# Thoughts on deployment/rotation length & HLTA



## Kirkhill (27 May 2007)

From Journeyman's post on the Elephant: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/62697.0/topicseen.html



> ..."I've heard men worry about civilians, and I've heard men shrug and sum up their viewpoint in two words - 'F--- 'em.' I've seen people shoot when they shouldn't have, and I've seen my soldiers take an extra second or two, think about it, and spare somebody's life.
> 
> "I've bought drinks from Iraqis while new units watched in wonder from their trucks, pointing weapons in every direction, including the Iraqis my men were buying a Pepsi from. I've patrolled roads for eight hours at a time that combat support units spend days preparing to travel 10 miles on. I've laughed as other units sit terrified in traffic, fingers nervously on triggers, while my soldiers and I deftly whip around, drive on the wrong side of the road, and wave to Iraqis as we pass. I can recognize a Sadiqqi (Arabic for friend) from a Haji (Arabic word for someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca, but our word for a bad guy); I know who to point my weapons at, and who to let pass. ....



I didn't want to disturb JM's posting.  It deserves to stand alone.  

But these two paragraphs seemed to sum up the real value of long rotations.  As I understand it the CF is using 6 month rotations, the USMC 7 months and the US Army 12 months with some units being extended to 15 to 18 months currently.  

Speaking carefully here, as someone who HASN'T seen the elephant, it appears that at the beginning of a new rotation there is a settling in period as the new troops get used to their surrounds.  Sometimes it appears that that period works to the enemy's advantage both tactically and politically.


----------



## GAP (27 May 2007)

In the Crusades (long ago) the USMC used 13 months while the US army used 12 months. Either I think are more realistic than 6 months. It takes the first couple of months to become accustomed to the weather/AOR/unit interactions to become effective. Then there is time to really become familiar before the end of tour fever starts getting at guys.

It seems like a long time, but it actually goes quickly.

While 12 or 13 months is not necessarily hard and fast, I can see where 8-9 months being realistic.

edited to add: That was a time when the forces were using individual replacements rather than the unit replacements.


----------



## McG (27 May 2007)

I think 6 months is a good length.  For people who's duties keep them in side the wire a 9 month tour would not be unreasonable.  However, I think we would be far better off switching to 6 months with no HLTA as opposed to going to longer tours.


----------



## McG (27 May 2007)

What of subunit cohesion?


----------



## McG (27 May 2007)

It was only an attempt to ask a one line question.  No sniping going on.  However, if you want a counter point, I’d argue that sub-unit cohesion is not a trade-off that I’d want to make (nor would I want to sacrifice cohesion at the Pl & Sect level for the reasons you’ve given).  Despite the exchanges of fire often being at sect & pl level, the operation in Afghanistan is very much a company fight and the key enablers are attached at the company level or coordinated from the company.  The Engr section that will fight in a Pl (or which will attach dets to fight in a rifle section) will be attached to the Coy.  The FOO & FAC will be Coy attachments.

The sub-unit  & all its parts need to be greased and working together before getting into country.


----------



## 2 Cdo (28 May 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> I think 6 months is a good length.  For people who's duties keep them in side the wire a 9 month tour would not be unreasonable.  However, I think we would be far better off switching to 6 months with no HLTA as opposed to going to longer tours.



I agree 100% with the idea of six months with no HLTA. We did it in 2002 and it was easier doing one goodbye to the wife and kids versus coming home, disrupting 9er's routine, and then saying goodbye all over again. The other big plus is that unit cohesion remains constant, minus any casualties, without having to deal with a leave plan.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 May 2007)

In my opinion, we as a military have done an outstanding job of shaking loose the chains of the myth of the noble peacekeeping army in all areas except one: the way we man our missions.  As I understand it, the 6 month rotation came about due to the length of the various mandates of UN missions at one time.  Then that length became 'the norm'.  Add to this HLTA, etc, it almost seems as though we are manning the various ops the same manner in which we manned UN missions.  We go on "Tours" instead of on "operations".  Heck, we don't even have a Replacement Holding Unit!
So, to stay on for six months AND to get HLTA, a RHU could be employed to basically fill the gaps when people go on HLTA.  That or continue to suffer 10 - 15 % losses due to leave (or whatever the rate is).  I'm not saying get rid of leave, time off, etc, but I don't know about the 3 week (or whatever the time is) HLTA is good for the mission.  With time zone changes, familial issues, breaking the routine, etc...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 May 2007)

The leave during a tour was one of the things that REALLY suprised me when I started reading this site some years ago........


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 May 2007)

Tour lengths are based on a number of things, but mostly on the rhythm of events back in Canada.  The Taliban does not have a posting season - it has a poppy season.  How about we adopt an assymetrical approach, both in terms of tour lengths and force structure.  The "winter months" are slower because little is allowed to effect the bringing in of the poppy crops.  If we were to adopt a 4 and 8 month rotation cycle, we could have reduced strength during the lull months, reducing the FG stress on the Army.  The 8 monthers would be there to prosecute an entire campaign season.

Just a thought.

<<editted for truly egregious typing errors>>


----------



## skydiver (28 May 2007)

Greetings All..

CFTPO says just shy of 8 months (20 July 07 - 07 Mar 08)  for all in the next time around.

Doog


----------



## vonGarvin (28 May 2007)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Tour lengths are based on a nbumber of things, but mostly on the rhythm of eventas back in Canada.  The Taliban does not have a posting season - it has a poppy season.  How about we adopt an assymetrical approach, both in terms of tour lengths and force structure.  The "winter months" are slower because little is allowed to effect the bringing in of the poppy crops.  If we were to adopt a 4 and 8 month rotation cycle, we could have reduced strenght during the lull months, reducing the FG stress on the Army.  The * monthers would be there to prosecute an entire campaign season.
> 
> Just a thought.


So, adapt the forces to the needs on the grounds ("F" echelon types).  Perhaps a combat team in the four month "lull" to maintain a force presence (in addition to the PRT, Camp security, etc), and then a full up battlegroup for the eight month "long haul"?  I think that would make sense, with a full-up RHU "in place" in an "undisclosed third location".  Sure, being in an RHU would be boredom personified, especially if not rotated in as a replacment, but in the end, not being rotated in is a GOOD thing, because it means nobody got killed or wounded on the pointy end.

So, RHU would be in line with our doctine, as would the idea of amending our schedule in order to more effectively meet the needs on the ground, focussing on the enemy vice the terrain (or an arbitrary calendar) *cough* _manoeuvrist approach _ *cough* _effects based approach to operations _ *cough*


----------



## Bobby Rico (28 May 2007)

I personally wouldn't mind there being some kind of system in place to allow for optional tour extensions for individuals.  I realize that'd be extremely difficult given the scale of our forces on tour, but I think such a system could be favorable.  Example-

I'm a young guy, I don't have a family of my own, I'm single.  Someone like me, I'd probably do well doing an eight to twelve month tour or more, so I volunteer for an extension- get a temp transfer to the next battalion due in country, and maybe give a break to someone from that battalion whose maybe a little older, has a family and such and would much rather be with them than in A-stan.  Frankly, I'd love something like that- get another 2+ months of combat pay and more experiences in country.  Good stuff.

It's pretty unrealistic though, I know, and doesn't really solve the problem at hand.


----------



## Bobby Rico (28 May 2007)

You're absolutely right CSA, I haven't been on a tour before.  It's definitely something I want to experience though, I can tell you that with complete honesty.  I can't say for sure how I'll react to it...hell, I might piss myself at the first sound of gunfire, who knows?

I was just using that as an example though- a potential situation where if perhaps I (or someone in my situation) were able to request a tour extension, if such a system existed where it was possible.  It wasn't really my intent to suggest that I would DEFINITELY want to do it though.  Just that I might.


----------



## GAP (28 May 2007)

Aside from his enthusiasm, it is not an unrealistic expectation to do extensions of tours. Check my profile. 

A number of us who did 13 month tours, wanted to stay mainly because we were enjoying ourselves. I signed up for 2 six month extensions ( last one cut short by illness in family), but they gave me a 30 day leave in between extensions and transportation to where I wanted to spend it. 

The two extensions were the max. I would have then had to remain in the states for one year before being allowed back on tour.

Didn't seem to have any ill effects, I just as stupid now as I was then.....


----------



## Bobby Rico (28 May 2007)

It's funny, actually most of the people I speak with who have been on tour, tend to say they have more positive experiences then negative ones.  I suppose that really does depend on a lot of factors of course- where you are, what kind of action you're in, if you had any casualities what-not.  My father who was in Bosnia, said he really enjoyed it, and is even hoping for a shot in Afghanistan.  I have a friend from the Rangers whose been in Iraq, and said despite the fact that his battalion took some hits, he still wants to go back.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean I'll have the same positive experiences if and when I go to A-stan or wherever.  I still want to go though, do my part, get some real soldiering in.  After all, what's the point of joining a combat-arm if you don't want to go overseas, right?


----------



## warrickdll (29 May 2007)

To some extent, this was discussed here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39949.0/all.html

I believe it would be better to have shorter rotations for line companies; about 3 months, without any leave during deployment.

Technology should be utilized to keep the replacement unit informed of the situation on the ground throughout the entire deployment of the preceding unit. Pre-deployment readiness and handovers should not be cataclysmic events, and settling in should not be a hardship.


----------



## Armymedic (29 May 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> However, I think we would be far better off switching to 6 months with no HLTA as opposed to going to longer tours.



I concur.

I also agree with Command-Sense-Act 105's comment about sub unit rotation, but at company (for infantry), or troop level (for the other cbt arms) to maintain a constant "foot on the ground" of corporate knowledge.

I think massive Bg rotations are just asking for trouble as we are most vulnerable the 2 or so weeks coming into or going out of theater.


----------



## niner domestic (29 May 2007)

I just wanted to pick up a point that Bobby R had made with respect to being a single guy.  In my experience as both a CF member and as a wife, I find the phrase, "Let the married guys go home and the single guys stay" to be the most teeth gnashing phrase I keep hearing.  

I find the whole mindset that taskings, shifts, duties and whatnots are pushed onto the single guys because they have no family to speak of is quite disturbing and quite maddening.  To hear that mindset in the form of a complaint from a spouse is even more disheartening as if a wedding ring/stat dec is enough to get someone off a tasking or duty or the notion that the single guy/gal will pick up the slack (as usual - see organization of Xmas leaves or who gets off for Mom or Dad's day and who stays behind).  As long as we keep perpetuating the mindset that the single guys will always be the ones to pick up the slack or do the extra operational time, then we'll have youngsters like Bobby R expecting to be the one to do them when in fact, we do need a balanced force of youngsters, singles and older, married types.  

I'd like to see the families of personnel stop complaining of tour lengths, postings etc and accept the fact that their partner is a member of the CF and that is their job.  My dad had 10 kids, for his entire 35 year career, he was maybe home 3 months of any given year.  I'd like to see us stop using the difference between the singles and the marrieds in our decisions on who goes and who stays.  (I can dream right?)


----------



## PMedMoe (29 May 2007)

I agree, niner domestic!!  My husband and I are both military, no kids (at least not living with us).  I was just on a course and had to listen to complaints about postings from a guy who has just recently become a father and whose wife/girlfriend has three other kids.  Every time he said "I have four kids" I wanted to smack him.  As I explained to him and another person on the course, having a family, kids *and* a career is a *personal* choice and not one to be made lightly.

On the topic note, I think six months, without leave, is long enough.  Some people might go stir crazy!!! Actually, I was glad to be adding armour to vehicles for my last few weeks in KAF.


----------



## Greymatters (29 May 2007)

Its a bit like people who move next to an airport... they know the airport is there, but move in anyway then complain about the noise.  

Some people will talk stupid no matter what you tell them.  Despite the fact that they know they are going to go away on tours, they will still complain.  Probably just for the sake of complaining.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 May 2007)

Is pairing Battlegroups an option?

Assigning two battlegroups to a theater for 12-18 months at a stretch but with only one BG in country at a time.  Stagger the sub-unit rotations to something like 3 months on and 3 months off so that the work-up period between "shifts" is reduced/eliminated.   Also, when the assigned BGs are nearing the end of their tour you could "dovetail" or overlap the incoming BGs so that you have an experienced HQ and support (for example) with a mix of experienced and "untried" sub-units.


----------



## McG (29 May 2007)

With deployments, it is better to get it over with.  Multiple short cycles of deploy - home - deploy - .... will increase the strain on soldiers & family as the process is streached out & the "good-bye ritual" re-lived.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 May 2007)

Thanks MCG.  Just a thought.


----------



## McG (29 May 2007)

It does work for the Air Force, but that is dependant on a more permissive enviroment.  This could be an option for some future Cyprus.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 May 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> .... This could be an option for some future Cyprus.



A later Afghanistan perhaps?


----------



## Greymatters (29 May 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Technology should be utilized to keep the replacement unit informed of the situation on the ground throughout the entire deployment of the preceding unit. Pre-deployment readiness and handovers should not be cataclysmic events, and settling in should not be a hardship.



This is already in place and has been for years.  If the replacement unit is not informed of the situation prior to deployment, it's not technology's fault...


----------



## warrickdll (30 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is pairing Battlegroups an option?
> 
> Assigning two battlegroups to a theater for 12-18 months at a stretch but with only one BG in country at a time.  Stagger the sub-unit rotations to something like 3 months on and 3 months off so that the work-up period between "shifts" is reduced/eliminated.   Also, when the assigned BGs are nearing the end of their tour you could "dovetail" or overlap the incoming BGs so that you have an experienced HQ and support (for example) with a mix of experienced and "untried" sub-units.



I would still propose that Battle Groups be deployed for about 3 months and then expect to rotate back in about 2 years.

As an example:
- BG #1 deploys and BG #2, which has been increasing its readiness, has been assigned as the replacement BG. 
- During BG #1's deployment BG #2 would maintain a high state of readiness and stagger its own sub-units on short pre-deployment leaves (to be concluded at least a couple of weeks prior to deployment).
- BG #1's own replacement pool would handle any individual replacements, but BG #2 would be available to provide any sub-unit replacement.
- As BG #2 deploys, BG #1 returns to Canada and maintains a high state of readiness for a couple of weeks before going on post-deployment leave. This will allow BG #3 to get settled into its role as BG #2's replacement.

A 3 month deployment allows for shorter pre-deployment and post-deployment leaves, and eliminates the need for mid-deployment leave.

The expectation for return in 2 years allows deployments to be more of a natural occurrence rather than an exception to the norm. It also allows for an overall increase in unit readiness, while allowing enough time for courses.




			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Iterator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would want awareness down to the section level. Commanders should be in daily (or close to it) contact with the commanders they are expected to replace, video from patrols, even a virtual presence at meetings. The replacing unit should be able to deploy as if it had been there for the previous deployment. If this is being done, then there should be little difference in performance between the start and end of deployments.


----------



## Greymatters (30 May 2007)

Iterator said:
			
		

> I would want awareness down to the section level. Commanders should be in daily (or close to it) contact with the commanders they are expected to replace, video from patrols, even a virtual presence at meetings. The replacing unit should be able to deploy as if it had been there for the previous deployment. If this is being done, then there should be little difference in performance between the start and end of deployments.



Although desirable, I dont think its achievable unless you are dealing with veterans coming back for a second or more tour.


----------



## mover1 (30 May 2007)

Be careful wishing for the three months on and three months off for however many years. 

The Airforce has been doing 56 day rotations in and out of theatres for years (certain trades ie Aircrew/Maintence/MAMS). All it has accomplished is burning a lot of people out. Causing undue hardship on family life. PLUS Govt held back certain entilements because the members did not serve long enough in country to qualify.

Once people get their wits about them and their head space and timing sorted out it was time to go home for a few weeks only to be tasked out on ex or a Boxtop or some domestic operation. Come home for a couple of days and then off to some other 56 day deployment. 

The government got its cake, ate it, recycled the box, washed the plates used them again for more cake and didn't pay a thing.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 May 2007)

Thanks for that Mover1.

Now I am regretting posting my "thought".


----------



## KevinB (30 May 2007)

I fully beleive that HLTA needs to be shitcanned, if the 6 month tours are be be kept.

If people are willing to accept that this is a war   -- then perhaps a better system could be adopted (don't ask me what it is) its hard to mobilize the army for a theatre that you cant employ them (wrt kit and equipment beyomnd the deployed BG).

BigRed and I, do 8 on 4 off rotations in Iraq he's been doing this for 3 years, I had 4:1 rotations on the private side in Afghan -- yes its different.  But the principle remains that given an incentive that the body and mind can deal with the rotation schedule quite well - or we are just crazy.
  The way we rotate is so 2/3 of our team is always on the ground - thus current - and the schedule is staggered so that the fresh guys are not arriving to the team enmasse.

 It would be a frightfully expensive way to run a war though


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 May 2007)

Correct me if I'm wrong the reason for the marines doing 13 month tours was because they would do a 12 month tour and on the 13th month they would spend doing admin getting them ready to rotate home, also as a sort of decompression.  This too was because in vietnam marines deployed as a unit and would rotate in and out as a unit where as (back then at least) the us army did it on an individual basis.  Yes no?

Personally I wouldn't mind  a 9 or 12 month our so long as work up training was shortened.


----------



## GAP (31 May 2007)

In Viet Nam Marines did not rotate as units, except initially. It was individual rotations. At any one time we had 2-5 new guys getting up to speed, but we retained the experienced core at all times.....worked well.

The 13th month for admin may have been the concept, but going in, I was with my initial unit within 24 hours of landing in Quan Tri, then within 3 hours to Da Nang, another 2 hours to Dong Ha, then choppered back out to Phu Bai. 

Going out took even less time, and I was in the field up to and including the day I left. I had enough time to grab my ruck, and was on a chopper out of there.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 May 2007)

wow right on thanks Gap.

I was just going off what I've read in a book but clearly your speaking from personal experience.  Cheers!


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2007)

GAP, How long was your full training cycle before you got dropped off at Quan Tri?  Apparently you learned enough there to keep you alive long enough to figure out how to survive the rest of your tour.


----------



## GAP (31 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> GAP, How long was your full training cycle before you got dropped off at Quan Tri?  Apparently you learned enough there to keep you alive long enough to figure out how to survive the rest of your tour.



We went through ITR at Pendleton for 6 weeks, and nothing (formal) else once feet were on the ground. The Company slid you into more aggresive actions over the next 1-2 weeks, but it was nothing like I have read where the Army ran a familiarization course for 2 weeks prior to going outside the wire. You were expected to have learnt your lessons, and for the most part, you had. The rest was taken care of by the company, which was great, because you could put your lessons directly into action. 

If there was supposed to be anything more formal, we never saw it, plus we were too dumb and green to know different. (You are talking to the guy, on his first day, who continued to didy bop along with rockets landing on either side of him, and not realizing why everybody was running....meh)


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2007)

See my comment about apparently having learned enough to keep you alive etc....?   Scratch that.

Sheer luck.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Feb 2008)

We approach the topic again - this time comments from our Allies spark the debate.  Although I think that the US Army's 15-month tours have the potential to kill an army, I agree with the General when he says the advantage comes with intimately knowing the terrain.  Perhaps a longer tour (8 months, 9 months?) would provide an optimal balance between familiarity and fatigue?

Fair Dealings blahblahblah

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/301698

---------------
_Longer troop deployments urged
 TheStar.com - World - Longer troop deployments urged

NATO commander says 6-month tours undertaken by Canadians in Kandahar too short to get job done

February 08, 2008 
Mitch Potter
EUROPE BUREAU_

VILNIUS, Lithuania–Last month, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates frayed tender NATO nerves by suggesting some allied troops in southern Afghanistan come up short in the battle against insurgents. 

Now the senior U.S. commander on the ground in Afghanistan has elaborated on the theme, saying that six-month deployments such as those undertaken by Canadian soldiers lack the longevity to get the job done American-style.

In a blunt assessment of the alliance's shortcomings in Afghanistan, top NATO commander Gen. Dan McNeill told reporters at the Pentagon he is hamstrung by "a minimalist force" too few in number and too burdened by political and military obstacles to match the counter-insurgency efforts of U.S. troops.

Praising the "absolutely amazing" progress in U.S.-controlled sectors of eastern Afghanistan against the struggles encountered by Dutch, British and Canadian troops in the south, McNeill contrasted the elongated 15-month rotations of American troops against the six-month rotations that are the norm for Canadian soldiers.

"What does 15 months mean? The American soldier ... develops a relationship with the terrain, with the indigenous people and their leadership, and with the enemy. And they have sufficient time to exploit that relationship to their advantage," McNeill said. "Secondly, ... Congress well endows the commanders in the U.S. sector with reconstruction money, bureaucratically unencumbered, more or less, so that they can apply those monies in a pure and comprehensive way in counter-insurgency operations, and they can see to immediate and genuine needs, not just once."

Asked to contrast that approach against other nations involved in the fractious south, where most of Canada's 2,500 troops are deployed, McNeill said: "Most of the other forces are typically on a six-month tour length. They probably are not as well-endowed by their governments as U.S. soldiers are. Some of them don't have the same level of pre-deployment training."

McNeill did not specifically mention Canada in his comments at the Pentagon. In a separate interview published yesterday, he told The Washington Post he prefers that Canadian troops "stay in the fight" rather than shift their emphasis toward training and mentoring Afghan forces. But he also suggested that NATO should consider the idea of U.S. forces taking charge of the southern command, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest.

A former commander of the U.S. Army's force generation headquarters, McNeill said, "I know the level to which (U.S. military trainers) go to replicate battlefields, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, before we send the unit into either of those locations. It pays off greatly ..."

McNeill's comments on short-term deployments are a familiar complaint among aid workers in Afghanistan. One United Nations official who spoke to the Toronto Star in Kabul in December described the dynamic as being like the movie Groundhog Day.

"You sit down with a commander who just arrived and bring him up to speed on the humanitarian situation," the official said. "Six months later, you sit down with the next one and do the same thing over again. If we find it frustrating, imagine what the Afghans think."

Asked at the NATO gathering in Vilnius yesterday whether he agreed with McNeill's assessment, Gates answered cautiously.



"If you are addressing it as an intellectual matter, then a longer tour and a greater familiarity does enhance your ability to carry out a counter-insurgency," Gates told the Toronto Star. "The other side of that coin, though, is that longer tours have a real wearing effect on the troops ... Frankly, I would like to get back to 12-month tours (for U.S. soldiers) if that's possible."


----------



## noneck (8 Feb 2008)

FWIW the RCMP PRT contingents tours are 12 months long.


----------



## KevinB (8 Feb 2008)

FYI -- I would suggest a 9-12 month tour with no HLTA.
  I know it may suck for the time but...

If I where Emperor of Canada  ;D  -- I'd be running TWO CF Btl Groups -- 12 months in lenght - with the rotation between the two staggered at the 6 month period -- so the new TF can be somewhat mentored/supported by the other in theatre.  Bde staff would do 14 month deployment rotated throughout the time with a one month overlap for the incoming positions.


----------



## blacktriangle (8 Feb 2008)

My mom is american, and I was at one point urged to join the US army. Talking to the recruiter he said people can extend their tours if they wish (this was before the 15 month tours I think). 

Maybe the CF could let some people stay deployed for 1-2 years at a time to establish themselves in communities, as well as help mentor new troops. I'm not sure how popular that would be but its just my 2 cents.


----------



## KevinB (8 Feb 2008)

FYI US troops can still extend -- I have a few buddies that are trying to extend currently -- they did a year+ in Afghan and are looking to entend for 6+ month in Iraq with a different unit.


----------



## helpup (8 Feb 2008)

15 months too long IMHO, although increasing ours to 9 - 12 months does make sense and something I have been voicing around my neck of the woods for a while now.  With the month it takes to get use to your AOR, or the last month trying to focus on doing your job your effective for 4 months, throw in a block leave in there that takes out almost a month.  Personally and I can only speak for myself on this I wouldn't mind the 9 - 12 month long deployment.  I acknowledge that it would be harder on family during deployment but it would increase times between deployment for a "more normal" family/military life.  The general does make a valid point about knowing your AOR and the people in it better.  The extra time would also allow more detailed aid/civic improvements to be fullfiled during your stay.

My 2Cents


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (8 Feb 2008)

Interesting comments on monies and authorities to spend said monies.  

We should bear in mind that it looks like he was speaking in generalities with respect to training etc.  

The Canadian HQ has had a nine-month tour length for some time.  While I take the NGO's point I don't remember any aid workers out in the villages giving briefings to new commanders.  Still, tour length is a good debate and I'm not sure where I sit anymore.

What are the current USMC tour lengths?  

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but we should be careful comparing regions in Afghanistan.


----------



## helpup (8 Feb 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I've mentioned it elsewhere, but we should be careful comparing regions in Afghanistan.





I didn't mention that in my earlier post but I agree that he should be very carefull in comparing regions in Afghanistan.  Depending on the AOR it is apples and oranges.  Although his comment about other NATO countries not being as well endowed struck my funny bone.

I do understand that elements of Canadians are now on 9 month tours,  I would just like to see it BG wide and but also have a good look at making it 12 months with the caveat about not having tour rotations happening all at the same time.  

Also as mentioned earlier about no more HLTA is another valid point, it may seem harder on the surface but the tools are in place now for not taking HLTA and being compensated.  And from experience there are many who get out of a "game frame" of mind when HLTA is around the corner or when they just get back have to adjust again to being in country.  Not saying that happens to all mind you but enough that it could and does affect a sub units ability to focus on the task at hand.  

again my 2Cents


----------



## GAP (8 Feb 2008)

I think Canada should seriously consider at least a 9 month tour, if not 12.....for the above reasons  about AOR, etc. 

I did a 13 month tour, took leave and then a six month extension, a month leave, and a second extention....that was the max you could do without a year back in the states.....

I found I was far more effective the last six months of my tour and during my extensions than I was in the early parts....maybe I'm just a slow learner.... ;D


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (8 Feb 2008)

> What are the current USMC tour lengths?



Yes, not mentioned in the article is the fact that Marine tour lengths are normally also six months, a point that I've used before to silence US Army detractors.

JTF A HQ is nine months, battle group is six, but some positions (CO PRT for example) requiring extensive interaction with the Afghans are now year-long postings.


----------



## Canadian Sig (8 Feb 2008)

I'm getting ready to deploy on a 9+ month stint....I'll give you my opinion on this subject sometime around end Feb '09  ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Feb 2008)

The next rotation will have a longer tour.  There is an off season in Afghanistan and the rotations are being worked so that eventually handovers will occur at that time.  
So we factor in a year plus of work up then another 9 overseas.  Thanks but no thanks.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Feb 2008)

The year plus is another (seperate) issue that needs to be addressed.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Feb 2008)

You may be correct however it should not be discounted when considering longer deployments.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Feb 2008)

Correct.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (8 Feb 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Yes, not mentioned in the article is the fact that Marine tour lengths are normally also six months, a point that I've used before to silence US Army detractors.
> 
> JTF A HQ is nine months, battle group is six, but some positions (CO PRT for example) requiring extensive interaction with the Afghans are now year-long postings.



US Marine Corps operational tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are roughly 7 months actually (usually extending slightly past 28 weeks in theatre).

I too think that 6 month tours (with HLTA) are too short.  Can HLTA and extend to 9 months.  Then give a nice chunk of leave (30 days or so) upon returning to Canada.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Feb 2008)

We already get about 30 days when we get back.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FYI -- I would suggest a 9-12 month tour with no HLTA.
> I know it may suck for the time but...
> 
> If I where Emperor of Canada  ;D  -- I'd be running TWO CF Btl Groups -- 12 months in lenght - with the rotation between the two staggered at the 6 month period -- so the new TF can be somewhat mentored/supported by the other in theatre.  Bde staff would do 14 month deployment rotated throughout the time with a one month overlap for the incoming positions.



I-6 is right, the second battle-group needed in Kandahar should be Canadian. The former MND said, back in 2006, that we were going to recruit and train 13,000 more people by 2010. How far along are we, as we approach the half way point? When will we be able to deploy two battle-groups for, say, 10 month overlapping tours (with HLTA, I'm sorry to say)? After all we claim to have nine battalions of infantry and three each regiments of armour, artillery and engineers - and I'm pretty sure we have 18 regiment/battalion HQs complete with COs, Adjts, RSMs, QMs and Chief Clerks.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Feb 2008)

As under strengthed as we are I wonder how longer tours with less leave would effect retention?


----------



## GAP (8 Feb 2008)

I would think that the longer time between roto's would enhance the retention....if you are going to go, go, get back and not have to rotate again in a year.....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Feb 2008)

Hard to say really.  Troops are fickle these days.


----------



## Greymatters (9 Feb 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Hard to say really.  Troops are fickle these days.



Its not that they are fickle.  Its that they hear one story about what a great place the CF is to work, which it is, but its a bit of a culture shock from civi street and many of them arent paying attention to the part about extended tours.  Plus, the increasing number of those that come in already married are going to get a shock when the missus says 'see'ya' after they are gone for 12 months with no HLTA.


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2008)

I know many troops got out after they got back -- since they where stuck in garrision and bored to tears.

  Look at several of our esteemed members still in who are chomping at the bit to get back...


----------



## PhilB (9 Feb 2008)

I think longer deployment would be a good idea. I did almost 10 months on 1-06 and it wasnt bad. That being said I think that getting rid of HLTA would be a mistake. It is a great break in the tour, it is a HUGE selling feature when explaining to your old lady how long you are going to be away, and finally speaking from a reserve perspective, HLTA is one of the larger incentives to go on tour.


----------



## GAP (9 Feb 2008)

If they do go to longer Deployments, the they definitely have to keep the HLTA....You need that break, if only for a week, midway through...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Feb 2008)

I think a better compromise would be a 6-7 month tour with no HLTA.  This way you get dedicated uninterupted service, there is no screwing around with manpower and postions when members go on leave and I think the troops would agree more with that then 9 months and HLTA.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Feb 2008)

In Vietnam, the US units were deployed for years, with year long rotations in and out. 

There were obvious issues related to a feeling of belonging, which the good ol' regimental system could fix.  Why not have a PPCLI, RCR and R22R Coy forming a battle group, then rotate people through on an annual basis? (You know, kind of like the Airborne Regiment used to do!). If the will to stand up a Bde came along, just ramp up the number of coys based on the three regiments.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (9 Feb 2008)

x


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Feb 2008)

If you can say what were your duties for the respective durations?


----------



## scoutfinch (9 Feb 2008)

> _*the burn barrels start spewing like Blake's dark satanic mills, * _



THREAD JACK ALERT ***  THREAD JACK ALERT **** THREAD JACK ALERT


I don't mean to distract from the thread; however, I have to say that this probably one of my favourite lines ever uttered on R-me-dot-c-ay... an instant classic.

Now back to your original programming...


----------



## McG (9 Feb 2008)

I think 6 mo without HLTA or 9 mo with HLTA are the two realistic options here.  Maybe year long rotations, but we might find that too much of the army starts feeling the left out of battle syndrome that was often a complaint during late Bosnia & early Afghanistan years.  



			
				Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> So we factor in a year plus of work up then another 9 overseas.  Thanks but no thanks.


At the same time, I think the Army is burning itself out more on the constant inputs to support/conduct work-up than on the actual deployments.  If we could do 9 months tours then the training burden would be cut in half back home (allowing those in the support phase to do their own training while getting out of the stuck-in-garrison slump).



			
				CSA 105 said:
			
		

> In our 6 month construct, we waste an inordinate amount of time on setup, form-up, writing TTPs, writing "task force SOPs", getting to know each other, handover/takeovers, then once the last Roto X person has barely stepped on the plane, the burn barrels start spewing like Blake's dark satanic mills, binders are stripped and the company minus worth of NCE staff officers starts busiliy churning out "new" TF SOP books.  Funny, it seems that many of the "new" products look suspiciously like the old except they are in a different font and have a new crest on top?


I'll give a +1 to this.  Even the first BG back in Kandahar used a lot of recycled stuff (from Kabul or the PRT that arrived 6 months ahead of us) with a new TF graphic attached.


----------



## NCRCrow (9 Feb 2008)

I personally think 6-7 months is perfect!

Pre-deployment training plus the Tour itself equals 10 months away.


----------



## McG (9 Feb 2008)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> Pre-deployment training plus the Tour itself equals 10 months away.


Only if you are lucky & the pre-deployment is shorter than what we are doing now.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Feb 2008)

"The TF headquarters rotates individually by position and positions remain in location for at least 9 months, preferably a year - ie a fresh Comd will have a COS who is at the midpoint of his/her tour, etc, etc.  If the G3 rotates, the other "3" positions will not be brand new so will lend some continuity to bring the new 3 up to speed and reduce the work and effort of handing over every position all at once.  This will prevent what has happened on many many rotations before, where no sooner has the last roto's TF HQ stepped on the plane, then all their work, SOPs, lessons learned, etc are scrapped, "because they were f&*$ up", sent to the burn barrels and a plethora of otherwise underemployed staff officers busily starts recreating them to make them fit the "1/2/5 CMBG or R22eR/PPCLI/RCR way".  This enables the "leading change" PF on a Theatre PER to be clicked into the "M" column, but other than that serves no useful purpose save satisfying the desires of those who need to put their stamp on things "just because".  I am sure there are others who have seen this duplication of effort and shook their heads.

The various BG headquarters serve a year (preferably) or 9 month rotation.  Within that year, the BG Comd can rotate individuals in by position as he and the vagaries of career progression, postings, career courses, performance and requirements dictate.  Specialists (ie MP det, CIMIC, HUMINT, etc) can be rotated by staggered halfs, much like CC UNDOF used to do on the Golan Heights, where Roto 54 (half the contingent) left, replaced by Roto 56, while Roto 55, who had rotated in at the 3 month point of Roto 54's six month tour, remained intact.

Sub units serve on a 9 month rotation, command team intact, rotated as BG HQ above if required.  Sub units should also stagger with other sub-units so that there is always at least one "experienced" one on hand who has a few months of corporate knowledge.

Sub-sub units rotate out on a 6 month rotation, staggered.  Therefore, OC "A" Coy will, at any given time, have 1 platoon nearing the end of a stint, 1 platoon at the beginning and 1 platoon at the midpoint.  This will keep corporate knowledge from being completely lost and will ensure that there is no completely "new" company in the hopper.  While not the best solution for maintaining sub-unit integrity, it's an 80 percent solution between individual rotation and complete unit rotation, which I find puts a whole unit in either the "new jittery stage" or "end-tour windup" stage, complicated by the leave plan sapping strength almost as soon as people start learning their jobs"


I hate saying I am "just a Cpl" here because most of the time that isn't the case but your wordage is a little confussing for me in this sense.  At which level is the rifle coy?  Sub Unit, Sub sub unit, higher in the overall package. (Basically what's it all mean Basil.)  I am not sniping but if we compare those that sit in KAF (and I am not saying you are) with those that go out and spend the majority of their time outside the wire I believe reflects differently on deployment timetables.  I could do a year standing on my head if I never left KAF. Also it becomes a dangerous game when we compare ourselves to our allies with only know some of the conditions in which they operate.


----------



## McG (9 Feb 2008)

Coy/Sqn = sub unit
Pl/Tp = sub-sub unit


----------



## Tow Tripod (9 Feb 2008)

Take my HLTA away and make my tour longer that's an EXCELLENT idea ,Sir. Give me a break this has to be one of the best jokes on this site ever!!!!

TOW TRIPOD


----------



## GAP (9 Feb 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In Vietnam, the US units were deployed for years, with year long rotations in and out.
> 
> There were obvious issues related to a feeling of belonging, which the good ol' regimental system could fix.  Why not have a PPCLI, RCR and R22R Coy forming a battle group, then rotate people through on an annual basis? (You know, kind of like the Airborne Regiment used to do!). If the will to stand up a Bde came along, just ramp up the number of coys based on the three regiments.



Vietnam used individual rotation rather than unit rotation


----------



## KevinB (10 Feb 2008)

Well I used to be able to say that, but now my rank works out somewhere between Capt and Maj -- and with the amount of money I make and the love I have for the job -- I dont call it work  ;D

 BigRed and I rotate 8 weeks on and 4 weeks off (theorrectically, since several times I've done 5 month stretches, and I think John was at 8 one time) -- I've been on this since 2005 -- and he's been here a lot longer.  Granted we are both probably somewhat psychotic  .
I lived a year on the equivalent of a section sized house, and John was for two years.  Mind you we have cushier living - like most SF team houses...

Mission - Team - Self

Or better described by the USMC - God, Mother, Country, Corps (I don't see Self anywhere in that, GAP can probably articulate it better than I)

Having seen US Army troops on tour #4 or 5 since 9/11 -- I dont see where the argument of a guy who has one or two 6 month tours comes from.

-Kev

Edit: -- I view this current conflict to be the pinnacle issue of our generation.  Looking back to my grandfathers service in WWII -- I don't 'think' he has MWR internet or SAT Phone to call home, nor a definite end tour date.


----------



## mysteriousmind (10 Feb 2008)

interesting thread,

I'm fairly new to this army, and being a reservist, I'm considering being volunteer to go on tour, even if Missy is against it. As a reservist, I can go on a tour, come back and ask to leave again on tour the day I come back. It seems that the regs cannot do this. I have not lived a tour, and, I hope I will have the chance to live at least one in my career. 

Whether it is a 6, 9 or year, I would go. To my opinion the HLTA is a good thing, but with today's technology, its different from when my dad went on tour. We did not talk to him everyday, we did not see him every day, we did not have news as often as today. One of my coworker talks to her hubby everyday, she see him on MSN 3-4 times a week. Which is to my humble opinion something good for the morale. She was saying that is was the fist tour she lived that was that easy to have some news. 

Yes a "break" is important specially if you are in a hot combat zone. and, with 3 group taking the place (22, PPCLI and the RCR) it is not every one who can stand to live deployment over deployment. but, you have chosen to get on the force, lived with what it implies.


----------



## teltech (10 Feb 2008)

My 2 cents worth....

Up in Kabul (yes some people forget we still have some troops there) the sigs det has 2 people from one unit, and one from "elsewhere". The person from "elsewhere" rotates in with the regular rotation, and the two from the other unit rotates in halfway through the rotation. I found this arrangement to be idea as there in essence is a three month handover, vice the 3-10 day handover most folks get. This allows the new guys to reveal any skeletons in the closet, settings that the outgoing person may say "oh I forgot to mention..." and so on.
As for increasing the length of the tour, well, I'm there to do a job and I accept any conditons attached. From a personal standpoint, I would keep the HLTA as I could see the good change it brought to some people and yes, it is a selling feature to our spouses, however from an operational point of view I saw how it played havoc with scheduling and operational effectiveness.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Feb 2008)

mysteriousmind said:
			
		

> As a reservist, I can go on a tour, come back and ask to leave again on tour the day I come back. It seems that the regs cannot do this.



I would like some unofficial 'official' clarification on this point.........seems strange to me.


----------



## PhilB (10 Feb 2008)

I think what he is saying is that a reservist can apply to on any tour provided that there are CFTPO posn's tasked down to their unit. i.e. I went on TF 1-06 with a 1 PPCLI battle group. When I got home I applied and got accepted to go on TF 1-08 with a 2 PPCLI battle group. When I get home from 1-08 I can apply for a posn on TF 3-09, should there be positions within the 3-09 ORBAT tasked down to my unit. Soldiers that went on 1-06 from 1VP are not deploying on TF 1-08 in any kind of numbers. I realize that there are soldiers from 1VP filling other roles, and back filling positions within TF 1-08, but aside from B Coy 1VP no other formed element of 1VP is deploying. A reservist is not tied to any formed element of unit and thus can "jump" from tour to tour. The standard, must be in Canada for 1 year post deployment still applies to reservists as it does to the regular force. Hopefully this helps.


----------



## Greymatters (11 Feb 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> "The TF headquarters rotates individually by position and positions remain in location for at least 9 months, preferably a year - ie a fresh Comd will have a COS who is at the midpoint of his/her tour, etc, etc.  If the G3 rotates, the other "3" positions will not be brand new so will lend some continuity to bring the new 3 up to speed and reduce the work and effort of handing over every position all at once.  This will prevent what has happened on many many rotations before, where no sooner has the last roto's TF HQ stepped on the plane, then all their work, SOPs, lessons learned, etc are scrapped, "because they were f&*$ up", sent to the burn barrels and a plethora of otherwise underemployed staff officers busily starts recreating them to make them fit the "1/2/5 CMBG or R22eR/PPCLI/RCR way".  This enables the "leading change" PF on a Theatre PER to be clicked into the "M" column, but other than that serves no useful purpose save satisfying the desires of those who need to put their stamp on things "just because".  I am sure there are others who have seen this duplication of effort and shook their heads.



Nice summary.  Sadly it all too true...

Overall, extended tours are a great idea and make a lot of sense.  It seems by the time you hit 6 months you are really hitting your stride, but the beaurocrats in the CF werent very accomodating in the past at authorizing extensions...


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Feb 2008)

EDITed for spelling

To get the Aussie equivilant of your HLTA, its ROCL (Relief out of Country Leave) you need a mininum of 6 months for about 20 days all up, including travelling time. One day less you get SFA.

We were 3 days shy of 7 months in country.

9 Months gets you another standard leave period. Few are authorised to stay for 9 months. We had a RIP'er come in to fill for a guy we lost to admin reasons. He stayed 2 wks shy of 9 mo, and got SFA, with the exception of his original leave mid tour. 9 months in Baggers, Holy shyte over!

We worked 7 days a week with the odd Friday 'low tempo'. Plus SNCO and above did 3 tours in the CP at night per week. 

I had my leave about mid tour, and once back for a day or so, it was like I never left. At JTF 633 HQ at Victory, was greeted with a series of 122mm Katyushas. One nearly got the DFAC, killing one, injuring 14. Missed a group of Aussies by 20m! Welcome back to reality.


----------



## Teflon (11 Feb 2008)

I really don't see a 100% solution to this issue myself. (if there truely is a such thing in real life) I certainly see the advantage of longer tours, with pers on the ground and awares that is only gained by being there.  I also see the draw backs as well. Knowing full well how my wife would take it if I was to tell her I would be leaving again to Afghanistan for 12 months. I would be placed in the situation of choosing between her and my career and that is a decision that we (my wife and I have already settled) I wonder how tour lengths would effect our manning and retention levels over all. I can only speak for my own situation here but I would be able to swing not having HLTA (despite it being a real good selling point to the wife) and if I lived in a vacum away from the seprate family life, a longer tour wouldn't bother me all to much but I don't think I would be albe to maintain both (career and much longer tours) And yes my wife realizes the CF hired me and not her but that doesn't relieve me of responsibilies to her as well.

In the end I don't know of a way to make it better. Some people would be easy to adapt to much longer tours and for others it would place them squarely into a decision area where they are keeping their career or their family.

Rock and a hard place for some


----------



## Gunner98 (11 Feb 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I would like some unofficial 'official' clarification on this point.........seems strange to me.



Here you go Bruce - lots of recommends, should etc.

CANFORGEN 082/07 CDS 020/07 021440Z MAY 07
PERSTEMPO POLICY FOR CF INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

FG = Force Generators

Excerpt:

TOUR LENGTHS: THE NORMAL TOUR LENGTH FOR DEPLOYED UNITS SHALL BE SIX TO NINE MONTHS, WITH A MID-TOUR BREAK (HOME LEAVE TRAVEL ASSISTANCE - HLTA) WHENEVER POSSIBLE. FORCE GENERATORS (FG) ARE THE SOLE AUTHORITY FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS MAXIMUM FOR DEPLOYED UNITS. COMD CEFCOM MAY APPROVE DEPLOYMENTS OF UP TO 12 MONTHS DURATION FOR INDIVIDUALS, SUCH AS THOSE ASSIGNED TO A NATIONAL COMMAND ELEMENT (NCE) OR IN OTHER KEY POSITIONS, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT AND THE ABILITY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR FAMILIES TO MANAGE EXTENDED DEPLOYMENTS 

TOUR FREQUENCY: CF MEMBERS SHOULD NOT NORMALLY BE REQUIRED TO DEPLOY FOR AN OPERATIONAL TOUR OF SIX TO TWELVE MONTHS MORE THAN ONCE IN A THREE-YEAR CYCLE. HOWEVER, DEPENDING ON OPERATIONAL DEMANDS AND UNIT ROTATION CAPACITY, THAT GOAL MAY NOT ALWAYS BE ACHIEVABLE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MINIMUM EXEMPTION PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, DESCRIBED BELOW, SHALL APPLY SUBJECT ONLY TO OPERATIONAL IMPERATIVES 

EXEMPTION PERIODS: REF E PROVIDES IN PART THAT MEMBERS SHALL NOT NORMALLY BE POSTED OUTSIDE CANADA OR TO AN ISOLATED POST TO WHICH THEIR FAMILIES ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER RETURNING TO CANADA FROM SUCH AN UNACCOMPANIED TOUR. HENCE: 

FOR DEPLOYMENTS OF 180 CONSECUTIVE DAYS OR MORE, AN EXEMPTION PERIOD OF 365 DAYS SHALL APPLY OR ELSE A WAIVER SHALL BE REQUIRED. THE RESPONSIBLE ECS/GROUP PRINCIPAL/COMMANDER OF A COMMAND MAY APPROVE A WAIVER WHEN OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS DICTATE, OR THE MEMBER VOLUNTEERS FOR, AN ADDITIONAL DEPLOYMENT 

FOR DEPLOYMENTS BETWEEN 60 AND 179 CONSECUTIVE DAYS, TWO CALENDAR DAYS EXEMPTION IS RECOMMENDED FOR EACH DAY DEPLOYED, NO MEMBER WAIVER REQUIRED 

FOR DEPLOYMENTS LESS THAN 60 DAYS, AN EXEMPTION PERIOD IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE ECS/COMMANDER OF A COMMAND 

FOR DESIGNATED HIGH TEMPO UNITS/HIGH TEMPO POSITIONS AS DEFINED IN REF C, COMDS MAY APPLY AN EXEMPTION PERIOD BASED ON TWO CALENDAR DAYS FOR EACH DAY DEPLOYED FOR ANY ACCUMULATED PERIOD BETWEEN 60 AND 179 DAYS OF DEPLOYMENT WITHIN A SLIDING 365 DAY PERIOD AND 

WHERE POSSIBLE, FG ARE ENCOURAGED TO FURTHER INCREASE THE PERIODS BETWEEN UNACCOMPANIED TOURS BASED ON SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL DEPLOYMENT PATTERNS 

RESPITE PERIOD: FOLLOWING ALL CF INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS OF SIX MONTHS OR MORE, THERE SHALL NORMALLY BE A 60-DAY RESPITE PERIOD DURING WHICH MEMBERS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO POSTINGS, ATTACHED POSTINGS OR TEMPORARY DUTY. COMMANDING OFFICERS MUST PERSONALLY APPROVE EACH CASE WHERE THE 60-DAY PERIOD CANNOT BE MET. FOR DEPLOYMENTS OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS, A RESPITE PERIOD IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE ECS/GROUP PRINCIPAL/COMMANDER OF A COMMAND. IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT FOLLOWING A DEPLOYMENT, COMMANDING OFFICERS PROVIDE MEMBERS WITH MAXIMUM OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND TIME WITH FAMILY AND OTHER LOVED ONES


----------



## jswift872 (11 Feb 2008)

my 2 cents, I agree that the best option I read here is 6 month tour no HLTA (as much as I loved it) or 9 month with HLTA. Nothing worst then always being undermanned in combat due to HLTA. Especially when your tour is Feb- Aug, the first HLTA falls around end of march (beginning of fighting season roughly) So for the duration of your tour your Platoon is undermanned, while engaged.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Feb 2008)

In my opinion, soldiers do need the break, even on a 6 month tour.  6 months with out a break in a area of ops, full of high tempo war footings is stressful  on any human being, regardless on how tought they think they are.

Chances of exhaustion and burn-out are lowered, but with this comes disadvantages too, as mentioned above to some degree.

The leave gave me something to look forward to, and it worked. The break away from the BS and the culture was well needed.

Our ROCL was stepped, and did not cause any man management problems, even on missions. we always had full strength, adn no one was put into more danger than we already were.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Feb 2008)

An interesting article written in 1993 suggesting that if there's a 'real war' going on, soldiers don't mind being deployed for longer periods of time:

Peacekeeping Is Training For War

"In whatever form it comes, leadership is leadership, teamwork is teamwork and operational planing is operational planning. Morale can be affected by excessive or unnecessary separation but when a real job is there to be done, when real danger is a possibility or when a noble cause is being engaged in with the benefits clearly visible, servicemen are not only happy to do the job but will receive realistic training for their primary mission."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/HRJ.htm


----------



## Greymatters (12 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> In my opinion, soldiers do need the break, even on a 6 month tour.  6 months with out a break in a area of ops, full of high tempo war footings is stressful  on any human being, regardless on how tought they think they are.



Especially when no sex, no fraternization and two-beer policies are in place...


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Feb 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Especially when no sex, no fraternization and two-beer policies are in place...



The whole bloody camp was masturbatorium  ;D

Ha, I left enough DNA in that shytehole of a place to repopulate the world a thousand times :blotto:


----------



## McG (12 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> In my opinion, soldiers do need the break, even on a 6 month tour.


A break could be a short R&R as opposed to HLTA.



			
				Greymatters said:
			
		

> Especially when no sex, no fraternization and two-beer policies are in place...


Try a no-beer policy.


----------



## Celticgirl (12 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> The whole bloody camp was masturbatorium  ;D
> 
> Ha, I left enough DNA in that shytehole of a place to repopulate the world a thousand times :blotto:



Well, there goes lunch.  :-X


----------



## c_canuk (12 Feb 2008)

I think that if they cut down the workup trg to 2 months (1 for instruction, 1 for putting new info from part 1 into practice) they could extend the tours to 10 months without affecting the amount of time a soldier is away from home. 

If they did cut it down to 2 months, get serious about it. no 8-4 days with weekends off, go to 6 days a week, 16 hours a day then have a 1 week break at home after the work up trg before deploying.

Another option would be to have a full on workup trg, and an express workup for those that have already done it and just need a refresher/update course.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Feb 2008)

So you feel that you can do ALL training in CMTC in 2 months time (for the Infantry).  That would be sweet.


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> The whole bloody camp was masturbatorium  ;D
> Ha, I left enough DNA in that shytehole of a place to repopulate the world a thousand times :blotto:



Wes - thanks for the vivid mental images - was that post sponsored by KY and Vaseline?


----------



## Sig_Des (12 Feb 2008)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I think that if they cut down the workup trg to 2 months (1 for instruction, 1 for putting new info from part 1 into practice) they could extend the tours to 10 months without affecting the amount of time a soldier is away from home.
> 
> If they did cut it down to 2 months, get serious about it. no 8-4 days with weekends off, go to 6 days a week, 16 hours a day then have a 1 week break at home after the work up trg before deploying.
> 
> Another option would be to have a full on workup trg, and an express workup for those that have already done it and just need a refresher/update course.



If this was Vietnam, and we were rotating just individuals, that might be possible..._might_ be. But for a BG or TF HQ, that's not realistic.

For a Sigs perspective; Before you even start up your tour-specific pre-dep, there's all sorts PCF training that takes place. Between exercises, training on new equipment, adapting to lessons learned, learning to work with the units you're with, well, I don't think it's viable to cut down Pre-dep by that much. IMHO.


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Feb 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Well, there goes lunch.  :-X




!

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Feb 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> Wes - thanks for the vivid mental images - was that post sponsored by KY and Vaseline?



Without straying off the thread topic too far, and being too graphic  

Best to go dry, more stealthy, ha! Considering 5 guys (4 RAEME, 1 Int) to a 7mx7m room (former Republican Guard shacks) with improvised plywood walls for cubicals.

Some did not care (well, one in particular - and no it was not me), and one had to put on his headphones and listen to a CD to drown out the background noise - eeeew!

Shameless, like to dogs phucking on a street corner.

Maybe the real enemy there was ourselves, ha!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Feb 2008)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I think that if they cut down the workup trg to 2 months (1 for instruction, 1 for putting new info from part 1 into practice) they could extend the tours to 10 months without affecting the amount of time a soldier is away from home.
> 
> If they did cut it down to 2 months, get serious about it. no 8-4 days with weekends off, go to 6 days a week, 16 hours a day then have a 1 week break at home after the work up trg before deploying.



That's pretty much the way the British Army did their workup training for Northern Ireland for over two decades. No hanging about. Short, sweet and to the point! Worked great.


----------



## McG (13 Feb 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> That's pretty much the way the British Army did their workup training for Northern Ireland for over two decades. No hanging about. Short, sweet and to the point! Worked great ...


... for North Ireland.  How many in those units were > 10% individual augmentees from the Territorial Army?  How many new theatre-only items of kit (including vehicles, comms systems, UAVs, etc) existed almost exclusively in N.I. & had to be learned just before deployment?  How many brand new units (PRT, OMLT) did not exist in a conventional ORBAT and had to be created just before deploying?


----------



## helpup (13 Feb 2008)

This thread has grown with some very interesting points.

It was mentioned earlier that HLTA was a result/holdover from UN Peacekeeping times.  Yet it also allows a selling feature for 9er domestic and the individual.  But when you look at the problems HLTA cause I think the case for removing it is more then a little strong.  Manpower being the big issue, even with units now tending to remove entire Sect or Pl instead of individuals here and there you still run into a hard fact.  Your Pl/Coy/Bn is missing a fair chunk of your manpower on leave for extended times.  Add those who are in for the normal ailments, casualties or run of the mill Pers issues that cant be dealt with outside the wire.  Normal Ops become stretched, we of course work through it as we always have.  Mount a major OP where having your Bayonets on the ground complete should be the overriding factor, ensuring your HLTA pers are rotated actually trumps that.  I have yet to see and hope that it has happened at some point HLTA canceled or postphoned due to OP requirement.  ( not talking about individual case here more along the lines of a HLTA Block )  That has consistently amazed me.  We have and will continue to perform despite this.  But should we have to in the first place?  

I know that in the normal running of things there are enough people who are not going to be available, FOB's CP's, Op's, cutoff's, need to be manned.  Pers Admin issues, illness or injury not relating to combat yet to this number we still are removing more to put them out of country for 3 weeks.  See your family, new parts of the world, alcohol in large amounts take a break and then head back to do it again.  

Troops look forward to HLTA and I do/have myself.  But as it gets close to your leave block I have seen a mental mind shift in many that means they are not 100% there for the task at hand.  Sure that will change in a flash for a TIC but it is the events that lead up to a TIC that concerns me.  ( before anyone pipes in about no one can be 100% there all the time, I will agree now.  but making the environment job focused as much as possible should be the priority)  When troops come back there is the lingering effects of leave that are there.  It does take time for some to switch gears, that time grows if there leave was not all roses.  (And we know that happens.)  

So for what is going on in the Sandbox right now remove HLTA extend the tour to 9-12 months.  There will have to be a rotation of some sort in there to get troops back into KAF on a regular basis for a break.  You could even look at going to a 72/96 hour leave block out of contry to unwind.  But that would be depending on the mission.  If there is a OP tempo that allows it, grant it.  If not then too bad no 96 until things slow down.  And right now there are enough slow downs that allow this at least once or twice for everyone through a tour length.  There is in place a formula for compensation for not getting a HLTA.  This would allow a great trip anywhere once you get back to home to make up for it.  9er domestic or kids may not like it one bit, heck the individual may not like it.  Yet those extra 3-6 months that your deployed increases the length of time your not going to be deployed next time.  (The length right now has troops going on their 4th tour in some cases.)  Your there now long enough that you can see larger projects to fruition, know the people in your AOR intimately, stay focused on the mission and above all when going Toe - Toe with Timmy have all your boots on the ground ( so to speak)


----------



## c_canuk (13 Feb 2008)

> So you feel that you can do ALL training in CMTC in 2 months time (for the Infantry).  That would be sweet.



I can't speak at that level but my thoughts are as follows

8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 6 months = 960 hours
16 hours a day, 6 days a week 2 months = 768 hours

yes I believe 192 hours(or one month of workup trg as it is) can be cut from the workup trg program

I don't know about you but I'd rather spend 2 months of 16 hour days immersing myself with my crew under a bit of pressure rather than spend 6 months of regular work days with evenings and weekends to go to the clubs or watch TV in the shacks wishing I was home.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Feb 2008)

I definately wish we could streamline the process I really do.


----------



## helpup (13 Feb 2008)

As I said lots of good points

Ref Streamlining the process.  

I think we all want it streamlined.  Speaking as someone who's unit is ramping up right now ( even though I be manning 10% pool at the moment )  Unfortunately it is not that easy.   As a light unit ramping up.  you have the Veh that are not available until a point that your not always ready.  Then when they do show up those vehicles are being used to get the crews trained.  Once that is done back to the unit they go to get the remainder up to speed.  Plans at all levels seem to be off the cuff, due in part to available resources rather then lack of planning.  (although lack of foresight is involved at times but I digress )  

We have and do Trg that on paper and first glance shows a high level of skill and accomplishment.  But by and large the rank and file are not as intimately familiar with the Veh/ Eqpt and Tactics as they should be.  This happens as they are not getting enough time with the Veh.  Not a real problem seemingly as we do things such as an Ex in the states for work up Trg and then confirm it out West.  

Yet there is and will be problems.  Ramping up for a tour doesn't give everyone a get out of tasking free card as courses must be run for a persons career or someone needs to be there to instruct on it.  This is especially hard on the NCO/ Officer level.   Even Mech Bn are dealing with this as they get a large influx of BMQ/SQ qualified pers who need to be brought up to speed and qualified.  New promotions means people are working new jobs.  Granted it is easier in their case as they have a core that has a solid Mech background.  Trouble is that is not like it use to be as 1 RCR doesn't have its full compliment of Veh they were loaned out/ tasked out or sent out West full time.  Or they are also mounting a large number for overseas deployment for us or the OMLT.  

The tour length with 6 months being the norm right now has on average a 6 month work up Trg that is actually longer as units ramp up their Trg once they know what rotation they are going on.  So 1 year of increased Trg is now the normal actuality.  To mitigate some of that we now emphasize Mon to Fri 0730 - 1600 and weekends off for a home life.  

I think we all know that it should be streamed, but with the Veh we have, the Trg area available both in the States and out West, the Courses that must be run or attended.  I for the life of me cant see an easy answer.  Even if you could compress it to say 2 months.  When would that be?  Right before a Tour so that a member is never home before being gone for the now 6 or 9 months. ( bearing in mind I still endorse a 9 - 12 month rotation)

So here I sit putting my 2Cents in.  The unit may seem like organized Caos but in the end as it has happend before it will shake out to work before they go.


----------



## McG (13 Feb 2008)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I don't know about you but I'd rather spend 2 months of 16 hour days immersing myself with my crew under a bit of pressure rather than spend 6 months of regular work days with evenings and weekends to go to the clubs or watch TV in the shacks wishing I was home.


The 6 months work up already includes ~2 months 24/7 in the field.  Add to this the limited resources & individual training outlined by helpup and it's not as easy to trim as you suggest.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Feb 2008)

Or is our paradigm just screwed up - why not try the Korean War approach (modified).

Stand up the Special Force.  Do the 9 months of pre-deployment training.  Deploy for 6 months.  Back home for six (two for leave, another two month validation exercise, with a month on either side of it for the minor things that chew up garrison time).  Deploy for another six - with the same unit, the same people doing it again .  Then back home for leave, and posting out to other units.  Repeat as necessary.

This way you get 12 months deployed as a return on your initial training up investment.  It will mean that for a two year period the folks posted to the Special Force unit will not get career courses or postings; I think that's a worthwhile trade-off.

Put together two of these units and you've got the bulk of the deployed force solved for two years - leaving the rest of the Army to rebuild and reset.


----------



## dangerboy (13 Feb 2008)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I can't speak at that level but my thoughts are as follows
> 
> 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 6 months = 960 hours
> 16 hours a day, 6 days a week 2 months = 768 hours
> ...



My math says that for a 16 hour day you would start at 6 in the morning and go till 2200 hrs.  I don't think to many troops would go for that, especially ones with families.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... for North Ireland.  How many in those units were > 10% individual augmentees from the Territorial Army?  How many new theatre-only items of kit (including vehicles, comms systems, UAVs, etc) existed almost exclusively in N.I. & had to be learned just before deployment?  How many brand new units (PRT, OMLT) did not exist in a conventional ORBAT and had to be created just before deploying?



Good questions.

Apples to apples comparisons are difficult, but here goes:

1. Reserve augmentation: We usually had about 20 reservists per tour. In many ways, though, I think that CF reservists are better prepared to integrate for a variety of reasons relaterd to our - now integrated - training programs. We always had new drafts coming in and out too. There were very few people, at the rifle company level anyways, with any NI experience both just before, and just after a tour. I remember distinctly, following a tour with 45 Cdo, counting up how many troops/NCOs & Offrs we had with NI training before the tour, and immediately after. It was no more than 10 per company. Given that the UK had been operational there for decades, I found this amazing.

2. Different kit: Well, there was TONS of different kit. Vehicles, radios, Anti-RC and CW IED stuff, helicopter procedures, riot guns and training, new orbats based on the brick and multiple... and the list goes on.... SOPs and training emphasis also changed continually to meet the constantly changing threat. Rural and Urban training requirements were also very different in many ways. It was SO different, the army had serious worries about keeping up with the training and skills needed to counter a Soviet threat. The CF has far more continuity of kit and training in the present COIN environment than we did IMHO. 

3. Brand new units: We had our basic bn org based on four rifle companies (Sp Coy was turned into a 4th rifle coy). Each company was reorged significantly to include from 4 to 6 'multiples' (3 x 4 man 'bricks') based on the threat in their TAORs led by either an Offr or SNCO. This was a big reorg. Recce Pl was detached to ucomd HQNI where they were trained to operate in support of undercover operations. These were known as 'COP' platoons (Close Observation Platoon). Each company had to train a special search team for conducting low risk - high risk searches on their own or in support of ATO operations. We also had to create a specialized int capability in each company and at bn level, and each brick had to nominate and train specific people as drivers, 'face men (memorize faces of bad guys), 'car men' (memorize cars of bad guys) etc.... 

The usual drill was for units to conduct their own reorg and basic NI training (VCPs, battle fitness, update on the threat etc) for about 2 weeks. This was pretty intense, but we'd try and give people weekends off. Before all this, we'd send people off for specialist int/search courses etc as well as conduct admin and ops recces of the locations we'd be taking over. These recces could happen up to two or three months in advance.

We'd then get fed into the NITAT (Northern Ireland Training and Advisory Team) sausage machine for 4 or 5 weeks. NITAT was based at Stanford Plain Training Area (STANTA) and the Cinque Ports Training Area (CPTA), and they ran us through an intense training package of shooting, int upgrading and tactics tailored specifically to the location we were going to and the threat we would face there. For example, I spent 5 days (24/7) in Rype Village - the baddest town on earth - preparing for a Belfast tour. They could whip up a 100 person riot at 3am in 10 minutes so that you would go from kipping on the floor with boots on to being showered with real petrol bombs in a few minutes, and it was all captured on cameras and film for amusing and informative debriefs later. (It's OK, the counseling is helping). Mega live fire ranges were laid on in both urban and rural environments, as well as all the int play that had to go on to simulate the real deal. Choppers were available, RUC policemen were available, the real 'spooks' we need to work with were there, and it was all generally very well done with little chicken-poo involved. The whole unit would move from their location to barracks at Standford during this period, and we spent most of our time living in the field or in mock-SF bases with no 'time off' that I can remember.

Look, they're tearing down my old home! Sob....
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/TrainingAndAdventure/FinalNorthernIrelandTrainingTowerToppled.htm

Near the end of our time at NITAT, we'd then get a 'grade' from the NITAT staff. If we passed, we'd proceed on pre-tour leave. If we 'failed' the CO would get a chance to spend a little more time upgrading us in specific areas. Needless to say, few wanted to 'fail'. I had the pleasure of leading my company back to NITAT as enemy force for a not to be named unit who did 'fail'. They deserved to. Anyways, they had to re-do the whole rural phase, which meant the unit they were relieving had to remain in South Armagh for an extra week or two. No happy campers there I can assure you. By the end of this experience everyone was operating as a good team and all atts and dets had been well integrated.

Pre-tour leave was usually a week, then off you go across the pond. Leave during the tour for 'roulement' battalions, posted to the hardest areas for 4-5 months, was 5 days per person (including travel to and from mainland UK). 'Residential' battalions were posted to 'softer' areas for 2 years - accompanied - and pretty much carried on with normal garrison routine, but always had one company on operations, one off and one doing regular training. The whole unit could be called out to deal with bigger operations. Post tour leave was about 2 weeks and represented the normal leave you'd get for summer/Xmas or whatever. Nothing special there. 16 battalions of infantry were in the province more or less all the time during the 80s, all working very hard.

So, from start to finish, I think it took about 8 weeks for 95% of the unit to prepare for one of these tours, including pre-tour leave. Having NITAT available (one in UK, one in Germany, one in Ballykinlar for individual augmentees) was critically important as there was no way we could generate the resources and knowledge required to train ourselves in everything we needed to know. 

What would we have done with 6 months? No idea. From the depths of my armchair, that seems way too long for a busy army to accommodate.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Feb 2008)

For my roto, my training began in Jan 06 in Darwin from Jan to Mar. I needed to get up to speed on the M242 chain gun. The official lead up trg for Iraq for our Combat Team commenced in May til August, where we trained in Puckpunyal Victoria, then in Brisbane, then Sydney, then at wide Bay, then the MRE in Brisbane. Deployed Aug 06, got home the end of Mar 07. There was lots of travel, right from the top end of the country to the bottom.

Daily hrs for trg was 0730-1600, wknds off, and fd trg was 24/7.

Lots of fd time, lots of shooting, TTPs etc. We were sharp and ready. Cultural awareness, basic arabic, etc.

I was away every month in 06 except April, and then not home til Mar 07.

We felt from May to August was just too much, and we reached a plateau in July, and from there we maintained the standard. Moral began to drop, as we had many from Darwin and had not seen family in 3 months. Those with young kids were affected, with pressure on from their 9D's, etc.

Pre deployment trg is now about 6-8 weeks so I am told.

My 2 bob.

Wes


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2008)

I'm betting that, as we get better at this stuff, the preparation time will drop. Months away from home BEFORE a long tour is sheer madness. Frequently, the length of preparation time has more to do with nervous and inexperienced Generals and politicians than it does with unskilled troops.

"Do not take counsel of your fears" 

(Patton, Letter of Instruction No. 1, issued to Corps, Division and Separate Unit Commanders)


----------



## Greymatters (13 Feb 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm betting that, as we get better at this stuff, the preparation time will drop. Months away from home BEFORE a long tour is sheer madness. Frequently, the length of preparation time has more to do with nervous and inexperienced Generals and politicians than it does with unskilled troops.



I think a lot of it has to do with occupation and deployment area as well... some trades need the extended work up time, others should have the workup time and dont, some you can drop in ready to go...


----------



## helpup (18 Feb 2008)

Posted by: Greymatters 





> I think a lot of it has to do with occupation and deployment area as well... some trades need the extended work up time, others should have the workup time and don't, some you can drop in ready to go...



Back in the "Cold War" time when the CF was trained for Europe, with the odd tour here and there you could cut back Trg time as units were "Trained " and manned up to a certain speed.  But from what I have seen and experienced the past 6 or so years that is no longer true.  There use to be a very solid core in all units that were experienced Cpl's NCO's and Officers.  They have by and large been with that particular unit for a long time and intimate with all aspects of Trg for war.  SOP's were down pat drills were sharp and all was right with the world.  If a tour came up it was doing mission specific Trg a couple of large work up Ex's to merge that BG or unit being sent and off you went.  

Now though we are scrambling more and more.  A very large percentage of soldiers are brand new, just posted in or don't have the experience the " cold war " soldiers have.   And I don't mean that as a slight.  but with the Op tempo for the past Decade gone were the regular RV's Germany flyover Ex or major Trg that had you perfecting your basic job, Training for War.  Due to that you now have young NCO's who have done little outside of prepping for a tour, going on tour, or going on Career Courses/ teaching on them.  The normal routine that we as a army use to do is gone for the for seeable future.  Granted there has been a huge and much needed influx of troops who have actual combat experience and that cant be said enough is a good thing.  Their lessons learned are getting disseminated at the schools and to the units.  But the overall ability to have a Bn train and get their basic soldier skills, unit SOP's and general knowledge to a point that it is done with out thought is getting harder to come by.  In between tours units become bare bone skeletons that are undermanned.  Coy's are below 50% strength for over a year before they start to ramp up the personnel for the next time into the breach.  Some of this was a direct result of a manning increase and of a certain new unit starting up.  But overall from what I can see this is Army wide, or at least infantry.    

So before we can get to a point of cut short Trg time, do Mission Specific Trg and go we would need to get our manpower at a consistant 75% of full strength on a continuous basis.  I don't see that happening, instead it is and will be more of the plug and play for troops who have trained here and there and rely on your BG stand up time to bring it all together.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Feb 2008)

helpup

You do have some very good points there.  Another problem is the "Plug 'N Play" philosophy that has crept into the CF.  We still have very experienced Offrs and NCOs, but when we take them from one organization and plunk them down in another, they have to learn the MO/SOPs of the gaining 'parent' organization.  

In the past we had units that had interoperability with other units and were dedicated to and practiced with them on a regular basis in Cbt Team and Bde Trg.  Arty FOO and FAC teams were assigned to and trained extensively with a Inf or Armour unit and basically became 'regulars' at those units.  Armour Sqns would be partnered with Infantry Coys, as would Engr Troops.  Times have changed.  New "more efficient" ways of deploying troops have been developed.........Someone reinvented the wheel and it has flat areas making for a bumpy ride.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> helpup
> 
> You do have some very good points there.  Another problem is the "Plug 'N Play" philosophy that has crept into the CF.  We still have very experienced Offrs and NCOs, but when we take them from one organization and plunk them down in another, they have to learn the MO/SOPs of the gaining 'parent' organization.
> 
> In the past we had units that had interoperability with other units and were dedicated to and practiced with them on a regular basis in Cbt Team and Bde Trg.  Arty FOO and FAC teams were assigned to and trained extensively with a Inf or Armour unit and basically became 'regulars' at those units.  Armour Sqns would be partnered with Infantry Coys, as would Engr Troops.  Times have changed.  New "more efficient" ways of deploying troops have been developed.........Someone reinvented the wheel and it has flat areas making for a bumpy ride.



That's precisely the reason why the UK has such short lead ups to NI tours: the main effort was Germany. The concern was keeping troops away too long from training for the 'real threat'.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Mar 2008)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Longer Afghan missions eyed*
MacKay says extending 6-month stints possible as manpower shortages hamper Afghan mission
Bruce Campion-Smith & Allan Woods, Toronto Star, 20 Mar 08
Article link

OTTAWA–Longer deployments for Canadian troops in Kandahar – perhaps as long as a year – are being considered as the military struggles to meet the manpower demands of a mission that has been extended by two years.  Defence Minister Peter MacKay said yesterday from Kandahar he is not ruling it out, but added the decision rests with senior commanders.  "I rely very heavily on the military assessment of that," MacKay said yesterday as he wrapped up his visit. "We're not ruling anything out, but of course these are operational decisions where I'll take that up with the chief of defence staff."

Retired general Lewis MacKenzie said the forces could have to introduce longer deployments to meet the demands of keeping 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan at a time, through to 2011.  "It's a matter of resources. ... I think they're going to have to look at it," MacKenzie said yesterday. "It's a pretty frequent subject of discussion because they are facing the dilemma of just not enough troops."  MacKenzie said the army has an effective infantry corps of about 5,000, once leaves, injuries and other absences are accounted for.  Out of Canada's 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan at a time, typically 800 to 1,000 are front-line infantry corps.  MacKenzie said the force should consider deployments of nine months, even a year ....


From Canadian Press:  "It will be for the Canadian Forces to decide whether they need their troops to spend longer periods of time in Afghanistan, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said yesterday at the end of a three-day tour of reconstruction and training efforts in Kandahar province.  MacKay deferred the question of longer rotations to Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada's chief of defence staff. "I rely very heavily on the military assessment of that," MacKay said in response to a reporter's question. "We're not ruling anything out, but of course these are operational decisions where I'll take that up with the chief of defence staff." "


----------



## Spartan (21 Mar 2008)

Sounds similiar to what I've heard from friends over there..... (though they mentioned this as they were heading out the door...)


----------



## X-mo-1979 (21 Mar 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._
> 
> *Longer Afghan missions eyed*
> MacKay says extending 6-month stints possible as manpower shortages hamper Afghan mission
> ...



What classifies as a 5000 strong infantry corp?Is this reserves as well?

I have mixed feelings on the 9-12 months.


----------



## Pte_Martin (21 Mar 2008)

For TF 3-08 we were told that we would most likely be there between 7-9 Months.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (21 Mar 2008)

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> For TF 3-08 we were told that we would most likely be there between 7-9 Months.



HOW COME I WASNT INFORMED!!!

lol

Seriously though...how come.. ;D


----------



## krustyrl (21 Mar 2008)

Could this mean a faster turnstile for those wanting out.?


----------



## The_Pipes (21 Mar 2008)

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> For TF 3-08 we were told that we would most likely be there between 7-9 Months.



We were told count on 7 months


----------



## lyned (21 Mar 2008)

That'll drop the recruiting numbers, no?


----------



## Yrys (21 Mar 2008)

lyned said:
			
		

> That'll drop the recruiting numbers, no?



Why, since they're extending the roto duration because of need of soldiers ?


----------



## lyned (21 Mar 2008)

"Why, since they're extending the roto duration because of need of soldiers ?"

I just don't think that most guys/gals would want to sign up if they knew they'd be gone from their wives/girl/boy friends for a year. Most are probably comfortable with 6-7 months but not more. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Yrys (21 Mar 2008)

lyned said:
			
		

> I just don't think that most guys/gals would want to sign up if they knew they'd be gone from their wives/girl/boy friends for a year. Most are probably comfortable with 6-7 months but not more. Just my thoughts.



Good thoughts, I was thinking that you were refering to the forces needing less people...


----------



## X-mo-1979 (21 Mar 2008)

lyned said:
			
		

> "Why, since they're extending the roto duration because of need of soldiers ?"
> 
> I just don't think that most guys/gals would want to sign up if they knew they'd be gone from their wives/girl/boy friends for a year. Most are probably comfortable with 6-7 months but not more. Just my thoughts.



I'm comfortable with whatever they task me to do.My grandfather was deployed to a war zone for 4 years.I'm sure I could manage a year.

Our Neighbours to the south manage anyway.

And really deterring a few people who only EXPECT to deploy for 6 months....is that such a bad thing?


----------



## lyned (21 Mar 2008)

"Good thoughts, I was thinking that you were refering to the forces needing less people..."

No, no, not at all. I'd really like to see the military increased in size.  Especially our own air power to support our people during ops. I know our "boy" said it was always comforting to see the U.S. Apaches show up when s**t hit the fan. He was there in '06 and is doing another tour now.


----------



## Mike Baker (21 Mar 2008)

lyned said:
			
		

> That'll drop the recruiting numbers, no?


Honestly, a longer Roto in Afghanistan does not affect my joining the CF what so ever.



			
				lyned said:
			
		

> I just don't think that most guys/gals would want to sign up if they knew they'd be gone from their wives/girl/boy friends for a year. Most are probably comfortable with 6-7 months but not more. Just my thoughts.


That doesn't really matter to me either. Yes, a possible year of my life(I know, chances of me being deployed to Afghanistan is small as of now.) could be spent in Afghanistan, but that would be a year in which I know I am doing something that are making peoples lives better.


My two cents.
Baker


----------



## lyned (21 Mar 2008)

"I'm comfortable with whatever they task me to do"

Yes, YOU are, and thank you, and our son is also regardless that he's recently married. I'm just saying that a lot of young people these days might not be, thats all. I have utmost respect for people that are joining up to serve, knowing what they might get into.


----------



## Mike Baker (21 Mar 2008)

lyned said:
			
		

> "Good thoughts, I was thinking that you were refering to the forces needing less people..."
> 
> No, no, not at all. I'd really like to see the military increased in size.  Especially our own air power to support our people during ops. I know our "boy" said it was always comforting to see the U.S. Apaches show up when s**t hit the fan. He was there in '06 and is doing another tour now.





			
				lyned said:
			
		

> "I'm comfortable with whatever they task me to do"
> 
> Yes, YOU are, and thank you, and our son is also regardless that he's recently married. I'm just saying that most young people these days might not be.



Ah, I see where you are comming from now. I know many young people like myself who really wouldn't want to go to the Sandbox for a year. But I also know some more who would, like myself.

Cheers
Baker


----------



## lyned (21 Mar 2008)

"I know many young people like myself who really wouldn't want to go to the Sandbox for a year. But I also know some more who would, like myself."

Excellent! Glad to see our forces are still attracting young people like you.


----------



## Mike Baker (21 Mar 2008)

lyned said:
			
		

> "I know many young people like myself who really wouldn't want to go to the Sandbox for a year. But I also know some more who would, like myself."
> 
> Excellent! Glad to see our forces are still attracting young people like you.


They attracted me back when I was 6, and I always wanted to be in since 

Baker


----------



## lyned (21 Mar 2008)

Mike Baker said:
			
		

> They attracted me back when I was 6, and I always wanted to be in since
> 
> Baker


Good to see. Wish I was young enough to change my career decisions. ;D  Our son was in army cadets for 4.5 years ( received the Lord Strathconas Horse medal) plus I have an ever increasing library about Canadian Military history that he was very interested in reading. And regarding another thread on here, Nobody ever tried recruiting him out of cadets, it was his choice to join, even knowing he would probably get sent to 'Ghan after training. Huge respect to those that that join today, mature enough to know what they may be getting into.


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (21 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Is this reserves as well?



Good question. Does anybody know?


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Mar 2008)

If you're a reservist overseas, you do the same time, get the same pay, etc as everyone else. Other than the medicals... I couldn't get my medal until I did a medical in theatre. Like I'd want to skip on a chance to document injuries for pension when I'm older.


----------



## Robbie (21 Mar 2008)

Looks like no. 

"Top soldier says no plan to extend troop rotations"

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/20/afghan-deployments.html

Rob


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Mar 2008)

"No" according to the CBC, but "no decisions have been made @ this point" according to other MSM....

Toronto Star:  "Any decision to extend soldiers' deployment in Afghanistan past six months will be based on recruitment efforts and a decision about what role soldiers will be performing post-2009, a senior Canadian Forces officer says.  The officer, speaking to reporters on background, said the military is engaged in a "continuous examination" to determine how best and how long to engage Canadian soldiers based in Kandahar.  The Star reported yesterday that the military is considering extending the current six-month rotations in Kandahar to up to a year. Speaking to reporters at Kandahar Airfield, Gen. Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said: "We have not made any decisions at this point in time to change anything."  But that could all change based on lessons learned from the mission, just as it could influence decisions on which vehicles to use and the type of training for soldiers that will be sent to Afghanistan, Hillier said, according to The Canadian Press."

CanWest:  "Canada's chief of the defence staff says there are no plans afoot to extend the six-month tours of duty that most of his troops now spend in Afghanistan.  "We've made no decisions to change where we are at this time," Gen. Rick Hillier said, adding that such issues are constantly examined by military planners. "


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2008)

While on a personal level an extended tour of 9-15 months might cause difficulties, it will actually improve things in the sandbox since there will be a greater level of corporate knowledge by the troops in the field, and (assuming HLTA isn't increased by a corresponding amount), the numbers of boots on the ground will actually increase overall. Our US and UK brethren only have 2 weeks leave (for a 15 month deployment in the case of American soldiers), so our time off seems a bit extravagant. _Removed by moderator._


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (22 Mar 2008)

> If you're a reservist overseas, you do the same time, get the same pay, etc as everyone else


Agreed.

Still I wonder how many employers would support up to a year of leave for those who have a full time job.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Mar 2008)

MG said:
			
		

> I wonder how many employers would support up to a year of leave for those who have a full time job.



More than a year, with the workup training beforehand....  I know of reservists who've had to go to public sector employers on the current ROTO saying, "uh, yeah, I know I booked x months, but it looks more likely now that I'll be coming back to work in x+2 or 3 months".  MG's right - how would the owner of a smaller private sector business (maybe family owned/run) feel about losing someone for that length of time?


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (22 Mar 2008)

Too add to that, it is not much easier in "Club Fed". I had a rough time getting leave for just SQ and training. It seems not every manager or HR rep has a firm grasp of the leave policies in place and it can make it difficult to get the leave. I guess it is because not a lot of PS employees, at least in my building/section, are also Reservists. Furthermore, employers are only "encouraged" to grant leave; it doesn't mean they have to.

Thankfully, there is <a href="http://www.cflc.forces.gc.ca/general/intro_e.asp">CFLC </a> and some very convincing senior staff members on hand at the unit to help the Reservists with their leave issues. It still doesn't mean that you're employer is going to grant the leave or not make life difficult for you when you return. Asking for a month leave was like giving a cat a bath in a phone booth; I can't imagine what over a year would be like especially to those in the private sector.


----------



## JBP (22 Mar 2008)

I'm slightly confused here... I thought all non-Combat Arms trades were already staying for tours of 9months as it is??? Only front-line troops would get 6 month tours? As it stands, we were told at 1CMBG to be prepared for 9 month tours...??? Has anyone done 9 month tours already? I still don't know if I'll be going over in the next couple rotations from CFB Edmonton here, so I don't have any details.

 ???


----------



## Scoobs (22 Mar 2008)

All non-Combat Arms are not automatically doing 9 month tours.  I wanted to give more details but thought better due to OPSEC.

Believe me, a 9 and a half month tour is long enough.

By far, our HLTA, pay, benefits, etc. is the best compared to other nations.  I personally feel sorry for the US Army that has to do 15 month tours with a measly one R&R (their version of HLTA).  The ones that I have spoken to don't like the 15 month tours.

By the way, all of this talk of extending tours is coming from the press.  It was their idea to drum up a story where none existed before.  The US Defence Secretary made some comments about troop deployments not being long enough for some countries and of course our good old Canadian press jump on the bandwagon and automatically assume that the Canadian leadership are going to increase our deployment lengths.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Mar 2008)

I'm glad they said no, that would have been like two and a half years of work up training.


----------



## Pte_Martin (22 Mar 2008)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> *By the way, all of this talk of extending tours is coming from the press.  It was their idea to drum up a story where none existed before.*  The US Defence Secretary made some comments about troop deployments not being long enough for some countries and of course our good old Canadian press jump on the bandwagon and automatically assume that the Canadian leadership are going to increase our deployment lengths.



It's not only the press. At 3 RCR we were told that we will be there between 7-9 months and our OC said if he was a betting man it will be around the 8 month mark


----------



## JAFMA (22 Mar 2008)

> Looks like no.
> 
> "Top soldier says no plan to extend troop rotations"



First of all do you really think that Gen Hiller is going to tell anyone that they are planning to increase the rotations until it is carved in stone and it is a done deal, lets face it the man is too bloody smart to get caught in something like that.  So don't believe everything that you read in the news

As for extending the tour by 3 months sure why not and as for SML take it at the end of the tour.

I seem to recall something in my training many moons ago about some studies showing that in order to have even basic level of SA you have to be on the ground for at least 3 - 4 weeks and that is so you won't shoot yourself or your buddy.  When you are at least 2 months into the tour you are fully up to speed and are keyed up and totally SA.  Then SML hits and when you come back you have to tighten up your shit again and think about not getting hurt and making it home safe and sound so now your not taking the calculated risks that you would have taken prior to your SML and now your a liability to yourself and your comrades. 

So I think that maybe it might be a good idea to give SML at the end of the tour, but to make sure that the troops get some down time maybe a couple of R&R centers something for 48 to 72 hours at a place where the troops can let down their hair to a certain degree with the minimum of restrictions.  

As for the pre-deployment training, is there any real need to change it hell most of the roto's that I have had anything to do with trained for at least six months before going over anyway so no matter how you slice it you can say good buy to the wife and kiddies for a year now anyway.

The short of it, it is a numbers game with the number of pers releasing, retiring and not resigning we are running short so the bean counters at Disney on the Rideau have to figure on a way to make the number that we do have work.  So any of you folks out there that are thinking that this is not going to happen then you had better put on your battle rattle and ruck-up.  As for myself I would have no problems in doing a nine or twelve month tour just so long as I can have a couple of blues now and again and can get in some good PTT.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Mar 2008)

My roto (TF3-07) did 7 months, and TF 1-08 was told they were doing 7 months as well. Apparently this is becoming the standard for the Battlegroup pers, 7 to 7.5 month rotations.


----------



## acheo (28 Mar 2008)

> Still I wonder how many employers would support up to a year of leave for those who have a full time job.



or wives?????


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Mar 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> More than a year, with the workup training beforehand....  I know of reservists who've had to go to public sector employers on the current ROTO saying, "uh, yeah, I know I booked x months, but it looks more likely now that I'll be coming back to work in x+2 or 3 months".  MG's right - how would the owner of a smaller private sector business (maybe family owned/run) feel about losing someone for that length of time?



You mean like me? 

On the one hand, it would be easy... just leave the business running and head for the desert trusting that all will be well. On the other hand, I might return to a train wreck with absolutely no hope of the military being able to help me out if me and my staff are unemployed, I have to declare bankruptcy, and all my clients are pi**ed off. And there's no legislation that can fix that scenario for the self-employed entrepreneur.

My choice. And right now my choice would probably be 'no friggin' way'. My challenge is to get my company into a place where it's fully self-sustaining, and my family is OK, then head off. This is, as you can imagine, a huge effort and a huge risk.

This may be one of the reasons that you won't find many self-employed people attracted to the reserves, but I could be wrong (sometimes am!).

D&B


----------



## X-mo-1979 (28 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While on a personal level an extended tour of 9-15 months might cause difficulties, it will actually improve things in the sandbox since there will be a greater level of corporate knowledge by the troops in the field, and (assuming HLTA isn't increased by a corresponding amount), the numbers of boots on the ground will actually increase overall. Our US and UK brethren only have 2 weeks leave (for a 15 month deployment in the case of American soldiers), so our time off seems a bit extravagant. _Removed by moderator._



So 15 month roto....So with the work up training and being away for a year from the deployment date isn't it just as well to stay for 3 years and get posted back?Just as well,then give us two years back in country.

We like to compare to other army's,yet when I was talking to a couple airborne Ssgt's in Texas they had 60 days work up training,then on the plane to Kuwait.It blows my mind how much work up training a professional army needs to deploy for 6 months.And then to return for 6 months and begin the process again.Redundant time away from family.


----------



## St. Michael (22 May 2008)

Just curious.
I am slated to be on roto 1-09 with the Battle Group.
The rumour (from a credible source) is going around that it will indeed be a 7 and a half month tour for us as well as for those already there from Shilo and Edmonton and for the next ones ( Pet).
The idea being saving a tour between now and December 2011.
Does anyone have any reliable info on the issue?
I will serve anyway, but families and wives etc.., need to be prepared and we need to plan stuff so it will be easier for them. :warstory:


----------



## muskrat89 (22 May 2008)

> Does anyone have any reliable info on the issue?



Your C of C isn't reliable?  ???


----------



## St. Michael (23 May 2008)

It is reliable, but says it is a rumour...


----------



## helpup (23 May 2008)

In other words it is thier best guess as they have not got it written in stone yet.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Oct 2008)

This is worth resurrection.  HLTA is what I will discuss.
I hate it.  I think it should be scrapped.  Just look at the time and effort to train people up, send them over, and then send them "on a break" just because we have to, and not when they are ready for it.  Some dudes will show up, do a few weeks, and then be off on HLTA, only to return and then do six consecutive months.  The units are then strapped for manpower (trust me: it hurts).  I say screw HLTA.  If some bean counter somewhere says "they need it", well, they can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I am concerned.  For anyone who suggests that the troops deserve that time off, well, those troops who want that time off can stay home.  
There are plenty of ways for troops in theatre to get a break.  Heck, it would probably be easier if we were at a 100% steady state, and rotated back say 2-3% (if possible) to KAF or elsewhere just to have a fresh shower, get a haircut, watch a movie, do whatever.  But we can't do that now because we are at much less than the 97-98%.  
If it's about the money and time off, block book time off for everyone at the end of the tour with 3K in their pocket and carte blanche for two weeks' of leave.  (On top of the regular post-deployment leave).
Thoughts?  Or is going down to ~80% effective strength as a steady state worth it?

(Personally, i will enjoy my HLTA, but if they took it from me for SERVICE before SELF, well, that's fine too)


----------



## Celticgirl (23 Oct 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> HLTA is what I will discuss.
> I hate it.  I think it should be scrapped.



If you think the Taliban is a force to be reckoned with, you should round up a group of military wives and say "HLTA should be scrapped" and see what happens to you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Oct 2008)

Having never been deployed I tread very lightly on things like this but just from my gut feeling I agree with MR above.

I think I would rather do the tour, get some extra "free" holidays and not have to look back. It would appear to me that to break up the tour means I would have to put up with 2 episodes of "shaking it rough". [an expression we use to describe how an inmate feels/acts the two weeks before his release date]


----------



## muffin (23 Oct 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> If you think the Taliban is a force to be reckoned with, you should round up a group of military wives and say "HLTA should be scrapped" and see what happens to you.



I was just thinking the same thing,... lol

Last time hubby deployed his HLTA got pushed back due to "an administrative mixup" and he was gone nearly 5 months before he was home. That was a long stretch for me and the kids. You can't give to some and not to others base on family/marital status,... so everyone gets it.

It isn't just about the guys in theater getting a break... they used to have R&R for that.


----------



## GAP (23 Oct 2008)

Maybe something like the USMC used in FMF PAC would work

Our tours were 13 months.

You were eligible for a 5 day R&R at specific places. In our case it was Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Sydney, Hawaii, and a couple of others. All easily accessible, none on CONUS....

Travel time did not count, so if you got delayed, you weren't gypped of "your" time.

The military transported you to the R&R city via commercial means and back. All told the average R&R took about 11 days once in 13 months. We waited with baited breath for those days to arrive, and lord help the person getting in our way.

We also had in country R&R of 3 days and 1day travel each way. I only got one of these because of the tempo we were operating at, but China Beach was sure sweet.....

Sooooo.....maybe instead of HLTA there be a "China Beach" type R&R instead of HLTA....


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Oct 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> If you think the Taliban is a force to be reckoned with, you should round up a group of military wives and say "HLTA should be scrapped" and see what happens to you.


I'll take my chances with the Taliban, thank you very much ;D

But, seriously, perhaps some navy folks on here should weigh in.  When a ship deploys to say the Gulf for a six month stint, how many HLTAs do they get?  (I honestly don't know the answer to this one)  Can a ship operate at 85% (steady state)?  I know that ships put alongside for a bit of "shore leave", but just as a ship needs all hands on deck (metaphorically), so too does a Battlegroup, no?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Oct 2008)

Was there not talk of having HLTA on masse at the end of the tour (and no I don't mean the couple days in Cyprus).

A break allows for (for the most part) troops to be able to unwind from being on constant alert which as I am sure I don't need to tell anyone can be mentally exhausting.  That's just me and I know there are guys that did go out the wire that didn't want HLTA either.


----------



## catalyst (23 Oct 2008)

Since this is an HLTA thread, I was wondering if anyone knows the current HLTA rate/dollar amount for KAF?

(appologies for the interjection)


----------



## GAP (23 Oct 2008)

Catalyst said:
			
		

> Since this is an HLTA thread, I was wondering if anyone knows the current HLTA for KAF?
> 
> (appologies for the interjection)



other than OPSEC, I would assume, as would you if you had read the whole thread, that it varies for each person


----------



## catalyst (23 Oct 2008)

I read the thread but I missed that. 

Sorry for inturruption....I'll just carry on


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Oct 2008)

What do you mean by "current HLTA"?
Some go home, some go to another place.  Its all up to the individual.  Not sure what the location is for repatriation.


----------



## catalyst (23 Oct 2008)

The HLTA rate....for a third location. 

I forgot the word "rate". Its been a long day. Again, my appologies.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Oct 2008)

Roger that


----------



## Blackadder1916 (23 Oct 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> . . .  you should round up a group of military wives and say "HLTA should be scrapped" and see what happens to you.



As I suspect that the mutterings of military wives may have had an effect on the evolution of "UN leave" to the current situation with HLTA they are probably a significant force to deal with.

As a clarification - HLTA, though commonly used as the expression for the special leave authorized while operationally deployed, actually refers only to the financial benefit for those who are so authorized leave while operationally deployed.  

It is interesting to note that this is another remnant (perhaps of Frankenstein proportion) of UN peacekeeping operations similar to the six month tour policy.  Back in the old days, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and Canadian soldiers' usual deployments had narrowed to Cyprus and the Middle East, one of the UN policies (not specifically Canadian but adhered to by us ) was that soldiers of any nationality deployed with a UN mission would receive leave at the rate of one day per month while deployed (this may have increased to two days along the way).  It of course had to be taken while still deployed in theatre.  However as CF service flights  provided regularly scheduled service between Lahr and Cyprus/Egypt, it was relatively easy for Canadian soldiers to leave the theatre and spend their leave in Europe.  Making this destination more attractive was the availability of service air travel to wives who wanted to join their spouses in Germany; this benefit was formalized when spouses were booked for travel on a duty priority basis ("2G" if I remember correctly).  Any other travel during this "UN leave" period was strictly at the members' cost.  Other than perhaps some incremental cost due to larger loads on service flights and accommodation in the '"Europahof", there was not a great additional cost to the CF in following this "UN" leave policy.  However, things evolved.  There started to be more missions and we lost the benefit (or the closeness) of CFE and scheduled CF airline service.  Then there were complaints (mutterings from the spouses?) that soldiers deployed on operations had received a financial benefit  by their wives joining then in Europe while sailors who were away from home for extended periods did not enjoy the same perk of having their wives join them in foreign lands.  Then there were those whose wives could not join them for leave in Europe and this evolved (mid to late 70s ?) into permitting pers to return home via service air (and using normal LTA) during their 2G leave.  And of course there was now the expectation that what had previously been an accomodation was now an entitlement.



> If some bean counter somewhere says "they need it", well, they can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I am concerned.



It may not have been "beancounters" who determined this policy but operational commanders.  Just as there is "mission creep" there is also "benefits creep".  Allowing use of (then) existing (excess capacity) resources for leave purposes has now evolved into a benefits policy that can affect the operational situation.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Oct 2008)

The biggest nightmare is trying to run a full battalion's worth of tasks with three understrength rifle companies. It's just plain insane, and dangerous too.

Why not deploy battalions with 5 rifle companies? 3 'on operations', one on 'in coutry' training (back at KAF or whatever) and one on home leave. Other combat arms units may be able to operate in a similar fashio e.g., 3 sections of Engrs on ops, 1 on in coutry training and one on home leave. 

Trickle post the HQ wallahs and service support troops on leave, much as they do now with the whole unit. Increase tour lengths to match those of the US Forces.


----------



## dangerboy (23 Oct 2008)

I just do not see us having the available people and equipment to man 5 rifle coys overseas


----------



## Lil_T (23 Oct 2008)

Well, speaking as a wife, and hopefully soon to be member, I count myself lucky that my husband gets to come home mid-tour.  My American counterparts don't get to see their husbands for R&R unless their tour is 12 months or longer.  And even then it's iffy.   Call me crazy, but I miss my husband when he's gone.  He's been gone, training included because he's attached to the Pet group that's gone over, since January '08.  I've seen him on weekends only and during block leave in the summer before he left.  So that's almost a year already and lord knows when he'll be home since we don't even have an end date yet.  Just vague estimations.   If the CF decided tomorrow to scrap all deployment leave I think it's safe to say the s*** would hit the fan.  Yes, it's a privilege, but one that I think everyone's become accustomed to having.  

As for deployed navy pers getting leave, it does happen, but only if they can coordinate it with a port visit, and they have enough staff to cover those pers on leave.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (24 Dec 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The training can be shortened and better organized.  If you look at the LFCA website for 2010, you'll see that they're assembling in Petawawa in Sept 09 for deployment in early 2010 - with block leave over Xmas.  So bit by bit we're elarning, and tweaking, and shortening the road to deployment.



Glad to hear.For us it was 6 weeks Texas (adv party), 3 weeks germany ,then wainwright (6wks IIRC) plus the multitude of courses,and troop training.Adding in we had to travel to another base to the group we were deploying with adding 2 weeks to the beginning and a week and a bit to the end of it.Then having to come back off leave for a parade,then told our original dates of deploying on the 15 suddenly turned into the 31st....in 2-3 days.Lighter note I accumulated 6 days!

The tour is great!I love my job there,and am amazed with the way time is flying there.However I really hate the thought of deploying again soon with the current training system.Glad someone is listening up there and streamlining things.


----------



## annemarielyman (24 Dec 2008)

As the wife of someone who is currently deployed, I do not have an issue with tours being extended or removal of HTLA. 

Although it was nice to be able to see my husband, it also created alot of upheaval for him. The time spent preparing to come home, travelling, etc.. was difficult for him. He has commented to me that he had become accustomed to being there and was focusing on the task at hand, when he returned he then had to readjust to what had transpired in his absence and go through the adjustment period again. He would have preferred to not have had the leave and to remain in Afghanistan. I would not have an issue with that.

Regarding tour length, I would not oppose an extension in the length. I feel that 9-12 would be acceptable. It only seems right after all of the time and effort of work up training (his was 1 year) for to get the same amount of time to be spent in the location of the mission.

I know that it is impossible to please everyone and that some wives would definitely be less than thrilled at the prospect. I don't feel that it's too much to ask for though. I just think about what previous generations had to endure..years without their husbands, limited communications, less financial benefits, etc. Compared to them we are truly fortunate...we know when (approx.) our husbands will return, internet and telephones (when available), financial benefits, etc..

Although I miss my husband, I feel that now is not the time to be focusing on me or even him but the greater good that is being accomplished and that the needs of the mission should come first.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2008)

Wow, I didn't know Pet was being so open-minded about reporting dates for TF1-10. I think the earliest date on the website was 27 July 09, with the next group to hit the ground on 22 Sept 09 when the TF stands up. That's a great schedule. TF3-09 has grouped major exercises together starting training only after the TF stands up: http://www.army.gc.ca/lfwa/tf309/training.asp. Another thing that looks like it might work well, is the Brave Ram exercise after block leave, to bring the BG back to readiness level. After all the work ups, and the high tempo training, you go into a lull on block leave, and its hard to hit the ground running. Time well tell on how this schedule will work, but I believe it looks promising.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (24 Dec 2008)

And as a soldier home on HLTA I'm quite happy with having my HLTA.I was focused on the mission for 4 months now I get to chill out.12 months inside KAF wouldnt be bad at all,the place is like disneyland.12 months outside would suck.

It was dam nice to come back to KAF get a haircut and have a real coffee after 4 months.And darn nice to come home as well to see my family I havnt seen in forever.


----------



## Lil_T (24 Dec 2008)

Yeah, my husband was basically counting down to his HLTA for 3 weeks before he came home (and I am super glad to have him for Christmas).  The kids miss him, I miss him.  Call me selfish, but when it comes to HLTA, the only people I'm thinking about are me and mine.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Dec 2008)

armywife411 said:
			
		

> I know that it is impossible to please everyone and that some wives would definitely be less than thrilled at the prospect. I don't feel that it's too much to ask for though. I just think about what previous generations had to endure..years without their husbands, limited communications, less financial benefits, etc. Compared to them we are truly fortunate...we know when (approx.) our husbands will return, internet and telephones (when available), financial benefits, etc..
> 
> Although I miss my husband, I feel that now is not the time to be focusing on me or even him but the greater good that is being accomplished and that the needs of the mission should come first.



Wow. Commendable. My hat is now off to you...  

Having had to deal with soldiers who were suffering, because their families were suffering, from extended absences on operations - as well as trying to lead units on operations that suffer from a lack of numbers due to leave cycles - I've got to say that I am an advocate of the 'no leave for anyone until everyone gets home' option. It seems easier for everyone to make the physical and psychological break for an extended absence than to send people back in 'dribs and drabs' over the course of a 6 month tour. The field troops and the home front could both then put on their 'war faces' and get on with it.

If this approach was adopted, however, it would be important to make sure that the preparation for ops, as well as the post ops drills, were as effecient and slick as possible with the absolute minimum of time away from home, and time wasted on pointless admin and exercises. As always, the actual tour seems less painful than all the BS that goes on before and after... for months in some cases apparently.

This approach would also collapse the first time a senior officer invokes RHIP and sneaks back for some kind of 'important meeting', but also just manages to attend his or her kid's graduation ceremony - or whatever. Leadership by example would be of critical importance.


----------



## NCRCrow (25 Dec 2008)

For the Navy, 

You will do tons of pre-deployment training (OTT, WUPS, MRI, trials) then go on your 7 month tour. 

The bonus in the Navy is that not all positions are entitled to an HLTA.  

Everybody in OP ATHENA Roto 0 (Kabul) went on HLTA regardless of there position.

The way I look at it, look at your tour as a one year go, with home time a bonus.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (25 Dec 2008)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> The bonus in the Navy is that not all positions are entitled to an HLTA.



What positions?


----------



## NCRCrow (25 Dec 2008)

All Director (ORO, SWC, ASWC, SAC) positions including EWS. 

Plus the specialty Engineering types ( I am not exactly sure of the Cert Level)


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Dec 2008)

I was deployed to Iraq for 3 days shy of 7 months, and all up 12 months of my life was chewed up with all the training/leave etc. We started training on 01 May 06, and I returned to my normal duty on 02 May 07.

On my tour, just under 1/2 way through I took my 'ROCTFA/ROCL', ending up spending 14 days in Greece, with a total of either 18 or 20 days away from Baghdad.

IMHO, I needed this break, as it helped assist me in breaking up the tour, and got myself and my now Ex together mid way.

I benifited from this break, as did we all. To go hell for leather for the entire time would have been exhausting, as we never had any days off.

I view any time away as productive for the majority of the troops.

Just my two cents,

OWDU


----------



## NCRCrow (25 Dec 2008)

I agree! 

A break is needed and warranted but shouldn't be expected if operational reasons preclude it.

I look at it at a year long deployment and a HLTA or time home is bonus.


----------



## PhilB (25 Dec 2008)

I am undecided on this issue, but to say that you cannot receive it due to operational reasons, will IMHO result in fighting troops (those that arguably need leave the most), who are continually short handed not getting a leave, while those in "softer" positions get theirs. Just hypothetical but, my two cents.


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Dec 2008)

On my tour, our leave was set up so only a certain capped number were away at one time, and this did not reflect any operational shortfalls. We functioned excellent in good times and bad, and were as tenacious as if we were at full strength, with the only complaint that if one was away he missed some action.

We were at 100% capacity from 'X' weeks into the tour, and 'X' weeks on the other side coming out, and went home as a complete group, shy of the ones we lost (no KIAs on my tour).

All balanced out, all ranks had their time away, and aside from the odd mugging in Europe with a bloke who was on the grog too much and let his guard down, to the odd bar fight either at home or again in Europe somewhere, there was no dramas. Boys will be boys  ;D

OWDU


----------



## KevinB (26 Dec 2008)

Having been deployed for the last 3 years in a 2 month on 1 month off ratio, the only point I would use HLTA for is if you post units over for the durations.

Frankly the lack of number the CF has deployed on the tip of the spear is extremely low, and the rotation rate is low compared to the allies, add in HLTA, and its cheating the system and diminishing the unit capabilities, and endangering the remaining troops for that.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Dec 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Having been deployed for the last 3 years in a 2 month on 1 month off ratio, the only point I would use HLTA for is if you post units over for the durations.
> 
> Frankly the lack of number the CF has deployed on the tip of the spear is extremely low, and the rotation rate is low compared to the allies, add in HLTA, and its cheating the system and diminishing the unit capabilities, and endangering the remaining troops for that.



I have to agree. Counting 'days to do' before mid-tour leave, then counting again for 'day to do' before end of tour is a psychological, and therefore operational, PITA. Also, trying to run operations with 10-20% non-effective due to the leave program is absurd. It's only 6 months folks. Might as well make it 6 good ones (says the guy from the comfort of his armchair).


----------



## Infanteer (26 Dec 2008)

Instead of cutting out HLTA wholesale, which could be a morale issue, simply move it as a block to post tour.  A Task Force will do 6-8 months in theater, will do its decompression, and will then all be cut loose for HLTA as a whole with a report to garrison for AAG after their HLTA.  If they want 3 weeks at home, so be it - it's 3 extra weeks of leave.  If they want a vacation, they get it.


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Dec 2008)

Our Australian operational block of leave was war service leave, and only 5 days came out of our rec leave. Extra leave credits are earned while on ops, along with the normal acrue time.

As for the 6 months, to the best of my knowledge when has a tour only lasted 6 months to the day? Like I said ours was 7 months, well 3 days shy of it. So, say 7 months straight, 24 hrs a day being vigilant can cause injuries. In the rear with the gear back in Kuwait is one thing, ( I am not slamming our rear ech pers - they do a great job) but with the SH'nTF in some of the most violent areas of the city of Baghdad is a complete other kettle of fish. OSI's from my tour did not appear until we were RTA'd. An example, one of my RAEME blokes cracked, and missed over 3 months of work once home.

All Australians who come home then take more leave on arrival (actually we work the first week back doing mandatory post op trg), including war service, which is gobbled up first. Most are gone for a month, while many may take up to 6 weeks. Thats the post deployment block.

In my view, the operational leave is required for the benifit of the mental health and rest of all troops. Its good to have a rest. I never had heard one complaint about anyone's leave. It was good for the morale, and a much needed break for the men, and their families too. Personally I came back fully recharged, and again counted the days down to go home. I was happy. To me, it helped pass the time by breaking up the tour, and I, like any human needed the break from the military and ME culture, and a dose of fresh air of the reality other than being in the middle of a most 24hr/day violent society, which surrounded us 360 degrees.

If one was to not allowed any leave, there would be a host of other problems with the men which would not normally be encountered. The days of not getting home for long periods are long gone.

Now the ADF has increased tours to 8 months which means it will run close to 9 months before one is home, with trg etc, thats 12-14 months used depending on the trg program. The ADF grants two leave periods in ops over 9 months, so the new 8 month tours will still have the 14 day period of leave. We had a replacement come in in late Jan of 07, as one of my men was sent home. He was there for our tour, and the next, staying almost 9 months with only 2 wks off. If he would have arrived 4 or 5 days earlier, he would have got his two leave periods.

I guess our army here runs different to the beat of the Canadians. I am sure though that each others Command looks at how things compare.

Australians had 13 months tours in Viet Nam 1962-1975, but that was another war. Times have changed for us, the US are still having long tours in Iraq. Units in our FOB had 15 months, and that is a long time, and the stress on families back in CONUS but be enourmous.

EDIT: Currently the ADF does not have a decompression period like the CF does, although there is 4-5 days in Kuwait, which consists of turning in kit, cleaning and stowing wpns for RTA action, medical, Customs/AQIS for UAB, and psych. Then waiting to catch the bird home, which is only one flight a week. while in Kuwait, the dress is PT gear, and one is left to his own devices taking in perhaps a trip to the Rock for the pool (depends on the season), or hang out at the LSA, doing the MWR tent and of course the USO tent, DFACing, KFCing McRottening or Pizza Huting. It was a long 5 days, trapped in a tent with about 30 farting individuals. We were all CB'd to the LSA due to force protection, so no trips into Kuwait City were allowed.

So in Baghdad one day, a few hrs later in Kuwait, then 5 days of dogfucking in Kuwait, marking time, jumping thru hoops, then the bird home, then home for a day, then back to work for a week, then a month off, then back to work, followed by 90 day POPS, then a 6 month POPS (Post Op Psych Screen).

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## NCRCrow (26 Dec 2008)

OP APOLLO Roto 0 , we spent 76 days at sea straight. Then our duty watches alongside then no HLTA. It was hell and it sucked. But we got 2000 dollars in lieu which made up for it. (in retrospect)
Doing our NATO last year, key positions were not entitled to HLTA and it was the biggest demoralizing issue to see fellow sailors flying home or meeting there spouses ashore as you covered there duty watches. We were given two weeks off after we returned.

I think HLTA is a great idea and needed. 

Now back to my Duty Watch.


----------



## KevinB (26 Dec 2008)

Wes, anyone bitching about being based at FOB Union or out at VBC, is really missing hardship.  The same with the current state of KAF, BAF etc.  Frankly your weapons shop is not suffering tactical deficencies likley to get them killed when they are down 2-3 guys.

 Op Apollo - 3VP embraced the suck for their tour, which was a lot longer than 76 days.


The only way to make HLTA work is to beef up the units to a 10-15% deployed overage, which in effect would result in 2-3 Bn's cobbled together to make one deployable unit.

MWR facilties at the bigger FOB's allow for troops to decompress from out at FOB Buttfucknowhere, yet they are still around to be and effective delpoyed unit if needed.

Lump all of HLTA onto the disembarkation leave.


----------



## NCRCrow (26 Dec 2008)

the 76 days was one of the three patrols we did for a culmination of 7 months.

But it is irrelevant.


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Dec 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Wes, anyone bitching about being based at FOB Union or out at VBC, is really missing hardship.  The same with the current state of KAF, BAF etc.  Frankly your weapons shop is not suffering tactical deficencies likley to get them killed when they are down 2-3 guys.



Hi Kev, hope your Christmas is going well. Been hot here as usual.

I don't know how it works on current CF deployments, but CSS working along side Inf/Armd during our operations on my tour was unique. We are soldiers first and tradesmen second, and we were all too often used during missions outside the IZ, into the 'badlands' as we were all LAV qualified (Dvr and C/Comd), and we all shared the hardship equally alongside our Paratroopers (no paratroopers were LAV qualified) and fellow Lighthorsemen, as our total strength all ranks on the Combat Team was 110 men (qty of pers is not a OPSEC issue its been in the news). If we were not driving or C/Comd'n, we were shooter/operators. As a Sergeant, I wore many hats, and performed many roles at times, including PL Comd, Artificer Sergeant Major, and I was the CSS PL SGT from go to wough (= the PL WO in the CF). Throughout the tour I was busy, at times conducting 20 hr days. However there were times too that no one left the FOB also.

If we did not take our own Type 3 LAV out, we crewed a Type 2. If we were not part of a mission out of the IZ, we manned the RRF, positioned outside the FOB near a VCP on the fringe of the IZ. As for the weapons shop, there was only two of us for the last 3 months, and only me from Nov to Jan, as one of my guys was sent home. RAEME consisted only of a very small number of men, all LAV qualified. We were also out in the IZ daily conducting business. Some of our up armoured SUVs also recieved sniper fire within the IZ.

We pushed as far as city of Taji north of Baghdad, and other areas of the city as required, plus we had been out to about 20km from the Iranian border also. Our Combat Team had more missions outside the wire than any previous tours, and this we were proud of. We took fire and returned fire. Some of my friends recieved citations for action against the enemy. Although we lived at Union III, (it was not a safe place in those days) we were outide the wire often, and being honest, I could not even count how many times I was outside the wire. That was going on 2 yrs ago now, and the level of violence in the city was outragous, with 16,476 citizens of Baghdad killled from Sep 06 - Mar 07, and those were the reported cases through our INTSUMs, not some CNN ratings body count. 

The tour for us was very dangerous all the time with daily IDF from either 107mm or 122mm Katyushas and mortars of all sizes (I had two 122mm's come in about 40m from me one day at a market at Assasin's Gate, there was locals killed in right front of us, and a number were injured - there was only 3 of us, and about rather pissed off 150 locals). Plus the threat from insurgents not only outside the wire, but in those days there was roving snipers and a fair bit of 'naughtyness' in the IZ from sympathisers and supporters of the baddies. VBIEDs got through, and often 'favourite haunts' for us were out of bounds do to some threat or another.

We had well over 100 IDF incoming in one evening alone (we were across the street from the new US embassy, and often caught the drop shorts or seen the ones fall into the Tigris which over shot). Some IDF was so close the concusion blew our doors open, or had dust falling and elec conduit blowing off the walls, and we laid low kitted up during stand-to, manning our strong points. Our tour was no cakewalk - it had its moments, and 7 months of that was more than enough. One early morning our Aussie sanctuary also took a direct hit from a 122mm Katyusha, striking a T-wall just  2 metres from an occupied barracks, injuring 5, but that was 9 days before we were on the ground. If that T-wall had not have been there to soak up the brunt of the initial blast there could have been 20 to 30 killed.  Australian Forces had often been deliberatly contacted, with IEDs getting two LAVs in the city from another tour, and a total of 5 or 6 Aussie LAVs lost to IED/EFP within a period of about 18 months. Just lucky there was no KIAs. Our tour was 207 days.

I am simply trying to emphasise that no matter which trade one is in our Army, on these small Combat Teams, we're all equals, all soldiers first. Regardless of trade, one killed is a hardship in itself. We were a Combat Team, we had no REMFs, we were all front line soldiers, and did our bit.

Our leave was indeed welcomed and IMHO we all deserved the break. The Australian position on leave will not change in the forseeable future, but I will sum up and say if there was no leave granted, and as professional soldiers, we would have accepted that and soldiered on, but I beleive any leave is good for both the soldier and his family back home.

Although at the time we joked about the daily danger and always seemed to downplay it, but we later realised when we got home, what we had seen, done and got throught, often with simply luck on our side. 

At the end of the day, we each have our opinions about leave, and its pros and cons, and to discuss this on here benifits us all, although we might not agree where each of us sits with it. 

Regards,

Wes

As usual, edited for spelling  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Dec 2008)

I have to weigh in here.
First of all, I enjoy HLTA.  I'm currently home on HLTA, and I love it.  Having said that, I am a firm believer that HLTA ought to be scrapped.
First of all, look at the logistics.  Assume 1200 troops on in a unit per rotation, and assume that everyone gets 3 weeks off (including transit), and assume that the tour is 6 months from TOA to TOA.  Also assume that the first month and the last month there is not HLTA due to handovers, etc.  OK, that leaves four months (assume 4.2 weeks/month) for HLTA.  That's 4 x 4.2 weeks for a total of 16.8 weeks.  Hey, its Christmas, so lets make it an even 18 weeks of "HTLA Time" (to make it even).  So, all things being equal, there are 6 HLTA "Blocks" in there, in which everyone "goes away" for 3 weeks.  (I know that blocks overlap and stuff, but just to make it easier for the math involved).  Of those 1200 troops, one person in six is "out" for the "HLTA Time".  That's over *200 persons *gone at a time.  That's almost 20 % of the unit "not there" during 2/3 of the tour.  So, in terms of unit effectiveness, that unit is shortchanged almost 20 % for most of the tour.  
I won't even get into the logistics of it!
Now, HLTA sucks in terms of logistics and effectiveness, but I won't just point out a problem without offering a solution.  As everyone knows, people need a break from time to time.  You simply cannot be in combat for 6 months without one.  So, what do you do?  Well, do what our armies did in wars past. R and R.  Not out of country, but take whole platoons and troops and pull them out of the line as the situation warrants.  In other words, a command responsibility to ensure that vehicles, weapons and soldiers get needed maintenance.  Pull them back to KAF (in the example of Afghanistan) and give them a few days to get a haircut, have some coffee, play on the internet and just RELAX.  Go attend church services, play hockey, whatever.  Let them have a few drinks even.  Then, when rested, laundry done, new magazines purchased and the vehicles have had their necessary maintenance and the weapons have been given the once-over, back out they go.  Lock stock and barrel.
One more thing.  The CF is all about post deployment "decompression", complete with briefings, "how to" seminars, etc.  That's a good thing, IMHO, but in our current tours, a dude could be in a raging firefight in Zharey one day, and then back in KAF and homeword bound with nary a briefing on reconnecting with the family and dumped back home: no compression.  Why?  If we stay with the whole HLTA deal "as is", then, IMPO, there must be decompression before heading home, drinking a 40 pounder and pissing themselves after they pass out in the driveway.
So, there it is.  If people know, BEFORE HAND, that they get no HLTA, then they can more easily accept it.  And as suggested elsewhere in this thread, compensate with extra free leave after the tour.


----------



## GAP (26 Dec 2008)

I agree wholeheartedly....


----------



## Grunt_031 (26 Dec 2008)

As member that was on Op Apollo In 2002 in Afghanistan, we had no HLTA. We did have a 4 day R&R in UAE as a Platoon and also rotation on camp duties. This allowed us to retain our combat strength/effectiveness and on the R&R do a little decompression among peers. 

After during numerous UN and NATO tours I found this method to be the most effective and would probably allow units to do longer tours (that is a totally different thread and discussion). 

Decompression before returning is one of the most effective tools, for both the member and their families, post tour. When a member goes straight home for a HLTA in the middle of the tour it undermines the whole concept of decompression. So why do we still keep sending soldier straight back? Either also have an additional decompression period prior to going home on HLTA(in theatre or third location) or get rid of the HLTA option when in high threat areas.

A better method for alternative HLTA would be what was place for after our tour in Afghanistan in 2002 and after the 5 day decompression in Guam.
After the tour was a Post Combat Allowance (money in leui of the HLTA), 21 Days of leave (that we were entitled to for regular HLTA), and Special LTA. This allowed the unit to take a 66 day leave period (with annual leave). This allowed member to spent quality time with the family and the money to take a family trip if desired.


----------



## Raven22 (28 Dec 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Our Combat Team had more missions outside the wire than any previous tours, and this we were proud of.




Without wanting to nitpick Wes, but I bet the early SECDETs who spent their entire tours out at the flats in the RZ might disagree with that statement. To be sure, my TP SGT was always whinging that it used to be a lot harder.  

On the topic, I found the mid deployment leave to be a complete pain in the butt for a 6 month deployement, as it meant up to 30% of my soldiers were out of country at any one time. The new 8 month deployments should make it easier though. Interestingly, they are beginning to use a new system for the combat elements in Afghanistan so they can all get their leave. Instead of spreading out the leave over as long a time as possible and accepting the loss of personnel, Australia is sending over another complete small combat element for only a few months, which will replace each similiar sized unit in country to allow them to go on their leave. This means there will be no loss of combat power during the leave period. This is more to do with getting maximum troop numbers in country despite Kevin Rudds personnel cap than anything else though.


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Dec 2008)

Raven22 said:
			
		

> Without wanting to nitpick Wes, but I bet the early SECDETs who spent their entire tours out at the flats in the RZ might disagree with that statement. To be sure, my TP SGT was always whinging that it used to be a lot harder.



Hi Sir, that statement came from the OC of X, during his farewell address to us at The Cove. We had a brand new young 'go-getter' Ambassador to Iraq at the time, which was one of the reasons why we were out so often. I did not pull that statement out of my arse   . Early SECDET's tours were only four mouths and there was one which was 2 months (I think that was VIIB). I do beleive VIII was the first 6 month tour. XIV I do believe is the first 8 'monther'.

Cheers from Bribie, and all the best in 09,

Wes


----------



## McG (28 Dec 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Frankly the lack of number the CF has deployed on the tip of the spear is extremely low, and the rotation rate is low compared to the allies, add in HLTA, and its cheating the system and diminishing the unit capabilities, and endangering the remaining troops for that.


I agree here.  We lack troops on the ground to make any consistent headway, and even at 100% strength we basically only had enough troops to tread water.  Then start trimming back the numbers for HLTA, casualties, tasks (yes, they happen in theatre too), etc.

I like the idea of a longer leave period & the money at end tour with R&R days inside the tour (pull a section of Pl complete for this).  For those gone longer than 6-7 months then we could start considering HLTA back to Canada.


----------



## Gunner98 (28 Dec 2008)

I think one point that is being missed is that it is one benefit for all and indeed not every overseas tasking is the same.  I will admit my 6.5 month tour was spent working on KAF where the biggest threat was rocket attacks and food poisoning.  My pre-deployment training began 8 months before I left Canada.  Five weeks before I left for tour my basement flooded and thousands of dollars of damage resulted.  During my HLTA in Sep 08 I was able to do some renovations and landscaping; something that could not be done in Dec.  While I was away my oldest daughter had to be moved away to College and my wife was left with 2 part-time jobs and two teenagers requiring constant taxi service.  Needless to say HLTA was a blessed event in our house.  

My tour consisted of 14-18 hour days and at one point I was covering 3 desks for a 10-day period. My only day off was 1 Jul when I had my only 2-beer day.  Working 7 days a week in a Div-level HQ and Joint Ops Centre (18) for even 3 months straight is mentally tiring and emotionally frustrating.  There were US officers who occupied their desks in the JOC for a one-year period without any HLTA.  Spending shift after shift coordinating MEDEVACs is not the best way to spend a day. This does not in any way to compare to that of a soldier in a FOB constantly being hit by IDF or the brave troops on convoys or patrol on Hwy 1.  If I felt I needed my break, I am positive they feel theirs is well-deserved.  So with an all for one and a one for all, HLTA is what our senior leaders have decided.

A lot of the discussion in this thread is based on TF/BG/unit needs and not necessarily what is best for a soldier on his second or third tour of duty outside the wire.  If there are shortages of personnel then maybe the scale of the op/task/job needs to be scaled down to what is achievable with available resources.  A combat zone is not the place to carry on with our lauded attitude at work in Canada "we will have to make do and hope for the best." 

Decompression is an unit or sub-unit level thing again and must be adaptable to the types of job that a soldier fills in theatre. 

In summary what is decided for both HLTA and decompression will be a consistent and uniform benefit and allowance for all (with a few very minor exceptions.)  Squeezing a few extra weeks out of troops without a break will lead to more negative results.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (29 Dec 2008)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> A better method for alternative HLTA would be what was place for after our tour in Afghanistan in 2002 and after the 5 day decompression in Guam.
> After the tour was a Post Combat Allowance (money in leui of the HLTA), 21 Days of leave (that we were entitled to for regular HLTA), and Special LTA. This allowed the unit to take a 66 day leave period (with annual leave). This allowed member to spent quality time with the family and the money to take a family trip if desired.



I like this as well.I'm not looking forward to being on our decompression leave with the rest of the battle group at all.I just want to get the tour done and come home.I would really like to see this 66 days off with my family.The only thing I would add is to get rid of hardship for KAF.There is nothing hard,scary,threatening at KAF.Getting haircuts,massages,drinking green bean while telling stories about when you heard a rocket alarm does not validate the hardship.Give the combat troops extra money and more leave at the end of tour.Allow the per's deployed to KAF to keep the usual HLTA.And before someone says x trade leaves the gate from time to time,there will be no perfect method.They scrapped our combat badges,we get paid the same....talk about combat stress lol. ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Dec 2008)

KAF has seen its fair share of rockets, but I totally agree that either HA and RA get bumped down 1 level (still tax free) for KAFites (minus NSE truckers and FP guys), or boost HA and RA up a level (which I believe was in the works before my tour) for the FOB pers. When I did my PSO Basic course, the clerk that briefed us got fairly upset when someone asked whether people in KAF get the same allowances as BG pers.

I think the decompression time in Cyprus (maybe find someplace a little cheaper) is a good thing. Winding down and getting as drunk as humanly possible prevented it from happening at home. I know I didn't want to touch alcohol when I got back because I had so much in Cyprus. Sure, binge drinking is bad, but coming home and developing an alcohol problem on leave is probably a heck of a lot worse.


----------



## Greymatters (30 Dec 2008)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sure, binge drinking is bad, but coming home and developing an alcohol problem on leave is probably a heck of a lot worse.



Can you clarify why and how you would develop an alcohol problem on leave?  Or are you refering to part of a larger issue?


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Dec 2008)

Raven22 said:
			
		

> Instead of spreading out the leave over as long a time as possible and accepting the loss of personnel, Australia is sending over another complete small combat element for only a few months, which will replace each similiar sized unit in country to allow them to go on their leave. This means there will be no loss of combat power during the leave period.



I assume that 'small combat element' means rifle company-sized formations? A brilliant idea which, to be successful, no doubt relies on some high quality staff work and senior leadership.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Dec 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> In summary what is decided for both HLTA and decompression will be a consistent and uniform benefit and allowance for all (with a few very minor exceptions.)  Squeezing a few extra weeks out of troops without a break will lead to more negative results.


I agree that breaks are needed.  Right now, people are given a block of time off, and I'm sorry if I sound inconsiderate, but everyone has challenges at home, and I also agree that HLTA was a blessed event for me as well.  Having said that, a 2-3 week block in the middle is not what is needed.  That time off needs to be spread out.  One day a week, maybe one day every two weeks, something.  And nobody can say that it can't be done.  Hell, we take people out of the mix for weeks at a time now, so why not several days, spread over the tour?


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Dec 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> The only thing I would add is to get rid of hardship for KAF.  There is nothing hard,scary,threatening at KAF.  Getting haircuts,massages,drinking green bean while telling stories about when you heard a rocket alarm does not validate the hardship.  Give the combat troops extra money and more leave at the end of tour.  Allow the per's deployed to KAF to keep the usual HLTA.  And before someone says x trade leaves the gate from time to time,there will be no perfect method.  They scrapped our combat badges,we get paid the same....talk about combat stress lol. ;D


OK, let's make this even more fair (even though I'm enraged by your assertion that there is "...nothing...threatening at KAF."  It's all a matter of degrees).  Suppose dude is in a FOB.  Does he get paid less than the dude who, also at said FOB, but goes out more often (eg: rifleman vs. cook?)  And what of the OMLT dudes, with no FOBs for them?  Do they get more?  And who is going to track said "hardship?"  And what of FOBs where there is less contact than other FOBs?  

So, I ask you, when you see a WW2 vet, who perhaps was a "REMF", but served in France, Belgium and Holland, but never fired or heard a shot in anger, do you sneer at his medals?  Like it or not, we're all in the (relative) same boat, though some are on lower decks than others.  If you want more money for more danger, go sign up for the next installment of Jackass, otherwise, accept Her Majesty's shilling and be on your way.


----------



## PhilB (31 Dec 2008)

I agree and disagree with you Mortarman. My first tour we were based mostly out of KAF, while on my second we were out of a combat outpost. I don't think that the two "boats" are even relatively close. Not even in the same ocean. The only thing that links them is that they are in the same country. That being said, you are right about the difficulties of altering levels of hardship and risk. Not that there isnt a large difference between KAF, and everything else, but there is also differences between different outside the wire positions. I think that the best solution would be to allow soldiers to retain the "permanent field pay" allowance that they receive in Canada (I am not sure what the allowance is actually called, but you know what I mean  >  ). This could be easily determined. If you spend "x" number of days outside the wire (I mean outside the wire, not inside a FOB, im sorry MSG/Sper are not that much more dangerous/hard than KAF) then you are entitled to the allowance for the month. If you dont spend enough days out, the you dont get it. This would be a large bonus to recognize troops that are living a much harder life on tour. My opinion of a harder life is both in terms of danger and hardship. If you are living in KAF/FOB eating fresh food, in air conditioning with a gym and other amenities most of the time then just because you are in "x" fob doesnt mean you are living the hard life. OMLT and BG troops living in COP's and SP's or out on ops eating rations, sleeping on the ground etc. is my idea of hardship. Just my two cents.


----------



## Greymatters (31 Dec 2008)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> Decompression before returning is one of the most effective tools, for both the member and their families, post tour. When a member goes straight home for a HLTA in the middle of the tour it undermines the whole concept of decompression. So why do we still keep sending soldier straight back? Either also have an additional decompression period prior to going home on HLTA(in theatre or third location) or get rid of the HLTA option when in high threat areas.



That's a good point...


----------



## George Wallace (31 Dec 2008)

We can discuss this until we are "blue in the face", but the sad fact is, there will always be someone who is not happy with how much money (s)he makes or how many medals or badges that (s)he has earned/collected.  They will never feel that anyone else is as equal to them in skill sets, hardships, danger, etc.  It is those sad few, that will constantly complain or bring up this topic.  Reason or facts will not deter them from their 'complaints'.


----------



## Gunner98 (1 Jan 2009)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Having said that, a 2-3 week block in the middle is not what is needed.  That time off needs to be spread out.  One day a week, maybe one day every two weeks, something.



I will ask again - not needed by whom - the individual or the op/mission/task.  Mission creep will eliminate these days off the same way they do back home when individual leave plans are requested rather than scheduling unit block leave.  

As for hardship and risk allowances, IMHO if you are there for the money you are there for the wrong reason.  If you think your value is higher than the next guy I think you are missing the bigger picture - "it is One Army, One Team, One Vision", not a one-man army or an army of a few.


----------



## Raven22 (1 Jan 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I assume that 'small combat element' means rifle company-sized formations? A brilliant idea which, to be successful, no doubt relies on some high quality staff work and senior leadership.



Think smaller. Australia only has one rifle company in Afghanistan. As I said, the main idea is to get a few more combat personnel into country that don't count under Kevin Rudd's personnel cap. If they go over there a couple of months early and return a couple of months late, who's to know?


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jan 2009)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> As for hardship and risk allowances, IMHO if you are there for the money you are there for the wrong reason.  If you think your value is higher than the next guy I think you are missing the bigger picture - "it is One Army, One Team, One Vision", not a one-man army or an army of a few.


I agree 100%!


----------



## X-mo-1979 (1 Jan 2009)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I agree that breaks are needed.  Right now, people are given a block of time off, and I'm sorry if I sound inconsiderate, but everyone has challenges at home, and I also agree that HLTA was a blessed event for me as well.  Having said that, a 2-3 week block in the middle is not what is needed.  That time off needs to be spread out.  One day a week, maybe one day every two weeks, something.  And nobody can say that it can't be done.  Hell, we take people out of the mix for weeks at a time now, so why not several days, spread over the tour?



The problem is we wouldnt ever get it.And you know it.Things would constantly come up and getting a two day pass to KAF would also slip by the wayside.At least with HLTA it is driven by policy.As well trying to get out of COP's and FOBS,BP, isnt always easy.It's a mess trying to get back from your flight as it is sometimes.Can you imagine trying to swing guys in on a fair basis continually for the tour.It would be plagued by problems.As for time off at the FOB ,it wouldnt be time off.When your having your "day off" it would quickly become a training day or a day to get PDR's done etc etc.

As for the discussion of what is dangerous and not,you are right MSG PBSG are about the same as KAF.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jan 2009)

I'll start by saying that I'm not going to compare jobs for "danger level" or "dangerness" (if that's even a word).
As for giving us HLTA because the chain of command wouldn't give us time off is bunk.  It's very simple to regulate "time off".  Many "KAF-ites" got time off over christmas (as I understand it).  As for bringing people in from the field, it's too easy: platoon or troop at a time.  Heck, this BG has already done that (concurrent to other tasks that bring them back here).  Besides, welfare of the troops is a command issue, and if the troops are burning out due to no time off, then commanders have to start getting axed.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jan 2009)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> As for bringing people in from the field, it's too easy: platoon or troop at a time.  Heck, this BG has already done that (concurrent to other tasks that bring them back here).  Besides, welfare of the troops is a command issue, and if the troops are burning out due to no time off, then commanders have to start getting axed.



Exactly. In theatre 'Time Off' from dodging IEDs is easy to arrange and, in other conflicts, was frequently implemented as part of a regular Bde level policy where units were rotated out of the line for R&R/ 48 hour pass, or at least a shower, a steak and a beer or two. But therein lies the challenge of the 6 month tour: high expectations for 'success', plus a relatively small number of troops to cover a large number of tasks, plus a limited time for battlefield commanders to get results and win that all important high quality PER (or book deal), mean that unfortunately HTLA will frequently be the only time off a rilfe company guy (or gal) sees during a tour.


----------



## KevinB (2 Jan 2009)

I still think a 1 year tour - Bde sized. - for a one year on, two years off system.
 A FuLL Bde, Hq - 3 Inf Bn's, 1xEng Reg't, Armd Reg't, Arty Reg't, TacHel Sqn, the other odds and sods.

Rotate Pl's or even Coy's off the line back to KAF regularily for a week every month or so.  Plus a 72hr R&R every two months.


----------



## NL_engineer (2 Jan 2009)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I'll start by saying that I'm not going to compare jobs for "danger level" or "dangerness" (if that's even a word).
> As for giving us HLTA because the chain of command wouldn't give us time off is bunk.  It's very simple to regulate "time off".  Many "KAF-ites" got time off over christmas (as I understand it).  As for bringing people in from the field, it's too easy: platoon or troop at a time.  Heck, this BG has already done that (concurrent to other tasks that bring them back here).  Besides, welfare of the troops is a command issue, and if the troops are burning out due to no time off, then commanders have to start getting axed.



Doesn't that go back to 'the people at the top are to far removed from the the people at the bottom' syndrome?


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I still think a 1 year tour - Bde sized. - for a one year on, two years off system.
> A FuLL Bde, Hq - 3 Inf Bn's, 1xEng Reg't, Armd Reg't, Arty Reg't, TacHel Sqn, the other odds and sods.
> 
> Rotate Pl's or even Coy's off the line back to KAF regularily for a week every month or so.  Plus a 72hr R&R every two months.



That would make sense, and we know what that means; it won't happen.  The biggest factor is that the Canadian Public would not approve the increase in Defence Spending to facilitate such a planned deployment of Bdes.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jan 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That would make sense, and we know what that means; it won't happen.  The biggest factor is that the Canadian Public would not approve the increase in Defence Spending to facilitate such a planned deployment of Bdes.



I'm pretty sure that all we'd need is an Army Commander with cojones. He just needs to say 'make it so' and his staff can figure it out.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that all we'd need is an Army Commander with cojones. He just needs to say 'make it so' and his staff can figure it out.



Of course, this needs to be counterbalanced by a smart Army Commander who goes through a proper estimate.

We've had a leader with cojones who said make it happen and then let it ride and we ended up with 4 .dot COMS (someone please explain CANOSCOM to me?) and a plethora of new Major to Major General positions to replace one small organization.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (2 Jan 2009)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> "it is One Army, One Team, One Vision"



But within that Army, people do different jobs.  Like the rucksack, tac vest, boots, Kevlar vs CVC helmets, all the other dogshit out there, let's stop trying to pretend that we are all equal and that there is a 'one size fits all' solution.  

There is not.  Some people do different things than others.  You will never make everyone happy but as of now, if combat commanders are unhappy because in a combat arms sub-unit, the long deployment timeline plus HLTA means a sub unit has 100% of its people on the ground for only 4 days out of a whole tour, that needs to be addressed.

As far as I'm concerned, HLTA needs to be scrapped.  It builds the culture of entitlement and saps focus and combat power.  I'm sure our comrades lying peacefully in Dieppe and Normandy are rolling in their graves at the softness, weakness and bureacracy of the present institutional army.  

In-county R&Rs (hell, contract an R&R centre in Kabul or elsewhere in the region) are a better way to go, IF (that's a big IF) we can't build and maintain the institutional discipline to get people out of the line at least for 48hrs at a time using what essentially is a rear echelon environment right at Kandahar Airfield.  Before the KAF people get upset at that statement, please read this series of articles, then make your arguments.

And for those "in the line" you can't tell me that it's "high intensity conflict, all on, all the time" 100% of the time when you are in your FOB, so you can "never get any time off".  I just don't buy it.

Ref an Army Commander with cojones, we all wish it were just that simple.

End statement - get rid of HLTA, stop straddling "peace" and "war" environments and focus on the fight with a "run what you brung" mentality.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2009)

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Before the KAF people get upset at that statement, please read this series of articles, then make your arguments.



Checkmate.

Some highlights:

_We had to do all sorts of things from a memory game, spelling game, paper airplane challenge, trivia questions about the base, scavenger hunt, football toss, water balloon toss all the while running all over the camp. We finished up with a tug of war. We didn't win but we were so close._

and

_Monday afternoon the power went out in some tents, mine being one of them. So that means no lights and more concerning, no air conditioning. As I write this they aren't quite sure when it will be back up but I sure hope it is soon. There is a small segment of time in the wee hours of the morning where is cools down enough to want a blanket but other than that it is pretty hot inside. Showers have pressure but the water doesn't warm up, which isn't a bad thing. In fact the cold water is very welcome and I won't complain about that!_

and

_One thing I will really miss when I leave here is walking on really big rocks/gravel.  Of course I am being sarcastic. It is so annoying walking Ron that stuff. It couldn't be little pea sized gravel or anything easy to keep our footing on. Of course not.  Instead they find the biggest gravel in the world and dump it here. Like the pieces are as big as my hand sometimes. I'm sure there was a good reason for it, like it was the least expensive or something, or maybe it's the plight of the Taliban to try and sprain or break as many soldier's ankle's as possible.  Who knows? _


----------



## X-mo-1979 (2 Jan 2009)

I agree 99%.However if we are talking a bit of off army downtime no we don't get any.If we are not out we are plugging holes in camp security.By far it is not a high intensity (most times) however when your camp is 1000mx1000m getting away doesn't happen.Believe it or not our FOB's get attacked quite often.COP's did even more.
Plus being so short manned by HLTA we are always filling spots somewhere.

Even an R&R center in KAF would be nice.I rather enjoyed my vacation there (injured).The alarms were not that scary(although some seems to tell their wifes how scary it was on the phone while I was there).Green bean was nice,and I seen a new device to carry your rifle on your bike which I thought was pretty cool (as carrying it was awkward according to the article.)

As for the institutional discipline to get guys out I believe it wouldn't happen.As then we would be leaving people "undermanned" and it plain wouldn't happen in the BG.The best solution I have heard or seen yet is to give guys the leave upon return.And somehow I cant see that happening ,it would be a lot like the pre deployment leave we got.

However with our own choppers maybe 48hrs a month back to KAF could be a possiablity now.


----------



## GDawg (2 Jan 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Of course, this needs to be counterbalanced by a smart Army Commander who goes through a proper estimate.
> 
> We've had a leader with cojones who said make it happen and then let it ride and we ended up with 4 .dot COMS (someone please explain CANOSCOM to me?) and a plethora of new Major to Major General positions to replace one small organization.



Well put. People seem to think I'm nuts when I say I personally like the current CDS better than the old one. I met both while deployed and while General Hillier was charismatic, approachable, and seemed to solve our minor, immediate in theatre requests (nails, hammers, etc) General Natynczyk exuded quiet, confident competence. Not to say General Hillier didn't/doesn't have those qualities, but Natynczyk spent more time talking with the officers and senior NCOs and less time posing for photos. That is my _personal_ opinion, based on my _limited_ exposure to the two men.

Back on topic. 

This thread seems polarized into two camps on HLTA, it is clearly a divisive topic. I appreciated my HLTA, that is for sure, but I could have survived without it. For me, I caught a ride on a British chopper out for HLTA (and sat around for a bit because we arrived early), and wound up sitting around a KAF for a bit to catch a CLP back out. From my observations from my tour, folks at KAF can get out of country for HLTA with no trouble, FOBs and Patrol bases can get back to KAF for HLTA with some degree of difficulty, and in my case this also involved unnecessary downtime as soldiers from adjacent leave blocks might be lumped together for transport, or left off ops for fear that timings might creep right and jeopardize HLTA. The guys at the COPs would have to endure extreme difficulty getting out of country and of course might have to endure pers shortages. An ironic inverse trend presents itself: The folks who (arguably) need HLTA the least have the least difficulty in achieving it and the folks who need a break the most have the greatest difficulty, and incur the greatest individual and collective risk in achieving it. 

My personal opinion would be to scrap HLTA as to get the most out of the pers on the ground, and to mitigate the risks associated with shuffling troops around to fill blanks and moving people in and out of KAF.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (2 Jan 2009)

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Again, I don't buy it.



Your right we do get tons of downtime.We havnt been busy as hell.And yes my cot seems like an awesome place to spend some R&R.

As for me being a supervisor yes I am.I also know the amount of trouble I had getting me and my crew in on time for HLTA.As well coming in with guys who's flight was leaving in mere hours.I'll use the large amount of down time I get to draft up a few memo's.

I'll leave HLTA and R&R to someone else.As any thoughts I have on the issue,or how we are living out there are false and moot to this forum.I'm going to enjoy the rest of my HLTA,head back and maybe start a marathon club at my fob and mew like a kitten.


----------



## Greymatters (9 Jan 2009)

I think people are confusing HLTA issues with 48/72/96 R&R issues.  Especially when so many people are refering to both in the same sentence.

To be honest, HLTA was a sweet bonus.  Could I have lived without it and been more effective? Sure.  But the short leaves of 48-96 hrs were essential for maintaining sanity...


----------

