Divining the right role, capabilities, structure, and Regimental System for Canada's Army Reserves

[dapaterson]

The fundamental difference:  RCMP are full-time.  Reservists are part-time, working outside regular business hours.  (Many formation HQs have only a skeleton staff on evenings when reservists are parading - don't get me started on the inversion there).

It is the part-time, evenings and weekends nature of Reserve service that can be so problematic.  In an average month, I will have five three hour blocks of time when I can be reasonably sure of seeing my key subordinates, and see my superior, and engage the support staff.  That is the equivalent of about two working days.  (Time in the field for training is excluded from that calculation - since that's not the admin side that we're discussing here)

And while email etc are all fine tools (1) not everyone works full-time for DND, so access to DND's internal IM/IT resources is compressed for them into that window (with contention for access); (2) having other full-time employment means one cannot always drop everything to deal with a higher HQ's inane, pointless busywork.  (As to why DND is so paranoid about its networks, when the US military has wider-spread remote access to its networks, well, let's say that just like too many cooks spoil the broth, too many jimmies spoil the net).

Basic military thing:  COs and RSMs need to see and be seen by their troops.  They need to know what is going on.  But they also have full-time jobs.

So:  Let's assume a CO with troops in 3 locations, each 250km away (end-to-end line of 500km).  If this CO lives in one location where he normally parades, and wants to visit each of the two outlying locations once every month from Sept through May (the usual training cycle), that means he needs 18 days for travel and visits (since he's only got those small evening windows available).  That's for one half day a month of face time - hardly excessive.

Oh oh.  What if he has a full-time job?  Can he take nearly 4 weeks a year off work?  Using all his holidays, perhaps.  But what of his wife and family?  Might they not want him to take some holidays with them?  Or if our hypothetical CO moves some of his travel to weekends - again, that's still a significant increase in time away from family, travel, and fatigue.  (Add in Formation meetings that are quarterly and sometimes on weekends, sometimes not (more holidays being taken), teleconferences... the time disappears quickly)

I do not know how the RCMP's smaller dets work in terms of relations/visits with subordinates / superiors.  There may well be lessons to learn from them.

But the part-time nature of Reserve service adds some constraints that need to be understood and respected.  Maintaining a reasonable geographic span of control is one of those elements - because travel = time, and time is what's at a premium for reservists.  There's plenty more work for me with the Reserves on a part-time basis if I want it - but I do like to maintain some semblance of a personal life besides work and the military.

 

[McG]

... but, some reserve units are sucesfully operating from multiple locations with significant geographic dispersal.  It can be done.  We just have to accept that there may be some required deviations from the regular force templated HQ structure.

 

[Rifleman62]

A reminder that unlike the Reg F, a P Res CO  does not receive a trade qualified soldier on his doorstep. The P Res CO must commit resources to train recruits to trade qualified status (winter LHQ/summer trg period). For the Reg F this is centralised with an establishment of pers.

Career management and pay for Reserves is local, not NDHQ, therefore unit resources required.

38 CBG has a large AOR and has managed to garrison the unit OR's (approaching ten years now) and had COs commanding three units in three widely separated locations. It is not perfect, but it works.

If each higher HQ's (as DAP has stated) were not so bloated, less crap would flow downward.

 

[dapaterson]

... but, some reserve units are sucesfully operating from multiple locations with significant geographic dispersal.  It can be done.  We just have to accept that there may be some required deviations from the regular force templated HQ structure.

In fact, the template (at least as it existed a year ago) was supposed to provide additional admin resources for detached elements.  However, like a tower of champagne flutes, resources poured in the top of the structure intended for the bottom oft-times end up filling the middle, with nothing left to fill the bottom tiers.  (The text is awkward, but for me the visual is effective)

The other fundamental question:  Why doe elements intended to force-generate have strucutres designed for force-employment?  Shouldn't the Reserve establishments be designed from the ground up with FG as the focus; for collective training, organize those troops into doctrinal FE elements.

(Note that some "successes" have been at the expense of the health of the leadership trying to span multiple time-zones.  I also note that we rarely maintain split Reg F units for any period of time - for example, we could move N Coy, 3 RCR back to the Wolseley barracks, and have the CO commute between London and Petawawa.  I can't see that happening any time soon.)

 

[George Wallace]

... but, some reserve units are sucesfully operating from multiple locations with significant geographic dispersal.  It can be done.  We just have to accept that there may be some required deviations from the regular force templated HQ structure.

That may be true, but how efficiently are they being run.  A "Can Do" attitude can be portrayed fairly easily and give some a false picture of what really is happening.  What is really going on, IS another matter.  One that many aI watch an OR staff handling CIMIC members who are scattered to the four corners of the earth, and see them pulling their hairs out in trying to keep track of what they are doing.  The job has gotten done in the sense that most members are getting paid, but little things like PeopleSoft entries, Releases, Transfers, Claims, etc. are falling through the cracks. 

I think dapaterson has opened up a valid point about the Reserves and the problems that they face.

 

[c4th]

... but, some reserve units are sucesfully operating from multiple locations with significant geographic dispersal.  It can be done.  We just have to accept that there may be some required deviations from the regular force templated HQ structure.

By unit I assume you mean Regiment and not a Brigade.  Define success and significant dispersal.  I think anything less than a Coy at any location is going to have a real hard time being successful.  The real litmus test will be in the coming months with an addition of a loyal eddie coy in Yellowknife.  Saskatoon and Regina may be considered significant.  I don't think there are any reserve CBG's spanning an AO greater than 1 or 2 CMBG but then brigades are less important to troops than CO’s and RSM’s.  DAP is absolutely correct that CO's and RSM's need to see their troops and it is likely that any geographic dispersment will make that difficult and I am fairly certain that there is anecdotal evidence that it is impossible.

Why disperse at all?  If we are talking about combining unit HQ's why not start with units that share the same armouries?  Chances are the respective CO’s are in the building at the same time anyway.  Combining units that span provinces certainly would not mitigate the cost of a class A CO and RSM and any other specialists required for training or HQ jobs.  If there are now fewer people working more man days and flying regional air or driving high rate from point a to b to c ...  Costs are going up.

I have yet to find any evidence that a class A soldier requires less admin and support then a reg F soldier and once you chuck in pay sheets they very well might require more.  I don't think anyone should follow any template of a HQ structure.  Get the people in place to support the aim.  If that means more clerks or OPs staff etc, get it done. 

Everybody fights with claims and peoplesoft.  It's the one offs involving multiple units and locations that seem to cause problems, at least for me.  The only difference in the PRes is that every one is a one off.

A reminder that unlike the Reg F, a P Res CO  does not receive a trade qualified soldier on his doorstep. The P Res CO must commit resources to train recruits to trade qualified status (winter LHQ/summer trg period). For the Reg F this is centralised with an establishment of pers.

A reminder that a Reg Force CO and his unit will be responsible for usually at least one PCF cycle annually which can include any course not run nationally and I would suggest that the list is more extensive than BMQ, SQ, QL3.  In today’s army most unit CO’s are required to force generate and train at least some element for deployment.  Is it advantageous to get a trade qualified soldier on the doorstep? Yes.  To suggest that the responsibility of a CO stops there or that the CO of that unit has not invested in the training of that soldier by providing TD increment staff to courses and posting leaders to schools is incorrect.  Every instructor at a school is a leader that has been trained at the unit level and for the time being cannot be employed on an inexhaustible list of unit tasks.  Getting a trained soldier whether directly training or indirectly supporting up to MOC training is the easy part.  Far more training is required to keep a unit running.

If each higher HQ's (as DAP has stated) were not so bloated, less crap would flow downward.

But who would you fire?  I could name individuals who I would love to see axed whom I’ve met throughout my military career, but undoubtedly they are performing some useful function that can’t be done at a lower level more efficiently.  Some of that crap that flows down is useful.  The rest is probably just unavoidable.

The regimental system isn’t broken.  It may be flawed but it works and I would argue has a pretty decent ROI.  Some of the trappings and redundancies could certainly be done away with IMO but I would be hesitant to risk the great results of Pres soldiers on operations and those training many levels of soldiers to save what really amounts to a few pennies.

 

[dapaterson]

Part of what's needed is better career management for the reserves.  Having been the "one of one" trade in a unit, you are neglected - not deliberately, but because it's easier to deal with the 127 that follow the same career progression.

Indeed, with some sort of career mgt you can recruit a wider range of trades within a unit and ensure their continuing development.

That's the main reason for broad AORs for some COs - so that the CO knows and understands the capabilities of the soldiers beneath them.  Otherwise you end up with one memorable exercise I was on - where a well-intentioned Inf Capt brought out the engineers to clear mines and booby traps.  Except, for exercise purposes, the "booby trap" was a bungie cord stretched between two trees.  So I said the area was clear - not knowing the enemy employed bungie cords.  Add to that the "mines" that, as I recall, were silver plastic remnants of 76mm blanks that were harmless, so we ignored them as well, and you had a memorable debacle.

 

[c4th]

Part of what's needed is better career management for the reserves…

Indeed, with some sort of career mgt you can recruit a wider range of trades within a unit and ensure their continuing development.

That's the main reason for broad AORs for some COs - so that the CO knows and understands the capabilities of the soldiers beneath them.  Otherwise you end up with one memorable exercise I was on …and you had a memorable debacle.

DAP, I’m not tracking your argument.  Career management for support trades is always an issue.  I’ve met several reg force non-cbt arm MOC soldiers employed in cbt arm units and in at least one case essentially as an infantry NCO.  No one has any idea what he needs to get promoted.  How they merit always comes up at PER time.  It certainly is not only a reserve issue.  As the saying goes, you are your own best career manager.  Don’t underestimate unit RSM’s in career management.  I know for a fact some Pres units take very good care of this.  Some are horrible. 

Recruiting does not follow career management.  It’s the other way around.

Larger AOR’s does not make for better planned or better resourced exercises.  In your example liaise with a sapper rep and TSR the appropriate stores.  If it isn’t realistic, dump it and concentrate on what is working.  With the level of Op experience and the training in today’s Pres I would say that there is no excuse for your debacle these days.  Ex’s typically happen at a finite number of training areas, so unit or formation AO isn’t relevant. Except in predicting who is actually getting on the bus. 

 

[McG]

By unit I assume you mean Regiment and not a Brigade. 

Yes, and no assumption is required.  "Unit" as defined in the CF refers to battalions and regiments (at least, as applied to the field army)  A brigade is a "formation".

Define success and significant dispersal. 

Please read this thread.  See reply #1319.  39 CER was formed as an amalgumation of 6 FES, 44 FES and 54 ESS.  It currently has a sub-units in Vancouver, Chilliwack and Trail.

For more examples we might look at 31 CER with sub-units in StThomas and Waterloo, or 4 RCR in London and Stratford, or 1H in London and Sarnia.

Why disperse at all?  If we are talking about combining unit HQ's why not start with units that share the same armouries?

Absolutely, where there are multiple platoon sized regiments of the same arm parading out of the same building then put them under a single battalion HQ (and even go a step farther by bringing other platoon sized regiments from across the city into the same chain of command.  However, it is not so simple when dealing with multiple arms.

The unit is not simply an administrative thing that hands-out pay and looks after claims.  The unit is also responsible for the Ops & plans - the individual and collective training.  Trying to mash infantry with engineers and logistics simply because they share real estate introduces a whole new span of control problem that (in my opinion) is more insurmountable than geography (which we can communicate across with modern technology).

If there are now fewer people working more man days and  ...

Again, you are not reading.  See again reply # 1319 where it is mentioned that savings (from fewer COs, RSMs, & supporting MWO-Capt floppers) should be re-invested to create more robust and flexible unit HQ organizations.  (no more of everything being dependent on a "one-of")

...  Costs ...

It is not about cost.  It is about effectiveness.  Larger & more capable units capable of more effective training.

I have yet to find any evidence that a class A soldier requires less admin and support then a reg F soldier

I don't think anyone has suggested this.

If that means more clerks or OPs staff etc, get it done. 

+1

 

[daftandbarmy]

Basic military thing:  COs and RSMs need to see and be seen by their troops.  They need to know what is going on.  But they also have full-time jobs.

And there are fewer and fewer people willing to 'flush their lives' down the toilet for two or more years to be a reservist CO/RSM because of the insane levels of commitment required - and expected. If you've got a choice between civvy career and family vs. militia career, you've got to go with the option that pays the mortgage and keeps the home fires burning... that is assuming you're relatively 'normal'.  :camo:

 

[Journeyman]

... that is assuming you're relatively 'normal'.  :camo:

Humph...."normal" is the setting on the washing machine; who wants that?  :camo:

 

[VIChris]

Being new here, I understand I may be wading into a poopstorm without a coat for this, but are there other Militias out there doing a better job than we are in similar circumstances that we can learn from or emulate? I know looking to the US is unrealistic, as they have a considerably larger force, which is generally more concentrated due to their demographics, but what of Australia, or some of the Scandinavian countries? How do they deal with their reserve forces? Has it been looked into from this end? I'm sure I'm looking at this from a very simplified view, but I'm always of the mind you should borrow your neighbors wheel before you re-invent your own.

 

[Haggis]

Being new here, I understand I may be wading into a poopstorm without a coat for this, but are there other Militias out there doing a better job than we are in similar circumstances that we can learn from or emulate?..... but what of Australia, or some of the Scandinavian countries? How do they deal with their reserve forces? Has it been looked into from this end?

Comparing Scandinavian reserve forces with Canada's is like comparing apples and scissors.  Norway, for example, doesn't have a reserve, in our sense, grouping it's members into "associations" rather than units.  Finland's Reserves are all ex-regulars and train, at most, 3-4 times a year.

As Canada's representative to AESOR, I can tell you that our Reservists are, by far, regarded as true professional "citizen soldiers" and our system (warts and all) is envied by many nations.

 

[VIChris]

Thanks for the direct answer, that clears up some of my thoughts, and gives me hope as I enter the reserves that I'm joining the best group I can join. Cheers, mate.

 

[mariomike]

I hope this is the right place for this, and has not already been posted:
"Toronto Scottish heads to new home":
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/09/11/10832871-sun.html

 

[daftandbarmy]

Being new here, I understand I may be wading into a poopstorm without a coat for this, but are there other Militias out there doing a better job than we are in similar circumstances that we can learn from or emulate? I know looking to the US is unrealistic, as they have a considerably larger force, which is generally more concentrated due to their demographics, but what of Australia, or some of the Scandinavian countries? How do they deal with their reserve forces? Has it been looked into from this end? I'm sure I'm looking at this from a very simplified view, but I'm always of the mind you should borrow your neighbors wheel before you re-invent your own.

I've had direct experience with the British TA (as a regular in the UK) and they were generally OK. They have a very similar system to ours, of course.

Since returning to Canada, I've had a few UK TA folks attached to reserve units I have been with and they have, without exception, been excellent. Very professional, balanced, switched on and multi-talented - you know, just like most of our reservists  ;D

 

[Matt_Fisher]

And there are fewer and fewer people willing to 'flush their lives' down the toilet for two or more years to be a reservist CO/RSM because of the insane levels of commitment required - and expected. If you've got a choice between civvy career and family vs. militia career, you've got to go with the option that pays the mortgage and keeps the home fires burning... that is assuming you're relatively 'normal'.  :camo:

And those are very important points which a prospective unit CO or RSM may be having to carefully consider when evaluating their candidacy for such a position.  2-3 years of frequent travel on weekends to visit the sub-units under his/her command while potentially having an adverse affect on family and professional life is only 2-3 years.  However it's not to say that there are civilian occupations whereby at an executive level, similar levels of travel and extraordinary working hours are required.

 

[dapaterson]

However it's not to say that there are civilian occupations whereby at an executive level, similar levels of travel and extraordinary working hours are required.

True.  The problem is that most people reach the point of being a CO/RSM just as such things are also arising in their civilian employment.

So, where do you cut?  Full time work?  Reserves?  Family?  Outside life?  Or do we limit ourselves to lower-tier command candidates with either (1) no life, (2) no family and/or (3) no real career outside the military?

 

[Journeyman]

... do we limit ourselves to lower-tier command candidates with either (1) no life, (2) no family and/or (3) no real career outside the military?

  Hello! I'm right here in the room. I can hear you.

;D

I suspect that what plays out in many cases is that they've invested so much time that when 'the golden ring' is in-sight, they take the promotion even though they know they cannot dedicate adequate time to the position. As such, we're stuck with less-than-stellar leadership.

 

[dapaterson]

  Hello! I'm right here in the room. I can hear you.

;D

No, no.  I'm not talking about you, else I'd have included (4) No appreciable talents and (5) No social skills.

I suspect that what plays out in many cases is that they've invested so much time that when 'the golden ring' is in-sight, they take the promotion even though they know they cannot dedicate adequate time to the position. As such, we're stuck with less-than-stellar leadership.

We've also built a system where we need to churn out, on an annual basis, 40 LCols (~120 units on a three year cycle).  If we reduce that number we may have better luck and a better quality line.

(And transfers from the Reg F directly into command positions can be fraught with danger - if the individual has no experience with the Reserves it makes for a very rocky road for both the individual and the unit; soem can do well, but many founder - and can inadvertently do damage to a unit that will take a long time to repair).