A small point.
Since the mid-1960s, the practice of disbanding units, either RegF or ResF, was changed to placing them on the "Supplementary Order of Battle." As an example, none of 3 RCHA nor 4 RCHA, nor 29 Fd Regt nor 42 Med Regt were disbanded, they were placed on the SoB.
3 RCHA and 4 RCHA, two RegF arty regts, were reduced to nil strength, placed on the SoB. Some of 4 RCHA's pers became redundant and the arty's PYs reduced and the pers either remustered or took voluntary release. 3 RCHA's became part of 1 RCHA as gunners were redistributed across the army when 4 CMBG stood down.
29 Fd and 42 Med, two ResF arty regts, were placed on the SoB, and had their personnel amalgamated into a new unit called 7 Toronto Regt RCA.
Units placed on the SoB can be returned to service as either RegF or ResF units. There are currently 3 armoured, 9 infantry (incl 1 RegF) and 23 artillery regiments (incl 2 RegF) on the SoB. Note that some RegF battalions/regts when reduced to nil strength - e.g. the Black Watch, Queen's Own Rifles, Fort Gary Horse - were not placed on the SoB but instead had their identity continued in their ResF counterparts.
Units can also come back from the SoB in various ways. The Halifax Rifles were re-established as a RegF unit. The Irish Fusiliers of Canada and the 19th Alberta Dragoons were brought back from the SoB and were merged into the BCR and the SALH respectively.
Whenever we speak about amalgamations, a number of thoughts run through my head, all having to do with mobilization.
Merging units or placing the redundant ones on the SoB, such as happened in the 60s, is easy and even allows for them to be revived when needed for mobilization. However, during the interval the identity and history and culture of units placed on the SoB is lost and needs to be reinvented.
My preference is in keeping unit identities clearly alive during merger. For example in a 30/70 or 25/75 hybrid unit, with one RegF and 2 or 3 ResF units each company could have its own identity and culture but still be combined in such a way that it is unified into one command under one CO thereby facilitating training and deployment. For me this is especially important if one of the objectives is rapidly expanding the force through recruiting and mobilization whereby one hybrid battalion (of some 3 or 4 identities) has the core to lead and train 3 or 4 new battalions worth of new recruits each with its own identity, history and culture perpetuated. I'm a believer in never wasting good. IMHO, the regimental system is good.
Incidentally I find a fair bit of hypocrisy within the RegF as to merger and placing units on the SoB. They'll readily want to merge ResF units because of manpower shortages but raise the issue of placing a 2nd or 3rd battalion or RegF regt on the SoB and the wailing starts. When the QOR, RHR, Cdn Gds, FGH, 8 CH and 4 RCHA all left the RegF order of battle you would have thought the world had ended.
$0.02
