Army Reserve Restructuring

[WLSC]

You have touched on something here that is actually quite important and probably one of the biggest barriers to reforming the reserves. It became a very major issue in the late 1990s and since then most RegF leaders have shied away from restructuring the reserves.

I know, sadly there's lot more people that believe that than in reality. However, it's not to be throw out completely, there some value in that. My big beef is have having 3 infantry units (2 x franco and 1 anglo) at 2.5 km of each other for the sake of that romanticsed militia history. You either move a unit, move the unit to supplementary order of battle while all posn are transfer to an active unit or amalgamate.

There is a way of increasing the quality of the reserves and retain much of the history. I've toyed with an idea called a 30/70 battalion which is based on the following: A given RegF battalion is split into three parts - with each part consisting of roughly 2/3 of a bn headquarters, one full rifle company and about 1/3 of the combat support company with all their equipment. It's moved to an urban centre where it takes on 3-4 ResF battalions. One battalion forms the rest of the headquarters and the combat support company and gives its name to the entire battalion. The other 2-3 battalions each form a 10% RegF/90% ResF rifle company but the company retains the affiliation to its original battalion and keeps its own buttons and bows. The whole shebang is commanded by a RegF CO and the RSS staff (and additional RegF staff gleaned from reducing the number of brigade headquarters and division headquarters join the battalion and form the 10% component of the rifle companies and become the entire battalion's RegF training cadre.

Not against that but you still need to remove cap badge for that plan to work. It's also a good setup to augment the number of units. Slower in peace time and faster in war time.

Get rid of the Regiments period.

That's the eternal discussion. I would prefer that everybody became adult and stop the mafia mentality. I don't know which could be done faster.

 

[FJAG]

I agree with much of what your propose in terms of groupings of units but would go a couple of steps further:
1) Break the current Reg F units into separate badged units. No more of being one of 3 Infantry mind sets but now expand the units to allow for a wider means of thinking.

That's exactly my view. Keep on battalion each of the RCR, PPCLI and R22eR but break the 2nd and 3rd battalions up into 30/70 or 70/30 battalions and each of those adopts the name of an existing ResF battalion.

2) Group the ResF units under a provincial/regional unit name. I look at the British Army and the Royal Regiment of Scotland...which in turn has 6 distinct subunits referencing their history. There is a large number of un-manned or historical units that could be activated and the cluster each grouping under a geographically appropriate unit including units for the YK, NWT and Nunavut. Frankly if domestic response is going be an ongoing thing I'd rather the British Columbia Regiment be deployed to wildfires there than compromising RegF ops...and show the CAF is supporting the home areas first.

I can't explain why but that idea bothers me. I know others have suggested that too and there is merit in it. I didn't like it when the Brits did it and I didn't like it when we reformed all the Reg F into three regiments. I prefer to use existing titles.

3) A serious look at grouping of roles and functions. Does it make sense to have Service Battalions, Inf, and Armour all in the same city? Or re-task them all to a common mission for better alignment/mobilization? This is something I don't have a good handle on though due to the geographic spread of units/mission taskings (both current and desired)/ brigade structure and equipment maintenance specifics so any critic is welcome to shoot holes in this idea.

When you start regrouping elements it actually works out that there is very little need to reposition anything or open or close armouries. In my model only the cut-up RegF battalions need to move and in each case its to an urban area to be collocated with their ResF companies.

Get rid of the Regiments period.
CDN INF Corp 1st Bn - 150th (whatever) Reg and Res all the same.
Same for Armoured: RCAC 1st Reg't - 87th (whatever)
The Engineers, Arty etc are #'rd already

Sure there will be complaints, but at the end of the day it streamlines things.

Even the Americans have regiments i.e. 2nd Bn, 4th Infantry Regt; 3rd Bn, 319th Field Arty Regt etc. They just don't mean as much as our regimental system. With the restructure I propose at total of 17 full sized infantry battalions, 3 at 100/0 for high readiness; the rest 30/70 battalions at tiered readiness. There won't be any regiments per se (although each bn tends to think of itself as a regiment as the armoured and arty do). Maybe I don't prescribe to your idea nor @foresterab's because I do not see the need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Canada has had many of these units for 150 years now. They'll do just fine.

I know, sadly there's lot more people that believe that than in reality. However, it's not to be throw out completely, there some value in that. My big beef is have having 3 infantry units (2 x franco and 1 anglo) at 2.5 km of each other for the sake of that romanticsed militia history. You either move a unit, move the unit to supplementary order of battle while all posn are transfer to an active unit or amalgamate.

Not against that but you still need to remove cap badge for that plan to work. It's also a good setup to augment the number of units. Slower in peace time and faster in war time.

That's the eternal discussion. I would prefer that everybody became adult and stop the mafia mentality. I don't know which could be done faster.

Here's a quick pick how I think it might work with A Coy 48th Highrs being the RegF company and B, C, D and E Coys being the former battalions restructured to a coy role with a major and MWO being the respective highest ranks in the company.



This is one of the two infantry battalions in Toronto's 32nd brigade. The other is formed around the Queen's Own Rifles with the HQ and A Coy again coming from 2 RCR and B, C, D and E coys coming from the Royal Regiment of Canada, the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, the Royal Highland Fusiliers of Kitchener ad the Lincoln and Welland Regiment out of St Catharines.

 

[KevinB]

@FJAG the problem I see with the idea of 17 non numbered Inf Bn’s is that 9 of those will be claimed by the PPCLI, RCR and R22eR.

So then the PRes will be fighting about who gets to keep their Colours flowing for the other 6.

The Big Three will also fight to ensure that they have at least an equal representation to the 100/0 High Readiness, and then further fight about who will be LAV or Light.

Stick a fork in it.

 

[Greenleaf]

@FJAG the problem I see with the idea of 17 non numbered Inf Bn’s is that 9 of those will be claimed by the PPCLI, RCR and R22eR.

So then the PRes will be fighting about who gets to keep their Colours flowing for the other 6.

The Big Three will also fight to ensure that they have at least an equal representation to the 100/0 High Readiness, and then further fight about who will be LAV or Light.

Stick a fork in it.

In the idea of 17 Battalions. The PPCLI, RCR, R22eR will only keep one. No more battalion number

 

[FJAG]

@FJAG the problem I see with the idea of 17 non numbered Inf Bn’s is that 9 of those will be claimed by the PPCLI, RCR and R22eR.

So then the PRes will be fighting about who gets to keep their Colours flowing for the other 6.

The Big Three will also fight to ensure that they have at least an equal representation to the 100/0 High Readiness, and then further fight about who will be LAV or Light.

Stick a fork in it.

I know how to fire people.

 

[OldSolduer]

Remember the 10/90 experiment and subsequent failure? Same will happen here. The Good Idea Fairies need to STFU.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I know how to fire people.

This, of course, is the central issue: no one has the guts to make the cuts

 

[OldSolduer]

This, of course, is the central issue: no one has the guts to make the cuts

Not as long as the HCols have any say at all in the structure of the CAF. WAY too much political clout.

 

[FJAG]

Remember the 10/90 experiment and subsequent failure? Same will happen here. The Good Idea Fairies need to STFU.

10/90 wasn't a failure in the artillery. In fact it worked very well and was only shut down because what had been a surplus of gunners coming out of 4 CMBG turned into a deficit.

It was the infantry which managed to turn 10/90 into a disaster. And you are right - RegF arrogance played a role. DND never did an AAR on 10/90 but there is a very good thesis written on it. They were saved by the Airborne debacle which allowed them to restaff the 3rd battalions with RegF rather than reservists. This is why none of my napkin 30/70 battalions get to be named after one of the RegF mafias. They get ResF names. In time they will have full-time locals who will accept that readily.

Not as long as the HCols have any say at all in the structure of the CAF. WAY too much political clout.

I've thought about that. My view was have one honourary colonel for the battalion and one honourary Lieutenant-colonel for each contributing company. They can act as a little regimental senate.

 

[WLSC]

Here's a quick pick how I think it might work with A Coy 48th Highrs being the RegF company and B, C, D and E Coys being the former battalions restructured to a coy role with a major and MWO being the respective highest ranks in the company.

This is one of the two infantry battalions in Toronto's 32nd brigade. The other is formed around the Queen's Own Rifles with the HQ and A Coy again coming from 2 RCR and B, C, D and E coys coming from the Royal Regiment of Canada, the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, the Royal Highland Fusiliers of Kitchener ad the Lincoln and Welland Regiment out of St Catharines.

I agree with the 30/70 concept. What I'm saying is that there's to many cap badge. It's should all be the same regiment. In the same location but one cap badge.

Remember the 10/90 experiment and subsequent failure? Same will happen here. The Good Idea Fairies need to STFU.

It was meant and planned to fail. an empty bn on paper with no real task. They were really a parking for extra offr-WO/NCO's waiting for the good moment to be brought back in full strenght.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I agree with the 30/70 concept. What I'm saying is that there's to many cap badge. It's should all be the same regiment. In the same location but one cap badge.

As they say... there's no cap badge on a helmet

 

[WLSC]

As they say... there's no cap badge on a helmet

We don’t wear it that much in garrison and it create bad discussion during succession planning. The last thing we need is that endless whataboutism discussion on the last RSM was this or that cap badge. It’s already not easy, help ourselves, just a thinny bit, please

 

[markppcli]

Not as long as the HCols have any say at all in the structure of the CAF. WAY too much political clout.

What if we just get rid of the concept of HCols, then next year amalgamate units so we don’t have to deal with offended, rich, geriatrics.

 

[WLSC]

What if we just get rid of the concept of HCols, then next year amalgamate units so we don’t have to deal with offended, rich, geriatrics.

They can be usefull. It's like everything, it depends who they are.

 

[daftandbarmy]

What if we just get rid of the concept of HCols, then next year amalgamate units so we don’t have to deal with offended, rich, geriatrics.

Sadly the standard these days, in some places, is that retired and burned out retread ex-Reg F former COs populate the 'Senate' or 'Trustees' - or whatever they call themselves - resulting in poor micromanagers making the CO's life a living hell

 

[Kilted]

What if we just get rid of the concept of HCols, then next year amalgamate units so we don’t have to deal with offended, rich, geriatrics.

Because we couldn't afford not to have them.

 

[markppcli]

Because we couldn't afford not to have them.

How much of the operational budget does the H Col contribute to?

 

[Furniture]

I agree with the 30/70 concept. What I'm saying is that there's to many cap badge. It's should all be the same regiment. In the same location but one cap badge.

If you do that, then you need to go full @KevinB an rename/number all regiments. That way nobody gets to keep their name and be the "winner" in the cap badge wars.

 

[FJAG]

As they say... there's no cap badge on a helmet

Something like this in the appropriate pattern with no cap badge allowed.

 

[WLSC]

If you do that, then you need to go full @KevinB an rename/number all regiments. That way nobody gets to keep their name and be the "winner" in the cap badge wars.

Not necessarily. There’s 3 regiments in W Div with 2-3 coy in different municipalities. One cap badge, 3 different locations. Yes, there’s one of the unit that have a coy the other side of the Saint-Laurence so it’s the example not to follow.