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

[MilEME09]

I've been saying that about the Army Reserve for years....  And not "equal" but the same training.

unfortunately the opposite is occurring, I'm going through the new Pres Wpns tech training, the only weapons we now get is Browning HP, C7, M203, C6, C9, Carl G, and sub-cal inserts, maybe C3 howitzer is they don't take it out of the system. Leaves a massive gap between reg force and reserve for my trade. Any way I like the idea of having the Reserves fill the gaps in the reg force, especially now with the reg force loosing a lot of people post Afghanistan. Problem is seems like Ottawa wants to try and separate the Reserves and Reg Force more and more from each other

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

unfortunately the opposite is occurring, I'm going through the new Pres Wpns tech training, the only weapons we now get is Browning HP, C7, M203, C6, C9, Carl G, and sub-cal inserts, maybe C3 howitzer is they don't take it out of the system. Leaves a massive gap between reg force and reserve for my trade. Any way I like the idea of having the Reserves fill the gaps in the reg force, especially now with the reg force loosing a lot of people post Afghanistan. Problem is seems like Ottawa wants to try and separate the Reserves and Reg Force more and more from each other

That is because we keep trying to maintain the status-quo rather then trying to adapt and innovate. 

 

[myself.only]

That is exactly what I am saying... basically each Division should be able to force generate a Bn (+) sized reserve force to support the Reg Force CMBG they are aligned too.  The focus of this force should be on force generating enablers for the Reg Force i.e. Mortars, Anit-Armour, Vehicle Crews, CIMIC/Psy Ops, HUMINT etc... this way we can cover capability gaps that presently exist within the Reg Force that we don't have right now and provide the Reserves with a valuable raison d'etre! 

Edit:  I am also in favor of sub-dividing the Reserves into different classifications of Reservists, i.e. Active and Supplementary.  Active Reserve are essentially full-time soldiers but they are do not move around like Reg Force members and are employed in key areas where we have capability shortfalls.  For instance, employing Reservists in our Influence Activities Task Force.  Some of these people have valuable skills and we should be able to use their skills to maximum effect.  Their career progression could be within that organization as well.  We would be able to stand-up entire Reserve units that are full-time and based in a specific geographic location, they would do the same training everyone else does but would focus on their field of expertise and progress accordingly within their stream.

The Supplementary Reserve would be your traditional part-time soldiers who we could turn to for disaster-relief, aide to civil power, etc and further augmentation of the Reg Force with personnel when required.

Sounds good to me (FWIW).
Although it's far outside my lane, it's interesting stuff.

So - just wondering here - with the intent of training to need, do you think the PRes units would be able maintain essential skills with the task of generating capability gap specialists?
For instance, if you're tasked to provide a mortar platoon I'd imagine you have to train multiple mortar platoons since not everybody will be able to answer the call up. 
In the absence of trg with your CMBG, would there be the problem of PRes FTXs becoming basically days on the mortar rge and - aside from IBTS - infanteer skills would get short shrift?

 

[dapaterson]

Part time reservists cannot maintain the same breadth skillsets as the Regular Force.  It's foolish to claim otherwise.  So training on a well-defined skillset within the larger Reg F skillset makes sense.  That way, the gaps are well known and well quantified.  Training people to the same standard, then having them not practice skills because of the inherent time constraints in part-time service is a waste of training resources.  Do a few things and do them well, rather than try to do everything and do it poorly.


Full-time reservists are a contradiction in terms.  The NDA clearly defines Reservists as those employed on other than continuing full-time service.  You want military personnel for long-term full-time service?  That's the Regular Force.

The challenge is in designing a force structure balancing part time and full time, and what sorts of skills are required.  Based on that sort of analysis, we should vest high training cost skillsets in the Reg F, and retain a Reserve to hold larger groups of personnel who are in trades that require less skills maintenance.

That suggests a support-heavy Reg F, with adequate "pointy end" for initial deployments, with a Reserve Force that is then mobilized  (either through voluntary or compulsory service) to round out units for follow-on deployment.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Part time reservists cannot maintain the same breadth skillsets as the Regular Force.  It's foolish to claim otherwise.  So training on a well-defined skillset within the larger Reg F skillset makes sense.  That way, the gaps are well known and well quantified.  Training people to the same standard, then having them not practice skills because of the inherent time constraints in part-time service is a waste of training resources.  Do a few things and do them well, rather than try to do everything and do it poorly.


Full-time reservists are a contradiction in terms.  The NDA clearly defines Reservists as those employed on other than continuing full-time service.  You want military personnel for long-term full-time service?  That's the Regular Force.

The challenge is in designing a force structure balancing part time and full time, and what sorts of skills are required.  Based on that sort of analysis, we should vest high training cost skillsets in the Reg F, and retain a Reserve to hold larger groups of personnel who are in trades that require less skills maintenance.

That suggests a support-heavy Reg F, with adequate "pointy end" for initial deployments, with a Reserve Force that is then mobilized  (either through voluntary or compulsory service) to round out units for follow-on deployment.

I can buy this for sure, administering and maintaining the army should most def be a Reg Force function.  I am def for having certain capabilities be maintained by the Reserves though and think if we give them specific things to look after they can do a good job at it and it will free up resources in the Reg Force.  As for full-time reservists?  I see a place for them.

IATF for instance in Kingston is a good example of a place where I think a full-time Reservist is a good fit.  You hire them at less cost then a Reg Force soldier and the only thing they do is work for the IATF.  Most of these people in these organizations don't want to move anyways, they want to stay where they are and keep doing what they love to do so why should we force them to move around?  For me this seems like a win-win situation because it costs less to employ these people, we don't have to pay for expensive cost moves to move them around and they can progress within the specific organizations they work in and become highly skilled in the occupations/fields they work in.

 

[dapaterson]

Again, we're faced with the NDA:

There shall be a component of the Canadian Forces, called the reserve force, that consists of officers and non-commissioned members who are enrolled for other than continuing, full-time military service when not on active service*.

*Active Service is a very poorly defined term within the NDA - I suspect the drafters knew what they meant and assumed everyone else would as well.


If you're saying, though, that we should pay full-time people less if they don't want to move and only want to progress within a narrow scope, then shouldn't that apply to the Reg F as well?  You want to stay in Petawawa in battalion and not move then your pay should be cut?  Be careful what you ask for...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Again, we're faced with the NDA:

There shall be a component of the Canadian Forces, called the reserve force, that consists of officers and non-commissioned members who are enrolled for other than continuing, full-time military service when not on active service*.

*Active Service is a very poorly defined term within the NDA - I suspect the drafters knew what they meant and assumed everyone else would as well.


If you're saying, though, that we should pay full-time people less if they don't want to move and only want to progress within a narrow scope, then shouldn't that apply to the Reg F as well?  You want to stay in Petawawa in battalion and not move then your pay should be cut?  Be careful what you ask for...

If you must play devils advocate then sure, personally when people say "I don't want to move" in the Reg's I say tough luck, either get on with it or get out.  Obviously welfare needs to be taken into consideration but we need to be flexible.  We also need a system that is flexible that works for us.  Maybe full-time reservists aren't the solution to some of our problems but we are hard-capped on numbers and can't grow anymore in the Reg force so what are some solutions?

I like your idea of making the Regs support heavy, this makes sense to me from an administrative perspective.  It is fairly straight forward to train guys to do basic infantry stuff; however, supporter trades are often skill intensive and require more training and it is just not possible for the Reserves to maintain fleets of vehicles/equipment they are given. 

Perhaps a restructure of the Reg Force and a re-alignment of the Reserve Force with an emphasis on generating specifically defined skillsets is what is needed?

 

[MilEME09]

Perhaps a restructure of the Reg Force and a re-alignment of the Reserve Force with an emphasis on generating specifically defined skillsets is what is needed?

I think in their own way they are trying to do that now with this whole Reserve 90/10 dom/exp ops formula, CSS trades have been reworked to train for only what is needed in a dom op. Problem is this creates a large skill gap between reserve and reg force. This creates diminished capabilities on part of reserve units, atleast on the part of CSS, I know very little of what changes are being made to Combat arms trades, What I have heard is talk of removing the C3 howitzer from the system which would leave reserve arty with only a 81mm mortor. With only that kind of capability if it happens, what kind of role would reserve arty even have left?

 

[daftandbarmy]

IMHO the most effective approach would be something like this:

Play on the strengths we've got, like motivated troops and (thanks to Gagetown and elsewhere) a decent supply of well trained Pl Comds and Sect Comds.

Issue orders likje: NLT 30 April each year X Div will provide X infantry platoons (engr/armd tps etc) to deploy with # PPCLI-RCR-R22R BG on Ex KILL'EM ALL LET GOD SORT 'EM OUT. D-Day: Same time every summer or something, after school is out anyways. If you've got some trained OCs and extra Pl Comds, send them along too.

Incorporate the trained pls/sqns into the Reg F ex under Comd of Reg F COs, or trained militia guys if you have them. Don't pretend that the militia guys can command anything higher than a platoon or troop from the get go as very few units can exercise effectively at that level through the training year. I know, I've tried - lots - and it just does not work.

Keep it to the basic stuff e.g., close with and destroy. Do this for two or three years in a row. After that, if you're starting to get really good, and hundreds of troops beg to come every year because it's soooo cool, then branch out and try some other stuff like Mor Pls etc.

Right now there is little in the way of a consistent motivator to keep troops engaged through the training year, although it looks like this last year may be a change in the right direction. All of them join up to be kill crazy commandos, but we consistently dumb it down for them by trying to be something we are not e.g., a militia BG (remember 2 years ago in Shilo, anyone?) which will generally suck for everyone below BG Comd level.

,

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think, if people want to invest some time, that if you guys go upthread and do some reading, you'll find this whole discussion has already taken place.

Not that I want to stop all the fun your having reinventing the wheel of course

 

[MilEME09]

I think budget cuts have actually in a way helped move us in the right direction, atleast in 41 CBG, now atleast 4 exercises per year must have two or more units involved. This allows for combined arms training and units learn to work with each other more closely, instead of doing EX's on their own and suddenly showing up for the Brigade EX and be expected to work perfectly with other units. If we could take this one step further and perhaps do EX's with the reg force, it could go a long way for the capabilities of the reserve from learning by working closely with the Reg force.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think in their own way they are trying to do that now with this whole Reserve 90/10 dom/exp ops formula, CSS trades have been reworked to train for only what is needed in a dom op. Problem is this creates a large skill gap between reserve and reg force. This creates diminished capabilities on part of reserve units, atleast on the part of CSS, I know very little of what changes are being made to Combat arms trades, What I have heard is talk of removing the C3 howitzer from the system which would leave reserve arty with only a 81mm mortor. With only that kind of capability if it happens, what kind of role would reserve arty even have left?

Well since the Reg force arty is being forced to man the 81mm, it not much of a downgrade....But it does show how poorly thought out the replacement process is. We have known those guns were long in the tooth even when I joined in 1977. They had lots and lots of time to plan replacements and there is a wide variety of choice in replacements. It should have been an easy procurement and one that was done in stages, purchasing X number of already produced guns a year, so you can spread out the budget hit.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I think, if people want to invest some time, that if you guys go upthread and do some reading, you'll find this whole discussion has already taken place.

Not that I want to stop all the fun your having reinventing the wheel of course

Recceguy, Much like the House of Commons, Army.ca is all about  :deadhorse:

Let us rant!  Let us rant!  Let us rant!  ;D

 

[FJAG]

Again, we're faced with the NDA:

There shall be a component of the Canadian Forces, called the reserve force, that consists of officers and non-commissioned members who are enrolled for other than continuing, full-time military service when not on active service*.

*Active Service is a very poorly defined term within the NDA - I suspect the drafters knew what they meant and assumed everyone else would as well.

There is no definition in the Act for "continuing, full-time" and therefore it would require either additional legislation or an interpretation by a court to tell us exactly what it means. In the absence of that we have generally used a rule of thumb saying three years might constitute "continuing, full-time." This is generally why you find Class B and C contracts for durations shorter than three years. I've known some reservists who have spent over twenty years bouncing back and forth between various Class B and C Service contracts but because they were fragmented, they were never on "continuing, full time" service.

Active service while not defined is easily understood. Any CF person is on active duty when "placed on active duty" by an order by the Governor in Council i.e. the Federal Cabinet". As an example, to assist in fulfilling its duties to NATO, the GiC placed all reg f members and (when outside Canada) reserve force members, on Active duty by way of order in council P.C. 1989-583 on 6 Apr 89 (this is a successor to various similar, earlier OiCs). There are various consequences as a result of being on active service including disciplinary liability, benefits etc (don't ask me to be specific - they're all over the legislation and regulations).

Active Service is an old concept. If you're interested in it, I've attached an article that explains it and states one man's opinion that it irrelevant in this day and age.

:cheers:

 

[dapaterson]

As long as Reservists are subject to the CSD 24/7 "when on active service" the concept remains relevant.  We have sufficient numbers of court-martials tossed because of a lack of disciplinary jurisdiction already.  (OR maybe that says more about the quality of some of our military prosecutors...)

And the "when outside Canada" regulation is poorly drafted (to say the least).  Lacking any qualifiers, it means that any Reservist outside Canada for any reason - military or otherwise - is on active service and therefore subject to the CSD.

And we're clutching at straws when we claim a Reservist doing 20 years continuous full time service in a variety of jobs is any different from a Reg F member who spends 20 years of continuous full time service in a variety of jobs.  We can apply a trifle of common sense; besides, if we explicitly create structures which are required to be continuously manned on a full-time basis by members of the Reserve Force we are overstepping the bounds of possible grey areas.


EDIT to add: As well, we don't want to be too aggressive.  Going to court is the last thing DND/CAF would want - then there will be hard and fast rules that we can't finesse around.  Keeping things in the fuzzy grey margins avoids that inconvenience

 

[daftandbarmy]

Recceguy, Much like the House of Commons, Army.ca is all about  :deadhorse:

Let us rant!  Let us rant!  Let us rant!  ;D

And by the way, for the record, HE started it!  :nana:

 

[McG]

We have divisions now.  I suppose it is only a matter of time until someone proposes we establish div troops in the PRes.

 

[MilEME09]

We have divisions now.  I suppose it is only a matter of time until someone proposes we establish div troops in the PRes.

Quick delete your post before some one gets an idea! >

 

[OldSolduer]

We have divisions now.  I suppose it is only a matter of time until someone proposes we establish div troops in the PRes.

So there is hope for the 3rd Div Mess Tin and Bicycle Repair Coy?

 

[FJAG]

As long as Reservists are subject to the CSD 24/7 "when on active service" the concept remains relevant.  We have sufficient numbers of court-martials tossed because of a lack of disciplinary jurisdiction already.  (OR maybe that says more about the quality of some of our military prosecutors...)

And the "when outside Canada" regulation is poorly drafted (to say the least).  Lacking any qualifiers, it means that any Reservist outside Canada for any reason - military or otherwise - is on active service and therefore subject to the CSD.

And we're clutching at straws when we claim a Reservist doing 20 years continuous full time service in a variety of jobs is any different from a Reg F member who spends 20 years of continuous full time service in a variety of jobs.  We can apply a trifle of common sense; besides, if we explicitly create structures which are required to be continuously manned on a full-time basis by members of the Reserve Force we are overstepping the bounds of possible grey areas.


EDIT to add: As well, we don't want to be too aggressive.  Going to court is the last thing DND/CAF would want - then there will be hard and fast rules that we can't finesse around.  Keeping things in the fuzzy grey margins avoids that inconvenience

Not really sure where you are going with some of this but let me make some comments:

I can't recall of any court martial (incidentally the plural is courts martial) ever tossing a case based on an absence of jurisdiction over a reservist (Not saying there may not have been one but it would be an extremely rare event). On the other hand I do know of many DJAs/AJAGs advising units that they lack jurisdiction to charge a reservists in certain circumstances where the conditions of NDA s. 60(1)(c) have not been met.

While the NATO OiC is a bit vague, other OiCs make it clear that only reservists who are "part of or serve in immediate support of" a specific mission are considered having been placed on active service. The same interpretation is generally assumed for the NATO OiC. Just being a reservist on vacation in your civilian capacity in Italy would not make you subject to the OiC.

If I had a nickel for every vague or badly worded piece of legislation . . . Not withstanding your disdain for Prosecutors let me simply say that they are in large measure very smart and talented people who make their living interpreting rules and regulations in light of any given factual situation. Common sense plays a large role in their day to day work.

Re the reservists with 20 years accumulated full-time work (who were friends of mine) let me simply say that they made their own beds. Each of them could have gone reg f but chose the route they did because they could not be posted or deployed or be subject to numerous matters they found didn't suit their lifestyle. In exchange they got a lower salary, no job security, and no pension. They were good at what they did but they were not the equivalent of their reg f counterparts who were subject to much more stringent  terms of service.

As to keeping things fuzzy, I can say that I've sat around the table where we did come to the conclusion that tightening up the language of a particular piece of legislation could very well end up in taking away from its flexibility and that it was better to leave things vague.

:cheers: