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

[McG]

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.

Yes.  What the PRes needs is fewer Battalion HQs - less "overhead" or "more tooth less tail."  The regiments can then be fitted to the organization that is created.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Yes.  What the PRes needs is fewer Battalion HQs - less "overhead" or "more tooth less tail."  The regiments can then be fitted to the organization that is created.

FWIW, based on what I've seen over the past few years we could recruit up to 100 people per year, but our SIP is only 8. We have achieved 100% of our recruiting targets this year and are now turning people away.

Bizarrely, we've got enough 'tail' to handle a couple of hundred more troops but are not allowed to recruit them.

 

[McG]

Your SIP numbers are derived from actual manning and authorized strength.  The problem is not the ability of PRes to recruit for and man the battalions under all of its HQs (though that ability probably would show wanting if tested).  The problem is that the established number of HQs is disproportionate to the overall manning ceiling.

In other words, there can never be enough people to justify all the Bn HQs.

 

[Old Sweat]

Absolutely, but with Canadian geography and population distribution, there are few options that aren't all bad and prone to producing negative results. I recall reading in a book that I think was called Duffy's Regiment about the career of a gentleman who was the wartime RSM of the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment and later Colonel of the Regiment about when he called in some political markers when Mr Hellyer proposed closing down their outlying companies in places like Madoc. The minister proclaimed that his advisors said it would be more economical to bus the troops from Madoc for parades and this would produce a much more effective unit at a reduced cost. This, of course, was pure bull crap and the regiment lost touch with the northern part of Hastings County.

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

Why restrict the analysis to the Infantry and Armoured?  IIRC the Engineers are also employable as Infantry and in both Northern Ireland and Iraq much of the Artillery have found themselves used as Infantry in what were essentially ACP taskings.  Both the Arty and the Engineers must have infantry training.

In the Reserves (sorry, probably wrong thread) to me it makes more sense in a total force context to consider four principle skill sets:

Communications - managed by the Sigs Regiments
Transportation - this should be the focus of the Service Battalions
Vehicular Recce and Patrols - this should be the focus of the "Armoured" Regiments
Soldiering (Infanteering) - and here I would group the Arty and the Engineers with the Infantry

The reason for this is that all three Branches will fight alongside each other on the ground.  All three require infantry skills.  Infantry skills are amongst the easiest to transmit if not the easiest to perfect.  They are cheap to transmit if expensive to perfect. 

In a Canada First Defence context the need for disciplined bodies is more important than the need for Gunners and Engineers (domestically we don't need backhoe operators - there isn't a community anywhere in the country that can't supply experienced heavy equipment drivers).

The Reg Gunners and Sappers need to be fully focused on expeditionary warfare.  The reserves allocated to them need to be willing bodies that are trainable as opposed to fully trained.

Much the same argument can be made for the Infantry with the caveat that an Infantry heavy reg force Immediate Reaction Unit will have use domestically.    Abroad the infantry will take its place in whatever tasking the Government finds for the forces.  Again the emphasis for the reserves is on "fit and willing". 

For the Armoured Regiments - the regs need to join with the reg Arty and Engineers to form the backbones of the the expeditionary forces (heavy).  The reserves have a Canada First defence role in augmenting civilian police with roving patrols during time of crisis with more of an emphasis on patrolling back roads and trails that the police don't commonly service.  Those reservists can bring those skills to the reg forces where they would receive additional training to crew reg force equipment in a reg force fashion.  Reserve armoured could also, perhaps provided some limited numbers of Protected Mobility Vehicles for domestic service and support.

Service Battalions - it is unreasonable to expect reservists to maintain vehicles or other equipment.  That is a full time job in any organization. What the Army lacks is truck drivers. What Canada First lacks is the ability to transport goods when the rails are broken and the roads are washed out, or simply no longer exist.  Service battalions (reserve) should focus on cross-country logistics in high mobility vehicles. These could include RHIBs, pontoons and Marginal Terrain Vehicles (unarmoured)

The Sigs - they will always have a use and always be in short supply.

By considering the reserve Arty and Engineers with the Infantry it might go some way to bridging the gaps in the discussions about guns and mortars and pioneers. 

Teach the usable skills that the available time affords - and reality is that you have about 150 hours per reservist for each of four years.  What can you teach in that time and, more importantly, how long can you hang onto those skills before the body goes missing or the skills fade?

Regs are there to make sure that the Government as a panoply of skilled capabilities readily available for immediate usage and to bridge the gap until the Government can figure out what to do next.

 

[MilEME09]

In the Reserves (sorry, probably wrong thread) to me it makes more sense in a total force context to consider four principle skill sets:

Communications - managed by the Sigs Regiments
Transportation - this should be the focus of the Service Battalions

Service Battalions - it is unreasonable to expect reservists to maintain vehicles or other equipment.  That is a full time job in any organization. What the Army lacks is truck drivers. What Canada First lacks is the ability to transport goods when the rails are broken and the roads are washed out, or simply no longer exist.  Service battalions (reserve) should focus on cross-country logistics in high mobility vehicles. These could include RHIBs, pontoons and Marginal Terrain Vehicles (unarmoured)

As a tech I want to disagree, but I can't vehicles can't be maintained by a class A soldier, we just dont have the time to do work past an oil change or a tire rotation most days. Weapons techs I think is possible since you can do any small arms task within a day. I agree our focus should be transport, but the problem is, and i don't know how it is in the reg force but we are having an incredibly difficult time recruiting MSE ops.

 

[McG]

Why restrict the analysis to the Infantry and Armoured?

Probably because the comment was made in the context of discussing regiments of those arms.  In the case of other arms and services, they have already done the consolidation of HQs that was being proposed for manoeuvre arms.  Engineers, artillery and CSS units have all already been reduced to a single unit per brigade.  Meanwhile, one can find multiple sub-unit sized battalions of like manoeuvre arms stacked on top of each other in some places.

IIRC the Engineers are also employable as Infantry and in both Northern Ireland and Iraq much of the Artillery have found themselves used as Infantry in what were essentially ACP taskings.  Both the Arty and the Engineers must have infantry training.

In the Reserves (sorry, probably wrong thread) to me it makes more sense in a total force context to consider four principle skill sets:

Communications - managed by the Sigs Regiments
Transportation - this should be the focus of the Service Battalions
Vehicular Recce and Patrols - this should be the focus of the "Armoured" Regiments
Soldiering (Infanteering) - and here I would group the Arty and the Engineers with the Infantry

The reason for this is that all three Branches will fight alongside each other on the ground.  All three require infantry skills.  Infantry skills are amongst the easiest to transmit if not the easiest to perfect.  They are cheap to transmit if expensive to perfect. 

In a Canada First Defence context the need for disciplined bodies is more important than the need for Gunners and Engineers (domestically we don't need backhoe operators - there isn't a community anywhere in the country that can't supply experienced heavy equipment drivers).

So, engineer and artillery units should be only trained as infantry in the PRes?  I think you assume the skills to be easier to train than they are.  There is a fair amount involved in bridging, rafting, water supply, combat road construction, etc.  If you want the RegF Engr to be entirely focused on expeditionary ops, then you need somebody in the PRes to do the job domestically.

For the Armoured Regiments - the regs need to join with the reg Arty and Engineers to form the backbones of the the expeditionary forces (heavy).  The reserves have a Canada First defence role in augmenting civilian police with roving patrols during time of crisis with more of an emphasis on patrolling back roads and trails that the police don't commonly service.  Those reservists can bring those skills to the reg forces where they would receive additional training to crew reg force equipment in a reg force fashion.  Reserve armoured could also, perhaps provided some limited numbers of Protected Mobility Vehicles for domestic service and support.

I don't see what you are proposing here that warrants preserving PRes Armd while you would subsume Engr and Arty into infantry.  If anything, it seems the jobs you describe here are a better fit to infantry trained "disciplined bodies" than the sorts of things one would ask of a gunner or sapper.

Service Battalions - it is unreasonable to expect reservists to maintain vehicles or other equipment.  That is a full time job in any organization. What the Army lacks is truck drivers. What Canada First lacks is the ability to transport goods when the rails are broken and the roads are washed out, or simply no longer exist.  Service battalions (reserve) should focus on cross-country logistics in high mobility vehicles. These could include RHIBs, pontoons and Marginal Terrain Vehicles (unarmoured).

You realize that a main function of the Engineers is mobility, right?  If your vision is giant cross country supply chains reaching into disaster areas, then you need somebody to build those lines of communication, to put in crossings, to maintain the routes, and to breach whatever barriers may bar access to your destination.

Anyway, I am not sure that I understand where you are going with this.

 

[Kirkhill]

Probably because the comment was made in the context of discussing regiments of those arms.  In the case of other arms and services, they have already done the consolidation of HQs that was being proposed for manoeuvre arms.  Engineers, artillery and CSS units have all already been reduced to a single unit per brigade.  Meanwhile, one can find multiple sub-unit sized battalions of like manoeuvre arms stacked on top of each other in some places.

Point taken and I appreciate you moving this to a more appropriate forum.

So, engineer and artillery units should be only trained as infantry in the PRes?  I think you assume the skills to be easier to train than they are.  There is a fair amount involved in bridging, rafting, water supply, combat road construction, etc.  If you want the RegF Engr to be entirely focused on expeditionary ops, then you need somebody in the PRes to do the job domestically.

Actually, it is precisely because there are so many skills associated with the Gunners and Engineers that I am proposing limiting the expectations of the PRes.  Unless those members spend a considerable amount of time in Class B or C service I don't see how the skills can be effectively transferred.  I hope that I am wrong.

With respect to the domestic service of engineers I am at a loss to see how any of the services you described could not be supplied effectively by local civilian contractors - always supposing that they are not dodging bullets and I have to admit I see that as a pretty far-fetched likelihood.

I don't see what you are proposing here that warrants preserving PRes Armd while you would subsume Engr and Arty into infantry.  If anything, it seems the jobs you describe here are a better fit to infantry trained "disciplined bodies" than the sorts of things one would ask of a gunner or sapper.

You realize that a main function of the Engineers is mobility, right?  If your vision is giant cross country supply chains reaching into disaster areas, then you need somebody to build those lines of communication, to put in crossings, to maintain the routes, and to breach whatever barriers may bar access to your destination.

Again, I would respond that the civilian market can more effectively provide those services.  Any small town in Canada has more heavy equipment at its disposal than the entire body of combat engineers can scrounge from all four of its bases.

Anyway, I am not sure that I understand where you are going with this.

The simple form is that I do not believe that you can create the equivalent of a full time soldier who has 2000 hours a year available for training when the PRes soldier only has 100 to 200 hours to put at your disposal.  You cannot get there from here.

My principal point is that expectations must be tailored to match realities. 

 

[KevinB]

Perhaps certain units/trades should only be stocked for retired/end of contract regulars?

It is much easier to maintain a skill set than teach a new one.



No one idea is going to solve this problem -- its going to take a holistic look.
1) What is needed
The Mission needs to be identified first, as without doing this first your just spinning your wheels - or expending more electron on the internet 

I am not talking about lip service to the whole CF Mission Statement - which the Regular Army is pretty misguided about as well.

I would also suggest that the CF and Political 'advisors' start sooner than later, as the while Iraq/Syrian Quaqmire ISIL Coalition is going to suck up the Reg Force inside 2 years (mark my words).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We were doing engine rebuilds at our unit (only way to keep our 3-tonner), it's not that hard, machining was done at a local shop. Give each of the Svc Battalion a mobile workshop, hire 2 guys on Class B to go around and service the Brigades vehicles and a credit card to buy most parts and POL locally. They can do most of the light to medium stuff right there. The unit they are at can provide extra support with their RSS and Class B staff as well. I think you find the serviceability rates will go up and it will allow the area depots to focus on bigger stuff and reduce the downtime due to parts shortages. About the only thing that can't get locally would be body parts. You can get a custom length drive shaft in about 5 days, same for replacement differential.
Plus you create a pool of experienced maintainers, who can disseminate knowledge to the units who can use that to reduce wear and tear. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Colin, the point there is that Class B service is effectively full time in that role.  I agree with the concept.  But it is all dollars.

Further, with respect to acquiring skills, why doesn't the CF get out of the teaching business and do what everybody else does: hire them.

If we/you need mechanics then go down to the local colleges, heavy equipment dealers and auto dealers and talk to them about hiring them (the students and employees) on a part time basis - bring the bosses into the discussion.

If heavy equipment operators are need go to the colleges, union halls and local construction companies.

You name the trade.

Which is easier: to teach a soldier how to be a tradesman or teach tradesman how to be a soldier? 

Obviously I believe the latter to be true.

One advantage of talking to heavy equipment operators in Canada is that there is a lot of seasonality to their work.  They are likely to be available for training in the depth of winter rather than the height of summer.

Another advantage of working with tradesmen is that they are probably in a position to teach skills just as much as learn skills.

 

[MilEME09]

You touch on a point i'd like to highlight Kirkhill, the availability in winter to do training. For any reservist not going through school Summer is probably the busiest time of the work year, and when we are most needed by our respective companies. Now the army wants us to take say 8 weeks leave from work to go on a course? I personally would find it easier to do courses if they were done during the training calendar year. I would sooner go to (insert base here) for a course in September through May when my work is slow in the depth of winter then take it at the height of the busy summer season. For context I'm a weapons tech in the CF, and a Apprentice cook civilian side.

 

[Monsoon]

You touch on a point i'd like to highlight Kirkhill, the availability in winter to do training. For any reservist not going through school Summer is probably the busiest time of the work year, and when we are most needed by our respective companies. Now the army wants us to take say 8 weeks leave from work to go on a course? I personally would find it easier to do courses if they were done during the training calendar year. I would sooner go to (insert base here) for a course in September through May when my work is slow in the depth of winter then take it at the height of the busy summer season. For context I'm a weapons tech in the CF, and a Apprentice cook civilian side.

Good point - Canada has over a half-million seasonal workers, mostly of the same demographic as our military (predominantly male, same age range, etc). Even just 3% of that could form a very credible reserve force on its own: available for extended coursing and easily as many weeks a year on exercise as a battalion in garrison on standard readiness, provided a rotational schedule were set up to allow members to do their service in whatever seasons they happen to be laid off. We tend to focus too much on students as the one form of seasonal worker who can be used to build a reserve force, and then assume that everyone over the age of 21 works 40-hour-a-week office jobs 50 weeks a year. The demographic make-up of this country is a heck of a lot more diverse than that from an employment perspective.

 

[MilEME09]

Good point - Canada has over a half-million seasonal workers, mostly of the same demographic as our military (predominantly male, same age range, etc). Even just 3% of that could form a very credible reserve force on its own: available for extended coursing and easily as many weeks a year on exercise as a battalion in garrison on standard readiness, provided a rotational schedule were set up to allow members to do their service in whatever seasons they happen to be laid off. We tend to focus too much on students as the one form of seasonal worker who can be used to build a reserve force, and then assume that everyone over the age of 21 works 40-hour-a-week office jobs 50 weeks a year. The demographic make-up of this country is a heck of a lot more diverse than that from an employment perspective.

Exactly, and I think until that is addressed we will continue to have problems of attendance, recruitment and retainment in the reserves. We don't all work office jobs, many are shift workers, and the CF needs to realize that.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Colin, the point there is that Class B service is effectively full time in that role.  I agree with the concept.  But it is all dollars.

Further, with respect to acquiring skills, why doesn't the CF get out of the teaching business and do what everybody else does: hire them.

If we/you need mechanics then go down to the local colleges, heavy equipment dealers and auto dealers and talk to them about hiring them (the students and employees) on a part time basis - bring the bosses into the discussion.

If heavy equipment operators are need go to the colleges, union halls and local construction companies.

You name the trade.

Which is easier: to teach a soldier how to be a tradesman or teach tradesman how to be a soldier? 

Obviously I believe the latter to be true.

One advantage of talking to heavy equipment operators in Canada is that there is a lot of seasonality to their work.  They are likely to be available for training in the depth of winter rather than the height of summer.

Another advantage of working with tradesmen is that they are probably in a position to teach skills just as much as learn skills.

I did Class B myself (back in the Bronze age) We had 1 guy who was on Class B just to maintain the trucks (we were Ops tasked at that point) it worked well and I found Class B workload ebbed and flowed depending on the ex schedule. As for training, I would say that is one place the military well does exceed the standard. We do produce a lot of good instructors and far better than most of the college stuff I have seen. My main complaint is lack of focused syllabus on some military courses, others were quite well structured. For mechanics, heavy equipment operator or the basics of survey, you can supplement the military system with local technical college. So  reservist Engineers are sent to a local college to learn the basics of operating heavy equipment and then take a military centric course to apply that basic knowledge to army tasks.   

 

[daftandbarmy]

Exactly, and I think until that is addressed we will continue to have problems of attendance, recruitment and retainment in the reserves. We don't all work office jobs, many are shift workers, and the CF needs to realize that.

Well, if you want to address attendance problems, then just give the Army Reserves the 'Commando Recon' role and stop running lame, boring training designed for low risk tolerance, fat, unimaginative leaders whose idea of a great exercise is setting up some mod tents and getting the radios working (the latter a minor miracle in itself when it does happen).

All you need to run that show is a mission, 100lbs of weapons and CSups per man, and 48hours. Vehicles? Hah... we tab everywhere and destroy everything.  :camo:

You'd have to fight them away from the armouries with nun chuks, and the resulting influx and selection of high quality troops would help provide a major CT injected boost for the Regs...

TTFN - Green beret, smock and dagger, black helicopter.... Tally Ho!

 

[MilEME09]

Well, if you want to address attendance problems, then just give the Army Reserves the 'Commando Recon' role and stop running lame, boring training designed for low risk tolerance, fat, unimaginative leaders whose idea of a great exercise is setting up some mod tents and getting the radios working (the latter a minor miracle in itself when it does happen).

All you need to run that show is a mission, 100lbs of weapons and CSups per man, and 48hours. Vehicles? Hah... we tab everywhere and destroy everything.  :camo:

You'd have to fight them away from the armouries with nun chuks, and the resulting influx and selection of high quality troops would help provide a major CT injected boost for the Regs...

TTFN - Green beret, smock and dagger, black helicopter.... Tally Ho!

The serious point in there that I can find is that training has to be interesting and engaging for the troops to keep people coming back. Also you should know sometimes it takes the whole EX just to get those radios working

 

[Journeyman]

I thought he was trying to draw the nintendo ninjas away from the Recruiting threads, to the Reserves.  >

 

[MilEME09]

I thought he was trying to draw the nintendo ninjas away from the Recruiting threads, to the Reserves.  >

We already get plenty of those

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The lack of equipment and the waffling on a useful and easily grasped mission, that can motivate people is killing the reserves, helped along by a recruiting system seemingly designed to keep people from joining.