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

Reserve Restructure

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "Michael O‘Leary" <moleary@bmts.com> on Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:24:47 -0500
At 06:56 PM 3/30/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>>Personally, the fact we have a whole level of people in the Black Watch
above
>>>the A Coy level is an administrative burden,
>
>>When someone complains about the "head shed", my first question is
usually to
>>identify the numbers of "extras" by rank. A unit with more than 2 majors is
>>probably overborne at that rank if it has a single company, but until Op RED
>>TAPE bears fruit for the militia the administrative requirements imposed
upon
>us
>>require significant numbers of junior officers and senior NCOs. I can‘t
>imagine
>>how many more people my unit would need if we all restricted ourselves to
doing
>>everything on Class A time. All my real work is done on my own time. If
all
>>those extra helpers are doing their jobs, that leaves the mission element
free
>>to concentrate on training. In my estimation a unit must recruit between
6 and
>>10 OCdts to obtain one trained Capt somewhere down the line. The other
thing
>to
>>remember is that if we are serious about preparing to expand during Stage
3 and
>>4 mobilization, majors and warrant officers are not grown overnight. I
think
>it
>>better to have the extras pulling some weight in a unit HQ than sitting
on the
>>nominal roll of a training cadre organization.
>
>I wasn‘t complaining about the "head shed" per say, it was merely an
observation
>that in
>Montreal, we happen to have 5 BOR‘s, 5 CO‘s, 5 RGMS, 5 RSM‘s etc, each
dealing
>with a unit
>that is barely company size. An idea floated around 3-4 years ago would
be to
>maintain the
>unit identities, but downgrade their official status to company size. For
>example, in my unit,
>we would have a CQ instead of an RQMS....well, I‘m sure you get the picture.
>The other officers and senior NCO‘s wouldn‘t disappear - the idea then called
>for a battalion HQ
>to be formed, which would directly command all the companies. There would be
>the resources
>to do all the other jobs necessary for the mission element to do its job.
>Senior officers and NCO‘s would float
>around in the battalion structure.
>
>Now, I remember a major in our unit stating he would prefer to command a
working
>battalion as a
>real commander, than being the CO of our unit, which is a mostly
>admin/ceremonial type role.
>
>This isn‘t an idea which would be restricted to larger cities: a similar
>reorganization could be made incorporating
>units from several smaller towns. Perhaps towns which no longer have units
>could support a platoon - which
>would bring us back into the community, as another writer mentioned.
>
>Now, its just an idea, I don‘t know if it would work, or if there are some
>weaknesses with it: I‘m not advocating it or defending it,
> I really don‘t have the experience or knowledge to assess it critically
>especially in this forum, but I thought it was a neat way
>of squaring the circle: maintaining regimental identies, while trying to
find a
>more viable militia structure.
>
Fundamentally, isn‘t the concept of reserve units fielding subunits under a
composite unit HQ already taking place for collective training exercises
when the composite battalions are formed?
If it has become an accepted method for collective training, why wouldn‘t
it work as an administrative structure as well?
Thinking out loud.
Mike
Michael O‘Leary
Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm
Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com> on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:50:31 -0800
>Fundamentally, isn‘t the concept of reserve units fielding subunits under a
composite unit HQ already taking place for collective training exercises when
the composite battalions are formed?
>If it has become an accepted method for collective training, why wouldn‘t it
work as an administrative structure as well?
It works in the former instance because the units revert to their individual
identities and control after the exercise. In practice, what can happen after
amalgamations is that members of one former unit gradually dominate the command
structure of the amalgamated unit and if they are not wholly fair, they can and
do stifle the less well-represented elements.
For example, in at least one case allegedly there were ongoing feuds between
transport and maintenance officers for years after various companies were
amalgamated into a service battalion. This is hearsay, but hearsay from some
who were there at the time.
It can work provided we rise above the temptation to favour our own in the wake
of any amalgamation.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "S. Brent Warne" <sbw@netidea.com> on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:15:15 -0800
Dave
You hit the nail on the head pretty good for a thumperhead !! .
The regular army has forgotten their roots since integration. In the
old days, soldiers joined regiments and corps and stayed there for most
of their military life. They advanced through the ranks to assume
higher and higher responsibility or if they were duds, they were shunted
to dead-end positions or out of the regiment. The worst scenario for a
regular was to have been shunned by his or her regiment or corps. They
usually got out very quickly after that.
Take this to the reserve restructure model that we are pursuing and one
cannot help but be concerned about the soldiers of units who will be
amalgamated/reverted to SOB. They joined a particular unit and stay
with their regiment or corps most of their lives. They have intense
pride in their capbadge and will likely not be interested in
transferring. Yes, of course some will. But the majority will leave,
because they want to be with their buddies/mess/traditions.
We are facing the same questions with the ARE Army Reserve
Establishment . You will notice that most units no longer have
positions for mech‘s, medics and other support trades. These people
join units - not be cooks or mech‘s, but rather to be a member of the
Seaforth, or Engineers or whatever regiment or corps they join.
Hopefully Col Fraser and his committee will be able to bring some sense
to the restructure process and we retain the best traditions and members
of the reserve.
CHIMO
-----Original Message-----
From:dave newcombe [SMTP:davebo@seaside.net]
Sent:Wednesday, March 29, 2000 6:39 PM
To:army@cipherlogic.on.ca
Subject:Re: Reserve Restructure
Being a member of a reserve regiment is exactly like a social club. A
soldier can spend his entire Militia career in the same unit, going to
the
same mess with the same people, for years and years. They don‘t get
posted
away to other units, or posted to out of trade positions. Many join the
same unit that their fathers and grand-fathers did. They also have an
entire other life, their job or educational pursuits. Many join a
combat
arms unit because of extreme physical challenges it offers. They do it
as a
hobby, something that takes up their spare time. They serve their
country
in the time a regular force soldier takes off as holidays. I don‘t
think
you really want to doubt their motivation, just because they have esprit
de
corps and pride in their units. Of course they are loyal to their
Regiments, that is who they joined.
By the way, many a former reserve soldier died serving his country,
while
being a member of the Regiment he joined.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradley Sallows"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
>
>
> >Very well said, it is the essence of why anyone joins a particular
unit
and
> sticks with it, it is the driving force behind the Militia. In fact I
do
recall
> when the Victoria Rifles One of Canada‘s Oldest Regiments was struck
from the
> order of battle, of the members of the unit, only 10 went to another,
the
others
> all retired, having lost their enthusiasm.
>
> Am I the only one who sees a problem here? Wherever this attitude
exists,
I can
> only see that the soldiers involved are less interested in service to
their
> country or soldiering than they are in having their unit as a private
social
> club.
>
> If and when reroling and amalgamations occur, I hope the leaders show
some
spine
> and lead the soldiers into the new task rather than going home because
they
> don‘t like the change of venue.
>
> Brad Sallows
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
eJ8 IhEVAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy
b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAtAEAAAEAAAAQAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL
AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAASwAAAAAAAACBKx kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGFybXlAY2lwaGVybG9n
aWMub24uY2EAU01UUABhcm15QGNpcGhlcmxvZ2ljLm9uLmNhAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAA
AB4AAzABAAAAFwAAAGFybXlAY2lwaGVybG9naWMub24uY2EAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD DwYAAAAeAAEw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 bQMQF7AK
wBmgJdBmZe8gARxBGaAZAHYAcB8gJBIxA2B1Z2gX0x gbmt5BCB0bxpABBAakBjBaZ8n4ASQItMp
VQlwc3ACIP0AkGIlwhmgBbEGkBfSGaBidyRSZHVkIREryHO/GoAfYSQRKMABABkALQnw/xkQKqAA
kB/CBCAFsQhgJQb/IjcmhCwABbAk8QTwCfAKwPcf0BoFHIZ3HWEosQ AFoDcIGIJ4S1TIgJiHTEE
AL8rUio0ImQrUiMjJoZ1KQB9B0BsGaIlAS BFoAmEXHQdWljazcxYQGAKZHPF AfsBt7G VhaxgA
F BvNLEosS/kD7ByM3EqcXT6chSAdAhwGAAEYgMgORJ3LAEc8RgAcAhwKQALgGfXItMCIBgAYwBw
bjdxF/D8bHAzkC BM6AjER8RBKD/IhEBoC9yF IhRyUhLYAXsHkEIHdoKMAD8DcgP/Jh2QDAbGdD
US2hLwlwN HxLaVTT0ImhiHVGlAKsf0fwGMcs0IyI3dCwRfgHib/NW4kzSXQFoA2VzNTH1IAgD89
0QUQAQAfQR4lPwBwYv0ZAGc9kSLxQtMl0DqgNzF/PzJAAR9SPBIiEUxSKFFz3SZgcgUQFXAgAVkH
kCEgfyUhBaA AUFSKSFC0iABQv9BBQDAIdAFEBmRTbQY8BaA/yEgM6A/ADbgOrIr4gBwF8EvKMBA
AUepP8BkIXFzL78HgVbAT8EhcC7jG3tXPZT ZgDQPkJBM0NQGAA4MDwh5y7zR6YP8FJFGSEHEB0h
ulI7pUUjwQJgBABoNZP/G2BQkRdxQtM/MThQOrI9Uf8k00I0PzAmMAIgTUA08TNi5y6oJJMFkGgn
IREHgCFw3mMixB3QKYIpAHAqoAAgz0 yAQA2VUvCZW8LUBgA2yHSQiUtTmYFoG8ogWE5/z/CH6Ep
glVUGlAHgAbQKZFvL7UGYDiwCRFoUOEFwEX/FXAh8UHDMsE5IUQiSE8okftFRht7SGSAARAcsDcx
CFB9AyBGH6A7sSm1BCAFoG3/JbAd4VHUQxMCYDqxVWFQQr9RlA wS7I7KDxHEUBvHyD/BBFNcxxi
AZBMVDORJPFXOB8i02hUQeM7WRt7Q0hJPE1POW8KkwswJdAzNn8BQBUQAUBzkR3wPHAQhDH2NmVw
fBJPBRBqIQdABdD9VvFhTUB8ExameyR68QsTwXsmaS0xNDQBQCXQuDE4MAFADNB/s2JusfUDcDoM
g2IP4CDgM3EiAAZ3b7FAAVtTTVRQdjqB0gbgQA wHWBMES75IgB0XRalgOAGYAIwgUe1WKBkIgBz
IOEhIE0KwHEPcCAyOSEgAdCAQCCANjozOSBQTYRHrFRvgUcdAkBZMHAkQXMJACJgYy4f4T8AhEh1
3GJqe1GBR1vwOlvnW/FfPEZ9v37KenQVUjQVkDX7C6cWs0IeUD5SaEkyQju20zV1NLFleADQdDcx
TgKvGkEhQFkwfMFjCkBiIAH QRakIUU 8h7gGrBvRSKR x5gGABNJcIHMD7xCdErcf8YhFnDQjIh
IBnAWUM7M5VF/1nSVuJaqFnDZGQhIBoSI/CvD5Ei05zjJoZkAiAnBUDfTUAFQC6hLaEWpGEy4Bmg
/yixYpRCM2mznvSf8y FY4L3LpggAYZQbkVkmg1Gwz0zvx40WRAkMiLEH5Ei8C2l5vUhcGQmh2wh
QDNEAHAWpP XBWKUJkIsox5hIdCA4AWx/wmAFIAfs3zBPfQewKM7l9H/gmEfsJ9VHRAEIEbDVDYl
Ie TYDxAaGA90WghADhQlJL/D4A3IAnwTUAEIBexJSBQEd dybFCHWGKRUKgYjRwISL/B4A60VlT
pVI6ka5xP6AeNP8qkD2yH8AHgCaGO7RMhQhg/wIwJhAWpHTFthIyORoRHyH/laa0xLGBsrJCoCXQ
IOIgAuueRbQSaxakeRdxCXA3E/9VBp5QivClZgRgH8AnIB/C/SEgajbgrsgrwzNTKoFTIb8uARak
IyhL/UIzIAFPURf3K8M9sgkAeXzBOyQeYBak/1vwImUsoj1RNLFCkmyHCYD9G3VCn Ew4oYSA4Em
4RoC/weAKlM7w5WmIXEjoTvBPkL/b3S3syEgQpADEBaVM6CRDv8X4sbmGNHInHwTxGB8fXwE4xak
gQMgIkJXQVPAGaADBhA3IG93cyIgPPXT5V/UZUAEAAbQieBvsf4 G WIUNTgiP KA9aVhNPDhZ G
qDE6NDeHh4rmH4vfjO0WyNaV3xYgPlb/N/IsEELxWcBMECEgF7E68v8X8VbxCfAfISUhQpAm4aOA
/z7CIdIiwUYOn1Ui8N WWkHvOGBalZlC4ShkBRDMk7nE/zOgtCEkE5dmIARZEQVAvCJ/FqQJcLBh
CVDfpUKQHgQg/lY4UCiwByEH8AaQU8AEIGwoTz7RJSFDAHAZAGHfYaDEYCCwdULG5yky0zwz/7zl
A1KaCN/wBbAEgSUSrbH/k6BUAS 1dn2ZJAIgNzEVkP8sAVUkAHBikyyjFqRikw9A/9 lNxF0cpcx
4PEzUT5CCQC/dVIeQyKRGoAAkB1gbRt1/d HQfBgvCAgY/QSPsJCkn8PsAeR44EDYHDh8GAkQj/9
IBBXJEJrIjrT8dEXsCxw/cFReAQAoMEWpLwgPwHwt9/0EvvxpSchOAuAdgbwFoD/QLHFcnPSTuzM
Y15i6iXGOf/f8LeVK1IhRbQ1GIPFRK0x//fVw5iys0viv4GaNpRjBWf7lNLfLUmR4U2C64ITAB6Q
7yXQPlVDVy70Y0Zg9WG8IH9CoBqwF9NTwfFRHtFCoHf7UZOVRXAh8faHIvEQQgE 5zslgiG0sXNr
Z1cHUpmE/0KguPFUNQS3t/Xf8J5Uk PfFDKwoV/hJRKDMG5aIPme/9Pi1Fbev9/DfBMdTx5fH2/h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=
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com> on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:50:57 -0800
>You will notice that most units no longer have positions for mech‘s, medics and
other support trades.
This is a grave miscalculation.
>These people join units - not be cooks or mech‘s, but rather to be a member of
the Seaforth, or Engineers or whatever regiment or corps they join.
Some people do join to be a cook or mech in a particular unit. Some people tire
of digging holes and decide to do a VOT, but remain within the unit.
Particularly in the smaller communities it is important to be able to offer a
selection of trades in addition to the unit primary trades.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca> on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:55:28 -0700
It will be a great tragedy if the current Reserve structure is cast off -
some of our Regimental traditions pre-date the country and should not be
lost.
I, in fact, would argue we need to go the other way and re-instate a
Highland Reg Force unit as a precursor to rebuilding our traditions.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:Bradley Sallows [SMTP:Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com]
> Sent:Friday, March 31, 2000 2:51 PM
> To:army@cipherlogic.on.ca
> Subject:RE: Reserve Restructure
>
>
>
> >You will notice that most units no longer have positions for mech‘s,
> medics and
> other support trades.
>
> This is a grave miscalculation.
>
> >These people join units - not be cooks or mech‘s, but rather to be a
> member of
> the Seaforth, or Engineers or whatever regiment or corps they join.
>
> Some people do join to be a cook or mech in a particular unit. Some
> people tire
> of digging holes and decide to do a VOT, but remain within the unit.
> Particularly in the smaller communities it is important to be able to
> offer a
> selection of trades in addition to the unit primary trades.
>
> Brad Sallows
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com> on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:20:55 -0800
>I, in fact, would argue we need to go the other way and re-instate a Highland
Reg Force unit as a precursor to rebuilding our traditions.
Or simply remove the 2nd and 3rd battalions of the existing regular regiments in
order to bring 1 battalion of each of 6 other regiments back into the regular
order of battle.
Hopefully that would reduce the political infighting to a dull murmur since
there is no way everything could be split 9 ways.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "Sean Stepan" <sean1994@HOTMAIL.COM> on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:30:45 PST
perhaps i am the exception, rather than the rule, but i joinedwell, am in
the process of joining : an infantry regiment, not for its proud history
or traditions, although they are of course important. i joined because i
want to be in the infantry, and this particular regiment happens to be the
most convenient of the two infantry regiments in my immediate area. and i
believe that if the regiment converted to anything other than combat arms, i
really dont think i would want to continue on. does this make me disloyal?
or a bad person? i dont know, perhaps. all i know is i want the challenge of
combat arms, and doing support services just isnt something i could see
myself hanging around to do. i am joining for infantry and infantry alone,
and i believe that a vast majority of those who are joining now would feel
the same way. any thoughts?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "dave newcombe" <davebo@seaside.net> on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:06:09 -0800
Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
tradesmen second. As an ENGINEER we were told that our secondary role was
infantry. Does this hold true for other trades. If so are they given
training opportunities to practice that role.
In the event of a shooting war, it is primarily the Infantry that suffers
huge losses. They are the ones we need to find replacements for. A
mechanic can familize themselves with a Tank engine faster than an 18 year
can learn how to fight in it.
CHIMO
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com> on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:38:36 -0800
>Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
tradesmen second.
I continue to believe it would be useful to have all soldiers pass QL2/3
infantry prior to moving on to any other trade. Possibly alongside that it
would be necessary or useful to have a rifle/training platoon in every unit
regardless of role.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "Michael O‘Leary" <moleary@bmts.com> on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:03:37 -0500
At 05:38 PM 3/31/00 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
>tradesmen second.
>
>I continue to believe it would be useful to have all soldiers pass QL2/3
>infantry prior to moving on to any other trade. Possibly alongside that it
>would be necessary or useful to have a rifle/training platoon in every unit
>regardless of role.
>
>Brad Sallows
I agree with Brad here. We‘ve scratched the surface of this concept with a
common officers‘ Phase 2, so is it really that great a leap of logic to do
the same for our soldiers?
Off the top of my head, a quick comparison of the Rgular QL3 courses for
combat arms inf/arty/armd goes like this:
QL3 Infantry - 16 weeks - about ten weeks of what I would call basic
soldier skills and 6 of "advanced" infantry skills platoon tactics,
fighting patrols, etc.
QL3 Artillery - 14 weeks - 7 of basic skills and 7 for gun drills
QL3 Armour - 8 weeks - equal parts basic skills, driver training and comms
And what about the other trades? I suspect they most often tend to the
lower end of the spectrum. I would yhink a common Army QL3 of about ten
weeks would ensure a good baseline set of skills for any soldier
subsequently deployed on operations. So, do we still send tradesmen
overseas having rarely fired a weapon except on a 600 metre classificatiuon
range? Or are we going to depend on having enemy trained to a lower
standard also, just for confrontations with those troops we gave less basic
soldier skills training?
mike
Michael O‘Leary
Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm
Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com> on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:36:37 -0800
Oh, I dunno. Some of the armoured regiments in NW Europe suffered very
huge losses too.
And the RCEME LAD wasn‘t a cushy billet either. And there were a few
occasions in Holland where I wouldn‘t want to have been an Engineer
building bridges ahead of both the infy and the armd.
An Engineer and all others needs to know how to be an infanteer
because when the **** hits the fan someday they may find it necessary to
put down their spades and pick up their rifles in self defence. The rear
echelon types are often culled-out of their safe havens and remustered
when things get desperate - can‘t say they didn‘t sign up to be combat
arms, and there isn‘t time to start from scratch to train them when the
enemy is about to appear over the nearest hill. I would have expected
all soldiers would have had that explained to them on Day 1 of QL1 in
case it didn‘t sink in back at the CFRC.
dave newcombe wrote:
>
> Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
> tradesmen second. As an ENGINEER we were told that our secondary role was
> infantry. Does this hold true for other trades. If so are they given
> training opportunities to practice that role.
> In the event of a shooting war, it is primarily the Infantry that suffers
> huge losses. They are the ones we need to find replacements for. A
> mechanic can familize themselves with a Tank engine faster than an 18 year
> can learn how to fight in it.
> CHIMO
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "dave newcombe" <davebo@seaside.net> on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:31:06 -0800
Good point, lets hear feed back on this.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradley Sallows"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
>
>
> >Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
> tradesmen second.
>
> I continue to believe it would be useful to have all soldiers pass QL2/3
> infantry prior to moving on to any other trade. Possibly alongside that
it
> would be necessary or useful to have a rifle/training platoon in every
unit
> regardless of role.
>
> Brad Sallows
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "William J <andy> Anderson" <aanderson@sk.sympatico.ca> on Sat, 01 Apr 2000 05:41:43 -0600
on 31/3/00 19:06, dave newcombe at davebo@seaside.net wrote:
> Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
> tradesmen second. As an ENGINEER we were told that our secondary role was
> infantry. Does this hold true for other trades. If so are they given
> training opportunities to practice that role.
I guess that is what ‘arte et marte‘ means Dave... by skill and by fighting.
Tasks for CSS are often tactical instead of ‘trade‘ specific. Rear area
security often involves partroling and brigde demolition guards. This
training is in the trade specification so it has to be taught and it is up
to unit commanders to put it into their training plan to insure the skills
are practiced. The decentralised CSS soldiers in the CS units are not much
farther than two tactical bounds away from the smell of cordite. Take it up
a notch when attached to an infantry company and it is often hard to tell
who is the grunt and who the RCEME rat is. The soldiering skills are
normally used for self preservation rather that offensive but the skills are
required nonetheless.
> In the event of a shooting war, it is primarily the Infantry that suffers
> huge losses. They are the ones we need to find replacements for. A
> mechanic can familize themselves with a Tank engine faster than an 18 year
> can learn how to fight in it.
> CHIMO
Today‘s tanks are a lil more complex and need more than a fitter and a
crewman. It is a very ‘kewl‘ engine but frightfully finacky, as are the
comms, the gunnery, the surveilance and the rest of the goodies that let it
roam around on the modern battlefield.
arte et marte
andy sends:
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by Gordan Dundas <dundas@prairie.ca> on Sat, 18 Mar 2000 06:25:58 -0600
I find myself in total agreement with you both and have at least some personal
experience to back it albeit a trifle removed .On 4 feb,1945 L / Cpl. K.M.Dundas
RHLI was wounded by shell /mortar fragments while attempting to lead/herd a
former brigade clerk who had been re-assigned as an infantryman.
regards Gordon K.yep his sonDundas
Michael O‘Leary wrote:
> At 05:38 PM 3/31/00 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> >>Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
> >tradesmen second.
> >
> >I continue to believe it would be useful to have all soldiers pass QL2/3
> >infantry prior to moving on to any other trade. Possibly alongside that it
> >would be necessary or useful to have a rifle/training platoon in every unit
> >regardless of role.
> >
> >Brad Sallows
>
> I agree with Brad here. We‘ve scratched the surface of this concept with a
> common officers‘ Phase 2, so is it really that great a leap of logic to do
> the same for our soldiers?
>
> Off the top of my head, a quick comparison of the Rgular QL3 courses for
> combat arms inf/arty/armd goes like this:
>
> QL3 Infantry - 16 weeks - about ten weeks of what I would call basic
> soldier skills and 6 of "advanced" infantry skills platoon tactics,
> fighting patrols, etc.
>
> QL3 Artillery - 14 weeks - 7 of basic skills and 7 for gun drills
>
> QL3 Armour - 8 weeks - equal parts basic skills, driver training and comms
>
> And what about the other trades? I suspect they most often tend to the
> lower end of the spectrum. I would yhink a common Army QL3 of about ten
> weeks would ensure a good baseline set of skills for any soldier
> subsequently deployed on operations. So, do we still send tradesmen
> overseas having rarely fired a weapon except on a 600 metre classificatiuon
> range? Or are we going to depend on having enemy trained to a lower
> standard also, just for confrontations with those troops we gave less basic
> soldier skills training?
>
> mike
>
> Michael O‘Leary
>
> Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
> http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm
>
> Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
> improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
> leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
> end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "dave newcombe" <davebo@seaside.net> on Sat, 1 Apr 2000 07:01:55 -0800
Maybe the previous suggestion of everyone being QL2-3 infantry trained might
be a way to start. Just have to convince our politicians that we need both
tradesmen and infanteers. I get the feeling that the powers that be take
our soldiers for granted. They figure we‘ll always have plenty of warm
bodies to fill out the regiments that go on U.N. missions. Without knowing
that they are topping up with reserves.
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
> on 31/3/00 19:06, dave newcombe at davebo@seaside.net wrote:
>
> > Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
> > tradesmen second. As an ENGINEER we were told that our secondary role
was
> > infantry. Does this hold true for other trades. If so are they given
> > training opportunities to practice that role.
>
> I guess that is what ‘arte et marte‘ means Dave... by skill and by
fighting.
> Tasks for CSS are often tactical instead of ‘trade‘ specific. Rear area
> security often involves partroling and brigde demolition guards. This
> training is in the trade specification so it has to be taught and it is up
> to unit commanders to put it into their training plan to insure the skills
> are practiced. The decentralised CSS soldiers in the CS units are not much
> farther than two tactical bounds away from the smell of cordite. Take it
up
> a notch when attached to an infantry company and it is often hard to tell
> who is the grunt and who the RCEME rat is. The soldiering skills are
> normally used for self preservation rather that offensive but the skills
are
> required nonetheless.
>
> > In the event of a shooting war, it is primarily the Infantry that
suffers
> > huge losses. They are the ones we need to find replacements for. A
> > mechanic can familize themselves with a Tank engine faster than an 18
year
> > can learn how to fight in it.
> > CHIMO
>
> Today‘s tanks are a lil more complex and need more than a fitter and a
> crewman. It is a very ‘kewl‘ engine but frightfully finacky, as are the
> comms, the gunnery, the surveilance and the rest of the goodies that let
it
> roam around on the modern battlefield.
>
> arte et marte
>
> andy sends:
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "Lawson" <kplawson@csolve.net> on Sun, 2 Apr 2000 09:42:56 -0400
The regular force Royal Canadian Army
Other Ranks attempted and was successful in a great part, with the Infantry
Basic Training that was part of all Schools Basic and of course career
leadership course‘s were for the most part ran to an infantry standard.
The Offices Training prior to CFOCS was Basically an Infantry Course
exceptions were the specialty required of Armored and Artillery Officer
Cadets plus the Service Support specialty training allowed those individuals
to take only the last portions of Arms Training during a specific phase.
I took part in CAS OF Cadet training in 1967 68 at Borden and training
areas. Still trying to figure out how with my static posting to Borden, I
was constantly in the field with various schools as either a RCASC Support
NCO, Training Cadre or Warm Body Gofer. Qualified on 106 during this period
a lot of the decisions taken for the Army prior to Tri Service were still
being implemented Carl Gustoph cold weather trails, storage of ammunition
under same conditions laser sighting trails,etc.
The concept that the basic structure of the Army came from the Infantry is
not new, most good military organizations have practiced this idea to one
extent or another. In my experience such armies are readily identifiable and
very easy to work with.
In the Canadian past following WW II and Korea a ready made cadre of
infantry experienced Officers and NCOs existed, they not only set the
Infantry standard they firmly believed the concept, another tri service more
man power to the Administration Base side of the house and less for the
Brigades. of course destroyed it.
Remember frequently to day a field experienced individual can be caution
as being too military field oriented and once again I am quite willing to
provided names and locations of events.
NIL SINE LABORE
K Lawson
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael O‘Leary
To:
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
> At 05:38 PM 3/31/00 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> >>Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
> >tradesmen second.
> >
> >I continue to believe it would be useful to have all soldiers pass QL2/3
> >infantry prior to moving on to any other trade. Possibly alongside that
it
> >would be necessary or useful to have a rifle/training platoon in every
unit
> >regardless of role.
> >
> >Brad Sallows
>
> I agree with Brad here. We‘ve scratched the surface of this concept with a
> common officers‘ Phase 2, so is it really that great a leap of logic to do
> the same for our soldiers?
>
> Off the top of my head, a quick comparison of the Rgular QL3 courses for
> combat arms inf/arty/armd goes like this:
>
> QL3 Infantry - 16 weeks - about ten weeks of what I would call basic
> soldier skills and 6 of "advanced" infantry skills platoon tactics,
> fighting patrols, etc.
>
> QL3 Artillery - 14 weeks - 7 of basic skills and 7 for gun drills
>
> QL3 Armour - 8 weeks - equal parts basic skills, driver training and comms
>
> And what about the other trades? I suspect they most often tend to the
> lower end of the spectrum. I would yhink a common Army QL3 of about ten
> weeks would ensure a good baseline set of skills for any soldier
> subsequently deployed on operations. So, do we still send tradesmen
> overseas having rarely fired a weapon except on a 600 metre
classificatiuon
> range? Or are we going to depend on having enemy trained to a lower
> standard also, just for confrontations with those troops we gave less
basic
> soldier skills training?
>
>
> mike
>
>
> Michael O‘Leary
>
> Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
> http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm
>
> Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
> improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
> leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
> end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "Elizabeth Fredette" <a4688@kelcom.igs.net> on Sun, 2 Apr 2000 22:58:28 -0000
I concur 100 .
U Should see FUBAR at 31 CBG
Recce Sqn
As For all troops completing Ql2/3 Inf:
I concur as well. Have seen to many Cmbt Arms and REMFs who have NO
soldiering skills. Regretfully this also occurs in Infantry due to the
B/Schools having to turn out troops to replace guys who retire from Reg
Force after their umteenth million tour with no rest.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawson"
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
> The regular force Royal Canadian Army
> Other Ranks attempted and was successful in a great part, with the
Infantry
> Basic Training that was part of all Schools Basic and of course career
> leadership course‘s were for the most part ran to an infantry standard.
> The Offices Training prior to CFOCS was Basically an Infantry Course
> exceptions were the specialty required of Armored and Artillery Officer
> Cadets plus the Service Support specialty training allowed those
individuals
> to take only the last portions of Arms Training during a specific phase.
> I took part in CAS OF Cadet training in 1967 68 at Borden and training
> areas. Still trying to figure out how with my static posting to Borden, I
> was constantly in the field with various schools as either a RCASC Support
> NCO, Training Cadre or Warm Body Gofer. Qualified on 106 during this
period
> a lot of the decisions taken for the Army prior to Tri Service were still
> being implemented Carl Gustoph cold weather trails, storage of ammunition
> under same conditions laser sighting trails,etc.
> The concept that the basic structure of the Army came from the Infantry
is
> not new, most good military organizations have practiced this idea to one
> extent or another. In my experience such armies are readily identifiable
and
> very easy to work with.
> In the Canadian past following WW II and Korea a ready made cadre of
> infantry experienced Officers and NCOs existed, they not only set the
> Infantry standard they firmly believed the concept, another tri service
more
> man power to the Administration Base side of the house and less for the
> Brigades. of course destroyed it.
> Remember frequently to day a field experienced individual can be
caution
> as being too military field oriented and once again I am quite willing
to
> provided names and locations of events.
> NIL SINE LABORE
> K Lawson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael O‘Leary
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 10:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
>
>
> > At 05:38 PM 3/31/00 -0800, you wrote:
> > >
> > >>Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first
and
> > >tradesmen second.
> > >
> > >I continue to believe it would be useful to have all soldiers pass
QL2/3
> > >infantry prior to moving on to any other trade. Possibly alongside
that
> it
> > >would be necessary or useful to have a rifle/training platoon in every
> unit
> > >regardless of role.
> > >
> > >Brad Sallows
> >
> > I agree with Brad here. We‘ve scratched the surface of this concept with
a
> > common officers‘ Phase 2, so is it really that great a leap of logic to
do
> > the same for our soldiers?
> >
> > Off the top of my head, a quick comparison of the Rgular QL3 courses for
> > combat arms inf/arty/armd goes like this:
> >
> > QL3 Infantry - 16 weeks - about ten weeks of what I would call basic
> > soldier skills and 6 of "advanced" infantry skills platoon tactics,
> > fighting patrols, etc.
> >
> > QL3 Artillery - 14 weeks - 7 of basic skills and 7 for gun drills
> >
> > QL3 Armour - 8 weeks - equal parts basic skills, driver training and
comms
> >
> > And what about the other trades? I suspect they most often tend to the
> > lower end of the spectrum. I would yhink a common Army QL3 of about ten
> > weeks would ensure a good baseline set of skills for any soldier
> > subsequently deployed on operations. So, do we still send tradesmen
> > overseas having rarely fired a weapon except on a 600 metre
> classificatiuon
> > range? Or are we going to depend on having enemy trained to a lower
> > standard also, just for confrontations with those troops we gave less
> basic
> > soldier skills training?
> >
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> > Michael O‘Leary
> >
> > Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
> > http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm
> >
> > Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
> > improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
> > leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
> > end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "dave" <davidwillard@home.com> on Thu, 25 May 2000 23:33:19 -0400
Here is something many may find refreshing albiet sad, a subject about the
army.
Just read an insightful article by Strome Galloway in the May edition of
esprit de corps magazine.
The article talks about the "viablity" aspects, or rather the non-viabilty
of certain regiments earmarked for disbandment. One of the reasons given
for these units becoming non-viable was, "their current performance, mainly
through lack of numbers, does not merit their continued existence, being
judged unfit for battle." I would argue that there is probably not one
single unit in the Canadian Forces today that is properly manned, equipped
and supported non-supported by government that is fit for battle, Army,
Navy or Air Force.
The article also quotes one militia general who said, "Soldiers don‘t join
the reserves, they join a regiment." It goes on that, "part time soldiering
no longer attracts young men as it did before the two world wars, whereas
veterans have long since passed the age when they can continue to serve." I
surely don‘t buy that statement. In my short time on this planet I have seen
some of these regiments flourish when they were ably equipped and properly
funded. When the funding allows training and other activities that reserve
soldiering should be providing it does attract young men. Without the
support of government society, of course all aspects of part time
soldiering shrinks or becomes next to non existant, apathy sets in and of
course the viability of the whole thing lessens. This has everything to do
with government neglect and the shirking of responsibilty of providing a
credible national defence for our country. Not only does our government
Liberals not fulfill it‘s overall responsibity to maintain a credible
military, it doesn‘t even come close to providing anywhere near the required
support to provide for peacekeeping, supposedly a safer, less costly
secondary duty. This Liberal group of MEGA-PRETENDERS are a total
embarrasment not only to the military but the population at large. The only
thing worse than this current state of inept, mindless insanity is the
repeated re-election of these nincompoops by what has to be an apathetic,
fence sitting and uncaring population of Canadians.
The regiments earmarked for disbandment are a good chunk of our heritage
consisting of gallant men who bled and died to make this country what it is.
I won‘t go into the thoughts that rocketed through my mind as I watched the
top dog Chretien stand with his head bowed in front of the coffin of "The
Unknown Soldier." There are pretenders, then there are are pretenders. Two
faced contradictory vote getting stunt.
"Lest We Forget"
The Canadian Scottish Regiment
The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada
The Royal Winnipeg Rifles
Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada
The Princess of Wales Own Regiment
The Irish Regiment of Canada
The Algonquin Regiment
The Royal Regina Regiment
The Royal Newfoundland Regiment
Anyone for a coup? Joke
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by Gunner <randr1@home.com> on Thu, 25 May 2000 22:13:55 -0600
The reserve viability study that is discussed in esprit de corps is
taken out of context hard to imagine Scott Taylor would ever do that.
If you are a reservist and don‘t believe there have to be changes in the
reserve system then you are a fool. There are too many units, too
little resources and too few reasons for talented soldiers to stay in
the Reserves quite honestly I think it is boring/frustrating for most
people now - when was the last time you had alot of fun doing
interesting and stimulating training on exercise?.
Getting back to the Reserve viability study ... it is simply one
criteria in the restructuring of the Reserves. The likelyhood of some
of the Regiments you quote being disbanded is highly unlikely and it
should be noted that just because a unit is deemed "viable" does not
determine automatically "save" that unit...viable and non-viable are
simply a snapshot in time of a reserve unit.
Compounding the problem of the viability study is that fact that all
four areas used different criteria. Let‘s say the Royal Montreal
Regiment is a viable unit is it going to be moved to Calgary because
the Calgary Highrs is non-viable...no of course not. If the Royal
Winnipeg Rifles is unviable as an infantry unit, what makes you think
they will be viable as a mess tin repair outfit or a NBCD unit?
I have a certain amount of trust in the Army, our Honorary Colonels and
other stakeholders COs, RSMs, etc and hopefully they will come to an
agreement and a workable solution that can be implemented. Hopefully it
will address some of the structural weaknesses in the Reserve system.
Anytime a unit regular or reserve is relegated to the supplementary
order of battle is a sad day. However, recognition must be given to the
fact that the reserves have not been well taken care of by our
government or by the Regular Force. They are sorely neglected and need
solution fast money will not solve all their problmes. I think
compounding the problem is changing demographics within Canada, changing
youth attitudes and a largely apathetic society toward the military.
Either we have a political will to pump more money into the Reserves or
we restructure them to make them relevant, or perhaps a combination of
both.
I‘d love to hear what others think.
dave wrote:
>
> Here is something many may find refreshing albiet sad, a subject about the
> army.
>
> Just read an insightful article by Strome Galloway in the May edition of
> esprit de corps magazine.
>
> The article talks about the "viablity" aspects, or rather the non-viabilty
> of certain regiments earmarked for disbandment. One of the reasons given
> for these units becoming non-viable was, "their current performance, mainly
> through lack of numbers, does not merit their continued existence, being
> judged unfit for battle." I would argue that there is probably not one
> single unit in the Canadian Forces today that is properly manned, equipped
> and supported non-supported by government that is fit for battle, Army,
> Navy or Air Force.
>
> The article also quotes one militia general who said, "Soldiers don‘t join
> the reserves, they join a regiment." It goes on that, "part time soldiering
> no longer attracts young men as it did before the two world wars, whereas
> veterans have long since passed the age when they can continue to serve." I
> surely don‘t buy that statement. In my short time on this planet I have seen
> some of these regiments flourish when they were ably equipped and properly
> funded. When the funding allows training and other activities that reserve
> soldiering should be providing it does attract young men. Without the
> support of government society, of course all aspects of part time
> soldiering shrinks or becomes next to non existant, apathy sets in and of
> course the viability of the whole thing lessens. This has everything to do
> with government neglect and the shirking of responsibilty of providing a
> credible national defence for our country. Not only does our government
> Liberals not fulfill it‘s overall responsibity to maintain a credible
> military, it doesn‘t even come close to providing anywhere near the required
> support to provide for peacekeeping, supposedly a safer, less costly
> secondary duty. This Liberal group of MEGA-PRETENDERS are a total
> embarrasment not only to the military but the population at large. The only
> thing worse than this current state of inept, mindless insanity is the
> repeated re-election of these nincompoops by what has to be an apathetic,
> fence sitting and uncaring population of Canadians.
>
> The regiments earmarked for disbandment are a good chunk of our heritage
> consisting of gallant men who bled and died to make this country what it is.
> I won‘t go into the thoughts that rocketed through my mind as I watched the
> top dog Chretien stand with his head bowed in front of the coffin of "The
> Unknown Soldier." There are pretenders, then there are are pretenders. Two
> faced contradictory vote getting stunt.
>
> "Lest We Forget"
>
> The Canadian Scottish Regiment
>
> The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada
>
> The Royal Winnipeg Rifles
>
> Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada
>
> The Princess of Wales Own Regiment
>
> The Irish Regiment of Canada
>
> The Algonquin Regiment
>
> The Royal Regina Regiment
>
> The Royal Newfoundland Regiment
>
> Anyone for a coup? Joke
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 

army

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Posted by "dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com> on Thu, 25 May 2000 22:39:01 -0700
It disgusts me to think that the fate of any regiment is in the hands of
people who have never served. I think this list is a good place to start a
grass roots movement, to fully back the adequate funding of our reserves, as
well as the regs.
Your right people haven‘t lost interest in the militia, the feds don‘t see
enough photo op‘s thats all.
Recruiting is full time endeavor, do they still visit schools, and explain
the reserves to students?
Why don‘t we ask them to prove the units are not viable?
there must be thousands of former reservists out there who will fight this,
can everyone contact some?
Is there any more lists that we can cooperate with.
----- Original Message -----
From: dave
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 8:33 PM
Subject: Reserve Restructuring
> Here is something many may find refreshing albiet sad, a subject about the
> army.
>
> Just read an insightful article by Strome Galloway in the May edition of
> esprit de corps magazine.
>
> The article talks about the "viablity" aspects, or rather the non-viabilty
> of certain regiments earmarked for disbandment. One of the reasons given
> for these units becoming non-viable was, "their current performance,
mainly
> through lack of numbers, does not merit their continued existence, being
> judged unfit for battle." I would argue that there is probably not one
> single unit in the Canadian Forces today that is properly manned, equipped
> and supported non-supported by government that is fit for battle, Army,
> Navy or Air Force.
>
> The article also quotes one militia general who said, "Soldiers don‘t join
> the reserves, they join a regiment." It goes on that, "part time
soldiering
> no longer attracts young men as it did before the two world wars, whereas
> veterans have long since passed the age when they can continue to serve."
I
> surely don‘t buy that statement. In my short time on this planet I have
seen
> some of these regiments flourish when they were ably equipped and properly
> funded. When the funding allows training and other activities that reserve
> soldiering should be providing it does attract young men. Without the
> support of government society, of course all aspects of part time
> soldiering shrinks or becomes next to non existant, apathy sets in and of
> course the viability of the whole thing lessens. This has everything to do
> with government neglect and the shirking of responsibilty of providing a
> credible national defence for our country. Not only does our government
> Liberals not fulfill it‘s overall responsibity to maintain a credible
> military, it doesn‘t even come close to providing anywhere near the
required
> support to provide for peacekeeping, supposedly a safer, less costly
> secondary duty. This Liberal group of MEGA-PRETENDERS are a total
> embarrasment not only to the military but the population at large. The
only
> thing worse than this current state of inept, mindless insanity is the
> repeated re-election of these nincompoops by what has to be an apathetic,
> fence sitting and uncaring population of Canadians.
>
> The regiments earmarked for disbandment are a good chunk of our heritage
> consisting of gallant men who bled and died to make this country what it
is.
> I won‘t go into the thoughts that rocketed through my mind as I watched
the
> top dog Chretien stand with his head bowed in front of the coffin of
"The
> Unknown Soldier." There are pretenders, then there are are pretenders. Two
> faced contradictory vote getting stunt.
>
> "Lest We Forget"
>
> The Canadian Scottish Regiment
>
> The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada
>
> The Royal Winnipeg Rifles
>
> Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada
>
> The Princess of Wales Own Regiment
>
> The Irish Regiment of Canada
>
> The Algonquin Regiment
>
> The Royal Regina Regiment
>
> The Royal Newfoundland Regiment
>
>
> Anyone for a coup? Joke
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
 
Top