Divining the right role, capabilities, structure, and Regimental System for Canada's Army Reserves

[daftandbarmy]

The Army does not take simulation seriously.  Get some decent crew trainers and install them in Res units, then see if skills can be maintained.  Turret skillsets were not maintained because there were no turrets on hand to maintain them.

Simulators are cheap; but the Army is rarely willing to invest in them, since they'd rather have unused vehicles rusting in Wainwright than sims across the country...

We have lots of simulators... I walk around simulating a real Major all the time

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Na to save money and time you'll be sent home from tour two days before you qualify for your medal. True story, cost a friend of mine his GCS-Afg GCS-SWA.

Unfortunate as it is, I hardly think the date the mbr was sent out of theatre was specifically to deny them a throwing star.  30 days is the min for a throwing star, so 28 days is short of 30.  Simple math.  I know at least one guy who did a full roto in IMPACT, and left with 29 mission complete after X months in theatre.  No star, 29 is short of the required 30.  :dunno:

* there is no GCS-Afg, I am assuming you meant GCS-SWA.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You mean, what happens when those in positions of responsibility fail to do their job, and fail to adequately plan support?

We could always try (just for a change of pace) to hold someone accountable...

Who do you hold accountable when the simulator at the 17th Rifle Royal Regiment of Irish Foot Guards 33rd Bn breaks down in some far flung town ?

Things break down over time, its life, how would these be supported ?  More RSS positions in the units or system maint folks ?  The closest CFB is responsible ?  That could be a challenge...

 

[dapaterson]

JJT: those who acquire eqpt are responsible to put in place the in service support contracts to support it.  Too often that has been glossed over.

Or "We'll buy extra X for the Reserves" morphs into "We have no support plan for X in the Reserves, so we will assign more to the Reg F instead "

(This differs from the Bison approach, where, however briefly, eqpt purchased for the Reserves actually makes it to the Reserves before being reallocated. )

 

[Halifax Tar]

JJT: those who acquire eqpt are responsible to put in place the in service support contracts to support it.  Too often that has been glossed over.

Or "We'll buy extra X for the Reserves" morphs into "We have no support plan for X in the Reserves, so we will assign more to the Reg F instead "

(This differs from the Bison approach, where, however briefly, eqpt purchased for the Reserves actually makes it to the Reserves before being reallocated. )

Was that to me ?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Who do you hold accountable when the simulator at the 17th Rifle Royal Regiment of Irish Foot Guards 33rd Bn breaks down in some far flung town ?

Things break down over time, its life, how would these be supported ?  More RSS positions in the units or system maint folks ?  The closest CFB is responsible ?  That could be a challenge...

I would think simulators would go, primarily, to civilian positions.  Most of my experience with them, is they are staffed with retired Reg Force folks who have some SME level knowledge of what the simulator is designed to replace (field or operational mission training for X type units/pers).  I've been on the SIMNET down at the Mounted Warfare Sim Center in Knox and it was pretty advanced compared to anything I've seen on the army side in Canada.  We did the JANUS system in Gagetown, the SAT is a version of sim that works (different opinions on that).  We have a simulator for the Aurora for both the front and back ends that is actually pretty close to the real thing, minus the airsickness and cordite that can can, in theory, place ourselves in any mission pretty much anywhere in the world.  If something gets messed up, we can stop, rewind, start again. 

Most of the "interactors" I worked with on JANUS and a large majority of the folks who operate/maintain our OMS are retired aircrew who understand the mission sets we are exercising and are trained on the OMS itself.  I'd rather that, than a handful of straight civies who don't know, or care about, the tactical stuff.

How to make this work, or workable, for the Reserve side? 

- Give them access on weekends to the *bigger* systems at the larger bases is a possibility, but now you're talking about whatever issues arise from civilian contractors working weekends, or overtime.  It was done in the past, though.

- develop simulators (*games*) that can run on the DWAN infrastructure in armouries (also been done in the past).  There was a simulation...I don't want to call it a game, but I can't remember the name of it, that would run off a laptop server IIRC, back in the early 2000s.  I used it a few times, but can't remember for the life of me what it was called.  You could do things down at the nitty gritty level, like at the C/S level for a recce troop.

- sandtables are cheap, reusable and were a great simulator/training aid.

- TEWTs.  You can go thru all your BP, estimates, everything but swinging shovels and digging holes and still exercise your sub-unit leadership in everything they'd be doing without burning thru gas and rations.  Maybe it doesn't seem like this benefits the rank and file, Cpl/Pte level.  But it can;  run a one day TEWT a few weekends before the exercise to get your sub-unit leadership thinking and planning the Ex, things might be more organized and better training/learning for the whole unit when all the moving parts are together.

There are things that can be done.  If you can't get money, or until you do get money, at the PRes armouries for any kind of simulation training, get some sandtable exercises and TEWTs on the go.  It's not a perfect solution, but its something and something is better than nothing.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I would think simulators would go, primarily, to civilian positions.  Most of my experience with them, is they are staffed with retired Reg Force folks who have some SME level knowledge of what the simulator is designed to replace (field or operational mission training for X type units/pers).  I've been on the SIMNET down at the Mounted Warfare Sim Center in Knox and it was pretty advanced compared to anything I've seen on the army side in Canada.  We did the JANUS system in Gagetown, the SAT is a version of sim that works (different opinions on that).  We have a simulator for the Aurora for both the front and back ends that is actually pretty close to the real thing, minus the airsickness and cordite that can can, in theory, place ourselves in any mission pretty much anywhere in the world.  If something gets messed up, we can stop, rewind, start again. 

Most of the "interactors" I worked with on JANUS and a large majority of the folks who operate/maintain our OMS are retired aircrew who understand the mission sets we are exercising and are trained on the OMS itself.  I'd rather that, than a handful of straight civies who don't know, or care about, the tactical stuff.

Agreed on all points.  I don't have a ton of experience with them, I have used them in Kingston, Petawawa and St. Jean but it was more for shits and giggles.

The issue with support close to major bases wouldn't be hard to put in place, its when you get to isolated reserve units that it would be more difficult.  Could a reserve unit afford to employ a retire former reservist on a basis that would stop skill fade and ensure the simulator is always available for trg requirements ? 

The Naval reserves went an interesting route where then got rid of their "technical trades" and concentrated on trades where class A employment would be sufficient to keep up skills.  Boatswain, Cook, Sup Tech ect.  Perhaps, and I am out my lane I know, the Army reserve should look at what it can reasonably produce, in the way of adequately trained members, and do away with trades that require a level of practice to keep up core competencies that is not conducive to the Class A reservists employed time constraints.

 

 

[George Wallace]

Every PRes unit does not necessarily need to have Simulators.  It would likely be more practical to set up 'centralized' Sim Centers, in some cases using existing Reg Force Bases facilities when within short travel distances.  This would likely ensure that the people running and maintaining the Simulators will be more often and efficiently employed, and current on their operation.  One negating factor may be that the further the Sim Centers are from the units they serve then makes the planning for the housing and messing of the personnel an added consideration.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The issue with support close to major bases wouldn't be hard to put in place, its when you get to isolated reserve units that it would be more difficult.  Could a reserve unit afford to employ a retire former reservist on a basis that would stop skill fade and ensure the simulator is always available for trg requirements ?

Or, perhaps one (several?) on CL B, who would be the SME and provide the service to the entire Bde [could be done from the Bde G3 shop, as an example]?  For the average PRes unit, I would see the simulator as something that could run and be supported off the DWAN server and PCs (it can and has been done).  I wish I could remember the name of the one I saw in the early 2000s.  It was actually pretty decent.

The Naval reserves went an interesting route where then got rid of their "technical trades" and concentrated on trades where class A employment would be sufficient to keep up skills.  Boatswain, Cook, Sup Tech ect.  Perhaps, and I am out my lane I know, the Army reserve should look at what it can reasonably produce, in the way of adequately trained members, and do away with trades that require a level of practice to keep up core competencies that is not conducive to the Class A reservists employed time constraints.

Outside my lane too;  when I was in the PRes we had Medics, Wpns Techs, Veh Techs that were Cl A types and they used to form the core of our Echelon.  When we did Stables (maintenance), those folks were the SMEs;  our drivers would do veh maint under the Veh Techs supervision, the Wpns tech was the SME and would be with the JAFOs doing maint on the GPMGs, etc.  We had a Det from the local Sigs Reg't who provided CPs and were the SMEs on all things Sigs, etc.  I don't know what its like now or if units are even still holding those 'specialty trades' in PRes cbt arms units, but from what I remember there was a tangible benefit to the unit to have these folks all with us.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Every PRes unit does not necessarily need to have Simulators.  It would likely be more practical to set up 'centralized' Sim Centers, in some cases using existing Reg Force Bases facilities when within short travel distances.  This would likely ensure that the people running and maintaining the Simulators will be more often and efficiently employed, and current on their operation.  One negating factor may be that the further the Sim Centers are from the units they serve then makes the planning for the housing and messing of the personnel an added consideration.

Like JANUS was in Gagetown and we'd all travel there for a weekend SIMEX.  I don't know if we'd ever get the money for something like the Mounted Warfare Sim Center in Knox, but that would be nice if the bucks were ever made available; a nice standard to aim towards for mtd warfare sim trg.

If you could get a lower level "can run off Baseline" simulator (obviously it would be a lower quality, like a computer program running on Baseline PCs) that was accessible at each armouries, you could still do lower level quality training anytime you wanted (still wish I could remember the name of the one that was out in the late 1990s/early 2000 timeframe in LFAA).

Use the lower level armoury level trainor for the workup, culminate with the big SIMEX at the central base location.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Every PRes unit does not necessarily need to have Simulators.  It would likely be more practical to set up 'centralized' Sim Centers, in some cases using existing Reg Force Bases facilities when within short travel distances.  This would likely ensure that the people running and maintaining the Simulators will be more often and efficiently employed, and current on their operation.  One negating factor may be that the further the Sim Centers are from the units they serve then makes the planning for the housing and messing of the personnel an added consideration.

As someone who used to "do the 'Mo'" in places not close to CF bases (closest CFB:  8 hour drive;  closest Army base:  14 hour drive), I can tell you that if you were planning things, I see you included and understand the bit in yellow.  Others who've come up with centralized schemes of one sort or another?  Not so much.  Also, in situations when money had to be "found", I saw a few times when it was easier cutting travel money to/from  "the colonies" than to cut at the centre (not just in the military, to be fair).

... If you could get a lower level "can run off Baseline" simulator (obviously it would be a lower quality, like a computer program running on Baseline PCs) that was accessible at each armouries, you could still do lower level quality training anytime you wanted (still wish I could remember the name of the one that was out in the late 1990s/early 2000 timeframe in LFAA).

Use the lower level armoury level trainor for the workup, culminate with the big SIMEX at the central base location.

Even a lower-level Armoury training set-up would be better than nothing at all with hopes the centre remembered all of the periphery when figuring out training schedules and funding.

 

[Kirkhill]

Boredom.

Could that be defined as the point in time when training becomes ineffective?  How about unnecessary?

When a youngster gets his coveralls and web belt it doesn't take much to keep him entertained.  About the only thing that you struggle with is instructing them in the need for proper dental hygiene and why we are spending 40 minutes in a class discussing it.  But everything else, you at least get the opportunity to keep their attention on MOI and Voice Procedures and safe handling of pyrotechnics.

The problem is you only get to cover that ground so many times - and refreshers, or skills retention only go so far.

When is it appropriate to say to the more experienced members "we don't need you - see you in two months for a 4 day range."?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

When is it appropriate to say to the more experienced members "we don't need you - see you in two months for a 4 day range."?

Not sure.  How long do you expect the majority of them to stick around *if they are not needed*, or that they will still have a GAFF about your 4 day range you *need* them for?  I suspect their interest and commitment to the unit would die quickly.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not sure.  How long do you expect the majority of them to stick around *if they are not needed*, or that they will still have a GAFF about your 4 day range you *need* them for?  I suspect their interest and commit to the unit would die quickly.

Other side of the coin. Agreed.

But if they are bored with nothing to do but refreshers and instructions on self-actualization and the importance of being Canadian would it not be better to focus training on effective training infrequently rather than frequently ineffective training?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Refreshers are part of the military life though.  One thing I've always been at odds with, even back in the day when I was in the reserves, was the "I've done this before" stuff.  So have hockey players, yet they practice some of the same skills, over and over and over.  When they play, the skills are second nature and have helped condition them to play at their best.

Repetition in things like doing battle procedure, combat estimates, even foot and/or rifle drill, is designed around the same concept.  If you *just did an O.P. screen occupation last year*, you probably aren't all the sharp at it, really, and the repetition is designed to hone your ability.  It is also a great opportunity to develop sub-ordinates and test out Jnr leaders on their skills.

Having said that, I've wondered before if the Canadian Army PRes training should move to something more similar to US system with the Guard or Reserves.  http://www.usar.army.mil/Join-Us/Ways-to-Serve/Troop-Program-Unit-TPU/

These men and women typically train on selected weekends and perform annual training which typically is 2 weeks long.  You will spend one weekend a month on duty and two weeks a year in training.

Personally, I think the avg reservist pay would be better put to use on a *duty weekend* once a month (Fri night, Sat, Sunday) than the 3-4 hour *training night* 4 times a month.  Back in my day, a trg night usually consisted of first parade with the SSM @ 1900 (5 - 10 min's), then 3 period of instructions, or whatever trg or main was scheduled.  final parade, usually with the Tp Ldr, Tp WO at 2200.

If I was able to turn those 4 half days into 2 full days on a weekend, even if people went home Sat night, I'd be able to do a lot more *stuff* with the same amount of training dollars.

 

[MilEME09]

Building a skill set and then honing it is good and all, but you can't retain a skill off one weekend ex a year. My unit goes out once a year to do hides and harbours, we do a walk through talk through, by the 3rd and final scenario (if we make it that far) we are crawling into with MWO's telling us where to stand and which way to look, just like they did the previous year. EX is over and the next morning we pack up and go home, waiting till next year to do it again. While I realize this may be a my unit problem. In general units need to be more creative to incorporate IBTS and trades training together to maximize training time and value, and above all else keep the training engaging for new and old members alike.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

units need to be more creative to incorporate IBTS and trades training together to maximize training time and value

101% agree, and that is going to come from within the unit itself.  It doesn't have to be at the CO level, it can start from the Cfn/Cpl level up the CofC too.  Whats that saying; "be the change you'd like to see in the world"...something like that.

Back in the day, we'd get tired of the same ol same ol.  first parade.  3 classes with breaks in between.  It was brought up one time in a O Gp "this is getting really old".

We started doing the stuff we were able to do to change it up.  One Thursday night, we would issue a Wng Order, go thru all the battle procedure for say, occupying a mounted Op.  End the night with the patrol commanders issuing OP occupation orders.  Next Thursday night, come in, kit up the vehicles, Tp Ldr issue final orders, go out somewhere close, occupy the mounted ops.  once the OP reports were all sent in, end ex.  Return to armouries, de-kit vehicles, stores away, quick hotwash.

This simple, doable stuff broke the routine.  It also kept our maint and serviceability up.  People practiced VP on the radios, reports and returns, BP, drivers kept the veh lockers sorted out, observers knew what radios were n/s, etc. 

Things like that, in some units, are doable at the unit level and require nothing extra.  Think outside the box.

 

[Kirkhill]

Refreshers are part of the military life though.  One thing I've always been at odds with, even back in the day when I was in the reserves, was the "I've done this before" stuff.  So have hockey players, yet they practice some of the same skills, over and over and over.  When they play, the skills are second nature and have helped condition them to play at their best.

Repetition in things like doing battle procedure, combat estimates, even foot and/or rifle drill, is designed around the same concept.  If you *just did an O.P. screen occupation last year*, you probably aren't all the sharp at it, really, and the repetition is designed to hone your ability.  It is also a great opportunity to develop sub-ordinates and test out Jnr leaders on their skills.

Having said that, I've wondered before if the Canadian Army PRes training should move to something more similar to US system with the Guard or Reserves.  http://www.usar.army.mil/Join-Us/Ways-to-Serve/Troop-Program-Unit-TPU/

These men and women typically train on selected weekends and perform annual training which typically is 2 weeks long.  You will spend one weekend a month on duty and two weeks a year in training.

Personally, I think the avg reservist pay would be better put to use on a *duty weekend* once a month (Fri night, Sat, Sunday) than the 3-4 hour *training night* 4 times a month.

I'm a fan of that system as well. 

Although there is another point about "drill nights".  Socializing.  I know that this makes Reg skin crawl, the notion that a bunch of civvies get together once a week to put on uniforms so they can have a beer together.  But there is, in my view, a value to that socializing.  For exactly the same reason that there is a great value in Mike supplying this site for us.  It becomes a forum for support and discussion and for connection.  For the Regs that is not an issue as they are stuck with each other 24/7 and have to look for chances to escape.  For the civvies in uniform, they have to look for chances to get together.

Recently I saw somebody reference UK Territorial Regiments  as a Masonic lodge with a rifle company attached.  I don't know that that was far off the mark.  In the sense that the Masons were the fore-runners of all the community service clubs like the Kiwanis, the Lions, the Rotarians etc.  And what the "lodge" would have been encouraging would be community service in the form of the "honourable" profession of arms.  Given that the alternative was the attitude of much of the population to soldiering was that of Tommy the Lobsterback and the Dragoons it was critical that soldiers be seen as "us" and not "them".  If only 10 in a 100 that showed up for a drink were fit for service and willing to serve that opportunity to mix with the community and put military thoughts in the minds of the community is valuable.

My Scots grandfather came from a tiny coal mining village of Annbank.  I now live in what was the coal mining village of Lethbridge.  Back on a visit to Scotland some time ago I discovered that both communities had an institution in common.  Both had, or used to have a "Miner's Library".  Nominally devoted to self-improvement it was actually a social club where the miners could get together for a pint while telling the Missus that they were just off to the Library.  I can't help but wonder how many strikes were plotted and prevented there and how many mine rescue teams were organized there - all over a pint of beer.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm a fan of that system as well. 

Although there is another point about "drill nights".  Socializing.  I know that this makes Reg skin crawl, the notion that a bunch of civvies get together once a week to put on uniforms so they can have a beer together.  But there is, in my view, a value to that socializing.  For exactly the same reason that there is a great value in Mike supplying this site for us.  It becomes a forum for support and discussion and for connection.  For the Regs that is not an issue as they are stuck with each other 24/7 and have to look for chances to escape.  For the civvies in uniform, they have to look for chances to get together.

There is that side and, also, if you go down to *1 weekend a month*, and people can't make that weekend, you've now left them out of uniform for 2 months effectively.  That could lead to loss of interest, etc because, as you say, socializing is part of it (the trg night/per week).  Also, I still say that Canadian business/civilian employers do not support reservists the way that their US counterparts support Reservists or Guardsmen.  University students may also be more willing to 'part' with 1 night a week more than 1 full weekend a month.

Funny how the same issues are being discussed now that were being discussed 20+ years ago when I was in the Mau.  I recall when it was announced we were being cut from 2 nights a week to 1 (we used to parade on Mon and Thurs) and it was thought then that the Militia would fold inside of 4-5 years. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

101% agree, and that is going to come from within the unit itself.  It doesn't have to be at the CO level, it can start from the Cfn/Cpl level up the CofC too.  Whats that saying; "be the change you'd like to see in the world"...something like that.

Back in the day, we'd get tired of the same ol same ol.  first parade.  3 classes with breaks in between.  It was brought up one time in a O Gp "this is getting really old".

We started doing the stuff we were able to do to change it up.  One Thursday night, we would issue a Wng Order, go thru all the battle procedure for say, occupying a mounted Op.  End the night with the patrol commanders issuing OP occupation orders.  Next Thursday night, come in, kit up the vehicles, Tp Ldr issue final orders, go out somewhere close, occupy the mounted ops.  once the OP reports were all sent in, end ex.  Return to armouries, de-kit vehicles, stores away, quick hotwash.

This simple, doable stuff broke the routine.  It also kept our maint and serviceability up.  People practiced VP on the radios, reports and returns, BP, drivers kept the veh lockers sorted out, observers knew what radios were n/s, etc. 

Things like that, in some units, are doable at the unit level and require nothing extra.  Think outside the box.

The most effective approach, from what I've seen, is to giver everyone a warning order in September indicating the tasks the will need to complete successfully in the 2 week summer ex the following August. Defense, Offence, whatever, just be clear about the tasks they are expected to complete and then they can figure out how to get it done wit the time allotted during the normal training year.

This focus is the key to success, along with an early warning order. When we are never told what we need to be ready to do, which is more and more common these days sadly, we lose focus, and troops, as it becomes apparent that no one knows WTF is going on.