Canadian Reserve Forces Vs US Reserve Forces

[George Wallace]

This is not a Thread on who can beat who, but on WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO?

In various threads we have heard it said over and over again that the Reserves should have better equipment.  That they should be equipped the same as the Regular Force.  We can all see that the Regular Force is under equipped, and the chances of the Reserves therefore getting equipment scales the same as the Regular Force are very slim. 

Would equipping our reserves the same of the Regular Force (if it were also completely equipped.) be viable?  Would they need more?  Would they need to have Pay and Pension equal to the Regular Force?  Would they need Job Protection Legislation from the Government to protect their civilian jobs?  Would they be able to get Courses that are to Regular Force Standards?  Would they have to sign legally binding forms stating that they are "Deployable" in the event of an 'emergency'?  Would we loose people from the Reserves, due to the fact they only joined for the Social Factor or the LCF?  Would it attract more to the Reserves?

As we all know, American Reservists are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as complete Units.  What is different in their system that allows them to deploy as such, and we are unable to?  Are our Reservists, in this light, not really RESERVISTS, but truly part-time employees?  What would we have to do to truly make our Reservists a true RESERVE FORCE to work with the Regular Force in times of emergency?


What are the comparisons?  Where and what do we need to change?  Can the American model be the way to transform our Reserves?

Lots of questions.  Do we have any solutions?

 

[Roger]

I think you can relate it to money, in Canada there is not a lot of money spent on defence. Hence the regular force is under financed under equipped. Because of that the reserve gets what is left over. That includes training and so forth.

You must also look at society in general and the outlook on the military in Canada. I do not think that Canada is ready to have a reserve or militia unit from Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver get wiped out by some suicide bomber, not that anyone is prepared for such a thing, but I do not think that our politicians have the courage to risk such a thing. When a regular force unit goes overseas no mater the unit it is made from Canadians all over the country.

 

[onecat]

Quote
I do not think that Canada is ready to have a reserve or militia unit from Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver get wiped out by some suicide bomber, not that anyone is prepared for such a thing, but I do not think that our politicians have the courage to risk such a thing. 

But the politicians in 1914, 1939, and 1950 (to a lesser extent) had the courage?  Something doesn't add up, maybe is that successive Canadian governments have relied on the US government to subsidize (man- there goes that word again, sounds like time for a NAFTA challenge ) their defense?

Totally have to agree with you on that. successive Liberal party governments( yes there was a term Tory gov't that does change the policies set in place by Liberals) have relied on the US to most the defence work for this country, and that needs to be changes but it will take years and years to make that change stick.  Statement like no one will invade canada or the terrorists won't attack here, are all to common and until they ahve been chaged.  Canadians will still pay the reaL PRICE FOR OUR DEFENCE.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

This is not a Thread on who can beat who, but on WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO?

In various threads we have heard it said over and over again that the Reserves should have better equipment.   That they should be equipped the same as the Regular Force.   We can all see that the Regular Force is under equipped, and the chances of the Reserves therefore getting equipment scales the same as the Regular Force are very slim.  

Would equipping our reserves the same of the Regular Force (if it were also completely equipped.) be viable?   Would they need more?   Would they need to have Pay and Pension equal to the Regular Force?   Would they need Job Protection Legislation from the Government to protect their civilian jobs?   Would they be able to get Courses that are to Regular Force Standards?   Would they have to sign legally binding forms stating that they are "Deployable" in the event of an 'emergency'?   Would we loose people from the Reserves, due to the fact they only joined for the Social Factor or the LCF?   Would it attract more to the Reserves?

As we all know, American Reservists are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as complete Units.   What is different in their system that allows them to deploy as such, and we are unable to?   Are our Reservists, in this light, not really RESERVISTS, but truly part-time employees?   What would we have to do to truly make our Reservists a true RESERVE FORCE to work with the Regular Force in times of emergency?


What are the comparisons?   Where and what do we need to change?   Can the American model be the way to transform our Reserves?

Lots of questions.   Do we have any solutions?

You answered most of your own questions.

Give this page a thorough read:

http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com/161.htm

I think it encapsulates a lot of information regarding the two units, one Canadian, one American.  Note the standard of fitness among the Canadian unit, but note the employment of the US unit.  I think can't say how well we would do in an "operational" setting but I'd be willing to say individual fitness and/or "battle task standards" (perhaps in certain areas only) are as high as in US reserve units.  BUT this is all very sweeping and things would obviously be different from unit to unit, or year to year.

Certainly, they have the equipment to train with, and it is all maintained from what I can tell.  I just got two long emails from an Armorer in the 161.  We don't have our own vehicle techs, weapons techs, etc., but they have fully fleshed out establishments.  Bring back our tradesmen, and give us room to park our vehicles (and our damn POVs while you're at it!)

 

[Spazz]

Well in a way we don't really know if the government would send reserve troops or not because we haven't really been to war since 1945. I mean since then I don't think we have ever required our full military in a conflict. I'm sure politicions wont really think about it until it becomes important. Just my thoughts.

 

[George Wallace]

So what is the major difference between our System and the US system, whereby whole Units are mobilized and sent off to foreign lands like Iraq and Afghanistan and Canadian Reservist Units have a hard time sending only a couple of soldiers?  Besides "Money", our two systems are very different.  Money has not bought us equipment, Pay, or Pensions.  There are other factors too.  Training.  Credentials.  Where are we headed in the way of tranformation, and what American examples will we have to adopt?  Which ones should we not adopt?

 

[GO!!!]

Michael,

The Canadian militia will never be able to form independent units unless it agrees to submit to MANDATORY training and enforced minimum capabilities at the soldier level. While legislated job protection would go a long way to facilitating this, the fact of the matter is, that Canadian reservists show up exactly when they feel like it. The only action that can be taken against them is to kick them out. Giving militia units millions of dollars worth of kit needed by the reg force will not remedy this situation.

Another key difference between Canada and the US in terms of the reserves is that US troops are expected to be deployed, often as part of regular deployments, without invoking the war measures act. They can be coerced to do so, and are punished for not showing up. There is no such system in place here. You rely on the entusiasm of your unit to claim that everyone will show up for a deployment or operation, but what if we are fighting an unpopular war, as our southern neighbors are? Will we simply accept the reservist shrug and answer "I don't believe what we are doing is right - so I'm not going". The national good is not always synonomous with the preferences of the individual soldier.

Basically, you are asking to "have your cake and eat it too" You want formed militia units under their own leadership deployed with all the latest kit. But you won't accept mandatory training of sufficient duration (1.5 months or more per year) to ensure a high level of quality at all times, not simply when the opportunity to deploy arises. Complaining that "retention and recruiting will suffer" is not valid. If you are unable to recruit soldiers who are dedicated to service of Canada, and not merely superimposing their own preferences onto the CF, perhaps the viability of your unit should be addressed.

I believe that the militia should continue in it's existing roles of aid to civil power, supplementing on an individual basis of regular units, and the continuance of low risk and missions (Bosnia for example). The reg force currently has a lack of opportunity to deploy, this should not be further aggravated by sending reservists with no obligation to further service once they are finished.

Cheers

 

[Michael Dorosh]

EDIT - GO!!! has some excellent points, and on first read, I must say I agree with them.   At work and posting on the sly so I'll try and come back during the next lull....

Anyway, original comments were:

So what is the major difference between our System and the US system, whereby whole Units are mobilized and sent off to foreign lands like Iraq and Afghanistan and Canadian Reservist Units have a hard time sending only a couple of soldiers?   Besides "Money", our two systems are very different.   Money has not bought us equipment, Pay, or Pensions.   There are other factors too.   Training.   Credentials.   Where are we headed in the way of tranformation, and what American examples will we have to adopt?   Which ones should we not adopt?

It's changing though. Our CO is determined to send at least a company sized battlegroup on an actual operation in a few years' time.  There are a lot of naysayers, some on this board, who call it pie-in-the-sky.  There are some real concerns, of course, from my perspective the biggest show stopper is manpower.  Even if a reserve unit recruited a full company, you're talking about mostly guys with 1 year of experience in the Army going on a tour, after training in a rather insular background (ie no outside influences).  If the regular force were larger, or we went to a true 10/90 system, you could get larger training cadres out to Militia units and ensure their suitability for deployment.

Everyone I talk to about this laughs the idea off.  It's unfortunate; I think a can-do attitude instead of a can-don't attitude would go a long way, but unless the regular force ever gets serious about losing out on missions to reserve units, it is not going to happen.  I think the rivalry is the show stopper.  

But that's only my semi-informed opinion.

EDIT 2 - to GO!!!, we have large numbers from our unit going on the next roto - guys will take vacation, LOA and long leaves from civvie jobs to do work up training and tours, they would do the same for 1.5 month training sessions.  Some of them.  For some it is just a part time job, no doubt.  I think that is ok, too.  Legislation would go a long way, and that too is a major stumbling block.

 

[George Wallace]

I think Go!! has hit on an important factor.  Reserve Units must be prepared to conduct 1.5 months or there abouts of concentrated Full-time training as a Unit each year.  They must be prepared to deploy in that training period to facilities outside of their host cities.  During Reforger Exercies in Germany, it was not uncommon to have whole USAR Units flown in for two months to conduct their training and partake in this major NATO Ex.  There has to be a "dedicated" to the job mindset built up.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think Go!! has hit on an important factor.   Reserve Units must be prepared to conduct 1.5 months or there abouts of concentrated Full-time training as a Unit each year.   They must be prepared to deploy in that training period to facilities outside of their host cities.   During Reforger Exercies in Germany, it was not uncommon to have whole USAR Units flown in for two months to conduct their training and partake in this major NATO Ex.   There has to be a "dedicated" to the job mindset built up.

It's all about retention - the really serious guys go to the regs when they get bored with the Militia.  Going to train in locations other than Wainwright is always a treat.  Having three years in a row of the same MTSC exercises on the same terrain kills retention.  Expanding training to something more challenging might change that, and give a new sense of purpose.

As for showing up when you feel like it, there are indeed "fair weather" soldiers who suddenly have final exams when the weather forecast for snow comes in.  Can't imagine they'd be jazzed about 1.5 month training sessions, but I guess you don't want that type anyway.

 

[George Wallace]

We also need a major turn around in Political Thinking among our elected officials.  We need a Government who will look on the Reserves, not as "Week-end Warriors", but as a valuable part of the CF, who are deployable as complete Units.  Do we start at the bottom and try to rebuild our Reserve Units, or start at the Top and bring forth Legislation that will bring about Transition and increase Funding?  Not really a cut and dry question.

 

[mdh]

I think Michael Dorosh has put his finger on an issue that also needs consideration: how can anyone with a fully developed civilian career attend 1.5 month training exercises on a regular basis? I know that some employers are tolerant and believe in the cause, but you can only go to the well so many times before it starts to have a severe impact on your civilian career progression (not to mention a potential economic hit every year). Even under the current system the training demands (in addition to the regular parade nights and weekends) can be a difficult balancing act. When you add 1.5 months of exercises per year plus weekends plus parade and admin nights plus duty officer plus 5 weeks BOTC, 11 weeks CAP plus 8 weeks platoon commander MOC training (I'm using IO as an example here)...you get the picture. I'm not sure what the solution is (I don't think job protection legislation is a panacea) except to completely refocus the reserves on students - but that still won't help the retention issue once the kids move along and develop their own civvie careeers.

cheers, mdh

 

[mdh]

I do believe their is a stronger commitment by employers to honor their commitment to their reservist employees, there are also some protections built into laws.

Just so. There is a lack of what I call "patriotic employers" in the private sector here who are going to bend over backwards to provide a reservist with gobs of time off (paid or unpaid). Dare I say that it's a cultural nuance between the US and Canada? (There is a reason why there tends to be a preponderance of cops and teachers and the odd civil servant in the Canadian reserves - they are one of the few groups who enjoy contract provisions giving them time off to participate.)

If participating in the National Guard is regarded proudly as a patriotic duty in America - service in the Canadian reserves is often regarded by the public as an alternate lifestyle.

cheers, mdh

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Some Canadian employers will pay the difference between the military wage (lower) and the civilian wage a guy is missing out on while training - but I think mostly in Civil Service or other governmental jobs.  That would certainly be a bonus; mdh made an excellent point about civvie career progression and pay hits.

 

[rw4th]

The US National Guard/Reserve system works the way it does because of a few things:

1- The contracts are binding, of a limited duration, and require you to train and/or deploy when ordered to do so. Not doing so is a chargeable offence.
2- Members have their jobs legally protected to support point 1
3- When mobilized, reserve and NG units go through a standardized workup process. This process brings them up to speed when they are needed, regardless of whether or not standards are maintained during periods of inactivity.
4- Most importantly, there is a political will in US to support the above listed measure.

 

[KevinB]

Perhaps we should have the US Gov't run the CF PRes system...

 

[geo]

Was at a conference in Ottawa a couple of months ago. US reps attended and there are some cracks showing up in their Reserve / NG System.
Some years ago, their Reg army "gave" specialty skill taskings to their reserve counterpart so that the Reg army could get on with the war fighting. This is how that reserve MP Battalion ended up in the Abu grail prison (and we all know how that worked out). These units are going thru some major recruiting / viability problems and it is a probable outcome that no occupation will remain 100% Res/NG.

While there is "job protection" in the US... I can imagine the chances of a reservist getting the job in the 1st place - should several other equaly qualified individuals have applied.

The issue of Res/NG members going off on deployment after deployment is also creating some problems - some are "going  back" for an extra 18 months... and some aren't all that happy about it. There were instances of 50 yr old officers who retired but forgot to "surrender" their commissions - surprise: they got called up and most made every effort to get up to speed.

Have worked on the Civy and Mil sides of the house. Employers have a problem giving up something (the reservist) for nothing in return.... and if we enact a law - it's still going to be a case of giving up something for nothing in return. Remember that there is no law and "why should he be expected to give up something that he has never had to give up before"?

If the government wants to get serious about it; make real use of it's reserve assets, then they will have to do:
1. Beef up it's units (coy sized Battalions led by LCols & CWOs aren't viable).
                            (Platoon sized Coys led by Maj & MWOs aren't either)

2. The Gov't has to sell itself to business - make itself meaningful and make it worth the employer's while to hire reservist AND give them time off to go on courses / deployment.... eg: tax credit for 100% of your salary while reservists are away. Training tax credit for the training of new employees that they have to hire to cover off the position of the fella who is away.....

#1 thing that has to get done is for the Gov't & it's minions to get serious.
Have seen many instances where fella gets time off to go on course (2, 3, or 6 wk course) AND the course gets cancelled at the very last minute for whatever reason.... try to motivate employee & employer then!

OK Rant over!

 

[George Wallace]

geo

You must also admit that some USAR Units in Iraq are doing quite well.  The same can be said for USMCR Units who are also doing well, although some are suffering heavy loses.  One could say very similar things about Regular Units - both good and bad. 

With the "Fall of the Wall", many Nato countries, not only Canada, cut back on their Troops.  The US made drastic Troop cuts in the '90s.  Now it is all coming back to haunt us all.  The only thing is, the US has valuable Reserve Units that it can and does use to relieve the pressure on the Regular Forces.  Canada has no significant Reserve Force reserves to draw on, only a trickle of Reservists to fill individual positions in an already stretched out Regular Force Unit.

 

[geo]

George,
would tell you that man for man, our reservists are (or would be) as good at their US counterparts... given the time to shake it out and do some training.

When the US cut back on it's regular forces, they FRPd their people into the guard & reserve units. They made it worth the pilots while(example) to leave the Reg AF/Navy to join the Reserve/NG while getting a civy career at the same time...
If I base myself on Maj Schmidt, I think he was still flying 100% of his time while in the guard - which tells me that the Fed Gov't got the state Gov't to pay for it's full time military capacity...

Let me ask you; did anyone approach you, as you got out of the Regs, if you would consider joining a Reserve unit?... and did you?

 

[Haggis]

Canada has no significant Reserve Force reserves to draw on, only a trickle of Reservists to fill individual positions in an already stretched out Regular Force Unit.

Some posters would have you beleive that there is NO shortage of Regular Force troops and that Reservists are only deploying for political reasons.  So why invest in the Reserves?

The issue of Res/NG members going off on deployment after deployment is also creating some problems - some are "going   back" for an extra 18 months... and some aren't all that happy about it.

Folks I know in the AR and NG now talk of a recruiting and retention crisis.  Additionally, (as Geo stated) a form of reverse discrimination is becoming apparent as employers are now reluctant to hire USAR, USNG and USMCR member as they KNOW they will be deployed.