Adopting the regiment as a regular force formation & exploring other new regimental systems

[Infanteer]

Edward, the spitballing is helping to define the argument.

I want to keep the strengths of the regimental system: the bits than make Maintenance of Moral easier.

Agreed; it makes no sense, and - considering today's climate - we may as well propose spinning the earth in the opposite direction.

I want to weaken the hold that the three regular force infantry regiments on the army.

This is the crux of the discussion - how so?  What exactly is "the hold"?  The two roles that the Regiments play in the Army are succession planning (appointments) and furnishing advice to COS Army Strat with regards to changes to Infantry/Armoured organization/equipping/distribution/manning.  Considering that this is currently done by senior leaders in specific positions throughout the Army, I'm not sure how one lessens a hold - Battalion COs will be asked for input on how to organize X regardless of what capbadge they wear.

I would like to have fewer, bigger reserve force regiments - the same number of 'units' in armouries as we have now, but some being sub units of larger regiments.

This has been discussed elsewhere - what I'd like to see is a study that (a) looks at the authorized and real parade strengths of each of the 49 Reserve Infantry Regiments and 18 Armoured Reserve Regiments.  This would have to be followed by recommendation for downsizing of Bde/Unit HQs to show the real gains (I'm not concerned about cap badges and colours - there are ways to work around that).  All this must be driven by a plan to reorganize the Reserves so they are able to do something more than act as an individual feeder pool.

 

[McG]

[PRes structure and regiments have] been discussed elsewhere

... and recently: http://army.ca/forums/threads/24381/post-1326494.html#msg1326494

Now let's say we group, administratively, the whole army into four divisions. Let's call them:

    1. The Governor General's Divisions (something like a Guards Division) ~ the usual suspects (GGHG, GGHF, etc) but also, say, the R22R and e.g. the RCE and Army Medical Service (regiments and corps which
        have HM the Queen as Colonel in Chief;

    2. The Heavy Division ~ the RCD, The RCR, the RCA, and several other regiments and corps;

    3. The Light Division ~ CFSOR, all light cavalry and all light infantry, including the PPCLI, and rifle regiments and some corps; and

    4. The Highland Division ~ the usual suspects, plus (do we have any Scottish cavalry?)

I assume that, when you say "division", what you describe is not a formation but rather a sort of loose administrative grouping responsible for dress and traditions?

This is the crux of the discussion - how so?  What exactly is "the hold"?  The two roles that the Regiments play in the Army are succession planning (appointments) and furnishing advice to COS Army Strat with regards to changes to Infantry/Armoured organization/equipping/distribution/manning.  Considering that this is currently done by senior leaders in specific positions throughout the Army, I'm not sure how one lessens a hold - Battalion COs will be asked for input on how to organize X regardless of what capbadge they wear.

Some concerns were tossed out in the PRes regimental discussion and then dragged to this thread here:  http://army.ca/forums/threads/28042/post-1328001.html#msg1328001

There is perception, with ample supporting anecdotal evidence, that loyalty to the tribes often drives decisions that may not be in the best interests of either the Army or CAF.  The emotional impetus for force symmetry being one example.

 

[GR66]

What you are proposing is the removal of the "Symbols" that make up/are those distinct Regiments.  Let's use an out of the box, extreme example: religious symbols.  Would you just as easily suggest that all faiths do away with their religion's "identifier symbols" and adopt only one....The Cross?  or the Star of David?  or the Cresent?  Whichever one you propose, and do away with all others.  Who would then identify with being a Christian, a Jew, Muslim, a Buddhist, Hindi, etc.?

I'm not suggesting removing the symbol at all.  Just relocating it on the uniform from the beret to over the heart, or the shoulder, or whatever.  And your suggesting that this is in any reasonable way the same thing as completely removing a religious symbol from a faith is simply ridiculous unless you are suggesting that your devotion to your Regiment is the same as a religious person's devotion to God.  If I'm not mistaken members of the CF have several layers of loyalty that should come above the Regiment.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
I assume that, when you say "division", what you describe is not a formation but rather a sort of loose administrative grouping responsible for dress and traditions?
...
There is perception, with ample supporting anecdotal evidence, that loyalty to the tribes often drives decisions that may not be in the best interests of either the Army or CAF.  The emotional impetus for force symmetry being one example.

That is, indeed, what I meant ... and I re-emphasize that I'm just tossing an unformed idea out for discussion ... it may well be a totally unworkable and unnecessary layer on a 'cake' that, arguably, already has too many layers.

Your second point is what I was aiming at when I talked about the "hold" the three infantry regiments have on the army. It's not them, of course, it's the notion that we must have symmetry.

 

[McG]

I'm not suggesting removing the symbol at all.  Just relocating it on the uniform from the beret to over the heart, or the shoulder, or whatever. 

I think this is just tinkering with badges.  Aside from cosmetics, nothing has changed.
I understand you see this as driving toward a cultural change that makes future organizational change easier, but I see significant short term pain for no gain.

 

[Old Sweat]

Twenty years back, during the Somalia inquiry goat screw, CDS General Jean Boyle apparently decided the regimental system was at the root of all the Canadian Forces' woes, and he, at least according to a brief piece written by CBC journalist Brian Stewart (a respected and ethical one) believed the major offender was the PPCLI. Boyle, of course, was tossed under the bus by the government, but he may have keyed on some of the dopier things we were doing at the time. 

So what? Well, the regimental system did not come down Mount Sinai with Moses or appear from the burning bush. It was created to rationalize the British Army's manning the frontiers of empire in the late Victorian era. It did not vanquish Napoleon or scale the heights of Quebec or repulse the Russian cavalry at Balaclava. It was an administrative measure imposed by the civil authority, and was not widely popular at the time of its introduction.

 

[Infanteer]

There is perception, with ample supporting anecdotal evidence, that loyalty to the tribes often drives decisions that may not be in the best interests of either the Army or CAF.  The emotional impetus for force symmetry being one example.

Is that something driven by Regimental sentiments?  The Engineer and Artillery Corps, supposedly unburdened by such things, have also been loathe to consolidate resources where it makes sense to do so (M777s, AEVs).

 

[McG]

I cannot speak for the Arty and the M777, but the Engrs are pushing to consolidate AEVs in 1 CER.

 

[Infanteer]

Reassuring if so, hopefully they also drop that concept of the CIED Squadron as well.

 

[George Wallace]

I tend to think it is 50/50 when it comes to "loyalty to the tribes often drives decisions that may not be in the best interests of either the Army or CAF".  Yes there are some bad decisions made, but there are also good ones.  Often it is not the Tribe, but the egos of some of the personalities in the Tribe, that drive some of these decisions.  It can be witnessed in our discussions on whom was driving the "Buttons and Bows" movement.  :-\

 

[Old Sweat]

If the last ten years has taught us anything, it is that we are not very good at designing our forces for what is going to happen. In 2004 we were getting pretty close to deciding we didn't need tanks, and the artillery was increasingly viewed as redundant and, of course, the mortar was obsolete.It only took a short while on the two way range to switch our thinking through 180 degrees, or 3200 mils for my fellow gunners. So what? The more I think on the issue, with my mind set coloured from belonging to a regiment with a single, easily identifiable cap badge, the more I feel that, for all its faults, nobody has been able to come up with a better solution for the Canadian Army. There may be things that have worked for other armies, and maybe there is something that would work for us, but our version of the regimental system ain't all that bad. Now if ISIS would only kidnap all the honouraries . . .

The last guy that really fiddled with it was Sam Hughes back in 1914 and, while he laid the foundation for the best military effort in our history, he really caused major chaos that took years to resolve. Compared to his wild schemes, the reorganizations of 1936, 1954 and 1970 were not all that radical. 

 

[KevinB]

Remember prior to 9/11 the LiB's and PCoy's where all on the chopping block, with the idea to sweep away the last remaining thread to the CAR...

Similarly I'd argue it was not the requirement - but the cap badge/trade of the CDS that resulted in Tanks.
I believe that a Attack Helicopter would have been a better acquisition over the Leo's in terms of dealing with the current and future threats.

The Mortar - despite the realities of war has not found a defending patron in the CF.


One of the major roadblocks of the Regimental System in Canada is the promotion and positioning of LCol's - mainly as Bn Commanders.
  Due to the cap badge mafia bad (or call it not as capable) officers are assigned to command where perhaps a better candidate could have been assigned from another Regiment.  Going back to CAR Pre-Somalia days that aspect just flies out at ones face...
 

 

[Brad Sallows]

On the Res F side, isn't the passage of time weakening the unit associations and various tradition-for-the-sake-of-tradition stakeholders who meddle?

From time-to-time I would hear stories of - and on rarer occasions witness - influence wielded by people no longer in uniform, and from time-to-time therefore I would be mightily pissed off.  Can we still not drive a stake through it?

 

[dapaterson]

On the Res F side, isn't the passage of time weakening the unit associations and various tradition-for-the-sake-of-tradition stakeholders who meddle?

From time-to-time I would hear stories of - and on rarer occasions witness - influence wielded by people no longer in uniform, and from time-to-time therefore I would be mightily pissed off.  Can we still not drive a stake through it?

I'd answer this, but I'm too busy getting my DEUs tailored to restore archaic colonial rank insignia.

 

[daftandbarmy]

On the Res F side, isn't the passage of time weakening the unit associations and various tradition-for-the-sake-of-tradition stakeholders who meddle?

From time-to-time I would hear stories of - and on rarer occasions witness - influence wielded by people no longer in uniform, and from time-to-time therefore I would be mightily pissed off.  Can we still not drive a stake through it?

CO's can say no to the GIF but these days, the kind of folks with the pills to stand up and say 'no' are rare...