# Regimental System under review



## Gordon Angus Mackinlay

Regimental system going under review
Cover-ups a concern: Retired officers say age-old tradition fosters loyalty

Tom Blackwell, with files from Michael Friscolanti  
National Post 

Tuesday, July 02, 2002

Military officials are launching a major review of the army‘s age-old regimental system, following criticism that regiments can be paternalistic, old-fashioned and susceptible to cover-up when wrongdoing occurs.

From the Somme to Afghanistan and through numerous wars and peacekeeping missions, regiments have been the backbone of the Canadian army, offering soldiers kinship and camaraderie in exchange for loyalty to the death.

But regiments, like the one currently serving in Afghanistan, have also been criticized for fostering a culture of loyalty so extreme it may lead to silence and cover-up when wrongdoing occurs.

The review, being conducted by a Canadian cultural anthropologist based in Holland, could prompt major changes to a historic structure that, among other things, sets Canada‘s Armed Forces apart from its American allies.

"The sense that there may be problems is there," said Col. Mike Capstick, who is overseeing the project. "Our gut tells us that the regimental system is well worth retaining, but at the same time our gut tells us that, OK guys, it‘s time to get out of the ‘50s."

Most army personnel belong to regiments, relatively small units that usually have long and storied pasts, such as the Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI) now serving in Afghanistan, the Royal Canadian Regiment and the Royal 22nd, known in English as the Vandoos.

Soldiers often become members of a regiment for life, maintaining the affiliation even in retirement. It has been described as a sort of family that oversees most aspects of the soldier‘s life, including his advancement through the ranks.

The thought of altering such a system -- a system that the Americans once tried to emulate -- has upset some retired soldiers.

"They can go ahead and study it, they can even go ahead and change it," said retired Major-General Lewis Mackenzie, a former Commander of the 1st Battalion, PPCLI. "But they‘ll have a hard time convincing me and a large number of other people that it doesn‘t have an important place in the Canadian military."

Maj.-Gen. Mackenzie, who was also a member of the now defunct Queen‘s Own Rifles of Canada, said soldiers perform better on the battlefield knowing they are fighting alongside "family."

"The loyalty is almost instantaneous because you have this tremendous historical legacy to live up to," he said.

Jim Hanson, a retired brigadier general and analyst with the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, also suggested there is little wrong with the system. Its benefits were summed up, he said, by an old general who used to say " ‘I can get ‘em to die for the Royal 22nd Regiment, but I can‘t get ‘em to die for National Defence Headquarters.‘ "

Those who have raised concerns about regimental culture cite the Somalia inquiry, which looked into the beating death of a Somali teenager by members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, now defunct, serving in the west African country in the early 1990s.

"Many officers and soldiers spend their entire lives in a single regiment and they naturally become blind to many of its faults," said the report of the inquiry.

"Information that could tarnish the reputation of the regiment may be deliberately hidden. Whistle-blowing is frequently perceived as counter to the corporate nature of the military."

Other criticism has come from inside. Some junior officers complain that senior commanders of a regiment have too much influence over their careers, acting as an unseen hand that pre-determines how far each of them can advance, Col. Capstick said.

Others question whether the role of regiment as extended family, social club and social-safety net is appropriate today, when many officers have spouses with their own careers, children and extensive lives off the base, he said.

But even if the study by Donna Winslow, who chairs the social and cultural anthropology department at the Free University in Holland and has studied military culture extensively, finds change is needed, the forces will not do away with a regimental system that commanders still believe is the best way to motivate soldiers, Col. Capstick said.

"People generally don‘t fight or do specific things in operations for Queen, country, the grand cause, Canadian values or whatever," he said.

"They‘re motivated by the kind of cohesion that is built up at the small unit level ... within the context of the regiment."

© Copyright  2002 National Post


----------



## herbie

Even doing away with the regimental system, soldiers would still be loyal and "regimental" to the unit.  Look at the Americans.  They are loyal to their numbered battalions and brigades.  Especially the marines, airborne, and rangers.  The money for this study could have been much better spent.
    I recently read a book by an American paratrooper in WW2 called " seven roads to **** "  in which he said ( paraphrased) that solders fight and die for their buddies and their subunit not the higher cause. 
    Futhermore, doing away with the Canadian Regiments would be taking away (hiding) Canadian cultural and milatay heritage.  It would be a serious blow to the moral of soldiers who are already at their wits end.  
     Don‘t the Brits and Ausies still have their regiments?
Cheers


----------



## Gordon Angus Mackinlay

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The lady heading this review Donna Winslow wrote the following, which received much justified criticism.

Yours,
Jock in Sydney

"Rites of Passage and Group Bonding in the Canadian Airborne."
Armed Forces & Society, 
Spring99, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p429, 29p
Winslow, Donna
"Abstract: Presents information on a study which discussed the issue 
of primary group bonding and non-conventional methods for promoting 
unit cohesion among members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment (CAR). 
Historical background of the paratroops in Canada; Details of the 
airborne rituals; Initiation rites; Conclusions."


----------



## SNoseworthy

How many of you agree with this statement:

"‘I can get ‘em to die for the Royal 22nd Regiment, but I can‘t get ‘em to die for National Defence Headquarters.‘"
- Brig. Gen Jim Hanson (Ret‘d)

From what I know of the regiments, it‘s their proud history and the close relationship that they develop between their soldiers that make them what they are - an effective fighting force. And as far as I have heard, there isn‘t much respect for NDHQ among the lower ranks.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

The German Army did away with their regimental traditions during the postwar period, and it seems to me their army did just fine in WW II, as far as they were able.

I am not advocating the elimination of the regimental system, but let‘s be honest - it has as many drawbacks as it does advantages.  The American system - of dedication to the Division - is not a bad one, and actually has advantages over the British Commonwealth system of devotion to the battalion.

The point made previously - of men fighting for their buddies in their own sections and platoons - is apt.  It doesn‘t matter if they are in numbered battalions (don‘t forget that most regiments of the Canadian Militia were not even represented in the CEF, and yet they did pretty well too) or in named regiments, they fight for each other.

Honestly, look at the numbered battalions who didn‘t perpetuate any regimental traditions.  The Tenth Battalion, the example I know best, was drawn from the Winnipeg Light Infantry and the Calgary Rifles.  They brought no traditions or insignia from those regiments with them - they had no bugle horns, no black chevrons, they were granted brand new insignia with a simple TENTH CANADIANS monicker, and they fought bravely and well in every major Canadian battle of the Great War.

Did the lack of a "regimental" system hurt them?  Perhaps in some ways, but did it matter?  They built their own espirit de corps.

Armies create traditions where none exist - some stick, some don‘t.  The Tenth were known as "The Fighting Tenth", a popular nickname, and "White Gurkhas", which was not popular and was the invention of one of the officers.

How is that different, or better, than calling a regiment with perhaps 5% of its population being drawn from Scottish ancestry a "Highland" regiment?

The Wehrmacht recruited regionally and its regiments had regional designations, as did its divisions - but many of the distinctions of the Old Army were done away with, and the German Army had a terrific elan.

Mostly because of the German work ethic, I would say (Canadians have little work ethic anymore), and a sense of comradeship between officers and men (the Canadian Army rigidly divides its officers, NCOs, and men, to their great detriment).

The regimental system can go or stay, it wouldn‘t matter in the end - we proved that in World War One.  What needs to change, if anything, is the class structure of the military - getting rid of a few high paid generals would be a start.


----------



## Harry

I have had the opportunity to hear and review M. Donna Winslow and her works.  IMHO she is a soldier groupie reject whanna be.  She has studied some very hard and professional orgs such as some of Israel’s front line elite troops and several other nations such as the US SF elements.  When I heard her rendering of and attempt to adapt her research to the CF I was shocked, she was comparing us and describing us based upon another countries military.

She is dangerous, opinionated and unfortunately held in regard as an authority in Canada.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> I have had the opportunity to hear and review M. Donna Winslow and her works. IMHO she is a soldier groupie reject whanna be. She has studied some very hard and professional orgs such as some of Israelâ€™s front line elite troops and several other nations such as the US SF elements. When I heard her rendering of and attempt to adapt her research to the CF I was shocked, she was comparing us and describing us based upon another countries military.
> 
> She is dangerous, opinionated and unfortunately held in regard as an authority in Canada.


This board is really terrific if you like to read people throw out opinions and then not bother to back them up.

Not that I am disagreeing with you, or for that matter not that I agree with you, but on what do you base your opinion?  Actual research and knowledge on your part?

If you would like to refute some of what she has said, do so now.  The fact that she used another military to describe the CF does not in an of itself invalidate - or validate - what she had to say.

So how about some specific examples?  I would be most interested in an actual analysis rather than just petty name calling.

A bit surprised also that no one has responded to my examples above - ie the German Army in WW II and the Canadian Army in WW I.  Does that mean I‘ve gotten it completely right?


----------



## Harry

Well good sir,

That is my objective.   I spent the day digging through boxes of old lecture knock offs so I could paste some of her academia.

I have sat and listened to her a couple of times and the last lecture I attended also had a number of Snr NCO‘s and O‘s there, serving and retired.  When questions where posed regarding her comparisons, more specifically the disagreement with certain facts, the lecture was unceremoniously scrubbed due to an unexpected need to leave.

There have been those within NDHQ who have been advocating the removal of our current regimental system and replacing it with a numbered system similar to the US Army.  The US has historically used this and those units have battle honours to match.  A new system for us would be an internment of regimental colours and loss of historical precedence.  In essence we would be starting all over.

Winslow feels that in light of the US model, we should adapt readily, but ask her about the loss of identity etc and she will quickly ref you off to a little desk on the 18th floor, the people cutting her grant cheques to do this for DND.

But, nuff said.  When I get the info out of whatever box it is in, I will probably drive down to Calgary and give it to you personally so you can try to extrapolate how she can draw comparisons between army cultures in countries that have vastly different cultures than ours.  Especially when comparing combat hardened units against untested units, and mixing in the homogeny of regular and reserve units and calling it all equal.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

That‘s an interesting post, Harry, but you‘ve avoided all the main issues and once again simply given a visceral opinion.

If your unit is called The Queen‘s Own Rifles of Canada, and no one in your regiment has seen actual combat, you still don‘t get to call yourself "battle-tested".   That depends on the individuals in the unit and their level of experience, NOT the name of the battalion.

Tell me - did the CEF not perform admirably despite "starting all over‘ as you put it?   The 16th Battalion, for example, was an amalgamation of four different regiments - they adopted their own traditions and won four Victoria Crosses.

I am not saying I like the idea, I am asking YOU to try and discuss this without any emotion or the need to take cheap shots.

Now, specifically, what parts of our culture do you think preclude us from renaming our infantry units - what makes us so different from the Americans that this would destroy any chance of us having a competent military?

If there really are reasons not to do this, you haven‘t presented a single one.


----------



## Gunnar

Here‘s an idea...since the army apparently shows you how to do something *once*, then expects you to follow through, and since you apparently agree with Harry, why don‘t YOU post some good reasons?

Without having to poke holes in actual arguments, the abruptness of leave of this woman when asked serious questions does suggest some intellectual dishonesty on her part, but isn‘t proof positive.

Why are we getting all academic anyway?  Because words mean things.  If you have a solid, easily understandable reason for the things you do, and can explain WHY you‘re doing things, then even if those who lack sufficient basis in reality attempt to dismiss your argument, they have to bring dismissive, ad-hominem type attacks.  You‘ll never convince them, but people who respect *reasons* will hear your argument and be able to correctly point out "Hey, that guy‘s right, she‘s an idiot!"

A lot of perfectly reasonable people can be convinced of stupid things because they don‘t take the time to sort out the flaws in an argument.  If you point out the flaws, you reduce the amount of mental effort required for someone to correctly identify bull****.  Not that they‘ll necessarily do that either, but at least you‘re improving the odds.

Plus, some people just go with common consensus....if a consensus of reasonable people agrees on something, sometimes the unreasonable ones go along too...

Gunnar


----------



## Harry

As I indicated, once I find the written word so to speak, I will hand deliver it to you.


----------



## ArmyAl

The artillery is numbered, I am loyal to that number.
Their seems to be no problem with the artillery.
If it was the 6th Batt. 10th regt, 2nd Brig, 1st Div for example you would be loyal to 6 Batt 10 Regt and so on.
Same as 1 Batt, RCR, 2nd Brig, 1st Div
It‘s just that simple, but I‘m a herb so what do I know


----------



## Gunner

I‘ve always admired members of the Marines.  There is minimal BS about units and  more esprit de corps about "The Marines".  There is great unity of thought and purpose.  Imagine if we could harness that energy?

I‘m not convinced that doing away with Regts would be a bad thing.  Soldiers operate based on their relationships with their immediate superiors and peers.  The question was asked would you die for NDHQ?  No,  but I wouldn‘t die needlessly for PPCLI, RCR or R22eR.  

I‘ll go to war for Canada, but I will die for my men and my comrades.


----------



## bossi

I‘m not even going to try and dig through my basement (but buried down there somewhere are my papers/references culled from four years on the staff at CFCSC).  Thus, having duly "whipped it out" in order to remind my confreres that I‘m not just ranting emotionally ...

I remember one guest lecturer (among many) who related the story of a British unit during the Second World War, in North Africa - please forgive me, I always forget the name of the regiment.

This regiment was on the verge of being routed, when somebody shouted "Heads up, The Regiment!  Show them your cap badge!!!"

Well, this call to arms - in essence "rallying around the Regimental colours" - won the day.  They dug in their heels, turned the tide of the battle, and kicked some butt (against great odds, and superior force/numbers, if I remember correctly).

Ironically, they weren‘t even wearing their cap badges (since they were wearing tin pots ...)!

And, most interesting indeed, this rallying cry came from ... a "mere" private or corporal ... !!!!!  (hey - don‘t get me wrong - our most junior soldiers are the very life blood of our regiments, and our Army - I‘m simply pointing out that this leadership came from an "unexpected" source ... food for thought ...).

It says much when regimental pride can be used to instill great resolve, determination, pluck, and even courage.

I remember (and thank the contributor for reminding me) Gen Hanson‘s comment - BZ.

This headlong rush to destroy Canada‘s proud military traditions is dangerous, and I firmly believe there are hidden agendae which are NOT in Canada‘s best interest (don‘t you just love the word "Quisling"?  I encourage you to look it up in the dictionary, just for fun, and then ask yourself whose name would be recorded in history for having been the well-intentioned dupe who hobbled the Canadian Army by subjecting it to unnecessary open heart surgery).

Great Canadians do great things.
Great Regiments win great victories.

P.S. (please note:  personally, I despise the federal Liberal party spin doctors, and any other sack of merde who launches personal attacks in a desperate attempt to discredit somebody who has an opinion other than "the party line".  Once in a while we should all slap ourselves, and be reminded of the timeless concept "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ... having said that, I am inclined to agree that "consultants" are nothing more than shills who will say whatever the person paying them wants said - I don‘t trust Donna Winslow further than I can spunk).

Dileas Gu Brath,
M.A. Bossi, Esquire


----------



## Michael Dorosh

So bossi, despite your irrelevant comments regarding the Liberal party and consultants in general (I am not saying I disagree, I am saying they are irrelevant to the question at hand), what does your post really say about the value of the regimental system?

Absolutely nothing.  Mediocre regiments sometimes win great victories too.  

So the dude who stuck his head up and yelled out "Up the Northants!" or whatever could not have inspired the same feelings by shouting "Up the 22nd!"

To further my earlier example of the Tenth Battalion, there was a similar incident at St. Julien where the battalion came under fire by massed machineguns and rifle fire during their 500 yard charge into Kitcheners‘ Wood.  They went to ground, but an officer yelled out "Remember that you‘re Canadians!"   This simple shout galvanized them, and they rushed the last 200 yards to the wood - and victory.  Didn‘t need some romantic regimental name for that - they didn‘t have one.

If you really think you‘re not "ranting emotionally" I would think again.

On the other hand, The Brigade by Terry Copp talks about the very real problem of reinforcement officers arriving in 5th Brigade already wearing Black Watch shoulder titles and expecting to go to "their Regiment" for posting.  Many battalions tended to promote from within where more capable officers were sometimes available outside the regiment.

That was certainly the case when, for example, Calgary Highlanders officer Vern Stott moved to the South Saskatchewan Regiment to take over.

I am fairly certain that any of the disbanded anti-aircraft artillerymen who who shuttled off the the Infantry in the autumn of 1944, during the reinforcement crisis, remained blissfully ignorant of the regimental histories and traditions of their new units.

Are you willing to go out on a limb and say that you really think they fought harder knowing they were a Riley or a John?  Or did it not really depend on the company they kept and their interpersonal relationships with their platoon/section?


----------



## bossi

Oh, for Pete‘s sake ...

Why on earth would you throw such a "red herring" into your reply?  You, in turn, have made a nonsensical comment when you somehow made the dubious connection between "the Northants" and the Van Doo‘s ...
(huh?)

Somehow, you‘re suggesting the ability of different soldiers to be loyal to different regiments rather than just one sole regiment justfies destroying the regimental system (... huh?  I must have missed your substantiation ... hmmm ... no, I just read your post again, and you‘re still making an invalid, illogical association.  Where did you learn debating?  The Jean Crouton spin doctor school?)

However, I agree - it depended upon the company they kept and their interpersonal relationships with their platoon/section (as fostered by the regimental system vice the impersonal "depot" system) ... but maybe I‘m just ranting emotionally again, and therefore my opinion matters naught, and only the opinions of those who attack others really matters.

Upon reflection, however, I realised


----------



## Gordon Angus Mackinlay

Tuesday Â» July 9 Â» 2002 

End regiments? Nonsense!


Times Colonist (Victoria) 

Monday, July 08, 2002

There‘s something disquieting about the news that the Canadian military has commissioned a cultural anthropologist, of all things, to study our regimental system. 

This news came the same day the Canadian Forces said they would have to turn away hundreds of potential recruits this summer because they lack the resources to train them -- an indication, perhaps, that rethinking the system that has served Canada well from Vimy Ridge to Afghanistan is not the army‘s most pressing need right now.

The regimental system might appear antiquated -- better suited to the days of scarlet tunics and cavalry charges than the era of smart bombs and anti-terrorist patrols. But though the system is indeed old, it‘s still effective. Canada inherited its version from the British, but virtually every European country developed similar military formations for the very good reason that they work when it counts -- in battle.

Regiments are not just bureaucratic units but living communities, with histories, legends and rituals. Under fire, soldiers‘ loyalty to each other is often more important to their discipline, survival and effectiveness than is their loyalty to "king and country." From Thermopylae to Afghanistan, soldiers have always been more willing to put themselves in harm‘s way to help a comrade than to defend some abstract ideal.

The system is not without its problems. Wartime virtues can, without due diligence, become peacetime vices. And adjustments are no doubt needed to make sure the regiments meet the needs of the modern soldier. Charges of sexual harassment and subsequent coverups, for example, have been frequent among our increasingly female forces. 

But our cultural anthropologist should tread lightly. That regimental spirit serves our troops well not just in battle but in any tense situation -- as, for example, 10 years ago when they had to drive a column of armoured vehicles through the murderous factions in Bosnia to reopen the Sarajevo airport for humanitarian flights.


----------



## Brad Sallows

To summarize thoughts I pasted on the LFRR board: GIGO - ask wrong or insufficient questions; get wrong or insufficient answers.

Very few studies are commissioned from consultants for the love of abstract knowledge, or by someone who doesn‘t already think they know the answer (or seek a particular result).  Why was this one initiated?  The fact that undesirable behaviours including cover-ups and paternalism have been mentioned in the press articles provides at least some clue belying motivation.  So what?  Anyone with some time served is aware of the shortcomings of the regimental system with regard to parochial and paternalistic behaviour.  Which is more responsible: the regimental system, or the corporate nature of the civilian/military blend of DND/CF?  What, no one‘s thought to ask the question or commission a study of the "NDHQ system"?  What other pertinent avenues of exploration have been ignored?

If there was nothing else to do, one could experiment with tweaks to the status quo.  But the CF, and army in particular, have more than enough change to deal with right now.

So, while a study of the regimental system within the modern Canadian context may surely of itself be worthwhile, I hope no one proceeds to take any action without gathering all the useful evidence.  There‘s no point trying to fix a flat tire by changing the oil.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Oh, for Pete‘s sake ...
> 
> Why on earth would you throw such a "red herring" into your reply? You, in turn, have made a nonsensical comment when you somehow made the dubious connection between "the Northants" and the Van Doo‘s ...
> (huh?)


Who said anything about the Van Doos?  I used "Northants" as an example of a British regiment, as compared to a numbered battalion - I used 22 as an example.  You are reading far too much into it.  You gave the example of the British soldier yelling "remember your cap badge" - and by extension, your regiment.  My point was, could he not have gotten the same reaction from his mates even if they did not have some fancy regimental title?  I gave another example of a Canadian soldier in the same circumstance yelling out "remember you‘re Canadians" that had the same effect - so your use of that particular story was, to me, not effective at "proving" anything about the value of the regimental system.  It was actually quite irrelevant and emotionally charged.



> Somehow, you‘re suggesting the ability of different soldiers to be loyal to different regiments rather than just one sole regiment justfies destroying the regimental system


I am saying that YOUR statements (they are not arguments) do absolutely NOTHING to further the case of keeping the regimental system.  I do not advocate destroying the regimental system, I just haven‘t seen anyone post a single substantial point here in favour of it.  My examples (the CEF, the Wehrmacht-Heer) show pretty solidly I think that the Regimental system can in fact be done away with, with very little loss of efficiency.  I certainly don‘t advocate that this be done, but if you are going to argue that this is a bad thing - you have to state why.  You‘ve given no good reasons whatsoever.



> (... huh? I must have missed your substantiation ... hmmm ... no, I just read your post again, and you‘re still making an invalid, illogical association. Where did you learn debating? The Jean Crouton spin doctor school?)


Wow, ad hominem.  Look it up, it means attack the man, not his ideas.  Usually the last gasp of someone who knows he has no argument to make.  If you do have a case to present, do it now.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Tuesday Â» July 9 Â» 2002
> 
> End regiments? Nonsense!
> 
> Times Colonist (Victoria)
> 
> Monday, July 08, 2002
> 
> There‘s something disquieting about the news that the Canadian military has commissioned a cultural anthropologist, of all things, to study our regimental system.
> 
> This news came the same day the Canadian Forces said they would have to turn away hundreds of potential recruits this summer because they lack the resources to train them -- an indication, perhaps, that rethinking the system that has served Canada well from Vimy Ridge to Afghanistan is not the army‘s most pressing need right now.
> 
> The regimental system might appear antiquated -- better suited to the days of scarlet tunics and cavalry charges than the era of smart bombs and anti-terrorist patrols. But though the system is indeed old, it‘s still effective. Canada inherited its version from the British, but virtually every European country developed similar military formations for the very good reason that they work when it counts -- in battle.


And some of the best armies in history - the German Army from 1939-1945, the US Army from 1941 to the present, etc., do not have a "regimental system".  They do recruit regionally, and do have traditions associated with divisions, but they don‘t/didn‘t generally practice what we call the ‘regimental system‘.  Nor did Canada between 1914 and 1918, and the CEF was one of the best fighting formations in history.  So what does that tell you?



> Regiments are not just bureaucratic units but living communities, with histories, legends and rituals. Under fire, soldiers‘ loyalty to each other is often more important to their discipline, survival and effectiveness than is their loyalty to "king and country."


Is the same not also true of a soldier in an anonymous, numbered battalion?  How does the last sentence in that quote relate to the necessity of a regimental system?  I don‘t see that it does.



> From Thermopylae to Afghanistan, soldiers have always been more willing to put themselves in harm‘s way to help a comrade than to defend some abstract ideal.


What does this have to do with the regimental system?  Wouldn‘t the small group dynamics be just the same regardless of the name of the regiment - or lack of a name?



> The system is not without its problems. Wartime virtues can, without due diligence, become peacetime vices. And adjustments are no doubt needed to make sure the regiments meet the needs of the modern soldier. Charges of sexual harassment and subsequent coverups, for example, have been frequent among our increasingly female forces.


So soldiers in numbered battalions are more likely to rape fellow soldiers?  I know I‘m being silly here, but what on earth does this entire paragraph have to do with the desirability or necessity of the regimental system?



> But our cultural anthropologist should tread lightly. That regimental spirit serves our troops well not just in battle but in any tense situation -- as, for example, 10 years ago when they had to drive a column of armoured vehicles through the murderous factions in Bosnia to reopen the Sarajevo airport for humanitarian flights.


So they did that "for the regiment", did they?  Or simply because they were good soldiers who did as their training and sense of personal honour demanded?

The use of the regimental system is a great recruiting tool, and should be retained for that reason alone - the kilts and pipes of the Highland regiments, for example, the black beret of the RCAC, all that stuff is great for drawing people in.  I don‘t see that it matters a damn in action, given the historical examples of fighting forces that have none of that.

What kind of regimental traditions did the average North Vietnamese Army soldier who won the war in Indochina have?


----------



## brin11

I hope I will not be attacked for this strictly emotional viewpoint, as I freely admit it is at the very beginning.

It just seems wrong to me to take away the long and proud military heritage of some of the Canadian regiments.  Some people have joined certain regiments simply for this reason.

In these days of extremely low morale, why is this even being considered at this time?  Morale has been going downhill since the 80‘s.  It seems there is a plan in place that we are not being told about to reduce our military to a tiny shadow of what it once was.  You all know what I am talking about; no equipment, equipment failures (those dreaded Seakings, new vehicles), no PARTS to repair them (Few C6 parts in the system), disbanding of regiments, no ammo for exercises, etc.  This is happening everywhere.  

Now, I do agree that some of the above arguments have merit.  Of course teambuilding would take place anywhere there are good troops regardless of whether they are in a named regiment or a numbered one.  To me that is not the issue right now; but why would this be considered now??  We need to raise morale not lower it further.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Considering Michael‘s exceptions to the rule, one question is to what level of conflict, if any, is the regimental system best suited?  Perhaps it isn‘t that relevant in a time of great war when people are motivated by patriotic fervor, racial hatred, a great crusade, national survival, etc.  But what about a time of small conflicts (Britain‘s period of empire, modern peace operations) to which the citizenry is largely indifferent?  Is the regimental system a useful glue for battalions alternating between garrisons and deployments?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I think you hit it on the head, Brad - as usual.


----------



## Doug VT

If it‘s not broken don‘t fix it.  That‘s the bottom line.  Things work just fine as they are.  Maybe things wouldn‘t change much but then what‘s the point.  If it wouldn‘t make any difference then why change it?

It seems to me that the Liberals are spending money for nothing again.  Why don‘t they spend more for a new logo for the CF, eh?  The "research will be completed and the status quo will remain.  No one should be surprised.  I must admit this is one of the stupider things that I‘ve seen the government do lately.  Stupid!


----------



## bossi

(I‘m swamped at work, but stumbled across this excellent editorial - with which I couldn‘t agree more.  Thought some of you might appreciate it, too - those of you who don‘t, well ... you already know it all, thus I won‘t waste your invaluable time any further)

Col. Capstick in HQ with a memo

John Robson  
The Ottawa Citizen 
Friday, July 12, 2002

The enemy has destroyed our troops‘ equipment, ground their numbers down through attrition, pinned them in terrible living conditions and blown off their uniforms.  Yet they can still fight. So now the foe is using psychological warfare to destroy the unit cohesion that is all that‘s keeping them going.

Who is this fiendish adversary?  Ludendorff? Mussolini? Kurt Meyer?  No, it‘s the Department of National Defence, which has a study under way by a cultural anthropologist living in Holland on whether to destroy the storied regiments that have distinguished themselves from Lundy‘s Lane and Queenston Heights to the Somme and Vimy to Sicily, Verrières and the Scheldt to Korea.  According to Col. Mike Capstick, overseeing the project, DND is not considering abolishing regiments, just transforming them from the centre of a soldier‘s career into another box on a bureaucratic flowchart:  death by 1,000 paper cuts.

Many Canadians may not grasp how irresponsible this plan is, because our public education system doesn‘t exactly stress what a regiment is or what it does.  (If this government has its way, they won‘t know what a gun is either, even if they‘re in a regiment.)  I didn‘t know until, unlike Art Eggleton, I began to read books about war and talk to combat veterans.  (And hasn‘t my public skepticism about his judgment on appropriate sources of military advice been amply vindicated?)

Very briefly, a regiment is the military unit where strategy and tactics meet.  Above the regimental level, flags move around on maps; below it, companies take individual strong points.  A regiment turns the movement of flags into the capture of bunkers, and the capture of bunkers into the movement of flags.

A Second World War infantry regiment had around 1,000 men at full strength, organized into four rifle companies of just more than 100 men each plus support and logistical units commanded by a colonel, and historically was raised from a given region, obviously with the Winnipeg Rifles or North Nova Scotia Highlanders, if not with the Black Watch or Seaforth Highlanders.

It‘s not the division that has reunions, nor the brigade, company or platoon.  It‘s the regiment.  Farley Mowat‘s eloquent account of serving in Italy during the Second World War with the Hasty Pees (an abbreviation, reflecting life in a combat zone, of the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment from the Ontario county of the same name) is called The Regiment.  Our current minister of defence, economist John McCallum, should read it, if he hasn‘t already.

Regiments have a history that inspires current members to live up to the deeds of the past and to their regimental comrades.  A bookmark given to me by a Canadian veteran of a British regiment, the Green Howards (as distinct from the Brown Howards), shows the crest of a regiment linked directly to the Glorious Revolution of 1689.  Now that‘s a history to live up to.  Like Waterloo, the Armada and Juno Beach.

Last week, Col. Capstick said, "Our gut tells us that the regimental system is well worth retaining, but at the same time our gut tells us that, OK guys, it‘s time to get out of the ‘50s." The 1950s?  The battle honours of our regiments go back to the war of 1812. Ortona was in 1943.  Canada became a nation at Vimy in 1917.

Later he changed his story, saying in an opinion piece in the Thursday Citizen that the regimental system‘s "roots and rituals can be traced to the Victorian era ... when the country was far more culturally homogeneous than it is today and when the stratified class system of the era was replicated in the regimental messes.  In short, it came of age in a society that no longer exists." 

For the record, Victoria reigned 1837-1901, somewhat before D-Day.  But unfortunately, an influential segment of the Canadian elite regards all of history as an ugly, undifferentiated grande noirceur from which Pierre Trudeau and the Canadian Human Rights Commission finally rescued us.

So apparently now it‘s time to bring the army into the modern era.  The era of subs that can‘t dive, helicopters that can‘t fly, bright green uniforms in a desert country and lucky to have those, and snipers making world-record shots with American ammunition and British uniforms in Afghanistan and our government doesn‘t even tell us about it.  I expect 21st century battles will be as different from Normandy or El Alamein as those were from Waterloo.  But if we‘re still winning them, it will be because storied regiments live up to their history.

So let‘s reassign that anthropologist to find out why Dutch children still place flowers on the graves of Canadians who liberated them from Nazi tyranny.  Be sure he examines the plaques all over Holland commemorating Canadian regiments who didn‘t crack, even when underequipped, under strength and under attack.

John Robson is Senior Editorial Writer and Columnist.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> (I‘m swamped at work, but stumbled across this excellent editorial - with which I couldn‘t agree more. Thought some of you might appreciate it, too - those of you who don‘t, well ... you already know it all, thus I won‘t waste your invaluable time any further)


If you‘re not capable of intelligent discourse or rational discussion - scholarly references included - don‘t go mewling all over cyberspace about it.  I see you‘ve hit on the perfect solution to your lack of debating skills, though - verbatim quotes of magazine and newspaper articles.  I still don‘t understand the utility of a public forum that consists mainly of verbatim posts of articles, where any attempt to discuss things in a scholarly way are dismissed out of hand or ignored.

That said, the article is interesting, but if you don‘t have the brains or the balls to back up a statement you have made with something other than random irrelevant quotes, maybe you should stick to crying into your beer in the mess?  It‘s probably just as effective.

In other words, I always thought forums were for us to share our own thoughts, as coloured by our own education and experiences - not a place to quote entire articles and pretend that it substitutes for intelligent discourse.

Maybe I‘m in the wrong place.


----------



## Art Johnson

Michael I must admit that I have not read all the messages in this thread, I don’t have the
patience to go through all the rhetoric. I do take exception to your remark about the CEF
and the Regimental system. The 48th ran a proper Regimental system despite the
government’s attempts to stamp it out. All units reported back to Regimental
Headquarters. Wounded officers who were returned and discharged reported to RHQ and
were used as instructors, some even joined other 48th Battalions and returned to the front
with the 15th Bn (48th Highlanders). It is true that many of the men recruited did not go
to 48th Battalions and in one instance the 48th were stopped from raising another
battalion until they supplied recruits to another unit that was having trouble attracting
sufficient numbers of men.
WW II was much the same, after the 1st Battalion left for overseas the Regiment was
tasked with forming a Depot that was stationed in the Automotive Building in the CNE.
They were able to do this because of all the old soldiers from WW I who rallied round to
support the Regiment. I recently became aware of one WW I vet who was enlisted as a
Private to be Sergeant, acting and unpaid. I have seen the names of many of the old
timers on Part II Orders of the 48th Highlanders Depot. Some of the men who did not go
overseas with the 1st Battalion jumped at any chance to get overseas then worked their
way back to the 48th.
In 1940 the 2nd Battalion (R) was formed. this unit supplied many of the replacement
officers for the overseas unit. When a vacancy occurred a request was sent to the 2nd for
a replacement.
On top of all this you had in both wars the support of the Regimental Family, ex Officers,
ex Sergeants, IODE, Ladies Auxiliary, Old Comrades all working to support the overseas
battalions. Even in Korea I received a Christmas package from the 48th as did others.
This support continues today for the men in the militia and those who are serving as
Augmentees to the Regular Army Units. Social Services, scholarships and other services
are provided not only to those serving but also to veterans.
A couple of anecdotes if I may. You mentioned AA Officers who were retrained to
Infantry. I interviewed such an Officer. On the way over to Italy he made up a fourth for
bridge with three 48th Officers who were returning. He said that by the time he got to
Italy he was so imbued with the Dileas spirit that he was determined he would join the
48th. When the time came he was told that he would be going to the RCR and was
loaded on a truck with the other replacements. The first stop was the 48th so he just
jumped off the truck and reported in. He was wounded and returned to Canada and after
the war joined the 48th Militia Battalion. Until the time of his death a couple of years ago
he was one of the most faithful members we had.
A similar incident occurred with a friend of mine who was in the Lorne Scots. He was
wounded and left behind when the Canadians moved NWE. When he followed on some
time later he was in a general reinforcement pool. While being driven up the road in
France he passed by the Lornes so he just jumped off the truck and reported in. 
When I was in Korea with a group of RCR reinforcement we were told that some of us
would have to got to the Patricias. We just absolutely refused, there was a lot of huffing
and puffing but the brass backed down and we continued on to the RCR. I believe there
was a similar incident with a British Highland unit in Italy and a lot of the men went to
detention rather than leave their unit. END OF SEMI-RANT.

Aye Dileas


----------



## bossi

Art - thank you very much.  It was delightful to be regaled with tales of a "numbered" regiment with such a rich, proud regimental history (and the battle honours to prove it).

Michael - What‘s your problem?  Take a pill.

It‘s entirely acceptable in a non-academic milieu to stimulate debate or discourse by planting a seed, offering differing opinions via editorials, or even a ‘red herring‘.  By taking a broader, inclusive approach (vice exclusive or elitist) to inviting readers to participate, we encourage more people to pause and think, or even contribute.  Heck, we might even get somebody to log off and read a book ... !

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that each  reader/viewer will have read every single article or editorial on a given topic/thread, thus they are proffered as a public service (readers who may already have seen a particular article/column can simply scroll downwards).

And, with regard to your comment " ... but if you don‘t have the brains or the balls to back up a statement you have made with something other than random irrelevant quotes, maybe you should stick to crying into your beer in the mess?"

We‘re fortunate to be separated by cyberspace - I‘ve had a rough week/month, and it‘s been ages since I‘ve attended a raucous happy hour or played Wellington with an undeservedly arrogant/haughty pis-sant who needs to be taken down a notch.

As I said, I‘m swamped at work and at home, and can‘t afford the time to perform scholarly research that will meet your wonderfully high standards - and, if I did, I‘d use that time for more university studies as opposed to insulting others who simply don‘t have as much time to waste.

Thus said, why on earth would you want to exclude busy people from participating in this forum?

Scholarly?  No.  Real?  Yes.

Please stop being rude and insulting other participants.

MB, Esquire


----------



## JRMACDONALD

Bloody **** !! sounds like "the patriot "was talking about the  FN again!!!       :boring:


----------



## JJ Man

I have served in four Regiments in my career. Three Canadian and one British. While on exchange with the British Army, I went to Bosnia with a regiment that had itself just been amalgamated with another regiment. Nobody really had anything in common, least of all me. However, we quickly became an effective and close team not because of the regimental system but, because we trained together, and deployed together and went through a deployment together. We could have had post it notes on our berets and still we would have been an effective team because we trained together and stayed together not because we had a fancy guidon. So there is some real experience for you all. 

I also just had a chat with an old vet who told me it was quite routine for wounded soldiers to go to different regiments if they were out of the line for more than three weeks. So did that weeken them our the units they joined?

Were the Germans or Americans any less effective because they did not have regiments in WW II?

The Problem with the Regimental system is that it is more sizzle than steak. Just because you wear the capbadge of the guys who stormed Normandy does not mean that you yourself will do the same today. 

It seems to me that there are too many sacred cows in this army. Rather than examine the regiments in the clear light of day for their pros and cons, the regimental associations bang their rice bowls on the table circle the regimental goats and say: "No, thinking  allowed leave my rice bowl alone!!"

Lets look at the advantage of getting rid of the regiments. One that comes to mind is, there is no way to determine who is reg and who is reserve. A nice advantage of the American system. One I‘ve seen first hand in Bosnia. It would be easier to form battlegroups. The Corps/the Army would speak with one voice vice fractured regimental interests. Officers and soldiers on ERE looking for positions at the regiment might be chosen on merit rather than connection. Members of disbanded regiments might not be left out in the cold. 

The thing that really bothers me about those getting up on their hind legs about this issue are really just saying no change rather than using the regiment to help the system. If we had lots of Scottish and Irish regiments  formed in the past to attract recruits and build up the military based on the heritage of the ethnic groups that were dominent 150 years ago then why can‘t we have new regiments to reflect the heritage of the new immigrants to this country? And don‘t tell me it is because they don‘t like the army because there were some pretty big sihk regiments in the british army. 

This same group of regiment do or dies is the same group that has held up LFRR for years. Ask yourself these questions. Why can‘t we discuss change and when did an order become a start point for negotiation in the army.

The irony here is that I never really understood why we had many of our regimental traditions until I server in the British Army. The fact of the matter is that we are no longer british and keeping the regimental system as is, is just like keeping the army in the past. The past was not all that great if you as me. Why can‘t we do like the Australians and move forward not stay in the past.


----------



## FF

Post 21 

        You have brought up intresting points. I  to am inclined to think that an Army of our size should go the way the ANZAC‘s have. What if all the infantry in Canada were called RCR , and we had 9 Bn‘s. of infantry. We would then be able to Reorg our cookie cutter type Brigades. An example would be we could then standup a Para Bn. without the Regt infighting that would occur if we did that now. Far more effective in my mind to have one Para Bn. then 3 misplaced Rifle Coy‘s. But hey I‘m ex 2 CDO so what do I know    

FF


----------



## Michael OLeary

I have always found it interesting that the staunchest proponents of the regimental system allow the perpetuation of the myth that the only alternative is to have nothing. The concept that the existing regimental system in the Canadian Army is a perfect evolution invites attacks on its retention beacuse it thwarts any discussion of examination and improvement. It is those who wish to protect the regimental system, in any variation, that should be first in line to defend it‘s strengths and to guide such examination and critique. They should also be first to surrender and abolish any aspects that prove to undermine tactical and organizational efficiencies. Doing so will ensure an opportunity to preserve that which is strong and worthwhile, and decreases the likelihood of facing a hostile fait accompli by a frustrated Army organization needing to fix that which they consider broken (whether that is based on good advice or ill).

I have previously expressed my views in the paper  The Regimental System which was published in The Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin. Interestingly, this paper on a topic which so many claim to be central to their sense of Army and Regiment, garnered little response.

Mike O‘Leary


----------



## Coniar

> The Problem with the Regimental system is that it is more sizzle than steak. Just because you wear the capbadge of the guys who stormed Normandy does not mean that you yourself will do the same today.


I belive "Lest we forget" is the expression? for me a student the past is what the army is, Ive read enough books on the Canadians that fought at Vimy Ridge, Pashendale and D-day that what little I know about the Canadian Forces is in the past and changing the Regemental system would wipe that out. I dont care weather the sergeant yells a name or a number it it wont make me fight harder or better, its the history attached to the name or number AND your comrades beside you that make you fight harder. Nothing that I can see is wrong with the curent system and If you change it then our history is lost, capbadges are not magical (as far as I know) they wont make you run harder or shoot better but remembering the men before you that did the same in the face of danger might give you that extera bit of honour and pride to take that bunker or storm that beach, that is if you have any sesns of National pride. Its not the name or the capbadge its the history...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Conair,
Well said. If we retain a system that makes today‘s students think like this, that alone is worth the effort.


----------



## 30 for 30

Sorry Boys, I for one will fight harder as, say, a Seaforth Highlander, with everything that name means behind me, than as a member of the 8th Bn of the 3rd Inf Regt of the 259th Bde of the 2nd Div of the 6th Corps or whatever. I think the regimental system has certain aspects that could use reform and renewal, but for God‘s sake leave our regiments alone. Change can and should happen, even limited amalgamations and even some disbandments, but this doesn‘t mean the whole system has to be gutted. The majority of our units, with perhaps a few adjustments, should stay as they are.


----------



## JJ Man

I am a little confused here. How is it that the US is so patriotic and focused on their history while still having no regiments? And we are not? (check with Jack Granstien) I also have to wonder what made the PPCI stand firm in the first Battle of Ypres during the first gas attack, when at the time, they had a Regimental history of about one year? We might also ask the same the Strathconas in the Boer war? 

Palitudes about the pride of the (fill in the blank) all sound good in the newspaper and on the parade square but, after the first round goes down range it is all BS. (not that I‘m some kind of hero lots of guys have the same resume as me  :tank:  ) Having found myself on the wrong end of a couple of AK 47s and heard them fire in my general direction, told by the locals that they were going to kill me (which they tried a couple of nights later I have trouble making new friends). Nearly **** my pants while standing between Gen Dudakovic‘s henchmen and some hapless croats slated for removal with little more than a pistol 2X SA 80s and a busted GPMG. Let me tell you some real life thoughts that crossed my mind. Is that ******* really shooting at me? This is not as much fun as the movies make it out. I guess I better stop those *******s because nobody else is around and they might just slaughter those villagers. If I don‘t do something, the SSM will think I‘m a wimp. Gee getting killed here would really suck. Mental note: make sure gun is always handy. Here we go again another unmarked minefield. This is what you got the bars for for move forward and hope for the best. I hope they can get a chopper in here to get me to a hospital. In all the ****ty situations I was in, the last thing on my mind was the glory of the regiment, the regimental goat or the Guidon. If anything my thoughts ran between fear, duty, survival and those around. And later, those posturing arseholes of DS who told me of their potential heroism while I was an OCdt. How brave we all are before we here our first shot fired in anger. Those of us who have seen been shot at and have had to guird up our courage for real know that the regiment is nice for having a beer but, on the day where we had take our lives into our hands and earn the Queen‘s shilling the regiment was the last thing on our minds.

  So save the platitudes for the mess and lets have a cold hard look at this issue in the cold light of day. Let Col Capstick do his Job.  Fear of change is the last vestige of the incompetent.


----------



## Coniar

> I am a little confused here. How is it that the US is so patriotic and focused on their history while still having no regiments? And we are not?


The US is focused on thier history because there history involves numbers not regiments in history, it would not matter if thier history involved numbers or names they would still be focused on it thanks to the 11 and the vast amount of marketing by the US goverment  and I belive we are patriotic, but thats just me.

JJ man it sounds like your talking about peace keeping missions not full out battles and war, I think beeing part of a regiment with a history would help more in a motevational speech before hand or during a crisis piont in battle, but I dont know the situation so mabey I am wrong.

Morale and patriotism seem to be at highs during times of war, this is when our countrys (and regiments) history is remembered best making it more of a factor in troop morale...


----------



## Michael Dorosh

What an awesome point to make - about Scottish regiments being used as a recruiting tool in the past because of the large number of ethnic Scots, Irish and English in Canada!

It‘s too true.  Half the CEF in 1915 had actually been born in the UK.  It is certainly not that way now.  They have experimented with all-Native summer youth employment programs, I believe, but that really isn‘t a step in the right direction (we need to be integrating Natives into the mainstream, not cutting them off even more).

But the idea of a Sikh Regiment as part of the Canadian Forces...it has appeal, especially if it gets more people to enlist - and those people turn out to be quality soldiers.

Fully 1/3 of Canada‘s overseas infantry battalions in WW II were Scottish or Highland - far outside the number of ethnic Scots living in Canada.

As to the young Seafroth..er...Seaforth I mean.  You don‘t know what you would do or how hard you would fight until you‘re in that position, so don‘t be barking at the moon about how much you love your regiment.  I love my regiment too, but as a tradesman I‘m not allowed to wear the regimental cap badge anymore.  Pride is what you make of it.  All this inter-regimental rivalry stuff strikes me as a bunch of crap too - just an excuse to get into bar fights with each other.  Better you spend your time thumping long haired civvies if you ask me rather than the regiment across the armoury floor.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Oh, and it may interest some of you to know that the Americans DO have a regimental system.  The 7th Cavalry, for example, still exist (Custer‘s old regiment at lLittle Big Horn).  They greet each other with the phrase Garry Owen (the name of the regimental march).  You saw a bit of that in Mel Gibson‘s latest pornography of violence movie, We Were Soldiers.

The oldest regiment in the US Army is, I believe, the 2nd Infantry, and different regiments do have nicknames - Rock of the Marne, etc.  They just don‘t identify as strongly with their regimental history as they do divisional.

It is the same with the Canadian Army - artillery batteries in Canada don‘t identify so much with the history of their field regiment as they do with the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery as a whole.

I will bring up again, in case anyone missed it, the example of the CEF in World War One, and the numbered battalions in which so many men fought so proudly.  Granted, the Seaforths did sneak in their traditions to some of those numbered battalions (the 16th and 72nd Battalions in particular IIRC), but a lot of pride was still placed on the numbered battalion in theatre - not the regiments at home.

Seems to me Canadian troops were among the best in the trenches on either side during that war.

The other example was the German Army who also abandoned to a fair degree their regimental heritages during the exapansion of the Wehrmacht in the 1930s.

The point has been made, however, that it does not have to be "all or nothing."  It is quite possible to have - to continue the previous example - 9 battalions of the RCR across the country, with individual companies perpetuating certain regiments.

Does anyone have any idea how many regiments have come and gone in the 20th Century?  Take a look, you may be surprised.  I have some info up on my site at  http://www.canadiansoldiers.com  - badly in need of an update.  But all the infantry regiments in 1900 were renamed and reorganized in the 1920s.   Everything was reorganized again in 1936, with many units getting the chop.  Ever heard of The Yorkton Regiment?  We did pretty good in WW II without them, from what the vets tell me.

After WW II there have been many amalgamations and reorganizations - always a blow to morale, but our largest problem is recruiting and retention.  We can‘t man the regiments we have now.  Granted, threatening to disband units is a double edged sword (it scares the bejesus out of them and forces them to train harder, but also kills morale in the process) and I wouldn‘t want to see it happen.  But from a purely pragmatic standpoint, if it was possible to conclude that going to a different organizational system would magically cure all our other ills, there would be no reason not to.

The trouble is, either way, the problem of retention and recruiting is not going to be helped.  Doctrinal issues are fine to worry about, but if you have no one to fight your battles for you, it doesn‘t matter what doctrine you preach in your field manuals.  Or what system you use to organize your men.


----------



## Coniar

> but our largest problem is recruiting and retention


Really? Ive heard that people are being turned away from recruiting centers because of the lack of funds to train them, but for all I know that is just another headline the media has run away with...


----------



## FF

I think a study of the Regt system in the Canadain Army is due. I am glad it is taking place. The British Army from which our current system is based from, has had for the most part no real trouble in axeing and reorg Regts. They axed the Seaforths in the 60‘s I think? and in 94 the Gordon Highlanders joined with The Queens Own Highlanders to form a new Regt called the Highlanders. I served as a PPCLI Warrant Officer in the early 90‘s in Croatia.  My Rifle Platoon had about a 50/50 mix of Reg and Milita. I must have had at least 5 different Milita Regt‘s in my Platoon. We did an excellent job in a very dangerous and tough enviorment and sometimes under enemy fire. The fact that I was a Patricia and they were Westies, CScots, Cal Highs, Rileys or what ever, had no bearing on how we accomplished the mission at hand, or our morale.  At the end of day we were all Canadians serving our country overseas. I think the Regt system in Canada is due for a change..... Hey if for no other reason it would even out the 031 postings to the Infantry. Pet or Edmonton hmmmmm what would I choose

FF


----------



## JJ Man

Recruit old buddy. Let me tell you one thing from personnal experience. Full out war or peace keeping, it makes very little difference what they call it in the history books when you are at the pointy end and it is time to put up or shut up. 

Thanks Grizzled Vet. Most people call me a herotic when they hear my plan for the Canadian Sihk Regiment. I say, let the militia be the link to the public that it claims to be (and is not) and bring new Canadians into the CF. If you can have some guy walking around with trues or a kilt for CFs why not a Gukry, or Turbin. I could solve a lot of the CFs multicultural problems and recruiting problems if people would open their ears and minds to new ideas. 

What I will say on this issue is that, I went to a function on the weekend where I saw a lot of my old muckers, former CO‘s, 2ICs and even some of my old OCdts and it was nice to have a beer with them and talk about old times, but, that does not mean we can‘t look at this system or that it impoved my effectiveness in the field.

  :tank:


----------



## 30 for 30

In response to certain posts above...you‘re right. Give my regiment a meaningless name or number, empty our messes of relics and momentos of previous campaigns, burn our official regimental history, take away it‘s heritage, it‘s history, its legacy, everything that is meaningfull to it‘s members. That‘ll make it a more efficient fighting force. I‘ll repeat myself: make improvements, make the system better, but don‘t eliminate the system. All your historical arguments are impressive but pointless in this conversation, as I‘m not stating that other armies are worse for not having our system, I‘m simply saying that, on the whole, our system is not so broken that it needs to be scrapped and replaced completely.


----------



## Michael OLeary

I have noted that this thread includes Robson‘s editorial, but not the piece written by Capstick that he attempts to counter. Here is the text of Capstick‘s article:

PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen 
DATE: 2002.07.11 
BYLINE: Mike Capstick 
SOURCE: Citizen Special 
HEADLINE: The army must evolve to stay relevant 

The ongoing study of the Canadian Army‘s regimental system has generated critical commentary in newspapers across the country. Some basic facts and context are needed to understand why the army has initiated this project. 

The study is part of a larger effort to ensure that the army‘s organizational culture -- the way that we do things on a day-to-day basis -- improves our operational capability and performance. This larger effort comprises a wide range of studies, and will consider all aspects of our current personnel and administrative policies. 

Armies are about soldiers. The Canadian soldier lives and fights in the regimental system and it is the duty of the army leadership to make sure that it is strong enough to withstand the demands of combat in this new century. The aim is clear. As military professionals, we owe it to Canadians to provide them with an army that is ready to meet those challenges. 

Recent reports and commentary in several Canadian papers, including Nigel Hannaford‘s column on this page, presume that there is a hidden agenda -- the abolition of the regimental system itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. The commander of the army, Lt.- Gen. Mike Jeffery, has called the regimental system "a fundamental foundation of the army." Clearly, the army‘s leaders understand the value of the regimental system. 

The regimental system is the central organizing concept of the army, but it is not a monolith. It operates differently in each of our regular infantry regiments and in our numerous reserve regiments. In simple terms, it is an administrative structure that serves as the custodian of unit battle honours and history. In Canada, regiments usually consist of three or more major combat units or battalions; soldiers generally serve in the same regiment for most of their career. Even when employed in a staff position or, for example, at an army school, soldiers retain their regimental affiliation and membership. At its most basic level, the regiment is the focus of a soldier‘s identity and membership is for life. 

Although the current system has a historical record of success, it would be professionally irresponsible to live in the past. On the very few occasions that the army has failed to live up to its reputation, aspects of the regimental system were at least partially to blame. 

The regiment is often compared to the family. Not only is this an accurate analogy when applied to the strengths of both institutions, it‘s also accurate in terms of weaknesses and failures. Like families, regiments sometimes exhibit dysfunctional tendencies. This study will attempt to identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the system, eliminate the weaknesses and build on the strengths. 

The regimental system is, in essence, a living, breathing thing that has evolved over time. It grew from the British tradition and it‘s roots and rituals can be traced to the Victorian era. The system matured in a time when the country was far more culturally homogeneous than it is today and when the stratified class system of the era was replicated in the regimental messes. In short, it came of age in a society that no longer exists. 

As uncomfortable as this simple truth may be to some, there are aspects of the regimental system that will have to be adapted to ensure its continued utility as the basic building block of the 21st century army. 

At the heart of the regimental system is the moral contract between the soldier, his or her leaders and the nation itself. Fundamental to this contract are the concepts of "unlimited liability" and the obligation to use lethal force in the defence of the nation. These are heavy burdens for any young man or woman and, implicit in this moral contract, is the understanding that "if anything happens, the regiment will look after you." Combat in Afghanistan and dangerous operations in Africa and the Balkans have reminded us of the vital importance of this covenant. 

A major focus of this study will be an examination of what the regimental system says it does, compared to what it really does in terms of this understanding. There have been times in the past decade when both the central personnel systems and the regiments have failed to live up to their side of the bargain. One of our main objectives is to ensure these failures are not repeated. 

The regimental system has served Canada and its army well. Self-examination is always uncomfortable. It also takes courage and determination. This study will explore our basic assumptions, question our underlying beliefs and, perhaps, result in important changes. At the same time, the nature of warfare and the military profession have seen seismic shifts in the past decade. It was a lot easier when we knew who the enemy was, where they were and how they would fight. Because the regimental system is so fundamental to the way that the Canadian Army operates, and is the foundation of our very identity as soldiers, failure to scrutinize it would be an abrogation of our professional responsibilities to the army and to Canada. 

Colonel Mike Capstick is the army staff‘s project director of land personnel strategy. He commanded the 3rd and 1st Regiments, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery in Shilo, Man. and in Cyprus, and the Canadian NATO Contingent in Bosnia in 1997.


----------



## bossi

FF made a good point about the PPCLI bn that had 40 per cent militia - although a "composite" unit, they fought very well (and the CO would be the first to tell you so).  The key here was a leader who made a unit out of many parts.

Quite a while back in this thread, the suggestion was made that the Regimental system is useful because it provided "cauldrons" in which raw material is forged into hardened steel, while also providing a mold to help shape raw recruits into soldiers.  Perhaps the Regimental system provided the aforementioned CO with "ingots" vice ore - thus enabling him to polish his bn into its final form.

Rather than disparage the film "We Were Soldiers", look carefully at how these soldiers fought ... and died - as a unit.  Their CO knew what was needed, and provided it to his men.

Inevitably, new units are formed and launched into battle - they are successful because they draw upon the heritage of their army/nation.

The Regimental system is simply a delivery method of injecting soldier-like qualities and backbone.

If it ain‘t broke, it don‘t need no fixin‘.

And, JJ said "Fear of change is the last vestige of the incompetent."

I would counter by suggesting the ability to intelligently object to a potentially fatal course of action is the hallmark of integrity (as opposed to being a "yes man").

Dileas Gu Brath


----------



## JJ Man

I would have to interject back "Since when did orders become a starting point for negotiation?" Maybe the CF wouldn‘t be in the state it is if everyone followed orders and went with the programme. I thought that is why we had a chain of command. 

Oops there I go showing my true colours.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

JJ said: "I would have to interject back "Since when did orders become a starting point for negotiation?" Maybe the CF wouldn‘t be in the state it is if everyone followed orders and went with the programme. I thought that is why we had a chain of command. "

Intriguing.  What exactly do you refer to?  I am partially familiar with the current state of the CF, but my question is - what orders have not been followed that have resulted in this current state of affairs?


----------



## Sapper Too

It was interesting to see some of the followup BS in the Citizen after the initial articles by Mike Capstick and a columnist from the Calgary Sun.

Jonas, in best Canadian media fashion, took a number of cheap shots at Col Capstick, knowing full well no comeback would be allowed in our free press.

Secondly, a letter from a gentleman whose name I don‘t recall, (but who could have been "Appalled and Outraged in Nepean!!"), allowed that nothing better could be expected from an Air Force officer.

Not being one to normally offer praise to my gunner colleagues, I must note for the record that Mike Capstick is a long-serving and very credible member of the RCA, and of course RCHA when in regimental service.

A couple of thoughts for consideration. 

There‘s been excessive comments about the meaning of "The Regiment" in WWI, WWII, and Korea, and deservedly so. Unfortunately the world has changed, we‘re in 2002 with an entirely new security threat and framework, and sometimes the past practices don‘t work any more.

Certainly, given the current strength of the Army/CF (again, a fact whether one likes it or not), retaining regimental affiliations places an excessive burden on the personnel system, by forcing one more restriction on the flexible movement of personnel.

Secondly, no one has mentioned it that I can see, but our armoured corps personnel  rebadge frequently, regularly, and with gay abandon as they are posted from the RCD to LdSH to 8 CH and even 12 RBC. I don‘t believe the individuals or units are any the less or worse for that practice, which has gone on for some decades so far.


----------



## Sapper Too

Oops, yet another thought - even our infanteers rebadged regularly when the (gasp) Canadian Airborne Regiment was extant, and its earliest incarnation, gunners, engineers, signallers, medics, CSS and so on all wore the CAR hatbadge.

Anyone brave enough to suggest the Airborne had a problem with spirit...?


----------



## JJ Man

As for following orders: How long did LFAA have to maintain two Bdes when it only had funding for one because after a reorg was approved, special interests groups in other areas delayed the reorg? Are there still two Bdes? How did soldier training suffer because of that delay and lack of funding for two bdes when if the programme i.e., only one Bde, had of been followed there would have been enough funding. Why did the comd of the army have to go on a travelling roadshow to sell LFRR to the honourary cols and associations? I thought he was the comd? So how long do we have to wait for change to take effect? until all the rice bowls are filled? So lets change levels here. How many fat discrace to their uniforms did you see today because someone in the COC has decided the PT test is not important? How many tasking orders will go unfilled for summer concentrations this year? We have all seen examples.

Ask yourself this. How many examples have we had of guys going to Bosnai or some place and losing a leg or geting sick. They then have to fight Canada Pensions or some gov‘t org for their benefits costing the mbr money and time. How often do you hear of the regeimental family taking some of the money made from the pockets of the soldiers and gaven to the associations being  given to the mbr so he can retain a lawyer to fight to government on all our behalves. Concern for subordinates/mbrs of the regt family? All sizzle no steak. 

But have no fear the regemental goats will be circled and this will just be another study. You know, I think the govt likes the regt system and enviornmental separation because it keeps us firmly diveded and conquered. Just how they like us to be. 

just musings

Cheers


----------



## Michael Dorosh

JJ, my apologies.  Not only did you avoid the question altogether, but it appears I misjudged you. I thought you had something intelligent and significant to contribute, but all you‘ve done is condense 5 years of Espirit de Corps into a one-paragraph bitch session.

Want to take another stab at it?  The question is - what orders have not been followed, resulting in the CF being in the "current state it is in."?


----------



## Coniar

Has anyone checked who is doing these "studys" Ill bet its some friend of the new defence minister who has made generous campaing contributions...

Coniar


----------



## JJ Man

Gee wizz, now why would you wanna go and try and hurt this tankers feel‘ns like that. You need to chill out. What happened, did you spill your coffee and donuts on your favorite copy of soldier of fortune magezine on the same day your blow-up-doll sprang leak? Who died and made you the forum professor checking for content and footnotes? I thought that ranting was what this was all about? Are you this tough in real life or are you just an internet tyrant? You know the truth don‘t you. Thats why you never make eye contact with people. I gotta go watch big brother now. seems like time better spent. I don‘t read Esprit de Corps. Although I have looked at some of the pictures.


----------



## combat_medic

to defend my fellow Seaforth (not that i know which one I‘m defending), as the webmaster for the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada website, I‘ve received countless e-mails from American soldiers... mostly officers, wanting to become part of the regiment in some form. They, among many others understand the importance of regimental loyalty. 

For more info, read the book "on killing"


----------



## bossi

(tee-hee ... a tanker agreeing with a Highlander ... heck must have frozen over when I wasn‘t looking ... chuckle)

Thanks to Mike O‘Leary for posting the Capstick article - now I know I was right to trust my instincts ... (i.e. gunners are often a pet peeve of mine ... but I digress ...)

On a scientific basis, it‘s curious whenever anomalies become "the rule".  Here‘s where the hidden agenda is revealed:

"On the very few occasions that the army has failed to live up to its reputation, aspects of the regimental system were at least partially to blame."

Hmmm ... 
"... very few ... aspects of ... partially to blame ..."

I wonder ...
Wouldn‘t the corollary of this be "The overwhelming majority of the time the army lives up to and exceeds its proud reputation, earned and forged in combat thanks largely to the regimental system."


----------



## Linc

My 2 cents on the issue:

In the end, I don‘t think changing the system will make the Forces more combat effective or terribly more administratively efficient.  However, even if this were the case, I think that erasing and/or changing the system, especially by a Liberal govt, will hurt the morale of the troops.  It will be seen as yet another blow by civilian bureaucrats who don‘t respect or care about the CF and its traditions.  Whether that‘s acurate or not is irrelevant.


----------



## coreybain

Dorosh 
you seem to think quite highly of yourself and your opinion of others writting though i wonder if any one else does? You seem only capable of attack other‘s "non-academic‘  opinions but offer none of your own not on any academic level any how, so why don‘t you show us what a well written academic level work on the pros and cons of the regimental system looks like so that we can all  follow your  ‘superb‘ example. Maybe people don‘t put footnotes in the writting because this is a discussion board and no one is out to write a thesis. 
Now I suppose you will attack my intelligence and in ability to write at an academic level, and if your opinion meant anythig to me maybe I‘d cry though i wouldn‘t hold your breath.. then again maybe you should!


----------



## Michael OLeary

Sadly, nothing undermines the opportunity for the collective minds of a message board to debate important issues more than having a significant topic degenerate into personal attacks. But for this, such conversations might merit some consideration on the basis of credibility by those examining the issues of the Regimental System.

M.O‘Leary


----------



## sgt.shmedly102

I think everyone can agree that unit cohesion is important. But it seems to me that the fact people are missing is that a unit,  _any unit_ , is made up of soldiers. How good a unit is depends entirely on the quality of the soldiers, and more importantly the leaders, who make it up.  Old units can have lousy soldiers, and new units can have great soldiers, but no amount of history, trophies on the wall, or streamers on the colors, can make lousy soldiers into good ones. Yes, a units history can provide a degree of motivation, but it will probably only motivate those soldiers who will already do their job. In any case, it is the job of the leader to provide purpose, direction and motivation. The point is, units are made of people, and it is how those people work togeather, that they have trained togeather, know each other and trust each other, that will make the difference in combat, not what someone who happened to wear the same patch did fifty years ago.

BTW, it seems some of you think the US Army has no ‘regiments‘. That is not true. Although the regiment no longer exsists as a tactical unit (except for a few cases such as Airborne, Ranger, armored cav, etc), every battalion maintains the lineage and honors of their regiment. We just use numbers instead of names. We apparently don‘t get as wrapped up in it as you all do, if you go to a different unit, so what? But if  you think Americans don‘t take pride in their ‘regiment‘ , go tell a paratrooper of Ranger that his regiment sucks.


----------



## combat_medic

While you‘re right that no amount of tradition will make a poor soldier into an excellent one, the history is not meant for one individual. The whole point of having unit history, symbols, colours, traditions etc. is to help group cohesiveness. The more you feel like you belong to a group, the better equipped you are to handle a war. This was part of the problem the Americans had in Vietnam, and why Australia doesn‘t have the same degree of PTSD from its Vietnam vets. The Aussies were sent over a whole regiment at a time, rather than one or two soldiers sent to a unit as replacements. The same in WWII; a group of men would join together, train together, fight together, leave together. 

If you ask any veteran of actual combat, they‘ll say that the thing that go them through it was their buddies. I‘m not trying to say that Americans don‘t have this group cohesion, as was stated there are the Rangers, Airborne etc., and those units (albeit elite ones) tend to have higher morale. The regimental system helps you be able to bond to the group, have a sense of belonging in sharing and participating in those traditions. 

If you‘re interested, a retired USMC LCol wrote a book called "On Killing" which goes into this idea a lot. It‘s an excellent book, and has taught me a lot about the ‘group mentality‘


----------



## sgt.shmedly102

Just one quick point: LTC Dave Grossman is an Army Ranger,  *NOT*  a Marine. A minor point, but I‘m just a little peeved by the Marines always getting credit for everything. And yes, it is an excellent book.

More to follow.


----------



## combat_medic

Sorry, my bad. I‘ll have someone jack me up for that later.


----------



## bossi

(more grist for the mill ...)

September 19, 2002 
Grounded raptors are easy prey 
Jed Babbin

The Soviet army broke itself on the rocks of Afghanistan in the 1980s, in part because its leaders refused to adapt their operational doctrine to the new kind of war. What worked for them in Czechoslovakia in 1968 didn‘t work in Afghanistan. The U.S. Army‘s futile attempt to deploy its Apache helicopter gunships to fight the Serbs in Kosovo three years ago should have caused it to change the way it organizes and trains before deploying for battle. But, according to my sources, the Army‘s organization and training are the same now as they were in 1999. The Army is stuck in a peacetime mindset that may severely reduce its effectiveness in the coming war on Iraq. Though our troops are highly capable, their leadership seems intent on reliving the failures of Task Force Hawk.

When Task Force Hawk deployed to the muddy airfield at Tirana, Albania, it found itself competing for resources with the massive humanitarian aid program passing food and supplies through the same airspace and roads. Much has been written about the Army trying to push heavy forces into places they won‘t go, and the politics of using other nations‘ territory to aid in a deployment. But the Army has already forgotten the two most important lessons of Task Force Hawk.

When Task Force Hawk deployed, it looked great on paper but was incapable of performing its mission. As the weeks passed without the attack helicopters going into action, commanders belatedly recognized the need for other assets to make the force complete. Week after week, they had to add artillery to suppress enemy air defenses, force protection troops, and then expanded communications capabilities to link them together. Intelligence analysts were added and then short-range air defenses came to protect against a perceived threat from Montenegro. Eventually, most of the Army‘s V Corps staff and thousands of soldiers were in the Tirana mud, but the Apaches were still on the ground.

The Apache gunship is an enormously capable weapon, but it‘s not very effective just sitting on a runway. After one Task Force Hawk helicopter crashed in a training flight, a quick assessment of the crew‘s experience revealed a paucity of night mission training. The Army‘s replacement system promptly made things worse because it replaces individual crews rather than small units and thus disrupts the fighting unit‘s ability to work as a team.

It adds new crews who need training time to get used to working with the other people, and that training time can be hard to get once a unit is deployed. Many of the most experienced crews were transferred back to the United States, and other crews were brought in. Then a second Apache crashed and, as time passed, it became pretty clear that troops as unfamiliar with each other as they were with the terrain were not prepared to fight together. Unit cohesion - essential to combat readiness - was almost entirely absent.

Task Force Hawk should have taught the Army that wartime deployment demands both organization and training specifically dedicated to the war at hand.

The Army‘s special forces, mostly attached to U.S. Special Forces Command, distinguished themselves in Afghanistan and will again in Iraq. But the regular Army appears stuck in its peacetime mindset, organization and training. Mr. Rumsfeld‘s transformation has not caught on where it counts in the regular Army. 

In 1939, when George C. Marshall became chief of staff of the Army, he found it organized to maintain itself in garrison, not to move and fight. Marshall had two years to direct a thorough reorganization into fighting units.  Today‘s Army looks much like the army of 1939, and it doesn‘t have two years to reorganize before the Iraq campaign. Before it deploys in large numbers, it needs to be reorganized into cohesive units that include all the various components that must work together to be effective in combat. Once those units are organized they need to train together, not try to become cohesive only after they are deployed. 

Unfortunately, this is not happening. From quite a few Army officers - those captains, majors and lieutenant colonels who will be trigger-pullers, not rear-echelon types - come reports that in the places where you would expect to see it, there is no reorganization of units by task, no specific gunnery or maneuvers that would increase readiness. In fact, one source told me that there is no serious training in progress or any discernible sense of urgency in preparing for war. 

Whether the Army reorganizes will not affect the ultimate outcome of the campaign. Saddam will fall one way or another. But the campaign against Saddam Hussein‘s regime will not be a cakewalk, and reorganizing will reduce the cost of victory. In the weeks or months before the Iraq campaign begins, Mr. Rumsfeld needs to demand that the reorganization take place, and that the new cohesive units train together long and hard. The Army leadership has been the most resistant to Mr. Rumsfeld‘s transformation of the armed services. At this point, those who wish to follow the example of Marshall should lead, and those who still resist should be retired. Saddam delendus est. 

Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration.


----------

