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

[Mortar guy]

I'll make the intro to the next edition a little lighter - maybe with a focus on moustache maintenance in patrol bases?

 

[George Wallace]

I'll make the intro to the next edition a little lighter - maybe with a focus on moustache maintenance in patrol bases?

Wax or No Wax?

 

[Mortar guy]

I take a mission command approach to wax - my intent is that the moustache look man-tacular - the "how" is up to the wearer.

 

[Ostrozac]

Speaking of drool, I have just read the first edition of the Infantry newsletter and I think I want a LAV 6 and a TAPV now.

Good for you. At least somebody is excited about them.

LAV 6 looks like a bit of a burden for the maintainers (recovery in particular is a nightmare) and TAPV (depending on who you talk to) is either a light vehicle that isn't very light, or a personnel carrier that can't carry many personnel.

 

[Oscar590]

Good for you. At least somebody is excited about them.

LAV 6 looks like a bit of a burden for the maintainers (recovery in particular is a nightmare) and TAPV (depending on who you talk to) is either a light vehicle that isn't very light, or a personnel carrier that can't carry many personnel.

Reminds me of this scene from Pentagon Wars about the M2 Bradley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

 

[McG]

So, let's get back to the topic of PRes.

I believe we have other threads for TAPV, LAV and the failings of major projects.

 

[Kirkhill]

Good for you. At least somebody is excited about them.

LAV 6 looks like a bit of a burden for the maintainers (recovery in particular is a nightmare) and TAPV (depending on who you talk to) is either a light vehicle that isn't very light, or a personnel carrier that can't carry many personnel.

You may have defined the problem Ostrozac - the TAPV a Light Personnel Carrier:  A carrier designed to carry Light Personnel (ie little guys).

Sorry McG- couldn't resist.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So, let's get back to the topic of PRes.

I believe we have other threads for TAPV, LAV and the failings of major projects.

I've recently done an AAR with my folks and here are the take aways for me:

Assuming 'no change' in the terms of service and levels of equipment for Class A personnel, we must....

Ensure that training is well planned and communicated thoroughly in advance through a well managed OPP, is incremental and culminates in worthwhile, challenging, interesting, infantry (in our case) mission aligned field activities. The natural 'culminating points' in our annual training calendar are November, April and August. Shooting, fitness and tactics all need to progress meaningfully beyond the mere 'ticking of boxes'. Exercises need to be well run and hard so that - as one Sgt explained to me - 'we hit the ground running on Friday night and pray for death by Sunday morning'.We need to balance all this with other activities, like various 'non combat' Bde events and Regimental family activities, that have nothing to do with the main mission of the infantry: to kill bad guys and break all their stuff. Domops, 'PC briefings' etc etc etc must always assume a secondary priority because it merely eats in to our measly annual allocation of 37 Class A days (5 to 10 of which are apparently kept at Bde HQ for frittering away on various flavours of the month).

Further, we need to make best use of the training and development infrastructure provided for us by the CF through the thoughtful development and mentoring of our junior members, and proactive career management. We must ruthlessly cull bad leaders and avoid, at all costs, putting poorly trained, incompetent and/or under trained Officers and NCOs in charge of our soldiers and other Officers. This goes for all rank levels up to and including Bde Comd.

All of this, of course, needs to be done within the vessel of a higher purpose of some kind, which we continue to lack beyond the platitudes of 'recruit, train and retain'. This, of course, is the responsibility of the Army Commander and CDS and, on the armoury floor level, it is painfully obvious that we continue to lack that kind of higher direction which shows up as various kinds of waffling and contradiction the Div/Bde level which then adversely influences the rest of us.

The natural tendency of most of those on the armoury floor is to seek opportunities to train collectively with the Reg F. This may take various forms and the annual summer concentration seems to be the most obvious annual opportunity. Should this direction be given I am sure that, over time, we part timers could grow into a reliable and competent compliment to any full time formation to the dismounted company level, or something like that.

 

[Harris]

An example of the problem:

For 5 Div "ARCON" in Aug the Div Comd has asked for 2 RCR (and others) to support the trg.  Apparently this received a yes from 4 Div Comd.  So far so good.

I attend the IPC and I see things fall apart as follows:

5 Div wants 2 RCR to basically run a giant gun camp for the week up to and including level 3 by day and by night.

2 RCR arrives at the table and says they are running their own Ex and don't want to travel to Pet so they will take our soldiers a sect at a time and insert them into their Paltoons to train with them.  No plan for reserve leadership was mentioned.

IMO these two starting points are basically on the opposite ends of the spectrum.  I await the "fix" at the MPC.

 

[Loch Sloy!]

I am a longtime lurker here but always enjoy reading this thread. Some of the things written here should be thrown into the Infantry Newsletter to generate Corps-wide debate in the RCIC. There are too few PRes articles in the Newsletter, and there are too many topics that need daylight, for this not to happen. If anyone wants to dive in, PM me.

One of our Majors did a PD lecture on the different methods of reserve force initial training for infantry officers (and some of that was concurrently done with NCO training) utilized by some of our allies. I will suggest to him that he submit something to you Sir. The take home point of his presentation was that the Aussies and the Brits seem to turn out trained infantry officers much more efficiently than we do.

The current training system in the CF does not seem to be meeting the needs of the PRes... that may be a controversial statement but how many PRes infantry platoons across Canada are currently commanded by partly trained 2Lt.s (or WOs) rather than DP 1.1 qualified LT.s? Very few. In most regiments, out of 2-3 Pls only 1 will be led by a qualified Lt., some units have no qualified PL comds and also have PL WO positions covered by Sgt.s We manage to limp along (mostly due to the mentoring of some stellar Capt./Maj.) but this is obviously far from ideal.

I found the Infantry Newsletter quite informative, it would be great to see some reserve force content.

With respect to TAPV, I see on the Texetron website that there is a stretched infantry carrier variant. The Aussies have re-re-roled their Armd recce troops to drive the bushmaster APC and move their reserve infantry around. This might have merit for the CF. The armoured corps might not like to act as taxi drivers but at least they would be driving armoured vehicles again...

 

[Kirkhill]

....

With respect to TAPV, I see on the Texetron website that there is a stretched infantry carrier variant. ....

Nothing a contractor enjoys more than a good Change Order.    Not that it is a bad idea, just that it would have been better before the contract was inked.  Or even the SOR published.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I will suggest to him that he submit something to you Sir. The take home point of his presentation was that the Aussies and the Brits seem to turn out trained infantry officers much more efficiently than we do.

I've been out of the loop for several years now but, having done both RESO and Sandhurst, I believe that Phase III is more than a match for the UK training in terms of the time invested vs the quality and suitability of product for our reserves. For the infantry anyways.

However, in Canada, it can take us 3 years to get someone through Phase III, if at all. My unit has several 'non-trade qualified' 2Lts lurking around who have had more than one kick at the can and have yet to pass.

 

[dapaterson]

My unit has several 'non-trade qualified' 2Lts lurking around who have had more than one kick at the can and have yet to pass.

Is the problem in the selection process, in the unit-level indoctrination of young officers, in the training system, or some combination of all of those factors?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Is the problem in the selection process, in the unit-level indoctrination of young officers, in the training system, or some combination of all of those factors?

IMHO we accept people into RESO Infantry training who are too old. If you recall Capt Willard, on reading Col Kurtz' bio saying something like 'he did the airborne course when he was 40. I did it when I was 19 and it nearly killed me'. I was 18 on Phase 2 (Loachman was wayyyyy older than me ), 19 on Phase 3, and then 20 when I did the Airborne Course at CABC. Well, Phase 2 and 3 Inf are, IMHO, much harder than the Airborne course in most ways, and yet we send guys who are in their 30s who struggle as they have day jobs, wives, kids etc.

You also need to send at least two people recognizing that one might not make it. So volume is another requirement we can't meet.

Then there's the preparation for these guys (and gals, and some women have passed Phase 3 quite handily). There is none, apart from what they manage to do on their own time. They should all be on a monitored, professionally managed battle fitness program that vastly exceeds the sub-standard - for infantry officers - requirements in BMQ & BMOQ, and ensures they don't turn up with injuries. One of my promising 2Lts was loaded on Phase 3 last summer then injured himself 2 weeks before he was due to go, so must now sit out for another year. By Summer 2016 he will have been a 2Lt for three years as well as an OCdt a year before that.

They also need to be tuned up on the basic OPP requirements for each Phase, at least, as well as refreshed on the weapons they'll use, but I would say these are lower on the priority list than fitness.

 

[ArmyRick]

We just had our first fully trained LT in probably a good 4-5 years finish his DP 1.1 last summer. Mostly we seem to be commissioning guys from the ranks or have our 2LTs/Lt (not trained).

I really, REALLY think Regiments need to attract and recruit the right people
-Must be very fit and highly motivated
-As one Major in our regiment said, when he sits on a board he is not looking for a new officer but a potential future CO (thats a good approach in my mind)
-Evaluate their life circumstances (Is their civilian career so demanding they can not get the time off?)
-Get your WO/MWO input as far as they old "gut check" (What do you think of this guy?)
-Another approach, is target strong private/corporals as they enter university

My input

 

[George Wallace]

-Another approach, is target strong private/corporals as they enter university

That is probably the best approach for a unit that is in a "university town"; but not so great for units well outside of those "university towns".

 

[Journeyman]

Take the Reservists whose priority is Mess Kit/badges/feather boas (you can likely lure them all together by organizing a Garrison Ball soirée on a field training weekend), and dump them directly into the Legion of Frontiersmen.

 

[Haggis]

Take the Reservists whose priority is Mess Kit/badges/feather boas (you can likely lure them all together by organizing a Garrison Ball soirée on a field training weekend), and dump them directly into the Legion of Frontiersmen.

Are your numbers getting low?  ;D

 

[Journeyman]

Are your numbers getting low?  ;D

For the specific individuals that the Reserves would lose, I'd risk it; step two would then be realistic command hierarchies -- no more LCols commanding Pl(+) / Coy(-) organizations.  :nod:

 

[Journeyman]

    ;D