Adopting the regiment as a regular force formation & exploring other new regimental systems

[daftandbarmy]

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.

Or we could just increase the size of our (ridiculously too small and underequipped) Army to accurately reflect our (citizens' and politicians' enormously unreasonable) national and international aspirations and all this internal turmoil will go away.

 

[dimsum]

Or we could just increase the size of our (ridiculously too small and underequipped) Army to accurately reflect our (citizens' and politicians' enormously unreasonable) national and international aspirations and all this internal turmoil will go away.

:rofl:

Oh wait, you were serious. 

 

[Infanteer]

Mr. Campbell's post is worth rereading.  As I mentioned in another post, the British Regimental System(s) evolved to suit the nature and requirements of the Army.  Ours must do the same, lest it become an anchor.  When boiled down to its elements, the Regimental System is a method of affiliation for our Infantry and Armoured units designed to foster tradition and esprit de corps (that's my own definition).  A few thoughts:

1.  The Regimental System will not go anywhere - not even Hellyer could eliminate it when he recast the Armed Forces.  I wouldn't even advocate it if there was such a possibility, as the Regiments present the Army with such a strong branding mechanism for the Canadian public that it would be foolish to discard them.  With that being said, it can and should evolve (and has done in the past) when required.  The number of active battalions should move based on national requirements, not to appease regimental sensibilities.

2.  The Australian Army made the conscious decision after the Second World War to go to a single large Infantry Regiment (The Royal Australian Regiment) that now sits at seven regular battalions.  This simply would not work in Canada, where our linguistic realities ensure the necessity of a French Canadian Regiment as a home for Francophone service to the country in the manoeuvre arms.  While the Artillery and Engineers are able to get around this, I'm not sure the heritage of how the Infantry and Armoured branches do things would be able to do the same thing.

3.  It's only in the last 20 years that we've really stratified Regiments by region to the extent that we've done.  This has likely reduced cross posting (this still occurs, but only by the handful).  It is questionable whether our Regimental System benefits from sticking all Patricias out West, all Royals in Central and Eastern Canada, and all Vandoos in Quebec.  Perhaps there is merit in reverting to the Cold War format that saw battalions of two or more Regiments represented in each of the Brigades; if anything, this would reduce insularity and promote cross-regimental postings.

4.  The number of battalions per regiment is an interesting discussion - some argue that three are required to keep a sufficient "gene pool".  This is certainly heard in the UK, where - over the last seven decades - amalgamation of county regiments has occurred again and again as single battalion Regiments were too "shallow".  This may be more related to recruiting new soldiers vice managing current ones.  That being said, our Armoured Regiments all exist as single battalion Regiments, and they don't seem to have any issues (the current CO of the LdSH rebadged from the 12eRBC upon promotion and appointment and the world never ended).  If the infantry corps is facing issues where Regimental sensibilities are stunting operational growth (I'd suggest the parachute capability is one such area), then perhaps it'd be useful to examine an Army of 6-12 single battalion Regiments.  This would likely reduce the insularity of the Regiments by forcing more cross posting.  It would certainly add to the colour of the Army.

5.  A final point on where the Regiments make an impact on the Army today.  Meriting, the process of promotions, is handled centrally by CMP.  This, to me, is a good policy.  Succession planning, the process of appointments, is handled by the Regiments.  This is a critical point to understand, as promotion to the rank of X is only a path to further promotion if appointment to the position of Y soon follows.  Regimental succession planning is designed at a level that is much more intimate than the "Big Army, look at PER" system and should, in theory, ensure the right people to guide the Army are put into the right positions.  Any talk of change ups to the size and nature of the Regiments should take this factor into account.

 

[Old Sweat]

I've grabbed this statement by Infanteer for a reason.

3.  It's only in the last 20 years that we've really stratified Regiments by region to the extent that we've done.  This has likely reduced cross posting (this still occurs, but only by the handful).  It is questionable whether our Regimental System benefits from sticking all Patricias out West, all Royals in Central and Eastern Canada, and all Vandoos in Quebec.  Perhaps there is merit in reverting to the Cold War format that saw battalions of two or more Regiments represented in each of the Brigades; if anything, this would reduce insularity and promote cross-regimental postings.

Not quite - in the Canadian Army ante integration there were four brigades. Let's look at the make up, and there was rotation to 4 Brigade every two, then every three years.

a. 1 CIBG, HQ Calgary, made up of three battalions drawn from two two battalion regiments - PPCLI and QOR;

b. 2 CIBG, HQ Petawawa, made up of three battalions drawn from two two battalion regiments - Cdn Gds and The RCR;

c. 3 CIBG, HQ Gagetown, made up of four battalions drawn from a three battalion - R22R - and a two battalion - RHC - regiment; and

d. 4 CIBG, HQ Soest, made up of three battalions, one from each regimentally grouped brigade. Note that if, for example, a Cdn Gds battalion rotated to Germany, it would be replaced with the other battalion from that regiment, which in turn would be rotated with a RCR battalion, which . .  Well, you get the idea.

It was only when the Germany brigade went to a two battalion organization, and we had reduced our regiments to three, that The RCR and Patricias began switching stations in Winnipeg.

 

[Infanteer]

Right, but you still had Regiments mixed within each Brigade, with Germany offering the wildcard.  Today you see, essentially, three solitudes.  The only time different Regiments get to actually work together is if they happen to be opposing each other on a Maple Resolve serial in Wainwright.

 

[Old Sweat]

Agreed, and it probably is not healthy. It may be possible to transfer a battalion between 1 and 2 Brigades, but I suspect it would not work with 5 Brigade. At one time 2 RCR was part of 5 Brigade, but that changed with the close out of CFE and the return of 1 R22R to Canada. We grappled with this during most of my career and could not solve it, other than for a short time rotating 3 RCR to Winnipeg and moving 2 PPCLI to Baden.

Most solutions - good, bad and indifferent - founder on the shoals of the "three regular regiments" which came out of the 1970 force cuts, but there also is the reserve regimental factor. If anyone can come up with a solution that would fly in the regular infantry, and would also work with the reserves with their collective fiercely tribal ethos, one would think it would have been proposed by now. And good luck with coming up with a name that works in both official languages. Sorry if I am negative, but I have seen this tar baby wrestled with no success for half a century and more.

I also hate to say it, but if we tried to switch a battalion of the two Anglo regiments between brigades, fiscal factors would probably just have the units trade cap badges. This would result in two highly annoyed units, still with their old corporate identities and a massive chip on their collective shoulders.

 

[Ostrozac]

Agreed, and it probably is not healthy. It may be possible to transfer a battalion between 1 and 2 Brigades, but I suspect it would not work with 5 Brigade. At one time 2 RCR was part of 5 Brigade, but that changed with the close out of CFE and the return of 1 R22R to Canada. We grappled with this during most of my career and could not solve it, other than for a short time rotating 3 RCR to Winnipeg and moving 2 PPCLI to Baden.

Most solutions - good, bad and indifferent - founder on the shoals of the "three regular regiments" which came out of the 1970 force cuts, but there also is the reserve regimental factor. If anyone can come up with a solution that would fly in the regular infantry, and would also work with the reserves with their collective fiercely tribal ethos, one would think it would have been proposed by now. And good luck with coming up with a name that works in both official languages. Sorry if I am negative, but I have seen this tar baby wrestled with no success for half a century and more.

I also hate to say it, but if we tried to switch a battalion of the two Anglo regiments between brigades, fiscal factors would probably just have the units trade cap badges. This would result in two highly annoyed units, still with their old corporate identities and a massive chip on their collective shoulders.

Agreed. In hindsight, we probably missed a golden opportunity in 1995 when we moved the bulk of 2 Commando from Petawawa to Edmonton to be the nucleus of what became 3 PPCLI. If we had instead moved 3 Commando to Edmonton and stood up 3 RCR there, and stood up 3 PPCLI in the old Airborne Regiment lines in Petawawa, then we would have had mixed regimental brigades, with no added financial cost.

Doing it now would be terribly difficult, for cost reasons, unless something else drastic happens, like a NATO brigade.

 

[GR66]

...
That being said, our Armoured Regiments all exist as single battalion Regiments, and they don't seem to have any issues (the current CO of the LdSH rebadged from the 12eRBC upon promotion and appointment and the world never ended).  If the infantry corps is facing issues where Regimental sensibilities are stunting operational growth (I'd suggest the parachute capability is one such area), then perhaps it'd be useful to examine an Army of 6-12 single battalion Regiments.  This would likely reduce the insularity of the Regiments by forcing more cross posting.  It would certainly add to the colour of the Army.
...

This was likely more in line with what I was thinking as a "next step" after going to a common cap badge for all regiments.  I totally get the value of regimental history, tradition and the sense of group pride that it brings.  I'm all in favour of keeping that but a common cap badge would also symbolize how all the regiments are part of a greater whole.  It's really not much different than what many have suggested in grouping together multiple existing militia regiments as individual companies or battalions within a larger parent formation.  Keep the positive aspects of the regimental system without it becoming a barrier to the organizational functionality of the greater Army.  Keeping the regiments but sharing a cap badge simply makes that cross-pollination even smoother.

 

[George Wallace]

This was likely more in line with what I was thinking as a "next step" after going to a common cap badge for all regiments.  I totally get the value of regimental history, tradition and the sense of group pride that it brings.  I'm all in favour of keeping that but a common cap badge would also symbolize how all the regiments are part of a greater whole.  It's really not much different than what many have suggested in grouping together multiple existing militia regiments as individual companies or battalions within a larger parent formation.  Keep the positive aspects of the regimental system without it becoming a barrier to the organizational functionality of the greater Army.  Keeping the regiments but sharing a cap badge simply makes that cross-pollination even smoother.

You don't grasp the real meaning behind the cap badges, do you?  They are the Regiment.  The cap badge is on the Guidons/Colours, stationary, unit crests and signs, coins.......to infinity.  Making one common cap badge cover all regiments, in essence will be doing away with the Regiments' identities and the Regimental System.

You can go to the Armour School and Infantry School and ask the candidates what it means to take down the Armour Corps cap badge or the Infantry Corps cap badge and finally be presented a Regimental cap badge.  You can ask anyone who has worn the "Cornflake" what it meant to finally be presented a cap badge other than the "Cornflake", as to how they feel about the one common cap badge.  It was even more generic than what you propose, covering all Trades and all Elements.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Lets suppose, and I'm just spitballing here, that we went to single battalion regiments in the regular force - let's say we need CFSOR plus, say, four armoured regiments and 10 infantry battalions - 14 cap badges in the regular force.

Now let's say we group, administratively, the whole army into four divisions. Let's call them:

    1. The Governor General's Divisions (something like a Guards Division) ~ the usual suspects (GGHG, GGHF, etc) but also, say, the R22R and e.g. the RCE and Army Medical Service (regiments and corps which
        have HM the Queen as Colonel in Chief;

    2. The Heavy Division ~ the RCD, The RCR, the RCA, and several other regiments and corps;

    3. The Light Division ~ CFSOR, all light cavalry and all light infantry, including the PPCLI, and rifle regiments and some corps; and

    4. The Highland Division ~ the usual suspects, plus (do we have any Scottish cavalry?)

Each of those divisions would have, at a minimum, two regular infantry battalions, some might have several infantry and armoured cap badges. Things like buttons and bows would be done on a divisional basis rather than regiment by regiment. (The PPCLI would, for example, have back buttons and pips!) I suspect that such and administrative change might provide an opportunity to make some other organizational reforms, including to the reserve regiments.

Maybe, just maybe, we could reduce some of the detrimental regimental effects, the dirty bath water, without tossing out the good bits, the baby.

It would obviate the need to mix The RCR and the PPCLI in 1 and 2 brigades. 1 Bde would have one PPCLI battalion (there would be a second PPCLI battalion in the reserve force) plus two other (yet to be selected) battalions of other regiments. 2 Bde would have a RCR battalion (there would also be another RCR battalion in the reserves) plus two other battalions of other regiments, and so on.

I'm not sure that I'm not talking through my hat, but ...  :soapbox:

 

[GR66]

You don't grasp the real meaning behind the cap badges, do you?  They are the Regiment.  The cap badge is on the Guidons/Colours, stationary, unit crests and signs, coins.......to infinity.  Making one common cap badge cover all regiments, in essence will be doing away with the Regiments' identities and the Regimental System.

You can go to the Armour School and Infantry School and ask the candidates what it means to take down the Armour Corps cap badge or the Infantry Corps cap badge and finally be presented a Regimental cap badge.  You can ask anyone who has worn the "Cornflake" what it meant to finally be presented a cap badge other than the "Cornflake", as to how they feel about the one common cap badge.  It was even more generic than what you propose, covering all Trades and all Elements.

I guess that really IS my point.  Why can't it be just as great an honour to finally earn the right to wear your Royal Canadian Infantry Corps or Royal Canadian Armoured Corps cap badge instead of the "Cornflake"?  Why can't it be an incredible source of pride to be presented the symbols of your Regiment that are somewhere other than on your head?  Be proud of the individual Regiment to which you are assigned and all the symbols and heritage of that unit, but when the specific shape of the piece of brass on a beret becomes a significant factor in organizational decision making then perhaps that is an issue.

 

[George Wallace]

I guess that really IS my point.  Why can't it be just as great an honour to finally earn the right to wear your Royal Canadian Infantry Corps or Royal Canadian Armoured Corps cap badge instead of the "Cornflake"?  Why can't it be an incredible source of pride to be presented the symbols of your Regiment that are somewhere other than on your head?  Be proud of the individual Regiment to which you are assigned and all the symbols and heritage of that unit, but when the specific shape of the piece of brass on a beret becomes a significant factor in organizational decision making then perhaps that is an issue.

LOL.  That runs counter to all the recent changes that the Harper Government has now placed on the CAF with their new ranks and uniforms.  We, if I follow you correctly, should in your eyes, then be prepared to go full circle once again and adopt one common CAF uniform, at the same time being proud of the traditions of our Regiments, Units, Ships, Trades, and Elements. 

 

[Rifleman62]

George Wallace to GR66:

You don't grasp the real meaning behind the cap badges, do you?  They are the Regiment.  The cap badge is on the Guidons/Colours, stationary, unit crests and signs, coins.......to infinity.  Making one common cap badge cover all regiments, in essence will be doing away with the Regiments' identities and the Regimental System.

Absolutely agree.

Still like this better so far:

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.

 

[GR66]

LOL.  That runs counter to all the recent changes that the Harper Government has now placed on the CAF with their new ranks and uniforms.  We, if I follow you correctly, should in your eyes, then be prepared to go full circle once again and adopt one common CAF uniform, at the same time being proud of the traditions of our Regiments, Units, Ships, Trades, and Elements.

I don't know how we made the jump from keeping the individual regiments but having them wear a common Infantry/Armoured Corps cap badge to a return to Hellyer-ized unification of the CF with sailors wearing green and all traditions kicked to the curb. 

Some have suggested in this thread (and others) that so-called "Regimental Mafias" and fears of challenging the status quo of existing Regular and Reserve units has been a factor in preventing changes to the Army which may make it more efficient.  My suggestion of a common Corps-wide cap badge within the existing Regimental System was thrown out as a possible way of facilitating some of these proposed changes without trying to change the existing Regimental system and "throw the baby out with the bathwater". 

 

[George Wallace]

I don't know how we made the jump from keeping the individual regiments but having them wear a common Infantry/Armoured Corps cap badge to a return to Hellyer-ized unification of the CF with sailors wearing green and all traditions kicked to the curb. 

Some have suggested in this thread (and others) that so-called "Regimental Mafias" and fears of challenging the status quo of existing Regular and Reserve units has been a factor in preventing changes to the Army which may make it more efficient.  My suggestion of a common Corps-wide cap badge within the existing Regimental System was thrown out as a possible way of facilitating some of these proposed changes without trying to change the existing Regimental system and "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

What you are proposing is the removal of the "Symbols" that make up/are those distinct Regiments.  Let's use an out of the box, extreme example: religious symbols.  Would you just as easily suggest that all faiths do away with their religion's "identifier symbols" and adopt only one....The Cross?  or the Star of David?  or the Cresent?  Whichever one you propose, and do away with all others.  Who would then identify with being a Christian, a Jew, Muslim, a Buddhist, Hindi, etc.? 

 

[Infanteer]

Before this thread falls down a rabbit hole, I posted my points to indicate some aspects of the Regimental System in our Army.  Rather than post "means" like "let's change cap badges" or "let's change battalion names", people should give ends.  Why would we change cap badges?  What is the desired end state?  If someone is going to propose a change to the current system, I'd be interested to see in what all the recommendations are meant to fix.

 

[Old Sweat]

Before this thread falls down a rabbit hole, I posted my points to indicate some aspects of the Regimental System in our Army.  Rather then post "means" like "let's change capbadges" or "let's change battalion names", people should give ends.  Why would we change capbadges?  What is the desired end state?  If someone is going to propose a change to the current system, I'd be interested to see in what all the recommendations are meant to fix.

We came very close to adopting a common cap badge in the early seventies under the tenure of General FR Sharp as CDS. He retired before it could be implemented and Jadex, who followed him, killed the idea. It used to pop up from time to time in the minutes of the Clothing and Dress Committee where it had a following, but invariably got buried in bureaucracy. Whether a common cap badge would kill the regimental system or not, I submit it stands little to no chance of being implemented these days. It seems to me that the present structure in the regular force is inviolate, and any proposal to fiddle with the reserves should come from them.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Fair enough, Infanteer and you're quite right, too.

I'm still just spitballing, but ...

    I want to keep the strengths of the regimental system: the bits than make Maintenance of Moral easier.

    I want to weaken the hold that the three regular force infantry regiments on the army.

    I would like to have fewer, bigger reserve force regiments - the same number of 'units' in armouries as we have now, but some being sub units of larger regiments.

    (I would, as a peripheral matter, like to think about Army (rather than CF) basic training and I could imagine that my divisions might each have a (bilingual) depot doing recruit and common at all corps
      junior and even senior NCO training. Or the division depots might be regional: Western, Central, Quebec and Atlantic.)

    I would like to enhance some of our Canadian traditions: like our role in pioneering the light infantry and our highland traditions, too.

 

[dapaterson]

It is indeed ironic that two of the combat arms spend their days fretting about buttons and bows, while the engineers, signallers and loggies all spend more time actively employed in their professions, yet somehow seem to manage with a branch identity and units that have their names and designations sometimes changed at whim, and have cross-postings based on merit, not on capbadge.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is indeed ironic that two of the combat arms spend their days fretting about buttons and bows, while the engineers, signallers and loggies all spend more time actively employed in their professions, yet somehow seem to manage with a branch identity and units that have their names and designations sometimes changed at whim, and have cross-postings based on merit, not on capbadge.

Yes, but my sense is that the second principle of war ~ Maintenance of Moral ~ is harder to maintain in those two close combat arms than in other arms and services and I think that cap badges and guidons and buttons and bows can (but don't always) help. I don't think I would go quite as far as George Wallace in resisting changes; I think some changes are a) possible and b) might be beneficial.