# Canada eyeing reservists to bolster force in Afghanistan



## schart28 (28 Feb 2007)

CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/28/reserve-soldiers-070228.html?ref=rss

Canada's army is at least 3,000 soldiers short of meeting the nation's military commitments in Afghanistan and needs a serious boost in manpower, a commander in the Canadian Forces says.

Lieut.-Gen. Andrew Leslie said the concern is so great he is considering dipping into the part-time reserve force — troops traditionally used in peacekeeping — to bolster the ranks seeing combat in Afghanistan.

"By February 2009, just about every soldier in the regular army, and I'd say about 20 per cent of the reserve force, will have gone through [combat]," Leslie said.

The mission in Afghanistan, which is the crux of Canada's military efforts, requires nearly 2,500 fresh troops every six months, he said.

Right now, some 3,000 to 5,000 new soldiers would be needed to reinforce operations in Afghanistan, and "we're looking at somewhere between 400 to 600 reservists being part of that mix."

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has no objections to deploying reserve soldiers for combat missions.

"All soldiers, no matter what their origins are, are all trained to the same standards," O'Connor said. "We put the same effort in, with the same cost, so from my point of view, it makes no difference whether you're regular or reserve."

The Canadian Forces is looking to offer full-time soldiering jobs to as many as 1,500 part-time troops in order to keep the army prepared to fight.


----------



## GAP (28 Feb 2007)

I am sure there are a lot of young reservists that would jump at a chance for a nice solid, exciting contract. The CF really has to deal with some of the justified concerns of the reservists if they want this to turn into a positive thing.

my 1 cent...I need the other


----------



## Devlin (28 Feb 2007)

So how is this different than the current situtation with reservists already augmenting on roto's to Afghanistan? Would this be a mandated if your on a class "C" contract you may be volun-told that it's your turn sort of deal?


----------



## GAP (28 Feb 2007)

Just thought of something....could this be a prelude to introducing job security legislation?


----------



## schart28 (28 Feb 2007)

Could very well be. The reserve are already augmenting each Roto.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Just thought of something....could this be a prelude to introducing job security legislation?


----------



## Staff Weenie (28 Feb 2007)

Devlin - you don't get the Class C until you're ready to go (only a few small exceptions left).

Job Protection? That's a double edged sword in the US - I think they do it better in Australia though (carrot vs stick).

If we get job protection, then they will probably try to modify the NDA and extend the unlimited liability to Reservists.

Not that great of a problem to me - it'll get rid of all the folk who only joined to get their tuition subsidy.

But if we get job protection, but must deploy, how does that work for self employed people? Or what about for a Surgeon who normally makes over 250K per year in the civilian world, but far less in uniform.


----------



## GAP (28 Feb 2007)

Don't surgeons work under a contract that covers that difference? There was a thread here recently pointing that out, unless I misinterpreted it.


----------



## Staff Weenie (28 Feb 2007)

Depends somewhat - Reg F specialists are better compensated, and can negotiate salary to a degree. Similar benefits are being proposed for the Res F. 

The point is, that the US has found that Reserve or National Guard clinicians (and probably many others) were going into bankruptcy when ordered to deploy (they have to pay somebody to watch their practice & clinic overhead, pay their student loans, and pay their mortgage, etc). So, they've started to experience more and more problems in recruiting them into the Res/National Guard.

The Reserves was all fun and games until they had to deploy. I think that were we to enact a similar system here, we might see the same results. Right now, we have had some Res F specialists go overseas here and there - but these are typically folks who are looking for the excitement, and challenge - the pool of these folks is only so deep.


----------



## Devlin (28 Feb 2007)

Thanks Staff Weenie. Yes class "C" were pretty far and few between even a year ago when I left and went on the supp list.

Which leads me to another question would they (the powers that be) consider looking at the supp reserve list or would we have to be in a state of conscription being re-introduced to get to that point? I suppose answers to this could only be speculative at this point.


----------



## geo (28 Feb 2007)

Devlin said:
			
		

> So how is this different than the current situtation with reservists already augmenting on roto's to Afghanistan? Would this be a mandated if your on a class "C" contract you may be volun-told that it's your turn sort of deal?


devlin,
If you are res force on a class C, you are working up to a deployment... else you'd be on class B @ 85% of your reg force counterpart..... so - volunteer-period sort of deal


----------



## Devlin (28 Feb 2007)

Thanks Geo ....got B and C confused .....multiple choice was a bitch during highschool ;D


----------



## FastEddy (28 Feb 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> I am sure there are a lot of young reservists that would jump at a chance for a nice solid, exciting contract. The CF really has to deal with some of the justified concerns of the reservists if they want this to turn into a positive thing.
> 
> my 1 cent...I need the other




"GAP", please note, your Post is fine and this quote is only to express my personal objection to the terminology of the word "Contract" (which is now chisled in stone). I hope the originators are on CB and Sentry Duty for Eternity.

I still can't get used to it, it doesn't have a true ring of Militarism, like Enlistment, Enrollment, Tour of Duty Posting, Signing up.

I agree that the use of it is perfectly correct and fault you not. I hope you'll foregive a Old Soldier who on occasion when stepping on a Torn of Modernization chirps in.

Back on Topic, +1 on your post.

Cheers.


----------



## geo (28 Feb 2007)

Devlin said:
			
		

> Thanks Staff Weenie. Yes class "C" were pretty far and few between even a year ago when I left and went on the supp list.
> 
> Which leads me to another question would they (the powers that be) consider looking at the supp reserve list or would we have to be in a state of conscription being re-introduced to get to that point? I suppose answers to this could only be speculative at this point.


Matter of fact, something is being done with the Supp list.  The lists are being cleaned up - used to be that a Reg with a 3(b) discharge could go onto the Supp list and then get a class B with the Cadets..... but, with universality of service, that won`t work anymore.  Once the lists are cleaned up, they (not sure who) at the area level, are supposed to be getting in contact with supp list members & invite them in for service / whatever.  More to follow.....


----------



## GAP (28 Feb 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> "GAP", please note, your Post is fine and this quote is only to express my personal objection to the terminology of the word "Contract" (which is now chisled in stone). I hope the originators are on CB and Sentry Duty for Eternity.



Hey I served my time in the USMC...I never heard of class B or class C contract until my son was on one in Bosnia.....


----------



## geo (28 Feb 2007)

Have you been hearing the "if you're employable, you're deployable"?
Anyone who is ready willing and able to fill in a long term class B should be prepared to receive that invite... 
Those regs who take an early retirement and go supp list / Pri reserve to get away from their committment to "travel & see the world" (@85% or pay & 30 something days,breach of contract) should be talked to again...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Feb 2007)

See: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/58040/post-533988.html#msg533988 

I think this, too, is part of the *retention* first, then recruiting issue.

We would do well to stop worrying about the too many and too fine distinctions between classes of service.  Once a soldier is deployed (s)he is just that – a soldier.  There should be no distinctions, whatever, between ‘regulars’ and ‘reservists’ until they are safely home and, in the case of the reservists, successfully reintegrated into their civilian ‘life.’  Further, on return from active service overseas, reserve force members who want a component transfer to the regular force should, in the overwhelming majority of cases, find the doors open and the CT process should be short, simple and easy.


----------



## seamus (28 Feb 2007)

I know Ottawa is doing its best, but everyone knows no matter how hard the powers that be try it will not change enough. And by enough I  am talkling about the fact that Leslie and Hillier are trying not to have the same 40% do a huge portion of the tours overseas. We all know this will happen anyways, and the only chance of change is with a majority government. Conservative the changes may happen and with the Liberals it will no longer be an issue.


----------



## Tow Tripod (28 Feb 2007)

If I remember correctly back in 94 at least 1/2 my platoon in Croatia was militia personal.Fast forward to 2007 and for TF 1-08 and by the ***k 1/3 of the platoon will be Militia personal.So my question to all the think tanks will be is this really a news story??? I thought not!!!! 

TOW TRIPOD


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (28 Feb 2007)

I know 4RCR here in London has sent 30 people over on this latest RCR tour. I frequent the unit at least once a month for a visit and most young troops I talk to are bucking at the bit and frothing at the mouth to get a tour and from what I've been told by the higher echelon, is most will get their chance.

Few have actually had any problems with there civilian jobs letting them go. Mind you a few have had nightmare stories, but the consensus seems to be that their civilian employers are willing to work with them to come up with some kind of compromise. I think some people blow this problem out of proportion, by seeing that some people have this problem, they think everyone has the same problem.


----------



## geo (28 Feb 2007)

rg45
the squeaky wheel gets the grease.... so yeah, those with a problem scream loud and clear.... though not always coherently.


----------



## career_radio-checker (28 Feb 2007)

One concern I'd like to have addressed is post-secondary protection for students.

40% of the Reserves are students and many of those (myself included) are on student loans. If we go on tour (and I know many who would in a heart beat) we risk being kicked out of universities because most post-secondary institutions have either a 3-4 semester 'absecence' period granted to students who need to work. After that your name is removed from the roster and it may be extremely difficult trying to get back into your program of studies.

Also, student loans give you a 6 month grace period after your last semester of classes before they start collecting interest. They are provincially administrated so I don't see how you could be exempted from paying interest while on tour. 

Any suggestions?

CRC


----------



## GAP (28 Feb 2007)

That, I think would have to be a negotiated, political decision with the provinces. I would probably, send an email/letter to MND at least, maybe the PMO, because, with everything else going on, I suspect nobody has given that consideration.


----------



## Staff Weenie (28 Feb 2007)

While this situation may no longer occur, I did receive some complaints by Res F personnel who had deployed, on to come home and find that their Province was billing them a year's worth of health care premiums - even when they hadn't been around for most of that year. The Provinces also weren't accepting military documentation easily to calculate the real costs.

Anybody from the West know if this is still a problem for Reservists?


----------



## GAP (28 Feb 2007)

The CTV article with a slightly different spin

Military to send more reservists to Afghanistan
Updated Wed. Feb. 28 2007 12:13 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

The Canadian military is expected to announce today that a large group of reservists from Western Canada will be deployed to Afghanistan to compensate for a troop shortfall. 

Col. Kelly Woiden, commander of 38 Canadian Brigade Group, will hold a news conference this afternoon to discuss plans to send more than 160 reservists to Afghanistan by next year. 

The group is responsible for all reserve units from Thunder Bay, Ont. to the Saskatchewan-Alberta boundary. 

Earlier this week, a Senate committee heard that Canada will need up to 5,000 new soldiers over the next few years to meet the nation's troop commitment in Afghanistan. 

"I need 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers in the next three to five years and that's above and beyond our current figures," Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, chief of the army, told the national security and defence standing committee. 

with the demand for troops, the military is expected to call upon more reservists to help fill the gap. 

Reservists serve either in full-time or part-time position within the Canadian forces. Currently, there are 400 to 600 reservists in Afghanistan. 

In total, there are 62,700 members of the regular force and 22,000 primary reservists, reports the Toronto Star. 

Canada has about 2,500 soldiers based in Afghanistan, mostly in the Kandahar region. Since the mission began in 2002, 44 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan. 
end


----------



## enfield (28 Feb 2007)

I'm not entirely sure what the CLS means by this. It sounds good, and makes a good headline - but as far as I can tell just about every deployable reservist is, has, or will head to Afghanistan. As far as I can see, from my view on the bottom, there is no great untapped pool of reservists. Everyone who can go is already being used. Those who for whatever reason are not going overseas are filling positions here in Canada, positions that would normally be Reg F. The Reserves are working at max speed - in some Areas/Brigades its nearing a state of mobilization. The Reserves will be able to squeeze out a few dribs and drabs for the coming Rotos, but at present demand the regiments can't produce the numbers required for more than one TF. 

The only way to get more people is Job Protection Legislation. Such legislation would likely mean mandatory service - fixed lengths of service, required overseas service, etc - and would drive everyone out and kill the Reserves. 

So unless there's a Grand Clone Army of the Militia waiting in a hangar in Nunavut, there ain't much that could happen. 

Going back to the article itself, I'm not sure if the CLS and MND gave the wrong impression, or the reporter screwed up, but the article implies that Reservists are not already on combat operations in A'stan, and that they are not deployabling in huge numbers. I can't help but wish that the Minister and Chief of Land STaff had been more forceful in representing the role reservists have played. 

I heard another report yesterday where the CLS was quoted as saying he wished recruiting was in the hands of the Regiments and Battalions, not CFRG. To me, this seems a better approach to the problem - if you need a bigger army, recruit, train and pay for it, and start by finding ways to improve recruiting. 

Need more people for A'Stan?
Shut down CSOR, get rid of bilingual requirements/training for officers, shrink JTF2, mothball the subs, do more to retain people in the combat arms - there are many solutions, all of them painful. The reality is that, if the numbers the CLS states are correct (and I asume they are) the military simply cannot maintain the mission and the CDS and CLS should say so.


----------



## career_radio-checker (28 Feb 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> That, I think would have to be a negotiated, political decision with the provinces. I would probably, *send an email/letter to MND * at least, maybe the PMO, because, with everything else going on, I suspect nobody has given that consideration.



I just did.


----------



## sandyson (28 Feb 2007)

I visited a medical unit last week and was surprised to learn they are permitted only a seven person intake this year--be it tranfers or recruits: ORs or officers.  This situation is not consistent with the shortages in reserves for overseas service.  Or, is the recruiting effort being focused upon needed infantry reservists?  What are the intake numbers around the militia units? As has been said--the militia does not have that many more people to harvest.


----------



## mysteriousmind (28 Feb 2007)

Personnally...for the job thing...I jus would quit my civvie job to do it. 

Ok the jobs im doing are crappy so I would not miss at all selling macs and checking out some building, and, one of my employer would gladly give me some time off because he encourage people doin military services. but I probably would loose the job Im doing now and upon my return, be "reaffected" to an other building watch.

But after my BMQ-SQ-QL3 I sure would go. 

Yes there should be a law that protects reservist civvie jobs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Feb 2007)

I know my old unit is sending 14 soldiers over and have a notice posted in all of the Messes saying if you apply, you will more than likely go. Different world than my days where you had to whine and snivel for a posting. There are also concern that Militia units will not having anyone to do the training of new recruits or deploy on exercises.


----------



## Gayson (28 Feb 2007)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> One concern I'd like to have addressed is post-secondary protection for students.
> 
> 40% of the Reserves are students and many of those (myself included) are on student loans. If we go on tour (and I know many who would in a heart beat) we risk being kicked out of universities because most post-secondary institutions have either a 3-4 semester 'absecence' period granted to students who need to work. After that your name is removed from the roster and it may be extremely difficult trying to get back into your program of studies.
> 
> ...



Most schools have programs set up for military service.  At my institute I simply need to tell my program coordinator what the deal is and he makes the arrangements for my integration back into class.


----------



## Spartan (28 Feb 2007)

As a reservist I'm wondering why there is no mention of an Order in Council, anywhere. 
If there is such a need of Reserve augmentation - and one could argue there is when a CBG is deploying so many soldiers, this should be considered. Yes it will include many facets to sort out, and will have to address legal issues, pay, length of service etc - but if such a need is required by the army - this should be considered and expanded on the rotating CBG augmentation ( ie certain Area is required at higher service readiness for x time to supply y #  of troops).


----------



## mysteriousmind (28 Feb 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I know my old unit is sending 14 soldiers over and have a notice posted in all of the Messes saying if you apply, you will more than likely go. Different world than my days where you had to whine and snivel for a posting. There are also concern that Militia units will not having anyone to do the training of new recruits or deploy on exercises.



M. J. Gayson has a point....in the unit im joining (waiting for my paperwork to be solved)....their is already a lack of staff to instruct or to run different things around. yes that is, somesort of a problem....but what if you could take some regs force to train the reserve while they are in garnison?? would it be possible to work something.


----------



## GAP (28 Feb 2007)

It sounds like the CF is doing a full court press on this issue....here's an audio link from CJOB in Winnipeg where Rick Linden, a former Major General and Chief of Reserves and Cadets talks about reservists

Audio Link


----------



## Staff Weenie (28 Feb 2007)

Spartan - I do not think that the current minority Govt is willing to risk defeat in an attempt to enact an Order In Council to 'mobilize' the Reserves. It may well toppple the Govt, and may cost them enough support to lose the subsequent election.

It is unfortunate that there is not some means for a more selective activation of Reservists, backed by solid job protection legislation and solid compensation (using tax credits & incentives for employers to avoid the stigma like that attached to US Reservists seeking civy employment). 

For us, it's the highly specialized CSS trades that are really hurting over the operational tempo - there's only so many anaesthetists in the CF, and we send them on short Rotos as is to avoid burnout, but we can chew through the lot of them in no time, and we can't just create new ones in short order. That said - I'm not even sure if we have any anaesth folks in the Reserves to call on......


----------



## chrisf (28 Feb 2007)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> 40% of the Reserves are students and many of those (myself included) are on student loans. If we go on tour (and I know many who would in a heart beat) we risk being kicked out of universities because most post-secondary institutions have either a 3-4 semester 'absecence' period granted to students who need to work. After that your name is removed from the roster and it may be extremely difficult trying to get back into your program of studies.



Don't know about the university you attended, but the university I formerly attended allowed 1 semester absence, after which you had to reapply, which pretty much meant as long as your grades were up to par before you left, you just paid the registration fee. I also know of a few people who left for longer and had the fee waived for whatever reasons.



> Also, student loans give you a 6 month grace period after your last semester of classes before they start collecting interest. They are provincially administrated so I don't see how you could be exempted from paying interest while on tour.



Why should you be exempted? It's a good opportunity to make some money and clean up your debt. Start paying off the whole loan...


----------



## enfield (28 Feb 2007)

sandyson said:
			
		

> I visited a medical unit last week and was surprised to learn they are permitted only a seven person intake this year--be it tranfers or recruits: ORs or officers.  This situation is not consistent with the shortages in reserves for overseas service.  Or, is the recruiting effort being focused upon needed infantry reservists?  What are the intake numbers around the militia units?



Recruiting is always constrained by the capacity of the training system that they are being fed into. Numbers very greatly. Infantry units can recruit 30-100 people a year.
Most Combat Arms units can recruit and train in large numbers - there are more courses and instructors.

Specialties have other considerations; for example, the Medical Reserve attempts to recruit people with medical experience, or takes occupational transfer from other units, and don't focus on taking unskilled people off the street. The Med unit in my area recruits completely differently from the Combat Arms units: we use Info Nights, Open Houses, and school visits, they have personal interview with potential applicants and focus on hospitals and EMS. 

It is highly unlikely that anyone joining the Reserves now will have the opportunity to go to Afghanistan, assuming the mission ends in 2009, so the current operations aren't really a factor in numbers, besides being a drain on potential instructors. In short, the military is recruiting as fast as it can train people.


----------



## career_radio-checker (28 Feb 2007)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Why should you be exempted? It's a good opportunity to make some money and clean up your debt. Start paying off the whole loan...



I'm talking about people who would pause their school to go on tour and then come back to finish and might have to go back on student loans. The 'pause' you're allowed with student loans is only 6 months. And while you do make good money while on tour, what if I have expenses back at home on top of my already 20, 000 in debt from student loans? You can't expect an average Cpl. to go on tour; pay his expenses back at home; pay off $20, 000; and then have enough leftover to pay the $6,000 tuition fee, and living expenses without applying for *ANOTHER* student loan. Much less hassel to only have one loan.


----------



## Donut (28 Feb 2007)

Really?

I had absolutely no problem doing EXACTLY what you just described.  Had loans, went to school, left school, 14 Month CL C, Went to school, Got Loans, Went to school. Graduated.

The banks were always more then happy to stamp and mail that student loan form.  This may be stale info, but it certainly wasn't hard.

Now I've got two student loans paid off, one Federal, one Provincial.  No biggy.

Edit  

And, yes, I did have to make loan payments after 6 months out of school. I was on CL C, I was "Rich" compared to my living-in-res-scrounging-for-beer-money days.


----------



## Springroll (28 Feb 2007)

I know of 11 reservists here at CRPG BC DET who really want to go over, but are not being given the opportunity because their CO doesn't want to try and find someone to fill their positions. Now these reservists (for the most part) are "retired" Sgt's and WO's with tons of reg force time in. 

Why is it such a fight for them to go over if they are wanting too? Most of them are ready to quit their job to go over.


----------



## career_radio-checker (28 Feb 2007)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> I had absolutely no problem doing EXACTLY what you just described.  Had loans, went to school, left school, 14 Month CL C, Went to school, Got Loans, Went to school. Graduated.
> 
> ...



I have to say that I am more in the 'living-in-res-scrounging-for-beer-money days' category except I'm not in Res, but I do bring home IMPs/boxed lunches whenever possible. 

Sounds good ParaMed Tech, who did you see about ebing off from school and extending your loans? I ask because my university has given me nothing but grief. (UofOttawa)


----------



## Haggis (28 Feb 2007)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I know of 11 reservists here at CRPG BC DET who really want to go over, but are not being given the opportunity because their CO doesn't want to try and find someone to fill their positions. Now these reservists (for the most part) are "retired" Sgt's and WO's with tons of reg force time in.
> 
> Why is it such a fight for them to go over if they are wanting too? Most of them are ready to quit their job to go over.



Because, despite the member's desire to go, they signed a contract with the CO of the CRPG and he hired them for a reason.  He has to weigh the impact of letting them go against the staffwork and incremental (and non-recoverable) costs required to source, hire and train their replacements all against the backdrop of delivering training and administration to his Ranger patrols.

If they really want to go, against their CO's wishes, they can simply quit their Class B's and hope to pick up another one when they return.


----------



## Sig_Des (28 Feb 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Because, despite the member's desire to go, they signed a contract with the CO of the CRPG and he hired them for a reason.  He has to weigh the impact of letting them go against the staffwork and incremental (and non-recoverable) costs required to source, hire and train their replacements all against the backdrop of delivering training and administration to his Ranger patrols.
> 
> If they really want to go, against their CO's wishes, they can simply quit their Class B's and hope to pick up another one when they return.



Haggis, +50. You took the words right out of my mouth.

Springroll, a reservist on Class B/C is most definitely not the same as posting in a Reg F member. Those people applied for those positions, and most likely had to compete with others for it. They were interviewed for it. They signed a contract for it. Usually, when working in a B/C contract at a Reg F establishment, it is because it is is an important position for the establishment, and they had a shortage of available, qualified Reg F pers.

Now say, 1 year into a 3 year contract, and after 1 year of training you in that position, or sending you on career courses, all of a sudden, you want to scratch that itch and go overseas. So they're reservists. Between predeployment and actual tour, they're gone for 6 to 12 months. So what's their CO to do?

For a long term contract, the rules state he has to open it for national competition, usually for 30 days. Then he's got to start over with them.

Here's the way it is. They signed a contract. They want to do something else, they put in their notice, and apply for a deployment.


----------



## Springroll (28 Feb 2007)

That makes sense. 

Thanks for the answers Haggis and Sig_Des.


----------



## chrisf (28 Feb 2007)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> I'm talking about people who would pause their school to go on tour and then come back to finish and might have to go back on student loans. The 'pause' you're allowed with student loans is only 6 months. And while you do make good money while on tour, what if I have expenses back at home on top of my already 20, 000 in debt from student loans? You can't expect an average Cpl. to go on tour; pay his expenses back at home; pay off $20, 000; and then have enough leftover to pay the $6,000 tuition fee, and living expenses without applying for *ANOTHER* student loan. Much less hassel to only have one loan.



Ok, so you go on tour, pay off previous student loan, return, apply for new student loan, and at the end, you have half as much debt, rather then if you stayed home, still had to apply for a student loan because you were unemployed or underemployed while going to school, and have $40 000 to pay off at the end... I really don't understand the need for exemption...


----------



## Donut (28 Feb 2007)

CRC

  Your loan, I think, is with your bank, not the university, at least it was then (actually it changed part-way through).

Initially our loans were actually issued by the government, either provincial or federal.  Then they would be transferred to a bank on graduation.

that changed to the loans being issued by a financial institution, with a guarantee from the various level of government.

I know we got a form from the university, but that was really only our confirmation of student status; once you had that we'd take it to the bank, and they'd credit our account based on info they had gotten from the government as to amount.

I'd suggest you talk to your bank as to your status with them, they're probably the actual creditors, while the government is merely the guarantor.*

Hope it helps, there're some manning issues comin' down the pipe.

DF

JASO, +1

*no warranty implied or stated.  I'm not an expert in squat. your milage may vary.  Not only am I not a financial proffesional, I can barely do math, type, or ski, and didn't even stay at a holiday in last night.


----------



## NL_engineer (28 Feb 2007)

mysteriousmind said:
			
		

> Yes there should be a law that protects reservist civvie jobs.



I can not see such a law being put in place.  Steping right out of the military in to the civy world for this explanation.

For example, say big Canadian Corporation X has 500 reservists, employed, in various positions.  All these 500 get mobilized, Corporation X is now left with millions of dollars to spend filling these positions, holding and increasing seniority for (union employees).  Now apply this across a couple more big Canadian businesses.  The CEO's are going to be to be happy, and will complain the PMO (and when you piss of these guys, you are not getting their money for the next election).  Let alone pissed of share holders who instead of getting the quarterly $0.35/ share dividend get $0.10/ share because of the increased Human Resources and other costs.  This affect then could make a big impact on the economy (people dumping shares, because they do not know why they dropped), and could forcibly stick us in a recessions or depression.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (28 Feb 2007)

> Yes there should be a law that protects reservist civvie jobs.


  
If the reservists are CALLED UP , then yes, the job should be protected by the Gov or CF..... If the reservist volunteers, then I cant see a law being put in place, but many places protect the jobs anyways.


----------



## Blindspot (28 Feb 2007)

sandyson said:
			
		

> I visited a medical unit last week and was surprised to learn they are permitted only a seven person intake this year--be it tranfers or recruits: ORs or officers.  This situation is not consistent with the shortages in reserves for overseas service.  Or, is the recruiting effort being focused upon needed infantry reservists?  What are the intake numbers around the militia units? As has been said--the militia does not have that many more people to harvest.



Well, from CFRC Toronto: "The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada are not hiring." Neither are the 48th Highlanders apparently. Officers I have talked to say WTF?


----------



## Robbie (28 Feb 2007)

I had a breff at my unit about a month ago.  LFCA is going to be looking for 500+ res for TF3 08.  

There is going to be 4 streams that a reservists can go.

Stream 1.  Leave April 07
Srream 2.  Leave July 07
Stream 3.  Leave Sept 07
Stream 4.  Leave Feb 08 - Take you stright in to build up training.

BEST of all you start on class C.


----------



## chrisf (28 Feb 2007)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> Well, from CFRC Toronto: "The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada are not hiring." Neither are the 48th Highlanders apparently. Officers I have talked to say WTF?



Don't mind the CFRC, the units in question should have their own unit recruiters, contact them directly.


----------



## Blindspot (28 Feb 2007)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Don't mind the CFRC, the units in question should have their own unit recruiters, contact them directly.



No longer. Recruitment has been taken over by 32 Brigade. Since then the units that I mentioned have not been "hiring". Strange is it not? Particularily when the Queen's Own have a new Armoury to fill.


----------



## Kiwi99 (28 Feb 2007)

I have absolutley no problem with res troops going overseas.  From feb-aug 06 i had two in my section and more in the platoon as part og TF1-06.  But what concerns me, and I think this needs to be cleared up, is the fact that apparently by 2009, all reg force soldiers will have been to afghanistan.  That may be true.  But there seems to be nobody taking into account those of us from the regs that would go over again and again and again.  If I go with a sect of res, it doesnt bother me one bit.  i may even learn something.  But the important thing to note is the fact that among the regs, there are soldiers that want to go back to war, and they should be afforded every chance to do so.  As long as they sign a PTSD waiver so when we go nuts we get reminded we volunteered for it.


----------



## KevinB (28 Feb 2007)

Biggest problem I see from this issue (and look back its nothing new - look to the early 90's for augmentee issues) if that for reservists be employable beyond the Cpl/Pte level they need LAV experience.  Unless the reservists is willing to make a 2+year comitment to the tour -- they are not going to get LAV experience and courses.

  This put me back to saying 30 day CT issue for same trade.  Since offering 2 years to the reg - once may as well do a 3 year BE.


----------



## gate_guard (28 Feb 2007)

Reference Kevins comments, what's on the go for the workup for 1-08? I know a few guys from my regiment are doing crew commander courses, any plans on getting driver/gunner courses for the pte/cpl augmentees on the almost year long workup they're doing? If so, any issues with staffing/resources?


----------



## GAP (28 Feb 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> I have absolutley no problem with res troops going overseas.  From feb-aug 06 i had two in my section and more in the platoon as part og TF1-06.  But what concerns me, and I think this needs to be cleared up, is the fact that apparently by 2009, all reg force soldiers will have been to afghanistan.  That may be true.  But there seems to be nobody taking into account those of us from the regs that would go over again and again and again.  If I go with a sect of res, it doesnt bother me one bit.  i may even learn something.  But the important thing to note is the fact that among the regs, there are soldiers that want to go back to war, and they should be afforded every chance to do so.  As long as they sign a PTSD waiver so when we go nuts we get reminded we volunteered for it.



Yeah, but after 6 months you guys have to come home....we started with a 13 month tour, and myself and few others did 2 six month extensions....PTSD was extra.


----------



## Kiwi99 (28 Feb 2007)

The army says you go for 6 months, then you go.  I am a firm believer that if you VOLUNTEER to stay longer, despite all the possible hazards etc, then you are the only person liable for whatever mental health issues thta may develop.  That is not being said as a hardass, I have seen war as well, but if i volunteered to stay or go immediatley back, i would accept resposibility for that action, whatever the cost. We all make our own beds, right, so we must sleep in them.


----------



## Haggis (28 Feb 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> The army says you go for 6 months, then you go.  I am a firm believer that if you VOLUNTEER to stay longer, despite all the possible hazards etc, then you are the only person liable for whatever mental health issues thta may develop.



No, the Army is liable.  Remember it is a leadership responsibility to get you home in one piece.  Sometimes that may be against your wishes, but bigger heads than you will have made the decision for your good and the good of the Army.



> That is not being said as a hardass, I have seen war as well, but if i volunteered to stay or go immediatley back, i would accept resposibility for that action, whatever the cost. We all make our own beds, right, so we must sleep in them.



If you are granted your extension and then return to Canada as a recurring character on the cabbage repairmans's calendar, what good are you as a soldier, trainer or mentor to those new, young soldiers you are expected to prepare for war?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (28 Feb 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> No, the Army is liable.  Remember it is a leadership responsibility to get you home in one piece.  Sometimes that may be against your wishes, but bigger heads than you will have made the decision for your good and the good of the Army.
> 
> If you are granted your extension and then return to Canada as a recurring character on the cabbage repairmans's calendar, what good are you as a soldier, trainer or mentor to those new, young soldiers you are expected to prepare for war?



I'm with Kiwi on this one, in that I don't think that we should assume that simply by being in theatre someone is going to go insane or experience levels of PTSD that will incapacitate them.  Lets look at history, in the First and Second World Wars, we had troops that remained in combat/in theatre for years at a time.  As long as there are qualified pers to assess the mental health of the soldier who wants to remain in theatre, and that individual is found to be of sound mental health, if they want to remain in theatre, or go back for repeat tours, that's up to them.


----------



## Kiwi99 (28 Feb 2007)

I disagree with the comment saying the army is liable.  How?  Each person is different, and we all know that sometime in our service we may be exposed to horrible things.  History makes that quite clear.  How many times have you heard the phrase 'War is Hell'?  For anyone who joins the forces, knowing full well the reputation war has, to blame the military for their mental health is unacceptable. They are resposible to train you to not get shot and to kill the enemy.  Your mind is your own, and it is unique to you.   But that is my opinion, not wrong, but not right either.


One thing that I must stress is a thing noted by members of my pl CoC.  'Those that you think are mentally weak...they will be.  Those that you think are tough c**ts...they will be tougher'.

But this digresses from the original subject of the thread.  I just find it wrong for blaming the army for mental health issues.


----------



## GAP (28 Feb 2007)

As has been said, just because you stay longer does not necessarily make you eligible for PSTD....many of us did by choice, with the Marine Corps  blessing and checkup as to whether this was an intelligent decision for us through checking with our officers/sr. NCO's. 

We had a job to do and we wanted to stay to do it.

All that being said....I like the 6 month ROTO system in use by the CF now. They might consider a 7/8 months tour simply for overlap.  I think there should be some flexability and there probably is in critical areas, but all and all it's not a bad system.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Feb 2007)

Sort yourselves out, the whole lot of ya's (No I am not talking as a mod, so step back from that one).


None of you have conveyed an opinion regarding PTSD, and how it is contracted, with any knowledge of the disorder.  Get your information correct, before spouting of about weakness.

And some of you hold a leadership postion??

Nice.

dileas

tess


----------



## Donut (28 Feb 2007)

Gate_Guard, 

I believe the window for PCF courses for 1-08 has passed, but things may have changed in the week since I heard the plan.

I know there's some Bison CC courses being run over the next couple of weeks, but even that is kind of pushing it, with the TMST that has to get done. I doubt, and someone may come along and correct me, that there's time for a LAV Turret course or gunnery tng on the beasts.

As for issues with staffing and resources, yes, there are some  ;D

DF

Edited to add:

Kiwi, WTF are you talking about? PTSD is not something you see coming down the pipe (or rarely).  It's not something you can avoid;  if ANYONE gets pushed far enough, they'll suffer for it down the road.  It's an operational injury, just like taking a round, or losing a leg.  The CF is as liable for one as the other, and therefore has an obligation to you.  They also, then, have an obligation to mitigate that risk within the constraints of the mission.

I'm not saying someone who extends time in theater is automatically going to develop PTSD, but the odds increase with the longer you're exposed to the stressor.  You are right; this is a digression from the topic, and may best be brought up in the CFHS forums, specifically the Mental Health one.

There's a number of SMEs on the subject on here, including some MH specialists, who I hope step in.


----------



## JBP (1 Mar 2007)

Back to the issue at hand, I was shocked when I found out how many troops from my unit applied for each and every stream availible. I think to be honest, about 1/2 of our regulars have put thier names in, had interviews with the OC of our unit and are being put forward. I think this is fantastic as it will show the CF higher-ups and also the civilians that we, part-time "weekend warriors" are chomping at the bit to step up to the plate. I don't think LFCA wil have trouble getting 500+ pers to fill the required TF... 

All the guys I originally joined up with who are still training/parading have signed up for various 'Streams' and I'm rather jealous, because I put in for a Component Transfer in Dec and was told if I put in for a tour, it'll basically put my Reg Force application on hold! I'd be willing to do a 2year contract for sure... 

We'll see how it all pans out, I think this is a good thing to say the least. That's what we're bloody here for! To help support and augument the Regular Force army AS and WHEN needed!


----------



## the 48th regulator (1 Mar 2007)

I have to realize, that after reading what Kiwi99 said, going over his post and sleeping on it, that I see the raw core of what he is saying.  This is not a new army, but the old one reborn, and the soldiers of today have got to get back that technique of finding that inner beast  and unleashing him when fighting, but be strong enough to lock him back into his cage.

If the Troops are here for the long run, they can expect to see multiple tours, and if they breakdown in the first smell of Cordite then they have not only failed the system, and their buddies, they have failed themselves.

As for the reservist, who get thrown back into a completely alien and total civvy life afterwards, I hope there is support there not only to teach him how to Unleash, but to properly suppress this beast afterwards.

dileas

tess


----------



## The_Falcon (1 Mar 2007)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> No longer. Recruitment has been taken over by 32 Brigade. Since then the units that I mentioned have not been "hiring". Strange is it not? Particularily when the Queen's Own have a new Armoury to fill.



Umm we still have our own recruiter. ???


----------



## hank011 (1 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> But what concerns me, and I think this needs to be cleared up, is the fact that apparently by 2009, all reg force soldiers will have been to afghanistan.


My pet peeve again, you mean INFANTEERS not SOLDIERS. There are tens of thousands of reg force soldiers who will never see the desert(while others go multiple times I might add).


----------



## enfield (1 Mar 2007)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> Well, from CFRC Toronto: "The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada are not hiring." Neither are the 48th Highlanders apparently. Officers I have talked to say WTF?



This could mean a few things... One, don't always trust CFRC on questions regarding Reserve recruiting - go to the unit itself, thats why each Regiment pays its own recruiter. Second, until April 1, CF Recruiting Group has put a hold on the processing of Reserve applications: The Res F is close to meeting its targets for the fiscal year, the Reg F is not, so priority is being given to Reg F applicants until the end of the year to get their numbers up. However, you can still apply, and your file will still go to CFRC, it will just sit at the bottom of the Bookings pile until the new fiscal year.  



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Biggest problem I see from this issue (and look back its nothing new - look to the early 90's for augmentee issues) if that for reservists be employable beyond the Cpl/Pte level they need LAV experience.  Unless the reservists is willing to make a 2+year comitment to the tour -- they are not going to get LAV experience and courses.



Absolutely. And not just LAV experience - there's a whole range of courses and experience that is simply not available to Reserve NCOs. There's a relatively small gap between a Reg Private and a Res Private, and that can be made up with enthusiasm, intelligence and fitness. But there's a much wider gap between a Res Sgt and a Reg Sgt, and there's no way to catch up. I question the entire idea of Reserve Companies, given the lack of experience in such a Companies leadership.



			
				Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I'm with Kiwi on this one, in that I don't think that we should assume that simply by being in theatre someone is going to go insane or experience levels of PTSD that will incapacitate them.  Lets look at history, in the First and Second World Wars, we had troops that remained in combat/in theatre for years at a time.



I won't touch on PTSD, but I don't think the average Allied soldier in WW1 or WW2 had equivalent 'combat time' as many soldiers serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Troops in WW1 were rotated often, and spent most of their time in safety and comfort behind the lines. Troops in WW2 had long stretches of combat, but then were rotated back to wait for the next battle/invasion. Troops in Iraq (as you know very well) are out there almost every day for a year, and Canadians in A'stan are out in the field for a huge percentage of their time, and in both places there is no safe rear area.



			
				R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> Back to the issue at hand, I was shocked when I found out how many troops from my unit applied for each and every stream availible. I think to be honest, about 1/2 of our regulars have put thier names in, had interviews with the OC of our unit and are being put forward. I think this is fantastic as it will show the CF higher-ups and also the civilians that we, part-time "weekend warriors" are chomping at the bit to step up to the plate. I don't think LFCA wil have trouble getting 500+ pers to fill the required TF...
> 
> We'll see how it all pans out, I think this is a good thing to say the least. That's what we're bloody here for! To help support and augument the Regular Force army AS and WHEN needed!



Good attitude R031! 
However - what happens when the Army comes back next year looking for more volunteers? LFCA will have sent 500 hard-chargers overseas, and they won't be available. Who's left? Sure, there will be a handful who weren't able to go before, but I doubt any Area can produce 500 good volunteers twice. Plus, think of what your unit will look like over the coming year when all of those people are gone - it will be harder to get instructors to teach, harder to get range staff or experienced troops/NCOs to run Ex's, and a whole crop of recruits will come in to a very different Regiment. My old unit is in the midst of this right now - almost the entire platoon and company level chain of command, plus almost all the cpl's, are overseas and there is a marked difference in the quality of training. The unit is essentially on life-support until those troops get back, and thats not unusual for any of the units in my Brigade.

This is not to say that those 500 shouldn't go - on the contrary, going to Afghanistan is the best and most important thing they could be doing - but there is a price to sending so many (as the Regs know) and its doubtful it can happen twice. This is why I hope the CLS doens't really see the Reserves as an untapped pool; the Reserves are good for low-level augmentation, and short bursts of heavy augmentation, but the Reserves can't maintain the numbers the CLS has talked about.


----------



## Haggis (1 Mar 2007)

hank011 said:
			
		

> My pet peeve again, you mean INFANTEERS not SOLDIERS. There are tens of thousands of reg force soldiers who will never see the desert(while others go multiple times I might add).



There are hundreds of Reg F infanteers who will never see the desert either.  They're stuck at the schools, in staff jobs, on categories or DAGging Red for a variety of reasons.

In every occupation, what you have to look at is the soldier at desk "A" with five tours sitting across from his peer at desk "B" with no tours.  Then ask yourself "why is it that this soldier "B" DAGs red for every tour?".  Yes, there's lots of 'em, who are either protected by the C of C because they fill an essential (in someone's mind) "function" or who have a litany of personal/medical/family problems which never manifest themselves on cool courses or jammy taskings but are conveniently whipped out during the DAG.  Then they get all righteous and pissed off when "a Toon steals their tour".

As a full bull at NDHQ said recently to a room full of taskers (me included)  "Tell you're people that if you're not deployable, then you're not employable".



			
				Enfield said:
			
		

> But there's a much wider gap between a Res Sgt and a Reg Sgt, and there's no way to catch up.



So why bother trying, right?  Why bother allowing Reserve NCOs to lead on operations in progressively more complex environments?  Leave them at home to train BMQ, SQ and DP1 while the soldiers they train go off and gain relevant operational experience.  Great idea.



> I question the entire idea of Reserve Companies, given the lack of experience in such a Companies leadership.



And you base this comment on what??



> However - what happens when the Army comes back next year looking for more volunteers? LFCA will have sent 500 hard-chargers overseas, and they won't be available. Who's left? Sure, there will be a handful who weren't able to go before, but I doubt any Area can produce 500 good volunteers twice.



That's why each area only has to cough up volunteers every third Roto.  There's four areas, remember?  There's rarely a shortage of Reserve volunteers, many of whom are on second or third Afghanistan tours.



> Plus, think of what your unit will look like over the coming year when all of those people are gone - it will be harder to get instructors to teach, harder to get range staff or experienced troops/NCOs to run Ex's, and a whole crop of recruits will come in to a very different Regiment.



True.  They'll come into a Regiment populated by leaders and soldiers with real-world, recent operational experience except that, oh yeah, you don't think Reserve NCOs should go.



> My old unit is in the midst of this right now - almost the entire platoon and company level chain of command, plus almost all the cpl's, are overseas and there is a marked difference in the quality of training. The unit is essentially on life-support until those troops get back, and thats not unusual for any of the units in my Brigade.



Remember that the COs allowed this to happen. Likely they're looking at "short term pain for long term gain".  Contrary to your belief, they obviously saw the benefits in letting their NCOs deploy.



> This is not to say that those 500 shouldn't go - on the contrary, going to Afghanistan is the best and most important thing they could be doing - but there is a price to sending so many (as the Regs know) and its doubtful it can happen twice.



I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The price to the Army is in Reserve admininstration.  Fix that at the front end and you'll DAG more Reservists GREEN faster and with far less expense in time and money.


----------



## SuperTrooper (1 Mar 2007)

I wish my wife would DAG me green.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Mar 2007)

In many cases reservists being sent to Afghanistan will have previous tours.  At one point 5 reservists in my section had previous tours.  Our reserve platoon signaller (with a simple reserve ql4 comms course) quite often had to sort out the comms and raidos for the reg guys in lavs.  I'm not sure if they just don't get comms courses or what the issue was.


A huge problem I see is courses.  We need more courses.  We spend two weeks doing a gun course for the RWS in Canada and once we get overseas and realise we're still short we run day and a half conversion course.  We need to streamline this stuff back in Canada and get more guys qualified on everything.

WRT reserve infantry, I think we should push to get our reservists LAV driver courses, LAV gunner courses and crew commander courses.  force feed them comms courses, driver wheeled courses and TCCC.

Yes regs don't like the idea of reservists doing their jobs, it takes away positions from reg force guys and time is always a factor.
Well whats our options? Send guys overseas and have them need the courses anyways?
We need to figure out how to get more guys, res and reg, qualified on this stuff period.  I have no idea how but we need to find a way.

I'm not sure about reserve companies. Their going to have ex reg forces guys, guys with multiple tours etc..  Not sure about the leadership thats out of my lane. What did reserves do for leadership in WW2?



> Troops in WW1 were rotated often, and spent most of their time in safety and comfort behind the lines.



Except for sleeping in trenches beside the bodies of your buddies or using human bones to hang clothing and equipment off of and stuff or being shelled for a week straight.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Mar 2007)

One of the complaints I hear from the Reserves is that the present courses are to long and it’s difficult to get the time off from there day job. 

How about a traveling team with a LAV or 2 going from reserve unit to unit giving the guys a chance to familiarize themselves with them?


----------



## Staff Weenie (1 Mar 2007)

Enfield - suck back and reload here - go back and read your basic history texts on WWI and WWII combat. Rotation in/out of the lines was particular to each nation's approach, and could differ greatly. Some nations ground their Divisions to a pulp before replacing them. Having units in high intensity combat day in, day out, for over a month, was entirely within the realm of possibility. 

Flawed Design - In the HSS world I've never found Reg F saying that Res F are taking their jobs away from them. From the perspective of our clinicians - most, if not all, are damned glad that a Res F member is stepping up so that they don't have to go through their umpteenth tour...... Our problem is that the Res F Med Tech, unless they are at minimum a civy Primary Care Paramedic, are not considered deployable in a Med Tech role.


----------



## MPIKE (1 Mar 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> *So why bother* trying, right?  Why bother allowing Reserve NCOs to lead on operations in progressively more complex environments?  Leave them at home to train BMQ, SQ and DP1 while the soldiers they train go off and gain relevant operational experience.  Great idea.
> 
> *And you base this comment on what??*
> 
> * you don't think Reserve NCOs should go*.



Yes Enfield, I too, would like to hear your "all knowing" response as to why I and a lot of others here shouldn't bother..


> How about a traveling team with a LAV or 2 going from reserve unit to unit giving the guys a chance to familiarize themselves with them?



Unfortunately, Colin that just doesn't work for a variety of politics, policies, equipment issues.  Besides for Res units  a "Show'n Tell" response to training sells them short all over again.  Take look at the LAV threads in the Armour area..  You'll gain more perspective to what we are talking about and it's much more complicated than courses being too long and getting time off..


----------



## dapaterson (1 Mar 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The price to the Army is in Reserve admininstration.  Fix that at the front end and you'll DAG more Reservists GREEN faster and with far less expense in time and money.



The problem is that many units just don't do their admin.  Look at NES as an indicator: There are units with a single NES member of a year or more; there are others with dozens.  Untis are resourced the same - why do some keep records up to date and others not?

It's a chain of command issue - commanders at all levels have to push for this.  The resources are there, but too many commanders re-allocate them to "higher priorities".  It's time to remind folks of what the priorities should be.


----------



## enfield (1 Mar 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> So why bother trying, right?  Why bother allowing Reserve NCOs to lead on operations in progressively more complex environments?  Leave them at home to train BMQ, SQ and DP1 while the soldiers they train go off and gain relevant operational experience.  Great idea.



There are two different issues here, and I’ll try to clarify them:
1) Reservists are not as well trained and experienced as the Regular Force, simply because of part vs full time. At the Pte/Cpl level this can be rectified relatively quickly and easily, and Reserve NCM's brought up to speed. At the NCO/Officer level this becomes more difficult; there is a greater difference in experience and formal courses between the Regs and Reservists. I don’t see how this difference can be closed – the courses take years to get, and the experience even longer. 

2) Reserve Companies are _one_ way to employ reservists on operation, augmentation is another option, and Reserve-centric specialties like CIMIC and PsyOps a third, and there are others. Given my own experience with Reserve Companies, and the things I hear from others, I don’t believe that Reserve Companies offer the best way to integrate Reservists into operations, and _one_ of the reasons I don’t believe they are optimal is because of the wide gulf between the Reg F NCO/Officer standard and the Res F NCO/Officer standard. 

Many Reserve NCOs *do* perform brilliantly, and match or exceed their Reg counterparts, but more than a few fail in their new leadership positions (as many Reserve troops fail in their new roles). One night a week, one weekend a month does not give someone a whole lot of leadership experience. The Army has decreed that infantry reservists require One Year of pre-training to be allowed to a) operate as pte/cpl in a Reg F infantry section, or b) guard a gate and escort convoys under Reservist leadership, so as far as I can tell, the Army agrees with me. 

I would prefer a more competitive system that was not obligated to employ "x" number of Reservists, in whatever ranks, in each position, to fill a Reserve Company establishment but rather an open system of augmentation based on need. Let ability and skill decide, not the need to maintain the integrity of the Reserve company. I also like the idea of specialties, such as CIMIC and PsyOps, being maintained primarily in the Reserves - make us experts in some areas, rather than half-trained infanteers/gunners/whatever.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> And you base this comment on what??


Serving in the Reserve Company on Roto 11 with 1 PPCLI in Bosnia.
Having many friends serving as augmentees in 2RCR and in the Reserve Company with TF1-07.
A very long and informative conversation with a group of British TA Combat Engineers who had served as a formed Reserve Troop in Iraq. (They regarded their own leadership as a complete failure in Iraq, and would have much preferred to be broken up and placed under their regular counterparts.)
Conversations with RegF troops who work with reservists in TMST and overseas. 



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> That's why each area only has to cough up volunteers every third Roto.  There's four areas, remember?  There's rarely a shortage of Reserve volunteers, many of whom are on second or third Afghanistan tours.



Every third Roto means every 1.5 years, and nominations would likely start even earlier. It takes 8 months to over a year to train a reservist infanteer, plus the one year of pre-training. This means we’re using up the limited pool of troops we have now, because we won’t be getting bodies in the ranks fast enough. Yes, everyone is keen to go over – but most will only go once, and there is a finite number who are able (for a variety of reasons) to deploy. This is the first time in many years there has been an 'open call' for volunteers, and many of the soldiers volunteering have been waiting and hoping for many years to get a tour. Once each Area coughs up its huge numbers, they won’t be able to replicate that for several years. We’ve never taken Reservists in numbers like this for such a sustained period, and I doubt the Army will find the second call as successful.  



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> True.  They'll come into a Regiment populated by leaders and soldiers with real-world, recent operational experience except that, oh yeah, you don't think Reserve NCOs should go.



First – I was referring to recruits who join their units now, when they are semi-crippled for lack of NCOs and experienced troops. After the veterans return, then yes – the units will be as you describe them, and we all gain.
Second- I never said Reserve NCOs should not go overseas. I stated they don’t have the experience/training as their Reg F counterparts, and I questioned if the Reserve Company concept was the best way to employ reservists.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> Remember that the COs allowed this to happen. Likely they're looking at "short term pain for long term gain".  Contrary to your belief, they obviously saw the benefits in letting their NCOs deploy.



Of course there’s a benefit to NCOs and troops deploying, I never stated there was not. 

I like the points mentioned by Flawed Design, and I completely agree with all of them - the Reserves need more courses, and more operationally-focused courses and conversions. Unfortunately, the divide seems to keep growing - in the Infantry, we get the Milcot instead of the G-Wagen, we don't see programs like Gunfighter or updated Urbans Ops tactics, we never see armoured vehicles and get almost no experience with Helo Ops or similar specialties.  To be operationally relevant, the Reserves need better training - but that will likely mean taking resources from the Regs. 



			
				Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> Enfield - suck back and reload here - go back and read your basic history texts on WWI and WWII combat. Rotation in/out of the lines was particular to each nation's approach, and could differ greatly. Some nations ground their Divisions to a pulp before replacing them. Having units in high intensity combat day in, day out, for over a month, was entirely within the realm of possibility.



I replied to this in the Military History Forum - didn't want to get off topic here. 

And so ends the longest time I've ever put into a post. Good thing my girlfriend isn't home. I look forward to the replies - and now, I need some food.


----------



## Bigmac (2 Mar 2007)

> *Western army reservists prepare for big deployment to Afghanistan *
> 
> STEVE LAMBERT
> 
> ...


http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/070228/n0228124A.html

       We will definitely be seeing more Reserves on all future deployments.


----------



## Haggis (2 Mar 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The problem is that many units just don't do their admin.  Look at NES as an indicator: There are units with a single NES member of a year or more; there are others with dozens.  Untis are resourced the same - why do some keep records up to date and others not?



It's not just the units.  It's the ASUs who won't give a Reservist shots or a dental DAG until they have a tasking message in thier hot little hands.  It's the NDIS who won't issue a premanenet I card to a Reservist until he's served two full years (unless he's an officer) or has a tasking message.  It's the whole HR world which insists on duplicating not just personnel information but personnel information systems "because Monitor MASS is better than PeopleSoft is better than SAP etc.etc." but no matter what those "official" systems say, you still have to DAG GREEN in CFTPO.  : No wonder we can't find out who's where, who's deployable, who's not and just sort ourselves the f**k out!



> It's a chain of command issue - commanders at all levels have to push for this.  The resources are there, but too many commanders re-allocate them to "higher priorities".  It's time to remind folks of what the priorities should be.



You and I need to go for a lot of beers some day.


----------



## Haggis (2 Mar 2007)

Enfield said:
			
		

> There are two different issues here, and I’ll try to clarify them:
> 1) Reservists are not as well trained and experienced as the Regular Force, simply because of part vs full time. At the Pte/Cpl level this can be rectified relatively quickly and easily, and Reserve NCM's brought up to speed. At the NCO/Officer level this becomes more difficult; there is a greater difference in experience and formal courses between the Regs and Reservists. I don’t see how this difference can be closed – the courses take years to get, and the experience even longer.



The Reserves need to send people from all rank levels on all types of operations (not just to Afghanistan).  The Reserve needs to build a base of operationally expereinced and capable leaders and soldiers.  The Reg F can't be the sole resource for Reserve training as this amounts to a huge brain drain on the Reg F.  The Reserves have to become self sustaining.



> Reserve Companies are _one_ way to employ reservists on operation, augmentation is another option, and Reserve-centric specialties like CIMIC and PsyOps a third, and there are others. Given my own experience with Reserve Companies, and the things I hear from others, I don’t believe that Reserve Companies offer the best way to integrate Reservists into operations, and _one_ of the reasons I don’t believe they are optimal is because of the wide gulf between the Reg F NCO/Officer standard and the Res F NCO/Officer standard.



15 years ago (a guesstimate) no Reg F rifle companies had seen high intensity operations.  They had to start bulding thier experience and learning what works/doesn't work.  The Reserves are somewhat in the same boat.  As I stated in another thread, The Reserves are now developing a pool of operationally experienced leaders who can train the next generations.  The Army must keep that trend going.



> The Army has decreed that infantry reservists require One Year of pre-training to be allowed to a) operate as pte/cpl in a Reg F infantry section, or b) guard a gate and escort convoys under Reservist leadership, so as far as I can tell, the Army agrees with me.



Really?  Then why are Battle group augmentees only reporting in February for August deployments?




> - the Reserves need more courses, and more operationally-focused courses and conversions. Unfortunately, the divide seems to keep growing - in the Infantry, we get the Milcot instead of the G-Wagen, we don't see programs like Gunfighter or updated Urbans Ops tactics, we never see armoured vehicles and get almost no experience with Helo Ops or similar specialties.  To be operationally relevant, the Reserves need better training - but that will likely mean taking resources from the Regs.



The Reg F barely has the capacity to train itself, let alone deal with any surge produced by successful and agressive recruiting or a requiremnt to train Reservists.



> And so ends the longest time I've ever put into a post.



Congratulations and well done.


----------



## WLSC (2 Mar 2007)

I just coming back from Fort Bliss with TF 3-07...  My coy is task for CNS and we are a full reserve Pl inside the coy.  We were trained like all the rest of the coy, did the same thing and all.  The only big difference was the types of vehicles to carry us...  The coy staff (reg F) was really happy with what they saw...  The CSM and the rest of the coy staff were very protective of us, we were in the team.  It's all a matter of attitude...I guess.  So what is the problem ?


----------



## geo (2 Mar 2007)

FMR...

I know a few Maj & Capt types in the ECN for 3/07 & did not hear about any problem but I'm a little concerned about the comment "coy staff were very protective of us"... WHY?

was there a problem for them to go into protective mode?

If you read this thread, pert much everyone is in favor of the proclaimed boosting of reserve contribution to overseas missions - lord knows it's already happened.

Ft Bliss    done
CMTC     ____
Kandahar____


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Mar 2007)

> Quote
> - the Reserves need more courses, and more operationally-focused courses and conversions. Unfortunately, the divide seems to keep growing - in the Infantry, we get the Milcot instead of the G-Wagen, we don't see programs like Gunfighter or updated Urbans Ops tactics, we never see armoured vehicles and get almost no experience with Helo Ops or similar specialties.  To be operationally relevant, the Reserves need better training - but that will likely mean taking resources from the Regs.
> 
> The Reg F barely has the capacity to train itself, let alone deal with any surge produced by successful and agressive recruiting or a requiremnt to train Reservists.



This is exactly what needs to change, in a big way.
With injuries and the HLTA mess  we can't send guys overseas with their infantry course and be content with that.

The Reg F barely has the capacity to train itself which is why reserves wouldn't even dream about getting LAV courses SO we need to qualify more guys on courses.
LAV gunner driver and crew commander might be a little tricky to streamline (how long are those courses?) but others you could probably speed up.  In pet the RG31 drivers and gunners courses was 2 weeks IIRC. Overseas we got a few guys the 'qualification' and it took a day and a half.  The gunner instructors even said it in pet, their not sure why the course takes two weeks you can teach the stuff in a day.  
Comms is another big one -soldiers couldn't even change the channel on their CI, everyone needs to take a comms course and I don't mean the silly 3 class's on workup training where you just watch a signaller private fly through punching in buttons ont he CI then check off your sheet.
Same with drivers.  Drivers are a big thing.  G wagon, RG31, Bison & HL. Need more guys qualified on those if anything for an emergency trip, say from KAF to one of the FOBs


----------



## deh (2 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> coy staff were very protective of us"... WHY?



I should preface this by saying FusMR is in my direct chain of command...

I think what FusMR means is that we weren't allowed to be relegated to shit jobs and lack luster training.  Our Coy staff was insistant (as was the General) that we we're part of the team, not just another Gate Guard platoon and were treated as such.  We did everything they did that our vehicles allowed us to do (LAV vice LSVW).  For the live fire combat team attacks during the night and day they even lent us lav's with crews. I can count on one hand the number of times i heard "istimilic".  

Big thanks go out to the R22eR for the foresight to realise that with 7 months of training the reserves can be more useful than D&S only.


----------



## orange.paint (2 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> FMR...
> 
> I know a few Maj & Capt types in the ECN for 3/07 & did not hear about any problem but I'm a little concerned about the comment "coy staff were very protective of us"... WHY?
> 
> ...



Every time we ever had reservist attached to us we had the "warning" parade prior to their arrival.Warning some would be RTFO but that would be sorted out prior to deployement.And not to make the guys feel like outsiders,or harass them.We were told to just leave them alone basically.
However that was Bosnia and were expecting a lot more from reservist than Gate guards from what I have seen from the sidelines.


----------



## WLSC (2 Mar 2007)

As Deh said, every time someone out of the coy called us the ''militia pl'', it was the coy staff that reply ''no militia here...but pl but 12 pl, D coy, 3R22eR...''  It easy not to make comment over us but to make us be part of the team is another thing...  We are part of it...no question ask.


----------



## geo (2 Mar 2007)

Ah... that kind of Protection.... Capisce!

The old milice/militia is a thing of the past.
Reservists are, as a whole, better educated and just need time to get the trade basics that the Senior Leadership of the Army decided they did not need to learn - unless they were to deploy.  A cost cutting device that has, at times been thrown into the face of the Reserves for no fault of their own....

A reservist who goes thru the 7 months of workup training will have the same skillset as the rest of their battle group /  combat team / task force counterparts.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Mar 2007)

One of the biggest problems with "checked out" reservists is the 6 month + work up training.  Hard to get that time off work.  Could we speed up the war fighter training to 3 months?
When we were training for Roto13 to Bosnia a battle group going to afghanistan (athena?) stood up AFTER us, did some work up training then left before us.


----------



## WLSC (2 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> A reservist who goes thru the 7 months of workup training will have the same skillset as the rest of their battle group /  combat team / task force counterparts.



My point exactly...Thank for the summ-up...    It's matter of attitude...

The big problem is time...  Some reservist just arrive in January.  The gaps is already great for them.  There's allot of ind training to do.  They arrive in the coys lines at the and of the ex and before they achieve that part of the training.


----------



## tank recce (2 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> A reservist who goes thru the 7 months of workup training will have the same skillset as the rest of their battle group /  combat team / task force counterparts.



And then there are those of us who are looking at 4 months of training BEFORE that. She Who Must Be Obeyed has (to quote an earlier post) DAG'd me Green. I'm not sure it's completely sunk in just how long an absence we're talking about...


----------



## Kiwi99 (2 Mar 2007)

When it comes to the intergrattion of res troops in reg untis, there will always initially be the us and them attitude.  I am guilty as anyone on this.  That soon transforms into a different mindset, once the res soldiers have showcased their capabilities.  one of the main things for res force soldiers to understand when attached to a reg force tour is not the attitude of the soldiers they will be deploying with, but those not depoying.  Again, i have been guilty of this in the past.  there is a mentality of why should a reg force soldier who has been doing the job every day of the year, be passed over for someone who does it part time...if that makes sense.  It is again, a syndrome that is brief and soon dissapears.  But I believe that anyone from outside a deploying unit should not expect to walk in and be greeted with open arms.  There will always be the initial uncomfortable period until that member or organisation proves itself.  try as we might, it will never change.  Just like a sports team, who is this guy and what can he do.
With ref to res troops getting all the training, it is attempted, but sometimes it won't happen.  I had a res troop attached to me section 2 weeks before we deployed to A-stan.  It took a while for him to settle in, but he quicly proved himself and became an effective and valued part of the team.
I guess all I am trying to say is, the intergration system is not perfect, but people should notbe disheartened by this.  If a soldier is worth his salt he will fit in.  If he is not, then here will be issues.  Just as there is in the regs with a soldier who continually fails to perform.


----------



## mysteriousmind (2 Mar 2007)

I hope I wont be a total jerk when ill be doing class C eventually...

I hope I wont be a total jerk when ill be doing BMQ since I'm CIC for now until transfered....eventually

I hope I wont be a total jerk ever. 

I wish ill go on tour after my bmq-sq-ql3, eventualy...But if offered make sure that il go...


----------



## geo (2 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> When it comes to the intergrattion of res troops in reg untis, there will always initially be the us and them attitude.  I am guilty as anyone on this.  That soon transforms into a different mindset, once the res soldiers have showcased their capabilities.  one of the main things for res force soldiers to understand when attached to a reg force tour is not the attitude of the soldiers they will be deploying with, but those not depoying.  Again, i have been guilty of this in the past.  there is a mentality of why should a reg force soldier who has been doing the job every day of the year, be passed over for someone who does it part time...if that makes sense.  It is again, a syndrome that is brief and soon dissapears.  But I believe that anyone from outside a deploying unit should not expect to walk in and be greeted with open arms.  There will always be the initial uncomfortable period until that member or organisation proves itself.  try as we might, it will never change.  Just like a sports team, who is this guy and what can he do.
> With ref to res troops getting all the training, it is attempted, but sometimes it won't happen.  I had a res troop attached to me section 2 weeks before we deployed to A-stan.  It took a while for him to settle in, but he quicly proved himself and became an effective and valued part of the team.
> I guess all I am trying to say is, the intergration system is not perfect, but people should notbe disheartened by this.  If a soldier is worth his salt he will fit in.  If he is not, then here will be issues.  Just as there is in the regs with a soldier who continually fails to perform.


The attitude will apply to ANYONE who is posted in from outside.... regardless of if he is reg OR res.  If they parachute an indiv, sect, Troop or Sqn in to fill defficiencies, there will be Us & them.... not exclusive to Res


----------



## Kiwi99 (2 Mar 2007)

Just stating HOW it is these days from a ref force inf perspective.  Makes it quite clear that this attitude is applied to anyone, regardless of where they come from.


----------



## Sig_Des (2 Mar 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's not just the units.  It's the ASUs who won't give a Reservist shots or a dental DAG until they have a tasking message in thier hot little hands.  It's the NDIS who won't issue a premanenet I card to a Reservist until he's served two full years (unless he's an officer) or has a tasking message.  It's the whole HR world which insists on duplicating not just personnel information but personnel information systems "because Monitor MASS is better than PeopleSoft is better than SAP etc.etc." but no matter what those "official" systems say, you still have to DAG GREEN in CFTPO.  : No wonder we can't find out who's where, who's deployable, who's not and just sort ourselves the f**k out!



+100 on that.

I'm in the process of Dagging up now (thank God I'm almost done) for a TAV. The problem with TAVs is that dates and timings are prone to change, and everything is short-notice.

Right now, I'm headed over in less than a month...that includes a week in WW, and we still don't have messages.

We actually didn't have much of a problem getting the inoculations. PMed didn't give us any problems. Supply was a bit of a hurt in the rear, but our WO managed to have them order everything for us, though they'll be wanting messages when they give us the kit.

Medicals...can be a whole other problem. We've got guys on class B not over 180 days, and the Class C messages haven't come out. NDMC, CF H Svcs, whatever it's called now has ALWAYS been a HUGE pain about giving medicals to Reservists. This includes promotion medicals for class A reservists, Medicals to update cats when people apply to Class B's, or in our case, predeployment.

I think a MAJOR part of this is the civilian staff being a little self-righteous about offering health care. They sit there, don't return messages, drink their tims, and when you show up saying, "Hey, I leave in under 30 days, you should have a copy of my contract from when I was last here" and they say, it's not my job, you should have brought that, and it's not my responsibility.

My case, ballistic inserts. takes about 5-10 days to get em. If I don't get my class C message til 2 weeks before I leave, and you won't order my inserts until I show you that message....

I understand administration, and trying to avoid Reservists getting freebies. But, you have to meet people halfway here. We are at war.


----------



## KevinB (2 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> The attitude will apply to ANYONE who is posted in from outside.... regardless of if he is reg OR res.  If they parachute an indiv, sect, Troop or Sqn in to fill defficiencies, there will be Us & them.... not exclusive to Res



GEO -- not so much -- the advantage that reg force guys have - if that they will be a KNOWN commodity to some one (the joys of a small army)
  The reservist drops in and no-one knows him from a hole in the ground (usually).


----------



## geo (3 Mar 2007)

Is true, or was true a short while ago but.... with Reg & Res working a lot closer these days, it should become less of an issue.  On a qual level, all leadership courses are common Reg/Res nowdays, the various corps are reviewing the Res TQs to close the gap 

Air, Navy, Comms, reserves all take the same courses as their Reg counterparts. CME decided 18-24 mths ago that all Engineer qualifications would be made common.  DP1 TQ was split in two - conducted over two summers.  I would presume that the Infantry, Armoured & Artillery will follow in due course.


----------



## orange.paint (3 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Air, Navy, Comms, reserves all take the same courses as their Reg counterparts. CME decided 18-24 mths ago that all Engineer qualifications would be made common.  DP1 TQ was split in two - conducted over two summers.  I would presume that the Infantry, Armoured  & Artillery will follow in due course.



Equipment issue.Also our regimental battle school's are now closed.The only battle school is in Gagetown Newbrunswick.This takes away from "area" training.

At the school right now we currently shoot for plus 400(IIRC) graduates a year.We are busy.Infact usually as one course is on it's last week of course another is being marched in.Having done away with the regimental school's we now train all regular force amrd crewman in one area.Having a reserve course on coyotes in my opinion would be near to impossible.Getting enough running coyotes for back to back courses proves enough of a issue,due to other Armd career courses running at the same time (ARCC, AOCC,Patrol commander etc).

Armd recce crewman are not compatible with it's regular force counter part.VERY few have ever deployed as a augmenter to a recce sqn.I only recall one,and she was ex regular force.
It's something that needs to finally be addressed.Battle Jeeps work fine for tactics and area concentration training,however they cannot form a pool for the RCD,12RBC,Strat's to draw from.

How do fix it?Regiments have to start training the reserves on PCF's.I was in Petawawa for 5 years and recall 1 coyote drivers course that was reserve,and a surv course with a few attending.None of these PCF's were ever proably used.

The rest of the combat arm's have it figured out,yet we are lacking big time.


----------



## geo (6 Mar 2007)

Never having driven LAV/Coyote/Bison/Cougar/Grizzly.... are the 6 wheeled generation of Mowags driven / maintained in more or less the same way? (still see lots of turretless hulls out in the yards outside of 202 Wkshop)... or is the learning curve inbetween too steep for it to be of benefit to the corps? & the hulls/mechanicals themselves in too bad a shape?


----------



## AJC (6 Mar 2007)

Ex-RCAC 011 hit the issue on the nose as I see it. Equipment has to be on the armoury floor. When reserve armd units had Cougar on the floor, we had the same veh and equipment as the units we were augmenting. This is relevent for the other arms as well. We have to have the same basic equipment. Simlply running a crse is fine, but without the opportunity for continuation / refresher trg, skill fade will negate any benefit. The amount of equipment? We got along pretty well with a troop of Cougar (4). Having that sub-sub-unit also lends alot to retention and recruiting, the cool factor is somewhat important. I remember a 1st Sgt from 303 Armd, Wash National Guard complaining that he had to turn in his Abrams A1's and exchange for A2's. They seemed to be able to figure them out.
The differences at higher rank levels tend to revolve around equipment issues as well, whether as operators or in support organizations. A Tp WO does the same type of duties in a Cougar as one in a Leopard, but the difference in equipment and the increased maint requirements, make the job different. Level the playing field and the product that arrives as an augmentee should be better at all rank levels.
We don't even have the same POL Trucks anymore.


----------



## geo (6 Mar 2007)

........ Sooo if the powers that be aren't prepared to equip the Reserve RECCE units with some LAV/coyote kinda vehicle; what do you propose? reroling all of them to Infantryish assault troops or do another Elgin and make pioneers / sapers outa you all?

Don't get me wrong, I am not out to bash the Armd - I am just wondering what are the alternatives?


----------



## orange.paint (6 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> ........ Sooo if the powers that be aren't prepared to equip the Reserve RECCE units with some LAV/coyote kinda vehicle; what do you propose? reroling all of them to Infantryish assault troops or do another Elgin and make pioneers / sapers outa you all?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am not out to bash the Armd - I am just wondering what are the alternatives?



Dont GEO! Run HIDE!
All joking aside I suggested this quite a while back on the forum.I suggested that we train the reserve ARMD into infantry to have interoperability with the regular force.I do however understand the anger this causes the Armd Res...as they are proud to be who they are.

But unless we are willing to upgrade the armd corp.Regular first with equipment,and supply the reservist a platform to be interchangeable with us.Unless we do that,we will have a Armd reserve that serves not direct purpose to it's Regular force brethren. (Not meant to be a slag..just in reference to being able to directly work on the one piece of kit)

So my suggestions:

Now that Canada realises it needs a armd corp...lets stop raping it of kit and fill the regiments (reg)and actually spend money on our reserve regiments.In infrastructure,and a portion of vehicles to keep up skills and train on.

Re-roll the armd reserve into a different trade,where they can be called upon to complete a PCF.DO I want to see this happen?No.But with General Hillier's call for more infanteers,and the lack of training on our primary kit it makes a little sense to me.Hate to see it happen but that's one idea.

Take more units around bases and re roll them into armd.That way they could train on vehicles on the regular force base.(Just a thought...I know it would cost way too much)

We have to start putting money into our Armd reserve if we want a pool to draw from for future missions.I don't see it happening.


----------



## AJC (6 Mar 2007)

Good question. I think that if the reserve force is to be a viable part of the CF it must be able to easily augment as well as provide the basis for mobilization. The requirement to augment Reg F units occur in most trades and certainly in Cbt Arms. Unless Reg F can stand on its own numbers wise, and maybe when the pipes start flowing soldiers again they will be able to, they will req augmentees. I suggest that if we need a "Recce" unit then they should have the compatible equipment to aid in trg compatability and negate the requirement for emergency PCF cycles. LFRR still hasn't changed the Orbat so I guess units stay as they are. I have an opinion on that one too, but the adults on the Rideau will make that decision.
In the interest of retention, nothing, not pensions, pay, cool clothes, lunch money, or anything else, beats and AFV and bullets.
This is not an Armd issue. There have been comments along the same lines about Infantry and LAV Trg. If the equipment exisited at units at the sub-sub-unit level, PCF courses were run, and CMTC was utilized as they do down south, this would not be a big deal, we did it before. Issue becomes, that with bigger more complicated gear comes a requirement for more courses, more man-days, and more ammo.
I guess it all depends on whether we are going to take things serious or not.


----------



## orange.paint (6 Mar 2007)

AJC said:
			
		

> Good question. I think that if the reserve force is to be a viable part of the CF it must be able to easily augment as well as provide the basis for mobilization. The requirement to augment Reg F units occur in most trades and certainly in Cbt Arms. Unless Reg F can stand on its own numbers wise, and maybe when the pipes start flowing soldiers again they will be able to, they will req augmentees. I suggest that if we need a "Recce" unit then they should have the compatible equipment to aid in trg compatability and negate the requirement for emergency PCF cycles. LFRR still hasn't changed the Orbat so I guess units stay as they are. I have an opinion on that one too, but the adults on the Rideau will make that decision.
> In the interest of retention, nothing, not pensions, pay, cool clothes, lunch money, or anything else, beats and AFV and bullets.
> This is not an Armd issue. There have been comments along the same lines about Infantry and LAV Trg. If the equipment exisited at units at the sub-sub-unit level, PCF courses were run, and CMTC was utilized as they do down south, this would not be a big deal, we did it before. Issue becomes, that with bigger more complicated gear comes a requirement for more courses, more man-days, and more ammo.
> I guess it all depends on whether we are going to take things serious or not.



I agree completely with your comments.All except the LAV3 Trg for infantry.Although this would play into what you were talking about for retention,infantry are still trade equivalent as a LIB.PCF courses are not enough in my opinion,they need the kit.Excellent idea in reference to AFV=retention.It also reflected on ourside when the RCD lost the tanks,proably on the reserve side when they lost the cougar as well.Guys don't join up Armd to drive green civilian pattern trucks.

What sells better:

"joining the armd res you will do recce tactics aboard a G-wagon.Which is a civilian truck with green paint.You will never deploy as a recce crewman"
or
"Joining the armd res you will do recce tactic aboard a coyote recce vehicle,equipped with surv technology and protected by a 25mm gaingun.After trade qualification it is possible to deploy as a recce soldier with one of the three regular amrd units across the country"

Good point AJC.


----------



## KevinB (6 Mar 2007)

Will it would be nice -- it comes down to capital equipment dollars.

 However the fact of the matter comes down to that for most operations reservist units are a poor bang for buck.
Even if a few reservists are trained to deploy - does it really justify a few $3 million Coyotes for that unit

I agree that it would be great to see if we had a 100% compatible force.

 CMTC issues should be made available for this -- but regular units are not full of kit either...


----------



## geo (6 Mar 2007)

.... ahhhh... the dreaded Fleet management system raises it's head 

The point I was trying to make was that
You can train reserve infantrymen in their trade - with or without the LAVs and the fancy kit
You can train reserve gunners in their trade with mortars and 105mm guns
you can train reserve sappers in their trade with "most" of their kit

you can't train armoured tankers or Recce guys without the necessary rolling stock... what is one to do?  what are the options with what we have in hand right this second?


----------



## KevinB (7 Mar 2007)

GEO -- the answer I keep coming up with it

1) reroll
2) reroll
3) reroll


----------



## mudrecceman (7 Mar 2007)

There was noise at one point of all Res Armd Recce units going into the CBRN side.  I guess that died and went away.

FWIW, we used to do as much dismounted as mounted.  There are things you can do to get around equip shortfalls to continue on trng the troops.

I can't speak for the units outside of LFAA, but I feel safe to say the Res Armoured world is probably still not 100% after the re-roll of the Sabre Sqn's to Recce Sqn's.  Huge delta there in the skill sets and leadership at all levels.  

My old unit has sent guys to FRY in "non Black Hat" rolls, there are a handful or more in TF as I type.  There has been talk for, well 17 years that I was in Recce of "re-rolling" "rebadging" and all that stuff.  Until the ink is drying on the msg ordering it, I wouldn't hold my breathe on the re-rolling of the entire Pres Armd Recce world...

From what I heard one summer in the late 90's from a friend who was RETS SSM...the re-roll of the Elgin's to Egineers left LOTS to be desired in the level they could perform in the then-Fd Engineer role...specifically the NCOs who were up at CFSME instructing at RETS.  

The issue with the Reg/Res Armd Recce world is the equipment.  We just didn't have Coyote and would never be able to train properly on it.  BUT we DID focus on the REST of the Armd Recce world.  "Do what you can with what you got".

And we did it pretty damn well, imho.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Mar 2007)

Armored should take over for convoy escort IMO.


----------



## John Nayduk (7 Mar 2007)

Amen brother.  +1


----------



## geo (7 Mar 2007)

It is certain that reroling someone to another trade, NCOs & Offrs of one MOC doing their damndest to applying a skill set they know little about is, for a lack of a better word: a challenge? interesting (as in old chinese curse)?  There is no doubt that reroling the Elgins to Combat Engineers was not an easy thing - for anyone... The reserve worlds 35-40 Class A mandays a year limit made it that much harder - so competence was something developed over many years... are they there yet? Pert much.

When the Iltis was withdrawn and the GWagon was delayed, the RECCE units went "dismounted"... "à la Infantryish"... and they did a fairly decent job of it.  Are they destined to be the Reg unit's asssault troops? (or is the Infantry doing that?)

Is the infantry doing convoy escorts? (or should the Res RECCE guys be doing that?)

Until such time as the gov't choses to provide us with the equipment necessary to train and maintain real Res RECCE units, 
I would propose that the Res RECCE units and the Res Infantry units should be working a lot closer together - become a hybrid of / & with each other... this is the future as I see it... confusing though it may be IMHO!

CHIMO!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (7 Mar 2007)

I've made similar suggestions in the past with respect to the convoy escort task for the Armoured Reserve Units.  The equipment bill is feasible and it is already in the skill set/task list.  A "troop" could be four vehicles and each one would be the integral fighting power for a CSS convoy in a theatre of operation.  You could keep the troop at eight, I suppose, and have two "teams" in that troop. 

The point here would be that they wouldn't view convoy escort as a secondary duty, but rather as their primary task.  It is a relevant and essential task required overseas.  The door would be left open for the return to the full range of recce tasks in the future.


----------



## geo (7 Mar 2007)

From my perspective, your troop would have RECCE/Escort black hats AND assault green infantry assault troops to pound the ground, close with and take it to the Enemy.

So... 4 Recce vehicles & possible 2 section/assault vehicles integrated into every convoy.
Is it a Troop? Is it a Platoon?.... Call it a "Toon"  (JK) and let's get started on a training plan.


----------



## John Nayduk (7 Mar 2007)

Consider that the RG31 is not on anybody's scale of issue, everyone who drives them needs to be trained, reg or reserve.  It's feasible to have the reserve black hatters use these on operations along with the Bison (some of us can still drive them).  Have the infantry guys in the bisons to close with the ....  The black hatters engage with the C6..
My 2 cents.


----------



## KevinB (7 Mar 2007)

I dont think the Bison is an effective escort vehicle, nor the RG31.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Mar 2007)

I think we should turf the bison asap.  I can't count how many times a bison on our convoy broke down on us in downtown khandahar or in ambush/ied ally. Their just too old.  I think there is a temptation to use them as armored fighting vehicles because of the c6 mounted on them but their arcs of fire are very poor for that.

That said the room for personal being transfered from base to base was simply vital. More than once we've had to "leave someone behind" because we ran out of room to pack them in on the convoys.  Convoys need a bison like vehicle.

Convoy protection seems like the perfect niche for armored reserves or armored recce (not exactly sure what armored recce is capable of?).
Basically you're taking a platoons worth of guys, putting them in RG31s and escorting vehicles all over.   The battle group was apparently extremely happy when the force protection platoon took over their convoy escort task (complete) towards the end of roto1. It freed up a platoon + worth of lavs3's.

I don't remember what armored reserves did on previous tours much or even roto 2. They always seem stuck as iltis or g wagon drivers, filling in spots here and there never as a unit.  Putting them on convoy duty would free up infantry reserves to augment the infantry companies further.


----------



## orange.paint (7 Mar 2007)

We did quite few convoy escorts in Bosnia.(I know its different).
When we removed a certain capability from the Serb sites,the truckers loaded it up and we escorted them to their final destination.This tasking lasted over a week.yes armd recce is very good at this task.


----------



## KevinB (7 Mar 2007)

EX_RCAC_011 said:
			
		

> We did quite few convoy escorts in Bosnia.(I know its different).
> When we removed a certain capability from the Serb sites,the truckers loaded it up and we escorted them to their final destination.This tasking lasted over a week.yes armd recce is very good at this task.



Dude -- if you know its different why make the comparison?

   My opinion that an ESCORT force should be capable of armed escrot AND close with and destroying an ambushing force
  - since if all you do is drive down the road and fire a few rounds back - it allow the enemy to regroup and do the same damn thing over and over again (and getting better at it) -- The US Army learned that lesson the hard way.
Quite Simply Armoured Recce units (and that is Regular Force Coyote units) do not have that capability to dismount and fight thru --


----------



## Journeyman (7 Mar 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> *Quite Simply Armoured Recce units do not have that capability to dismount and fight thru --*



_tick tick tick_ ....you know one of the "old" black-hatters is going to reinvent Assault Troop; it's only a matter of time


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Mar 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> _tick tick tick_ ....you know one of the "old" black-hatters is going to reinvent Assault Troop; it's only a matter of time



.....and why not? I heard (don't know if it's true) that the PPCLI were re-inventing the Pioneers. Good for the goose and all that.


----------



## brihard (7 Mar 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Dude -- if you know its different why make the comparison?
> 
> My opinion that an ESCORT force should be capable of armed escrot AND close with and destroying an ambushing force
> - since if all you do is drive down the road and fire a few rounds back - it allow the enemy to regroup and do the same damn thing over and over again (and getting better at it) -- The US Army learned that lesson the hard way.
> Quite Simply Armoured Recce units (and that is Regular Force Coyote units) do not have that capability to dismount and fight thru --



If I read this correctly, you seem to be suggesting co-locating a fighting patrol with a convoy. The force gets bumped, the actual convoy packet carries on (with a self-sufficient force protection element) while a platoon (or whatever) of assault elements pursue and destroy the ambushing force, and then either marries up with the convoy a bit farther on or makes its own way back to a base? If this is what you're suggesting, it makes some sense from my (admittedly very amateur) view. A two part convoy escort as it were; one that stays with it no matter what, and one that can detach and assault targets of opportunity.

Am I correct in interpreting that currently our main tactic is to simply run and gun through the ambush, escape the threat zone and consolidate x distance farther on, and not pursuing the enemy presence with assets on hand? (Slap me down if any of this borders on opsec, of course.)


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Mar 2007)

I don't think the convoy escort guys should dismount and fight through for a number of reasons.

If they leave the CSS callsigns then they are practically defenseless.

We don't have the manpower for that at all.
Unless we had a dedicated QRF platoon organic to each convoy (remember theres two teams) the convoy not including the drivers and gunners who remain with the vehicle won't have enough guys to do a thing. The CSS dismounts woulnt be any help.   
With HLTA and other taskings we're already hard up for guys as is. Maybe if we started sending over more troops. Security platoons or something?

The taliban know how long it takes air support to show up so we can't count on that when convoys are hit so all we have to fight with is what we bring on the convoy.  

The best thing we can do on convoy escort is to lay down as much firepower as we can and push on out of the kill zone.


----------



## brihard (7 Mar 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Unless we had a dedicated QRF platoon organic to each convoy



That's exactly what I think I-6 was getting at, in concept if not in details. I have no idea how many convoys we run, so I don't know how feasible it would be. Perhaps QRF platoons could be attached on a random basis, as manpower and the larger tactical situation dictates?


----------



## KevinB (7 Mar 2007)

Well...

Ideally the CSS elements should be able to dismount and fight.
  Everyman a rifleman.

However - the convoy CSS can FIX the enemy -- and the more robust elements of the Escort can DESTROY.

Simply running away from the ENEMY ambush does no one any good.


----------



## geo (7 Mar 2007)

With the prospect of IEDs and VBIEDs, having the CSS vehicles standing their ground while the gunners give covering fire (so black/green hatters can do their thing) sounds great except vital supplies sitting around would make a super attractive target that the TB would ultimately prize as a target.... In sha Allah - the next time they try to do an ambush... so 

Some LAVs + Assault troop to close and engage on the ground - yes.
Backup assault troop QRF (w/ some LAVs)ready to scream down the highway and relieve the convoy escort duty....


----------



## orange.paint (7 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Some LAVs + Assault troop to close and engage on the ground - yes.
> Backup assault troop QRF (w/ some LAVs)ready to scream down the highway and relieve the convoy escort duty....



Sounds a lot like we had in Bosnia on our convoy escorts.Almost sounds like how we are taught on courses.
However I shouldnt make comparrisions.As I have not been to Afganistan.


----------



## orange.paint (7 Mar 2007)

Overwatch along the way....MP's for blocking/clearing laterals.
If we get bumped in this location 22 will engage while they convoy keep moving ahead under 21....


----------



## KevinB (7 Mar 2007)

geo -- they dont HAVE to stay static -- but they have to be able to fight.
  Driving by being a tourist is useless.


RCAC - your the one who made the the comment first -- since you qualifed the statement that you knew Afghan was not Bosnia - you went back and made two direct comparrisons.

  I'm all for the reserve armoured units finding a role for themselves -- but I for one beleive that a MSEOp should have the capability to deal with an ambush.


----------



## geo (7 Mar 2007)

I6  Agreed

I was only talking about what would usually happen with non-combat arms... instinct tells em to do one of two things.... scram  OR pullover... regardless, the fighting is perceived to be someone else's problem.... which it isn't.


----------



## orange.paint (7 Mar 2007)

My question I-6 is you said Mseops should be able to defend themselves.How?With what weapons and veh?Can you explain a little how you see the convoy working out a little better?Do you think MSEOp's should handle the convoy themselves?Their own "Assult troop"and convoy heavyfire vehicles?I'm a little confused on how your convoy would look.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> RCAC - your the one who made the the comment first -- since you qualified the statement that you knew Afghan was not Bosnia - you went back and made two direct comparisons.



I said that due to the fact someone would proably come in and say "well that was Bosnia,not Afghanistan"which is true.However I'm using my limited experience from a different time.Even though the danger level was low (some say non existant)the convoy commander still has to plan as if it was war.Complacence kills.

no malice direct towards you I-6,just covering my ass/making a comparison:
com·par·i·son       (kəm-pār'ĭ-sən)  Pronunciation Key  
n.   The act of comparing or the process of being compared. 
A statement or estimate of similarities and differences


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> I6  Agreed
> 
> I was only talking about what would usually happen with non-combat arms... instinct tells em to do one of two things.... scram  OR pullover... regardless, the fighting is perceived to be someone else's problem.... which it isn't.



Agree with this assessment wholeheartedly. It's in the training. It needs to be corrected in the trg as well. Many exercises spent driving through, over and out. Not enough time or instruction on how to deal with the shit once we dismounted the vehicles if we had to. This needs to be driven home into the psyche of the CSS troops, how the hell to fight back because you're not always going to be able to execute the now-learned ambush drills as per the book. And rightly, we shouldn't always go with escaping and evasion, sometimes the SOBs just need to be dealt with; and if I'm there, I should damn well know what to do...instinctively.


----------



## KevinB (7 Mar 2007)

geo -- agreed on that issue.
  What HAS to happen is 1) weapon competancy in the CSS (and cbt arms) 2) instilling a warrior mindset and the skills to kill the enemy in the CSS.

RCAC -- in my ideal world - the MSE Op could manage a defensive battle in their convoy, and have a limited counter attack ability if required.  I would like to see a escort force attached as well - one that could persecute enemy attacks to make them regret attacking...  BUT an escort that if was detached in 1) a prolonged complex ambush was robust enough to sustain itself 2) did not strip the convoy of defensive ability (and limited combat ability)

 I dont consider the Bison or RG31 more than any taxi system -- they are not fighting vehicle.
  So that leaves LAVIII and Coyote as an escort vehicle.

So - It MAY be worthwhile training armoured personnel in the LAVIII and Coyote -- and using reserve Inf to GIB the LAVIII's for combat escort
  IF they do that 1) It will require increased time prior to deployment to run PCF's and training
   2) they would NOT be part of the Inf/Armd Line Coy/Sqn's - but Admin Coy - and not to be used (unless dire necessity as cbt team assets)


----------



## KevinB (7 Mar 2007)

I see a fleet management share with a CMTT as the only way to make this possible for the reserves.
  It also requires a GREAT deal of comittment from reservists to make this work.


----------



## orange.paint (7 Mar 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> RCAC -- in my ideal world - the MSE Op could manage a defensive battle in their convoy, and have a limited counter attack ability if required.  I would like to see a escort force attached as well - one that could persecute enemy attacks to make them regret attacking...  BUT an escort that if was detached in 1) a prolonged complex ambush was robust enough to sustain itself 2) did not strip the convoy of defensive ability (and limited combat ability)



Leopard 2's and lav 3's full of hard as **** infanteers? ;D With CSS troops laying down fire and contuning with the convoy,along with the other patrol of leo2's and lav's.


----------



## KevinB (7 Mar 2007)

A waste of assets IMHO
  The Combat team elements should be out prosecuting the fight -- convoys are ideally NOT routed thru known pockets of enemy resistance.

If you do that - you end up fighting a defensive war - or writing a book on how to lose a Counter Insurgency campaign.


----------



## orange.paint (7 Mar 2007)

But wouldnt a convoy be taking up to 8 cars (lav/coyote)out of the front anyway?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (7 Mar 2007)

At the risk of going further down this rabbit-hole, a CSS convoy (even with escorts) might find it best to fight its way out of the kill zone if all the vehicles are mobile instead of trying to assault the enemy.  The enemy has picked that spot and probably has you at a disadvantage if he knows his stuff (multiple fire teams with multiple support weapons with all the ranges known).   

Leaving the enemy alive to attack another day is a drawback of breaking clean (although you will be shooting back), but pushing a bad situation by assaulting may not be the best option for a convoy.  If I can get the vulnerable vehicles out of danger than I will most likely do that as a convoy commander in an ambush.  That being said, you might have to stay and fight it out and you must be prepared to do so regardless of MOC or equipment.  I would just prefer to keep the options open for the convoy commander (the old "situationally dependent" cop-out).


----------



## KevinB (7 Mar 2007)

R5 -- a tool in the toolbox.
  But IF in doubt attack -- always best to have the capable option.

RCAC - If we did it my way - it would be a seperate C/S 8 entity in an escort formation -- giving the Res Armd a role too


----------



## brihard (7 Mar 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I see a fleet management share with a CMTT as the only way to make this possible for the reserves.
> It also requires a GREAT deal of comittment from reservists to make this work.



FWIW, starting with TF 3-08, a number of us are going to be training for a full year (if not more) before deployment; they're setting up earlier 'streams' so that reservists can get the gucci courses (LAV, nyala, etc) prior to commencing pre deployment. I would suggest that with a year's workup and some experienced leadership, a mechanized 'assault' platoon to accompany convoys could work. Realistically, a year's fairly intense workup training should easily bring reservists to the necessary level for direct combat operations.

Another risk to factor in though is tactical predictability. We wouldn't want to dismount and fight through every ambush with this asset, as at some point they're gonna get smart and draw the QRF, via a seemingly weak ambush, into a defence in depth with enough fire power to splash a LAV and put some more faces on CBC the next day. The enemy is not stupid. A QRF attached to the convoy should not be an asset used all the time. Better to let some of them get away than to introduce predictability into our response that involves putting dismounted troops where the enemy knows they'll be.

I'm just hypothesizing and rambling here though, so I'll crawl back into my lane.


----------



## geo (7 Mar 2007)

Brihard.... I think I brought up that subject in an earlier post.... 
We will always have to expect our foes to learn from prior actions.... lessons learned, lessons learned.

The trick is to have a number of alternative responses, managed by a battle captain & his playbook.... Armoured tactics at their finest.


----------



## Kiwi99 (7 Mar 2007)

Training any soldier on the LAV III or other vehicles and weappons is a reletively easy process.  Given enough time, instructor and equipment, anything is possible.  I love the way that we throw around the 'SOP' phrase whenever discussing drills.  Sure, in some areas a good SOP is a good thing, but in many areas there are no SOPs.  I like to call it the f**k factor, and we have all experianced it.  We can hash out ideas for convoy escort and fighting patterns till we are bue in the face, but it makes little difference.  Convoys must have inf support.  Why?  Because the CSS elements driving the trucks and other B vehs do not possess the skills to fight back against a determined attack.  That may be a brash comment, but it is fact.  I have seen it, so have many others.  Every ambush is different, both in size and setup.  Initiation signals vary, and as experiance in theaters like A-stan has shown, it is never just one ambush.  There is always another set within a km down the road.  Drills change as the situation changes.  If  a B veh is immobilised, if a LAV III gets taken out.  The priority is to get the supplies through to the other end, not killing the enemy.  
If ambushed at night, what then.  CSS trades are not trained to fight a battle at night, and there is mass confusion.  My experiance has been that if with CSS you keep moving if possible.  That being said, every soldier is a soldier first, tradesmen, driver, medic second.  And the fact that many CSS trades are not trained as rifleman first is our own fault.
Secondly, training soldiers on kit is easy.  We are training res on LAV right now.  But LAV is an extremyl perishable skill, and  there must b continuation training back in the units.
Remember, soldier first, everything else second.


----------



## geo (7 Mar 2007)

An SOP is only as good as it is known and understood by all the troops... New troops will not know the SOPs, they must learn the SOPs and learn the good and bad things that they bring with them.... you need time for all the new info to sink in... which is how this discussion got started in the 1st place..... time we don't always have.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2007)

That therein is the kicker though. Soldiering first and foremost above being tradesmen is probably the very best arguement for each and every entrant to the CF being required to serve in a cbt arms trade first, then remuster over to the support trades, including ResF personnel.

The problem is maintaining those skillsets once you are indeed rolled over into the support trade. That is a problem now, and will continue to be in the future. Simply put, those pers will then be required to maintain to a fighting level (and that trg and level is constantly changing as our enemy and their tactics change). But then, they must also maintain their skillset as a tradesmen, for if they don't...the support to those actually using the fighting skillsets won't be there; and you can't continue to fight for long if you don't have a competant and trained support system (tail wagging the dog) to back you up. That little tidbit was borne out to the German Parachute Regiment in Ortona very nicely by the 48th Highlanders et al. No support...no victory, someone is always behind you providing you the ammo, rats, vehicles, maint capabilities etc that you need up front.

There needs to be a fine balance of _both_ skillsets and a recognition that both are _required_. Where is the happy medium?


----------



## geo (7 Mar 2007)

+1 Vern


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Mar 2007)

So they want a year of work up training followed by 6 months of tour?

Ouch


----------



## KevinB (8 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> The priority is to get the supplies through to the other end, not killing the enemy.



Matt - I will argue this point -- I would argue that killing the enemy CAN job #1 in that respect -- supplies can be replaced - it might suck someone fuel or mail or whatever got shot up -- but 



> If ambushed at night, what then. CSS trades are not trained to fight a battle at night, and there is mass confusion.  My experiance has been that if with CSS you keep moving if possible.  That being said, every soldier is a soldier first, tradesmen, driver, medic second.  And the fact that many CSS trades are not trained as rifleman first is our own fault.
> Secondly, training soldiers on kit is easy.  We are training res on LAV right now.  But LAV is an extremyl perishable skill, and  there must b continuation training back in the units.
> Remember, soldier first, everything else second.



The CF needs more NV and the willingness to train to fight at night.
  The CF barely has enough MNVG's to equip the deployed troops -- let along train upcoming troops.




The more tools in the tool box we have the better we are off.

Secondly I dont think one should ever limit the use of LAV's due to thinking the enemy may want to draw them away -- uhm if they have that capability - they could WIPE out a unescorted convoy....


----------



## geo (8 Mar 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> So they want a year of work up training followed by 6 months of tour?
> Ouch


Since the shootin' war began, that's pert much what's been given
TF 3/07s main body formed up in Sept of 06... training thru to Jan, FTX in Ft Bliss Tx for a month, Valcatraz for a bit, CMTC for April, Valcatraz for a bit and Kandahar in July/August time frame..... (12 months +/-) followed by 6 mths in theatre (unless you are part of the NCE which is there for 9 months - shortage of staff weenies).


----------



## 3rd Herd (19 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> One thing that I must stress is a thing noted by members of my pl CoC.  'Those that you think are mentally weak...they will be.  Those that you think are tough c**ts...they will be tougher'.



"In WWII, U.S. psychiatric combat casualties had the same rate of decoration for bravery as those who were wounded in action. The stigmatization of such casualties as cowards was less when this was known." (HOLLOWAY, HARRY C. "Combat Psychiatry", Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 2002)


----------

