SITREP ON MILITIA INFANTRY UNITS

[Scoobie Newbie]

Are there any reservists on the 1 VP tour?

 

[Douke]

I am militia myself and seeing how there is a distinct line in skills in our unit between those who experienced tours with the regular forces and those who have not, I have to agree we should be kept to a domestic role except for needed augmentations (if any are really needed) and focus training accordingly. I know in my unit we could easily keep a decent numbers of troops ready for emergencies all week long, not just week ends. As for saying we would no longer be military and other agencies would better fit the bill, I tend to disagree. In my opinion, a military organisation's job is to be ready when civilian population is not and to work on all dimensions of security, domestic and foreign. Let's not forget the advantages an non-civil organisation can provide, that means no labor union, people who will not refuse to execute an order if their personal security is slightly threatened etc. (not saying policemen in general are frequently doing so, but I have myself seen it happen).

Well just some thoughts while cooking diner,
Douke

 

[pbi]

soldiers stick around means the reg force SUPPOSEDLY becomes more dependent on the militia.

As for the "style" of leadership that tells their troops that the reservists took their jobs - it is called the truthful style - and not being paternalistic and evasive when speaking to your men. We would rather the truth than a rambling, politically correct speech on the army's managed readiness plan. We can handle it - and we deserve to know.

Exactly: and that is the style of leadership that I attempted to hold up as the good example in this case. The type of leadership I am opposing is the type that does NOT want to tell the truth and face the consequences: instead it attempts to defuse resentment and anger amongst subordinates by demonizing the Res soldiers and "the system" that wants to bring them on the mission, by playing to the innate dislike and resentment of Reservists that is never very far below the surface in some people in the Regular Army.

I would not confuse a genuine desire on the part of well-meaning people in the Army leadership to make the Reserve better with "political correctness" or attempts to "job-steal" from the RegF. That attitude reminds me of unionized workers view of part-timers or volunteers: "scabs". It isn't usually motivated by useful or professional thinking, but instead just by dislike, jealousy and turf-protection. On the Reserve side it's matched by those who think everybody in the RegF is a Grade Three dropout who is paid way too much to do nothing, or that a Res soldier is just as good in every way as a Reg soldier. Equally foolish.

But maybe we're just going 'round and 'round the post on this one, as folks have in Canada for the last century, or as long as we have had a Regular Army.

Cheers

 

[JBP]

I'm a reservist in the infantry, and one thing I'd like to point out is the fact that our friends to the South have and continue to deploy thousands of thier own reservists at a time into Iraq, into COMBAT, and thier reservists have been highly successful, even thier Air National Guard units, which there was some scepticism about, have done fantastic, accomplishing the same missions thier regular full time fighter jockeys achieve.

Countries all over the world don't have a reserve force simply because it's a political tool...

I can't claim to remember where I heard this, but apparently in one of the world wars (can't remember which to say the truth) reservist infantry lived longer than reg force counter-parts once they commenced combat ops. Something about having been exposed to training and the idea of military life before hand enstead of a guy who was conscripted or just joined up and was rushed through training and didn't absorb enough...

In anycase, that may be some Bull$hit I heard somewhere from some other reservist, but I remember it none-the-less...

Again, it's been proven that in a modern war with modern military forces (the only "superpower" left in the world) reservists are 100% as capable as the reg force in achieving combat ops success with proper work-up training. Results are what matters and that's what they've achieved.

Joe

 

[George Wallace]

Joe

You may now want to do a Search and find the Topic where we debated the differences between the Reserves in Canada and those in the US.

 

[Kirkhill]

60-80% of troops at the end of their BEs elect not to renew - why? Boredom!! If the infantry is so overworked, why are some soldiers not able to deploy in 3 years when we are at war?

There may be a terrible shortage of troops in the CSS trades, but this does not appear to be the case in the cbt arms.

Stipulating the 60-80% number,  I have no reason to believe it is not true, what you seem to be describing is a situation where most people that join the Forces want to be soldiers with guns and stuff.  Unfortunately the Forces don't need most of the recruits to become soldiers with guns.  They haven't since prior to World War 2. Most people in uniform didn't engage the enemy then and don't now.  They were and are necessary to get the combat soldiers into the field and support them there.

So you end up with this dichotomy.  The Army (Navy and Air Force) attracts people that want to be soldiers etc but doesn't need them, or at least doesn't need them as much as it needs support trades.  At the same time it needs support trades in large numbers but can't attract and retain them because the civvy world pays better, isn't regimented, doesn't require a uniform, doesn't involve being shot at, relocated at a moments notice.......

In the absence of sufficient numbers of support personnel it isn't possible to deploy the combat arms personnel that are available so those that we do have are bored.  At the same time, because we apparently have a surplus of bored combat arms personnel there is no pressure to file blank files in existing combat arms units.

Meanwhile the CF spends its advertising dollars on ads that appeal to combat arms personnel, the very group that is apparently at the bottom of their list of needs.

So from this lack of uniformed support we get an increased reliance on civilian support: - uniformed support personnel performing a larger number of less demanding tasks; more emphasis on transportation and "plug and play" solutions to repairing kit; civilians working further forward or at least supplying more second and third line support instead of fifth and sixth line support; and more emphasis on unmanned and remote controlled systems generally.

At the same time ways to employ those bored combat arms personnel are sought.  This involves finding ways to deploy them with less support.  In this regard it means smaller units with lighter scales of issue.  Or in other words less armoured, less mech, more light, more special.  It could also mean that all of those boring hours could be made less boring if more training were conducted in a wider variety of environments - but that means POL, bullets, batteries, beans and bandages which in turn means money for training purposes.

Your other alternative is to figure out how to retain electronics techs, mechanics, engineers, logisticians and truck drivers.

 

[Haggis]

60-80% of troops at the end of their BEs elect not to renew - why? Boredom!!

Source?  Is this unique to your company/unit/base?  Is training in your unit that bad?  Is it too hard to the point that soldiers cannot keep up the pace?  This is not meant as a slight, but in another thread you made mention of the amount of injured soldiers in your company. (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39820.0.html)  That impacts the leadership's ability to conduct good training as well.  How many leave the CF altogether (i.e. not remuster or join the Reserves)?

I suspect that since you are in a unit close to the oil patch, money is a big lure in your unit/bases case.  Can the same "statistic" be found in Gagetown, Petawawa or Valcartier?

If the infantry is so overworked, why are some soldiers not able to deploy in 3 years when we are at war?

For starters, it is a limited war to which our political masters have decided to devote limited resources.  Secondly, the BE you speak of also includes BMQ/SQ and DP1/QL3 training, leaving the soldier approximately 2 useful years in the unit.  Your window of deployment opportunity isn't that big. 

..... the CF spends its advertising dollars on ads that appeal to combat arms personnel, the very group that is apparently at the bottom of their list of needs.

Hogwash.  The majority of mass media CF recruiting advertising still perpetuates the multicultural, gender inclusive "peacekeeper" myth and pushes the "earn while you learn a trade on Her Majestey's time" line.  The focus is not on Cbt A but on the stresed trades.

The techie and CSS  trades are the most stressed.  Not because they cannot attract enough recruits but because the schools cannot push them through fast enough due to a lack of instructors and resources.  Look at the size of the PAT platoon/PRETEC in Borden for evidence.  These people should be learning their trades.


GO!!! let me ask you this:  If not on deployments with the Reg F, then where are Reservists supposed to gain operational experience?  Don't say "on DOMOPS"  because those are few and far between and Reserve units are not and will likely never be first responders to such ops.

(edited because the original post was composed without enough coffee.)

 

[GO!!!]

Haggis,

I suppose I could show you a course photo with all of the faces crossed off of guys who have left, but to my knowledge, the attrition rate of my unit is not published anywhere. Anecdotal evidence only in this case - sorry.

I can't speak as to the conditions in Valcartier or Pet, but the "oil patch excuse" is a cop out, used to make excuses for institutionalised problems. If lucrative private sector employment in certain geographic areas raised attrition to unmanageable levels, then the army was stupid to put a base there in the first place. Also, how do you explain the high attrition from areas like Shilo, where there is no industrial demand for workers on the scale of Edmonton? Keep in mind that the oil patch itself also has enourmous attrition rates - how do you explain that  - where do they go?

The consensus here seems to be that we now have a surplus of cbt arms troops, but still require augmentation from the militia. Which is it? Shortage or surplus?

Improving the militia? How about improving the reg force? We have infantry soldiers who are shooting less than 100 live rounds a year!! Ottawa says we now only require 88 rounds for the PWT practice and shoot! How about we concentrate on the reg force before we pour money into part time units that must then be "improved" and inserted into BG for deployment.

If we had a well manned and equipped reg force, the raising of a supplementary "nice to have" part time army would be a great idea. We dont, and the militia siphons off valuable resources and money, for little return, other than a sense of entitlement to pay benefits and career opportunities that are all to scarce in the regular units.

Haggis, you state that Reservists will likely not be first responders on DOMOPS, require massive re-training to bring up to speed for deployments, and require "improvement" if this is the case - why have them at all?

 

[the 48th regulator]

If we had a well manned and equipped reg force, the raising of a supplementary "nice to have" part time army would be a great idea. We dont, and the militia siphons off valuable resources and money, for little return, other than a sense of entitlement to pay benefits and career opportunities that are all to scarce in the regular units.

Haggis, you state that Reservists will likely not be first responders on DOMOPS, require massive re-training to bring up to speed for deployments, and require "improvement" if this is the case - why have them at all?

That's right, and to understand your argument, the people that are in the Reg force are only "working" government subsidised citizens, in other words, working Welfare recipients, in laymens terms...

So you see, we, reservists can be just as asinine in our view of the regular force...

dileas

tess

 

[Haggis]

Improving the militia? How about improving the reg force? We have infantry soldiers who are shooting less than 100 live rounds a year!! Ottawa says we now only require 88 rounds for the PWT practice and shoot!

Most Reservist shoot a heck of a lot less than that.  One shot at PWT per year is the norm.  Which is why most Armouries now have a FATS.

Haggis, you state that Reservists will likely not be first responders on DOMOPS, require massive re-training to bring up to speed for deployments, and require "improvement"

I will acknowledge that I said "will likely not be first responders on DOMOPS", but the other comments are not mine.  If you re-read that post, you'll see that those comments were gleaned from other posts....including yours.

if this is the case - why have them at all?

Good question.  Let me toss a few back at you:

If there were no Army Reserve units in Canada, when, if at all, would the average small town Canadian see someone in uniform?  Even with units spread all over the country now, the average Joe or Jacques Canuck knows very little about us.  Who would be our "link to Canadians"?  Do we break up Reg F maouever units to station companies, squadrons and batteries in small owns across Canada?

If there were no local "link to Canadians", would the Canadian taxpayer be more or less willing to support increased spending on a government "asset" for which they see no tangible return on investment?  (For example, the Ice Storm was a very vivid reminder to Canadians that we have an Army.)

Without the Army Reserve, who would provide the depth and breadth capability to the Army?  Would we again rob Reg F units of bayonets to fill these niche roles (CIMIC/PSYOPS etc.).

Make no mistake, GO!!!.  I agree with you that priority has to go to bringing Reg F units up to speed.  But maintaining a large standing army is an expensive proposition. That's why every modern military maintains a Reserve (which is usually far larger than its Reg F.) .  Why should ours be treated/funded/equipped/trained  so poorly in comparison to other nations?

 

[GO!!!]

Without the Army Reserve, who would provide the depth and breadth capability to the Army?  Would we again rob Reg F units of bayonets to fill these niche roles (CIMIC/PSYOPS etc.).

CIMIC and PSYOPS are tiny operations, on the latest tours in Afghanistan, as small as a platoon.

I fail to see your logic here - are you implying that reservists somehow posess a unique skill set in these areas that regulars could not be trained in?

This "breadth and depth" as you put it, is better invested in soldiers who are with the forces for the long haul, not ones for whom a deployment is an optional distraction from their civilian employment. We all know that militia retention problems are even worse than the regs, so how is this breadth and depth better invested in the shortest tenure soldiers we have?

Make no mistake, GO!!!.  I agree with you that priority has to go to bringing Reg F units up to speed.  But maintaining a large standing army is an expensive proposition. That's why every modern military maintains a Reserve (which is usually far larger than its Reg F.) .  Why should ours be treated/funded/equipped/trained  so poorly in comparison to other nations?

Bad news Haggis, our military is already poorly treated/funded/equipped/trained. I just fail to see the point of maintaining a reserve structure that is undeployable in it's present state, consumes large amounts of scarce resources, and often removes the incentives for regular soldiers to continue serving.

There is no task that the militia outperforms regular troops. Not one. Yet they are given priority on deployments, to the detriment of morale, experience, training and advancement opportunities for soldiers who were committed enough to sign over three years of their lives, as opposed to cherry picking the tasks of their choice.

 

[Haggis]

You have made your point.

I see now that there is no place in Canada's Army for a Reserve component. 

Now on to the next topic...

How do we use this newfound money to improve the Reg F by enhancing existing capability while providing depth and breadth.  How will we maintain the link to Canadians and a CF footprint in over 100 communties not served by nearby Reg F units?

While we're at it, what should we do with the 13,000 odd part-time soldiers we no longer need?

 

[JBP]

CIMIC and PSYOPS are tiny operations, on the latest tours in Afghanistan, as small as a platoon.

I fail to see your logic here - are you implying that reservists somehow posess a unique skill set in these areas that regulars could not be trained in?

This "breadth and depth" as you put it, is better invested in soldiers who are with the forces for the long haul, not ones for whom a deployment is an optional distraction from their civilian employment. We all know that militia retention problems are even worse than the regs, so how is this breadth and depth better invested in the shortest tenure soldiers we have?

Bad news Haggis, our military is already poorly treated/funded/equipped/trained. I just fail to see the point of maintaining a reserve structure that is undeployable in it's present state, consumes large amounts of scarce resources, and often removes the incentives for regular soldiers to continue serving.

There is no task that the militia outperforms regular troops. Not one. Yet they are given priority on deployments, to the detriment of morale, experience, training and advancement opportunities for soldiers who were committed enough to sign over three years of their lives, as opposed to cherry picking the tasks of their choice.

The militia may not outperform the reg force in any specific operation or task, but the reserve troops who do commit to overseas missions do just as good as any reg force soldier for the most part when they go on the same work-up training as the reg force guys do when they go overseas.

Having a reserve force is a tactical advantage that cannot be ignored, it provides a country with an immediate emergency boost of boots on the ground in war/when needed. You don't have to wait for 30,000 civvies to decide they want to sign the paper and join up, you just have to activate the reserves that are already there, provide a bit of work up training if that, and viola! You have just increased your military size tremendously. Not to forget how reserve units in the USA performed in Iraq, and also the fact that rotating reserve units in place of reg force counterparts has provided relief and rest for the reg force to go home, see the family and recouperate abit..

It's not just about politics or money, it's facts and you have to look at every angle of what a reserve force can do/actually performs. I don't believe in Canada that we use our reserve force properly is all. We should be rotating tours in full-force in turn with regs so you guys get a rest.

Everyone always complains that the reg force is over-tasked... Dump some of the load off... The next roto to Afganistan has 251 reservists included, how are they being given priority in the 2,200 aprx soldiers going over there??? I think if they were it would be maybe 251 regs and 1800 reserves going, that's priority! They have only listed 250 positions for each roto for reservists, to ease some of the strain on the regs, why not bump that up to 1000?

GO!!!, I clearly see your points, but you're ignoring the fact that every nation with a standing army in the world has a reserve force for a reason... I'm sorry but if about 3 billion people in dozens of nations around the world think it's worth it, you can't be right in deciding we don't need a reserve force. Even our favoured friends to the south have LOTS of reserves..

They have a reserve air force, army and navy components also. We don't even go that far!

Anyways, to you I'm just a "weekend warrior" Private who doesn't obviously mean **** so take these words with a grain of salt and look at the obvious facts, then get over it.

EDITED: PS - I recieved my T4 from the army, just over $9400 to have a "fully-trained" reservist infantry troop at the basic level, enstead of the full-time private infantry soldiers full time salary. That's what, 1/2-1/3 the cost? Even with the fact your average reservist even fresh out of training won't have the same proficiency as a full-time troop, the cost justifies the means in that regard.

 

[Britney Spears]

The militia may not outperform the reg force in any specific operation or task, but the reserve troops who do commit to overseas missions do just as good as any reg force soldier for the most part when they go on the same work-up training as the reg force guys do when they go overseas.

We've had a huge number of discussions that clearly disprove your assertion. You are in way over your head. How about you actually sign up, go on a tour and  work with the regs in real world ops for a bit before spouting this garbage?

 

[Haggis]

We've had a huge number of discussions that clearly disprove your assertion.

... and several that support it.  Both components have their superstars and their thuds.  Neither deserve to be struck from the Order of Battle, but both need to be fixed.

So, since this thread is entitled " SITREP ON MILITIA INFANTRY UNITS" and you've been away for a while, any suggestions?

(I'd love to see this one get back on topic, IMO it had some potential.)

 

[the 48th regulator]

We've had a huge number of discussions that clearly disprove your assertion. You are in way over your head. How about you actually sign up, go on a tour and  work with the regs in real world ops for a bit before spouting this garbage?

Yes,

It would be amusing how you can make that statement, as I have  done what you ask of Pt. Joe, and agree with him actually.

Please hit me one more time with some of your brilliance Britney.

dileas

tess

 

[GO!!!]

Pte Joe and 48th,

I do not believe that cbt arms units in the regs are over-tasked, and neither do any of my peers, and the number one drain on units is their domestic responsibilities in terms of taskings, course staff etc.

I would submit that if the militia was really intent on "shouldering some of the load" as you put it, we should have no problem raising a platoon of demo troops for Gagetown, or finding a driver for a few days of ranges in Wx. This is not the case though. Reservists seem to be in short supply for the less sexy domestic work, although a horde of them will appear for a basic recce/para course, or the opportunity to deploy. Where is the team? Where is the desire to shoulder the load then?

What makes the reg force different from the reserves is that we must take the good with the bad. Years between tours and fun courses, early morning PT, crappy taskings, february patrol exes in Wainwright, we have to do it all. That is the difference. We do not have the option to pick and choose.

I agree with you on one thing, I don't think we use the militia effectively either. A simple way to reward service in the militia ranks could be to mandate 300-500 trg/working days domestically before the chance to deploy would even be offered, thus guaranteeing reservists the opportunity to "shoulder" a portion of the load, and gain additional domestic experience.

 

[the 48th regulator]

What makes the reg force different from the reserves is that we must take the good with the bad. Years between tours and fun courses, early morning PT, crappy taskings, february patrol exes in Wainwright, we have to do it all. That is the difference. We do not have the option to pick and choose.

And we reservist must work the other five days at our civvy jobs, and pay the taxes for you to do that, then in turn show up on the weekend to do our training....

The circle can continue...

dileas

tess

 

[GO!!!]

And we reservist must work the other five days at our civvy jobs, and pay the taxes for you to do that, then in turn show up on the weekend to do our training....

Of course, because I don't pay taxes or work weekends.  : 

What you do with your spare time is your business - many reg force troops work as bouncers, and are in the army the rest of the time........so what? It is not uncommon to have two jobs.

 

[muskrat89]

Reservists seem to be in short supply for the less sexy domestic work, although a horde of them will appear for a basic recce/para course, or the opportunity to deploy. Where is the team? Where is the desire to shoulder the load then?

You know GO!!, you really do sound like an intelligent and articulate guy when you're discussing anything but this... But this hate that you have on for the Militia shines through in everything you type though, and I think - really clouds your objectivity. Slugs or not, Militia guys work within a system that for the most part, they did not create, nor do they have  control over. On the flip side, they are there because they want to be (for the most part) - not because they are "stuck", not because they are in a fixed engagement, not because they couldn't/wouldn't get a job doing anything else, not because they didn't know what they wanted to do when they finished school....

Now - back to your chip overshadowing your intelligence.... Why in the friggin world would I put in for vacation time or unpaid leave, to go be a driver on Wainwright?? Think about it, for chrissake. Since my service is limited to unpaid leave or vacation, I'm going to use it to get the most bang for my buck - operational tour, career course, para course.. whatever. Maybe, just maybe, I want to climb out of the "hobby" stigma, and do something "worthy"..

I see you've already engaged a Patricia CO, on these means.. you're so rough and tough.... tackle the CDS next, and tell him how the big bad Militia is ruining your career - and exactly what he needs to do to fix it.

Sorry, but after awhile, your rants all sound the same to me  :crybaby: