What would it take to bring the Militia up to Snuff?
- Thread starter Spr.Earl
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
There are far too many company-minus-sized "regiments" in the reserves. I've been told stories by artillery reservists about two neighboring reserve "regiments" only able to put together, between them, a four-gun battery for a field exercise. A battery's supposed to have six - and a regiment should have three batteries! I've seen W Battery in Gagetown put two four-gun callsigns in the field simultaneously, by itself - and that's a mixed AD-Field battery.
Most regiments have a LCol CO and a CWO RSM, as well as a few Majors and MWOs, but a parade strength of not much more than 200. That makes for a very top-heavy organization. I've seen US National Guard artillery battalions in Gage to train, and they arrive with a full 18 guns and several hundred personnel. If a reserve unit in a given city cannot recruit more than company strength, it should be a company, not a battalion / regiment. Grouping these companies together, on a regional basis, under a regimental headquarters would be a better use of resources. Group tham as battlegroups, so that combined-arms training is possible.
For example: a battlegroup is established, with headquarters in Calgary (for arguments' sake). Call it the 3rd Reserve Battlegroup or something. It would be composed something like this:
A Coy (The Calgary Highlanders) - Calgary
B Coy (The Loyal Edmonton Regiment) - Edmonton
C Sqn (The King's Own Calgary Regiment) - Calgary
D Sqn (The South Alberta Light Horse) - Red Deer
BG HQ & Service Coy (I'm a gunner - if I have the inf term wrong I apologize) - Calgary (all cap badges)
So you'd have a roughly 700-900 strong battlegroup, with one CO. Regimental identities and history remain as the cap badges and colours are held at a company level. To identify members as being in the BG, have them wear shoulder flashes with a battlegroup insignia when in combats - like ISAF's patch in Afghanistan, or NATO's in Bosnia.
With the reserves at the strength they are now, you could probably get reserve manoeuvre battlegroups from BC, Alberta, Sask/Manitoba, 2 from Ontario, 2 from Quebec, and 2 from the Atlantic (almost corresponding with the present brigades). Very small regiments should be amalgamated; artillery and engineer units and subunits should be amalgamated into full-strength units.
I figure that would be a start. Thoughts? Am I right out to lunch? :blotto:
Most regiments have a LCol CO and a CWO RSM, as well as a few Majors and MWOs, but a parade strength of not much more than 200. That makes for a very top-heavy organization. I've seen US National Guard artillery battalions in Gage to train, and they arrive with a full 18 guns and several hundred personnel. If a reserve unit in a given city cannot recruit more than company strength, it should be a company, not a battalion / regiment. Grouping these companies together, on a regional basis, under a regimental headquarters would be a better use of resources. Group tham as battlegroups, so that combined-arms training is possible.
For example: a battlegroup is established, with headquarters in Calgary (for arguments' sake). Call it the 3rd Reserve Battlegroup or something. It would be composed something like this:
A Coy (The Calgary Highlanders) - Calgary
B Coy (The Loyal Edmonton Regiment) - Edmonton
C Sqn (The King's Own Calgary Regiment) - Calgary
D Sqn (The South Alberta Light Horse) - Red Deer
BG HQ & Service Coy (I'm a gunner - if I have the inf term wrong I apologize) - Calgary (all cap badges)
So you'd have a roughly 700-900 strong battlegroup, with one CO. Regimental identities and history remain as the cap badges and colours are held at a company level. To identify members as being in the BG, have them wear shoulder flashes with a battlegroup insignia when in combats - like ISAF's patch in Afghanistan, or NATO's in Bosnia.
With the reserves at the strength they are now, you could probably get reserve manoeuvre battlegroups from BC, Alberta, Sask/Manitoba, 2 from Ontario, 2 from Quebec, and 2 from the Atlantic (almost corresponding with the present brigades). Very small regiments should be amalgamated; artillery and engineer units and subunits should be amalgamated into full-strength units.
I figure that would be a start. Thoughts? Am I right out to lunch? :blotto:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I'd also like to see a definition of 'up to snuff.' Role? Size? Equipment? Tobacconists in the CQ stocking snuff?
L
logau
Guest
If you look at an Order of Battle - all the units that are on the establishment of the British Army, you will see what happened when too many units had not enough troops - they got disbanded and turned into support organizations - I am guessing that this is what will happen in Canada. Its what is needed.
I could be wrong of course but unless the government and DND gets really serious about the reserves (I is one and joined on 6 Oct 1972) then we will continue to rely on the use of regulars for most short notice or international tasks.
You might think its a we - they thing, but is much older - in my mind - than that. I think it goes back to post WW1 when Britain tried to get Canada involved in the Chanak Affair in Turkey among others where we have "hung back" while world powers get themselves covered in things they didn't want to be covered in.
A recent letter to the Toronto Star (Dec. 7, 2003. Open letter to Paul Martin: Do the right thing HAROON SIDDIQUI) said
The real news is this: Post-9/11, Canadians have developed a profoundly different view of the world than that of Americans.
The more we watch CNN and George W. Bush, the less we want of America. He has re-Canadianized Canadians after a decade of free-trade integration.
Mr. Martin, you'd do well to remember that the biggest applause Jean Chrétien received â †in Parliament, at the recent Liberal convention and elsewhere across Canada â †was for his decision to sit out the war on Iraq.
The odd ill-mannered comments of some Liberals about Bush and America were indeed silly. But be wary of America-firsters denigrating Chrétien's handling of Washington. His dipsy-doodling â †that Canada couldn't send troops to Iraq because they were already committed to Afghanistan â †was in keeping with our traditions.
In 1899, when Britain asked its colonies for money and men for the Boer War, Wilfrid Laurier dithered, reflecting Quebec's objections. No Canadian contingent could be sent, he said, because Parliament was not in session to authorize it. But a voluntary army from Orange Ontario was another matter.
A decade later, Laurier refused the British call for help to strengthen the royal fleet of dreadnoughts. He did build a navy but kept control in Ottawa.
In 1921, when Britain asked for help to repel the Turks in the straits of Chanak, William Lyon Mackenzie King said he'd love to but, sorry, Parliament wasn't in session.
He just waited out the crisis, which was resolved peacefully anyway.
Lester B. Pearson charted a course independent of Britain in the 1956 Suez Canal crisis.
John Diefenbaker refused American nuclear warheads, even if for the wrong reason: He couldn't make up his mind.
Pierre Trudeau welcomed American draft-dodgers during the Vietnam War.
Canadians are not pacifists: We went into the two great wars ahead of America and joined the Korean War. But "the recurring test of all Canadian leaders," as historian Bruce Hutchison puts it, has been to assert Canadian independence from Britain and, lately, America.
So - we start at politics and go down.
I would say what will fix the reserves is political will - and without it you get what you see today - Shipborne Helos that will fall out of the sky sooner or later into crowded markets .... what will happen to crewmen who survive? Airforce and Army have the same problems.
From polititics we get $$$$$ - we had it in 1950 when Johnny Korea went nuts.
And we kept it until the mid 60s when the Libs came in under Pearson and then the balloon was pricked (means a hole put in it - not what the governments of the day were called) and DND spending leaked out to the worn out beach ball we have today. The few - the proud, and the poor cousins of NATO. So avoidable.
What to do - ? First we have to understand that the regulars can't do it all. Just flat out too expensive. We had 120,000 troops in the 50s and 60s because we didn't pay them very well.
I am of the opinion that the Canadian Reservist is underpaid and needs a jolt in cash and training and then the government can and should use them a bit more. A Canadian Conference of Defence Associations paper suggests the regular forces may be pricing themselves out of a job - surprised? While the regulars have 10% of the reserves on full time duty for 85% of the pay. Whether it be in the unit armoury or the cubicle in area operational training where real world nuts and bolts are put together to support the army training - reserves get shafted. So rather than a pay hike for the full timers - why not a pay hike for all? For the numerically challenged its not a leap to the maximum on the pay scale for your rank - its an evaluation of your rank, time in and courses completed on full time to get to the Class C rate of pay - from the newest Private Soldier to the oldest Captain and beyond in NATO.
In light of the upcoming reserve forces pension program (see http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dpsp/engraph/reservepp_e.asp?sidesection=5&sidecat=16) its more than time to really start thinking of a unified Canadian Army.
US and UK reserves get equal pay and sometimes more pay for their reserve service. Many US reserves and some UK reserves got deployed to IRAQ - some with key skills got invited with no recourse. Why are we any less equal when Canadian society recognizes and rewards things that would have been unheard of just three decades ago. Some of these are same gender marriages, hiring preferences for visible minorities in National Institutions, women everywhere in every level of society having smashed the male bastions of most jobs and work streams. Progress is good, I list these to show there has been lots of progress. Or has there?
Its my perception that the regular force is killing itself because it can't get sustained funding for regular manpower and the deployments that the
slack butts in the government keep assigning to it. At the same time - the regulars can't get full access to the reserves for many reasons, one of
which is national will as set out in A NATION AT RISK http://www.cda-cdai.ca/pdf/nationatrisk.pdf .
" During a period when less funding, as a percentage of the national budget, was committed to defence than at practically any other time in Canadian history, it is ironic that one of the most cost effective assets available to defence planners was nearly destroyed. Yet this is what occurred regarding the Militia following the Cold War. Neglected, under funded and not even assigned specific missions and tasks, the Militia, or Army Reserve,
struggled to maintain units and personnel through years of indifference. Today, it is an under-valued asset that nonetheless harbours the potential
to meet a large share of Canada's defence needs in the 21st Century in a most cost effective manner." p. 27
Are costs the problem? It could be seen that the cost of the regulars will be the next problem if the government keeps starving it
Over the ... period (Fiscal Year 02/03) Militia pay is budgeted at $190,000,000 for 15,500 positions, or $12,258 each for pay alone. There are many other costs, of course, associated with the maintenance of armies. Some are unique to full-time soldiers (dependents programmes), some are unique to part-time soldiers (the cost of maintaining heritage buildings [armouries] in many widely separated locations), and some are shared (such as the supply system).
Consequently, a comparison of all-up costs is instructive. According to information provided to Reserves 2000 by the Army staff, each Regular Support Staff position is charged to the Militia budget at the rate of $112,658 annually. On the same basis of calculation, where 15,500 soldiers collectively cost $497 million, the cost of one Militia position is $32, 064. p. 29
Reserves 2000...clearly demonstrated, in it's widely acclaimed analysis, Canada's Army of the Future, that the prudent way to meet Canada's future defence needs is through an expanded and revitalised Army Reserve (the Militia). At the end of a five year expansion plan the Militia should total 45,000 (up from the current level of 18,500). At that time Reserve soldiers will provide 69% of Army strength at a cost of under 4% of the total defence budget. p. C-2
The Regulars offer less because the cupboard is bare. They are broke and the government keeps them broke.
The results - since the regulars can't offer anything beyond nominal basic training - due to the funding they have - and thus can't keep a pool of reserves progressing in skills and challenging unit assignments. Reserves do get to go on deployments with full pay and benefits equivalent to their
regular counterpart depending on time in reserves - courses - rank etc.
However - the regulars will gladly accept 2000 reserve troops on full time duty in Canada - but at 85% of the regular pay scale. These jobs are no different than the same skill level requirements but since this is in Canada - 85% - here is a self serving text if ever there was one
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dres/pubs/class_e.asp
I think this causes the regulars serious damage in the long term. Short term they can go where they want - long term they lose - they have lost the tank, they have lost the Airborne, they lost control of tac hels in the 60s or early 70s. In short - they haul water and patrol slums in Haiti very well - but they can no longer bite off a piece of the enemy and hold it.
Why? I think they have alienated themselves from Canadian society by withdrawing from the armouries of the 50s and 60s to the under funded armouries of today with their unified recruiting, pathological under funding of the reserves - HEY! GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY THROAT - I LOVE THEM - but they under fund us the way they get under funded. Its a very vicious circle. If as suggested above you the reserve might do a similar job cheaper - that's resisted. That's also a Union shop attitude.
Note that both the US and Brit Army used to have a draft/national service/ USA had one from 1949 to 1969. Today they have a strong defence community - the tax payer knows why they want a strong military.
In Canada - we have had a volunteer force through that time and up to the present. The trouble is the volunteer force can be co-opted with wages well above mill rates back home where ever home is. And the volunteer force is only one part of the total force - who if the part time force declines the full time force will still get their pension. The volunteer is just a part of the federal bureaucracy and has no home unit constituency. They are just
workers in the government and unknown to the Canadian public. Since this link to the public is dead - except for contrived (except for the military
families) warm and fuzzy pictures of young wives and children kissing their green mottled husbands good by for a second tour of Afghanistan - its time
to activate the fully funded reservist.
What to do about this? Hike the reserve pay and use them as a loud voice of the Army.
I think two things would happen immediately
1. The regulars could say we pay and train you equal to us we want to use you from time to time on a full time basis. The politicians would likely
say - why not? The defence politician is unfortunately not known for their forward thinking but the case can still be made that Canadians are paying
the reserves so why not use them. As shown above Canadians think many groups in society need equal opportunity.
2. Reserves would get a voice they can use on behalf of the regulars with their civilian hat on.
3. The regulars would benefit as long as the reservist was totally trained in a regular stream.
Different pay rates and training seems to me to be very divisive and equal pay and training is inclusive. Its not easy - today the Canadian regulars
are the 56th largest military in the world and the reserves are the 77th largest (http://www.ccs21.org/peoples-def/people-def-rev.doc)
Political will leads to MONEY and then you could start fixing the reserves - any concerted program - if done full time may take up to 3 years (WW1 and WW2 figures where we had to build the kit before we could build the Army)
Call me crazy but don't call me late for dinner! :
I could be wrong of course but unless the government and DND gets really serious about the reserves (I is one and joined on 6 Oct 1972) then we will continue to rely on the use of regulars for most short notice or international tasks.
You might think its a we - they thing, but is much older - in my mind - than that. I think it goes back to post WW1 when Britain tried to get Canada involved in the Chanak Affair in Turkey among others where we have "hung back" while world powers get themselves covered in things they didn't want to be covered in.
A recent letter to the Toronto Star (Dec. 7, 2003. Open letter to Paul Martin: Do the right thing HAROON SIDDIQUI) said
The real news is this: Post-9/11, Canadians have developed a profoundly different view of the world than that of Americans.
The more we watch CNN and George W. Bush, the less we want of America. He has re-Canadianized Canadians after a decade of free-trade integration.
Mr. Martin, you'd do well to remember that the biggest applause Jean Chrétien received â †in Parliament, at the recent Liberal convention and elsewhere across Canada â †was for his decision to sit out the war on Iraq.
The odd ill-mannered comments of some Liberals about Bush and America were indeed silly. But be wary of America-firsters denigrating Chrétien's handling of Washington. His dipsy-doodling â †that Canada couldn't send troops to Iraq because they were already committed to Afghanistan â †was in keeping with our traditions.
In 1899, when Britain asked its colonies for money and men for the Boer War, Wilfrid Laurier dithered, reflecting Quebec's objections. No Canadian contingent could be sent, he said, because Parliament was not in session to authorize it. But a voluntary army from Orange Ontario was another matter.
A decade later, Laurier refused the British call for help to strengthen the royal fleet of dreadnoughts. He did build a navy but kept control in Ottawa.
In 1921, when Britain asked for help to repel the Turks in the straits of Chanak, William Lyon Mackenzie King said he'd love to but, sorry, Parliament wasn't in session.
He just waited out the crisis, which was resolved peacefully anyway.
Lester B. Pearson charted a course independent of Britain in the 1956 Suez Canal crisis.
John Diefenbaker refused American nuclear warheads, even if for the wrong reason: He couldn't make up his mind.
Pierre Trudeau welcomed American draft-dodgers during the Vietnam War.
Canadians are not pacifists: We went into the two great wars ahead of America and joined the Korean War. But "the recurring test of all Canadian leaders," as historian Bruce Hutchison puts it, has been to assert Canadian independence from Britain and, lately, America.
So - we start at politics and go down.
I would say what will fix the reserves is political will - and without it you get what you see today - Shipborne Helos that will fall out of the sky sooner or later into crowded markets .... what will happen to crewmen who survive? Airforce and Army have the same problems.
From polititics we get $$$$$ - we had it in 1950 when Johnny Korea went nuts.
And we kept it until the mid 60s when the Libs came in under Pearson and then the balloon was pricked (means a hole put in it - not what the governments of the day were called) and DND spending leaked out to the worn out beach ball we have today. The few - the proud, and the poor cousins of NATO. So avoidable.
What to do - ? First we have to understand that the regulars can't do it all. Just flat out too expensive. We had 120,000 troops in the 50s and 60s because we didn't pay them very well.
I am of the opinion that the Canadian Reservist is underpaid and needs a jolt in cash and training and then the government can and should use them a bit more. A Canadian Conference of Defence Associations paper suggests the regular forces may be pricing themselves out of a job - surprised? While the regulars have 10% of the reserves on full time duty for 85% of the pay. Whether it be in the unit armoury or the cubicle in area operational training where real world nuts and bolts are put together to support the army training - reserves get shafted. So rather than a pay hike for the full timers - why not a pay hike for all? For the numerically challenged its not a leap to the maximum on the pay scale for your rank - its an evaluation of your rank, time in and courses completed on full time to get to the Class C rate of pay - from the newest Private Soldier to the oldest Captain and beyond in NATO.
In light of the upcoming reserve forces pension program (see http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dpsp/engraph/reservepp_e.asp?sidesection=5&sidecat=16) its more than time to really start thinking of a unified Canadian Army.
US and UK reserves get equal pay and sometimes more pay for their reserve service. Many US reserves and some UK reserves got deployed to IRAQ - some with key skills got invited with no recourse. Why are we any less equal when Canadian society recognizes and rewards things that would have been unheard of just three decades ago. Some of these are same gender marriages, hiring preferences for visible minorities in National Institutions, women everywhere in every level of society having smashed the male bastions of most jobs and work streams. Progress is good, I list these to show there has been lots of progress. Or has there?
Its my perception that the regular force is killing itself because it can't get sustained funding for regular manpower and the deployments that the
slack butts in the government keep assigning to it. At the same time - the regulars can't get full access to the reserves for many reasons, one of
which is national will as set out in A NATION AT RISK http://www.cda-cdai.ca/pdf/nationatrisk.pdf .
" During a period when less funding, as a percentage of the national budget, was committed to defence than at practically any other time in Canadian history, it is ironic that one of the most cost effective assets available to defence planners was nearly destroyed. Yet this is what occurred regarding the Militia following the Cold War. Neglected, under funded and not even assigned specific missions and tasks, the Militia, or Army Reserve,
struggled to maintain units and personnel through years of indifference. Today, it is an under-valued asset that nonetheless harbours the potential
to meet a large share of Canada's defence needs in the 21st Century in a most cost effective manner." p. 27
Are costs the problem? It could be seen that the cost of the regulars will be the next problem if the government keeps starving it
Over the ... period (Fiscal Year 02/03) Militia pay is budgeted at $190,000,000 for 15,500 positions, or $12,258 each for pay alone. There are many other costs, of course, associated with the maintenance of armies. Some are unique to full-time soldiers (dependents programmes), some are unique to part-time soldiers (the cost of maintaining heritage buildings [armouries] in many widely separated locations), and some are shared (such as the supply system).
Consequently, a comparison of all-up costs is instructive. According to information provided to Reserves 2000 by the Army staff, each Regular Support Staff position is charged to the Militia budget at the rate of $112,658 annually. On the same basis of calculation, where 15,500 soldiers collectively cost $497 million, the cost of one Militia position is $32, 064. p. 29
Reserves 2000...clearly demonstrated, in it's widely acclaimed analysis, Canada's Army of the Future, that the prudent way to meet Canada's future defence needs is through an expanded and revitalised Army Reserve (the Militia). At the end of a five year expansion plan the Militia should total 45,000 (up from the current level of 18,500). At that time Reserve soldiers will provide 69% of Army strength at a cost of under 4% of the total defence budget. p. C-2
The Regulars offer less because the cupboard is bare. They are broke and the government keeps them broke.
The results - since the regulars can't offer anything beyond nominal basic training - due to the funding they have - and thus can't keep a pool of reserves progressing in skills and challenging unit assignments. Reserves do get to go on deployments with full pay and benefits equivalent to their
regular counterpart depending on time in reserves - courses - rank etc.
However - the regulars will gladly accept 2000 reserve troops on full time duty in Canada - but at 85% of the regular pay scale. These jobs are no different than the same skill level requirements but since this is in Canada - 85% - here is a self serving text if ever there was one
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dres/pubs/class_e.asp
I think this causes the regulars serious damage in the long term. Short term they can go where they want - long term they lose - they have lost the tank, they have lost the Airborne, they lost control of tac hels in the 60s or early 70s. In short - they haul water and patrol slums in Haiti very well - but they can no longer bite off a piece of the enemy and hold it.
Why? I think they have alienated themselves from Canadian society by withdrawing from the armouries of the 50s and 60s to the under funded armouries of today with their unified recruiting, pathological under funding of the reserves - HEY! GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY THROAT - I LOVE THEM - but they under fund us the way they get under funded. Its a very vicious circle. If as suggested above you the reserve might do a similar job cheaper - that's resisted. That's also a Union shop attitude.
Note that both the US and Brit Army used to have a draft/national service/ USA had one from 1949 to 1969. Today they have a strong defence community - the tax payer knows why they want a strong military.
In Canada - we have had a volunteer force through that time and up to the present. The trouble is the volunteer force can be co-opted with wages well above mill rates back home where ever home is. And the volunteer force is only one part of the total force - who if the part time force declines the full time force will still get their pension. The volunteer is just a part of the federal bureaucracy and has no home unit constituency. They are just
workers in the government and unknown to the Canadian public. Since this link to the public is dead - except for contrived (except for the military
families) warm and fuzzy pictures of young wives and children kissing their green mottled husbands good by for a second tour of Afghanistan - its time
to activate the fully funded reservist.
What to do about this? Hike the reserve pay and use them as a loud voice of the Army.
I think two things would happen immediately
1. The regulars could say we pay and train you equal to us we want to use you from time to time on a full time basis. The politicians would likely
say - why not? The defence politician is unfortunately not known for their forward thinking but the case can still be made that Canadians are paying
the reserves so why not use them. As shown above Canadians think many groups in society need equal opportunity.
2. Reserves would get a voice they can use on behalf of the regulars with their civilian hat on.
3. The regulars would benefit as long as the reservist was totally trained in a regular stream.
Different pay rates and training seems to me to be very divisive and equal pay and training is inclusive. Its not easy - today the Canadian regulars
are the 56th largest military in the world and the reserves are the 77th largest (http://www.ccs21.org/peoples-def/people-def-rev.doc)
Political will leads to MONEY and then you could start fixing the reserves - any concerted program - if done full time may take up to 3 years (WW1 and WW2 figures where we had to build the kit before we could build the Army)
Call me crazy but don't call me late for dinner! :
V
Villy
Guest
Any idea what the strength of the 2nd IRC is now...
I served with them for about 18 months back in the late 60s. Strength was good at that time, but most of it was tired out from staying up all night trying to pretend that they could still drink (and function) as well as they could during WWII...
I served with them for about 18 months back in the late 60s. Strength was good at that time, but most of it was tired out from staying up all night trying to pretend that they could still drink (and function) as well as they could during WWII...
1
12alfa
Guest
re:
logau
Pay is not the only problem.
We need a voice that will standup to all the BS that is handed down to the res's. From the Bision, to paying the res's less for a reg force position he is doing, has not helped.
Having someone with the balls to say NO! would go a long way to help the reserves status, rather going along with anything that is told we must do.
To many leaders are not willing to tell the powers to be what we really need and what we don't need, they have their next job/posting to worry about.
Having $ given to the reserv's for the Bision project and then given to the reg force is but one example, there are plenty more.
We need a leader who is willing to say what has to be said for the good of the reserves, and the army as a whole, not some yes man that wants a rank promotion or a job for his towing the party line.
In some countries the reserv's are part of a union. Now I'm not saying this is what I want, but in those armys the reserv's don't get screwed, We can't count on our leaders in uniform and out (gov) to do the correct thing, as we have seen our past they won't if there is no personel gain for them, sad but it's a fact in our country and a few others.
I believe in the French armed forces the goverment gives $ to them, how and what they spend it is left to them for the most part. In canada it's completly different. I may be wrong on this now, but a few years back this was the norm over there.
Anytime you have a goverement telling the army what they will get and how they will spend there $'s , your going to have problems.
No you can't have tanks, you will get the MGS and you will tell everyone that it is what you really want.....ummm ok.
No we will not have one common airframe for our helo's, and you will tell all that this is the best for Canada.....umm ya ok!.
It's not going to get any better for regulars, and certinaly not for the reserves.
Just my 2 cents...oops 1/2 a cent ( don't get the same pay scale as others)
logau
Pay is not the only problem.
We need a voice that will standup to all the BS that is handed down to the res's. From the Bision, to paying the res's less for a reg force position he is doing, has not helped.
Having someone with the balls to say NO! would go a long way to help the reserves status, rather going along with anything that is told we must do.
To many leaders are not willing to tell the powers to be what we really need and what we don't need, they have their next job/posting to worry about.
Having $ given to the reserv's for the Bision project and then given to the reg force is but one example, there are plenty more.
We need a leader who is willing to say what has to be said for the good of the reserves, and the army as a whole, not some yes man that wants a rank promotion or a job for his towing the party line.
In some countries the reserv's are part of a union. Now I'm not saying this is what I want, but in those armys the reserv's don't get screwed, We can't count on our leaders in uniform and out (gov) to do the correct thing, as we have seen our past they won't if there is no personel gain for them, sad but it's a fact in our country and a few others.
I believe in the French armed forces the goverment gives $ to them, how and what they spend it is left to them for the most part. In canada it's completly different. I may be wrong on this now, but a few years back this was the norm over there.
Anytime you have a goverement telling the army what they will get and how they will spend there $'s , your going to have problems.
No you can't have tanks, you will get the MGS and you will tell everyone that it is what you really want.....ummm ok.
No we will not have one common airframe for our helo's, and you will tell all that this is the best for Canada.....umm ya ok!.
It's not going to get any better for regulars, and certinaly not for the reserves.
Just my 2 cents...oops 1/2 a cent ( don't get the same pay scale as others)
L
logau
Guest
We agree - we need leader ship and we are not getting it from the top of DND - not in the military side.
1
12alfa
Guest
I belive there are officers out there with proper motivation could make a change for the good for all, wether they are allowed to is the question.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
The reason I said "Reg. Force" was,as they see and experience the Militia and it's Organisational short fall's when we get attached to a Reg. Unit,we don't because we are concentrating on getting the most out of our posting in regards to trainig and don't see our problem's where as they do.NMPeters said:
As for the "Peanut Gallery",it was meant for no garbage post's!
