A "First Nations" Unit Merged Thread.

[The_Falcon]

I can just see a CWO from the RMS trade attempting to be the RSM of a combat arms unit. Good luck.

Actually this happened in the 7th Toronto RCA, 2008-2011? RSM Rosa, was a supply tech, started with the 48th, moved across the parade square, and was basically on full time class B with the guns, and progressed up the ranks (supply tech) to CWO and was appointed the RSM of the regiment.

/tangent

 

[The_Falcon]

The writer of that article claims to be former military, I guess he never served in one of those Scot or Irish regiments  : If he had then he would know, that some (many) of those regiments formed as a result of local grassroots movement to get that particular regiment. For example the 48th Highlanders, a bunch of wealthy Scots wanted a Highland regiment in Toronto, and used various ways and means to get one (condensed history obviously).

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Personally, instead of being organized into numbered battalions, I think it would make more sense to be numbered into numbered Battle Groups if possible, although I'm not sure how that would work.

The optimized battle group concept has been tested and found wanting on at least one occasion so I doubt there is any interest in revisiting this. OBGs work ok if you're infantry or armour, not so well if you're anyone else. For example, a bty of guns is not a BG asset, but a bde asset. If the inf and armour want to merge than there might be some logic in that, but I would stop it there.

I suspect if we went to a numbered system we would quickly see all the things that people seem to hate about the regimental system (honour arise, senates, merit boards, etc) would just continue, But with 1,2,3 bn of 2 CMBG being the grouping vs RCR.

 

[Remius]

What the author fails to factor in is the diversity of First Nations across Canada.  An Inuit from Iqualuit would feel the same way with the 1st Mohawk Light Infantry than he would in 3 RCR.  There are also many cultural factors that make forming a homogenous Regiment in the regular Force impracticle if not impossible.  And that is not even counting the FN types that want nothing to do with a segregated unit.

The only way that it can work would be to open new local reserve units.  Reserve units will take on the local flavour.  Hence why some scottish or irish units have more non Scottish and Irish types in them.  As demographics in certain areas shift so too does a reserve unit's cultural make up.   

But imagine the CAF opening reserve units on FN Reserves...think of the political fall out that would have.  Accusations of occupation, non FN commuting on a native reserve or vice versa.  essentially a shyte storm.

Nice sentiment, well intentioned, poorly thought out.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I can just see a CWO from the RMS trade attempting to be the RSM of a combat arms unit. Good luck.

Lots of Log branch folks have been Coxswains of various HMC Ships.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Well, there have been a few Log CWO/CPO1 that have been Coxns. I would not say "A lot".

However, the Coxn's job on a ship is not like that of an RSM. First, the Coxn's nowadays do mostly administrative and leadership duties. Their job is comprised mostly of supporting the command team's leadership on the disciplinary side, ensuring all routines are run properly and overseeing morale. Those aspects of life at sea don't call on the Coxn to be a "seaman" anymore. especially when you consider that in our modern ships, the helm at specials or in combat is not the responsibility of the Coxn anymore. The Coxn would only assume command if all the Mars officers of the ship were wiped out - an unlikely scenario.

If I understand the Army way correctly, the RSM is both the Battalion's second in command - and takes over from the Battalion commander should anything happen to him - and the Battalion commander's primary advisor on matters of combat and tactics. Anyone from the Army side, feel free to correct me if I am wrong

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well, there have been a few Log CWO/CPO1 that have been Coxns. I would not say "A lot".

However, the Coxn's job on a ship is not like that of an RSM. First, the Coxn's nowadays do mostly administrative and leadership duties. Their job is comprised mostly of supporting the command team's leadership on the disciplinary side, ensuring all routines are run properly and overseeing morale. Those aspects of life at sea don't call on the Coxn to be a "seaman" anymore. especially when you consider that in our modern ships, the helm at specials or in combat is not the responsibility of the Coxn anymore. The Coxn would only assume command if all the Mars officers of the ship were wiped out - an unlikely scenario.

If I understand the Army way correctly, the RSM is both the Battalion's second in command - and takes over from the Battalion commander should anything happen to him - and the Battalion commander's primary advisor on matters of combat and tactics. Anyone from the Army side, feel free to correct me if I am wrong

While I am not Army I do have experience in the Land element and you might get push back from the DCO or the Adj over the CWO being 2 I/C of a BN/Regiment. 

As for the lots VS few I guess it depends on what each of views as the value behind those words.  I can personally think of 5 Sup Techs who have been Coxswains, and I know Clerks, Cooks and Med Techs who have been Coxswains as well.  This doesn't include Stewards who are sort of in limbo.

I digress,  the RSM for 2 RCR, for example, should be an RCR without a doubt.  The shared experiences alone will enable the relation with his/her subordinates, is a must I would imagine. 

Back on topic.  We may see more of these "special interest" BNs become conversation as our British lineage becomes less and less relevant to the current make up of our country. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Often First Nations don't feel a lot of love for each other and also have issues as to whom is a "first nation's person" So a Metis in a First nation unit might get harassed or similar for someone that is 1/4 FN

 

[dangerboy]

If I understand the Army way correctly, the RSM is both the Battalion's second in command - and takes over from the Battalion commander should anything happen to him - and the Battalion commander's primary advisor on matters of combat and tactics. Anyone from the Army side, feel free to correct me if I am wrong

This is probably worthy if yet another split; the RSM is not the Battalion's Second in Command that job is done by the DCO (Deputy Commanding Officer) an RSM will never take command of a BN unless there is not a single officer left in the unit.  His job is much like the Coxn's job in the Navy (discipline, dress and deportment, manning) but his most important job (in my opinion) is to advise the CO and represent the NCMs in the unit.  He is also in charge of PWs and casualties during BN attacks.  There are a couple of actual RSMs on this site that can expand on what I wrote and probably explain their job better than me.

 

[ZacheryK]

I'd have to agree that creating Native Regiments like the Highland ones we already have, but not disallowing non-Natives from joining would be the only logical step to take. Segregating an Army has been a historically bad idea, because things like, I dunno, coups happen. Not to mention I can imagine it would inflame existing discrimination. I've encountered unsavory types that assume because you went through the Blackbear http://www.forces.ca/en/page/aboriginalprograms-93 training program that you're a bad troop, and will be treated as such.

Not to mention that most PRes units I've encountered are understrength. Could the money that would be used raising and staffing an entirely new regiment not be used to bolster the currently existing ones?

Just my  :2c:

 

[Jarnhamar]

I wouldn't imagine my idea about a numbers system would be very popular.  The pros and cons of a regimental system are over my head I'm sure.  Maybe it's a failing on my part but it just doesn't feel that important anymore.  Almost like mess's and mess functions.

I wouldn't really see a First Nations unit any differently than I would a scotish regiment or irish regimemt.

 

[ballz]

This is probably worthy if yet another split; the RSM is not the Battalion's Second in Command that job is done by the DCO (Deputy Commanding Officer) an RSM will never take command of a BN unless there is not a single officer left in the unit.  His job is much like the Coxn's job in the Navy (discipline, dress and deportment, manning) but his most important job (in my opinion) is to advise the CO and represent the NCMs in the unit.  He is also in charge of PWs and casualties during BN attacks.  There are a couple of actual RSMs on this site that can expand on what I wrote and probably explain their job better than me.

Further to that, the RSM is the "expert" on soldiering and the CSMs are the "expert" on soldiering within the companies. A lot of this ties into discipline, but for example in a Bn defensive position it is the RSM and the CSMs that are the most experienced on properly constructing trenches, etc. As a Pl Comd, I plan the platoon position but my WO is the guy who goes around inspecting trenches and making sure all that stuff is up to snuff, properly concealed, SF kit properly installed and targets registered correctly with the C2 site, etc etc. At the company level, the OC plans the company position but the CSM goes around ensuring the WOs are keeping each Platoon's trenches inspected and effective, and at the Battalion level it's the RSM keeping the CSMs on those things. For these reasons, the RSM *has* to be an experienced infanteer. A logistics CWO just can't be expected to know all these intricate details of the infantry trade.

And absolutely, the RSM is not the Second-in-Command, he's not even part of the Chain of Command. The same goes with the CSMs at the company level. And the officers absolutely need him (and the "Charlie" net) to be doing the things mentioned above, not taking over in the absence of the CO.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Would a 2LT take command of a battalion before a CWO?

 

[ballz]

Would a 2LT take command of a battalion before a CWO?

By the book, yes. I suspect by the time a Battalion only has 2Lt's left in its officer corps, it has been combat ineffective for a long-*** time... and would be absolved by other units.

There was a Lt pretty fresh out of Ph IV that ended up taking command of the company during a pretty heated battle in Afghanistan and managed to withdraw the entire company under contact. I don't know the in's and out's of the story, or who it was, but it has been mentioned on this site before in the "So You Wanna Be An Infantry Officer?" thread. Bottom line, it was a Platoon Commander fresh out of Phase IV, not the CSM, that was next in the succession of command.

Also to note, too much attention gets paid to 2Lt, Lt, and Capt. Our current system of promoting people to Lt and Capt based on when they graduated university means that you can have a Capt and a 2Lt who finished Ph IV together commanding a platoon at the same time. The Capt is not miraculously more checked out by virtue of rank. They are still both Pl Comd's that just came out of Ph IV.

 

[ballz]

The optimized battle group concept has been tested and found wanting on at least one occasion so I doubt there is any interest in revisiting this. OBGs work ok if you're infantry or armour, not so well if you're anyone else. For example, a bty of guns is not a BG asset, but a bde asset. If the inf and armour want to merge than there might be some logic in that, but I would stop it there.

I suspect if we went to a numbered system we would quickly see all the things that people seem to hate about the regimental system (honour arise, senates, merit boards, etc) would just continue, But with 1,2,3 bn of 2 CMBG being the grouping vs RCR.

I wasn't around when 2 RCR was organized as a BG. My troops speak pretty fondly of it, but back then they also had money for doing Cbt Tm training and BG training, so it's not really a fair comparison I guess. Your point about the Bty of guns is a good one. What about the Sappers? I could see an Infantry Bn, an Armoured Sqn, and an Eng Sq all housed and working together. At least, in Gagetown, it would be more ideal I think, because we are separated from the rest of the brigade.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Back on topic.  We may see more of these "special interest" BNs become conversation as our British lineage becomes less and less relevant to the current make up of our country.

There is no 'special interest' battalions. Our Scottish and Irish Regiments are that in name only, and have been for a very long time. Whole battalions of Sikhs, Samoli, Korean, etc, just won't happen. It flies in the face of everything we try project as a military. It would also be moot. Almost everyone, in them, would be Canadian first and their ethnic background second.

 

[ModlrMike]

The author clearly does not understand the complexity of First Nations societies. Notice that I used the plural there. Any attempt to raise a First Nations Battalion or Regiment is doomed from the outset if one thinks in terms of an homogenous group. There are any number of other questions:

What happens when the battalion's needs can't be filled by FN soldiers? Does it go without, or do we post in non-FN members?
Do we have enough experienced FN members who are suitable and willing to lead and command this unit or are we going to mimic the US coloured battalions who were led by white officers? I'm sure we can see where that will lead.
If raised as reserve units do we limit membership to only FN soldiers? The Constitution probably has something to say about that.

What we need to do is make the CF more welcoming to FN applicants. We have already made a good attempt with Bold Eagle and similar programmes. Perhaps mentorship plays a part, but that again raises the question of commonality between the participants.

My  :2c:

 

[Kat Stevens]

There is no 'special interest' battalions. Our Scottish and Irish Regiments are that in name only, and have been for a very long time. Whole battalions of Sikhs, Samoli, Korean, etc, just won't happen. It flies in the face of everything we try project as a military. It would also be moot. Almost everyone, in them, would be Canadian first and their ethnic background second.

What a great point.  :goodpost:

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I wasn't around when 2 RCR was organized as a BG. My troops speak pretty fondly of it, but back then they also had money for doing Cbt Tm training and BG training, so it's not really a fair comparison I guess. Your point about the Bty of guns is a good one. What about the Sappers? I could see an Infantry Bn, an Armoured Sqn, and an Eng Sq all housed and working together. At least, in Gagetown, it would be more ideal I think, because we are separated from the rest of the brigade.

I'm not an engineer, but I assume that their predicament would be the same. Engineers, arty, ad(if we had it), pay ops are all higher level than BG and need to be centralized to allow them to be available to support where needed. If they are in a BG than it limits their flexibility in use and eliminates any ability to achieve concentration of force.

On an aside, many arty types in 2 RCR liked it also but complained somewhat that they were used as GDs sometimes to run ranges than in their functions. Having a BG ascc for example, was completely useless so they did a lot of "other" tasks

 

[quadrapiper]

There is no 'special interest' battalions. Our Scottish and Irish Regiments are that in name only, and have been for a very long time. Whole battalions of Sikhs, Samoli, Korean, etc, just won't happen. It flies in the face of everything we try project as a military. It would also be moot. Almost everyone, in them, would be Canadian first and their ethnic background second.

The only way it might dimly make sense is if we were ever to need to stand up significant, geographically dispersed reserve units in areas where a particular First Nations identity is a useful rallying point, rather than just recruiting the current ones to battalion rather than platoon or company strength and reactivating supplementary units; e.g. in the Queen Charlottes or similar regions.

I think, given a WWI-ish setting, i.e. locally-driven formation of units, you might see some new cultural identifiers in the army, raised or volunteering in the same way as the Irish and Scottish regiments: Canadian in dedication, but formed by the efforts of a particular community in a particular area. Maybe not, as an example, the 1st Canadian Sikhs, but perhaps a unit with many turbans in the ranks, a strong custom (consider Robbie Burns) of celebrating certain festivals and occasions, and so on.

Can't see how or when this would happen, though.