly located in another province. None were within an hour drive of each other and one was over 600 kms from the nearest other. All 3 largely operated as separate units which was a big problem in accomplishing anything.

 

[MilEME09]

Once had a new CO tell me during his "new CO brief" from the Bde Cmdt he was basically told that as a CO he was expected to put in full time hours at the job despite only allowed to sign in for 60 days.

sadly this is the reality for a lot of larger units both for jr and senior leadership, I get compensated two days a month for admin etc, i do enough work to justify 10 days easily but theres no money for additional compensation i am told.

 

[childs56]

sadly this is the reality for a lot of larger units both for jr and senior leadership, I get compensated two days a month for admin etc, i do enough work to justify 10 days easily but theres no money for additional compensation i am told.

I use to work my full time civi job, take time off for weekly runs as required (Fridays and some Thursdays) for the unit and put in 6-8 hrs evenings just to make things work. It was all for a better process going forward. We had three people putting in 30-40plus hrs a week keeping the Bty Operating.
Had we had the proper support, funds, equipment we could have staffed, trained and retained 100plus Soldiers. HQ always has other plans for the money.
Until they plan properly for success they will continue to get mediocre to failed results.

 

[MilEME09]

I use to work my full time civi job, take time off for weekly runs as required (Fridays and some Thursdays) for the unit and put in 6-8 hrs evenings just to make things work. It was all for a better process going forward. We had three people putting in 30-40plus hrs a week keeping the Bty Operating.
Had we had the proper support, funds, equipment we could have staffed, trained and retained 100plus Soldiers. HQ always has other plans for the money.
Until they plan properly for success they will continue to get mediocre to failed results.

or we just let things fail

 

[CountDC]

Sometimes letting things fail is the best solution. It highlights that there is an issue that needs to be fixed. I used to put in a lot of over time to get the job done. I no longer put in as many hours as I realized the effect it had. By working the hours I did no one realized that there was an issue. I also realized that I was setting up anyone that came in after me for failure if they were not able to match those hours. For example - as single I could stay at work for as long as I wanted to accomplish things and everyone was happy. The next person in as a parent cannot put in those hours without a negative impact to their home life. Naturally everyone questions their skillset not realizing I was putting in all those hours. Best solution would have been for me to let things fail drawing attention to the issue so something could be done. Redistribute responsibilities or add staff would have been a good solution.

 

[Halifax Tar]

or we just let things fail

That's exactly what I was told to do by a Capt(N) last year. He said it's time we start doing that.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Let the wheel break. By propping things up, you allow irresponsible people to continue pushing resources to things they'd rather do instead of things they should do.

 

[MilEME09]

Let the wheel break. By propping things up, you allow irresponsible people to continue pushing resources to things they'd rather do instead of things they should do.

The only thing holding me back sometimes from letting things fail is some times its the troops who suffer/lose out, which I don't want to do

 

[Furniture]

I use to work my full time civi job, take time off for weekly runs as required (Fridays and some Thursdays) for the unit and put in 6-8 hrs evenings just to make things work. It was all for a better process going forward. We had three people putting in 30-40plus hrs a week keeping the Bty Operating.
Had we had the proper support, funds, equipment we could have staffed, trained and retained 100plus Soldiers. HQ always has other plans for the money.
Until they plan properly for success they will continue to get mediocre to failed results.

I can already hear the eyes rolling, but sometimes those HQ folks are right, and the people at the tactical level are too close to the problem to see the big picture.

Sometimes HQs are right out of it, but often times they are juggling 20 "priorities", and what seems obvious at the unit level is not the actual problem.

 

[FJAG]

I can already hear the eyes rolling, but sometimes those HQ folks are right, and the people at the tactical level are too close to the problem to see the big picture.

Sometimes HQs are right out of it, but often times they are juggling 20 "priorities", and what seems obvious at the unit level is not the actual problem.

I hear you and do not disagree, but the job of a higher headquarters includes building for the future and managing "all" current problems and not just the top ten priorities. Too often the solution for the remaining lower priority problems is to kick the can down the road to Horizon 3 and let someone else deal with it. That's not future planning. That's hamstringing the future.

 

[CountDC]

The only thing holding me back sometimes from letting things fail is some times its the troops who suffer/lose out, which I don't want to do

Short term pain for long term gain is not a bad thing. When troops suffer the unit suffers and command takes notice. When it happens enough they start looking into the issue and for a solution.

No one wants the troops to suffer but if it isn't resolved all that is happening is delaying it. Eventually someone will take over the job and not be able to go that extra mile. Sorry, but ultimately you are doing what I used to do which is basically passing the buck on to the next person in the job to deal with. Being the good guy sucks, being the bad guy sucks more as you fix issues by pissing off people.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Short term pain for long term gain is not a bad thing. When troops suffer the unit suffers and command takes notice. When it happens enough they start looking into the issue and for a solution.

No one wants the troops to suffer but if it isn't resolved all that is happening is delaying it. Eventually someone will take over the job and not be able to go that extra mile. Sorry, but ultimately you are doing what I used to do which is basically passing the buck on to the next person in the job to deal with. Being the good guy sucks, being the bad guy sucks more as you fix issues by pissing off people.

I did my own back of the envelope evaluation of how much work is required to be completed by a typical reserve unit composed largely of part timers, with a little bit of full time support.

Sorry, it's part of my civvie job and I just couldn't help myself.

I quickly came to the conclusion that the whole enterprise was untenable, and largely held together by the heroic - and sometimes futile - efforts of a handful of 'people who care', as well as various happy accidents. Sometimes this thin veneer of competence collapses, of course, with startling results.

I'd like to see the results of whatever work task evaluation the CAF has done to justify the current structural and resourcing setup for a bog standard militia unit, based on the current workloads.

If there is such a beast...

 

[FJAG]

I'd like to see the results of whatever work task evaluation the CAF has done to justify the current structural and resourcing setup for a bog standard militia unit, based on the current workloads.

If there is such a beast...

I'd say none. I base that on the fact that there has been little change in the allocation of RegF admn or trg resources to ResF establishment since my tour in the mid seventies (and which was established in the mid sixties). There may have been some Class B additions here or there but those are mostly built at the expense of Class A and training budgets.

The structural revisions done by the 2000 ARE and subsequent 2010 "revitalized" ARE MIP did not generate anything significant and its pretty hard to determine what studies were done to support it. The only study report I have ever seen quoted was one where Fitch said that there were "too many artillery and service battalion headquarters for what we need." It was good for some hysterical laughter. Honestly though, there were many years of studies and consultation - its just not readily available.

All that said, the 2010 ARE MIPS at Anx A sets out model organizations clearly identifying positions and the respective RegF or ResF class of service for each position. For Bde Gps there are effectively 45 full-time positions. Unit HQ and HQ & Services sub unit establishments have effectively 9 full-time positions plus 1 or 2 more per field sub unit. (some units such as EW and CSS have additional full-time positions)

The problem isn't so much the model, but the varying situations and abilities for each organization to be able to fund and fill these positions with effective personnel. Some other folks on this site have much better recent experience than I as to how effectively these establishments are manned and operate.

One thing is very clear; there are not enough full time staff allocated to properly train personnel. There is a need for augmentation and utilization (and funding) of Class As, or outside RegF augmentees, to provide an adequate level of individual trg and basic collective training, especially in the summers. It is this shortcoming, more than any other, which drives me to a hybrid army with a two-phase training cycle where the RegF elements effectively train and maintain themselves from Sep to Apr but from May to Aug are exclusively assigned to APS, annual leave and training support to ResF (and some RegF) individual trg and summer concentrations.

 

[FJAG]

Deleted by FJAG - duplicate post. Mods - delete this entry.

 

[Kirkhill]

I did my own back of the envelope evaluation of how much work is required to be completed by a typical reserve unit composed largely of part timers, with a little bit of full time support.

Sorry, it's part of my civvie job and I just couldn't help myself.

I quickly came to the conclusion that the whole enterprise was untenable, and largely held together by the heroic - and sometimes futile - efforts of a handful of 'people who care', as well as various happy accidents. Sometimes this thin veneer of competence collapses, of course, with startling results.

I'd like to see the results of whatever work task evaluation the CAF has done to justify the current structural and resourcing setup for a bog standard militia unit, based on the current workloads.

If there is such a beast...

So nothing has changed since 1980 ....