So does that mean for the sappers out there a return to learning how to build bridges - both prefabricated - ahh yes - the beloved Bailey - and improvised? Does that mean re-equipment with the necessary tools for disaster relief - 'light' heavy equipment and such - does that also mean that many units will be re-rolled into the Engineer branch or logistics branches, oh and more coordination with local authorities?
Divining the right role, capabilities, structure, and Regimental System for Canada's Army Reserves
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
This has been talked about a little at my unit, and was addressed by the CO at the Christmas dinner. He's already fighting to have our unit (local Inf) assigned as the lead for the TDBG. Everything circulating from 'informed' sources says it will be a core of Class B guys, maybe some Reg F, who will train full-time on disaster relief and SAR - learning how to use chain saws, power tools, etc. They could then pass on the simpler skills (like using a chainsaw) in an emergency, be experts/supervisors in other areas.
The greatest weakness I see in this plan is the lack of vehicles in Reserve units. Most barely have enough trucks to support their own training, let alone provide relief to a city. These TDBG's will need not only personnel, but a lot of equipment and gear that simply does not exist now. The techs and mechanics to maintain all the standby gear could account for many of these Class B positions on their own.
On that same theme - are there any plans to make Reserve Medical units employable/deployable? As I understand it, they are very limited on what they can do due to their training (ie, they aren't parademic-qualified). However in a disaster scenario they would be one of the most useful Reserve units.
All in all, it seems like an excellent opportunity for people who want to be Mo-bums for a year or two, although I question if the Class B system is the best way to maintain such a unit.
PS: edited for spelling and grammar
The greatest weakness I see in this plan is the lack of vehicles in Reserve units. Most barely have enough trucks to support their own training, let alone provide relief to a city. These TDBG's will need not only personnel, but a lot of equipment and gear that simply does not exist now. The techs and mechanics to maintain all the standby gear could account for many of these Class B positions on their own.
On that same theme - are there any plans to make Reserve Medical units employable/deployable? As I understand it, they are very limited on what they can do due to their training (ie, they aren't parademic-qualified). However in a disaster scenario they would be one of the most useful Reserve units.
All in all, it seems like an excellent opportunity for people who want to be Mo-bums for a year or two, although I question if the Class B system is the best way to maintain such a unit.
PS: edited for spelling and grammar
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Ah yes, vehicles... When the reserve COs were at one time clamouring for the same scale of issue as RegF units I would ask them one question -
Where is your maint platoon to keep up this new kit?
The math is simple. 1 mech can maint 5 vehs.
No mech, no veh.
Where is your maint platoon to keep up this new kit?
The math is simple. 1 mech can maint 5 vehs.
No mech, no veh.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
On the topic of vehicles, I was thinking of the US military convoy that rolled into New Orleans - a huge column of (American versions of) HLVWs, some Deuce and a halfs, a lot of Humvees. News reports put one of the first convoys at 50 vehicles - that's a lot of trucks, just to carry supplies and troops. If we factor in the needs of an earthquake zone or a blizzard - snow removal, earth moving, recovery vehicles, tracked/armoured vehicles, etc - that's a lot of specialized, high-maintenance gear. Not every TDBG would need all of it, of course, but where such things (and the personnel) were located would be key. Trucks would be essential to each unit, however. Maybe introduce the G-Wagen or BV206's into the Militia?
A TDBG seems to be right up the alley of specialists like Engineers, Medics, and Service Battalions - and Combat Arms aren't much use for anything but labour and drivers. Does this mean re-focusing resources towards more applicable units? Sound's like it's time to circle the Regimental wagons! ;D
I'm still not convinced that emergency/disaster response should be a key role for the Military or the Reserves, and I don't believe it should be an area to focus resources on. A well equipped and trained military (say, a Reserve force that had well fully stocked, well trained Medical and Engineer units in every city) should be capable of a wide range of disaster response in assistance to civilian authorities. For instance, if we do get new vehicles to provide a disaster response force, should we paint them green or orange? Do they need to be mil-spec? Can we forgo pretending we'd ever mount weapons on them?
A TDBG seems to be right up the alley of specialists like Engineers, Medics, and Service Battalions - and Combat Arms aren't much use for anything but labour and drivers. Does this mean re-focusing resources towards more applicable units? Sound's like it's time to circle the Regimental wagons! ;D
I'm still not convinced that emergency/disaster response should be a key role for the Military or the Reserves, and I don't believe it should be an area to focus resources on. A well equipped and trained military (say, a Reserve force that had well fully stocked, well trained Medical and Engineer units in every city) should be capable of a wide range of disaster response in assistance to civilian authorities. For instance, if we do get new vehicles to provide a disaster response force, should we paint them green or orange? Do they need to be mil-spec? Can we forgo pretending we'd ever mount weapons on them?
The rumours I have heard - and keep in mind that we're talking rumours here - is that the TDB task would be a secondary duty for the local units to fill.
The idea being that if you have 3 units in a city with a TDB in it, each unit would detach people to fill their share of the class B positions, and these people would (could) rotate back and forth between the F echelons and the TDB positions every couple of years.
The class B slots would be leadership/HQ and a fully manned subunit, and then the remaining TDB slots would be filled by the class A parts of the unit, activated and slotted into the TDB ORBAT if required.
For example, if a given unit is responsible for manning A Sqn of the TDB, they'd detach a Sqn HQ and a troop as class B, and then the other troops of the TDB squadron would be notional. But if the balloon went up, the activated class A troops would slot in under the existing TDB class B leadership structure.
So using the Kootanay Highlanders, who today parade A Coy with 1, 2, and 3 Platoons, plus an RHQ, they might be tasked to provide C Coy of the Castlegar Territorial Defense Battalion. They would fill C Coy HQ and 7 Platoon as Class B, and would be responsible for manning 8 and 9 Platoons of C Coy from the manpower pool of A Coy.
A Coy KyH would still parade normally just as they do today, and there would be movement between A Coy and the active Class B positions they fill in C Coy.
It's not a bad concept - you spread the load out, you've got an immediate rapid reaction force (provided by the respective Class B subunits) for handling the small stuff, and you've got a plan for filling the larger units plus their leadership, ready to go if you need that much manpower to tackle the problem at hand. And most importantly, you're not locking entire units into "snakes and ladders" mode, which history has shown utterly demoralizes units and kills recruiting.
Where I have questions is where are all these new people going to come from, and where are we going to put them?
DG
The idea being that if you have 3 units in a city with a TDB in it, each unit would detach people to fill their share of the class B positions, and these people would (could) rotate back and forth between the F echelons and the TDB positions every couple of years.
The class B slots would be leadership/HQ and a fully manned subunit, and then the remaining TDB slots would be filled by the class A parts of the unit, activated and slotted into the TDB ORBAT if required.
For example, if a given unit is responsible for manning A Sqn of the TDB, they'd detach a Sqn HQ and a troop as class B, and then the other troops of the TDB squadron would be notional. But if the balloon went up, the activated class A troops would slot in under the existing TDB class B leadership structure.
So using the Kootanay Highlanders, who today parade A Coy with 1, 2, and 3 Platoons, plus an RHQ, they might be tasked to provide C Coy of the Castlegar Territorial Defense Battalion. They would fill C Coy HQ and 7 Platoon as Class B, and would be responsible for manning 8 and 9 Platoons of C Coy from the manpower pool of A Coy.
A Coy KyH would still parade normally just as they do today, and there would be movement between A Coy and the active Class B positions they fill in C Coy.
It's not a bad concept - you spread the load out, you've got an immediate rapid reaction force (provided by the respective Class B subunits) for handling the small stuff, and you've got a plan for filling the larger units plus their leadership, ready to go if you need that much manpower to tackle the problem at hand. And most importantly, you're not locking entire units into "snakes and ladders" mode, which history has shown utterly demoralizes units and kills recruiting.
Where I have questions is where are all these new people going to come from, and where are we going to put them?
DG
George Wallace said:
I know you're not generally condescending, so I'm going to assume I misspoke in such a way that I made myself look like an idiot. I'm aware of how the pay system works, as well as the nature and vagaries of the various classes of employment.
What I meant was, if I as Cpl. Bloggins, CHofO want to step up for this new unit as a class A soldier, would there be training scheduled on the same night as normal unit parade nights, or would I just be a name on a list that might be called up once or twice a year to practice an activation? If I were class B, would I still have my Thursday evenings available to go to my regiment?
I must have phrased it awkwardly, but in either case RecceDG seems to have answered most of my pertinent questions.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
So if I read RecceDG's interpretation of the rumours, and yes they are only rumours...
This whole thing is really just nothing more than a DRU (with a different name of course)... and a Class B headshed ... and more RSS.
Too bad it started out sounding like a solid idea.. now it's a re-package of an existing idea with a bunch of Class B's thrown in and Regular units rifled for even more RSS... Gawd knows, we need more of that sort of thing... :
This whole thing is really just nothing more than a DRU (with a different name of course)... and a Class B headshed ... and more RSS.
Too bad it started out sounding like a solid idea.. now it's a re-package of an existing idea with a bunch of Class B's thrown in and Regular units rifled for even more RSS... Gawd knows, we need more of that sort of thing... :
Well.... no, I don't think so.
Assuming these rumours play out exactly like this, what you've got is a series of fully-manned Class B subunits (platoon/troop sized) per city, plus the skeleton organization to immediately expand these units to full Coy/Sqn size (by calling out the associated Class A troops) should the situation dictate. And because your Class B subunit is Class B, they can do all the training to keep themselves current on all their usual soldiering skills, plus whatever skills are deemed useful for Aid to Civil Power missions in that area. Probably a lot of first aid and rescue skills, but perhaps crowd control and border security and vehicle searches and the like.
I actually think it is a solid, workable plan - much better for these sorts of missions than our current structure. Your formed Class B subunits are there for QRF, and you've got a trained organization (with pre-existing, pre-rolled plans ready to go) to manage the process of a more general mobilization.
But at the same time, you also don't trim back or re-role units out of their primary combat functions - 'cause let's face it, we need all the augmentees we can to backfill Reg Force positions on international ops. It's a way to have your cake an eat it too. Which, assuming there are corresponding increases in manning and funding, is Sweet Crunchy Goodness.
BTW, don't look for much, if any, RSS. There's none to be had.
If *I* were CDS (put your helmets on folks) here's how I would organize the Army:
1) Three brigade group sized Expeditionary Brigades, one formed on the PPCLI/Strats, one formed on the RCR/RCD, and one formed on the 22eme/12RBC
2) The three Schools are fully manned at all times - maybe with a large proportion of Reservists - but in any case, the schools cannot afford to be cutting courses for lack of manning.
3) When we go into an operation, the first two rotos come out of the formed EBs
4) The third roto - and maybe more - is 90% filled by Reserve units. You've got two roto's worth of time to stand them up and get them trained, and you've got fully staffed schools to bring them up to speed. I'd *love* to see entire Reserve units stood up, but that's probably not doable... but in any case, every effort should be made to stand up formed subunits. Roto 3's Recce Sn might be a WR troop, a 1H troop, a QYR troop, and a GGHG troop, with a Ont R SHQ... but whatever. The bottom line is the roto is manned almost entirely with Reservists.
5) The "extra" EB is just that - an extra; a rapid reserve should you need to go someplace else in a hurry - so if Sudan, or Haiti, or wherever suddenly goes up in smoke you have the ability to respond.
6) Depending on how many Reservists you can sustain, your rotos now look like Reg A, Reg B, Reserve, Reg C - and something like Reg A, Reg B, Reserve, Reg C, Reg A, Reserve, Reg B, Reg C, Reserve should be completely doable - more time for the Regs to recover between rotos, less burnout, less sensitivity to recruiting, and you actually USE Reservists as A RESERVE.
DG
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Worn Out Grunt said:
Valid point. However I don't envision units being issued LAVs or APCs. With the continued trend towards MILCOTS (MIlitary Commercial Off The Shelf) eqpt and vehs, such as the Silverado and the future MLVW replacement, a good deal of routine maint could be contracted out to local dealers/garages. You would still need "green" maint and recovery for contingency operations of course, but it would minimize the requirement for a large, full-time org. Ideally some of the civilian mechanics working at these garages would be your class A veh techs in the Svc Bn's.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Mountie said:
For arguments sake,
you are forgetting all of the Saskatchewan units and some of the Ontario units as well in your org.
16 Fd Amb (Med Coy)
17 Fd Amb (Med coy)
18 Fd Amb (Med Coy)
16 Svc Bn (Svc Coy)
18 Svc Bn (Svc Coy)
RRR ( Inf Coy)
N Sask R (Inf Coy)
and the list goes on...
GF
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
RecceDG said:
Well for younger reservists just graduating high school/university, it would be a great option for many who haven't secured good civilian jobs, or are arent ready to make the jump to the regular force...
I certainly hope something like this happens in the near future.
Mortar guy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 330
I believe that's why he said he would split the Bde. The Sask units would form another BG. (Am I close?)
MG
MG
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
RecceDG: Thanks for your clarification at Reply #83 on: Yesterday at 22:33:56.
What you are outlining does make a lot more sense than what my read of the situation was...
I appreciate your sorting that out...
What you are outlining does make a lot more sense than what my read of the situation was...
I appreciate your sorting that out...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The problem with the re org of the units based on Province is that you will be setting up more HQs. It will not effect Alberta or BC but Sask, Manitoba, and the Atlantic provinces. those provinces do not have the populations to support such an organization IMHO.
PEI, NS, NB, Sask, and Manitoba will be the most hit by this change.
We already have the reserve Bde orgs. Use them, don't make more HQs!
PEI, NS, NB, Sask, and Manitoba will be the most hit by this change.
We already have the reserve Bde orgs. Use them, don't make more HQs!
Mountie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Thanks MG. The example I used did split 38 CBG into a Manitoba battle group and a Saskatchewan battle group. And again it was just an example for discussion sake. I don't know if each province could sustain a battle group of its own. However, if the Reserves were expanded surely the province of Manitoba with 1.1 million (or whatever the population is now) could sustain a battle group of 600-800 troops.
With regards to more headquarters, you would have additional battle group (former brigade group) headquarters but you wouldn't have any regimental headquarters. So significantly less Lieutenant Colonels and senior officers and NCMs and more junior ranks. There would only be one LCol and one RSM in the whole province. That was the whole concept. Each unit would be maintained only as a sub-unit, rather than a unit heaquarters with only one sub-unit.
With regards to more headquarters, you would have additional battle group (former brigade group) headquarters but you wouldn't have any regimental headquarters. So significantly less Lieutenant Colonels and senior officers and NCMs and more junior ranks. There would only be one LCol and one RSM in the whole province. That was the whole concept. Each unit would be maintained only as a sub-unit, rather than a unit heaquarters with only one sub-unit.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Lots of good points being raised.
I'd be very surprised if that ever happened. No one wants to walk through the Regimental minefield, the recent press over the SD&G's/ Brocks tactical grouping illustrates why...
The CBG's could be reworked if needed, but there are advantages to keeping the Regimental unit structures. Let the Company OC concentrate on collective training and operations. The "unit" can take care of recruiting, running individual training courses, pay, admin, unit budget, armoury matters, RQMS, etc etc...
Mountie said:
I'd be very surprised if that ever happened. No one wants to walk through the Regimental minefield, the recent press over the SD&G's/ Brocks tactical grouping illustrates why...
The CBG's could be reworked if needed, but there are advantages to keeping the Regimental unit structures. Let the Company OC concentrate on collective training and operations. The "unit" can take care of recruiting, running individual training courses, pay, admin, unit budget, armoury matters, RQMS, etc etc...
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,100
- Points
- 1,160
Why should some retired CO's be driving decisions on what is best for the CF now? We've addressed the idea of regional battalions several times here. We could, IMO, improve the reserves with regional battalions (though I would not go so far as to replace the CBGs).COBRA-6 said:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25713/post-76789.html#msg76789
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I enjoyed reading this thread, there are many thoughtful comments on it.
As far as Territorial Defence Battalions go, I think that change for the sake of change without a real effect is not worth it. The problem seems to be quite simple:
1. There aren't enough troops to do all the work, now or planned
2. There isn't enough gear for the troops that are already in place
3. The troops that are in don't stay when they figure out that there is too much or not enough work for their particular trade and that most of what they have to do is not challenging
4. Potential troops don't join or stay when there is either no unit to join, or the unit that they join doesn't challenge them enough
Problem identification is easy. What's the solution? More money would help, but money targeted to solving retention problems. Retention is solved by having more people to do the work so that someone doesn't get sent on a tour, come back to see their family for a month or less and end up heading out for another 6 months a short time later. Unhappy families mean poor retention of soldiers.
More trucks to move troops for more local training, better gear and more of it, and a more involvement of the military in the community. There are so many things that would make a real difference and it boggles the mind that none or few of them seem to be a priority.
More people to do the work helps to fix part of the retention problem. Forming new units where there are supportive populations helps to meet that need (and yes, that is a bugbear of mine...).
Solving the disaster of the century cannot be the main role of the military, but as we well know, as soon as the flying excrement hits the rotating propeller, the local military is what gets called. That role is one which the reserve and regular units should have as something in the background. It would be a tertiary role rather a primary or even a secondary one, but a serious role nonetheless. Others on this thread have also made some good points, it just seems a shame that the thinking tends to be short-sighted rather than long-term.
As far as Territorial Defence Battalions go, I think that change for the sake of change without a real effect is not worth it. The problem seems to be quite simple:
1. There aren't enough troops to do all the work, now or planned
2. There isn't enough gear for the troops that are already in place
3. The troops that are in don't stay when they figure out that there is too much or not enough work for their particular trade and that most of what they have to do is not challenging
4. Potential troops don't join or stay when there is either no unit to join, or the unit that they join doesn't challenge them enough
Problem identification is easy. What's the solution? More money would help, but money targeted to solving retention problems. Retention is solved by having more people to do the work so that someone doesn't get sent on a tour, come back to see their family for a month or less and end up heading out for another 6 months a short time later. Unhappy families mean poor retention of soldiers.
More trucks to move troops for more local training, better gear and more of it, and a more involvement of the military in the community. There are so many things that would make a real difference and it boggles the mind that none or few of them seem to be a priority.
More people to do the work helps to fix part of the retention problem. Forming new units where there are supportive populations helps to meet that need (and yes, that is a bugbear of mine...).
Solving the disaster of the century cannot be the main role of the military, but as we well know, as soon as the flying excrement hits the rotating propeller, the local military is what gets called. That role is one which the reserve and regular units should have as something in the background. It would be a tertiary role rather a primary or even a secondary one, but a serious role nonetheless. Others on this thread have also made some good points, it just seems a shame that the thinking tends to be short-sighted rather than long-term.
Similar threads
