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

[geo]

CBH.... The Calgary Highlanders deployed 75 troops.

Of those 75... how many were in the same section/platoon/company?
Methinks they served - spread throughout the entire TF.  Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to "diss" them - but to say that a sub-unit was deployed is a slight exageration IMHO.

WRT the troops of 18 AD, those 19 troops are probably not part of the same gun det if at all in the same battery.

 

[aesop081]

WRT the troops of 18 AD, those 19 troops are probably not part of the same gun det if at all in the same battery.

Of course they are not on the same gun team......they dont man guns to begin with.

 

[dapaterson]

Actually, 18 AD was re-roled to field guns a while ago; the name change is still sitting on a desk somewhere in Ottawa.  In a former life, the file crossed my desk.  No idea where it stands today (applies equally to 1 AD (The L&R Scots)).

 

[aesop081]

Actually, 18 AD was re-roled to field guns a while ago; the name change is still sitting on a desk somewhere in Ottawa.  In a former life, the file crossed my desk.  No idea where it stands today (applies equally to 1 AD (The L&R Scots)).

I stand corrected, thanks for the update.

 

[Kirkhill]

Actually, 18 AD was re-roled to field guns a while ago; the name change is still sitting on a desk somewhere in Ottawa.  In a former life, the file crossed my desk.  No idea where it stands today (applies equally to 1 AD (The L&R Scots)).

An interesting observation.

I suddenly flashed on a half-remembered song from WW2 (learned second hand - you'll have to go to Old Sweat for verification).

"We are poor little lambs who have lost their way, bah, bah, bah.
Damned from artillery to infantry, bah, bah, bah.
Gentlemen gunners who've lost their guns.
Nothing but small arms to shoot at the Huns.
Lord have mercy on such poor ones, bah, bah, bah."

The Lanarks have been through this rebadging, re-roling a number of times. 

And as I recall, once upon a time the Calgary Highlanders and the KOCR  (aka Calgary Tanks) were both the Calgary Regiment, and the 10th and 50th Bn CEF and 103rd Regiment (Calgary Rifles).

To quote the Whiffenpoofs: bah, bah, bah.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Kirkhill,

I was at the Lanarks for 1992 re-roling from infantry to 1 Air Defence Regiment.  On the whole, the young troops took it well.  So did the Snr NCMs who were, almost to a man, retired regular force.  The problem- a Major, a couple of Capts and a Lt or two.  They were worth their weight in trouble.  By my count, that had been the 5th reroling between Artillery and Infantry the L&R Scots had undergone since WW2, so it happens all the time.

Of course, the whole re-role  & total force experiment might have worked better if someone at a FMC (at that time) had spent more than 10 minutes thinking about the budgetary, equipment, CFOO, CFET, infrastructure and career progression model implications of the experiment before dumping 32 Regular Force and about 100 Reservists unsupported into no-man's land to figure out what to do next...

 

[geo]

(considering the proximity of Pembrooke to Gagetown, the L&R Scots could have been reroled to pert much anything - the only problem I see is that it continues to go on - ad nauseum - without rhyme or logic.

At least the 58th AAD was a bty of 6 RCA before.... and after....
VS infantry to artillery to infantry... hard to maintain an identity IMHO

 

[SeaKingTacco]

considering the proximity of Pembrooke to Gagetown,

Surely you mean Petawawa.

Identity was not an issue.  The Regiment's history was easily traceable 150 years back.  Traditions carried on much the same, whether it was an infantry or artillery unit.  Obviously uniforms changed, but the battle honours stayed cased just outside the officer's mess; officers carried claymores on parade vice artillery pattern swords; Bobby Burns Day was celebrated with as much gusto as St Barbara's day.  It seemed to work.

 

[Michael OLeary]

... hard to maintain an identity IMHO

I would suggest that that is an internal unit responsibility, once the order to re-role has been given.  As noted above, it's the sort of thing that is easily undermined by those few malcontents who refuse to accept the order and set a leadership example by getting on with business and lack the personal commitment to decide they can't soldier on under the new unit role and then do the honorable thing.

 

[dapaterson]

Surely you mean Petawawa.

Identity was not an issue.  The Regiment's history was easily traceable 150 years back.  Traditions carried on much the same, whether it was an infantry or artillery unit.  Obviously uniforms changed, but the battle honours stayed cased just outside the officer's mess; officers carried claymores on parade vice artillery pattern swords; Bobby Burns Day was celebrated with as much gusto as St Barbara's day.  It seemed to work.

Hmm.... giving a unit twice as many reasons to celebrate and drink...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Ahhh, you see the genius in the system. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Bobby Burns.  Strewth.  Rabbie  iper: (looking for an excuse for that one  ;D )

Surely one crew-served weapon is much like another when it comes to ethos or identity?

C6, CG-84 or Field Gun.

Every weapon in the battalion has been brigaded and upsized, or if you prefer, every weapon in the brigade has been dispersed and downsized.

 

[McG]

If the Navy (TB is a logical loc for a NavRes unit), Army, Comms Reserve and CFMG are not going to give, then a possibile course of action to save overhead was to tactically group .

The Comms Reserve no longer exists.  It is now part of the Army reserves. 

As I stated earlier, merging units across different environments is a bad idea.  It does not help that the phrase 'tactically group' is relatively meaningless despite frequently being used.  It seems to imply some sort of temporary command relationship on ops or training, but it is not something that is defined anywhere.  We could 'administratively group' entities across environments such that they would share orderly staff, recruiters, and other administrative overhead.  However, as a command relationship, this does not work as span of control is too great with the differences in roles, methods of operation, training, etc.

Reserve units are currently not deployable.  The Cheif of Land Staff is not looking to change our mission - which is to provide individual and sub-sub-sub unit augmentation to the regular force (aka Section).

Actually geo, if you go back a few pages you will see the media hinting toward a plan to provide the Reserve with a leading role in domestic operations:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24381/post-818356.html#msg818356

Having listened to the CLS speak on his vision, I know it is his intent to see the reserves take that leading role for domestic operations  ...  This is a rather substantial change to the current way of doing business, and it will require creation of full & effective unit headquarters (not the current skeleton HQs).  In the end, every unit will have clearly defined both a role in support of international operations (I suspect generally what is done now) and a role for domestic operations.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

You mean like how the Engineer units have certain roles for what they are providing for Domestic Responses?

Ex. 56 ES would be bridging and water supply (in addition to the normal skill sets we bring to the table)

 

[CBH99]

WRT to 18 Air Defense...we are a gun troop.  We have a support troop and a gun troop, that uses the C3 105mm's.

There was a lot of speculation when they re-rolled us from Air Defense.  First they were going to make us an MP unit, due to the large Criminal Justice program down here at the college.  Then we were going to be re-rolled as a mortar unit, even had mortar systems shipped to us & everything.  Then, they decided to role us into a field artillery unit instead - and that is how we stand now.

No word yet on name change either.  Was going to be a detach. of 20 field battery...but word is they want to keep the '18' in our title because everybody around here knows us as 18 AD.  Interesting to see how it'll pan out.

 

[Rifleman62]

MCG

I stand corrected. The original post was written in Jun 05 and I carried forward the term tactically grouped to new posts. Administratively grouped would be more appropriate, although where is the available gene pool to produce/retain/renew leadership in TB for five units? And that's the problem, and it is not only in TB but elsewhere in areas where the population is not substantial. As DAP stated "just want to remind folks that not everyone lives in Montreal, Toronto or Ottawa".

38 CBG AOR covers 3 provinces, at times 3 time zones therefore the Bde Comd has to be careful when he says teleconf at 1900 hrs.  If the Bde Comd wanted to have all units participate in an exercise in Shilo the cumulative distance travelled would be 3000 km; to Dundurn it is 4300 Km.

38 CBG has been in the forefront tactically grouping Bde units starting with the 3 Arty units, followed by the 3 Svc Bns  (now 2), RRR and NSaskR, RWpgRif and Camerons of C, and then the LSSR and 18 Svc Bn. That was the situation shortly after I retired.

Some of the rational for this was to stop the last person standing syndrome at various rank levels. IMO success depends greatly on the abilities of the key: the CO.

Command is the fulfillment of a soldiers’ career. As history tells us, not everyone can achieve the requirement. Being the CO is the level of command where success can be achieved by the sheer will and determination of soldiers following a CO in whom they have absolute faith, confidence and trust.

A Commanding Officer is just as good, or just as bad, as the Soldiers under his command make him.

 

[McG]

... where is the available gene pool to produce/retain/renew leadership in TB for five units? And that's the problem, and it is not only in TB but elsewhere in areas where the population is not substantial. As DAP stated "just want to remind folks that not everyone lives in Montreal, Toronto or Ottawa".

Should all of these units actually be units?  Could some be sub-units (or even sub-sub-units) of units in other locations?  Could others be independant sub-units?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Like the Engineer Sqn within the FGH.

 

[McG]

Like the Engineer Sqn within the FGH.

No.  That would be the mixing of roles within one unit which I've suggested is a very bad idea for span of control.

An example of what I propose is the satalite company of 4 RCR or the satalite squadron of 31 CER or:

3 FER and 9 FES were amalgamated into one unit - 34 CER.
34 CER is composed of 4 FES, 9 FES & sorta 16 FES.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Gotcha kinda like what the Engineer Units are doing through out Canada.

For the record, 37 CER will be standing up soon with RHQ and One Sqn in St. John's and a second SQN in Fredricton (supposedly starting this Sept).