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

[George Wallace]

Funny Germany overan Europe with tankers trained in Plywood tanks. What they need to do is boil down the key skillsets each position needs and teach that. have a couple of training vehicles and crews, that travel to the different Reserve units and run short courses. Each member gets a little book they can check off those core competences on. One vehicle can train drivers while the other focus on gunnery, bring along electronic aids to assist. Choose your training teams well and you could get a lot out of it. You can do the same for artillery, medical, sigs, supply, engineer, MP's

On that note; you do not need vehicles to teach Tactics, OPs, Voice Procedure, Comms equipment, Theory of MG shooting, SOPs, etc. 

Even the Regular Force Armour units do not have all pers qualified to drive every vehicle, gun every gun, nor CC every vehicle. 

Yes there is a ever growing delta between Reserve and Regular Force Armour, but like every other Cbt Arm, the Reserves teach the "Basics".   

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think the issue here is that the RegF doesn't really understand why the PRes can't be plug and play.  We have a need, we call up a reservist and plug them in.

Its an advantage that NAVres (some not all) and the RCAF Res (?) has that the Army Res is missing. 

 

[Underway]

I think the issue here is that the RegF doesn't really understand why the PRes can't be plug and play.  We have a need, we call up a reservist and plug them in.

Its an advantage that NAVres (some not all) and the RCAF Res (?) has that the Army Res is missing.

Three totally different ways of doing buisness.  The navy as a whole is pushing harder and harder for the One Navy concept with equivalent training up to a point for reservists, also much more blended crewing on all classes of vessels is happening.  There is even discussion of removing the one true PRes Navy trade, MESO's and rerolling them into something different.  The RCAF is over 80% ex RegF already.  Some years it was 90%.  There are very very few RCAF reservists who were not RegF at some point in either our or another countries military.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

On that note; you do not need vehicles to teach Tactics, OPs, Voice Procedure, Comms equipment, Theory of MG shooting, SOPs, etc. 

Even the Regular Force Armour units do not have all pers qualified to drive every vehicle, gun every gun, nor CC every vehicle. 

Yes there is a ever growing delta between Reserve and Regular Force Armour, but like every other Cbt Arm, the Reserves teach the "Basics". 

True, but being able to feel, sit and use the "cool toys" is good for training, skillsets, morale, retention. A traveling roadshow solves some of the issues, no matter what you do, there will be problems, but better problems doing things than sitting around trying to avoid problems. Try out the idea in one region with a timeframe, go back and see what worked and didn't.

I recall a similar setup where a US army unit brought Warsaw pact vehicles to familiarize people with them, we got to see them in Graf. A travelling "threat" roadshow would be good as well. 

 

[PanaEng]

Bottom line is that at this rate, with all the budget pressures, lack of equipment, lack of courses, unwillingness to let the units conduct courses and qualify ppl on the deltas from the reg force trg, in a few years time, the Army Reserves will be irrelevant.
Yes, you can sit in a classroom and do powerpoint but that does not give you ppl who can grab that equipment and use it properly.
It will require major investment in capital and pay to get to the army reserve force (with the tasks that we have on paper) be a reality and that would include parity of equipment with the reg force (except for tanks)

 

[Kirkhill]

....  The RCAF is over 80% ex RegF already.  Some years it was 90%.  There are very very few RCAF reservists who were not RegF at some point in either our or another countries military.

In most countries this is the usual definition of Reservist: An ex RegF member that is available for call-up.

Militias, Territorials, Home Guards, Home Defence Forces, National Guards are an entirely different animal.  Their models vary all the way from the Swedish and Danish Home Guards which operate in much the same way that St John's Ambulance does, with voluntary service, all the way to the American Total Force National Guard model. 

But the US Reserves operate separately from the Guard.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

BS. The CComd skills are easily transferable from platform to platform. True, dvrs, gnrs and CComds would require a conversion crs IOT operate the wpns system on, say a LAV. However, this is NO different than RegF pers being qual'd on multiple platforms as they progress through their careers and courses.

I call BS to your BS. A LAV turret is extremely different than a LUVW turret and not even the tiniest bit comparable to a Leopard 2 turret. If you're talking CC, as in, "driver prepare to advance, driver advance" than sure. If you're talking CC as in the person can proficiently operate in a complex (TAPV or LAV 6.0) turret, in a complex, networked vehicle than not at all.

So, why keep 18 armoured reserves "Regiments" when the skills they practice are of the same level as if we just let reserve infantry regiments augment their recce elements with LUVWs? What would the loss to augmentation to the Reg force be if we shut the doors of the 18 Bns, added the PYs to infantry BNs, and just opened up operational roto's to augment armour to the Infantry Bns (aside from emotional attachment)?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Funny Germany overan Europe with tankers trained in Plywood tanks. What they need to do is boil down the key skillsets each position needs and teach that. have a couple of training vehicles and crews, that travel to the different Reserve units and run short courses. Each member gets a little book they can check off those core competences on. One vehicle can train drivers while the other focus on gunnery, bring along electronic aids to assist. Choose your training teams well and you could get a lot out of it. You can do the same for artillery, medical, sigs, supply, engineer, MP's

The effectiveness of the German army in 1939-1941 is one of the more over exagerrated parts of the history of WW2. It would just as easy to say that the ineffectiveness of the British and French aided the Germans more than their own training did, but I digress.

The machinery and methods of warfare are more complex than they were in WW2. It's unrealistic to expect a reservist to be able to operate a modern military vehicle, fully equipped with digitalized radios and blue force tracker, digital turrets, and advanced weaponry without SIGNIFICANT work up training. That's the major reason why the AD reserves failed, particularly in terms of ADATS training- the system was just to complex to teach someone in 1 night a week and 2 days a month FTX.

 

[Kirkhill]

... as if we just let reserve infantry regiments augment their recce elements with LUVWs? ...

What recce elements?  The infantry don't seem to have time to generate a proficient rifle coy let alone all the bells and whistles.  Hence the Engrs being added to Territorial Battalion Groups and the RCA supplying the Mortars.  Let the RCAC supply the lt cav / patrols / motorized recce element.

 

[Castus]

Realistically, that needs to be done for both Reg and Res F at the same time - what do we want the CAF writ large to be able to do; how should we structure it to do that, with a mix of high readiness (Reg F) and reduced readiness (Res F).

With 25% of the Reg F now officers, I'd argue that there's ample room for an examination of command structures there as well... and likely some savings that could be reinvested from staff processes into readiness.

Does the Reg F actually have 25% officers? If so... what the hell are we doing?

 

[Ostrozac]

Does the Reg F actually have 25% officers? If so... what the hell are we doing?

The regular force was 22% officers in 2008. I can't find more recent statistics right now. But yeah, it's pretty close to 25%.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2008107/article/10657-eng.htm

The same report indicates that, in 2008, the Primary Reserve was 16% officers. Quite a bit leaner. So, yes, on the face of it, the Regs calling out the Reserves for having companies led by LCols does have a bit of pot/kettle/black about it.

 

[dapaterson]

You can look at current numbers from statistical reports from HRMS on the DWAN, and then do some long division. 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

What recce elements?  The infantry don't seem to have time to generate a proficient rifle coy let alone all the bells and whistles.  Hence the Engrs being added to Territorial Battalion Groups and the RCA supplying the Mortars.  Let the RCAC supply the lt cav / patrols / motorized recce element.

recce element for what? non deployable reserve brigade groups? The mortars are deployable kit, so in terms of 1 for 1 augmentation reserve gunners could be called in to augment mortars with no extra training and a minor conversion course for M777 assuming that they are C3 qualified.

 

[George Wallace]

recce element for what? non deployable reserve brigade groups? The mortars are deployable kit, so in terms of 1 for 1 augmentation reserve gunners could be called in to augment mortars with no extra training and a minor conversion course for M777 assuming that they are C3 qualified.

The same can be said for the other Arms.  Resevists have come in and filled positions on tanks as Loaders and radio operators, truck drivers in the echelons, etc.  A minor conversion course to make Artillerymen from the Reserves capable of working on the M777 could also be said for a two week course to make a Reservist a Turret Operator on a Coyote.  Many Reserve Engineers are Hvy Equip qualified, and a simple conversion course for them would also be quite doable.


I think you have a bit of a faulty view of what training Reservists do have. 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

The same can be said for the other Arms.  Resevists have come in and filled positions on tanks as Loaders and radio operators, truck drivers in the echelons, etc.  A minor conversion course to make Artillerymen from the Reserves capable of working on the M777 could also be said for a two week course to make a Reservist a Turret Operator on a Coyote.  Many Reserve Engineers are Hvy Equip qualified, and a simple conversion course for them would also be quite doable.


I think you have a bit of a faulty view of what training Reservists do have.

Having been a reservist, and having trained artillery reservists at the RCAS, I have a pretty solid idea of what training reservists do. My point is that if the armour reserve units have no armour than we could disband most, if not all, of the EIGHTEEN armour reserve "regiments" because, as you stated, anyone (infantry, arty, engineer) could just do a conversion course and drive a coyote as required by a CFTPO. Since they do ZERO training on reg force vehicles/systems than why does someone need to be have a black beret to just drive a coyote/TAPV? the value in these units would be if you could force generate pers to fill all voids of the armour trade, not just provide a few drivers here and there for armour recce.... because really, do we require 18 Regiments to meet that task? You could then move PYs into other units (maybe standing up an infantry recce element?).

 

[George Wallace]

I don't have a crystal ball.  I thought years ago that the decision by the Senior Serving Dragoon in his capacity as CDS to declare the end of "Tanks" in the CAF in favour of a wheeled vehicle called the MGS was WRONG.  I have no idea what vehicle will replace our current armoured force.  I strongly disagree with your views, knowing that there are many Armour Reservists who have CT'd into Regular Force units, keeping their rank and filling positions in Sabre Troops.  I am sure that the fact that they became Regular Force is no different than had they not, but still filled those positions.  There are a lot more factors involved in Corps training than having a certain vehicle, a certain gun, or whatever.  Tactics will remain the same.  Radio procedures will remain the same.  All the "Basics" will remain the same.  The resource is still there to be expedited and exploited if needed.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I don't have a crystal ball.  I thought years ago that the decision by the Senior Serving Dragoon in his capacity as CDS to declare the end of "Tanks" in the CAF in favour of a wheeled vehicle called the MGS was WRONG.  I have no idea what vehicle will replace our current armoured force.  I strongly disagree with your views, knowing that there are many Armour Reservists who have CT'd into Regular Force units, keeping their rank and filling positions in Sabre Troops.  I am sure that the fact that they became Regular Force is no different than had they not, but still filled those positions.  There are a lot more factors involved in Corps training than having a certain vehicle, a certain gun, or whatever.  Tactics will remain the same.  Radio procedures will remain the same.  All the "Basics" will remain the same.  The resource is still there to be expedited and exploited if needed.

And you're entitled to that opinion. I however think that there is ZERO requirement for EIGHTEEN reserve armour regiments. Amalgamate the 18 into, say 3 to keep low level expertise for reg force augmentation than that's palatable. 18 is ludicrous.

We could also have an AD reserve by the same logic by giving current arty units the AD simulators that 4 GS Regt use on Maple Flag.

I also debate that tactics remain the same. We are moving towards network centric warfare if we are to believe ADO 2021, where digitalization will be a bigger player than it has previously been. So reservists will need to learn those skills as well, assuming that the reserves dont digitalize in the near future.

Finally, I too have seen good arty reservists come into the regular force, but have also seen bad ones that by all rights should have been demoted instantly. People will always be the same. 

 

[blackberet17]

Tactics as for the Armour trade have seen but slight changes over the years.

Move a vehicle (regardless of armament, crew size, tire size) from point A to point B tactically. Do so as part of a Patrol. Do so as part of a Troop. No change.

no change from platform to platform. The only real difference is accounting for the veh size and signature, which can be learned in short time.

Mr. Wallace is bang on.

If you're talking CC as in the person can proficiently operate in a complex (TAPV or LAV 6.0) turret, in a complex, networked vehicle than not at all.

That's part of the gunner skills, incl in the CComd task...which can be learned through the two-week TOC. Yes, greatly different running a LUVW turret with its C6 to operating a Leopard with its main gun. Yet the basics are taught on a CComd crs for a reason. Get the basics, then get the TOC as required.

At its basic, LUVW turret CComd it is no different than CComd from the turret of a LAV, aside from having to concern myself with the .25mm. But that's also what the two-man turret is for in the LAV...no such joy in a LUVW.

We are moving towards network centric warfare if we are to believe ADO 2021, where digitalization will be a bigger player than it has previously been. So reservists will need to learn those skills as well, assuming that the reserves dont digitalize in the near future.

EVERYONE should learn those skills, PRes and RegF. Point is moot.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Tactics as for the Armour trade have seen but slight changes over the years.

Move a vehicle (regardless of armament, crew size, tire size) from point A to point B tactically. Do so as part of a Patrol. Do so as part of a Troop. No change.

no change from platform to platform. The only real difference is accounting for the veh size and signature, which can be learned in short time.

Mr. Wallace is bang on.

That's part of the gunner skills, incl in the CComd task...which can be learned through the two-week TOC. Yes, greatly different running a LUVW turret with its C6 to operating a Leopard with its main gun. Yet the basics are taught on a CComd crs for a reason. Get the basics, then get the TOC as required.

At its basic, LUVW turret CComd it is no different than CComd from the turret of a LAV, aside from having to concern myself with the .25mm. But that's also what the two-man turret is for in the LAV...no such joy in a LUVW.

EVERYONE should learn those skills, PRes and RegF. Point is moot.

Point is not moot. Reservists dont have the time to get proficient on complex technical equipment while in a class A status. Also, LAV turret is extremely different than sitting in a LUVW. But I'm guessing that you're not going to reason here and admit that EIGHTEEN armour reserve units with no armour equipment is ludicrus.

This line of argument fits perfectly into the whole, "we need to get leaner and rationalize capabilities, as long as it's not my trade"

 

[George Wallace]

This line of argument fits perfectly into the whole, "we need to get leaner and rationalize capabilities, as long as it's not my trade"

Thank you for your outside looking in opinions on another Trade other than your own.  Perhaps, therein lies the problem.  Too often in the CAF as a whole, decisions are being made by those who have no idea of what they are talking about or designing.  I have seen it in the construction of tank hangars where designs were changed to cut costs and when the building was finally finished, tanks would not safely fit through the doors.  A new and larger hangar having to be built was the end result.  Now we have two expensive buildings build due to someone trying to cut corners and costs.  The same can be said to non-Trades pers making decisions on what a Trade needs or should look like.