# regular force regiments



## Evan (6 Feb 2004)

I thought i knew most of the different regular regiments, but like everything else     i didnt know ****, i would be appreciative if they would be listed.

thank you
-Evan


----------



## Slim (6 Feb 2004)

INFANTRY
The Royal Canadian Regt.
3 battalions
The Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry
3 battalions
The Royal 22E Regt.
3 battalions

ARMOURED
The Royal Canadian Dragoons
12 RBC 
The Lord Strathcona‘s Horse ( Royal Canadians)
The Eighth Canadian Hussars ( recently disbanded)

I am not sure about the artillery and engineer orbat. If another member could fill in that information please.

Slim


----------



## Infanteer (6 Feb 2004)

Search through this site.  It is not merely a discussion board.  There you will find all your questions answered.


----------



## D-n-A (6 Feb 2004)

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/7_3.asp


----------



## Evan (6 Feb 2004)

thanks


----------



## patt (6 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Slim:
> )
> The Eighth Canadian Hussars ( recently disbanded)
> Slim [/QB]


really? when was this? what happend not enough people?


----------



## Slim (6 Feb 2004)

Patty

When the CF left Germany the 8 CH was the reg force armoured regt supporting the brigade.

Rather than have them come back to Canada and set up shop the government decided to disband the unit.

There is a reserve 8Ch...should you ever encounter an armoured crewman that served in the reg one be careful not to mix the two units up! The disbanding of the unit is a sore point with some...

Hope this helped

Slim


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Feb 2004)

I thought A Squadron (part of CTC) was still on the books?


----------



## Cpl. Williamson (7 Feb 2004)

Engineers

1 CER  Combat Engineer Regiment)
2 CER (Combat Engineer Regiment)
5 Engineer Regiment (French)
4 ESR (Engineer Support Regiment)

Im Not 100% On Them


----------



## Slim (7 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Ex-Dragoon:
> [qb] I thought A Squadron (part of CTC) was still on the books? [/qb]


I believe that the old RCD C Sqn has been amalgimated into the school. The guy to confirm this with is Franko as he served down there not too long ago.

You never did get back to me about the thing under the Seahawk.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## Franko (7 Feb 2004)

OK guys...

C Sqn(Fly over Sqn aka C Force) RCD was rebadged A Sqn 8CH when the Regiment was shutting down Lahr in 93. A sad day indeed. A lot of my buddies put in their posting messages immediatly to go back to the Regiment in Pet. The Hussars are well known to be an "officers" Regiment...almost as bad as the Strats(PTOOOWIE    )

A Sqn 8CH was NOT dis banded....they were stood down from the order of battle(a huge difference), thus ending a horrible experiment, 10/ 90% divided Res./ Reg. unit...the first in CF history. It was a complete failure. The reserves couldn‘t in a million years get the manpower and supplies to maintain a full tank sqn in the field. When they came on exercise with us...we supported them.   

The tanks that were used by C Sqn RCD and A Sqn 8CH NEVER belonged to either unit. They were always on the Armour School‘s DA and the care and maint was given to the two units in lew of the school providing the pers to man them. 

C Force was a dedicated unit seperate from the rest of the Regiment. The OC had the authority of a Lcol. to boot.

Those were the days  :warstory: 

Regards


----------



## Gunner (7 Feb 2004)

> 10/ 90% divided Res./ Reg. unit...the first in CF history


Actually, I believe the artillery experimented with 10/90 units commencing in 1991 which was before or at the same time as the 8 CH.       I don‘t know when the actual 8 CH 10/90 unit was stood up but I remember attending the 8 CH stand down parade in 93 in Gagetown.  Did the artillery beat the armour by 2 years?  Moreover, the key purpose of the 10/90 units was simply to hide or park Reg F PYs until they could be utilized once FRPs got rid of excess personnel.  In hindsight I don‘t believe there was any long term commits toward these 10/90 units (3 PPCLI, 3 RCR, 3 Vandoo, etc).  It was simply the army holding on to its units using whatever means available.     



> It was a complete failure.


I can‘t comment on the armour experiment.  I‘m abit more optimistic about the 10/90 experiment.  The key damage that was done was to the Reserve units effected by this influx of Reg F personnel for 2-3 years.  It was implemented with alot of emphasis on the reinvigoration of the reserves (finally), however, the result was a weaker reserve and further alienation between Reg and Res components.  This has manifested itself in the problems associated with LFRR.  No level of trust between Reg or Res.  Who suffers as a result of this?  The whole army.    



> The reserves couldn‘t in a million years get the manpower and supplies to maintain a full tank sqn in the field. When they came on exercise with us...we supported them.


The reserves (heck, the army as a whole) will not recover from years of abuse and outright neglect by politicians and citizens of Canada.  I also include a lack of a coherent vision by DND and our own leaders in what we want from the Reg and Res components.


----------



## Franko (7 Feb 2004)

I know of the Artilery‘s experiment with the 10/90 Regiment. The point I was making is the 8CH was the first one to actually be implemented on an official scale, a total force unit.

As for putting Reg F PY‘s in the units just to hold on to them until the FRP was done...it didn‘t happen with us. Never saw one in our unit.

As for the reg force troops invigorating the reserves...it was just too far gone. 

I belonged to the 8CH when I was in the res and the old boys club simply did not want to play. When the SSM had a talk with the RSM, the res SSMs pretty much ignored the reg SSMs suggestions. 

It got to a point where the OC of A sqn just gave up and took us home without the concent of the CO, who was pretty much in for the glory of having a tank sqn in his militia regiment. The OCs reasoning was we needed a break from the field. At the time we were at the 7 1/2 month mark of being out in the field (doing courses and FTX)and the guys were tired and in need of a break.

I‘m in no way tring to slam the reserves. I was in for almost 6 years on B class for 95% of it and even I could see it was a waste of time. Too bad it turned out the way it did. Great idea on paper...just no good in the real world.

BTW....when I said we supported the rest of the Regiment, their HQ Sqn showed up with 1 MLVW filled with gerry cans. Our SSM walked up to the SSM from HQ Sqn and said loudly "Well, thats enough for 1st troop...where‘s the rest?". Poor planning and preparation on his part I‘d say.

Regards


----------



## Gunner (7 Feb 2004)

> I know of the Artilery‘s experiment with the 10/90 Regiment. The point I was making is the 8CH was the first one to actually be implemented on an official scale, a total force unit.


Artillery was official, as was Infantry.  The total force concept was used by all combat arms branches, not just the 8 CH.  The 8 CH experiment went on longer because of support to the armoured school.  



> As for putting Reg F PY‘s in the units just to hold on to them until the FRP was done...it didn‘t happen with us. Never saw one in our unit.  As for the reg force troops invigorating the reserves...it was just too far gone.


Hmm, I am surprised that armour never had an FRP.  I guess you didn‘t suffer as much from the withdrawal of 4 CMBG from Germany.  The artillery certainly did (effectively 2 complete Regiments).  As for reinvigorating the Reserves...its not just a simple matter of dropping Regulars and waiting for miracles to happen.  The dead weight has to moved out, money and resources allocated, cohesion, etc, etc.  It probably didn‘t happen due to continued cutbacks.

Your other comments are indictative of the problems between Regs and Res.  We have to change it.


----------



## Franko (7 Feb 2004)

WE had FRP but only to the point of WO and up getting it. 

As for the support of the Armour School...you bet ya. They basically said "make it work" and left it at that.

As for the problems between reg and res...I couldn‘t agree more. The old attitudes have to change, on both sides of the coin.

But we‘re getting off topic and we should digress.

Sorry ‘bout that Hawian Light   

Regards


----------



## Evan (7 Feb 2004)

no prob, i liked getting that history lesson


----------

