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

[geo]

Unfortunately - this will never result in making a bunch of happy campers.
This is a no win situation - with regards to Regimental pride & esprit de corp.
We'd be proud of our unit lineage - even if we were down to the last section - cursing the CF recruiting system for not bringingin / enrolling all those prospective candidates that were sent their way (regardless of if true or ...not)

 

[Michael OLeary]

This is a no win situation - with regards to Regimental pride & esprit de corp.

How so, which units are currently still suffering from their last amalgamation?

Units do and always have survived amalgamations.

 

[George Wallace]

To be clear, I am not suggesting administrative groupings or "under for admin."  I am suggesting existing sub-units (with their existing regimental identities) come under full command of new  (regimentless) battalion HQs.

That is more or less what I was thinking of when I said "Administrative Formation".

I would recommend against combining the existing sub-units into new named regiments while retaining regimental identities at the sub-unit level. 

That is where the "Administrative Formation or Grouping" would come in, or as you described above; but eventually these entities become named, officially or unofficially.

It does not hurt us to retain identities at the sub-unit level (perhaps identities that span to more than one sub-unit within a battalion), and doing this would minimize opposition/friction against moving to a more sensible structure. 

Sounds fairly much as what we are suggesting.

Unless all the sub-units share the linage, then keep the word 'regiment' and the named identities at the sub-unit level within the reserves.

We haven't suggested that the Units that hold "Regiment" in their title loose that.  We have suggested that they hold the Sub-Unit Title in the Administrative Formation: ie.  B Sqn, The Windsor Regiment, SOR and A Sqn, 1st Hussars, SOR.  This maintains these two Unit lineages, and possibly creates a third.

 

[Michael OLeary]

That is more or less what I was thinking of when I said "Administrative Formation".

Which could go something like this:

Soft amalgamation

Year 1 – Unit A and Unit B will be administratively joined under a single unit HQ.  CO to come from unit A, RSM from unit B, positions to be rotated in each command team.

Year 3 – New command team takes over.

Year 5 – Soldier X moves from town A to town B, asks permission to retain original cap badge, unit HQ authorizes change, it supports the member.

Years 8 – Soldier recruited in town A, requests permission to wear cap badge of town B unit because that is the badge his father and grandfather wore.  Unit HQ approves, it supports regimental connections and heritage.

Year 11 – CO/RSM rotation out of synch, unit B doesn't have an NCO ready to be RSM, while unit A does.  Compromise accepted, both CO and RSM from same unit for first time.

Year 12 – Pre-soft-amalgamation level of participation by Unit A in supporting Afghanistan missions results in award of Battle Honour (under "new" rules modeled on South African War awards).  Unit B not eligible.  Troops unhappy.

Year 13 – Command team investigates possibility of full amalgamation to resolves sense of unfairness expressed by members who perceive themselves as a single unit which is now separated by that battle honour, which is from before most serving members joined the unit.

Year 15 – Soldier asks section commander, "Why does our unit have two cap badges?" Section commanders response, "I don't know, it's always been that way."


What, exactly, are the long term advantages to this type of situation over a formal amalgamation of units?

 

[George Wallace]

I suppose we could just as easily ask the same questions about the "rotation" through the posn of CDS.

You examples could be fortune telling, they could be "bang on", or they could be utter tripe.  We are only bouncing ideas around and creating best case/worse case scenarios.  It is interesting what twists and turns we can put into the process.

I am not going to loose any sleep over it, as I suspect neither will you.......and most others.

 

[Michael OLeary]

You examples could be fortune telling, they could be "bang on", or they could be utter tripe.  We are only bouncing ideas around and creating best case/worse case scenarios.  It is interesting what twists and turns we can put into the process.

Yup, they could be, but if we're not ready to "wargame" the courses of action then we're not applying anything describable as a realistic process to determine best COAs.  Simply writing it off scenarios as possibly being "tripe" only invalidates the whole thought process, doesn't it, and easily avoids real consideration of the options?

Actually, my final question was serious.  With the idea of "administrative groupings" being put forward as the potentially "acceptable" solution, what are the long term advantages?

The "corporate memory" isn't really that long within the serving portion of any unit, and in many units/regiments (including my own), the "known history" isn't always that accurate especially when dealing with past changes to unit organizations, amalgamations, etc.  What are we really supposing ourselves to be protecting if we soft-pedal into this with administrative groupings?

Surely that can be examined if they are being offered as a "workable option".

 

[geo]

How so, which units are currently still suffering from their last amalgamation?
Units do and always have survived amalgamations.

Not arguing - but they all did a lot of bellyaching while on their way to the alter.
and yes.... units & corps will survive - irrespective of the moaning & groaning

 

[McG]

We haven't suggested that the Units that hold "Regiment" in their title loose that.  We have suggested that they hold the Sub-Unit Title in the Administrative Formation: ie.  B Sqn, The Windsor Regiment, SOR and A Sqn, 1st Hussars, SOR.  This maintains these two Unit lineages, and possibly creates a third.

I think you've misread me.  I'm not suggesting units loose "regiment' from their names, and I don't think anyone else was suggesting that.  However, you have proposed creating The South Ontario Regiment within which Windsors & 1 H would be placed.  I am saying it should be 31 Armoured Battalion (or 31 Cavalry Battalion) in which the companies keep the old identities.  The other option is that the regimental identities are also merged to create The South Ontario Regiment and there no longer is either Windsors or 1 H.

Either way, it is not an administrative structure.  It is one unit; a complete union of the command chains.  The leadership is selected through merit list & not by who's-turn-is-it.  I think we are in agreement on this point, but I am insisting on language stronger than the word 'administrative' because of the weak command linkage it implies in our doctrine.

 

[dapaterson]

Distance does remain an issue, as soldiers need face time with their leaders.  If we give leaders too great a span of geographic control, particularly part-time Reservists, there may be problems just because the time/space equation won't let them keep any semblance of personal life together with their professional life and military life.

Example: Let's give a single CO responsibility for Reserve Infantry units in North Bay (The Algonquin Regiment), Sudbury (2nd Bn, Irish Regt of Canada) and Thunder Bay (Lake Superior Scottish Regiment).  If he is to have face time with the two outlying parts of his command even once a month that will mean a least two days a month off from his civilian job for travel.  That's about 16 working days per year he or she must negotiate away from work - either unpaid leave, damaging their seniority, or using up vacation, damaging their personal life (wife and kids might like to spend some vacation time with him, too).

Remember, most senior Reservists are balancing full-time work with military service, plus trying to maintain a semblance of a personal life.  Giving a part-timer an 800 km span of control and you'll risk burning him or her out if they're trying to do their job right.  Mitigations? Make sure the RSM/DCO are also tapped for the traveling road show; limit the distances between sub-units; and ensure that an honest appreciation of time and space is conducted before giving a "Go!".

 

[daftandbarmy]

What is this "PRes buy-in"?

Well, we have seen dozens of various 'flavour of the month' type initiatives come down the pike and, without exception, they've all faded off into the ether leaving us to pick up the pieces in their wake (remember 10/90 anyone?).

Like any other solider we're happy to fix bay'nets and head over the top, we just need to know what the mission is. Unfortunately, 'downsizing' or 'amalgamation' not a mission. It's part of the Execution: Org and Tasks paragraph. If the Army Commander can explain the Commander's Intent, Main Effort and the Mission paragraphs, issue orders, and lead the charge, just like we learn in our courses, then we'll race you to the LD. Until then we'll hang out in the assembly area (or armoury) going through our battle procedure as per SOP.

Dang, me starboard puttee needs rewrapping again...  ;D

 

[TimBit]

Distance does remain an issue, as soldiers need face time with their leaders.  If we give leaders too great a span of geographic control, particularly part-time Reservists, there may be problems just because the time/space equation won't let them keep any semblance of personal life together with their professional life and military life.

Example: Let's give a single CO responsibility for Reserve Infantry units in North Bay (The Algonquin Regiment), Sudbury (2nd Bn, Irish Regt of Canada) and Thunder Bay (Lake Superior Scottish Regiment).  If he is to have face time with the two outlying parts of his command even once a month that will mean a least two days a month off from his civilian job for travel.  That's about 16 working days per year he or she must negotiate away from work - either unpaid leave, damaging their seniority, or using up vacation, damaging their personal life (wife and kids might like to spend some vacation time with him, too).

Remember, most senior Reservists are balancing full-time work with military service, plus trying to maintain a semblance of a personal life.  Giving a part-timer an 800 km span of control and you'll risk burning him or her out if they're trying to do their job right.  Mitigations? Make sure the RSM/DCO are also tapped for the traveling road show; limit the distances between sub-units; and ensure that an honest appreciation of time and space is conducted before giving a "Go!".

Good point! However there are some examples already today of such organizations which apprently work well, most notably Les Fusilliers du St-Laurent. Granted, the three companies span 200 km, not 800, but as I understand it the CO's of each unit can eventually become CO of the Regiment. Personally, I did participate in full companies exercises with the MIlitia in Montréal, after the reorg, and found them much more engrossing and challenging with three whole platoons from three regiments than with a barebone company from one, hard pressed to put 15 infantrymen per platoon.
Just my  :2c:

 

[Michael OLeary]

A thorough estimate could recommend that the best course of action may be to have a certain number of independent sub-units in specific isolated locations.  The potential for this doesn't detract from the possible advantages of amalgamations and command  level rationalizations based on size of units.

 

[McG]

Distance does remain an issue, as soldiers need face time with their leaders. 

Agreed.  That is why, if you go back through this thread, you'll find that I've typically argued a middle ground between those defending the status-quo & those advocating amalgamations until there are no understrength units remaining in the reserves.  Multi-regimental battalions need to be designed considering span of control from both a geographic and a unit size perspective.  As soon as one tries mixing multiple roles into a single reserve unit (lets say Infantry, Artillery and Medical) then the span of control issues become far more complex even without large numbers & geography.

I think the Army reserve will inevitably have a higher command overhead than the regular force brigades.  However, that command overhead can be a lot more streamlined than it is now and doing this streamlining properly can lead to a more effective Army reserve.

 

[dapaterson]

Oh, I fully concur - just want to remind folks that not everyone lives in Montreal, Toronto or Ottawa.

Fixing C2 also gives a more realistic ability to respond in the event of a disaster, with fewer floppers to co-ordinate to take action.  Another little side benefit.

 

[Haggis]

I think the Army reserve will inevitably have a higher command overhead than the regular force brigades.  However, that command overhead can be a lot more streamlined than it is now and doing this streamlining properly can lead to a more effective Army reserve.

For the purposes of this discusssion, I define "Command Overhead" as the ops/training, admin and logistics staff (full and part time) in each Reserve Armoury/Unit location.

As long as the decision makers are Class "A" soldiers, there will always be a need for a more robust "command overhead" in the Army Reserve to ensure that key decisions, for which authority cannot be delegated down, do not have to wait 5-7 days for a response.

Another driver behind "command overhead" is the amount of administration that the system requires of the Army Reserve.  There's absolutely no possible way that a Class "A" command tream can keep pace with demands generated by a Class "B"/Reg F HQ in terms of returns and deliverables.

 

[geo]

.... There is after all an Engineer Regiment that is also known by it's old name  "The Elgins"

 

[Fishbone Jones]

.... There is after all an Engineer Regiment that is also known by it's old name  "The Elgins"

Sorry Geo. Did we wake you up? We've talked about thenm a half dozen times already ;D

 

[geo]

Really ?  coulda fooled me - just goes to prove that a unit can go by more than one name at one time.  Have your cake and eat it too ;D

 

[kratz]

Haggis see that rare octagonal object, red if you see it fast enough...STOP.

All the forum members have weighed off of this thread and taken pot shots from shore at the Naval Reserve as if the Stone Frigates and the role of NavRes was secondary to the fight.  Nobody(with the exception of Daptaperson)  is listening to the fact that Naval Reserve has listened to the changes in the winds. If you read the current NavRes 2010 plan, there remains 24 NRDs within the framework of the CMS (Cheif Maritme Staff). Command of the NRDs is now expected to be at the Lt(N) or LCdr level vice the old LCdr / Cdr. and the Coxn is now expected to be a CPO2 vice a CPO1 in the NRDs under the 2010 plan.  So...instead of reinventing the wheel and demanding that others join your version of the party, consider that other commands have their house in order and have their own plan.

Dammed...there is a Navy and they are fighting for the same people we are, we should. Naval Reserve has it' own plan and most of it is already in place....74 pages discussion after ....

Rifleman62 , Haggis , dapaterson , tango22a, 2 Cdo, MCG , , George Wallace , Miichael O'Leary,
geo

Someone asked who is living with the after effects of amalgamation or the effects of 1967? The Naval Reserve Units that have been reactivated NO LONGER HAVE HONOUR!!! I called my Coxn one day and informed him of such and bore his wrath.....I was right. DHH does not recognize a naval unit that does not carry the same affiliation with the origonal ship.

Set that aside, since you are all willing to set small home town army units aside....

There is 30,000 aremy reserve and that is why I ask Haggis to stop. There is only 2000 NavRes. While the Admin and supply benifits are obviouse in a merger, there are intrinsic opertational goals that DO NOT merge between the elements.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Someone asked who is living with the after effects of amalgamation or the effects of 1967? The Naval Reserve Units that have been reactivated NO LONGER HAVE HONOUR!!! I called my Coxn one day and informed him of such and bore his wrath.....I was right. DHH does not recognize a naval unit that does not carry the same affiliation with the origonal ship.

No longer have "HONOUR"

or

No longer have "HONOURS", possibly because they were recreated with different ship names and therefore different historical backgrounds.

Are you sure you're talking about the same thing we are?