• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

South Alberta Light Horse Regiment to amalgamate with larger reserve force

Yeah possibly, I had good and bad parade nights. I think I probably had rosier views of my earlier times and less rosy the longer I saw it. Typical of most things I’d imagine. That said I’m not totally sure on when and how long your involvement was so I can’t fully comment. I will say that, in general, administrative requirements have increased.

My recollection was that well planned training nights were regularly hijacked by last minute 'dicking around' by various not-very-important-to-anyone-but-the-CO fastballs from Bn HQ, which meant that at least one or two well prepared SNCO or Officer's lesson were kicked to the curb. And you couldn't make up the lost training time easily.

Do that enough times and people tend to get jaded, and I don't blame them.
 

Sometimes something is better than nothing.

This mob seems to be doing the types of conversions that I have been thinking about.


Same base frame and train but different coachwork - A box that holds 8 to 10 in the rear with direct connection to the driver and commander. The only difference is that the "utility" version isn't armoured - just standard civilian panelling to keep the snow out and the warm in.

Easy conversion from utility to armoured.
 
This mob seems to be doing the types of conversions that I have been thinking about.


Same base frame and train but different coachwork - A box that holds 8 to 10 in the rear with direct connection to the driver and commander. The only difference is that the "utility" version isn't armoured - just standard civilian panelling to keep the snow out and the warm in.

Easy conversion from utility to armoured.
At that point why not just buy the armoured senators in whatever variant? The cost difference is a rounding error in government budgeting and now we actually have a fleet thats semi useful in operational and hom defence roles from coast to coast.
 
My recollection was that well planned training nights were regularly hijacked by last minute 'dicking around' by various not-very-important-to-anyone-but-the-CO fastballs from Bn HQ, which meant that at least one or two well prepared SNCO or Officer's lesson were kicked to the curb. And you couldn't make up the lost training time easily.

Do that enough times and people tend to get jaded, and I don't blame them.

Guess I got lucky. On the other hand the guys that trained and supported me demonstrated, (to me at least) what was possible.

One thing that has been niggling at me ever since is that the effort that those officers, NCOs, and RSS, put in, would have been much easier if there were a standard curriculum with standard lessons based on the Methods of Instruction protocols that I was taught during those Wednesday nights.

PS - I have used the standard MOI format in every instructional session, military and civilian, that I have ever delivered in the last 40 years. And SMESC is my go to for project planning. Both learned in 40 minutes on a Wednesday night.
 
At that point why not just buy the armoured senators in whatever variant? The cost difference is a rounding error in government budgeting and now we actually have a fleet thats semi useful in operational and hom defence roles from coast to coast.

If you can get them at a good price then go for it. I think you will find that there is a significant delta between the two vehicles although I stand to be surprised.
 
This mob seems to be doing the types of conversions that I have been thinking about.


Same base frame and train but different coachwork - A box that holds 8 to 10 in the rear with direct connection to the driver and commander. The only difference is that the "utility" version isn't armoured - just standard civilian panelling to keep the snow out and the warm in.

Easy conversion from utility to armoured.
We have different views on what an armored vehicle actually is.

Unless you purpose build the vehicle to be armored - you are really just going to end up with a Brinks truck.
 
There are slightly over 3,500 M1 Abrams tanks slated to destruction down here.
Some are A1’s, maybe the Armoured Reserves could actually be Armour…
The CA could not have afforded the cost of fuel or training ammo to put M1 Abrams into the PRes, let alone fuel and ammo with the coming budget cuts.

I dislike the dual use of the term "regiment" - ERE is just one aspect of it. IMHO all "unit-sized (4-800 folks)" organizations should be called battalions. Infantry battalions, armoured battalions, combined arms battalions, artillery or air defence or engineer or signals battalions. I'm good leaving coy level organizations as coys, sqns, bties etc but draw the line at battalions. Reserve the name regiment for larger-than-battalion organizations such as the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery or the Royal Canadian Armoured Regiment or the Royal Regiment of Canadian Signals etc.
Sure, but none of those “large than battalion sized organizations” are not actually organizations; they are institutionally assigned identities with some administrative back-end. Also, why not let Armoured units call themselves Squadrons (and then introduce platoon and/or company at a lower level)? Then “squadron” would have commonalty of meaning across CA & RCAF.

… but none of this will fix PRes structures.

2) Lets throw out cap badges for a common and tasteful army cap badge (not a snowflake-like thing.) Do like the Yanks and have a small lacquered pin that reflects the specific battalion they are in at the time - maybe another for the brigade or command if applicable - on posting you take off your old unit pin and put on the new one. Other than the pins, no battalion quiffs allowed - none.

3) yup. get rid of kilts, hackles, funny hats etc.

4) get back to blousing trousers with high boots (not puttees - I draw the line there). stop looking like bus drivers - look like soldiers.

5) pants for everyone regardless of sex or preferred sex - sure, make sure the cut fits the body but everyone wears the same boots, pants, tunic and headdress. Uniform stands for "the same in all cases". Not "George gets to wear the red beret today and Eloise the wedgie"

6) put belts on uniforms - not those wimpy cloth things being proposed but a sturdy leather belt with a common army belt buckle - I'm not adverse to Sam Brownes.
Buttons & Bows will not fix PRes structures.

I, for one, am just glad that this thread has now morphed into yet another Reserve Restructuring thread ;)
I mean, it had done that by page 2. It may as well be merged with its mothership: Divining the right role, capabilities, structure, and Regimental System for Canada's Army Reserves
 
At that point why not just buy the armoured senators in whatever variant?
Why Not, but first we must test the shit out of the vehicle for two years, then spend three + years going through procurement. Add another year to introduce/distribute.
 
Why Not, but first we must test the shit out of the vehicle for two years, then spend three + years going through procurement. Add another year to introduce/distribute.
You can’t start testing until you have an active procurement project so that every month of testing consumes project staff salary and reduces the available funding for the actual acquisition.
 
At that point why not just buy the armoured senators in whatever variant? The cost difference is a rounding error in government budgeting and now we actually have a fleet thats semi useful in operational and hom defence roles from coast to coast.
Or just make use of the existing TAPVs.
I understand they’re pushed out to reserve units right now. We’re all stuck with the damned thing, might as well make use of it
 
We have different views on what an armored vehicle actually is.

Unless you purpose build the vehicle to be armored - you are really just going to end up with a Brinks truck.

My problem is that I see everything on a spectrum or continuum. I have difficulty with differentiating among JLTVs, Bushmasters, Senators, Dingos Foxhounds, TAPVs and MRAPs. That difficulty multiplies when confronted by ISVs and LUVs that share components with armoured vehicles and where armoured vehicles are based on civilian components beefed up by other civilian components purchased from civilian suppliers for the military market.

Military vehicles all perform differently, even the ones that compete on the market to perform the same functions. Some solutions are preferred by some armies while rejected by others.

Opinions matter.
 
Or just make use of the existing TAPVs.
I understand they’re pushed out to reserve units right now. We’re all stuck with the damned thing, might as well make use of it
If the RegF is looking to dump all the TAPVs to the reserves once they're fixed, I'd be ecstatic. Are they good? Hell no. Better than a kick in the dick? Definitely. Move forward with the proposed concept of mixed weapons like having 50s, ATGMs and 40mm all in the same troop, you might have moderately effective ARes troops that could augment, not just integrate Reg capabilities. Treat them as weapons dets attached to square light or med Sabre Sqns.
 
If the RegF is looking to dump all the TAPVs to the reserves once they're fixed, I'd be ecstatic. Are they good? Hell no. Better than a kick in the dick? Definitely. Move forward with the proposed concept of mixed weapons like having 50s, ATGMs and 40mm all in the same troop, you might have moderately effective ARes troops that could augment, not just integrate Reg capabilities. Treat them as weapons dets attached to square light or med Sabre Sqns.
I have honestly no idea what the plan is or was for the TAPV deliveries. There’s a dozen at 1 RCHA and no one really seems to have any idea oh what they’re supposed to be for. Can’t do CP stuff out of them, no EPLARS, can’t do FOO stuff. I’ve never seen anything official about changing their armament but sure good option. Attached to sabre squadrons though? I don’t see what they’d add to tanks or LRSS unless they mount ATGMs. Give them all to the FGH? Yeah I’m down with that plan. I could get behind the idea of motorized infantry Bns from the reserves using TAPv as mobility and fire support. Or x number of light cavalry, to use the current nomenclature, troops per Sqn being reservists.
 
I have honestly no idea what the plan is or was for the TAPV deliveries. There’s a dozen at 1 RCHA and no one really seems to have any idea oh what they’re supposed to be for. Can’t do CP stuff out of them, no EPLARS, can’t do FOO stuff. I’ve never seen anything official about changing their armament but sure good option. Attached to sabre squadrons though? I don’t see what they’d add to tanks or LRSS unless they mount ATGMs. Give them all to the FGH? Yeah I’m down with that plan. I could get behind the idea of motorized infantry Bns from the reserves using TAPv as mobility and fire support. Or x number of light cavalry, to use the current nomenclature, troops per Sqn being reservists.
There are proposed plans to add 50 Cals and ATGMs to TAPVs in composite troops with 40mm armed TAPVs so they can actually engage armour. That's what I'm referencing. So by attaching a reservist troop of these to the SHQ they could either a) provide force pro for the SSM's ech b) detach with the BC and whichever troop to man the firebase with multiple types of fires or c) in emergencies, act as a reserve and add some extra gusto to the light or med Sabre Sqns.

TAPVs could also be used by the new Armd Assault Tps but that probably wouldn't be ideal.
 
There are proposed plans to add 50 Cals and ATGMs to TAPVs in composite troops with 40mm armed TAPVs so they can actually engage armour. That's what I'm referencing. So by attaching a reservist troop of these to the SHQ they could either a) provide force pro for the SSM's ech b) detach with the BC and whichever troop to man the firebase with multiple types of fires or c) in emergencies, act as a reserve and add some extra gusto to the light or med Sabre Sqns.

TAPVs could also be used by the new Armd Assault Tps but that probably wouldn't be ideal.

Yeah like never seen it, it’s certainly not part of any of the atgm projects at the moment. Certainly not when I was looking through PAXM or any other project.

Of all the tasks listed for pro is really the only job the TAPV is suited for. I understood the Cav troop plan to be either light (wheel) or heavy ( tanks). I’d probably prefer every troops to have ATGMs if they’re going to be light, so they can properly cover their own bounds. As much as the RCAC likes to say “cavalry is a kind set” I don’t think anyone is seriously expecting or planning to use TAPVs or LAV RSS as an assault element. So where that fire base comes into play I’m not sure, if I have tanks I’m not terribly fussed about adding an atgm or a .50 on it.
 
There are proposed plans to add 50 Cals and ATGMs to TAPVs in composite troops with 40mm armed TAPVs so they can actually engage armour. That's what I'm referencing. So by attaching a reservist troop of these to the SHQ they could either a) provide force pro for the SSM's ech b) detach with the BC and whichever troop to man the firebase with multiple types of fires or c) in emergencies, act as a reserve and add some extra gusto to the light or med Sabre Sqns.

TAPVs could also be used by the new Armd Assault Tps but that probably wouldn't be ideal.
"Proposed plans" are not advanced as far as the MMEV was. There is no funding. There are no engineering studies. There are no staff looking at those as capability deficiencies.
 
Sure, but none of those “large than battalion sized organizations” are not actually organizations; they are institutionally assigned identities with some administrative back-end.
Exactly. The unit is the battalion - the formations are the brigade and division - subunits are companies, batteries or squadrons - sub subunits are troops or platoons. Leave regiments as administrative entities to manage a particular corps or branch.
Also, why not let Armoured units call themselves Squadrons (and then introduce platoon and/or company at a lower level)? Then “squadron” would have commonalty of meaning across CA & RCAF.
Because their sub units are squadrons as they've been in our traditional sense. See also the air force in its traditional role when squadrons were led by squadron leaders whose rank was the equivalent of major. Squadrons were grouped into a wing led by a wing commander who had a lieutenant-colonel's equivalent rank. The rank inflation in the air force was necessitated as complexity of the sir systems grew. Just because US cavalry has an inflation of what squadrons and troops are is no need to do it here. Let's get back to basics, in the horse borne US cavalry unit was a "regiment". The sub unit name changed over time from company to troop and consisted of 40 to 90 men commanded by a captain. A regiment usually had 10 or so troops and could form ad hoc battalions by detaching 3 or 4 troops. (See Custer who broke his regiment into three battalions at Little Big Horn)

The first squadron of cavalry was a single one of dragoons raised by Congress in 1792 and commanded by a major. This was a short lived term as more troops were raised they were combined into a regiment. In one incident during the Mexican War, in a given action, two companies of dragoons were temporarily combined into a Squadron but the name did not have the meaning of a full unit. As late as WW1, cavalry "units" were regiments which were grouped into cavalry brigades and then into a cavalry division. It was during the post war period that the cavalry underwent some organizational changes where the terms "squadron" equated to a unit and "troop" equated to a company. When the cavalry spun off its armor branch the terms battalion and company were adopted by them.

All of that long winded thing to say; why let the armoured branch call their units "squadrons" when its not part of our culture and a fairly recent adoption by the Americans. Leave squadron to its traditional sub unit role.
… but none of this will fix PRes structures.
It wasn't meant to. It was suggested to clean up terminology across the board and not just within the PRes.
Buttons & Bows will not fix PRes structures.
It sure as hell won't. A lot more is needed then that. But ... it won't hurt, and it would make it much easier to create hybrid units where posted in RegF personnel can easily change their unit identification to that of their new reserve unit without needing a major tailoring job or issue of "regimental dress."

🍻
 
"Proposed plans" are not advanced as far as the MMEV was. There is no funding. There are no engineering studies. There are no staff looking at those as capability deficiencies.
Tracking. It's a proposed measure I've been reading about because we're stuck with these things anyways. That's all.

By the way, Happy Holy Saturday. I know its not Easter yet, but close enough! Christos voskrese!
 
Just what we need 500 x 70 tonnes running around on Canadian streets - buggering up the infrastructure.
SE MB, southern Sk, all of Ab and Ne BC see those weights regularly.
Not that much weight in terms of equipment moving down the roads here.
 
There are proposed plans to add 50 Cals and ATGMs to TAPVs in composite troops with 40mm armed TAPVs so they can actually engage armour. That's what I'm referencing. So by attaching a reservist troop of these to the SHQ they could either a) provide force pro for the SSM's ech b) detach with the BC and whichever troop to man the firebase with multiple types of fires or c) in emergencies, act as a reserve and add some extra gusto to the light or med Sabre Sqns.

TAPVs could also be used by the new Armd Assault Tps but that probably wouldn't be ideal.
There is no proposal to mount ATGMs on the TAPV; there were some talks about a LAV retrofit with NLOS ATGMs, but that went or is going no where.

The newest thing that PRes RCAC will see is this "Recce Strike" task which involves 6 seater polaris ATVs with some kind of WMIK for HMGs and the GMG (I hope they tune up the vehicles for that, but they probably won't) and maybe some drones (Army Commander has some delusions about being able to get drones without any components being made in China or Taiwan). The only CAF program that actually plans to have ATGMs affixed outside of team multicam would be the LFE fleet of ground mobility vehicles to replace the G-Wagon and MILCOT.
 
Back
Top