- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Posted by "Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com> on Fri, 26 May 2000 17:50:16 -0700
>a. too many units
If "footprint" is to be maintained, the only candidates for "reduction" are
those units in locales with more than one unit - specifically, only those units
which are geographically close or colocated. Considering urban growth, a case
can be made that it is not necessary to remove any such unit, but rather only to
relocate it.
The problem with consolidating units to rationalize the upper command tiers is
that the leadership cadre is reduced. I submit that for purposes of level 3/4
mobilization, the units are irrelevant since the bulk of the force is going to
be recruited off the street - it is the trained senior leaders that are
important. If we don‘t intend to take level 3/4 mobilization seriously, why
then the reserve doesn‘t really need any commissioned rank above Lt or NCM rank
above Sgt. Any cut to unit numbers has to seriously consider the effects on the
leadership pool.
Cadre units of a single mission element sub-unit are the most economic
compromise between immediate augmentation needs, and hedging against future
general mobilization needs.
>b. too few resources
If it is decided that a smaller Reserve Force can sustain the augmentation needs
of the Regular Force, I suspect we will reduce in size.
>c. too few reasons
The "repeating training plan" syndrome has always been there. Most people I
know would be happy teaching the same limited selection of courses, but they do
resent spending 10 days repeating the same individual and collective battle
task standards each year. Perhaps a bounty paid to those who pass annual
evaluations? Perhaps a 3-year evaluation cycle?
>d. fun and interesting trg
As a junior rank, I enjoyed the Milcons run by Pacific Mil Area all by its
lonesome self. The most "fun and interesting" training seems to coincide either
with training that has been removed due to "train to need" adventure, winter
indoc, or that has lost its shine due to lack of ammo or equipment.
>The chances of Canada mobilizing for "total war" as we did in the two world
wars is extremely remote.
Yes, of course. I‘m sure the day before the Archduke was assassinated everyone
thought so. And we certainly responded in a timely fashion to the warning signs
prior to September 1939, didn‘t we? How much do you really think it would take
to unbalance a large segment of the world‘s population into desiring a war of
extermination against a group of countries that might include Canada?
>Infantry and more importantly CIMIC Bns, CSS, Police, Bureaucrats, etc. Can the
Regular Force provide this? Are these types of skills aval in the Res F
community?
Yes, if we mobilize the soldiers. Otherwise, the number of reservists per trade
must be sufficient that the proportion willing to serve operationally meets the
need.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
>a. too many units
If "footprint" is to be maintained, the only candidates for "reduction" are
those units in locales with more than one unit - specifically, only those units
which are geographically close or colocated. Considering urban growth, a case
can be made that it is not necessary to remove any such unit, but rather only to
relocate it.
The problem with consolidating units to rationalize the upper command tiers is
that the leadership cadre is reduced. I submit that for purposes of level 3/4
mobilization, the units are irrelevant since the bulk of the force is going to
be recruited off the street - it is the trained senior leaders that are
important. If we don‘t intend to take level 3/4 mobilization seriously, why
then the reserve doesn‘t really need any commissioned rank above Lt or NCM rank
above Sgt. Any cut to unit numbers has to seriously consider the effects on the
leadership pool.
Cadre units of a single mission element sub-unit are the most economic
compromise between immediate augmentation needs, and hedging against future
general mobilization needs.
>b. too few resources
If it is decided that a smaller Reserve Force can sustain the augmentation needs
of the Regular Force, I suspect we will reduce in size.
>c. too few reasons
The "repeating training plan" syndrome has always been there. Most people I
know would be happy teaching the same limited selection of courses, but they do
resent spending 10 days repeating the same individual and collective battle
task standards each year. Perhaps a bounty paid to those who pass annual
evaluations? Perhaps a 3-year evaluation cycle?
>d. fun and interesting trg
As a junior rank, I enjoyed the Milcons run by Pacific Mil Area all by its
lonesome self. The most "fun and interesting" training seems to coincide either
with training that has been removed due to "train to need" adventure, winter
indoc, or that has lost its shine due to lack of ammo or equipment.
>The chances of Canada mobilizing for "total war" as we did in the two world
wars is extremely remote.
Yes, of course. I‘m sure the day before the Archduke was assassinated everyone
thought so. And we certainly responded in a timely fashion to the warning signs
prior to September 1939, didn‘t we? How much do you really think it would take
to unbalance a large segment of the world‘s population into desiring a war of
extermination against a group of countries that might include Canada?
>Infantry and more importantly CIMIC Bns, CSS, Police, Bureaucrats, etc. Can the
Regular Force provide this? Are these types of skills aval in the Res F
community?
Yes, if we mobilize the soldiers. Otherwise, the number of reservists per trade
must be sufficient that the proportion willing to serve operationally meets the
need.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
