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

[geo]

If I use Montreal as an example, there are 5 Reserve / militia infantry battalions in the downtown core (RMR, BW, CGG, FMR & R de Mais... plus a Med coy, CER, Armd, Guns and Navy  - all within a 2-4 mile radius... How on earth can anyone expect all these units to recruit let alone train AND retain new troops.
(I'm pert sure that the GTA is in the same boat)...

There will come a time when we will have to pare down and reinvent the wheel...

 

[aesop081]

- With all of the money nowadays, we should be maxing out the Militia to 1,000 man bns, if they can recruit that high.

I would say you have serious misconceptions about the amount of money thats available. Unless of course you were being sarcastic.

 

[Kendrick]

If I use Montreal as an example, there are 5 Reserve / militia infantry battalions in the downtown core (RMR, BW, CGG, FMR & R de Mais... plus a Med coy, CER, Armd, Guns and Navy   - all within a 2-4 mile radius... How on earth can anyone expect all these units to recruit let alone train AND retain new troops.
(I'm pert sure that the GTA is in the same boat)...

There will come a time when we will have to pare down and reinvent the wheel...

I'm right there with you on that one.  But we both know how hard it will be to get the old ones to give up, or put aside, all the regimental traditions and history each have.  Will they agree to give up the hackle, the kilt, the forage cap, the busby's, and everything else, to merge into a new unit with new traditions?  It would be the smart thing to do, but a hard battle to be fought I think.  Will all these regiments ever be able to compromise?

 

[Michael OLeary]

I'm right there with you on that one.  But we both know how hard it will be to get the old ones to give up, or put aside, all the regimental traditions and history each have.  Will they agree to give up the hackle, the kilt, the forage cap, the busby's, and everything else, to merge into a new unit with new traditions?  It would be the smart thing to do, but a hard battle to be fought I think.  Will all these regiments ever be able to compromise?

It's happened before.  Can anyone name an existing unit that has never been amalgamated or re-roled, or changed name, equipment, dress or organization since its original authorization?

 

[aesop081]

I'm right there with you on that one.  But we both know how hard it will be to get the old ones to give up, or put aside, all the regimental traditions and history each have.  Will they agree to give up the hackle, the kilt, the forage cap, the busby's, and everything else, to merge into a new unit with new traditions?  It would be the smart thing to do, but a hard battle to be fought I think.  Will all these regiments ever be able to compromise?

"agree" ?

This is the military right ?

 

[Remius]

Some units can grow but are hindered by establishment numbers and how many spots they can get on courses.  

Certainly you can merge some units into larger battallions.  Ottawa has two infantry units with two more in outlying areas, Cornwall and Brockville.  Merge them under one command structure.

Get rid of trades that can't perform or are not up to regular force standards.  Like reserve MPs (not the air ones) and med techs and possibly even armoured recce (I mean they drive G-wagons for god's sake).  none of those trades get any skilled standing when they CT anyway. Turn those into specialist or advanced training for the infantry guys.

Concentrate numbers in the infantry/CERs/arty units and support trades that are viable like MSEops, Supply techs, RMS clerks as well as the Sigs.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Some units can grow but are hindered by establishment numbers and how many spots they can get on courses.  

Certainly you can merge some units into larger battallions.  Ottawa has two infantry units with two more in outlying areas, Cornwall and Brockville.  Merge them under one command structure.

Get rid of trades that can't perform or are not up to regular force standards.  Like reserve MPs (not the air ones) and med techs and possibly even armoured recce (I mean they drive G-wagons for god's sake).  none of those trades get any skilled standing when they CT anyway. Turn those into specialist or advanced training for the infantry guys.

Concentrate numbers in the infantry/CERs/arty units and support trades that are viable like MSEops, Supply techs, RMS clerks as well as the Sigs.

You're assuming that there's a properly resourced master plan for the reserves somewhere beyond 'fill up the rifle sections of reg force units when required' that would drive this decision making.  :

 

[Remius]

You're assuming that there's a properly resourced master plan for the reserves somewhere beyond 'fill up the rifle sections of reg force units when required' that would drive this decision making.  :

I don't assume that at all.  otherwise this thread wouldn't exist 

 

[blacktriangle]

Some units can grow but are hindered by establishment numbers and how many spots they can get on courses.  

Certainly you can merge some units into larger battallions.  Ottawa has two infantry units with two more in outlying areas, Cornwall and Brockville.  Merge them under one command structure.

Get rid of trades that can't perform or are not up to regular force standards.  Like reserve MPs (not the air ones) and med techs and possibly even armoured recce (I mean they drive G-wagons for god's sake).  none of those trades get any skilled standing when they CT anyway. Turn those into specialist or advanced training for the infantry guys.

Concentrate numbers in the infantry/CERs/arty units and support trades that are viable like MSEops, Supply techs, RMS clerks as well as the Sigs.

Makes sense to me. My armoured unit hardly does mounted ex's and when we do, they are in G wagons. However, the soldiers in the unit are very good and could do awesome jobs in something else. Most of us younger folks wouldn't care, and those who don't feel like walking can quit.

 

[daftandbarmy]

A good explanation of why we're at where we're at now. It's all a recruiting ploy within the context of a small peacetime organization that needs to staff up quickly in time of general war.

How do we fix it to meet the needs of an age when it's unlikely we'll ever have to 'mobilize' and deploy an entire army rapidly? (I hope) Not sure. Maybe we should go back to numbered battalions, like we did in 1914?



The British system

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/stuff/british_regimental_system.htm

There are numerous reasons why the British Army deviated from the Regimental system practiced by the rest of Europe.  Some were practical, the British Army has historical been a small force by European standards and in many cases it would have been impossible to fill out three Battalions in peace time, without severely reducing the number of Regiments maintained.  That in turn would have an impact on the recruiting grounds they used.  While there was no doubting the efficiency of the Continental system, the heavy French influence (a nation who the British Army spent the best part of the 1700s locked in combat with) made a straight copy more than pride could stand.  Instead, what evolved over the centuries was a flexible system, which despite its faults continues in use today.

The key divergence between the British and Continental use of the Regiment was that the British did not attach a tactical significance to the Regiment.  In the British view, the strength of the Regiment lay in its recruiting power.  The practice of referring to a Regiment by the name of its current Colonel ended in 1751, and in 1782, the now numbered Regiments were linked to a county, and some counties were able to support more than one Regiment (the 44th East Essex and 56th West Essex Regiments for example).  This helped fuse a sense of belonging and history between an ephemeral body such as a Regiment, and its recruiting base.  When war came, as so often it did, men would flock to their 'local' Regiment, in which other members of their own family had very likely served.

 

[TCBF]

... and possibly even armoured recce (I mean they drive G-wagons for god's sake).  none of those trades get any skilled standing when they CT anyway. Turn those into specialist or advanced training for the infantry ...

- Eventually, the skills we develop during our current "Rear Area Security" operations in Afghanistan may be used in Canada.  When that happens, lightly equiped and highly mobile Reserve "Recce" regiments will be used in economy of force operations on urban cordons, checkpoints, border crossings and sundry surveillance tasks.

 

[TCBF]

I would say you have serious misconceptions about the amount of money thats available. Unless of course you were being sarcastic.

- I was/am serious.  These are not the lean 90s.  If someone high enough wants the money spent - it is spent.

 

[McG]

- With all of the money nowadays, we should be maxing out the Militia to 1,000 man bns, if they can recruit that high.

- I was/am serious.  These are not the lean 90s.  If someone high enough wants the money spent - it is spent.

Okay, what is the requirement for growing by this much?  What is the lacking capability that we would be provided?

 

[TCBF]

- Let me get this straight.  Some people claim that reserve units should be restructured/amalgamated/etc for a failure to achieve critical mass.  I then state that money could be found to allow some units to achieve critical mass.  You ask me why.  My first answer is:

"Why - to avoid being disbanded, of course!"

;D

My second answer is: "Because we desparately need those soldiers to train reservists in other units that cannot maintain a critical mass because they have too many officers and NCOs filling holes in the Reg F."

In other words - logically speaking - we cannot punish a unit for not doing that which we will not fund it to do.

Right?

- Kindly see other threads relating to this.

 

[McG]

So, it is your belief that we should grow for the glory of the regimental system.  Military requirements of the nation & CF objectives should not be the guiding factor in how we organize & structure?

 

[TCBF]

So, it is your belief that we should grow for the glory of the regimental system.  Military requirements of the nation & CF objectives should not be the guiding factor in how we organize & structure?

- I swear to Pete, if jumping to conclusions was an olympic sport, you would be national team captain.

- I have made it quite clear on this and other threads what I believe.  Go put words in other people's mouths now, if you please.

 

[McG]

- I swear to Pete, if jumping to conclusions was an olympic sport, you would be national team captain.

I asked a question, and you failed to communicate your full thoughts in the answer yet this is my fault?  If you want people to connect the dots, you'd better make sure you've put all the dots out there.

I have made it quite clear on this and other threads what I believe. 

Not really.  You've presented two reasons for growth.  The sarcastic reason was so that regiments don't have to amalgamate or be deactivated.  The serious  reason was so regiments better able to fill their ranks could take on the job of babysitting regiments that were understrength.  You have presented absolutely zero in the way of a military requirement for every reserve unit to be given a 1000 person manning authorization.  This would be between a nine and tenfold growth!

If you are not proposing growth for the sake of the regiment, then what is it?

 

[TCBF]

-  Some posters on this and other threads have implied that reserve units are in danger of being 're-orged' if they cannot keep up their strength.  My point is that in many cases they cannot keep up their strength because they are limited to a certain strength or man-day limit.  With their increasing loss to fill vacancies on tours and into what once would have been Reg F positions, these units now have few officers and NCOs to teach their own armoury-floor sustainment BMQs.  Hence the cancellation of Maple Defender this summer. 

- My regrets for not expressing myself quasi-concisely on the same thread.  This is a subject-group we are chasing all over the site.  A Hydra. 

- No, I do not believe the glorification of all things past should be the main point of effort of any renewal.  I do, however, believe that the automatic assumption that we must reorganize is situating the estimate.

- We started by talking about units being understrength.  Are they?  Lift their limits on recruiting and courses, and subtract all of the pers they have on Class B and tours from their establishments - they should not be punished for providing full-time help to the CF.  That may help us see if their failure to recruit and retain was a result of nationally mandated policies or local conditions.

- We should retain a regimental structure because of it's flexibility.  The Brits have a combined NBC regiment consisting of 1 RTR and an 27 Sqn RAF Regt.   You can re-role a regt and retain it's customs, history and local affiliation.  The GGFG have gone from Infantry to Tank and back to Infantry.  Need a bunch of reserve Mess Tin Repair Bns?  Re-role A Company of the The Foreskin Fusileers, and a company from a bunch of other units, too..  keep the other companies infantry.  Need more mess tin guys?  Give some of the infantrymen in B Company a second trade.

 

[rifleman]

TCBF - Now you are talking sense. There is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water.

But now we can get back to the strawman..... amalgamate units

 

[McG]

... and still, the only reason I see for your proposal to grow is to ensure the preservation of every regiment.

Some posters on this and other threads have implied that reserve units are in danger of being 're-orged' if they cannot keep up their strength.  My point is that in many cases they cannot keep up their strength because they are limited to a certain strength or man-day limit. 

Yes, reserve units do have manning ceilings but, we should not open the flood gates for them to get as large as they want/can.  The issue is not about punishing units because they are small.  The Army reserve as a whole is only funded for so many pers.  If that manning ceiling is right (and there is room to debate that) then we don't gain by growing units.  In fact, it may only serve to the greater detriment of the CF as a whole.

If we don't need to grow & there are significant potentials available through amalgamations & tactical groupings, then we'd only be hurting ourselves not to take advantage of that.  If the Army reserve is the right size, then it would be irresponsible to grow regiments just for the sake of making them viable.

No, I do not believe the glorification of all things past should be the main point of effort of any renewal.  I do, however, believe that the automatic assumption that we must reorganize is situating the estimate.

Are you not situating the estimate by suggesting that we still require all the regiments of old?

We should retain a regimental structure because of it's flexibility.

I'm not suggesting we dump the regimental system.  However, no individual regiment should be untouchable.  If an amalgamation or tactical grouping improves our overall effectiveness (note: no talk of efficiency) then that is a good thing for the CF.

Now, if you want to come back and discuss CF requirements for a larger Army reserve, then you'd be laying the ground work for suggesting bigger units.  Bigger units for the sake of making regiments viable is not a CF requirement; it is cap badge welfare.