Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[daftandbarmy]

People and training are up to the Res to fix. We have a large number of folks from Cpl to CWO employed as Recruiters in my CBG, its the largest branch in our CBGHQ, but if they were paid on what they produced they would pretty much be out of a job.

Based on my casual observation, the recruiters might be the largest branch in more ways than one

 

[Halifax Tar]

Based on my casual observation, the recruiters might be the largest branch in more ways than one

Jolly well played old boy

 

[KevinB]

I don't think it’s fair to compare what the USA has and can do to what Canada can and will. That's not excusing the current pitiful state, just saying our effect on will never be as big.

I think looking at it scaled at 1:15 scale is reasonable. It’s less than a 1:10 for pop so you’re getting a bonus ratio for being cheapskates.

If Canada maintained just 1 RegF Light Bde, what do you envision as its role ? Is it expeditionary ?

Yes, it’s a Crisis Fire Brigade. It gets there to either do the business as needed or hold till the Heavier forces arrive.

If you want your 30/70 Bdes to be anything of value you will the GOC to adjust the legislation around the ARes.

Actually @FJAG has pointed out the legislation is there, troops can be forced to parade.

We've argued this point before, but I maintain that Canada has no need for an expeditionary Army, and should revert to a territorial system to provide home defence and assistance to civil power. Canada's soul land based full time force should CANSOFCOM. But opinions are like A-holes.

You can’t build SOF in a vacuum. There needs to be a stepping stone.

I disagree. To a certain extent the RegF lives rent free in a lot of heads on this forum. The RegF would love a capable and fully manned ResF but for various reasons, most self inflicted, the ResF cant produce that. So the ARes is simply seen as a augmentee production system.

I think it’s a bit of both.
The Infantry and Armoured have a desire to ensure that the PRes get none of the equipment budget - thus are constrained to augmentee status.
The ARNG down here provided Battalion and even Brigade sized formations during GWOT, so it’s possible to do something like that. However there were a lot of growing pains. Something that a 30-70 unit wouldn’t have a major problem with due to the regular cadre.

Our Res CBGs could, you're right. But your setting up your conditions way out of whack with reality. We don't have the people, that's the first problem; the equipment, training or mission.

People don’t join due to lack of training, equipment and this a mission.
The same way animals avoid a sick one and let it go off and die.

People and training are up to the Res to fix. We have a large number of folks from Cpl to CWO employed as Recruiters in my CBG, its the largest branch in our CBGHQ, but if they were paid on what they produced they would pretty much be out of a job.

Once you have the people and training fixed up, big Army will get you Equipment and a mission.

‘Big’ Army doesn’t even have equipment for itself. Most State National Guards have more equipment than the CAF (well at least CA and RCAF).

 

[Furniture]

Actually @FJAG has pointed out the legislation is there, troops can be forced to parade.

Using the legislation would require hand waving away 100+ years of custom... Just because the GoC can do something does not mean it should or it will. Canadians do not view military service the same way Americans do, and that isn't something the CAF can change. To get that level of change in Canada would require a concerted effort from the GoC, the same GoC killing the CAF with neglect and politicking.

I want Canada to have a well trained, and useful ResF system, but it has to happen in the world we actually live in, rather than the one we want to live in.

 

[FJAG]

Using the legislation would require hand waving away 100+ years of custom... Just because the GoC can do something does not mean it should or it will. Canadians do not view military service the same way Americans do, and that isn't something the CAF can change. To get that level of change in Canada would require a concerted effort from the GoC, the same GoC killing the CAF with neglect and politicking.

I want Canada to have a well trained, and useful ResF system, but it has to happen in the world we actually live in, rather than the one we want to live in.

If we were that tied to "custom" we'd still be wearing powdered wigs and stocks on out necks.

Countries social engineer all the time. There is absolutely no reason that such engineering can't start within the CAF. Much of what needs to be done could come from within. One thing that's for certain--that unless the CAF starts the process, the government won't come up with it on their own initiative. It has to start with a champion within the CAF--either a CDS or a CLS--who is prepared to say this outrageous boondoggle that's been going on for over a half a century has to stop and who comes up with a logical and sellable plan that can gather steam.

I know it can be done. Like you I doubt that it ever will. And not because Canadians are Canadians but because the Canadian defence establishment is what it is and doesn't want to change.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think looking at it scaled at 1:15 scale is reasonable. It’s less than a 1:10 for pop so you’re getting a bonus ratio for being cheapskates.

Sure, but our current manning still doesn't fit that ratio. Again we have to play the field we're on, not the one we dream up.

Yes, it’s a Crisis Fire Brigade. It gets there to either do the business as needed or hold till the Heavier forces arrive.

So you're withdrawing Canada from any Army oriented NATO or UN missions with rotations ?

Actually @FJAG has pointed out the legislation is there, troops can be forced to parade.

I need to make myself more knowledgeable about that legislation. Does it require some sort of National mobilization or emergency first ?

You can’t build SOF in a vacuum. There needs to be a stepping stone.

Its not a vacuum. We have thousands of people in SOF right now. That's your foundation.

I think it’s a bit of both.
The Infantry and Armoured have a desire to ensure that the PRes get none of the equipment budget - thus are constrained to augmentee status.
The ARNG down here provided Battalion and even Brigade sized formations during GWOT, so it’s possible to do something like that. However there were a lot of growing pains. Something that a 30-70 unit wouldn’t have a major problem with due to the regular cadre.

If we were being honest with ourselves we'd realize that be the best thing the ARes can produce is augmentee Cpl Rifleman and Drivers.

Collapse all existing reserve CBGs. Create Provincial Defence Groups.

Base the PDGs higher leadership on manning levels and already established entitlements.

Get rid of aptitude testing for the PDGs and all units revert to Light Inf and a TN component.

All regiments are disbanded and the units are numbered. Example PLF would become 1st Plt, NS PDG.

The mission is territorial defence, aide to civil power, augmentation of RegF and to act as the training cadre in time of national mobilization.

People don’t join due to lack of training, equipment and this a mission.
The same way animals avoid a sick one and let it go off and die.

I think that's rather simplistic. Canadians don't view Mil Service as some deeper calling. And this, im not sure we can fix.

‘Big’ Army doesn’t even have equipment for itself. Most State National Guards have more equipment than the CAF (well at least CA and RCAF).

No argument there.

 

[Rifleman62]

This may be posted elsewhere, but cannot find it. The headline is misleading.

Ontario proposes legislation to protect injured military reservists' civilian jobs - CHCH

Upcoming Ontario legislation vows to allow military reservists to keep civilian jobs if they need time off to recover.

www.chch.com

Ontario proposes legislation to protect injured military reservists’ civilian jobs​

Canadian Press March 17, 2023

Military reservists would see their civilian jobs protected even if they need time off to recover from mental or physical injuries under upcoming Ontario legislation.

Labour Minister Monte McNaughton says legislation he plans to introduce would allow reservists in Ontario to respond and deploy to domestic emergencies — such as search and rescue operations, recovery from national disasters and military aid — even if they just started a new job.

A reservist is a member of the military reserve forces, which is a military organization whose members have military and civilian occupations.

The government says reservists would be eligible for job-protected leave when deployed abroad or upgrading their military skills after two months, as opposed to the current three.

McNaughton says Canadian Armed Forces members deserve to know that their job will be protected not only when they’re away, but also if they need time to recover from injuries.

McNaughton says one in seven Canadian soldiers deployed to Afghanistan developed a mental injury due to trauma from the mission and mental trauma is no less severe than physical injuries often associated with soldiers.

The province says the proposed changes build on job protections introduced last year that ensured military reservists could not be fired while deployed or in training.

 

[daftandbarmy]

This may be posted elsewhere, but cannot find it. The headline is misleading.

Ontario proposes legislation to protect injured military reservists' civilian jobs - CHCH

Upcoming Ontario legislation vows to allow military reservists to keep civilian jobs if they need time off to recover.

www.chch.com

Ontario proposes legislation to protect injured military reservists’ civilian jobs​

Canadian Press March 17, 2023

Military reservists would see their civilian jobs protected even if they need time off to recover from mental or physical injuries under upcoming Ontario legislation.

Labour Minister Monte McNaughton says legislation he plans to introduce would allow reservists in Ontario to respond and deploy to domestic emergencies — such as search and rescue operations, recovery from national disasters and military aid — even if they just started a new job.

A reservist is a member of the military reserve forces, which is a military organization whose members have military and civilian occupations.

The government says reservists would be eligible for job-protected leave when deployed abroad or upgrading their military skills after two months, as opposed to the current three.

McNaughton says Canadian Armed Forces members deserve to know that their job will be protected not only when they’re away, but also if they need time to recover from injuries.

McNaughton says one in seven Canadian soldiers deployed to Afghanistan developed a mental injury due to trauma from the mission and mental trauma is no less severe than physical injuries often associated with soldiers.

The province says the proposed changes build on job protections introduced last year that ensured military reservists could not be fired while deployed or in training.

Nice work. Now employers will now be even less likely to hire reservists.

 

[quadrapiper]

Canadians don't view Mil Service as some deeper calling. And this, im not sure we can fix.

Bit of a balancing act. Not sure we want military service taking on the same peculiar overtones as in, e..g., the US. The cultural, social, and political impacts are extensive and not, I think, positive. Equally, at least some of the US views might derive from the US military providing things to members that are, at least in broad strokes, available to all Canadians, healthcare being at the top of the list.

Making sure Canadians are as aware of the value of an effective, well-equipped, and large enough to be useful and stable military, the variety of (mostly not door-kicking) opportunities in such an organization, and stepping up public presence where and when appropriate (parades if necessary, not necessarily parades) are definitely worth doing.

I think there might be value (and judging by some of the comments from the CDS, this might already be happening) in making more of the conversations between Cabinet and around defence capabilities and equipment, which of course wants to do everything right now, and the CAF/DND publicly visible: not just on record in some dusty subcommittee's minutes, but through interviews and the like.

 

[KevinB]

Sure, but our current manning still doesn't fit that ratio. Again we have to play the field we're on, not the one we dream up.



So you're withdrawing Canada from any Army oriented NATO or UN missions with rotations ?

No, you can activate one of the 30/70 entities to do short term tasks.
I think as far as the UN goes most folks know those missions are useless at this point -- either you have a collation of the willing and go fix stuff, or its a colossal waste of effort.

I need to make myself more knowledgeable about that legislation. Does it require some sort of National mobilization or emergency first ?

Now I am not sure what the requirements for active service are - but you can force PRes members to parade and attend training .
Calling @FJAG

Its not a vacuum. We have thousands of people in SOF right now. That's your foundation.

It isn't - that your field force (and I would really question the term thousands BTW).
If you have a Lt Bde, you get a decent foundation for people doing selection for the pipeline.
It take a lot of money and time to make SOF personnel -- that escalates exponentially when they don't have basic fundamentals, as your wash out rate spikes, and you need to start from a very basic level.

If we were being honest with ourselves we'd realize that be the best thing the ARes can produce is augmentee Cpl Rifleman and Drivers.

I would totally disagree - PRes Infantry can form Platoons, Artillery can produce Batteries, Engineers can do Field Troops.

Collapse all existing reserve CBGs. Create Provincial Defence Groups.

Base the PDGs higher leadership on manning levels and already established entitlements.

Get rid of aptitude testing for the PDGs and all units revert to Light Inf and a TN component.

All regiments are disbanded and the units are numbered. Example PLF would become 1st Plt, NS PDG.

The mission is territorial defence, aide to civil power, augmentation of RegF and to act as the training cadre in time of national mobilization.

I dont see that as a fix at all.

I think that's rather simplistic. Canadians don't view Mil Service as some deeper calling. And this, im not sure we can fix.

I would suggest a real mission would garner a lot more recruits -- you can't do missions without equipment and training...

No argument there.

That's a GoC issue, and part of the blame lays with DND and the CAF.

 

[Halifax Tar]

No, you can activate one of the 30/70 entities to do short term tasks.
I think as far as the UN goes most folks know those missions are useless at this point -- either you have a collation of the willing and go fix stuff, or its a colossal waste of effort.

So we're in agreement Canada does not need an expeditionary Army ?

Now I am not sure what the requirements for active service are - but you can force PRes members to parade and attend training .
Calling @FJAG

It isn't - that your field force (and I would really question the term thousands BTW).
If you have a Lt Bde, you get a decent foundation for people doing selection for the pipeline.
It take a lot of money and time to make SOF personnel -- that escalates exponentially when they don't have basic fundamentals, as your wash out rate spikes, and you need to start from a very basic level.

CANSOFCOM has JTF2, CSOR, CJIRU, 427 Sqn and CSTOC. That has to be at least 2K which would be the plural for thousands.

Now add into the mix the EBPs and CLDs. I think we could maintain our SOF.

I would totally disagree - PRes Infantry can form Platoons, Artillery can produce Batteries, Engineers can do Field Troops.

In numbers sure, in properly lead and effective fighting organizations ?

Id argue anything above basic rifleman stuff and driving is probably above the time commitments we can get from ARes folks.

I dont see that as a fix at all.

That's fair. I think its more practical than what I have seen.

I would suggest a real mission would garner a lot more recruits -- you can't do missions without equipment and training...

I bet we will never know

That's a GoC issue, and part of the blame lays with DND and the CAF.

Again, no argument.

 

[KevinB]

So we're in agreement Canada does not need an expeditionary Army ?

Not at all.
My point of the Lt Bde was something Canada can actually move somewhere in rapid order and do things with (if it was properly equipped).
The 30/70 entities could be raised to active as needed.
But the CA would be roughly 9,500 Reg Force Combat Arms -- the rest of the 22k CA Regulars would be CS and CSS, which is where I think the key is for an actual effective Expeditionary Force.

The 30/70 entities would have equipment - and I would suggest the Heavy Bde would be predeployed to Latvia or Poland, and flyover support missions conducted at least annually.

If there was a need to field a re-occuring Btl Gp type tasking, the other 30/70 Bde's could easily fill those on a rotating basis.

CANSOFCOM has JTF2, CSOR, CJIRU, 427 Sqn and CSTOC. That has to be at least 2K which would be the plural for thousands.

For the Land aspect you have CSOR and JTF-2, which is why I question the term thousands...
Sub 200 Assaulters, and a BN sized CSOR entity isn't even a thousand.

Now add into the mix the EBPs and CLDs. I think we could maintain our SOF.

I think you would be sadly surprised.

In numbers sure, in properly lead and effective fighting organizations ?

As a Platoon the PRes is really just weak in NCO's, I envision in a 30/70 Force that it would (for the Infantry) a Cbt Spt Coy of nearly all Reg, and Reg Force SNCO and Officer Cadre for the Rifle Coy's - with Coy level command and most Pl WO and up positions being held by Regulars.
I would think each arm could tailor it's own best fit method for Reg/Res integration.

Id argue anything above basic rifleman stuff and driving is probably above the time commitments we can get from ARes folks.

Keep in mind the ARG dow here also has two SF groups (19th and 20th), sure there are a lot of former Regulars there, and I'd argue that is a good thing, ideally something the CAF would focus on to -- it's a much better use of a released regular member, especially if you make incentives via Pension and Education for Regulars to Transition.
But with ~37 Class A days - and 2 weeks * (should be 3) Class B min a year, you can do a lot more than just have a #1 Rifleman.

That's fair. I think its more practical than what I have seen.

Than one has now, yes, I would give you that

I bet we will never know

That is the sad part, there are some many missing pieces for the CAF to be truly effective.
The CA is in a pretty poor spot - and the PRes worse, so retention is going to suffer when folks are aware of how they are treated and kitted out.

Again, no argument.

 

[FJAG]

I need to make myself more knowledgeable about that legislation. Does it require some sort of National mobilization or emergency first ?

There are several provisions in the NDA - the ones that matter are:

Active Service:

• 31 (1) The Governor in Council may place the Canadian Forces or any component, unit or other element thereof or any officer or non-commissioned member thereof on active service anywhere in or beyond Canada at any time when it appears advisable to do so
  • (a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada;
  • (b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations Charter; or
  • (c) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the North Atlantic Treaty, the North American Aerospace Defence Command Agreement or any other similar instrument to which Canada is a party.

That one is your writ large "mobilization" order. Essentially this is a federal cabinet decision. The impact of being "placed on active service" means that the Reservist is on full-time, continuing service without his consent. Essentially they can be treated exactly the same as a RegF member but there are still some administrative differences.

Service:

• Liability in case of reserve force
  (2) The reserve force, all units and other elements thereof and all officers and non-commissioned members thereof
  • (a) may be ordered to train for such periods as are prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council; and
  • (b) may be called out on service to perform any lawful duty other than training at such times and in such manner as by regulations or otherwise are prescribed by the Governor in Council.
• Marginal note:Exception in case of reserve force
  (3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be deemed to impose liability to serve as prescribed therein, without his consent, on an officer or non-commissioned member of the reserve force who is, by virtue of the terms of his enrolment, liable to perform duty on active service only.
• Marginal note:Meaning of duty
  (4) In this section, duty means any duty that is military in nature and includes any duty involving public service authorized under section 273.6.

Service is limited in scope. (3) means that this provision does not apply to the Supplementary Reserve but it does apply to the Primary Reserve and the Cadet Instructors.

The "order to train" is empowered under QR&O 9.04(2) which provides.

(2) Subject to any limitations prescribed by the Chief of the Defence Staff, a member of the Primary Reserve may be ordered to train each year on Class "B" Reserve Service prescribed under subparagraph (1)(b) of article 9.07 (Class "B" Reserve Service) for a period not exceeding 15 days and on Class "A" Reserve Service (see article 9.06 - Class "A" Reserve Service), for a period not exceeding 60 days.

The "order" can be given by anyone in the chain of command. The weakness of this provision is that any breach of an order is an offence triable by a civilian court rather than a military one and the maximum punishment is a fine of $25 for NCMs and $50 for officers for every day not attended. IMHO this is a key NDA provision that should be changed to make it subject to the CSD which requires some minor amendments.

A "call out on service" may be done by the Minister (i.e. it does not require a full OiC)

(3) In an emergency, the Minister may call out on service to perform any lawful duty other than training, such members of the Reserve Force, except members of the Supplementary Reserve, and such units and elements thereof as the Minister considers necessary.

Note that an "emergency" is a defined event under the NDA and means

emergency means an insurrection, riot, invasion, armed conflict or war, whether real or apprehended; (état d’urgence)

The primary distinction between "active service" and "service" is that while "active service" creates a situation where the reservist is compelled to serve on a full-time, continuing basis, "service" is a compulsory "other than" full-time, continuing basis. i.e a call out is for a clearly defined temporary full-time basis.

Essentially to be called out on "service" requires that a) the purpose of the service is for an "emergency" and b) is for a military or public service duty

Aid of the Civil Power

275 The Canadian Forces, any unit or other element thereof and any officer or non-commissioned member, with materiel, are liable to be called out for service in aid of the civil power in any case in which a riot or disturbance of the peace, beyond the powers of the civil authorities to suppress, prevent or deal with and requiring that service, occurs or is, in the opinion of an attorney general, considered as likely to occur.

The fundamental difference between a "call out" on service in an "emergency" and a "call out" in "aid of the civil power" is a slight difference in terminology but mainly the fact that a s275 call out comes from a provincial attorney general. This is our equivalent of a state "calling out the guard". The "call out" on service provision contemplates an event of a national character while the "call out in aid of the civil power" contemplates an event of local character.

While the provincial attorney issues the request, the CDS determines what the level of military response will be and orders the appropriate forces, RegF or ResF to respond. Again, this provision does not apply to the Supplementary Res.

Summary.

These provisions have been in effect for most of Canada's history in one form or another.

While the laws did not change, the internal way of thinking about compulsory service changed when the RegF changed from being a tiny part of the overall Forces to being the primary portion during the 1950s in order to meet the concept of 'forces in being" to provide an immediate response to Communist aggression. Our national character up until then was that of a citizens' army partially armed and trained but capable of large scale mobilization.

The big picture that many RegF folks do not understand is that like them, reservists only have to volunteer once - when they join - and until they are released - which like the RegF - isn't guaranteed.

We have hundreds of regulations and orders and directives which impact on Res service and pay and benefits etc, but they are all subordinate to the legislation. They can be changed without needing go back to parliament. Many of the problem issues that we have come from these lower level policies which are, in essence bureaucratically, created and can be fixed the same way if DND and TB were motivated to do it.

There is one major piece of legislation needed and, IMHO, it should be part of the NDA which relates to civil employment. The current provincial legislation is totally inadequate and I think it could be nationalized under s.91 Item 7 of the Constitution (Militia, Military and Naval Service and Defence). Employment and labour laws are trans-jurisdictional and all that is necessary is for the Feds to properly stake out their grounds to ensure that such legislation is logically connected to defence. Making it part of the NDA would go a long way in doing so.

If we were being honest with ourselves we'd realize that be the best thing the ARes can produce is augmentee Cpl Rifleman and Drivers.

If we are being honest then the answer is no. I disagree even with the provision that it is now under our current system. The artillery sent sent numerous officers and senior NCOs to war in Afghanistan to work in operational positions on the gun line and elsewhere. It's simply a matter of the right training and fitting the right person to the right job. Our current ability to do that is low but not zero but I do agree that the higher the rank, the less likely it is that a reservist has both the training and experience to do the job. That's a systemic problem that can be fixed if the will is there.

Collapse all existing reserve CBGs. Create Provincial Defence Groups.

I don't buy that. Yes the CBGs provide little of value other than administrative oversight. A change in name does nothing and a limiting objective does nothing.

Base the PDGs higher leadership on manning levels and already established entitlements.

Get rid of aptitude testing for the PDGs and all units revert to Light Inf and a TN component.

All regiments are disbanded and the units are numbered. Example PLF would become 1st Plt, NS PDG.

The mission is territorial defence, aide to civil power, augmentation of RegF and to act as the training cadre in time of national mobilization.

You're just dumbing down the structure to its lowest common denominator. Let me simply say that as a 16 year old I wouldn't have had any incentive to join the 1st Plt, NS PDG; it's not an outfit I'd be prepared to fight and die for. I'm a firm believer in restructure of the ResF but you should build on its history and tradition.

I think that's rather simplistic. Canadians don't view Mil Service as some deeper calling. And this, im not sure we can fix.

Many of the Canadians who join do see it as some higher calling. We need to keep that and, IMHO, we need to fix the system so that it becomes attractive for young Canadians by providing them with solid employment during the summer school breaks and providing them with educational benefits for future civilian careers (and in many of the CSS trades, a level of experience valued by civilian employers)

Social engineering is simple if you use the right motivators.

 

[Halifax Tar]

There are several provisions in the NDA - the ones that matter are:

Active Service:

That one is your writ large "mobilization" order. Essentially this is a federal cabinet decision. The impact of being "placed on active service" means that the Reservist is on full-time, continuing service without his consent. Essentially they can be treated exactly the same as a RegF member but there are still some administrative differences.

Service:

Service is limited in scope. (3) means that this provision does not apply to the Supplementary Reserve but it does apply to the Primary Reserve and the Cadet Instructors.

The "order to train" is empowered under QR&O 9.04(2) which provides.

The "order" can be given by anyone in the chain of command. The weakness of this provision is that any breach of an order is an offence triable by a civilian court rather than a military one and the maximum punishment is a fine of $25 for NCMs and $50 for officers for every day not attended. IMHO this is a key NDA provision that should be changed to make it subject to the CSD which requires some minor amendments.

A "call out on service" may be done by the Minister (i.e. it does not require a full OiC)

Note that an "emergency" is a defined event under the NDA and means

The primary distinction between "active service" and "service" is that while "active service" creates a situation where the reservist is compelled to serve on a full-time, continuing basis, "service" is a compulsory "other than" full-time, continuing basis. i.e a call out is for a clearly defined temporary full-time basis.

Essentially to be called out on "service" requires that a) the purpose of the service is for an "emergency" and b) is for a military or public service duty

Aid of the Civil Power

The fundamental difference between a "call out" on service in an "emergency" and a "call out" in "aid of the civil power" is a slight difference in terminology but mainly the fact that a s275 call out comes from a provincial attorney general. This is our equivalent of a state "calling out the guard". The "call out" on service provision contemplates an event of a national character while the "call out in aid of the civil power" contemplates an event of local character.

While the provincial attorney issues the request, the CDS determines what the level of military response will be and orders the appropriate forces, RegF or ResF to respond. Again, this provision does not apply to the Supplementary Res.

Summary.

These provisions have been in effect for most of Canada's history in one form or another.

While the laws did not change, the internal way of thinking about compulsory service changed when the RegF changed from being a tiny part of the overall Forces to being the primary portion during the 1950s in order to meet the concept of 'forces in being" to provide an immediate response to Communist aggression. Our national character up until then was that of a citizens' army partially armed and trained but capable of large scale mobilization.

The big picture that many RegF folks do not understand is that like them, reservists only have to volunteer once - when they join - and until they are released - which like the RegF - isn't guaranteed.

We have hundreds of regulations and orders and directives which impact on Res service and pay and benefits etc, but they are all subordinate to the legislation. They can be changed without needing go back to parliament. Many of the problem issues that we have come from these lower level policies which are, in essence bureaucratically, created and can be fixed the same way if DND and TB were motivated to do it.

There is one major piece of legislation needed and, IMHO, it should be part of the NDA which relates to civil employment. The current provincial legislation is totally inadequate and I think it could be nationalized under s.91 Item 7 of the Constitution (Militia, Military and Naval Service and Defence). Employment and labour laws are trans-jurisdictional and all that is necessary is for the Feds to properly stake out their grounds to ensure that such legislation is logically connected to defence. Making it part of the NDA would go a long way in doing so.

That's a ton of info, thank you. It sounds to me like most of it is geared toward some sort of emergency or mobilization. Having said that, if we can order folks to parade, why are reserve units not doing that ?

If we are being honest then the answer is no. I disagree even with the provision that it is now under our current system. The artillery sent sent numerous officers and senior NCOs to war in Afghanistan to work in operational positions on the gun line and elsewhere. It's simply a matter of the right training and fitting the right person to the right job. Our current ability to do that is low but not zero but I do agree that the higher the rank, the less likely it is that a reservist has both the training and experience to do the job. That's a systemic problem that can be fixed if the will is there.

We had numerous reserve officers and NCOs who volunteered for service in Afghanistan, they weren't sent; they volunteered to go. And they took months, close a year, to brought up to speed. A couple of points as a former augmentee on 2 Afg deployments. We also cut reservists who didn't make the grade. We also experienced resistance from pers in 2 CMBG that were upset augmentees and reservists were taking their positions on tours. And from my personal experience our reserve Sup Techs who joined were fantastic at TO&Es, but couldn't fill out a requisition or navigate a warehouse.

It needs to be understood that when the BGs were being stood up for AFG it was mandated to have a certain percentage of reservists and augmentees. These weren't gaps, it was designed that way.

Look, there are a ton of great people in this organization, but we do them no favors by holding them to the professional standards as the full timers when they don't have the time or the experience to be substantive in that ability.

We need to be realistic and honest about our expectations.

I don't buy that. Yes the CBGs provide little of value other than administrative oversight. A change in name does nothing and a limiting objective does nothing.

You're just dumbing down the structure to its lowest common denominator. Let me simply say that as a 16 year old I wouldn't have had any incentive to join the 1st Plt, NS PDG; it's not an outfit I'd be prepared to fight and die for. I'm a firm believer in restructure of the ResF but you should build on its history and tradition.

The British Army has no issues disbanding regiments that make ours look like newbies. Nostalgia and tradition should not be barriers to effectiveness.

Many of the Canadians who join do see it as some higher calling. We need to keep that and, IMHO, we need to fix the system so that it becomes attractive for young Canadians by providing them with solid employment during the summer school breaks and providing them with educational benefits for future civilian careers (and in many of the CSS trades, a level of experience valued by civilian employers)

Social engineering is simple if you use the right motivators.

Well, you're going to need a massive public and education system culture shift.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not at all.
My point of the Lt Bde was something Canada can actually move somewhere in rapid order and do things with (if it was properly equipped).
The 30/70 entities could be raised to active as needed.
But the CA would be roughly 9,500 Reg Force Combat Arms -- the rest of the 22k CA Regulars would be CS and CSS, which is where I think the key is for an actual effective Expeditionary Force.

The 30/70 entities would have equipment - and I would suggest the Heavy Bde would be predeployed to Latvia or Poland, and flyover support missions conducted at least annually.

If there was a need to field a re-occuring Btl Gp type tasking, the other 30/70 Bde's could easily fill those on a rotating basis.

Ok so only expeditionary in a war fighting capability ? No UN or NATO work ? Because with only 1 Reg CBG its going to be hard to manage a rotation based deployment.

For the Land aspect you have CSOR and JTF-2, which is why I question the term thousands...
Sub 200 Assaulters, and a BN sized CSOR entity isn't even a thousand.

Take google with a grain of salt but its claiming +/- 2500 pers.

I think you would be sadly surprised.

With what ?

As a Platoon the PRes is really just weak in NCO's, I envision in a 30/70 Force that it would (for the Infantry) a Cbt Spt Coy of nearly all Reg, and Reg Force SNCO and Officer Cadre for the Rifle Coy's - with Coy level command and most Pl WO and up positions being held by Regulars.
I would think each arm could tailor it's own best fit method for Reg/Res integration.

With your idea youd almost have to do that. You're absolutely right the ARes, like the RegF, has a very weak middle, and its going to worse.

Keep in mind the ARG dow here also has two SF groups (19th and 20th), sure there are a lot of former Regulars there, and I'd argue that is a good thing, ideally something the CAF would focus on to -- it's a much better use of a released regular member, especially if you make incentives via Pension and Education for Regulars to Transition.
But with ~37 Class A days - and 2 weeks * (should be 3) Class B min a year, you can do a lot more than just have a #1 Rifleman.

The ANG is really not a fair comparison.

Than one has now, yes, I would give you that

That is the sad part, there are some many missing pieces for the CAF to be truly effective.

The CA is in a pretty poor spot - and the PRes worse, so retention is going to suffer when folks are aware of how they are treated and kitted out.

We agree

 

[KevinB]

Ok so only expeditionary in a war fighting capability ? No UN or NATO work ? Because with only 1 Reg CBG its going to be hard to manage a rotation based deployment.

Not really if your heavy 30/70 is partially predeployed.
You could fill one task (Latvia) with that -

The other 2 30/70’s could manage lower Btl Gp rotations as needed.

The Lt Bde could do surge missions or Roto 0 stand up. Worse case it could be GIB’s if heavier options are needed. Thought it robs Peter to pay Paul.

Take google with a grain of salt but its claiming +/- 2500 pers.

Lots of tail in that number.

With what ?

What you’d get for SOF recruiting with no Army.

With your idea youd almost have to do that. You're absolutely right the ARes, like the RegF, has a very weak middle, and its going to worse.

I don’t see any other way ahead.

The ANG is really not a fair comparison.

Why isn’t.

We agree

On a lot more than we differ I believe.

 

[FJAG]

That's a ton of info, thank you. It sounds to me like most of it gear toward some sort of emergency or mobilization. Having said that, if we can order folks to parade, why are reserve units not doing that ?

Essentially the problem is s 294 of the NDA which makes it an offence triable before a civilian court.

• 294 (1) Every officer or non-commissioned member of the reserve force who without lawful excuse neglects or refuses to attend any parade or training at the place and hour appointed therefor is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction for each offence, if an officer, to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars and, if a non-commissioned member, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars.
• Marginal note:Each absence an offence
  (2) Absence from any parade or training referred to in subsection (1) is, in respect of each day on which the absence occurs, a separate offence.

I was a ResF legal advisor from 1984 to 2009 at all levels from battalion commanders to the CDS/Chief of Reserves and if I had a nickel for every time I briefed someone on the provisions and complications associated with the "ordered to parade concept" ... Long story short COs were not prepared to make use of the provisions for whatever reason and leadership not prepared to simplify the process (and it's actually a bit more complex than I make it out to be but it is doable). I really can't explain the foot dragging on this because in my mind the failure to be able to consistently turn out sufficient people for meaningful training is the single most impediment to creating a more viable ARes. There has to be a balance between a limited/regulated amount of obligatory training to create subunit efficiency and voluntary training whereby individuals progress at a pace they are comfortable with.

Look, there are a ton of great people in this organization, but we do them no favors by holding them to the professional standards as the full timers when they don't have the time or the experience to be substantive in that ability.

We need to be realistic in honest about our expectations.

I absolutely agree with that. We need to recognize that at best, reservists have 1/6th of the time to learn and practice their craft of a regular. On top of that they have to balance their family, their employer and the military in their lives.

In my mind the best way to do that is to train the hell out of reservists while they are students, need summer employment, need educational support, don't have a family and don't yet have an employer. After that you ease off to a bare minimum of obligatory Class A training commitment and such voluntary training as the individual is prepared to accept. All of that in an environment of stable leadership.

The British Army has no issues disbanding regiments that make ours look like newbies. Nostalgia and tradition should not be barriers to effectiveness.

Actually the Brits do a lot of amalgamating of units and unit traditions when they do force reductions that require less units. And I agree, nostalgia and tradition should not be a barrier. OTOH, many of them are not barriers. They are effective tools to build unit cohesion and identity that are vital to a fighting force - and the smaller the force is the more you need to lean on those tools. Even the Americans use the regimental system to an extent. All units belong to regiments, even as numbered battalions. They have their own nicknames, badges, regimental histories, campaign ribbons on their colors and so on. One doesn't have to throw out the baby with the bath water to create a better ResF. One just needs to fix the things that are overtly wrong. Having over 135 battalion sized organizations with all the apparent rank and admin structure for some 16,000 odd people is wrong. On average that makes a battalion that ought to be 5-700 people out of merely 100. 16,000 people can make some 30 battalions, however, and its not terribly hard to craft such an amalgamated organization and still preserve most identities and traditions while getting rid of the crippling overhead.

Well, you're going to need a massive public and education system culture shift.

An education program is definitely necessary. But to find 4-5,000 recruits per year out of a population of 38 million is, IMHO, pretty damn easy if you properly incentivize the process.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not really if your heavy 30/70 is partially predeployed.
You could fill one task (Latvia) with that -

The other 2 30/70’s could manage lower Btl Gp rotations as needed.

The Lt Bde could do surge missions or Roto 0 stand up. Worse case it could be GIB’s if heavier options are needed. Thought it robs Peter to pay Paul.

I think you're asking for more than reservists are willing to give.

Lots of tail in that number.

It takes 3 supporters for every Operator; or so I was told.

What you’d get for SOF recruiting with no Army.

Silkies and crossfit ? What more do you want ?

Why isn’t.

Because the ANG has legislation, equipment and a more willing government/populace.

On a lot more than we differ I believe.

Meah we only differ on inconsequential things that neither of us will influence anyways lol.

 

[FJAG]

For @KevinB. I'm tracking your discussion on needing an army to generate sufficient candidates for SOF. I know that some time ago the US Army went for direct recruit to Ranger training or to Special Forces training. Any idea how successful that has been and how many recruits they generate through those programs rather than from previous service candidates?

 

[daftandbarmy]

For @KevinB. I'm tracking your discussion on needing an army to generate sufficient candidates for SOF. I know that some time ago the US Army went for direct recruit to Ranger training or to Special Forces training. Any idea how successful that has been and how many recruits they generate through those programs rather than from previous service candidates?

I know a guy....

It was a disaster by all accounts

He also mentioned that, unlike other SOF selections, getting your Ranger Tab is more of a career builder and ego thing than preparation for joining a Ranger Regiment, which results in alot of 'tourists' taking up spaces on the course. Their Airborne Course is similar.

The 'tourists' subsequently water down the quality that might be achieved if the only people attending the Ranger Course were all destined to go to a Ranger Regiment... if they pass.

As a result I enjoyed needling him about the Parachute Regiment/ British Airborne's selection process, which is designed to feed fanatics into the Maroon Machine with no tourists allowed