Adopting the regiment as a regular force formation & exploring other new regimental systems
- Reaction score
- 9,369
- Points
- 1,260
MCG said:
Good points. I'll be the first to admit that my approach has looked more towards the pointy end with regards to career structures.
Perhaps change there is required alongside of organizational transformation at the Regimental Level. I'm sure Big Bad John can expand on this, but 3 Commando Brigade is a formation where:
- All Marines wear the same capbadge.
- All Marines come from the same "Soldier First" background.
- All trades and roles required by the Brigade (Provost, Mechanic, Driver, Reconnaissance, etc) are filled out by Marines.
The only obvious exceptions are the attachments from the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery, but these must come from a small pool of "All Arms Commando Course" qualified Gunners and Sappers. As a basis point, perhaps this can serve as model for the necessary Personnel/Career structures that "Regimental Formations" would require.
Zipper said:
I would put "Light" in the spectrum of units specializing in Airmobile/Airborne operations and fighting in Difficult Terrain - as well, the neccessity of approaching Tier III SOC (supporting the Big Leagues) should be considered.
"Medium" seems to be a force that possess certain degrees of firepower, protection and mobility offered by its mechanized loadout - however, the loadout makes sacrifices in these three areas to provide advantages in strategic maneuverability, force projection capability, and flexibility.
"Heavy" would be a force that capitalizes on technology to maximize firepower, protection and battlefield mobility to offer up a force that is the decisive tactical unit of maneuver but tends to come with heavier logistical requirements, command overhead, and force projection constraints.
I don't think these are textbook - I've just whipped them up from off the top of my head.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
There has been some talk about a "Combat Arms Regiment" for sometime now. I recall reading about some Rideau colonel doing a feasability study on it. Personally, I don't think it will fly. And I don't think we should let it. Let's leave the Corps and Regiments be.
From what Ive read and now understand, we will see the following in the short term:
1. a common AFV family, that being the LAV;
2. Coyote and LAV III for the Armoured guys and the Infantry;
3. MGS for the Armoured guys; and (eventually)
4. MMEV for the Air Defence guys, doubling as an Anti-Armour asset.
Anyone can be re-roled and trained on a piece of equipment. However, why give TUA to a Gunner when the Infanteer is already trained ? In this third dacade of "train to need", we should concentrate on the maintenance of respective Corps skills. This is not about "turf wars" or "who gets the new toy". It is about the maintenace of specialist skills in a viable light/lethal field force.
Lastly, The Guns.....the M109s are history, and there is no planned replacement. A light 155, or even the M198, would at least keep us in the game. Further, we could take advantage of all those "Smart" bullets that are coming on line, giving us an enhanced indirect fire capability. ( Let's leave the direct fire stuff to the Black Hats ! )
Just two cents.....
Ubique
From what Ive read and now understand, we will see the following in the short term:
1. a common AFV family, that being the LAV;
2. Coyote and LAV III for the Armoured guys and the Infantry;
3. MGS for the Armoured guys; and (eventually)
4. MMEV for the Air Defence guys, doubling as an Anti-Armour asset.
Anyone can be re-roled and trained on a piece of equipment. However, why give TUA to a Gunner when the Infanteer is already trained ? In this third dacade of "train to need", we should concentrate on the maintenance of respective Corps skills. This is not about "turf wars" or "who gets the new toy". It is about the maintenace of specialist skills in a viable light/lethal field force.
Lastly, The Guns.....the M109s are history, and there is no planned replacement. A light 155, or even the M198, would at least keep us in the game. Further, we could take advantage of all those "Smart" bullets that are coming on line, giving us an enhanced indirect fire capability. ( Let's leave the direct fire stuff to the Black Hats ! )
Just two cents.....
Ubique
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
Larger regiments [rather than a one battalion regiment] improve the soldier/officer's chances of further promotion as it is based on vacancy. In the US Army we arent tied to a regiment our whole career and thus promotion isnt limited.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,453
- Points
- 1,160
The new Defence Policy talks of making the CF more effective, more relevant, and more responsive. One step in this process will be "establishing fully integrated units capable of a timely, focused and effective response to foreign or domestic threats to Canadian security."
While this will mean different things in air, maritime, and joint environments; I think this is a reasonable mandate to start examining the all-arms regiment and all-arms battalion a lot closer.
While this will mean different things in air, maritime, and joint environments; I think this is a reasonable mandate to start examining the all-arms regiment and all-arms battalion a lot closer.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Talk about what should happen and what is happening is cheap. How would one propose and idea such as this and have someone at a level look, seriously look, at it.
Looking at aspects like....How it would affect things....... how would we implement or change the regimental STRUCTURE so it wasn't as rigid or black and white as it is today.....how much resistance to this change will there be.
The Airforce in its draconian cuts of the nineties had what was called Flight Plan for life. It was a seminar telling people to think outside the box. Changes were coming and you could either be a part of the change or get out of the way. Next thing we knew trades were amalgamated, squadrons combined, others disbanded and op tempos increased.
They survived and have many lessons learned.
How would the army make out if they were told that tradition was gone out the window for practicality. Box up the colors take that hat badge off your head. Put this epaulet on and report for training. You are no longer a member of regiment XYZ but a member of ABC Combat team.
There would be screams heard all across the country.
Except for Quebec, I am sure that they would adapt to change easier than the rest of the country.
Looking at aspects like....How it would affect things....... how would we implement or change the regimental STRUCTURE so it wasn't as rigid or black and white as it is today.....how much resistance to this change will there be.
The Airforce in its draconian cuts of the nineties had what was called Flight Plan for life. It was a seminar telling people to think outside the box. Changes were coming and you could either be a part of the change or get out of the way. Next thing we knew trades were amalgamated, squadrons combined, others disbanded and op tempos increased.
They survived and have many lessons learned.
How would the army make out if they were told that tradition was gone out the window for practicality. Box up the colors take that hat badge off your head. Put this epaulet on and report for training. You are no longer a member of regiment XYZ but a member of ABC Combat team.
There would be screams heard all across the country.
Except for Quebec, I am sure that they would adapt to change easier than the rest of the country.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,992
- Points
- 1,010
Having thought this out and looking at how the CF is going with transformations I propose this (it is similar to an earlier idea I suggested).
All regiments and battalions would be disbanded (But cap badges and affiliations would stay). Instead of 9 infantry battalions and 3 armored regiments, why not 12 task forces?
-9 Combat task forces
-3 Reconnaissance task forces
Combat Task Force
-HQ Group (Sigs, MP, Int, CIMIC, Pys Ops, PAFFO, etc, it would include a Coyote 8 car troop)
- 2 LAVIII Companies
-Light infantry company
-Arty Battery (155mm Towed and yes only 4)
-Engineer squadron
-Forward Support Coy (CSS assetts such TPT, QM, MAINT, etc, etc)
Reconnaissance Task Force
-HQ Group (same as above minus coyote troop)
-Recconaissance squadron (Coyotes and a close observation troop in G-wagons as well)
-1 LAVIII Company
-1 Light infantry Company
-UAV Battery
-Engineer squadron
-Forward Support Company
the three brigades would each a Recce TF and 3 Combat TF. Each TF can be deployed at its 100% strength or tailored for the mission. This would eliminate a bunch of unnecessary RHQ and BN HQ in each brigade in my opinion.
A TF would have a LT COL and a CWO. (TF CO and TF SGT MAJ).
Ideas and input?
All regiments and battalions would be disbanded (But cap badges and affiliations would stay). Instead of 9 infantry battalions and 3 armored regiments, why not 12 task forces?
-9 Combat task forces
-3 Reconnaissance task forces
Combat Task Force
-HQ Group (Sigs, MP, Int, CIMIC, Pys Ops, PAFFO, etc, it would include a Coyote 8 car troop)
- 2 LAVIII Companies
-Light infantry company
-Arty Battery (155mm Towed and yes only 4)
-Engineer squadron
-Forward Support Coy (CSS assetts such TPT, QM, MAINT, etc, etc)
Reconnaissance Task Force
-HQ Group (same as above minus coyote troop)
-Recconaissance squadron (Coyotes and a close observation troop in G-wagons as well)
-1 LAVIII Company
-1 Light infantry Company
-UAV Battery
-Engineer squadron
-Forward Support Company
the three brigades would each a Recce TF and 3 Combat TF. Each TF can be deployed at its 100% strength or tailored for the mission. This would eliminate a bunch of unnecessary RHQ and BN HQ in each brigade in my opinion.
A TF would have a LT COL and a CWO. (TF CO and TF SGT MAJ).
Ideas and input?
- Reaction score
- 9,369
- Points
- 1,260
So, basically you want to rename "Battalions" into "Task Forces" and assign fire/eng support and CS/CSS function permanently to the new battalion-level structure?
Some principles of this is sound (infact, I've argued the same in The Downward Diffusion of Combined Arms), but I'm wary of the fact that we may not have the "critical mass" required to do so. It may be more prudent to establish a more effective readiness-rotation and ensure that different components are assembled at the right time and place.
It is proactive in the notion that it attempts to eliminate plug-and-play - this is something all our discussions dealing with Force Structure should aim at reducing/eliminating.
I don't like the notion of "Reconnaissance Task Forces" - our Coyote-surveillance system is not the best platform to build a whole recce-oriented force structure around (as discussed here). I believe that the LAV-family is capable of more than just farting around the battlefield trying to recce stuff out; the Marine LAR's in Iraq proved this.
Some principles of this is sound (infact, I've argued the same in The Downward Diffusion of Combined Arms), but I'm wary of the fact that we may not have the "critical mass" required to do so. It may be more prudent to establish a more effective readiness-rotation and ensure that different components are assembled at the right time and place.
It is proactive in the notion that it attempts to eliminate plug-and-play - this is something all our discussions dealing with Force Structure should aim at reducing/eliminating.
I don't like the notion of "Reconnaissance Task Forces" - our Coyote-surveillance system is not the best platform to build a whole recce-oriented force structure around (as discussed here). I believe that the LAV-family is capable of more than just farting around the battlefield trying to recce stuff out; the Marine LAR's in Iraq proved this.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,453
- Points
- 1,160
I prefer the idea of 9 x mech BG and 3 x li BG. Each would be principally infantry but would include the required mix of cavalry/surveillance. I do not think we have the critical mass required for engineers to be sustainable in standing BGs, so I would recommend the CERs (or Cbt Engr Bns) remain as the force generators for engineers (this would not preclude the possibility of sapper platoons in each BG).ArmyRick said:
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,453
- Points
- 1,160
MCG said:
dapaterson said:
dapaterson said:
So, it has been nine years since we last tried to tackle the Reg F regimental system. Have time and a major combat operation changed any perspectives? Does the idea of replacing infantry and armoured regiments with manoeuvre regiments still hold traction? Have opposing models (like following Australia in consolidating Reg F infantry to a single regiment) gained supporters?KevinB said:
I see fingers pointing to the Reg F regimental system as a barrier to progress. Can we fix this?
- Reaction score
- 4,413
- Points
- 1,160
I'm not sure the 'regimental system,' per se, is a problem; it (at least the version we know) was designed to exploit ethnic, religious and cultural differences and make them into tools in the quest to maintain moral. What is a problem, in Canada, is our insistence in symmetry and, within that, on linguistic balance or proportionality. In fact, given the linguistic politics of Canada I'm not sure how we cannot have a regimental system of some sort.
I don't think it really matters that The RCR, the PPCLI and the R22R, the RCD, LdSH and 12RBC all have different cap badges and all the associated gee gaws, but I do agree that the infantry, for example, could learn from the RCAC where inter-regimental postings were, especially for the 'high flyers,' quite common. Why, indeed, can we not have exactly as many infantry battalions as we need,, be it 7 or 11 or 13, rather than a number that must be divided by 3? Why, indeed, can't the best majors and lcols in the infantry be posted to command in the battalions, rebadging as they move, where they are likely to do the best job for the army, not just for their own tribe?
But, in my opinion, the 'regimental system,' itself, isn't the real problem: it is our own, uiquely Canadian, implementation of it.
I don't think it really matters that The RCR, the PPCLI and the R22R, the RCD, LdSH and 12RBC all have different cap badges and all the associated gee gaws, but I do agree that the infantry, for example, could learn from the RCAC where inter-regimental postings were, especially for the 'high flyers,' quite common. Why, indeed, can we not have exactly as many infantry battalions as we need,, be it 7 or 11 or 13, rather than a number that must be divided by 3? Why, indeed, can't the best majors and lcols in the infantry be posted to command in the battalions, rebadging as they move, where they are likely to do the best job for the army, not just for their own tribe?
But, in my opinion, the 'regimental system,' itself, isn't the real problem: it is our own, uiquely Canadian, implementation of it.
Edward
The regimental system as we knew it in the early sixties did have some movement between regiments. The CO of 1 RHC, LCol, later MGen GH Sellar, had originally been PPCLI, but was rebadged on promotion and appointment, while there were three, I think, anglo officers who came to the RHC from the Van Doos. Two later commanded RHC battalions. Is there any reason this could not be done again, other than systemic sensitivity to regimental sensibilities and whining? Let me add that the movement of the anglo officers may well have been motivated because of the negative optics of having an Anglo CO in the Van Doos. This was in the days when the army, like the Canadian government, was effectively unilingual English.
It is true that we then had six regiments, five with two battalions and one, the Van Doos, had three. That probably narrowed each regiments base and, as I recall anyway, the years in rank for promotion from Captain to Major varied. Legend, at least, had it that QOR officers spent the least time in the rank of Captain, while the Cdn Gds had the longest wait. (The Gds may suffered because the regiment went from four battalions to two in the mid-50s.)
The regimental system as we knew it in the early sixties did have some movement between regiments. The CO of 1 RHC, LCol, later MGen GH Sellar, had originally been PPCLI, but was rebadged on promotion and appointment, while there were three, I think, anglo officers who came to the RHC from the Van Doos. Two later commanded RHC battalions. Is there any reason this could not be done again, other than systemic sensitivity to regimental sensibilities and whining? Let me add that the movement of the anglo officers may well have been motivated because of the negative optics of having an Anglo CO in the Van Doos. This was in the days when the army, like the Canadian government, was effectively unilingual English.
It is true that we then had six regiments, five with two battalions and one, the Van Doos, had three. That probably narrowed each regiments base and, as I recall anyway, the years in rank for promotion from Captain to Major varied. Legend, at least, had it that QOR officers spent the least time in the rank of Captain, while the Cdn Gds had the longest wait. (The Gds may suffered because the regiment went from four battalions to two in the mid-50s.)
- Reaction score
- 1,026
- Points
- 1,160
While we are at it, why don't we sever the 3 x 3 Reg F Inf Bns to The RCR, PPCLI, R22R @ one each (AB, PQ, ON), then the other six Bns to regional identity. PRes to Reg F.
An additional two Francophone Bns may out-weight the recruiting base, but suggest another PQ PRes (to appease PQ) and a NB PRes Inf Reg or only a NB PRes Inf Bn.
BC, Sask, MB, NS and Newfoundland come to mind. When the RCR was in Wpg, most of the NCMs seemed to hailed from Newfoundland anyway. Of course the regional identity Bns would not all be stationed in their namesake province, although some would. 2PPCLI could easily become The RWpgRif, 2 RCR/Nova Scotia Highlanders (Pipe Band inclusive), etc!
Inter-regimental postings and tribalism would be resolved with nine different cap badges vice three.
While we are at this sweeping change, downgrade all the other PRes Regs, all PRes Regts, to Coy establishment.
This is such a great idea, I think I will forward to Reserve 2000 or whatever they are called and all the PRes Honouraries, less the "downgrade all the other PRes Regs, all PRes Regts, to Coy establishment."
An additional two Francophone Bns may out-weight the recruiting base, but suggest another PQ PRes (to appease PQ) and a NB PRes Inf Reg or only a NB PRes Inf Bn.
BC, Sask, MB, NS and Newfoundland come to mind. When the RCR was in Wpg, most of the NCMs seemed to hailed from Newfoundland anyway. Of course the regional identity Bns would not all be stationed in their namesake province, although some would. 2PPCLI could easily become The RWpgRif, 2 RCR/Nova Scotia Highlanders (Pipe Band inclusive), etc!
Inter-regimental postings and tribalism would be resolved with nine different cap badges vice three.
While we are at this sweeping change, downgrade all the other PRes Regs, all PRes Regts, to Coy establishment.
This is such a great idea, I think I will forward to Reserve 2000 or whatever they are called and all the PRes Honouraries, less the "downgrade all the other PRes Regs, all PRes Regts, to Coy establishment."
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Rifleman62 said:
Were you in the Canadian Guards?
Their Companies were all named after one of the Provinces.
- Reaction score
- 1,026
- Points
- 1,160
No. RWpgRif, my pick for the MB RegF Regt!!
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,480
- Points
- 1,160
Maybe this is a situation where a "Buttons and Bows" change can actually be a positive driver for eventual organizational change. Any major (or even minor) changes to the existing Regimental system will be very emotional and come with much gnashing of teeth and resistance. What if for the time being we leave the structure of the regiments alone but start the process by just changing the uniforms.
Instead of each regiment (Armour and Infantry) wearing their own cap badge have them instead wear their Branch insignia as their cap badge and their Regimental insignia elsewhere on their uniform. This in itself I'm sure will create a shyte storm of protest but maybe it can be a positive first step in creating a branch identity vs. a Regimental identity. Once everyone is wearing the same cap badge the actual organizational changes to follow might not be as hard to swallow.
Instead of each regiment (Armour and Infantry) wearing their own cap badge have them instead wear their Branch insignia as their cap badge and their Regimental insignia elsewhere on their uniform. This in itself I'm sure will create a shyte storm of protest but maybe it can be a positive first step in creating a branch identity vs. a Regimental identity. Once everyone is wearing the same cap badge the actual organizational changes to follow might not be as hard to swallow.
