markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 7,037
- Points
- 1,260
Let’s not copy New Zealand, we don’t need 2nd 1st Bns. No two- one, second first
Updated Army Service Dress project
- Thread starter bllusc
- Start date
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 36,833
- Points
- 1,160
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 7,037
- Points
- 1,260
Probably don’t want to deal with that much frost bite…Since almost all of our infantry is now mounted, wouldn't "Royal Canadian Dragoons" make more sense?
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 13,979
- Points
- 1,260
You joke (or not) but that's pretty much what the Australians did.
Royal Australian Regiment - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It makes complete sense. From the outside you can plainly see a key factor holding the Army back is regimental affiliations. Its even more pronounced in the ARes.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,019
- Points
- 1,010
Thats not confusing, right?
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,019
- Points
- 1,010
Ummm, you weren't around for the "wall of shame" notification. I remember one year the CSM (will remained unnamed) put up a list of the company highlighting who was/wasn't a member of the regimental association, mind you 1995 was a different era
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,019
- Points
- 1,010
Regimental associations and Hon Col/LCol with strong political connections enter the chat... (Sadly so)
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 13,979
- Points
- 1,260
We've torn down bigger empires before.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 6,520
- Points
- 1,210
Hellyer prisoned that well for a couple of dozen generations.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 13,979
- Points
- 1,260
So what you're saying is the precedence is there ?
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,019
- Points
- 1,010
I have no issues with the regiments when it makes sense. So if the X Highlanders or Y Rifles actually parade WELL over a company size, then i have no issue with it.
But when you see a LT COL and CWO leading 50-100 guys with all the usual battalion HQ stuff, its wasteful.
The last regiment I served with, the CO "explained" how its important to have all that command structure so that the unit "could expand quickly" during a mobilization. Ala WW2.
Except, I personally think, it won't work. Unless we really re-vamp the P Res.
This all falls back on a REALISTIC and more specific defence policy and not wish washy, generic, status quo SSE
But when you see a LT COL and CWO leading 50-100 guys with all the usual battalion HQ stuff, its wasteful.
The last regiment I served with, the CO "explained" how its important to have all that command structure so that the unit "could expand quickly" during a mobilization. Ala WW2.
Except, I personally think, it won't work. Unless we really re-vamp the P Res.
This all falls back on a REALISTIC and more specific defence policy and not wish washy, generic, status quo SSE
- Reaction score
- 31,651
- Points
- 1,090
The Reg F Infantry have over 100 LCols on PML, with only ten hard command positions.
While there is some valid institutional overhead... Let's just say that it's not just the P Res that needs to decide how credible their structures are.
While there is some valid institutional overhead... Let's just say that it's not just the P Res that needs to decide how credible their structures are.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 13,979
- Points
- 1,260
How many of those position should belong to Log or Engineering or other branches I wonder ?
It never ceases to amaze me how such a small facet of the CAF manages to bogart so much.
- Reaction score
- 31,651
- Points
- 1,090
Apportionment of positions for officer DP3 is imbalanced towards Ops occupations, which results in skewed populations particularly at Capt(N)/Col and above.
There are also larger questions about the size of the officer corps, and numbers of high ranking individuals; the 1997 report to the PM on Leadership and Management of the CAF recommended no more than 65 Reg F GOFOs; today, we are close to double that.
There are also larger questions about the size of the officer corps, and numbers of high ranking individuals; the 1997 report to the PM on Leadership and Management of the CAF recommended no more than 65 Reg F GOFOs; today, we are close to double that.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 13,979
- Points
- 1,260
Is there a reason for this beyond cultural dominance ? Im willing to be educated.
Dont forget just about every GO/FO comes with a CPO1/CWO as well.
- Reaction score
- 31,651
- Points
- 1,090
The total number of Cdr/LCol+ is (last I looked) about 3x the number of CPO1/CWO. Lots more officers to cull in a sickly season than CWOs.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 7,037
- Points
- 1,260
Oh no that’s still a thing, maybe not a wall but “I’m filling out duties and can’t help but look at my list of regimental dues unpaid.”
I still think regimental pride is more a benefit than a hinderance; but we definitely have too many of them.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 18,140
- Points
- 1,260
IMO there is nothing wrong with Regiments - its the people who make up the Regiment that are the issue.
We have seen where loyalty to a Regiment instead of the country has resulted in a catastrophic failure that is still being felt today.
Not only that, In the 70s if you wanted to take an OT from the infantry you were looked upon as a traitor. Thankfully that attitude changed.
We have seen where loyalty to a Regiment instead of the country has resulted in a catastrophic failure that is still being felt today.
Not only that, In the 70s if you wanted to take an OT from the infantry you were looked upon as a traitor. Thankfully that attitude changed.
Similar threads
