- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Posted by "Michael O‘Leary" <moleary@bmts.com> on Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:24:47 -0500
At 06:56 PM 3/30/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>>Personally, the fact we have a whole level of people in the Black Watch
above
>>>the A Coy level is an administrative burden,
>
>>When someone complains about the "head shed", my first question is
usually to
>>identify the numbers of "extras" by rank. A unit with more than 2 majors is
>>probably overborne at that rank if it has a single company, but until Op RED
>>TAPE bears fruit for the militia the administrative requirements imposed
upon
>us
>>require significant numbers of junior officers and senior NCOs. I can‘t
>imagine
>>how many more people my unit would need if we all restricted ourselves to
doing
>>everything on Class A time. All my real work is done on my own time. If
all
>>those extra helpers are doing their jobs, that leaves the mission element
free
>>to concentrate on training. In my estimation a unit must recruit between
6 and
>>10 OCdts to obtain one trained Capt somewhere down the line. The other
thing
>to
>>remember is that if we are serious about preparing to expand during Stage
3 and
>>4 mobilization, majors and warrant officers are not grown overnight. I
think
>it
>>better to have the extras pulling some weight in a unit HQ than sitting
on the
>>nominal roll of a training cadre organization.
>
>I wasn‘t complaining about the "head shed" per say, it was merely an
observation
>that in
>Montreal, we happen to have 5 BOR‘s, 5 CO‘s, 5 RGMS, 5 RSM‘s etc, each
dealing
>with a unit
>that is barely company size. An idea floated around 3-4 years ago would
be to
>maintain the
>unit identities, but downgrade their official status to company size. For
>example, in my unit,
>we would have a CQ instead of an RQMS....well, I‘m sure you get the picture.
>The other officers and senior NCO‘s wouldn‘t disappear - the idea then called
>for a battalion HQ
>to be formed, which would directly command all the companies. There would be
>the resources
>to do all the other jobs necessary for the mission element to do its job.
>Senior officers and NCO‘s would float
>around in the battalion structure.
>
>Now, I remember a major in our unit stating he would prefer to command a
working
>battalion as a
>real commander, than being the CO of our unit, which is a mostly
>admin/ceremonial type role.
>
>This isn‘t an idea which would be restricted to larger cities: a similar
>reorganization could be made incorporating
>units from several smaller towns. Perhaps towns which no longer have units
>could support a platoon - which
>would bring us back into the community, as another writer mentioned.
>
>Now, its just an idea, I don‘t know if it would work, or if there are some
>weaknesses with it: I‘m not advocating it or defending it,
> I really don‘t have the experience or knowledge to assess it critically
>especially in this forum, but I thought it was a neat way
>of squaring the circle: maintaining regimental identies, while trying to
find a
>more viable militia structure.
>
Fundamentally, isn‘t the concept of reserve units fielding subunits under a
composite unit HQ already taking place for collective training exercises
when the composite battalions are formed?
If it has become an accepted method for collective training, why wouldn‘t
it work as an administrative structure as well?
Thinking out loud.
Mike
Michael O‘Leary
Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm
Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
At 06:56 PM 3/30/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>>Personally, the fact we have a whole level of people in the Black Watch
above
>>>the A Coy level is an administrative burden,
>
>>When someone complains about the "head shed", my first question is
usually to
>>identify the numbers of "extras" by rank. A unit with more than 2 majors is
>>probably overborne at that rank if it has a single company, but until Op RED
>>TAPE bears fruit for the militia the administrative requirements imposed
upon
>us
>>require significant numbers of junior officers and senior NCOs. I can‘t
>imagine
>>how many more people my unit would need if we all restricted ourselves to
doing
>>everything on Class A time. All my real work is done on my own time. If
all
>>those extra helpers are doing their jobs, that leaves the mission element
free
>>to concentrate on training. In my estimation a unit must recruit between
6 and
>>10 OCdts to obtain one trained Capt somewhere down the line. The other
thing
>to
>>remember is that if we are serious about preparing to expand during Stage
3 and
>>4 mobilization, majors and warrant officers are not grown overnight. I
think
>it
>>better to have the extras pulling some weight in a unit HQ than sitting
on the
>>nominal roll of a training cadre organization.
>
>I wasn‘t complaining about the "head shed" per say, it was merely an
observation
>that in
>Montreal, we happen to have 5 BOR‘s, 5 CO‘s, 5 RGMS, 5 RSM‘s etc, each
dealing
>with a unit
>that is barely company size. An idea floated around 3-4 years ago would
be to
>maintain the
>unit identities, but downgrade their official status to company size. For
>example, in my unit,
>we would have a CQ instead of an RQMS....well, I‘m sure you get the picture.
>The other officers and senior NCO‘s wouldn‘t disappear - the idea then called
>for a battalion HQ
>to be formed, which would directly command all the companies. There would be
>the resources
>to do all the other jobs necessary for the mission element to do its job.
>Senior officers and NCO‘s would float
>around in the battalion structure.
>
>Now, I remember a major in our unit stating he would prefer to command a
working
>battalion as a
>real commander, than being the CO of our unit, which is a mostly
>admin/ceremonial type role.
>
>This isn‘t an idea which would be restricted to larger cities: a similar
>reorganization could be made incorporating
>units from several smaller towns. Perhaps towns which no longer have units
>could support a platoon - which
>would bring us back into the community, as another writer mentioned.
>
>Now, its just an idea, I don‘t know if it would work, or if there are some
>weaknesses with it: I‘m not advocating it or defending it,
> I really don‘t have the experience or knowledge to assess it critically
>especially in this forum, but I thought it was a neat way
>of squaring the circle: maintaining regimental identies, while trying to
find a
>more viable militia structure.
>
Fundamentally, isn‘t the concept of reserve units fielding subunits under a
composite unit HQ already taking place for collective training exercises
when the composite battalions are formed?
If it has become an accepted method for collective training, why wouldn‘t
it work as an administrative structure as well?
Thinking out loud.
Mike
Michael O‘Leary
Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm
Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
