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

[daftandbarmy]

I remember somewhere that the Lorne Scots were scheduled to be employed as the Defence unit/coy of the 1st Cdn Army HQ for the Normandy Invasion...
Also remember reading that the Royal Montreal Reg't ended up as the Defence unit of the 1st Cdn Army HQ through to the end of the war....  :warstory:

One RMR Coy was effectively wiped out at the South Beveland Canal crossing in October 1944 - after petitioning heavily for the opportunity to be released from HQ defence duties so they could get into the fight. Having walked the ground they covered (carrying 500lb assault boats over a double canal into a frontal assault against heavy defences) 20/20 hindsight would probably have kept them at the HQ. Regardless, this brought them great credit for their fighting spirit.

And this is a good example of how stories like these will always be important to the formation and sustainment of strong, individual regimental identities that will always stand us in good stead when we need to forge competent fighting formations from enthusiastic novices.

 

[geo]

D&B  South Beveland Canal ???  You MUST mean the Leopold Canal - where it was attached to the Regina Rifles

Maj Schwob was their Coy OC... Met him when he was an Honorary many years later.... a real Gentleman

 

[daftandbarmy]

D&B  South Beveland Canal ???  You MUST mean the Leopold Canal - where it was attached to the Regina Rifles

Maj Schwob was their Coy OC... Met him when he was an Honorary many years later.... a real Gentleman

Of course... so many canals that tour, so little time.

 

[McG]

And this is a good example of how stories like these will always be important to the formation and sustainment of strong, individual regimental identities that will always stand us in good stead when we need to forge competent fighting formations from enthusiastic novices.

But it is not an illustration of why any one reserve regiment should exist into perpetuity simply because it exists today.

 

[GunfighterSB]

A couple of things I look at with amalgamting units  Yes feelings will be hurt. Fewer LT CO and CWO. Oh well. At least we will have 300-500 man size REGIMENTS. Not companies masquarading as regiments. If you really look at the history of all the infantry units in canada that existed prior to 1900, you will notice with every one of them their is either big or small changes. Changes are part of military life.

I think the problem is not small units, but personnel. We need more personnel. That 300-500 man size REGIMENTS will shrink due to simple math: We are not gaining (and retaining) faster than we are loosing people. (at least in Toronto). We need to attract people and retain them for better ROI.

Lets focus on the BIG PICTURE, be relevant to today's needs.

How come we don't have machine gun companies any more? Where did the tunnelling corps go? Oh wait, times changed and we ahve to move on.

Another thought (and this going to p*ss some people off). We don't have nearly enough AFV for every reserve armoured units. How about re-roling some armoured unitd from back to infantry (Several armoured units were re-roled from infantry a long time ago).   

We already did that. The Elgins became a Combat Engineer Unit last decade, all the Reserve Armour became Recce. We don't have enough AFVs - thats fine - we had the G Wagens - opps not anymore as most of them ended Wainright and still waiting to be returned (probably never). You want us to re-roll in to Infantry, fine we'll do it - send us on Infantry courses, we can become Black Hatted Infantry(again).

ArmyRick, the BIG PICTURE is that we need significant investments in the Armed Forces to make up for the decades of neglect and apathy. I am doing my part by being a shining example of a soldier and a human being to my non-army friends, neighbors and co-workers. I even help recruit some of them into the Regular Force and the Reserve. But my Bandwidth is only so much, I can only help turn the tide with others help.

 

[geo]

I think the problem is not small units, but personnel. We need more personnel. That 300-500 man size REGIMENTS will shrink due to simple math: We are not gaining (and retaining) faster than we are loosing people. (at least in Toronto). We need to attract people and retain them for better ROI.

Ummm....

If I look at the Reserve unit I 1st joined umpteen years ago (1970), we were some 140 souls on the parade square.
We were limited by the total number of mandays the unit was allocated.  For the next 25 some years, guess what, the unit lost +/- 25% of it's personnel each year and recruited +/-25% ... in 1998 they were still at +/- 140 souls... Why, because they couldn't pay for more.

Over the last couple of years, the area commander has gotten a slightly larger pay envelope and he's passed it down to his formations.... down to the units.

My old unit is up to 225 - 240 souls.  the training is (relatively) hard and Morale is good.

They have attracted & the Recruiting system has +/- gotten out of 1st gear.

 

[blacktriangle]

Another thought (and this going to p*ss some people off). We don't have nearly enough AFV for every reserve armoured units. How about re-roling some armoured unitd from back to infantry (Several armoured units were re-roled from infantry a long time ago).   

I don't think my unit has had an actual AFV for decades...and we don't even have enough G wagons as echoed by others, so I'm all for it. Thankfully I'm off to better pastures where batallions have enough vehicles for almost a company!!  :

 

[GunfighterSB]

Over the last couple of years, the area commander has gotten a slightly larger pay envelope and he's passed it down to his formations.... down to the units.

My old unit is up to 225 - 240 souls.   the training is (relatively) hard and Morale is good.

They have attracted & the Recruiting system has +/- gotten out of 1st gear.

An excellent example. I am assuming this Unit is not in Toronto, what is the personell cap for the Unit? Is it allowed to go higher than 50% of its allotted wartime establishment? Are most (80%) of the 225 - 240 Soldiers qualified in their positions? What is the demographics of the Unit in question, do most of its members live within 10 Km of the Unit? How much of the 225 - 240 show up regularly on Excercises? (I'm assuming its very high since morale is high).

Now, how many of your Old Unit members will stay in the Reserves if the Unit is Disbanded and the members scattered to feed other (really)Under strength units?
(Because I'm guessing that none of the members will quit if other (really) Understrength Units will be disbanded to feed your Old Unit).

So long as your unit is gaining more than it loses; BZ to you old Unit.

 

[geo]

For years, the unit (RMR) (Montreal) was authorized only one mission element and that was about it... regardless of what the unit outhorized strength was, it was a question of how many mandays the area & the Brigade allocated that decided how strong the unit could be... so approx 140 for some 20 odd years.  Then they took away recruiting from the individual units and that coincided with a whole bunch of red tape in the enrollment process.... strength plumetted for a bit - unit had to claw back from the brink - everyone had aq tremendous fear of being axed while the Reserve restructure scare was going around... oddly enough - retention of soldiers increased - leaders actualy had to take care of their troops (do their jobs so to speak)...
New management in the area and the area & brigade commanders figured it was time to "reward" the units that did a good job of doing what they do... so, units that can't bring em in are having their budgets cut & the units that are able to bring em in and keep em in are being rewarded - with larger budgets to feed the new troops... not rocket science by any means but - it's effective.

From what I can gather, the main problem they have right now is that as soon as junior leaders are trained.... they are being enticed into going class B or C - to take up jobs in the Schools, HQs &/or within Combat arms units...

 

[dapaterson]

Geo:

Without going into too much detail, the number of Reserve senior leaders employed full-time is a known issue; the CLS is regularly updated about the current state of affairs.  For all ranks MCpl through MWO, and Capt and Maj, over 45% of the parading members of the Army Reserve are on some sort of full-time service.  There are some occupations where more than two thirds of the personnel are on full-time service.  The support being provided by the Reserves to the CF writ large is substantial; the question is whether it is sustainable...

 

[Old Sweat]

That is getting close to eating the seed potatoes.

 

[geo]

Sustainable..... ???

I think both you and I know what the answer is to that question

 

[TCBF]

But it is not an illustration of why any one reserve regiment should exist into perpetuity simply because it exists today.

- No, but is is a window into the culture of our regimental  system.  We tinker with it at our peril, and we must always heed the law of unintended consequences.

 

[TCBF]

Sustainable..... ???

I think both you and I know what the answer is to that question

- My conclusion: The Reg F is consuming the Res F, faster than the Res F can reconstitute. 

 

[geo]

But should they be "sacred cows" ???

 

[ArmyRick]

Yes all the regiments and corps have a glorious history but there are no sacred cows IMO. Should I list the regiments as they existed in WWI or even the boer war? They fought valiantly too.

 

[McG]

I think the problem is not small units, but personnel. We need more personnel. That 300-500 man size REGIMENTS will shrink due to simple math: We are not gaining (and retaining) faster than we are loosing people. (at least in Toronto). We need to attract people and retain them for better ROI. ...

ArmyRick, the BIG PICTURE is that we need significant investments in the Armed Forces to make up for the decades of neglect and apathy.

But, do we need a larger Army Primary Reserve?  As we should not be growing the PRes for the glory of its regiments, please demonstrate a role or capability requirement that justifies a larger primary reserve.

The Reg F is consuming the Res F, faster than the Res F can reconstitute. 

A disturbing trend.  Do you think the PRes should be large enough to meet the current manpower demand on a sustainable basis?  The alternate might be that the Regular Force needs to be suficiently larger so as to sustain the current tempo without putting such a large demand on the PRes.

 

[McG]

Yes all the regiments and corps have a glorious history but there are no sacred cows IMO.

Exactly.  We should not be expanding regiments for their own glory.  We should grow (or reduce) our formations, units and sub units based on the established needs of the organization.

I think the problem is not small units, but personnel. We need more personnel. That 300-500 man size REGIMENTS will shrink due to simple math: We are not gaining (and retaining) faster than we are loosing people. (at least in Toronto). We need to attract people and retain them for better ROI.

Here, it appears, you are either arguing growth for the glory of the regiment or you are suggesting there is a broader CF requirement for a larger Army Primary Reserve.  I believe you are suggesting a higher CF requirement exists.

In order to control the scope of this thread (or at least try), I have split off some discussion of the need/potential for growth and merged it with a related thread on PRes capabilities:  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/24381.0.html

Within the currently given limitations on roles & maximum funded unit sizes, permanent tactical groupings or regimental mergers appear to me as the most appropriate path to get the most effectiveness out of the PRes.

 

[dapaterson]

It's not just size - it's structure as well.  There are ranks and trades where everyone is getting ready to go on their third tour in Afghanistan, and others where no one has gone at all.  But some of those represent capabilities we need, but not in this theatre of operations.  So the question, perhaps, isn't "Does the Army need to be bigger" or rather "How should the Army be structured".  That question applies to both the Reg F and the Res F, and needs the engagement of good staff from the G3 and G1, and from the "future force" folks.

Once we figure out how we should be structured, we look at where we are and how to move from one to the other.  Not easy, but necessary.  And also a situation that may upset some cast iron rice bowls - perhaps the number of infantry bns required in the Reg F isn't an even multiple of 3!

 

[TCBF]

- With all of the money nowadays, we should be maxing out the Militia to 1,000 man bns, if they can recruit that high.