• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Army Reserve Restructuring

They're not going to be setting ambushes for Russian armour any time soon. But that's not what they're for. Lentus is a thing. GSAR is a thing. High intensity warfighting is not the only thing. Don't be so dismissive.
I'm not being dismissive; I'm just using a particular measure. Warfighting is the only thing that really matters to "military readiness". The rest is just things the military can do, as can many civilian agencies.
 
I'm not being dismissive; I'm just using a particular measure. Warfighting is the only thing that really matters to "military readiness". The rest is just things the military can do, as can many civilian agencies.
And in a world where we had a military that focused exclusively on expeditionary warfighting, and some other organization that focused exclusively on domestic emergencies, then maybe you would have a great point. But that's not the world we're currently living in. The Rangers provide a valuable and underappreciated domestic response capability that costs peanuts to maintain. They're a valuable asset, and while you're correct that they don't offer a great deal more in the way of warfighting capability than civilians do, I would still argue that it was an uncharitable comment for you to have made.

Not trying to start a bunfight, we can agree to disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ueo
And in a world where we had a military that focused exclusively on expeditionary warfighting, and some other organization that focused exclusively on domestic emergencies, then maybe you would have a great point. But that's not the world we're currently living in. The Rangers provide a valuable and underappreciated domestic response capability that costs peanuts to maintain. They're a valuable asset, and while you're correct that they don't offer a great deal more in the way of warfighting capability than civilians do, I would still argue that it was an uncharitable comment for you to have made.

Not trying to start a bullfight, we can agree to disagree.
I think you both have a point that they really are not a Military entity. They are a Domestic Watch/Response Entity that is administrated by the CA.

The fact that in times of need, they would need to be buttressed by CA units to Defend/Operate in their AOR. I don't consider that a knock against them, just a realistic observation.
 
I would still argue that it was an uncharitable comment for you to have made.
The point that they're not really a fighting force or close to being one is neither charitable nor uncharitable. I'm pushing back against the notion that the Canadian Rangers are some sort of model for increasing voluntary participation in the Militia, in a way that is useful for supporting what the Army needs the Militia to be.
 
The historical genesis of the Rangers was the Pacific Coast Militia Rangers.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...MQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3rmsi0ibGUJw0PKqWvKaBc

I suspect that a similar role would not be considered politically palatable today, for reasons that are probably self evident. I suspect this may be the nucleus of Brad's point, but I disagree with him nonetheless and as explained below.



No. Hard disagree. They are organized into formed bodies that have at least something of a C2 structure to them, and they have the drive and the gumption to respond in an organized fashion when an emergency befalls their local area. They have proven their ability to integrate with and contribute to the efforts of conventional CAF elements within the context of Op LENTUS domops, often providing the benefit of local knowledge and local resources that those conventional CAF units might have otherwise lacked. That's a lot more readiness than civilians have, man.

They're not going to be setting ambushes for Russian armour any time soon. But that's not what they're for. Lentus is a thing. GSAR is a thing. High intensity warfighting is not the only thing. Don't be so dismissive.

The point that they're not really a fighting force or close to being one is neither charitable nor uncharitable. I'm pushing back against the notion that the Canadian Rangers are some sort of model for increasing voluntary participation in the Militia, in a way that is useful for supporting what the Army needs the Militia to be.


Where my position starts from is watching and participating in the discussions on this site over a number of years where the participants regularly swing back and forth on the issue of emergency preparedness and disaster assistance.

There are those that see the Regs being involved, those that see the Reserves involved and those that find the entire concept a distraction.

My thinking has evolved to see the merits of a full-time Regular force geared towards expeditionary warfare and that that expeditionary warfare should start in our own backyard but not be limited to that. NORAD, NATO, ABCANZUS and similar alliances should be supported aggressively.

If we generated something like the Home Guard / Southern Rangers under the auspices of Emergency Preparedness then we could relieve the Reserves of the burden of those types of operations and allow them to focus on supplying additional capabilities and augmentations for the Regulars.

So Regulars, Reserves and Rangers/Home Guard as three separate tiers of response but all co-ordinated through DND.

Add in a civilian logistics component for sea and airlift and I would be quite content.

And if I were content then I might not spend as much time annoying people on this site. Surely that must be worth something? :D

PS - the other advantage that I see in the Ranger/Home Guard model is that it connects the community to the Government and these days, especially, I think there is a lot to be said for that.
 
The point that they're not really a fighting force or close to being one is neither charitable nor uncharitable. I'm pushing back against the notion that the Canadian Rangers are some sort of model for increasing voluntary participation in the Militia, in a way that is useful for supporting what the Army needs the Militia to be.
I suspect we're in violent agreement then: they aren't a fighting force, I've never said they are one, and in fact the idea that they aren't a fighting force is one of the misconceptions that needs to be better understood across the CAF. If I misunderstood your point then I apologize. But when you commented on their readiness vs civilians this is perhaps where I misunderstood and where I most certainly took issue.
 
I'm not being dismissive; I'm just using a particular measure. Warfighting is the only thing that really matters to "military readiness". The rest is just things the military can do, as can many civilian agencies.
I think that "warfighting the only thing that really matters to 'military readiness.'" Is shortsighted and is dismissive. I'm not sure where you are going with this, but living in the local community, having extensive knowledge of local conditions, being able to guide and advise are all things that a Ranger organization can and does do. The military doesn't because on a day-to-day basis its an inward looking agency that has isolated itself into a few bases.

I think you both have a point that they really are not a Military entity. They are a Domestic Watch/Response Entity that is administrated by the CA.

The fact that in times of need, they would need to be buttressed by CA units to Defend/Operate in their AOR. I don't consider that a knock against them, just a realistic observation.
Let's split some hairs here. Rangers are very definitely a military entity. The NDA makes them as such. They are a reserve force component that exists at different capability levels for different purposes than the other components.

The point that they're not really a fighting force or close to being one is neither charitable nor uncharitable.
Then why dwell on it?

I'm pushing back against the notion that the Canadian Rangers are some sort of model for increasing voluntary participation in the Militia, in a way that is useful for supporting what the Army needs the Militia to be.
Why push back on it? Expanding a Ranger program is a cheap way of obtaining involvement in rural communities where even ARes organizations have no penetration. Bringing a positive image of the CF into local communities is by and of itself a good thing and may even enhance recruitment. Having local knowledge to quickly draw on in the case of a disaster in the community is also a good thing.

I guess the question is what you mean by a "Militia." I think @Kirkhill and you have different ideas as to what a Militia is. For the record, I don't think that the Army has a hot clue what it wants the Militia (AKA Ares) to be other than Class Bs and augmentees. The Army has had an overly restricted view of the ARes for a half a century despite urgings from both government and review reports. @Kirkhill's concepts of a sedentary militia/home guard system is IMHO a good one which could be built on the Ranger system with some imagination and effort.

For some reason the Canadian miliary can't think in terms of mass (except when staffing NDHQ). Thinking about how to expand the military footprint in an economical fashion is something that it should do.

$0.02

🍻
 
I would like to see eventually is platoon sized Reserve elements in the North centred on large communities that can support the Rangers and these Reservists. Their job is to be the muscle for the Rangers in their region. They learn the basic Ranger skill as a base, then the use of weapons up to the Carl G and 60mm mortar. They focus on the weapon and arctic warfare skills. It will take time to build them up to be useful.
 
I would like to see eventually is platoon sized Reserve elements in the North centred on large communities that can support the Rangers and these Reservists. Their job is to be the muscle for the Rangers in their region. They learn the basic Ranger skill as a base, then the use of weapons up to the Carl G and 60mm mortar. They focus on the weapon and arctic warfare skills. It will take time to build them up to be useful.

If you wanted you could build on the Eddie's Company in Yellowknife. You could still maintain a separation between the Rangers and their terms of service and the Reserves and their's.
 
I think that "warfighting the only thing that really matters to 'military readiness.'" Is shortsighted and is dismissive. I'm not sure where you are going with this, but living in the local community, having extensive knowledge of local conditions, being able to guide and advise are all things that a Ranger organization can and does do. The military doesn't because on a day-to-day basis its an inward looking agency that has isolated itself into a few bases.
But he isn't wrong in that outside of a invasion, they don't offer the CA any more PY.
I think the CRPG setup is a great outreach system and solid bang for the buck.
Let's split some hairs here. Rangers are very definitely a military entity. The NDA makes them as such. They are a reserve force component that exists at different capability levels for different purposes than the other components.
Part of the Military yes, but I disagree that makes them a Military force.

Expanding a Ranger program is a cheap way of obtaining involvement in rural communities where even ARes organizations have no penetration. Bringing a positive image of the CF into local communities is by and of itself a good thing and may even enhance recruitment. Having local knowledge to quickly draw on in the case of a disaster in the community is also a good thing.
Agree 110%
I guess the question is what you mean by a "Militia." I think @Kirkhill and you have different ideas as to what a Militia is. For the record, I don't think that the Army has a hot clue what it wants the Militia (AKA Ares) to be other than Class Bs and augmentees. The Army has had an overly restricted view of the ARes for a half a century despite urgings from both government and review reports. @Kirkhill's concepts of a sedentary militia/home guard system is IMHO a good one which could be built on the Ranger system with some imagination and effort.

For some reason the Canadian miliary can't think in terms of mass (except when staffing NDHQ). Thinking about how to expand the military footprint in an economical fashion is something that it should do.

$0.02

🍻
To me the "Militia" means a bunch of rag tag clowns playing at playing soldier.
I think a professional Army Primary Reserve should be intertwined with the Regular Army simply because they both need each other to fulfill any sort of missions, and also need to find a common front to move forward with.

The CRPG system to be is an outlier from the PRes, as they aren't generating bodies towards an Expeditionary Force.
 
Then why dwell on it?
Because it shouldn't be necessary to make some sort of participation trophy preamble to stating that some group isn't suited to something. I suppose I'm the problem here - people are becoming increasingly thin-skinned, and I'm stuck where I was 40 years ago.
 
To me the "Militia" means a bunch of rag tag clowns playing at playing soldier.
As it does to me, but I use it as a formal descriptor. I suppose I should use "Primary Reserve", but I wanted to separate out the Army-oriented part of the Res F sub-component that is not Supp Res, Rangers, or Cadets.
 
Question for legal types. Would CIC, Rangers and supp res be legitimate military targets as part of the ResF? Assuming a wide scale existential conflict?
 
Back to the main theme. The Rangers and Cadets are already good enough for purpose; I don't know whether the Supp Res is worth what it costs, but it's there. Stuff controlled by DND doesn't have to be uniformed. Uniformed emergency preparedness seems pointless and contradictory - we should be de-uniforming things that can be de-uniformed and moving them out of the CAF. People who want to be involved in EP can find a lot of organizations to attach to as volunteers; if there needs to be a new federal agency, fine, but make it non-uniformed. Peak use for PRes dom ops seems to be fire season, which is also PRes training season.
 
Peak use for PRes dom ops seems to be fire season, which is also PRes training season.

Until the 'Big one' hits, of course ;)

tsunami GIF
 
To me the "Militia" means a bunch of rag tag clowns playing at playing soldier.
I think a professional Army Primary Reserve should be intertwined with the Regular Army simply because they both need each other to fulfill any sort of missions, and also need to find a common front to move forward with.
I agree with the idea of intertwined and needing each other. The term professional reserve is a bit of a contradiction. One of the definitions of "professional" is "one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime," albeit one can also look at it as being part of the "profession of arms." I always looked at the reserve force as falling short of professionalism due to the fact that they simply are not engaged full-time in learning their craft. They practice their craft enough to reach a level of competence but never full competence.

Just as an aside, I'm one of the few guys on this board who has ever actually served in the "Militia." The name changed in 1968 to "Mobile Command Reserve" then "Land Force Reserve" and finally "Canadian Army Reserve." One thing that I can say about the Militia that I served in was that it was equipped with the same equipment that the RegF had and we really weren't rag tag clowns playing soldiers. We weren't trained to the same extent as the RegF but we could be slotted in very quickly to ramp up their war-time establishments and even form a dozen additional gun batteries for the army. That all changed after unification/integration.

The CRPG system to be is an outlier from the PRes, as they aren't generating bodies towards an Expeditionary Force.
The CRPG are a sub component of the reserve force separate from the other sub components including the primary reserve. They don't need to generate bodies towards an expeditionary force because their role is exclusively domestic defence. At their most basic, they're like the old WW2 Australian coast watcher service. In fact I think our Rangers arose out of the WW2 Canadian Pacific Coast Militia Rangers, voluntary civilians, who performed surveillance along the Pacific coastline.

Being a military force gives the CAF a lot of flexibility as to what to do with the Rangers. If it wanted to expand it further inland , it could. If it wanted to take more training and become more "combat capable," it could. If it wanted to make it more of a "home guard," it could. Personally, I think they fit into a good niche albeit I think it would be wise to expand them further into areas where we frequently deploy on Op Lentus and start using them as a source of domestic ops augmentees. In my own napkin force I have the four CRPGs OPCON to the two coastal regiments and the light and medium brigades responsible for northern operations. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the primary expeditionary brigades.

Because it shouldn't be necessary to make some sort of participation trophy preamble to stating that some group isn't suited to something. I suppose I'm the problem here - people are becoming increasingly thin-skinned, and I'm stuck where I was 40 years ago.
Actually if that "thin-skinned" was directed at me I should just point out that I hadn't participated in the prior debate. I just thought that some of the later comments were unnecessarily condescending. I see it as one of the problems with the CAF which has a tendency to see itself in tiers where much of the time one tier looks down on the lower levels and questions whether they are value for money worth keeping. Every time one of the lower tiers says "I can do more" the upper tiers immediately react negatively in fear that it will effect their funding and/or status.

🍻
 
Last edited:
Actually if that "thin-skinned" was directed at me I should just point out that I hadn't participated in the prior debate. I just thought that some of the later comments were unnecessarily condescending. I see it as one of the problems with the CAF which has a tendency to see itself in tiers where much of the time one tier looks down on the lower levels and questions whether they are value for money worth keeping. Every time one of the lower tiers says "I can do more" the upper tiers immediately react negatively in fear that it will effect their funding and/or status.
It wasn't directed at you. It isn't looking down on any part of the whole to state its limitations plainly.
 
I agree with the idea of intertwined and needing each other. The term professional reserve is a bit of a contradiction. One of the definitions of "professional" is "one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime," albeit one can also look at it as being part of the "profession of arms." I always looked at the reserve force as falling short of professionalism due to the fact that they simply are not engaged full-time in learning their craft. They practice their craft enough to reach a level of competence but never full competence.
Arguably no one achieves full competence until bullets start flying as training has artificial constructs in it for a number of reasons, safety being one, but budget is a major factor.


Just as an aside, I'm one of the few guys on this board who has ever actually served in the "Militia." The name changed in 1968 to "Mobile Command Reserve" then "Land Force Reserve" and finally "Canadian Army Reserve." One thing that I can say about the Militia that I served in was that it was equipped with the same equipment that the RegF had and we really weren't rag tag clowns playing soldiers. We weren't trained to the same extent as the RegF but we could be slotted in very quickly to ramp up their war-time establishments and even form a dozen additional gun batteries for the army. That all changed after unification/integration.
Interesting, when I joined 30Fd in 1987 the recruiting pamphlets still referred to Militia.

The CRPG are a sub component of the reserve force separate from the other sub components including the primary reserve. They don't need to generate bodies towards an expeditionary force because their role is exclusively domestic defence.
Agreed, but my point had been that is what makes them and outlier.


Being a military force gives the CAF a lot of flexibility as to what to do with the Rangers. If it wanted to expand it further inland , it could. If it wanted to take more training and become more "combat capable," it could. If it wanted to make it more of a "home guard," it could.
I think trying to make them a combat capable entity would result in a net loss. Accept them for what they are, and don’t try to shoe horn them into something they are not.

Personally, I think they fit into a good niche albeit I think it would be wise to expand them further into areas where we frequently deploy on Op Lentus and start using them as a source of domestic ops augmentees.
Agree.
In my own napkin force I have the four CRPGs OPCON to the two coastal regiments and the light and medium brigades responsible for northern operations. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the primary expeditionary brigades.
Without massive expansion of infrastructure and airlift, I don’t see the Medium units being practical for the North.

Frankly one of the main reasons I believe that Canada should have an Airborne/Para Bde is Arctic Response.
 
Back
Top