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

[Lightguns]

The Highlanders were amalgamated into the Royal Regiment of Scotland over ten years ago, and the whole of the RRS wears the same headdress, although each battalion wears a different coloured hackle.

During the same time period, Canada has gone from 15 Scottish regiments to 16, with the re-establishment of the Cape Breton Highlanders.

To clarify, I was speaking of the 4 RRS (The Highlanders) who continue the traditions of 3 former regiments.

The Royal Regiment of Scotland Regular consists of 7 battalions, each battalion has a variation in costume according to it's adopted history and traditions:

The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland
The Royal Highland Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland
The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland
The Highlanders, 4th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland
5th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland (Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders)

Reserve battalions
52nd Lowland, 6th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland
51st Highland, 7th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland

 

[Lightguns]

Hey, are you really saying that size does matter? That the five battalions of the R22eR are not somehow the ceremonial and heritage equal of those two sections?

The British Army had a similar issue with units that brought minimal combat capability to the table but had very active political and social connections. I once heard a Territorial Army unit described as "A Masonic Lodge with a Rifle Company attached". The answer they found was amalgamation; initially painful, but much more flexible and effective in the long run.

I concur and a more Canadian face to our regiments as well, we are well past the point of identifying with highlanders, lowlanders, Irish, Riflemen (in traditions sense) or Light Infantry (in the traditions sense).  Nothing wrong with Canadian Territorial Regiments based on Provincial Names incorporating the battle honours of the units of said Province, ie: the Nova Scotia Regiment.  And maybe the battalions being numbered with their branch affiliation in brackets 1st (RCAC) Battalion, The Nova Scotia Regiment.  Engineers and Artillery would continue their branch regimental affiliation. 

 

[Rifleman62]

Lightguns:

I concur and a more Canadian face to our regiments as well, we are well past the point of identifying with........ Riflemen (in traditions sense).....

I Object!  ;D

 

[daftandbarmy]

Hey, are you really saying that size does matter? That the five battalions of the R22eR are not somehow the ceremonial and heritage equal of those two sections?

The British Army had a similar issue with units that brought minimal combat capability to the table but had very active political and social connections. I once heard a Territorial Army unit described as "A Masonic Lodge with a Rifle Company attached". The answer they found was amalgamation; initially painful, but much more flexible and effective in the long run.

And this 'territorial' approach was instigated by a cheap British government, in the 19th C IIRC, who wanted to make it easier and less expensive to recruit troops quickly by leaning on local affiliations wherever possible. As a result, they gave up some 'corporate' control over branding etc. This didn't matter too much as British national survival relied mainly on the Royal Navy.

Where national survival could not rely on this quaint local approach to raising troops, Continental Armies used more corporate approaches from the outset, like conscription en masse, which was effective but far more expensive. Nevertheless, infantry units in Germany, France and other similar countries look and feel far more 'corporate'. The USA is the same, having adopted many of the Continental European customs (including, sadly, some shocking foot drill).

So you could say our 21st Century Army culture in Canada was defined by a 19th Century British policy implemented under the assumption that we have the most powerful Navy in the world.

Anyone see any flaws in that strategy? Anyone

 

[dapaterson]

So you could say our 21st Century Army culture in Canada was defined by a 19th Century British policy implemented under the assumption that we have the most powerful Navy in the world.

Anyone see any flaws in that strategy? Anyone

As I understand it, until the next class of US aircraft carriers are commissioned, we have more MCDVs than they have carriers.  So it's all good.

 

[Lightguns]

And this 'territorial' approach was instigated by a cheap British government, in the 19th C IIRC, who wanted to make it easier and less expensive to recruit troops quickly by leaning on local affiliations wherever possible. As a result, they gave up some 'corporate' control over branding etc. This didn't matter too much as British national survival relied mainly on the Royal Navy.

Where national survival could not rely on this quaint local approach to raising troops, Continental Armies used more corporate approaches from the outset, like conscription en masse, which was effective but far more expensive. Nevertheless, infantry units in Germany, France and other similar countries look and feel far more 'corporate'. The USA is the same, having adopted many of the Continental European customs (including, sadly, some shocking foot drill).

So you could say our 21st Century Army culture in Canada was defined by a 19th Century British policy implemented under the assumption that we have the most powerful Navy in the world.

Anyone see any flaws in that strategy? Anyone

We are protected by the most powerful navy in the world and we don't pay a dime for it...............

 

[ArmyRick]

As far as our reserve regiments go, I can see a few options
1. Create "Battalions" that function similarly to the London Regiment (i.e. The Toronto Battalion would have like A (48th High) Coy, B (QOR) Coy, C (RR of C) Coy, D (Tor Scot) Coy). This means a shared CO and RSM. I still feel WAY too many Lt Col and CWO running amuk.

2. Amalgamation. Which is a viable option but now is not the time to do it. Somehow something like "Toronto Rifle Regiment" or "Toronto Light Infantry" sounds way cooler than the non-offending, gender neutral, all inclusive "Toronto Regiment". This option would be tough. My Regiment (The Foresters, thats all I have to say we are the last Foresters in the world) has its two armouries 110 KM apart. My armoury (Owen Sound) is close to nothing really. That would be a reality for many rural units across Canada. However in this day and age of electronic everything, we should in theory make it work well. Or screw it up even worse.

3. Recruit. I mean recruit. You can easily fill up the reserves ranks. Some tweaking and overhaulage in the recruiting process for the P Res. The Liberals at first would be against this idea (its military, oh my!) but we sell the pitch as "Give young muslim, hindu, sihk, and other Canadian youth an exciting employment opportunity". The sales pitch has to be Liberal themed to make them buy it. Its interesting, I listened to a retired Regular Force Lt Col infantry (now a P Res) state that reserves are actually a better economic option than keeping our reg force at its present size. Roasting coming for that I know. Don not bother, I know all the valid points from both sides of the argument and I will sum it up as the government of the day and the flavour they choose is what its going to be.

 

[Journeyman]

[US] Army turns to special ops model to prepare regular forces for wars in major cities

LINK

The U.S. Army says it will need to start planning now for war in a world filled with megacities — urban areas with populations exceeding 10 million people.

What this means then -- The Army will definitely have to organize differently, probably into smaller, more compartmented groups.

Canadian Army Reserves are already way ahead;  small....compartmented (as in, not speaking with other units)...usually city-dwelling....   

Shame about that whole "scaring city folks when training" thing.      :nod:

 

[Halifax Tar]

As far as our reserve regiments go, I can see a few options
1. Create "Battalions" that function similarly to the London Regiment (i.e. The Toronto Battalion would have like A (48th High) Coy, B (QOR) Coy, C (RR of C) Coy, D (Tor Scot) Coy). This means a shared CO and RSM. I still feel WAY too many Lt Col and CWO running amuk.

2. Amalgamation. Which is a viable option but now is not the time to do it. Somehow something like "Toronto Rifle Regiment" or "Toronto Light Infantry" sounds way cooler than the non-offending, gender neutral, all inclusive "Toronto Regiment". This option would be tough. My Regiment (The Foresters, thats all I have to say we are the last Foresters in the world) has its two armouries 110 KM apart. My armoury (Owen Sound) is close to nothing really. That would be a reality for many rural units across Canada. However in this day and age of electronic everything, we should in theory make it work well. Or screw it up even worse.

3. Recruit. I mean recruit. You can easily fill up the reserves ranks. Some tweaking and overhaulage in the recruiting process for the P Res. The Liberals at first would be against this idea (its military, oh my!) but we sell the pitch as "Give young muslim, hindu, sihk, and other Canadian youth an exciting employment opportunity". The sales pitch has to be Liberal themed to make them buy it. Its interesting, I listened to a retired Regular Force Lt Col infantry (now a P Res) state that reserves are actually a better economic option than keeping our reg force at its present size. Roasting coming for that I know. Don not bother, I know all the valid points from both sides of the argument and I will sum it up as the government of the day and the flavour they choose is what its going to be.

I would actually agree in terms of Land forces.  But you would need to make the reserves more accountable for call ups and provide them the job protection and other tac on benefits they deserve. 

Where this would fall down though is for Sea and Air components.  These need robust fulltime employment to ensure skills and operations are maintained. 

 

[Loachman]

The 400 Squadron min monthly attendance requirement for A Class Aircrew was six days, and four for all others. Most put in more time than that.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We are protected by the most powerful navy in the world and we don't pay a dime for it...............

Oh... you're goooood 

 

[Flavus101]

I would actually agree in terms of Land forces.  But you would need to make the reserves more accountable for call ups and provide them the job protection and other tac on benefits they deserve. 

Where this would fall down though is for Sea and Air components.  These need robust fulltime employment to ensure skills and operations are maintained.

I would wager that not all Sea and Air components are as technical as some Land components. Once you have hammered in a skill you usually just require periodic refreshers to keep yourself proficient. However this requires you to have learned the skill properly.

Personal gripe - We need to stop cutting corners in the training system. Year after year more is cut from courses (specifically talking about Infantry as that is what I know). The training that we do is less effective as we have moved to a completely zero risk environment.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I would wager that not all Sea and Air components are as technical as some Land components. Once you have hammered in a skill you usually just require periodic refreshers to keep yourself proficient. However this requires you to have learned the skill properly.

I can't speak for all fleets, but LRP doesn't really work this way with periodic refreshers.  We have requirements for currency, both flying and simulators, plus a whole list of other things.  My trade takes 2 years to upgrade from Basic Category to Advanced Category *after* completing a 6-8 month long Maritime Operational Aircrew Training course.  Working full time at it, it is extremely challenging to be proficient in all the lines of taskings.  Our only reservists are folks who spent years in the trade beyond their upgrade and have left the Reg Force for the part time gig.  Usually they end up in on OPs shop or in Standards and Training.

It is not as difficult to be *current*, but being proficient...another story.  You want the proficient, not current.  Stepping away from the maritime stuff for X months for things like OP IMPACT, even as a A Cat, when you get back to the normal maritime stuff, its going to take time to knock the rust off, get current again and then work back to proficient.

Having done the res side before, I am of the opinion that the land stuff is easier to maintain in the part time stuff.

 

[Loachman]

I would wager that not all Sea and Air components are as technical as some Land components. Once you have hammered in a skill you usually just require periodic refreshers to keep yourself proficient.

I cannot speak for the Rum/Sodomy/Lash crowd, but "periodic refreshers" for aircrew need to be constant, and most "refreshers" come from actually conducting missions. Techs are "refreshed" by fixing broken aircraft and conducting routine maintenance. Skill fade is quicker than you seem to think. Unemployed/under-employed aircraft are wasteful, and we do not have enough aircraft to allow under-employment.

 

[Flavus101]

Without straying too far out of my lane here (I really do not know a whole lot about the Navy nor Airforce) I think we are speaking to almost the same point.

I definitely agree that there are certain trades within the Airforce and Navy that are a hell of a lot more technical than the majority of the Army trades. I also agree that there are trades from all three branches that would be difficult to adequately fill with reservists.

I will look at it from an Infantry perspective as that is what I am most familiar with. When we focus on the Offensive BTS for a year we often lose practice with the skills that accompany the Defensive BTS. Ensuring that trenches are properly sited and built, the defensive routine is fully adhered to and a proper occupation and withdrawal plan is created and executed definitely gets foggy when not practiced. Then when we switch back into the Offensive BTS we often have to refresh ourselves to become current (I think current and proficient are the same thing, you're simply splitting hairs if you think otherwise. Why would you train to a standard that does not make you proficient? As I previously alluded to I do not believe our current method of training is always the best) on a wide variety of offensive operations. Perhaps the most challenging is becoming current in urban operations (or fighting in built up areas, or whatever the new buzzword is) and as we all know that takes time and costs a significant amount of lives if not done right.

To be fair we are not often dealing with equipment as expensive as what the Airforce and Navy operate. I completely understand that Pilots must get as much flight time as possible. It is much like when a dismounted Pl Comd goes mounted, things happen at a much quicker pace (then multiply the speed of the LAV to supersonic, trust me I get that pilots need training time). I just do not agree with the sentiment that the Navy and Airforce somehow cannot operate with reservists while the Army can due to some perceived increase of technical competence required across all trades of the Navy and Airforce.

*Edited for clarity*

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I lived the *defensive stuff this year, offensive stuff next year* stuff in the PRes too before I made the jump back to the Regs.  I'm not talking about this without having experiences the Res Cl A, B, B (A) worlds...

I think current and proficient are the same thing, you're simply splitting hairs if you think otherwise. Why would you train to a standard that does not make you proficient?

Example.  I have to fly and operate sensors 1 flight every 90 days to remain *current* ( to maintain my Category - no Category = grounded, can't be a crew member ).  Operating 4 sensors, plus all the non-sensor related tasks, A/C general, safety and emergency skills and requirements, IFTS and AFRP knowledge...impossible to be proficient at all/any of that if you are only smashing buttons with wheels in the well 1 flight every 90 days.  Just RADAR alone has different modes, sub-modes and also includes IFF.  You can't do all tasks in one flight;  impossible.  And you are rotating thru all the seats and tasks...so you aren't even doing, on a 10 hour mission once every 90 days as an example, 10 hours of RADAR.  You'd be lucky to remember what menu and sub-menu the different functions are on the PEP (kiosk-like keyboard you operate sensors from).    In the flying world, at least the one I am in, there is a huge and understood difference between *current* and *proficient*.  Think of it like physical fitness cbt arms soldier who can complete the BFT in 1.5 hours compared to one who can complete it with 30 seconds left before the drop-dead time.  Sure they both can do it, but one obviously is better able to do the task and could likely do more when that one was over.  Best example I can come up with right now.

When does this come into play?  Our version of high readiness is being able to walk into work on a Thursday afternoon after flying late into the night on a training-mission-turned-maritime SAR tasking to find out you are being deployed OUTCAN for a named (not commonly known outside our community) operation, and being in another country on crew rest before your first mission that Saturday night; that's not an fictional example.  My last operational deployment, I found out late on a Tuesday afternoon and was DAGed and waiting for a CAL flight Thursday at noon.  That only took that long because my FORCE test had to be conducted Thursday morning.  Both of those examples were part of 2016 for me, and not that long apart (the first one was only a few weeks long, the other was a roto).

All said to give real world examples of times in the RCAF where reservists don't work for what is *ops normal* for some units. 

I just do not agree with the sentiment that the Navy and Airforce somehow cannot operate with reservists while the Army can due to some perceived increase of technical competence.

The RCAF, at least, can operate with ARAF types and does, just not as easily as PRes in some (most?) cases.  Keep in mind, in the RCAF there is no separate Reg Force/Res Force QS for say, AVN Tech.  The requirements for currency are the same for a Res (flying) AES Op as a Reg Force one.  I know of no person in my trade who is a reservist who was not Reg Force (with tons of experience) type before, and retired from the full time gig.  How long would it take to put a Cl A reservist thru a course that takes a Reg Force operator 6-8 months to go thru?  The training to Wings standard before that...6 months.  Impossible in some trades.  If they went away and did it 8 weeks each summer...the stuff the learned the summer before would be a distant memory.  3 hours a week...a waste of time and money. 

Which leads to this point;  as an example, are Reg Force crewmen and Res force crewmen trained from the same QS, with the same TP, same POs using the same equipment?  No; if they deployed, they would have to take whatever applic PCF training to be say, a Coyote Surv Op or gunner, etc.  They have, to whatever degree, different training, qual codes, etc and go thru a PLAR if they CT to the Regs and then have to take whatever applic PCF or DP training.

Compared to the flying MOCs...what equipment would a reserve AES OP in a operational/flying billet train and fly on?  The exact same as the Reg Force guys and gals, with the same qual and currency requirements. 

As for the RCN, my understanding is the greater portion of the MCDVs were crewed by NavRes types...who were on Class C.  So, effectively, full time sailors.

Again, not trying to  :duel:, just giving examples for consideration;  the number, location and availability of some key equipment (aircraft and operational mission simulators) make it considerably more difficult to have Res aircrew across the country than it is to have Res combat arms ones, as an example.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I would wager that not all Sea and Air components are as technical as some Land components. Once you have hammered in a skill you usually just require periodic refreshers to keep yourself proficient. However this requires you to have learned the skill properly.

Personal gripe - We need to stop cutting corners in the training system. Year after year more is cut from courses (specifically talking about Infantry as that is what I know). The training that we do is less effective as we have moved to a completely zero risk environment.

How about a 'zero' or 'near zero' training environment, due to budget cuts, over runs, poor planning etc?

Since December last year we've had the guts chopped out of our training plan so that we have only been able to do fairly limited stuff, infrequently, and the attendance shows it. This happens with a dreary regularity. Our troops are excellent, the system lets them down every time.

You could probably get a fully trained, Class A, CSOR (or CSOR- like) light infantry battalion out of one or two Divisions, but only if you put the funds and leadership into it.

 

[Flavus101]

In case it isn't clear I have never operated the sensor suite you are talking about, when reading my next bit of rambling factor that in  .

In my mind I equate the complexity of operating that sensor suite to conducting an insert with assault boats, infilling on foot, then conducting a raid on a 3-storey building, followed by an exfil on foot back to the boats and then extracting on your boats. If you break each part of the mission up it doesn't appear too difficult, however when you combine them all it quickly becomes complex and a technical operation.

While I agree with you that your average infantryman right out of DP1.2 does not hold the technical qualifications equivalent to what your trade would have out of their trades training, I do not think we are comparing apples to apples in that situation. In my mind to be an effective infantryman there are a number of follow on courses that are required (and a number of them no longer exist but that's down to what daftandbarmy mentioned). Every infantryman requires their Weapons Det member course and Basic Winter Warfare, which should be part of their basic trades training in my mind. I also think that we have completely gutted the training system. Removing the mortar and taking away learning how to fire off of a map for a mounted C6 from the Weapons Det member is a huge disservice. For the Basic Winter Warfare my biggest gripe is the lack of equipment to properly run the course, we were unable to locate skis at all for this year. Those are just examples from those two specific courses, there are many more items that have been removed and really should not have been.

I am not sure what follow on courses there are for your trade (by that I mean equivalent courses such as Basic Mountain Ops, Basic Demo, Urban Ops Instructor, etc.) what I am getting at is that there are a number of very technically competent folks in the Land Forces. I personally do not believe that you can maintain proficiency (fair enough, I'll come around to your definition) on all of these skills when just attending weekend ex's (and it shows when guy's say that they are not confident in their skills because they have went out of practice for a number of months).

As far as operational tempo, absolutely the Reg Force is going to have a higher tempo. That is the inherent part of being full-time. Now correct me if I am wrong, but I would imagine that all Air, Navy and Land component reservists go through work-up training before deployment (even if it is a small number of reservists from the Air and Navy side deploying). Would that not suggest that each component has technical competencies whose proficiency just cannot be maintained part-time?

If we stray away from the Infantry example and look at Engineers and their training perhaps we have a more comparable comparison between a Land trade and your trade?

 

[MilEME09]

How about a 'zero' or 'near zero' training environment, due to budget cuts, over runs, poor planning etc?

Since December last year we've had the guts chopped out of our training plan so that we have only been able to do fairly limited stuff, infrequently, and the attendance shows it. This happens with a dreary regularity. Our troops are excellent, the system lets them down every time.

You could probably get a fully trained, Class A, CSOR (or CSOR- like) light infantry battalion out of one or two Divisions, but only if you put the funds and leadership into it.

From the CSS stand point I am seeing the same, spare parts budget down, time for trades training cancelled, exercises reduced in scope, as has been said it is hard to keep proficiency in the PRes. It would be easier if someone people knew how to lead effectively and use the time and resources we have to max effect. However that doesn't happen, as a result I have to open up my cftos on my own time and review maintenance procedures for weapon systems to try and have some level of proficiency. Attendance is down among the senior members of the unit because they've seen it all before, many of them are shift workers and are not willing to take a pay cut for a day to come in and sit around for half a day while the CoC gets a last econd plan together because they didn't realize till now that Plan A can't work now due to budget problems.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

As far as operational tempo, absolutely the Reg Force is going to have a higher tempo. That is the inherent part of being full-time. Now correct me if I am wrong, but I would imagine that all Air, Navy and Land component reservists go through work-up training before deployment (even if it is a small number of reservists from the Air and Navy side deploying). Would that not suggest that each component has technical competencies whose proficiency just cannot be maintained part-time?

A reserve aircrew (LRP atleast) type is going to do the same training, which is minimal, to go as aircrew because they must already hold a Category and all the other currencies and quals we need just to fly.  What they might need is the DRT SET IBTS stuff that is common to all; CBRN, small arms, Nav/Comms (which does SFA for aircrew types in its current form).  There are some other CAC type things, but for the most part, if a reservist hold their flying category they are for the most part, good to go.  If their Category is expired...they won't be going in a flying position.  This is a key difference, with the regulations around our Category.  Way back when, when I did my Recce Crewman course, I kept that qual.  I might not have done any recce for some time, and wouldn't be proficient at it, but there was no regulations saying "the members' recce crewman course needs to be validated".  You got the qual, you kept it for life.  Our Categories our different from our quals.  I will always keep my quals, but I have to meet certain requirements to keep my Category.  This is a big difference between a PRes and ARAF aircrew type.  I am not sure if maintainers lose their Levels if they don't turn wrenches in certain timeframes.

If we stray away from the Infantry example and look at Engineers and their training perhaps we have a more comparable comparison between a Land trade and your trade?

First, don't get me wrong.  There is just as broad and complicated skillsets required of infanteers, sappers, etc.  I get that.  The difference I am (badly?) trying to demonstrate centers on the impact of Categories in flying trades for reservists compared to say, a reserve Armour Recce Tp Leader.  If the Tp Ldr goes ED & T for 9 months, he comes back to work, goes on ex and scrapes away the rust.  If a reserve AES Op goes away from 9 months ED & T, he/she comes back without a Category and is then a passenger on the plane until they do the required steps to get their category back.  They keep all their qualifications, but that Category is different. 

Without a Category, I am just a self loading meatsack on the aircraft;  for an aircraft to be mission capable, we have requirements for crewmembers with both specific qualifications and current Categories. 

Now, if same, a reserve Engineer had requirements to do certain EOD tasks in certain timeframes, or they would lose their EOD qual and not be able to do demo, then we would be comparing apples to apples and the PRes engr type would loose their "EOD category" like the reserve AES Op would if they didn't blow stuff up once every 90 days.

I am hoping this makes more sense.  The qualified vice current category thing...qualifications don't expire, categories do. NO category = can't fly on a crew.