Updated Army Service Dress project

[markppcli]

And New Zealand too!

Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Let’s not copy New Zealand, we don’t need 2nd 1st Bns. No two- one, second first

 

[daftandbarmy]

What does a self respecting Patricia look like, in case I ever meet one?

In their mind's eye...

 

[markppcli]

Since almost all of our infantry is now mounted, wouldn't "Royal Canadian Dragoons" make more sense?

Probably don’t want to deal with that much frost bite…

 

[Halifax Tar]

You joke (or not) but that's pretty much what the Australians did.

Royal Australian Regiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It makes complete sense. From the outside you can plainly see a key factor holding the Army back is regimental affiliations. Its even more pronounced in the ARes.

 

[ArmyRick]

Let’s not copy New Zealand, we don’t need 2nd 1st Bns. No two- one, second first

Thats not confusing, right?

 

[ArmyRick]

So that’s the rub. See the previous post about no “self respecting patricia” - that’s the attitude that “heavily suggests” members shell out their own money.

Ummm, you weren't around for the "wall of shame" notification. I remember one year the CSM (will remained unnamed) put up a list of the company highlighting who was/wasn't a member of the regimental association, mind you 1995 was a different era

 

[ArmyRick]

It makes complete sense. From the outside you can plainly see a key factor holding the Army back is regimental affiliations. Its even more pronounced in the ARes.

Regimental associations and Hon Col/LCol with strong political connections enter the chat... (Sadly so)

 

[Halifax Tar]

Regimental associations and Hon Col/LCol with strong political connections enter the chat... (Sadly so)

We've torn down bigger empires before.

 

[FSTO]

Didn't Minister of the Militia Hughes tried to dispense of the regiments back in WWI?

 

[FSTO]

We've torn down bigger empires before.

Hellyer prisoned that well for a couple of dozen generations.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Hellyer prisoned that well for a couple of dozen generations.

So what you're saying is the precedence is there ?

 

[ArmyRick]

I have no issues with the regiments when it makes sense. So if the X Highlanders or Y Rifles actually parade WELL over a company size, then i have no issue with it.

But when you see a LT COL and CWO leading 50-100 guys with all the usual battalion HQ stuff, its wasteful.

The last regiment I served with, the CO "explained" how its important to have all that command structure so that the unit "could expand quickly" during a mobilization. Ala WW2.

Except, I personally think, it won't work. Unless we really re-vamp the P Res.

This all falls back on a REALISTIC and more specific defence policy and not wish washy, generic, status quo SSE

 

[ArmyRick]

I have more respect for how our Nav Res and Air Res does things.

 

[dapaterson]

The Reg F Infantry have over 100 LCols on PML, with only ten hard command positions.

While there is some valid institutional overhead... Let's just say that it's not just the P Res that needs to decide how credible their structures are.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The Reg F Infantry have over 100 LCols on PML, with only ten hard command positions.

While there is some valid institutional overhead... Let's just say that it's not just the P Res that needs to decide how credible their structures are.

How many of those position should belong to Log or Engineering or other branches I wonder ?

It never ceases to amaze me how such a small facet of the CAF manages to bogart so much.

 

[dapaterson]

Apportionment of positions for officer DP3 is imbalanced towards Ops occupations, which results in skewed populations particularly at Capt(N)/Col and above.

There are also larger questions about the size of the officer corps, and numbers of high ranking individuals; the 1997 report to the PM on Leadership and Management of the CAF recommended no more than 65 Reg F GOFOs; today, we are close to double that.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Apportionment of positions for officer DP3 is imbalanced towards Ops occupations, which results in skewed populations particularly at Capt(N)/Col and above.

Is there a reason for this beyond cultural dominance ? Im willing to be educated.

There are also larger questions about the size of the officer corps, and numbers of high ranking individuals; the 1997 report to the PM on Leadership and Management of the CAF recommended no more than 65 Reg F GOFOs; today, we are close to double that.

Dont forget just about every GO/FO comes with a CPO1/CWO as well.

 

[dapaterson]

The total number of Cdr/LCol+ is (last I looked) about 3x the number of CPO1/CWO. Lots more officers to cull in a sickly season than CWOs.

 

[markppcli]

Ummm, you weren't around for the "wall of shame" notification. I remember one year the CSM (will remained unnamed) put up a list of the company highlighting who was/wasn't a member of the regimental association, mind you 1995 was a different era

Oh no that’s still a thing, maybe not a wall but “I’m filling out duties and can’t help but look at my list of regimental dues unpaid.”

It makes complete sense. From the outside you can plainly see a key factor holding the Army back is regimental affiliations. It’s even more pronounced in the ARes.

I still think regimental pride is more a benefit than a hinderance; but we definitely have too many of them.

 

[OldSolduer]

IMO there is nothing wrong with Regiments - its the people who make up the Regiment that are the issue.

We have seen where loyalty to a Regiment instead of the country has resulted in a catastrophic failure that is still being felt today.

Not only that, In the 70s if you wanted to take an OT from the infantry you were looked upon as a traitor. Thankfully that attitude changed.