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

[vr]

The TA & ARNG have something that the Reserves in Canada desperately need.  That is a defined role for their units.  During the Cold War every member of these orgs knew exactly where they would be going and what they would be doing when the balloon went up.  And they rehearsed it.  As an infantry reservist during this time we had know idea what was expected of us or even if we would be involved at all.

Todays Reserve units need defined roles & missions that the leadership can train towards.  Providing individual augmentation or providing blank for step # mobilization (something only my ex-DCO ever understood) is quite vague and not tremendously inspirational for soldiers.  We just end up checking off the same ELOC/BTS boxes every year with no real goal in sight.

Give each Reserve unit a mission and a defined role in the Army.  Give them a set of standards to achieve, sufficient resources, and let them get on with it!

 

[McG]

What about financial incentives for reservists that pass annual proficiency tests or attend a minimum number of training events?

I like what pbi has suggested about replacing one evening a week with one additional weekend a month.  There is a concern that some people accustom to the old way of things would not be able to adjust schedules/lifestyles to the new.  However, in a city a battalion of multiple companies could designate one company as the weekend company and the other company as the week night company.  Both companies could come together once a month for battalion training on a weekend.  And if a member's life situation changes, it would be easy to transfer between the companies.  

This set-up could work if we amalgamate regiments or if we form multi-regiment battalions.
http://army.ca/forums/threads/24463.0.html

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I like what pbi has suggested about replacing one evening a week with one additional weekend a month.  There is a concern that some people accustom to the old way of things would not be able to adjust schedules/lifestyles to the new.  However, in a city a battalion of multiple companies could designate one company as the weekend company and the other company as the week night company.  Both companies could come together once a month for battalion training on a weekend.  And if a member's life situation changes, it would be easy to transfer between the companies. 

That's still irrelevant for people who work swing shifts, split shifts and other irregular schedules.  If you work evenings, then days, with 4 on and 3 off, your schedule is going to be all over the place, so it is not a matter of either evenings or weekends.  No way around it in some cases; so do you encourage a guy who is rock solid in job knowledge to quit in such a case, or just accept that he might only parade twice a month?

This is why I think Bill's comments about collective training may be not clearly focussed.  It seemed like he was talking about not having OJT for individuals, and instead focus on "unit training."  That's great, if your entire unit shows up all the time.  We did that the last couple of years, with a live fire exercise having all the exercises before it as a prerequisite - PWT on the range, then pairs, then section, then platoon, finally the company live fire.  I believe "gateway training" is the term.  So in Bill's case, if I understand him correctly, for an individual who shows up for the PWT, but misses the pairs and section exercises, he is pretty much hooped for the rest of the year.  If there are no other training tasks to do, he is out of a job until the summer courses, or next September.

How important is it to have Militia infantry companies capable of conducting a live fire company attack?  Is this really the role they need to fulfill?  It is a great incentive, no doubt, for keeping troops interested in training, but it can't be the only thing on the plate.

I always thought the Militia were the guys who kept the lights on in between periods of conflict.  What good is it to teach an individual about his part in a company live fire attack during the year, if he never learns how to drive a truck, splice a signal wire, send a contact report, identify a land mine....

And what good does it do to have him miss that pairs fire and movement weekend, then quit because he needs money and there is no other training going on?

 

[pbi]

The TA & ARNG have something that the Reserves in Canada desperately need.   That is a defined role for their units.   During the Cold War every member of these orgs knew exactly where they would be going and what they would be doing when the balloon went up.   And they rehearsed it.   As an infantry reservist during this time we had know idea what was expected of us or even if we would be involved at all

I certainly stand to be corrected here, but I think that this is an exaggeration (no doubt with good intent...). I think that for a number of years the US Army did not know exactly what to do with the ARNG as a whole, and had no "specific missions" for most of them.   IIRC most of the ARNG Divisions except those with a REFORGER role, were general reinforcement, and it is questionable how many ARNG Divs could actually have deployed efficiently as such. The greatest single focus for most ARNG personnel was, (based on comments I hear from some US Active Army types here in Afgh), to be called out for State emergencies and go to summer camp. GWOT has changed much of that, and has reportedly caused a number of people in the ARNG to re-evaluate their reasons for joining in the first place. It is worth recalling the performance of some ARNG Bdes when they were called up for the first Gulf War and sent through NTC: not too good. So, even if they supposedly had these "assigned missions" what good did it do them? And anyway, they didn't end up going where they were assigned, did they?

Again subject to correction, I think you will find that only a percentage of the TA was ever designated for BAOR tasks, which IIRC contributed to something of a "have" and "have not" situation in the TA. The lack of specific missions for specific units contributed, IMHO, to some of the reductions and re-roling that TA units have experienced over the last couple of decades.

As far as assigning "specific missions", I think we are in the same boat as the USMC: our "specific mission" is to be ready to go anywhere, to do anything. Realistically, what alternative is there? Other than our overseas missions (which change with increasing frequency), where exactly would these "specific missions" be? Trying to be "scenario based" or "specific mission based" is not really very practical given our small size, limited resources and a   national foreign policy of committing at fairly short notice to NATO, Coalition or UN ops all over the planet. Far better IMHO to be a solidly capability-based army, thus being as flexible as a small army can be. Being too specific risks "niche-ism" which IMHO is an express route to irrelevance if your chosen "niche" becomes redundant. Cheers.

 

[SHARP WO]

I do think there is a point at which the amount of leadership in reserve units does seem to be a bit much. Many reserve units are small and barely require the admin for a company, let alone that of a battalion. For example, my Regiment has about 25-30 regular parading soldiers. To  command this we have an Lt. Col, a Major, 3 Captains, 2 Lieutenants, a Chief Warrent Officer, a Master Warrent Officer, and a Warrent. How is this an efficient formation? If nothing else it means that any training must go through unnecessary paper work; and it's fairly obvious that such a huge command structure is a financial burden. I do, however, recognize that you cannot have a Lieutenant in charge of the armouries; but at the same time; why not down grade units like this to company level; commanded by a Major.

Well, I come from a unit that has 150 soldiers attend regular training activities, from 3 sub units, and we need the command structure.

If you down grade a unit, will you not lose the units identity also. What happens if you get a great influx of new recruits and you go up to Coy plus then you are left lots of soldiers and not enough comd's. There are some reserve units that have 200 plus members, if a smaller unit is reduced to Coy size it would be easier to role it over and put it under a different unit, I see many problems that would arise from the mere mention of this of this point.

For example, if the RCR regs were reduced to Coys instead of Bn's and made a part the PPCLI, it might make sense in the short term, but then you lose the unit identity, the history and you make a few people upset.

Sharp WO

 

[Kirkhill]

I think others have raised this before but isn't there more opportunity in this day and age for more individual "on-line" training with individuals getting the "class-room" work on their own time with computer instruction, even testing, and use weekday parade nights for testing/evaluation/tutoring of individuals as well as planning for exercises on Weekends.  This could fit into the type of programme that Bill Smy was using successfully in the 80's.  (As an aside ,LCol Paul Hughes (Calg Highrs) used similar strategies to Mr. Smy's as wel,l as did his successor John Fletcher and the CH recruited and paraded well in those years).

 

[pbi]

Kirkhill: You would be pleased to know that some progress is actually being made in delivering "Distributed Learning (DL)" to Reserve units, following the same concept that was used to introduce it into the RegF: to reduce the amount of time spent away from home unit. Over the last two years I have seen a module of the PLQ delivered this way, and I believe other courses are becoming available too. In each of our multi-unit garrisons (TBay, Winnipeg and Regina) we have had a computer classroom for some time now. There is more that could be achieved, but we are getting there. Cheers.

 

[Kirkhill]

Good news pbi, thanks.

 

[KevinB]

Honestly I think we are fooling ourselves by believing in computer assisted learning progrman in the military.  Very few skills can be taught or properly learned that way - the PLQ being a prime example.


SHARP WO - there is nothing stating that the overborne reserve coy's could not spin off another coy. 

 

[pbi]

Honestly I think we are fooling ourselves by believing in computer assisted learning progrman in the military.  Very few skills can be taught or properly learned that way - the PLQ being a prime example.

This really depends on what you use it to teach. If you use it to teach the wrong thing, such as drill, or how to dig a trench or do a section attack, then of course you are misusing it and wasting everybody's time. But, that is not generally how it is used. DL is normaly used to replace "book learning" theory that does not strictly require you to be together in a group with an instructor. However, the "chat room" function does give a limited capability to interact with an instructor (or other DL candidates) at certain times.

SHARP WO - there is nothing stating that the overborne reserve coy's could not spin off another coy. 

Yes, unfortunately there are several things that stop this. First of all, unless you are lucky enough to be in the Army Reserve units in Southern Ontario or Vancouver, you are apparently not permitted to raise new sub-units. We were tasked to raise an Engr Sqn under LFRR in Wpg but we ended up having to group it inside the Fort Garry Horse because we could not create any "new units" or "new HQs" even though this was blatantly being permitted in the locations I mentioned. You would also run into the fact that the Army makes it difficult (perhaps for good reasons, perhaps not...) for Res units to change their establishments, due largely to the issue of how many funded positions are actually available. I agree completely that this system needs to be streamlined so that units that have the ability to grow can do so. Cheers.

 

[KevinB]

PBI - I see your point - but from what I saw of PLQ candidates "doing" CAL - it was a total dogf*ck.

I know during my WAL (Warrant Assisted Learning) at the RCR BSL (while nodding off during the Course Officers lectures on the role and char of the different cbt arms etc.) I picked up many points that I dont feel a computer study system can impart  ;D
Now in 11 years the methodology of teaching junior leaders (or any course) has changed but some basic problems are imparted IMHO by CAL.


The process for reserve units must be streamlined - but I guess like the entire CF the shrugged shoulders, combined with tearing ones hair out at planning for the future with no real guidance from ABOVE...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

3 years ago, the first half of my QL3 was done by computer; of course, that was RMS and consisted mainly of looking up stuff on the DIN....

It was still more useful than my month in Borden for the second half...

What would have been most useful was simply working in an office and having someone show me how to do stuff.  Having a 40 year old MCpl ranting and raving at us because we missed a question on an exam, or having an air force WO talk down to me because I had a wrinkle in my bedsheets really didn't prepare me to do anything useful back at my home unit...

The most useful trades training I got was three Saturday mornings where our retiring Chief Clerk sat us down, and off the top of his head rattled off 20 years of experience in "how to do stuff".  It was interesting, well presented, and highlighted that experienced NCOs are the answer, not unemployable junior NCOs who can't find work anywhere else but on a Militia callout for the summer at a trades school.

Those who can, do, those who can't....teach. ;D

 

[pbi]

I know during my WAL (Warrant Assisted Learning) at the RCR BSL (while nodding off during the Course Officers lectures on the role and char of the different cbt arms etc.) I picked up many points that I dont feel a computer study system can impart 
Now in 11 years the methodology of teaching junior leaders (or any course) has changed but some basic problems are imparted IMHO by CAL.

There is a compromise that I have seen used: the class is conducted at the local armoury, by DL, but there are local instructors present to assist and (hopefully) stop the sexual relations with canines.  This still keeps the soldiers (relatively) close to home, but it is beginning to eat into some of the advantages. Cheers.

 

[Bill Smy]

This really depends on what you use it to teach. If you use it to teach the wrong thing, such as drill, or how to dig a trench or do a section attack, then of course you are misusing it and wasting everybody's time. But, that is not generally how it is used. DL is normaly used to replace "book learning" theory that does not strictly require you to be together in a group with an instructor.

I recall that back in the early 1970s a new revolutionary thought permeated the CF -- programmed learning. Units received booklets which were intended to be loaned to members. The books were designed so that information was displayed on one page, the next had questions, the third answers. The student was to take them home, and when he/she believed that he/she had mastered the topic, he/she would appear before the RSS officer and take a test which would credit success or failure.

In typical CF logic, it was then decided, notwithstanding this method of qualification, that the soldier still had to attend a formal course in order that the qualification be recognized.   :threat:

Pbi is correct. It depends on what you teach. Map Using, vehicle recognition, regimental history, and dozen more POs need not consume scarce armoury time.

 

[dglad]

I'd go a step further and say it's utter nonsense to drag Res F personnel to a Trg Centre somewhere, to have them sit in a class-room and learn something like map-symbols or the format for a SITREP.  We should be pulling Res F pers to the Trg Centers ONLY to have them conduct trg they can't conduct at unit or Bde level (mostly trg in the field, trg at levels they otherwise wouldn't be able to obtain at home units e.g. level 3 or higher, trg with specific wpn systems or vehicles, etc.).  As has been pointed out before, there is a decentralized system of standards pers that can ensure standards are maintained for unit/Bde level trg, and that can include distribution and assessment of distributed learning materials.  But we MUST get smarter about the way we conduct our trg, because the "traditional" model of shipping someone to Wainwright or Shilo or Meaford for 6 or 8 weeks, to learn everything from rank structure to military law to foot-drill to marksmanship principles, is letting us down.  We need to front-end load as much trg as possible at local level under the overwatch of LFDTS standards cells, and save the trg centres for short but intense bouts of the "high value-added" trg.

 

[Meridian]

Wow. extremely interesting post all around!

A few tidbits of info I think I can offer:

Peoplesoft sucks. (My Civvy Payroll dept just switched too it too, sigh)
I support SAP at my civvy dayjob...(federal govnt agency) and Im told that DND actually has two SAP Systems currently. I inquired exactly what they are supporting, noone is really all that certian, although a colleague did head over there and noted they are using several modules and have a HUGE (and I mean HUGE!) support/dev team.

All this to say that while SAP here certianly provides added benefits, noone wants to use it, so it ends up being much more work. Scientists who play with plants all day and have little to no contact with regular networked PCs (or even computers in some cases) find it a hassle to log in and record time, or order stuff online, etc.  Most managers are "too busy" to attend half-day training courses, and then get frustrated when they call in for support.

Basically, if everyone actually took the time to learn the system, it would cut down a lot of grief... alas..



Now speaking to the reserves specifically: As an outsider (with extremely limited reg force experience) looking to join, I guess my perspective may help to aid from the recruiting perspective.

1) I think that the Reserves have to evolve to recognize that the workplace today is not the same as it was 20-30 years ago. The majority of people no longer work 9-5. Students even have ever increasingly diverse schedules, with many night courses being offered now, and summer terms increasing in popularity.

2) I get 3 weeks of vacation a year, some of which is rather mandatorily used up at Christmas. 3 weeks is a lot for someone in their early to mid twenties, at least when considering that many entry level positions at least around here offer 2 weeks of unpaid holidays (vacation pay is always there but still)...  I think part of the problem may be that an officer sitting with 4-6 weeks of paid leave a year in Ottawa may not have considered this fully.  Add on the fact that my family may want to see me for a week, and I suddenly have a lot less vacation.

LWOP is always an option from any civvy job, but many companies are leaving the traditional "indeterminate" style positions and are moving to more project/contract/work-driven requirements. I am a permanent employee, but of a large consulting firm. If there is no work, I get laid off. Permanency means I get notice.

A huge concern for me is that if I do ask for that 2 months off in the summer to pursue training, and Im granted it... how secure am I coming back, having my employer suddenly realize they could make due without me for 2 months? I consider myself a valuable employee, and while summers are quieter...  its still a concern in a rather unstable labour market.....

Then you also have to consider just how Im supposed to convince my employer to give me the time off...  I mean many employers are accomodating, but Im sure many others would rather just not deal with it....

I understand students are great in this regard, as they often have summers free, and are looking for work/something to do.... but even students as someone else has mentioned now have work terms, placements, etc... perhaps the forces should look at integrating some sort of co-op options for university students...  working in recruiting or PAO may help the marketing degree I am completing, or with a CER to fulfill coop items on my engineering degree...

3) Recruiting is confusing. Period.

Because I know better, I know to go to the unit to get real answers. But then those answers are just one-sided ones really, focussed on the Unit only, and thus, as someone who doesnt know jack, if I do end up at the unit, I may not be getting the best picture, or getting the best options.

Its all well and good to say "well, do your research", but for someone looking to join, if you get a good sales pitch, and the answers are all being provided, why would you immediately question them? Some may be worried about giving a bad impression to a new employer from the getgo....

Why can't I get real information as to when I can expect courses to start? Real time frames for my application? If I have so many deadlines, why dont the forces? Hurry up and wait doesn't make sense to someone not indoctrinated, and even someone who is, still things its  a dumb thing.  When I went on the Brit Army recruiting site, I was given hard deadlines for answers. Of course there are exceptions, but geez... sure makes me feel wanted, or at least appreciated and interested if I have an idea....

Recruiting is full of way to many rumours... On this here board Ive read countless times different recruiters from different areas giving conflicting board dates for the same MOC and component.

4) there is not enough information available about the day to day job... especially for officers (IMO.)

Now, I understand much of this is up to the applicant...  But why is it that I can go to the american military websites and get much more of a feel for what I would do day-in-day-out than when I go to recruiting.forces.gc.ca?

If I have no idea what Im getting myself into, but I think I do, how good of a trainee am I going to make? (No wonder there was a 5 out of 30 graduation).

5) Training....

I have no idea how to fix this one.. Ive tried to think out of the box, listening to all your guys ideas....  and honestly.. the decentralization option sounds the best to me. 

Here's a question: What is the value of the indoctrination....? (My experience here is primarily RegF, but my question relates to Res and Ill explain later what I mean)

I sat on IAP.. and wondered why we spent so much time sitting around doing nothing. Many of the courses could have been self-study, (we are officers to be afterall, cant we just study, test, fail, or pass)? And all the weekends off... necessary? Perhaps long-run yes, but if you asked me if Id rather be done a month earlier, or have weekends off, Id take the month earlier.

A week of administrivia is ridiculous. Seriously. Taking 3 days to get kit, hours upon hours waiting at MIR for shots and other stuff, filling out paperwork. Granted it all needs to be done. But why on course? And then the last week before the parade.. tons of wasted time?  Plenty of us mentioned wed rather see courses done sooner, get the necessary indoc on the skills required, and then get booted on out to the real world...  (I realize this is how everyone feels, and that a nice transition is necessary).

My question here is this.. I was told in the Reg For.. that BMQ/IAPBOTP. SQ/Phases/DP/etc are all built to transition everyone into miltiary mode. They make you as a soldier, they get rid of the civy mindset. buiilds discipline (this I can agree with, but still) ... they dont just teach you specific skills, but the total package.

Is this necessary in the Reserve side of things? And if not.. why not? I mean, if we want our REs soldiers to be as close to Reg soldiers in training and abilities, would it not require the same amount of indoc?

I guess this is what it comes down to... Can OJT really train properly? And at what point should OJT be used?

Im thinking from the perspective of a new recruit or OCdt here...  they want to learn, theyve just joined up...  maybe they have cadets or other mil experience.. they know how to salute, basic drill, etc...  do you sideline them? they finish BMQ...  can they learn more things OJT, or MUST they have a formal course completion?

What are the benefits to courses, I guess, is the question?


Sorry for the rambling, but so many thoughts.

 

[pbi]

I guess this is what it comes down to... Can OJT really train properly? And at what point should OJT be used?

dglad and I are not really talking about "OJT": that is more suited to teaching specific skills to already trained soldiers, although it can also be useful. What we are referring to is running formal courses, authorized by, but decentralized from the Area TC (or even the School-we have done one of those already, for Recce Crew Comd) down to the Bdes or in some cases the garrisons, or maybe even in a particularly capable unit. This permits staff and student to remain within their local area, to use local facilities that might otherwise not be fully utilized, and can potentially draw on instructors who cannot go away for six to eight weeks. The courses would be run just as they are at the central establishments, surveyed by the Area Stds Dets located around the Bde(we have three in ours), as well as visiting LFDTs teams or School SMEs. The decentralized can be improved by use of DL or self study as Bill Smy described. Cheers.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Excellent points all around.   One further note on LWOP - that's great if the Reserves pays you more than your civvie job. If not....some civvie firms will pay the difference, but most won't.

There is no LEGISLATION to protect us....

 

[Meridian]

MD - Exactly.. I admittedly do not make that much (at least compared to other professionals) but on comparing with a "training rank" pay for a month or so, Im losing money.

Now, sacrifices are sacrifices, and I dont think I can demand that the forces pay the equivalent of my civvy paycheque.... but it is something to budget and consider for some people..

Again, one more reason why uni students seem to be the answer.. but thats only a 3-4 year setup!

 

[Pikache]

I think this issue has been brought up before, but is it me, or is location of reserve units... irrational at times?

I just think it's ridiculous that small cities have 3 units and Montreal to have what, 6 Inf units, in same area.

Do we need to reexamine how our units are spread out all over Canada and see where are units being killed by saturation of local manpower and which areas are not being tapped?

How is Reserves doing, in terms of tapping into rural area? As much as populated Southern Ontario is, there are areas that there is no viable local reserve unit to go to.