• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Renaming of Reserve Artillery Units possible

Harris

Sr. Member
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5
Points
330
I was told on a conf call last night with my Brigade Commander that the militrary is considering renaming Reserve Artillery Units to match up with the Brigade they are located in.  When asked about how Unit history etc would be maintained we were told that the current Unit names would be incorporated into Bty names or something similar.  Anyone else been given this information?  We were told this would be passed on at the Hon Col meeting that is scheduled in the near future.

What do the arty types think of this?
 

Observer23

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sounds like the first step into alignment.  (kind of US like).  Does this mean the brigades with more than one Arty Regt is going to become one Regt per brigade.  At bty level I see the little impact.  At HQ Bty and Regt level, I can see a lot of floating chaos as units scrap it out for postion. 

If they are going to do that to the guns (same issues would occur with the Sappers) (in the most part it would be, HQ aside, easy to do) how long before the unite the infantry regt under single command structures.
 

Harris

Sr. Member
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5
Points
330
I agree.  If they start numbering the smaller Combat Arms Units  (smaller number of physical units per branch, not strength), how long before the WNSR, PLF and 1 and 2 NSH become 1 and 2 Bn 1st Cdn homeland defence unit?  I can easily see this happening.  No one has the "parts" to remove units so why not just rename them and in the process amalgamate them too?
 

MrGnr27

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Having been four years RSS, I would hate to see that happen to the Reserve Gunners. They take a lot of pride intheir respective  Battery histories.

When I started off as a Militia guy in Vancouver, there were four Btys at 15th Fd Regt ( 85th, 158th, 209th, and 31st ). I believe it was in 1970 ( when 4 RCHA disappeared ) that the Militia Gunners were restructured. Those four Batteries became 31 and 68. Because each Bty was an institution, there was a lot of resentment, and subsequent resistance, to change.

61 Bty ( of 20 Fd Regt Edmonton ) just marked their Centennial a few years back. This Call Sign is confident that those Gunners might be a tad miffed at being designated as 41 Close Support Bty RCA.

As some readers might know, the Batteries were independently raised from the time of the Boer War through WW I. These were brigaded upon mobilization. ( Note: there is an excellent book out there, "Battery Flashes", which documents all the stand-ups, brigasding, and disbandments of these RCA Batteries ). These Btys remain tied to the communities out of which they were born, to this day. ( Cobourg Ont, Trail, BC to name a few ).

To amalgamate is one thing ( BC has two Reserve Atry Regts ). To redesignate/renumber is quite another.

Ubique
 

Gunner

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
I would hate to see that happen to the Reserve Gunners. They take a lot of pride intheir respective  Battery histories.

I don't think the Battery names would change, simply the unit names.  20 RCA would become 41 RCA with its two Batteries (78 and 61).  10 RCA, 26 RCA, and 116 Ind Fd Bty will become 38 RCA with its 4 or 5 Batteries (13, 71, 116 and whatever the 10 RCA ones are). 

Artillery history based on batteries vice Regiments.  See "Battery Flashes of WW2" by DW Falconer.
 

MrGnr27

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Careful here.....

1. Batteries of the RCA ( read Primary Reserve - not The School ) are numbered, and, agreed, base their respective histories as Batteries.

2. The RCHA Batteries did so until the advent of the RCHA Brigade, and, subsequently, 1, 2, and 4 RCHA. ( 5 RALC did not come into
    existence until 1968 - I suppose they base their history as a Regiment as well ).

Ubique
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
32
Points
480
The designation of the RCHA Batteries pre-dates the formation of the RCHA in 1905. The original A and B Batteries were formed in 1871, C was authorized in 1883 was not formed until latter and then cut again.

The history of the guns is indeed in the batteries, many of which have been on the order of battle since 1855.

MG27, have we ever met? I was the CIG in Gagetown 1974-1977?

Ubique
 

Michael Dorosh

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Re-regimenting batteries is nothing new, is it?  My dad served in 64 (Yorkton) Fd Bty back when they were in the 53rd Field Regiment - which I understand no longer exists.  

The history and traditions reside in the batteries, as stated, not the regiments.

In the infantry it is the other way around - infantry regiments (and armoured regiments) have had numerous iterations of companies (squadrons) over the years, but the traditions and identification lie with the regiment.

Keeping the battery designations but redesignating the regiments seems perfectly fine - it is the same as adding another company to an infantry regiment, or merging two squadrons of an armoured regiment into one - it won't affect the unit's traditions or identity.
 

MrGnr27

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Right then....before we go to night routine, I would like to recap:

  1. To "Gunner" @ Reply#4: Thankyou for providing that timely illumination on what the proposed numbering will be ( ie: 20 Fd becoming
        41 RCA etc.

  2. This Call Sign has always been aware that RCA history is Battery based.

  3. To "Old Sweat" @ Reply #6: Yes, we have met. You had some years on me, though.

  4. To Mr. Dorosh @ Reply #7: THis Call Sign has no issueswith the re-regimenting of Batteries; as you stated, this is, indeed, not new.

  5. To all: The Regular (RCHA) Batteries have their unique and colorful histories; however, since the advent of the RCHA, this has leaned
      towards "REgimental" history.

That said, let's "Empty Guns" on this and move on !

Ubique
 

Mountie

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Why not just move the unit designations down one level and maintain the designations and history?  For example, could 26th Field Regiment, RCA in Brandon become 26th Field Battery, with 71st Troop and 13th Troop.  If the PR regiments are converted to mortars, each troop could be a 4-tube mortar troop.

 

Gunner

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Why not just move the unit designations down one level and maintain the designations and history?  For example, could 26th Field Regiment, RCA in Brandon become 26th Field Battery, with 71st Troop and 13th Troop.  If the PR regiments are converted to mortars, each troop could be a 4-tube mortar troop.

Mountie, it is a possibility however as stated above, the history of the artillery lies in its batteries, not by regiment.  It would be better to rename the amalgamated 10 RCA/26 RCA/116 Ind Fd Bty into a new Regiment (for example 38 RCA or even 17 RCA - as there is historical linkage to the area).  Batteries would remain in location.
 

Big Foot

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
On this point, I was informed today that ALL air defence reserve units will be changed into field artillery units as the reorganization shapes up.
 

Gunner

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
I've been told this as well.  The trouble is there are not enough towed 105 C3 or mortars to go around now.  How does adding 2 or 3 new artillery units help this situation?  It doesn't and it will be awhile before Canada does a major artillery purchase.  I think there are already enough field artillery regiments and the units in question (18 AD Regt, 1 AD Regt, and SQFT?) would be better served reroling to something worthwhile considering a continuing lack of resources. 1 AD Regt could certainly rerole back to infantry (Lanark and Renfew Scottish) and 18 AD Regt could from with 33 FES in Calgary as another engineer subunit.
 

Big Foot

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I suppose the missile systems, M777 155mm towed howitzers, etc are still quite a few years away so  it really doesn't seem to make sense to re-role the AD units as field artillery.
 

Gunner

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
The other aspect of it is, how many artillery units do you need to sustain the Regular Force provide the basis for mobilization, form a critical mass for a part time organization/capability, etc, etc?  Artillery units cost alot of money and resources when you look at what is required to equip and resource them.  One, 105 mm HE round runs around $500 (someone correct me if I'm off by a couple of bucks) and it takes a few to train a gunners, NCOs, and officers.

18 AD Regt used to be a independent field artiillery battery and I don't remember it as a very strong unit.  Once the regular force cadre leaves in the upcoming APS, the unit will collapse as so many others did in the mid-90s when the reg force cadres were taken out of the Reserve Force units.   
 

MrGnr27

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Perhaps this re-roling of the Air Defence guys into Field Regiments is in response to the ADATS going into the Black Hat world as a tank killer ???
( Yikes ! A Gunner badge on a black beret ??? )

Just a thought....

Ubique
 

Gunner

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
I think it is politically expedient with very little rationale put into it.
 
Top